Should Trump Be Prosecuted?

It's not the case with Trump.

There is a much better articulated article on the pros and cons of prosecuting Trump. After reading it, though it express a good argument why we shouldn't, it also express a good argument why we should, and that argument is more compelling.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/magazine/trump-investigations-criminal-prosecutions.html

 

As I said before. It is a position fueled by emotion and bias. Im sure Breitbart can publish a compelling article on why locking up hillary and impeaching Biden is best for the country.

What the country really needs is less desire to inflict damage to those of opposing beliefs.

 

We have to make a whole lot of assumptions -many of which those making the accusation are not often not aware of - to claim that Trump had causal responsibility.. it is a further step to conflate this with war crimes/ crimes against humanity. At the end of the day - the President himself is not handling day to day operations .. not on a low level - and very little on a high level. .. and the idea that had Trump done "the right thing - according to whomever" - that we would have had less deaths at the end of the day .. is not an easy argument to make valid.

I agree with Chomsky's claim - Dirty deeds .. done dirt cheap. Our Foreign Policy is dictated by the Military Industrial Complex .. and not what is good for the USA and its citizens.

 

No, his crimes were lying under oath to a federal judge and a federal grand jury, and suborning witnesses in a court case. It was Hillary who lied under oath to congress (as attested to by Comey). Bill never testified under oath to congress, so it was impossible for him to commit such a crime.

 

Are you citing the NY Times as presenting rational legal justification for prosecuting Trump? Really???

 

There are multiple allegations, not just one and at least one was from a minor, if true it counts for me as crimes against humanity. Not you? That's ok, that's your call.

It's a crime against humanity, Not for you? Ditto.

All are war crimes and defined as such by the Nuremberg Principles (principle VI a), there are no exceptions. Not for you? Ditto.

Please feel free to defer to anyone's definition you like better, including your own, it's not relevant. These are war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, they kill or injure innocent people.

War crimes are a subset of crimes against humanity, there is no need to distinguish, they cause harm/death to innocent people.

You don't, I do. Case closed. As explained to another poster, I'm not here to convince you of anything, it's not my job. All crimes that injure or kill innocent people are crimes against humanity. But I can understand that some want to distinguish for whatever reason, it's the nature of the beast. I don't distinguish, some human beings have never evolved from their savage/barbarian genes. I believe that if one is an intelligent and enlightened human being one should believe that all individual rights are sacred and must be protected and defended.

 

I'm sure Breitbart cannot.

It is not driven by emotion, no more than one would have in the face of gross injustice.

Justice matters. there is no justice in locking up Hillary or Impeaching Biden.

But putting Trump on trial, for his many crimes, in and out of office, would be. I'd like to see if he can defend himself before a jury.

 

'Crimes against humanity' would not be a good strategy going after Trump. incompetence is not a crime. We who criticize him for being incompetent, whereupon we can see how it clearly resulted in more deaths than would have occurred under a more competent president, there is no measure of this, and, as such, it would be difficult to prosecute. No, I think the way to go after trump is for campaign finance, bank fraud, tax fraud, things of this nature, ie., crimes which are codified and documentable that can be presented easily to those who support him, to assure them that no one is making stuff up.

 

Crimes if this nature warrant sanctions, disbarment, fines, and such. Jail? Nah.

but, bank fraud, tax fraud, corruption while in office, definitely if the amounts are big ( and they are ). Leona Helmsley served time for a crime of a similar stature (insider trading). too many people in government are getting away with insider trading, this **** has got to stop.

 

Incompetent rebuttal; 'kill the messenger' tactic is not a valid debate method, and is a non argument, noting that the 'messenger' has won 135 Pulitzers, numerous Peabodys, etc, while no new source gets it right all the time, the NYTimes is one of the most cited and sourced journals in the world, and, as such, has absolutely earned it's right as a legitimate source for news, whether you like their journalism or not.

Incompetent rebuttals are arguments where the salient premise is based on: [highlighted pertains to your comment]
non arguments, a non argument isn't really debatable or they are not worthy of debate owing to any of the following types noting the fact they all have one thing in common--they lack sufficient dignity worthy of a response, they come in many different flavors, especially those which contain vacuous declarations and/or allegations (which cannot be substantiated, i.e., 'making stuff up'), rebuttals rife with weasel words ( improper use of generalities such as 'some people are saying' 'everyone knows' 'well-established fact'.) ad hominems, loaded terms & phrases,, off topic/irrelevant deflections, sentiments (words that reveal emotional attitude devoid of fact, logic and reason) off point arguments/deflections (off point is a sibling to off topic, where off topic is attempting to highjack the thread. It's done a lot in internet forums, and if the person to whom you directed the topic change accepts it, then you're off into a new direction, but, as such, of course, doesn't refute the original premise offered), egregious strawman arguments, egregious cynicism, off-the-charts ill-logic, 'kill the messenger" tactics, i.e., attacking the person/source presenting the argument rather than the argument, itself ( the only time kill the messenger is valid is for a well-established discredited source, such as Alex Jones, David Duke, etc, ), childish remarks, trivialising your opponent's argument -- cheap shot, childish or sophomoric comments/logic arising from ignorance (for example, NYTimes is a 'radical leftist rag' etc-- that's a remark born out of ignorance, it's also an 'kill the messenger' tactic) and then there is the classic thought-terminating cliché; these are cult-tropes, born out of groups who have a demagogue leader who is the master of implanting them in his flock. See, the demagogue doesn't like dissent, so when anyone challenges someone in his flock, he, being a master mind manipulator, will have planted a number of thought-terminating clichés into the minds of his subjects ( via repetition) so they will toss it up to the opponent in an attempt to kill the conversation ( wrongfully thinking it improves their argument ) so TTCs are simple terms catch phrases or words whose sole purpose is, to kill the conversation, such as 'TDS' "NeverTrumper" "Leftist Loony" (noting that the terms are not necessarily devised by the demagogue himself, they could be created by other believers, or have already been around and adopted by and they catch on with the group ) etc., pithy aphorisms assumed to be always true ( aphorisms exist because empirical observations tend to be true, but cannot be used as the salient premise to refute an argument as they are not, nor cannot be, absolute), last, but not least, and a significant debate sin, is posturing; posturing type comments, come in two basic categories, one is where you flaunt, i.e, for example, your military service, but of course if the argument can be improved by your qualifications of expertise in a field, that is okay, what I mean is something like 'I served while you were dodging the draft" whereupon your service doesn't improve your argument about whether dodging the draft was moral, or not, or flaunting your education, or authority of some kind, unless it's pertinent to the argument, and the other type of posturing are those comments which are motivated by puffing oneself up, and this is done by shaming, belittling, mocking, patronizing, 'mansplaining', flaming, where one talks down to ones opponent in order to puff oneself up.

