the only two crimes that seem plausible is the georgia election interference, and the effort to stop the count and place false electors in the other elections. while that's a good argument for crimes, both crimes require that trump had to intend to commit the crimes. trump is a crazy sonofabitch, is he not? if anyone believes his own BS, it's trump. so maybe he didn't have the mens rea, the criminal intent, with these alleged crimes. if he's not guilty of these two crimes, i would say he should walk free.
i could actually see an argument that trump committed no crimes
Posts
Total:
157
-->
@n8nrgim
What about all the other crimes? How come they’re not plausible
-->
@n8nrgim
the only two crimes that seem plausible is the georgia election interference, and the effort to stop the count and place false electors in the other elections. while that's a good argument for crimes, both crimes require that trump had to intend to commit the crimes. trump is a crazy sonofabitch, is he not? if anyone believes his own BS, it's trump. so maybe he didn't have the mens rea, the criminal intent, with these alleged crimes. if he's not guilty of these two crimes, i would say he should walk free.
You are invoking the insanity defense, LOL, he's not guilty because he's a crazy sonofabitch, hilarious.
-->
@WillyB
What about all the other crimes? How come they’re not plausible
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" - Donald Trump
-->
@n8nrgim
The most irrefutable example is the obstruction charges in the documents case. Why leave that out?
Beyond that, I would really like to understand more about how the law works with regards to Trump's mindset. Claiming Trump believed the lies he was telling has to have it's limits, at some point when the truth is beyond obvious it really shouldn't matter.
I think that's a little different from the insanity defense, as I understand that it means he's not able to make his own decisions.
Regardless,I don't see how any of those defenses could legitimately be used in a courtroom by a man who is running for public office.
-->
@Double_R
Regardless, I don't see how any of those defenses could legitimately be used in a courtroom by a man who is running for public office.
It's used routinely to keep him from being elected. It's possible there is some merit to the political slander.
-->
@n8nrgim
the only two crimes that seem plausible is the georgia election interference, and the effort to stop the count and place false electors in the other elections. while that's a good argument for crimes, both crimes require that trump had to intend to commit the crimes.
1) all the other crimes are plausible too. Like stealing classified documents, refusing to give them back, lying and saying you had given them back, then trying to destroy the evidence that you had illegally tried to keep them. That is very plausible and it is highly likely he will be found guilty for it.
2) the fake electors are illegal no matter what trump's mental state is. There is a strict process for how elections work. Trying to bypass it and add fake electors to illegally hold onto power is illegal, even if you think you are doing the right thing. But also, they seem to have witnesses that say trump knew the allegations he was making were false. We also know that trump and his team hired people to try to find evidence of fraud and the report they got back said there wasn't any. So he knew there wasn't any fraud, and apparently that can be proven.
-->
@Greyparrot
It's used routinely to keep him from being elected.
As it should be, because his actions do not leave room for a third alternative. Either he's completely and utterly disconnected from reality, or he was acting maliciously to keep himself in power.
Both are (or at least should be) immediately disqualifying politically.
The former is possibly a legal defense, but he ultimately has to put forward that defense while simultaneously telling the country he's capable of leading it, which IMHO disqualifies it as a defense.
-->
@HistoryBuff
1) all the other crimes are plausible too. Like stealing classified documents, refusing to give them back, lying and saying you had given them back, then trying to destroy the evidence that you had illegally tried to keep them. That is very plausible and it is highly likely he will be found guilty for it.2) the fake electors are illegal no matter what trump's mental state is. There is a strict process for how elections work. Trying to bypass it and add fake electors to illegally hold onto power is illegal, even if you think you are doing the right thing. But also, they seem to have witnesses that say trump knew the allegations he was making were false. We also know that trump and his team hired people to try to find evidence of fraud and the report they got back said there wasn't any. So he knew there wasn't any fraud, and apparently that can be proven.
i would agree that obstructing the classified documents case should be a crime. but if he had the authority to take or keep the documents in the first place, then obstruction is trying to find something with no underlying basis to it. in my opinion, if someone like a president takes documents, it's a special circumstance, even if we dont like that he did it. i realize they argue that it don't matter if trump claimed to declassify them, but that seems like a technicality for such a special circumstance. if the underlying act wasn't a crime, then the obstructing of the underlying act should't be a crime either. i guess what i'm saying is that it's too hokey to say taking the documents should be a crime, even if it technically was.
i was watching the news and they had a bit on trump trying to sabatage the election process even outside of georgia. i dont rememeber if it was about electors or trying to stop the count, but one of them at least and i thought both of them required criminal intent. maybe it wasn't both of them, and i could stand to be corrected. i know it's not always necessary for a crime to require criminal intent as an element of the crime, but i was surprised when i saw that bit that said intent was required.
