Trump charged with trying to delete Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage in new indictment

How on earth could we continue to 'live by our values' if a former potus and billionaire is given a slap on the wrist when others having committed the same crimes are incarcerated? Should we live in fear of misguided mobs? People who refuse to learn the truth? Thanks but no thanks. That might be a healthy and vibrant society to you, but I don't want to live in it.

 

You only think disbarment is a slap on the wrist, because incarceration is a possibility. Before, when that was the highest possible punishment(ie: when he was president), more than likely you were all for it. But now that a higher level of punishment is possible, it is seen as a 'slap on the wrist'

It's not that we should live in 'fear' of misguided mobs, but rather that even the repression of those mobs, damages the democratic system. It makes clear that quote "whether it's a democracy, or a communist or fascist state just rally the people to your cause.". Democracy's only defense against this statement, is not to take the same actions.

Again, there's nothing admirable about the outcome in Brazil. Nor is there any admirable outcome in the other countries of strife and power struggles. One must put the nation, above the self interest of seeking retribution. If we want to avoid those mobs, we must take the most balanced and prudent decision for our country.

The decision we take now, will effect our ability to self govern for over the next decade. The decision of incarceration leads us to an inevitable path, a repression of possible mob revolts and the hope that the citizenry accepts the necessary measures to quell such riots, and assurances that it is temporary, and not even then possibly could it be satisfied.

If the citizenry doesn't accept it? Well, that's the danger of that decision. It has grown beyond Trump, it's about preserving the union above all else. I want to preserve the union, a quiet punishment is preferable.

 

What you see as retribution I see as justice. And not to seek justice to appease willfully ignorant mobs is not the answer. The Republicans had an opportunity to do the right thing with impeachment, but their partisanship wouldn't allow it. McConnell's 'speech' at the end of the proceedings was disgusting to half the country, but we didn't start riots over it. So it would appear that, when it comes to political strife, the right is far more likely to engage in violence. Hell, even the party's leader is calling for it. He is not saying that it shouldn't be done - he's calling for it! That needs to be shut down.

 

"Stupid is as stupid does"

 

Indeed!!!. But just watch his defenders spin it to conform to their position. Something about but having a tenuous relationship with reality comes to mind. Blind devotion can alter a person's judgement .Particularly when they embrace a leader's delusions.(alternate reality of lies and deceit.)

 

When asked about the server deletion during a recent interview Trump said that nothing was deleted and that he "VOLUNTARILY" handed over the security footage to the FBI.
Meanwhile he conveniently left out that he was subpoenaed for the security footage and he that he tried to mastermind the servers deletion with, Nauta, D'Oliveria and the IT guy.

Curious if the Calameri father or son were contacted by Trump, Nauta or anyone else on deleting the servers or editing the footage?
It had been reported that the FBI found "gaps" in the footage yet nothing in the superseding indictment about that..I think.


Special counsel will hear from Trump Organization execs ...

New York Post
https://nypost.com › 2023/05/03 › special-counsel-will...

May 3, 2023 — Matthew Calamari Sr. and his son Matthew Calamari Jr. are expected on Thursday to appear before the grand jury hearing evidence in the ...

 

Let's be blunt about his most fervent supporters(which I'm definitely not, to be utterly clear about that.). Whether or not he would let's say 'leave the crumbs' out for them, they're going to act. That's the whole premise of what I've been saying to begin with. The difference is, whether we can quell these acts with more or less resistance, more or less violence. See, the justice system is only good at incarcerating and trying them. It is not good at preventing the escalations, or the aftermath.

I don't think the justice system has the tools to solve this problem besides 'let's incarcerate him, let's incarcerate any potential future rioters and let's hope for the best'

And that, for me, is not good enough. Because it's not just the rioters, and it's not just the justice system. It's all of the innocent people that would be caught in the crossfires. Jan 6 would look like a picnic compared to a similar demonstration, but more violent of what happened with the Floyd incident.

The least amount of resistance and violence will come from simply disbarring him from running for office. Some might get their pants in a twad, but given time, they'll pick a new candidate. Meanwhile, without the power of office and his disgraced character, along with all of the documents safely returned to the government. He has been neutered.

It's better for the good of the nation to accept that as a punishment, even if we could go further.

 

You are literally demanding that we sacrifice our legal system in order to placate terrorists. That's insane.

 

Hey, I'm fine with preventing him from running again. I'm also good with imprisonment, but I don't think that will happen. But I don't think the justice system should make their decisions based upon reactions from the public. That isn't true justice.

 

I don't think 'true justice' is coming to a sentence at 'random'(and yes, even deliberations are random. It's just the decision they came to after agreeing to said decision. I've been super nitpicky with the whole judicial concept on a philosophical level.). I think true justice is to be able to hand out sentences, or take actions that solve the problem. I think the judicial system is wholly inadequate at solving problems.

This issue mainly comes up at SCOTUS, it's almost impossible for SCOTUS to issue a ruling that would favor both sides of a dispute. Which I think is the ideal. We may not agree with everything, but we come with a split of the pie if you will.

I see the riots as a problem, I see innocent people suffering said riots as the problem. And I think in this case, putting the hammer to the nail might not necessarily be the best option for both punishing Trump and limiting the damage to the country.

Just the simple act of punishing Trump is enough, no matter if it lacks severity for the concept of no one being above the law. A lenient punishment makes it so that to the vast majority of people, there's no grievance the Trumpies could legitimately have. Any such grievance would be utterly against the majority of the public and they're on their own. It might even, in the best case force Trump for the first time to see the wrong of his actions.

