Trump the dummy has been indicted. The indictment has been unsealed

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 163
#91
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,347
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@DavidAZ
If Trump is truly guilty, then hit him with the book, BUT it seems that the liberals here still think that their political heroes are little angels.
No one is claiming they're angels, that's just a concoction of the political right in an attempt to level the playing field not by showing the virtue of their positions, but by inventing a Boogeyman on the opposing side to compare themselves to.

Here's a simple question, do you believe someone who walks out of a store with an unpaid item somewhere in their cart, realizes it's there and then walks back into the store to return it, is the same as the guy who purposefully stuffs the item down his pants and then when approached by security outside, peels off? I mean, both guys did walk out of the store with an unpaid item right?

Of course these two aren't the same, because one intended to steal the item and one did not. This is why when it comes to criminal conduct, the most important element of demonstrating anyone's guilt is intent. In many cases, intent is literally the difference between whether the conduct is legal or illegal.

So without getting into all the legalize of Trump's case vs [insert Democratic politician here], can you seriously, with a straight face, claim that there is just as much evidence of their intent to commit a crime as there is with Trump? If you think so, please provide your comparative analysis.
#92
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
If you had to pick a scape goat on the left to balance out a Trump conviction, solely for appearances sake, who would you pick?
#93
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,347
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump was indicted because there is overwhelming evidence against him. That's called justice.

Indicting someone on the left as a scapegoat is the opposite of justice.

Therefore the latter doesn't balance the former, in fact it does the opposite.
#94
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
If you had to pick a scape goat on the left to balance out a Trump conviction, solely for appearances sake, who would you pick?
#95
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,347
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I heard you the first time, and I did not address it because your premise is deeply flawed for the reasons pointed out. Address the problems with your question and I'll be happy to answer it
#96
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Humor me. Assume we live in a world where appearances matter. Who would you pick?
#97
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,347
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Appearence to who? Here's the problem; your question is entirely about the optics to the stupid and ignorant.

If the goal here is to have productive and intelligent conversation, then we need to discuss these matters with the idea that facts and logic matters. Appeasing the stupid and the ignorant is therefore a waste of time as is any conversation built on the idea that we should catter to it.

So what is your point here?
#98
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Humor me. Assume we live in a world where appearances matter to various people, dumb and smart. Who would you pick?

If you had to pick a scape goat on the left to balance out a Trump conviction, solely for appearances sake, who would you pick?
#99
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@DavidAZ
Not only can't he select a non-angel as a scapegoat, he can't even select a hypothetical bad guy on the left.

Not a single one.
#100
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,347
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
If you had to pick a scape goat on the left to balance out a Trump conviction, solely for appearances sake, who would you pick?
Appearence to who? The stupid and ignorant people who think justice is about "which side" is getting arrested vs following the facts and the law to wherever it leads?

There is no reason for any reasonably intelligent person to go down that path, yet you insist we both do. Why? Why are you feeding into this idiocy? What is your point?

Demonstrate that your question leads to some kind of reasonably intelligent reasonably productive conversation and I'll be happy to address it.

Not only can't he select a non-angel as a scapegoat, he can't even select a hypothetical bad guy on the left.

Not a single one.
This is so incredibly childish and stupid.

We're talking about real life, politics is not a comic book filled with good guys vs bad guys. Justice in America follows a system designed to do everything reasonably possible to hold criminals to account while prioritizing the protection of the innocent. Do you intend to talk about that or just keep pretending this is a team sport?
#101
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
this is your quote: 

"No one is claiming they're angels, that's just a concoction of the political right in an attempt to level the playing field not by showing the virtue of their positions, but by inventing a Boogeyman on the opposing side to compare themselves to."

Yet every post you made since then refutes this as you contend you can't identify a non-angel on the left even hypothetically if you had to fabricate one for appearances.

You claim that there are non-angels on the left, but you can't identify them.
#102
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,347
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I never argued, suggested, nor implied that there aren't any non-angels on the left. What I contended is;

A) We do not nor should we ever indict people based on optics.

B) If we were to indict based on optics, the last group we would appease are those who remain willfully ignorant of the facts and logic surrounding the cases in question.

C) That I have no interest in engaging in this absurd hypothetical until you can explain why anyone interested in a reasonable and productive conversation should.

And since you want to pretend that anything I said suggests there are nothing but angels on the left, I remind you that not being an angel is not an indictable offense. So when I pointed out that no one on the left is claiming this, that's because the conversation we're actually having on the left pertains to the rule of law which is an entirely different conversation from your silly framing here.
#103
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
So can you identify a non-angel on the left?