Amidst the whirlwind of accusations and controversies surrounding former President Donald Trump, a comprehensive analysis is imperative to understand the intricacies of the allegations he faces. By examining various aspects of the accusations, we can explore potential arguments to shed light on why Trump may not be guilty of any crime.
1. Lack of concrete evidence:
One argument in support of Trump's innocence centers around the absence of concrete evidence directly linking him to the alleged crimes. While suspicions and claims may arise, it is crucial to separate hearsay from hardcore evidence. In a fair justice system, the burden of proof lies with the accusers, and without compelling evidence, it becomes challenging to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Ambiguity in legal interpretation:
In many instances, allegations are subject to interpretation by legal experts. Given the complexity of legal language and varying perspectives, ambiguity can arise, which weakens the foundation upon which charges are built. This ambiguity could potentially create space for divergent interpretations that favor Trump's innocence.
3. Political motives and bias:
Another argument suggests that Trump's alleged wrongdoings are politically motivated and driven by bias. In a polarized political landscape, it is not uncommon for adversaries to weaponize the legal system, targeting political opponents for ulterior motives. The power struggle and desire to undermine the opposition can blur the lines between genuine concern and malicious intent.
4. Lack of intent:
Intent is a crucial element in establishing guilt in many legal cases. Supporters of Trump's innocence argue that many of the alleged actions lack the necessary intent to constitute criminal activity. Without clear intent, it becomes difficult to label these actions as deliberate or malevolent, further complicating the validity of the accusations.
5. Constitutional considerations:
It is essential to consider the role of the Constitution when analyzing the charges against Trump. Supporters of his innocence argue that the application of the law should adhere to constitutional norms and precedents, ensuring fairness and preserving individual rights. Any legal proceedings should be conducted in accordance with the principles set forth in the Constitution.
Conclusion:
While accusations against Donald Trump continue to generate controversy and debate, it is important to approach the issue with a balanced and thorough analysis. By examining the arguments presented above, we can open a dialogue to explore the possibility that Trump may not be guilty of any crime he is being accused of. Only by considering different perspectives can we strive for a fair and just assessment of the allegations against him.
-->
@Best.Korea
Trump tried to overthrow my vote. He deservers the death penalty. You know he is going to be moving to the Moscow Trump Tower, don't you?
-->
@FLRW
Biden won by an overwhelming difference of over 70.
Trump wasnt even close to winning.
Trump should have told his supporters to accept the results, yes. However, he is not at fault for their behavior. They overreacted.
If you trully believe that Trump cannot win the next elections, there is no point in arresting him.
Trump is not really competent to be president again. However, arresting him may cause civil war. He has lots of supporters.
It would be undemocratic to arrest him, if he could win. In that case, he would be the will of the people.
-->
@Best.Korea
Thank God you can buy Russian nuclear suitcase bombs on the dark web.
More than 140 officers were injured after a throng of thousands descended on the Capitol following a Trump speech on Jan. 6, 2021. Five people died just before, during or soon after the attack, and four police officers who worked at the Capitol that day died by suicide in the months that followed. During the speech, Trump claimed the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him, and encouraged his supporters to "fight like hell."
Anybody that tries to overthrow a Presidential election should lose their citizenship.
Trump Says Hunter Biden Should’ve Gotten the Death Penalty for Not Paying His Taxes on Time. See where I got my idea?
-->
@n8nrgim
but if he had the authority to take or keep the documents in the first place
he didn't. He took the documents after he lost the election. He did not have a right to take them.
then obstruction is trying to find something with no underlying basis to it.
also untrue. Even if he had the right to take them (which he didn't), once he was told he had to give them back (because he was no longer president and wasn't allowed to have them) then refusing to give them back was illegal.
in my opinion, if someone like a president takes documents, it's a special circumstance, even if we dont like that he did it.
this is fair. And that is why he wasn't charged immediately. They spent like a year repeatedly asking him nicely to return the documents. He refused. He lied that he had them. He lied saying he had returned all of them. He hid them when they came to check if he still had them. They could have charged him right away after he took the documents. That all by itself was illegal. They didn't need to spend a year asking him nicely to do that. They did it because it was a special circumstance.
if the underlying act wasn't a crime, then the obstructing of the underlying act should't be a crime either.
this is a misunderstanding of the law. If you do something that isn't illegal, but then try to cover it up by doing things that are illegal, you still committed a crime. Take watergate for example. It was the coverup that sunk nixon.
it's too hokey to say taking the documents should be a crime, even if it technically was.
you aren't really making sense. You understand it was illegal for him to take them. You understand it was illegal for him to refuse to give them back. You understand it was illegal for him to hide the documents. You understand it was illegal for him sign a legally binding documenting saying he had returned them all when he had not (his lawyer did this at his instruction). You understand it is illegal to attempt to destroy evidence of your crimes after it has been subpoenaed. You know he did all of these crimes, but you don't think he should be punished for it because he's "special"?
