Should Trump Be Prosecuted?

SDNY is after him, let's see what they find.

He committed torts, TONS of them, he has been sued by over 100 contractors for non payment.
torts are not things good people commit.

That you defend this despicable human being is beyond me.

 

Let's see what SDNY finds. He was fined $2,000,000 for a scam charity. He committed a campaign finance felony regarding Stormy Daniels. He's committed bank fraud and tax evasion.

All of those are 'reasonable suspicions' let's see what SDNY finds.

 

"We did not reach a determination whether Trump committed a crime" --- Mueller.

That statement does not conflict with ( and I will explain it to you in a second ).



Because on your video 'we did not reach a determination'

does not equal 'we concluded there was no crime'.

Because the reason he said 'we did not reach a determination'

was due to the OLC memo.

But when he as asked if there was anything for which Trump could be prosecuted after he left office ( beyond the purview of the OLC memo) , he answered in the affirmative, as shown in the above video.

This PROVES Mueller believes Trump committed crimes.

Which completely destroys your 'no reasonable person could say Trump did anything that was suspicious' assertion you made in

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...p-be-prosecuted.581660/page-8#post-1072246343

And that you would imply Mueller, a dedicated public servant of many decades, a decorated Marine, is a 'heavily biased investigator' is beyond the pale.

Shame on you.

 

Indeed. Why not? As long as trump and his supporters keep trying to disenfranchise voters to keep the orange dotard in power, we will continue to replay the litany of crimes he has committed during his brief stint in government.
We love that he’s a sore loser and enjoy rubbing his nose in it.
If he had any class, he would have put his country ahead of his malignant narcissism and spent his last weeks as potus dealing with the pandemic instead of hiding out in his Twitter bunker spouting lies and sulking.
We hit trump where it hurt him the most, and I thank my fellow Americans for doing the right thing and getting rid of the worst potus in history.

 

There is no known violations by Trump of either the Hatch Act or the Emolument clause. The state of Maryland has already tried to sue on the emoluments clause and had its case thrown out. There is even no reasonable suspicions of Hatch Act violations. You are blowing smoke.

 

Good large business get sued all the time.

 

He did not commit any campaign finance felonies (unlike Hillary); the SDNY dropped its even looking into it ala theri prosecution of Cohen. Your assertion of fraud and tax evasion is the equivalent of my earlier post of "some guy saying "I don't like it and it sure looks like it might be a crime to me."" -- the equivalent of blowing smoke out your ass, not reasonable suspicion. The IRS thoroughly audits Trump's returns and has every year for decades. Funny how they have never found any tax evasion, but somehow you, the Manhattan DA and Nadler know all about such.

 

In effect those statement say exactly the same thing. They don't quite in a legal syntax sort of way because no prosecutor ever declares a suspect as not guilty, though Mueller tried hard to make a mountain out of that mole hole.

Your listening ability and comprehension leaves much to be desired. In the video I posted Mueller, purposefully correcting his earlier testimony, explicitly said that he did not reach his conclusion because of the OLC memo

He hired only Trump haters and protagonists on his special counsel staff. That clearly shows his bias. And that dedicated servant cost Massachusetts taxpayers tens of millions of dollars for improper and malicious prosecutions, and another million dollars or so of taxpayer money for his malicious prosecution in the anthrax mailing investigation. He was also the FBI Director close to (although not in charge of) the initial much earlier investigation into Manafort which concluded nothing to find here. He also mentally tortured Flynn to squeeze out a confession. As to his military background I know little, but I would guess he was more of a hero than than the idolized Kerry was, and clearly more than Sen. Blumenthal.

 

Come, come, Rod. How many times must it be pointed out to you only the protection afforded Trump by being prez kept him from being indicted for obstruction of a federal investigation.

Hundreds of former prosecutors say Trump would have been indicted if he were not president
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ay-trump-would-have-been-indicted-if-n1002436

 

Your beliefs are so easily disproven it's a wonder you bother to express them at all.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...trump-unindicted-co-conspirator-in-cohen-case

 

No he didn't. He said he didn't find sufficient evidence to prosecute him for conspiracy. He did not say that about obstruction. He said he made the decision IN ADVANCE not to make a prosecutorial decision. Over 1000 former federal prosecutors (from both parties) examined the evidence and signed a letter stating the evidence was more than sufficient to indict him for obstruction.

Look at the report, and defend his dangling pardons to people to keep them silent.

You're grasping at straws. Defendants plead guilty only if their lawyer advises them there's a high likelihood of being found guilty at trial. As I said, the same body of evidence applies to Trump, PLUS there would be Cohen's testimony against Trump.

What's that? Getting Shokin fired?! You can't be that delusional. Try to outline a case, without making multiple negative assumptions.

No he didn't, you're relating partisan spin. She said something that wasn't true: that there were no emails marked "classifies". Comey stated there were 3, out of the thousands, and that 2 of them were incorrectly marked classified. An untruth is a lie only if the person saying it knew it was untrue at the time of saying it.

It's exactly that.

 

Well, that plus Mueller testifying to congress that the OLC was not responsible for him not finding enough evidence to warrant a prosecution, a little fact that you have incessantly thrown in the closet. Not to mention Mueller's other testimony to congress that he was not impeded in his investigation by Trump. I'll suggest for the umpteenth time that a knowledge of what constitutes obstruction of justice might help. It does not depend on the wishful thinking of you or any former Trump hating prosecutors.