If you can't and are unwilling to quell the crowd, then the crowd will do its own quelling. That's a historical axiom. This goes beyond a simple thought exercise. It gets to the heart of good and evil, and who gets to define that. People in power or the people themselves.

The crowd isn't interested in your endless apologies for your role models. They don't represent them.
#104
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
And this is why we will continue to have Maga, because the left and the establishment right have absolutely no clue how to deal with Maga.
#105
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R

Levin spells it out again how the PSA and the law I cited in my previous reply is applicable based on what the judge said about the POTUS being the one who decides what is person or not personal records, and Congress deferred to that judgment. This case is a political shit show circus, and you know it. 
#106
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TWS1405_2
I'm surprised you don't want the FBI to be in charge of the government. We don't even have to elect them. They can just take care of us with no input. Historically, benevolent oligarchies always do well.
#107
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,347
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So can you identify a non-angel on the left?
I know of not one single individual in politics whom I consider to be a colloquial "angel", so anyone you can possibly mention would qualify.

This goes beyond a simple thought exercise. It gets to the heart of good and evil, and who gets to define that. People in power or the people themselves.
This right here is the problem with today's political right. We're talking about justice. That requires us to acknowledge basic principals like "no one is above the law", due process, evidence derived from facts and logic...

But while the political left is engaged in that conversation, the MAGA cult and it's sympathizers are talking about some war of good vs evil, as if politics is a cartoon.

And this is why we will continue to have Maga, because the left and the establishment right have absolutely no clue how to deal with Maga.
Correct. The left is interested in reality, not the MAGA cult's emotions. These people need to depart from politics and go find themselves a therapist.
#108
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,347
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
Levin spells it out again how the PSA and the law I cited in my previous reply is applicable based on what the judge said about the POTUS being the one who decides what is person or not personal records, and Congress deferred to that judgment. This case is a political shit show circus, and you know it.
The PRA defines what qualifies as presidential records and contrasts that with what it defines as personal records. The entire point of the law is to establish what  records belong to the American people vs what is the president's personal property.

But no matter how any law is written, it always, necessarily, requires a human being to be the ultimate arbiter of whether something meets that law. So the question becomes, who is that person(s)?

Mark Levin asserts that the president gets to decide full stop, and no one could ever challenge him. That position is inherently circular, incoherent, and self defeating.

He's right about the fact that it says right in the name; the Presidential Records Act... It's written specifically for him, which is exactly the problem. If he is the ultimate authority and no one could ever challenge his judgement on what is a presidential record then the law instantly becomes null and void. Defining what records qualify is immediately replaced with "whatever the president says". The law overrides itself.

And worse is that this flagrantly abusive interpretation doesn't even require him to document his own classifications, so no one ever has to know what he took with him as he left office and he has a lifelong pass to decide because no one can argue he didn't deem something his. So according to that logic Trump can claim any record in the federal government's posession right now that was there since 2020 is his because he once upon a time he deemed it so and demand it back. Under this theory Trump gets to take, keep, share, and even sell the country's most guarded nuclear secrets after leaving office and not be in violation of any kind because they're his personal property. That's absolutely ridiculous.

The judge did acknowledge his role as the arbiter of what qualifies but that was in an entirely different context. To assert that he gets to make a determination in an instance where there may be reasonable disagreement is not the same as saying that he gets to throw the entire law in the garbage because he's the ultimate king and and is definitionally excluded from being wrong.
#109
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
. These people need to depart from politics and go find themselves a therapist.
I joked with EBUC in another thread for suggesting this as a valid way to eliminate Maga, and here you are unapologetically repeating the same mantra. 

I would have never thought you so deficient.

This "reality" isn't a reality.
#110
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,347
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn't offer it as a valid way to eliminate MAGA, it's an assessment of the issue here. Any conversation regarding how we solve real world issues must begin with a shared sense of reality, which requires an adherence to basic facts and logic. The MAGA crowd is not concerned with facts and logic, so no productive real world conversation is possible there.
#111
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
What do you think is going to happen when the corporate oligarchy that passes for a Democracy fails to re-educate Maga?

It's not a nonsense question because Maga continues to grow despite the best efforts at censorship and re-education. Even the children are starting to push back on the classic indoctrination. They are the ones that will create your new reality.

You don't seriously believe in your "reality" that jailing Trump is going to do the opposite of what you want. I know you can't possibly believe this.
But that's the actual reality, despite your ideology.
#112
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
@Double_R
It's possible that if Trump is found guilty that there is so much dissention in America that it may get violent for a while.  Very similar to some race riots a few years ago but probably more deadly.
#113
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@DavidAZ
Here is a clip of schoolkids revolting against the deep state:
#114
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,347
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't seriously believe in your "reality" that jailing Trump is going to do the opposite of what you want. I know you can't possibly believe this. 
What I believe is that of someone is as obviously guilty of committing a serious crime as is Trump, they should be prosecuted. Because that's how the rule of law actually works, and for all the postering by the political right about the rule of law it turns out that it's actually the left that cares about it.

