Torillian said:
1. Yes, it is ok to take documents as long as you give them back when asked. This has been the case for quite a few presidents as they leave office. Trump is unique in how he decided to hide and refused to give them back. It's pretty simple. Did you read that case? Trump's mindset here is really hard to understand, seemed like he felt entitled to these things to the point of criminality. 2. The impeachment system is not how you decide criminality. In fact, many of the politicians who voted against impeachment said they did so because Trump was already out of office and so the correct punishment would be the legal system. Now when the justice system is trying to do just that the tune has changed to "maybe presidents should have immunity". 3. How many presidents have put together false groups of electors and called state officials to try to get them to change their election results? I think that's a pretty short list honestly. You can say "we all know why they weren't changed" but honestly wouldn't this fact pattern fit perfectly with Trump just being a uniquely criminal president? 4. He was already found guilty of this one. It turns out it is actually illegal. Whether or not his new found presidential immunity will get him out of it is another question. Lastly, what other changes are you thinking of? There have always been 4 different cases to my knowledge that were criminal. There are separate civil cases but those have also already been finished and Trump lost them so seems like they probably hold weight. One was because he cooked his books in real estate and another because he raped someone a long time ago and defamed her when she talked about it. Again, all of which fits the fact pattern of just being a uniquely shitty and criminal president. the-pi-guy said: - A major point in US criminal law is intention. Evidence of intent makes a huge difference, depending on the crime. We have different levels of murder, depending on whether it was accidental, or whether it was something that was intentionally planned out. Many states even have differentiation between a "first degree murder", where it's planned, and "second degree murder", where it's heat of the moment. Many crimes require intent. Accidentally starting a fire because you thought your cigarette was out, is treated differently from intentionally starting a fire to destroy a building. "Making a fuss", lying about it, is a massive sign of intent. These differences you're trying to handwave away, are literally what US criminal law is built on. It was thrown out on questionable grounds. - No, he was charged. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/ And no, that's not how it works. Politicians making a move to impeach someone doesn't override criminal law. - Presidents should not have immunity. They didn't have immunity when these events happened. Every president who has done something criminal in office should be charged for it. But also, where's the evidence that *other* presidents have done something like that? Just throwing out a hypothetical that other presidents could have done something else that could be charged for, isn't a defense. - Plenty of people do care. Clinton did not pay someone off. There are a lot more regulations about how money is used. |
- Trump being Trump he very likely held onto them just to piss off those who are always giving him a hard time for no reason, or to make him look bad for political gain. Since he knows the narrative will always be portrayed as orange man bad, he might as well just be a huge dick, because why make it easy for them in that case? Just because Biden played dumb and said he didn't know or didn't remember he had them is just BS and everyone knows it. I'm sure Biden didn't mean to or plan to blow up the Russian pipeline either. It's not like he warned Russia and implied he'd do something like that. The law may not care, but the people do, and it's the people who vote.
- Presidents have always had a certain, yet fairly wide range of immunity. The SC ruled on that recently, based on the existing rules, and Trump obviously hasn't been found guilty of this otherwise he wouldn't be able to run for Prez again. I realize politics (impeachment) and the law are not the same.
- How convenient that past Presidents should be charged but shouldn't have immunity now that it's Trump dealing with this. Presidents do have plenty of immunity and for good reason, otherwise there's many ways they'd be severely hamstrung, in which case why even have a Presidency to begin with? What if the Prez had the opportunity to take out an extremely (immediate) dangerous target, but innocent American citizens were killed in the process? What if an American citizen themselves were seen to be a threat and were taken out on the Presidents orders instead of being captured and tried? Didn't some of this happen under Obama? How many supposed war crimes happened under Bush? I didn't say the same, I said worthy of being charged.
-Clinton normalized what might be seen as uncivilized sexual behavior. The fact Trump may have done that and then may have tried to cover it up doesn't matter to most now because of it. Not to mention Biden constantly sniffing little girls and his son Hunters escapades. Again it's the people who vote, and if enough don't agree with the ruling, probably due to politics, then it won't matter politically as per the election.
-The rape case which conveniently showed up once Trump became a big enough political problem, just like judge Kavanaugh. Trump wasn't found guilty of rape. Many people still remember all those woman who came with Trump to the 2016 debate who were basically laughed at and ignored as per their claims against Bill.
-The real estate case where other elites like Mr Wonderful came forward and admitted it's normal and everyone does it. Isn't he on Shark Tank making deals with with Barbara Corcoran, a big real estate mogul? Why all the sudden is it such a problem, and only a problem for Trump?
Just like how Trump explained the rules don't always make sense because they're not always made with the best intentions for the people or the country. Often enough they're made to largely benefit a select few. The fact that these cases, even when Trump is found guilty, aren't working against Trump, and in fact seem to be working for him, shows the people aren't accepting it politically, because they know that's the point. Like Biden constantly calling Trump a liar, when he himself is a career politician. Everyone see's a politician as a lying scumbag, so best case, is people think Biden's saying Trump is just as bad as me. That's not a smart case to try and make.
Again, can't have it both ways. It's either fairness and the rules apply to everyone equally, or they don't apply at all. More and more people see it that way.
Currently Online 