By contrast, a full-blown punishment might activate far more of their numbers and create conditions that would be unpleasant for everyone. For the sake of the country's domestic peace, handling the punishment in a way that limits this kind of activity is the best course.

 

LOL

Should these guys have gotten community service?

Jacques Chirac
Nicolas Sarkozy
Silvio Berlusconi
Ehud Olmert

 

Again, going easy on a criminal for the sake of domestic peace is not justice. Why aren't we looking at the yahoos that would become violent? Why aren't we holding them responsible for their actions? Oh wait, we are. But republicans don't like what's being done to 1/6 criminals. They don't even acknowledge criminal behavior by them!

 

As you may have read earlier, I referenced to the EU travesty and their general anti-corruption laws. Thing is A: It hadn't been successful in rooting out corruption and B: All it's really done is fractured European society(and the famous Brazilian example.). I know the left lately, ever since 2010 has had a hard on for the policies of the European Union, but. no.

I have no desire for a fractured society like that of the EU or Brazil. If it comes to that, we'll have to live with it and try to repair the damage in some way with the civic public but that damage is utterly unnecessary.

And that's just recent examples of government upheaval. European history is LITTERED with them(let them eat cake,
Marie Antoinette said, it'll be fine she said until she got beheaded.)

American exceptionalism is that we avoided this, perhaps via coincidence or deliberation but whether it's the controversies of Bush, Jackson, Johnson, Obama or Clinton we escaped the perils of being a new Europe.

I dont want to emulate the kind of political division and social strife as that of the European Union. I want access to their markets, not to their politics.

Trump being rightly defamed and barred from running for office, gives the punishment necessary and keeps us far away from the politics of the European Union and its sister countries throughout eons of existence.

 

Jack Smith asked for a trial date that would have had it over with before serious campaigning started.

 

They are responsible for their own actions, I never argued they weren't. My main argument is that we can create the conditions where the powderkeg to their activities can be extremely limited, which should be our main priority and goal. Trump is not worth more pain and agony than we've already gone through as a nation. He should carry the infamy and shame of his crimes by his lonesome, and the Republic should be spared that pain.

By publicly shaming Trump and by impeaching him of the qualities of office, we would have condemned all of his activities, and forbade him from office. This will still cause a reaction, but nowhere near the reaction that incarceration probably will.


For the justice system, the best course of action is a punishment both suitable for Trump and something that deactivates this potential core of malevolent actors. That's what impeachment and disqualification from office would achieve.

So imagine a scenario of sentencing Trump to 30 years of house arrest. That would be the longest house arrest in the world. Again, completely neutered and effectively a nobody in society. Between that and his disqualification, aren't all of the needs of justice met?

 

I found this to be quite on point:



Our conservative member seem to excel at this.

 

We can go back and forth all day and not agree. I don't think justice should be determined according to the threats associated with rabble that want a man freed. I think its a horrible precedent. You disagree. I'm fine with that.

 

By now I doubt that anyone still really believes that our "justice" system is about justice or law.
But as Jake might say: "Isn't it pretty to think so?"

“We like to believe that decisions made in U.S. courts are determined by the wisdom of the Constitution, and guided by fair-minded judges and juries of our peers.

Unfortunately, this is often wishful thinking. Unsettling research into the psychology of courtroom decisions has shown that our personal backgrounds, unconscious biases about race, gender and appearance, and even the time of day play a more important role in outcomes than the actual law.

Adam Benforado, a professor of law at Drexel University, describes these unsettling problems with the justice system in the recently published book “Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice.” The book uses psychology and neuroscience to examine and expose the illogical and unfair ways that judges, jurors, attorneys and others in the legal system make decisions about who is sent to prison, and who walks free.

Benforado’s research shows that mistakes in the criminal justice system are more common than we like to think, and that our personal biases play a disturbingly strong role. He also argues that there are clear and easy steps that we could follow to limit these injustices, if we care to take them.”
MGH, HARVARD.EDU, The U.S. Court System is Criminally Unjust, By Ana Swanson | The Washington Post | July 20, 2015.
https://clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/the-u-s-court-system-is-criminally-unjust/

 

Let me slightly change the conversation. Trump's sentenced to prison, how do you think the government should move from here to prevent **** from hitting the fan as much as possible?

 

Trump was not an officer; he was POTUS.

What, or who, authorizes the location?

The FBI immediately leaked the classified documents boxes photos to their friends in the media. Trump knows they will also leak anything in that footage that makes him look bad (and please send me 3 weeks footage of your daily life if you want me to show you how that's done).

If I'm not a Democratic politician, I would have a killswitch to delete any security footage the moment the FBI shows up.

 

One wonders what the Reps define as JUSTICE, or the LAW APPLIES to EVRYONE .It does not seem to be either fair , or lawful, but defiantly preferential. If a nation is one of true laws and justice , any exceptionalism is not to be tolerated. a professional shyster like Trump is not to be exempted. Forget the hero worship some have for the role of POTUS. (Trump is counting on that attitude)

 

Why not just continue mass censoring and inhibiting our right to assemble? It's going great ..

 

I don't know, how about something major like: selling out our country in Ukraine, and then allowing that corruption to influence his decisions on committing us on a path to nuclear war, with 500k people dead already?

If they had something like that on Trump...oh wait, they impeached him for attempting to uncover it.

 

Is any of the above a CRIME?? (that can or should be prosecuted??)

 

So Trump 47 is in his prison cell sitting on the lower bunk and to his right is the Nuclear Football.....