What I don't care about is using the justice system to appease the ignorant among us as part of some grand scheme to sway the electorate in the direction I desire. That would have long term consequences just as bad if not worse than the alternative you seem to be advocating for.
#115
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
What I don't care about is using the justice system to appease the ignorant among us as part of some grand scheme to sway the electorate in the direction I desire. That would have long term consequences just as bad if not worse than the alternative you seem to be advocating for.
So you oppose BLM and other social justice movements that want discretionary Justice. Welcome to the based Maga world and the end of modern leftism.
#116
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,347
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So you oppose BLM and other social justice movements that want discretionary Justice.
I've never advocated for discretionary justice and don't support it.
#117
Slainte
Slainte's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 131
1
5
9
Slainte's avatar
Slainte
1
5
9
-->
@Double_R
With respect your statement here shows a complete disregard for the integrity of the justice system. (emphasis added)

someone is as obviously guilty of committing a serious crime as is Trump, they should be prosecuted.
You  prosecute when you suspect someone of a crime.  Though it may APPEAR to be obvious, the arbiter of commission/guilt are the courts. Even if it APPEARS obvious there is guilt from the way we receive a story, or if the courts determine the defendant was the actor in the offence, the defendant still may not be GUILTY for a wide variety of reasons.  The Justice system is supposed to give individuals who are SUSPECTED of a crime, the opportunity to defend and say why they are not guilty.

I find it overtly hypocritical when people are calling for Trump to be prosecuted for "obvious crimes" in the name of "Justice", yet those same people ignore the fundamental principals of democratic jurisprudence.
#118
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Judge Jackson said it herself in the Clinton sock drawer case, it is the POTUS’ sole discretion what is or isn’t presidential records and/or personal records. So yeah, POTUS is the final say, UNLESS Congress changes the PSA. It’s that simple. 

And this presidential candidate put CNN to the test on this fact. 
#119
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,309
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TWS1405_2

To the extent that plaintiff is seeking relief related to the availability of documents under
FOIA, that claim is governed by the Supreme Court’s holding in Kissinger v. Reporters Comm.
for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (1980). In that case, the Court held that FOIA does not
give rise to a private right of action to compel an agency to retrieve documents that are not in its
possession, even if one assumes that the documents were wrongfully withheld under the Federal
Records Act. Id. at 151–52.12 The Court explained in that case: “It is therefore clear that
Congress never intended when it enacted the FOIA, to displace the statutory scheme embodied in
the Federal Records Act and the Federal Records Disposal Act providing for administrative
remedies to safeguard against wrongful removal of agency records as well as to retrieve
wrongfully removed records.” Id. at 154.13 The same reasoning applies here. There is no
indication in the record that Congress intended to supplant the limited remedies available in the
PRA with FOIA.

THE COURT: What enforcement mechanism, what thing, what power can they
exercise under the statute that I can order them to do that makes your injury
redressable?
[PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: Once the records are determined to be
[P]residential records there is an obligation to assume custody and control of
them. How – and I will just say, once again, how they go about doing that –
Judicial Watch is not challenging how.
***
And once the determination is made [that they are] [P]residential records, it opens
the door. It leaves for the possibility that [A]rchives will go out and get the
records. It leaves the possibility that they’ll use one of their enforcement
mechanisms or they may use other avenues to get them.
***
THE COURT: We’re talking about very mushy unenforceable orders at this point
. . . . I just don’t think I could issue an order that says ‘try your best.’ Then how
would anybody be able to ascertain whether they’ve complied[?]

#120
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,347
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Slainte
With respect your statement here shows a complete disregard for the integrity of the justice system. (emphasis added)

someone is as obviously guilty of committing a serious crime as is Trump, they should be prosecuted.
You  prosecute when you suspect someone of a crime.  Though it may APPEAR to be obvious, the arbiter of commission/guilt are the courts.
Prosecute; institute legal proceedings against (a person or organization).

Instituting legal proceedings against Trump has nothing to do with whether he is ultimately found innocent or guilty of the alleged crime. That's what the proceedings are for. No one I know of any prominence on the political left is advocating for anything other than for Trump to be subjected to the legal system as any other American would be if there was evidence such as this that they committed these crimes.

When I say he is obviously guilty, Im speaking colloquially. No rational person would look at the facts alleged in the indictment and conclude otherwise. But obviously guilty in the court of public opinion is not the same thing as being obviously guilty in a court of law.