 

Have not yet been disproved, just denied. Do you believe a political opinion by a Trump hating Democrat Representative disproves my assertion? Really?

 

You can deny whatever you hear all you want but it changes nothing and convinces no one. Mueller used the word CRIME in his testimony, not conspiracy (which Mueller was not actually even investigating) nor obstruction. But don't let this interfere with your smoke blowing

Utter balderdash. Most of the time they plead guilty to get better treatment for the crime being pled or for other crimes the prosecutor is also after, which was the case with Cohen.

Technically I did misspeak. It is not clear at all if shaking down a foreign country with a billion dollars of taxpayer money by a VP to get personal favors violates any federal statute.

NEWSFLASH: Consciously and purposefully saying something under oath to congress that is not true equals lying to congress and perjury.

 

Trump is NOT a large business, he's a mom and pop shop run from his apartment in Trump tower.

 

IRS looks for money owed, RICO territory is beyond their purview.

I guess everyone is making **** up, and you're the guy who's got it right

I don't think so

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

 

No, it clearly shows YOUR bias.

Moreover, yours is an arrogant and ignorant position.

Your position is straight from the fever swamp.

There is no point in arguing with you, as you cannot grasp my previous email which thoroughly destroyed your arrogant 'Mueller is heavily biased' and your 'he hired only Trump haters',

This conversation is over.

I have no idea why you defend Trump.

Let me explain something to you, a man who would squelch the health care of his grand-nephew ( who has cerebral palsy) out of vengeance to spite his deceased brother's estate who are suing him because he cheated them out of their just share of Fred Trump's inheritance, i.e, Trump wasn't happy with 1/5 of his father's estate, he had to have 1/4, and his deceased brother's heirs be damned, the kind of man who would do this isn't the kind of man who gives one rat's ass about democracy, he is the kind of man who can be rightfully characterised as a sociopath and despicable, and he IS the kind of man who warrants complete and utter contempt and anyone who supports him is deluded and conned by a master mind manipulator.

Congratulations.

If you want to characterize me as a 'trump hater', you are making a fundamental error. I have contempt for Trump and 'trump hater' is misleading, because what Trump fans who so accuse those who have contempt are trying to do is paint the picture that hating Trump is done without just reason. No, this is why I qualify this as 'contempt' because contempt is not done in a vacuum, it is just owing to who Trump is, the kind of man he is, ie., a sociopath and despicable human being. 'Trump hater' is a trope, a thought-terminating cliché. It was created by Trump and implanted into your brain for the sole purpose is disabling your ability to think, and when someone criticizes Trump, the Trump fan reaches into his or her basket of Trump installed thought-terminating clichés and tosses it up in order to kill the conversation. This is by design, Trump's design, this is one of the tricks of the demagogue. What you don't realize is that you have been manipulated, and that's too bad.

 

The assertion was tax evasion. But if you retort with something totally different (how about the weather???) I suppose it is a free country....... still so far.

 

Impressive words, none of which even made any attempt to refute my argument. I asserted an argument. You responded with my mother eats grass. I fully agree, this conservation is dead and over.

 

Not known by you..........but by many American citizens.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...d-the-law-to-boost-trump-campaign-in-october/

 

Yeh, Impeach one guy for getting a BJ where the portrait of Washington could see but let another guy go scot-free for obstruction of justice and money laundering.

Conservatives, as I never tire of saying, are a ****ing TRIP with what they expect of people

 

That you look at it through the lens of arrogance, that, alone, destroys your assertions, because of the concept 'a poisoned tree yields poisoned fruit'. Moreover, the last one to know the fruit is poisoned will be the tree.

Excuse the mixed metaphors, but your argument is therefore thoroughly rebuked.

 

Not necessarily. But when a Dem rep points out the facts, not an opinion.....the facts.........,as asserted by the prosecution in their case against Cohen then yes, your erroneous opinion has been amply refuted.

"Federal prosecutors in a legal filing last week, appearing to refer to Trump as "Individual-1," said Trump directed Cohen to make the payments to the two women.

"Michael Cohen specifically says that Donald Trump directed him to make these campaign finance payments," Lieu said on CNN. "That means we have a person sitting in the White House right now who is essentially an unindicted co-conspirator."

You can't credibly accuse others of denial when that is exactly what you are doing. In anticipation of said denial........

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/24/lon...mmunity-in-cohen-probe-dj-citing-sources.html

 

Sorry to burst your bubble of denial, but here's a portion of the transcript:

The "series of actions by the President toward the investigation" refers specifically to the actions that were obstructive, and he certainly isn't asserting there's no crime - he's saying he decided not to make the determination that a crime was committed. He explicitly states that his investigation does not exonerate Trump of the crimes.

A perfect example of you inferring a crime based on a grossly biased view of the events. And there was no crime. And there is no evidence his son benefitted from his action; Shokin was not actively investigating Burisma. A new prosecutor was likely to do just that.

Biden's actions were consistent with US policy, and with the wishes of our allies. There is no better example of bias and double standard on your part.

 

The longer you engage with Rod the more you will find his beliefs to be in absolute misalignment with the facts. I speak from experience when I say no amount of irrefutable evidence you present to him in contradiction of his beliefs will change his mind.