\

 

Well, then Pelosi, Shumer, Pencil Neck Schiff and many Democrat politicians and media persons should be sued as well. And, we could go back to Clinton, Obama and sue them as well for things they said defamatory. It's really a bad bove.

 

Are you claiming nobody convicted of perjury has never nor should go to jail? Has never is not correct. Should is a matter of court jurisdiction. My opinion is that most perjury convictions do not deserve jail time, but that wasn't the claim. You claimed Bill committed no crime which was false. Now you are arguing about the penalty he might have deserved which I don't necessarily disagree with.

 

If the messenger is a lying sack of s**t and primarily a political propagandist it certainly is a competent rebuttal.

 

I appreciate you keeping it honest saying things like it "should be a crime" or that it is a "crime in your book". If you feel that our justice system being used as a weapon against political opponents is better for society, we will just have to have our friendly disagreement. The two parties are already bent on causing as much damage to each other as they can. I would go the other direction.

 

No they are not war crimes as per the Nuremberg principle VI. sorry.

 

I don't disagree with the above despite that he has committed crimes against humanity and is thoroughly incompetent mostly because he is mentally unfit. Which brings up a few points:

1. There is no federal statute I'm aware of with respect to crimes against humanity, likely because it's too broad of a description. There should be and it should be described in detail.

2. There is no remedy for an incompetent President other than impeachment, which is restricted to "high crimes" and "misdemeanors". An incompetent President can cause serious damage without necessarily committing any crime. Something should be done about that but #3 below might help resolve that issue.

3. There is no qualification for President other than age and the requirement that he/she be a "natural born citizen" and be a resident for a minimum of 14 years. That's far from adequate given the position. There should be reasonable qualifications of competency and at the very least a background check (just like any other job). I'm not sure what would best qualify as competency for the job but it should include a thorough test on the Constitution and its application within the context of the position which must be passed by any candidate.

4. Given all the shenanigans and extremes this President has resorted to, there should be a investigative review to create an appropriate Amendment that would safeguard from future Presidents pulling the same stunts with impunity. This should include limiting the power to pardon, especially preemptively and only to those with no association to the President.

 

I figure he will do fine after .. that stuff will go away .. and on with other things. The worst punishment for Trump is to be forgotten ..

But then Daughter is coming ... Trump 2 !

 

The president oversees the Executive Branch, not congress. Congress has some 'checks' on the executive branch and the president but they do not oversee the executive branch.

 

By the Biden admin or democrat congress? .. NO!!! Leave it alone so it can heal.

Picking at it will just make the base of the base spread.

 

So they guy is trying to justify the investigation which found nothing. If the crimes you are asserting are so blatant then give me the details of them. And had they had ample evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice it was incumbent of them to inform the Speaker of the House of the exact charges so an impeachment could be started. They did not telling the AG and DAG they could find no crimes to bring charges but would leave that final determination to the and they along with the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel said there were no crimes including obstruction of justice.

 

You are technically correct but contextually incorrect (I actually pointed to Principle VI a - that was not quite right).

Under the Nuremberg Principle VI a i wars of aggression are a crime against peace. However what is a war of aggression? It always includes what is described in VI b (war crimes) and VI c (crimes against humanity).

For me wars of aggression are always crimes against humanity and a racket (I agree with Major General Smedley Butler USMC and President Eisenhower), many are genocides, there are no exceptions.

Example:



If you want to put lipstick on a pig, it's ok with me. As the son of Holocaust survivors and family victims I call it what it is, Nuremberg Principles or not. Having said that there's nothing in the Nuremberg Principles I disagree with.

 

OK take away Trump's real estate license for five years, Clinton wasn't disbarred although he never reapplied after the 5 years sanction was over, if you just HAVE to find something ANYTHING to go after him.

 

He's not under the law either, the law is not supposed to be a political weapon. For what specifically does he even need a pardon?

 

Trump won the 2016 election. That’s not a crime. Get over it.

 

never said he was, if individual one committed a crime, he should do the time