i was watching the news and they had a bit on trump trying to sabatage the election process even outside of georgia.
trump and his team tried multiple ways to steal the election after he had lost. From trying to get state officials to mess with the results so that he won to trying to get state to send fake electors. Georgia is going to charge him for this in the next few weeks.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I could give ya the obstruction charge, at least if it's normal to charge people for obstruction when the underlying activity wasn't illegal. It does seem pretty serious and not right that he wouldn't comply and actively obscured them
-->
@n8nrgim
I could give ya the obstruction charge, at least if it's normal to charge people for obstruction when the underlying activity wasn't illegal. It does seem pretty serious and not right that he wouldn't comply and actively obscured them
from what I can see, all the charges against him are valid. It's possible some of them might be unsubstantiated, but so far it's looking like he committed ALOT of crimes in the tail end of his presidency and the aftermath.
-->
@HistoryBuff
-->@n8nrgimbut if he had the authority to take or keep the documents in the first placehe didn't. He took the documents after he lost the election. He did not have a right to take them.
Cite the law(s) that clearly articulate that a sitting US President doesn't have authoritative access to presidential records during his tenure. And acquiring them after losing the election, while still being the US President, isn't a legal argument. It's a subjective emotive one. Completely baseless.
then obstruction is trying to find something with no underlying basis to it.also untrue. Even if he had the right to take them (which he didn't), once he was told he had to give them back (because he was no longer president and wasn't allowed to have them) then refusing to give them back was illegal.
Again, cite the law(s) that clearly articulate that a former US President has no legal authority to be in temporary possession of presidential records from his tenure in the White House.
in my opinion, if someone like a president takes documents, it's a special circumstance, even if we dont like that he did it.this is fair. And that is why he wasn't charged immediately. They spent like a year repeatedly asking him nicely to return the documents. He refused. He lied that he had them. He lied saying he had returned all of them. He hid them when they came to check if he still had them. They could have charged him right away after he took the documents. That all by itself was illegal. They didn't need to spend a year asking him nicely to do that. They did it because it was a special circumstance.
You're one to talk about lying. The FBI knew what documents he had and directed him to keep them under lock and key, which he did. The corrupt Biden DOJ and FBI merely bought time to manufacture a fake legal situation to be charged at a later date - conveniently around the next election.
if the underlying act wasn't a crime, then the obstructing of the underlying act should't be a crime either.this is a misunderstanding of the law. If you do something that isn't illegal, but then try to cover it up by doing things that are illegal, you still committed a crime. Take watergate for example. It was the coverup that sunk nixon.
LOL!!! Where did you matriculate to obtaining any degree in a legal field that would equip you with the knowledge to properly read, interpret and understand statutory law?
it's too hokey to say taking the documents should be a crime, even if it technically was.you aren't really making sense. You understand it was illegal for him to take them. You understand it was illegal for him to refuse to give them back. You understand it was illegal for him to hide the documents. You understand it was illegal for him sign a legally binding documenting saying he had returned them all when he had not (his lawyer did this at his instruction). You understand it is illegal to attempt to destroy evidence of your crimes after it has been subpoenaed. You know he did all of these crimes, but you don't think he should be punished for it because he's "special"?
Prove it was illegal for a sitting president to maintain his own presidential records created during his tenure; especially when a federal court says otherwise in regard to the Presidential Records Act and your unsubstantiated opinion here.
i was watching the news and they had a bit on trump trying to sabatage the election process even outside of georgia.trump and his team tried multiple ways to steal the election after he had lost. From trying to get state officials to mess with the results so that he won to trying to get state to send fake electors. Georgia is going to charge him for this in the next few weeks.
All subjective conjectural nonsense. Spurious legal theories =/= [a] crime where all the statutory elements are met in order to establish said crime.
-->@n8nrgimI could give ya the obstruction charge, at least if it's normal to charge people for obstruction when the underlying activity wasn't illegal. It does seem pretty serious and not right that he wouldn't comply and actively obscured themfrom what I can see, all the charges against him are valid. It's possible some of them might be unsubstantiated, but so far it's looking like he committed ALOT of crimes in the tail end of his presidency and the aftermath.
All the charges against Trump are purely political. Faux legal theories =/= actual statutory crimes. The entire indictment recently let loose is nothing short of political and failed to lay out actual elements of any crime alleged. Notably everything Smith lays out are all protected under the 1st Amendment. There are no actual crimes established or proven within the indictment.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Cite the law(s) that clearly articulate that a sitting US President doesn't have authoritative access to presidential records during his tenure. And acquiring them after losing the election, while still being the US President, isn't a legal argument. It's a subjective emotive one. Completely baseless.
no one claims he didn't have the right to have the documents when he was president. For the sake of argument we could assume he even had the right to bring them to maralago after losing the election. But the second he stopped being president he stopped having the right to them and had to return them. And the charges are about him willfully retaining them and obstructing their return.
Again, cite the law(s) that clearly articulate that a former US President has no legal authority to be in temporary possession of presidential records from his tenure in the White House.
I seriously doubt you actually care so before doing research to find you the specific laws, I will just say this. They are the exact same laws that would apply to you or I. If someone handed you classified documents and the government said to give them back, you would have to do so the exact same way trump would have to do so. Being a former president gives him no more right to classified documents than you have.
You're one to talk about lying. The FBI knew what documents he had and directed him to keep them under lock and key, which he did. The corrupt Biden DOJ and FBI merely bought time to manufacture a fake legal situation to be charged at a later date - conveniently around the next election.
what are you talking about? he was asked like a dozen times to give the documents back and he refused to do so.
especially when a federal court says otherwise in regard to the Presidential Records Act and your unsubstantiated opinion here.
this is, in no way, related. That case was about documents that the president himself created and wanted access to after his presidency. Trump stole documents on military plans, nuclear weapons etc. He did not create any of the documents he was refusing to return. And even if he did have a right to them, if he didn't want to commit a crime he would say "yes I have the documents" and then present his reasons for wanting to keep them to a court. Instead he lyied about having them, hid them from the government etc.
All subjective conjectural nonsense. Spurious legal theories =/= [a] crime where all the statutory elements are met in order to establish said crime.
lol no. Telling state officials to "find the votes" for him to win, after he lost is a crime. Arranging a scheme for states to send fake electors that would illegally vote for Trump, is a crime. There is no conjecture here.
All the charges against Trump are purely political.
clearly you get all your news from some crazy person. No one with any knowledge of the charges could say they are "purely political".
you may want to actually read the indictment. Smith explains why that statement is stupid on page 2. It is not a crime to say you think the election was rigged. but the moment you tell people to take actions to overturn the election, what you said is now a crime. Trump's fake elector scheme was extremely illegal.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Prove it was illegal for a sitting president to maintain his own presidential records created during his tenure; especially when a federal court says otherwise in regard to the Presidential Records Act and your unsubstantiated opinion here.
They were not "his own" records, they are property of the US government.
The presidential records act explicitly defines what qualifies as personal vs presidential records. It's entire purpose is to restrict what president can simply deem as his own property. Quite sure I've explained this to you before.
-->
@Double_R
You couldn’t explain what a pile of dog 💩 is.
Mark Levin is an “expert” where your peon pencil brain is concerned.
Mark Levin is an “expert” where your peon pencil brain is concerned.
Reported for adhom insult.
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh FUCK OFF you HYPOCRITE!!!
-->
@TWS1405_2
Has been triggered by a republican being indicted for their alleged crimes. Asking people on an Internet forum to cite the crimes when they are clearly specified in the indictment documents that are open for anyone to see 😂
-->
@jamgiller
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>Has been triggered by a republican being indicted for their alleged crimes. Asking people on an Internet forum to cite the crimes when they are clearly specified in the indictment documents that are open for anyone to see 😂
An indictment doesn't mean shit when its premised upon faux legal theories. Theories =/= crimes.
I have a criminology and criminal justice degree.
I have a paralegal dregree.
I have worked in law enforcement, both federal and local.
I have worked for a DA supporting 2 felony attorneys, 2 misdemeanor attorneys, and backed up the grand jury coordinator.
I have the personal experience, knowledge and academic training to understand the law.
Do you?
yeah, didn't think so.
Intellectual cowardice at its finest in the form of a childish ad hominem attack.
Ben Shapiro IS AN ATTORNEY!!! His assessment of the so-called shit-show indictment is spot on, from a legal standpoint. And many agree with him. MANY!
-->
@TWS1405_2
I was just pointing out a fact. You were asking people on an Internet forum to cite the crimes that have been alleged, when you could easily read and interpret the indictment documents, especially considering your educational background.
Tobacco companies hired people with scientific degrees to argue that smoking isn't harmful. Someone who is educated can still be incorrect about a topic related to their education, particularly if they are politically motivated, like you and Ben Shapiro. Trump should get off easy if the law is so clearly cut in his favor. In fact, why don't you offer your legal services to the President, since you know how to defend him?
Tobacco companies hired people with scientific degrees to argue that smoking isn't harmful. Someone who is educated can still be incorrect about a topic related to their education, particularly if they are politically motivated, like you and Ben Shapiro. Trump should get off easy if the law is so clearly cut in his favor. In fact, why don't you offer your legal services to the President, since you know how to defend him?
A good dictator moulds the legal system so everything he does is legal. This implies not that Trump is a dictator or if being one is good.
-->
@jamgiller
was just pointing out a fact.
No!! That was a subjective OPINION