[Politics] TRUMP IS GUILTY

[generals3]

We aren't robots, we are people. Mueller has said if he was innocent, he would say he was innocent, but because the Department of Justice has the position of 'The Sitting President is above the law/cannot be persecuted by the law' so he refuses to outright say he is guilty.

The only way anyone can read that Trump is not guilty is because they are Pro-Trump.

No, he said that he cannot charge the president. Charging someone doesn't make them guilty either. He couldn't have said Trump is guilty regardless of him being president or not. A court has to determine guilt.

So as far as we know he's neither innocent or guilty. He's potentially both. While imho he seems guilty, that doesn't make it true.

 

[Agema]

God why Okay, cursory glance basically says... as it says. No clear confidence in making the assertion without a doubt that Donald didn't break the law. Yet none in the other direction either. Back in square 1 of this circus. Great waste of money that this has been.

Actually, I think Mueller's statement is as clear as anything implicit can be that there is sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice.

He says that he does not believe it was within his remit to indict the president. It would be unfair to openly accuse Trump without the ability to indict him as it would leave the accusation hanging over him without the ability to clear his name. This therefore explains his extremely cautious phrasing.

Yes, that is not the same as Trump being guilty. However, even a prosecution being recommended is appalling for a president, only saved from criminal prosecution just because he is president.

 

[Worgen]

God why Okay, cursory glance basically says... as it says. No clear confidence in making the assertion without a doubt that Donald didn't break the law. Yet none in the other direction either. Back in square 1 of this circus. Great waste of money that this has been.

That can't happen until either you can convince a GOP Senate to vote against him, he loses in 2020, or he finishes a second term. Best odds is on him losing in 2020, but only if the Dems put forward someone who can actually get people outside the coasts to vote for them.

I'm reminded of a bit of Lewis Black standup I wish I had a clip for. In short, it was talking shit at the Republicans for putting Bush forward, but also shitting on the Democrats for managing to not put someone forward that could beat Bush in a reelection, despite the incredible ease at which one could do so. In short, I'm seeing a repeat of 2004 happening here. Trump is supposedly Hitler, but the Dems can't find someone that can defeat Hitler and instead choose to shove all these idiots in the funnel to see what works, but now they've gone and clogged the funnel with people that probably couldn't beat him anyway. Next year is going to be very entertaining.

What did this cost? Like $33 million? Trump has spent over 3 times that just on weekend golf, coming in at over $100 million. Actually even as these things go, its not as costly as some others, the Bill Clinton investigation cost around $69 million and Iran-Contra was $47 million, not adjusted for inflation.

 

[Leg End]

What did this cost? Like $33 million? Trump has spent over 3 times that just on weekend golf, coming in at over $100 million. Actually even as these things go, its not as costly as some others, the Bill Clinton investigation cost around $69 million and Iran-Contra was $47 million, not adjusted for inflation.

Still a giant chunk of change we're not seeing again.

 

[Worgen]

What did this cost? Like $33 million? Trump has spent over 3 times that just on weekend golf, coming in at over $100 million. Actually even as these things go, its not as costly as some others, the Bill Clinton investigation cost around $69 million and Iran-Contra was $47 million, not adjusted for inflation.

Still a giant chunk of change we're not seeing again.

Which has actually yielded results also, we have a bunch of indictments for a lot of people around trump. Its just that Muller was approaching this from the angle that a sitting president cannot be indicted, so the report could really only find him not guilt, which it didn't. But, it left the results of the investigation up to congress, which is what the current fight is about.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

What did this cost? Like $33 million? Trump has spent over 3 times that just on weekend golf, coming in at over $100 million. Actually even as these things go, its not as costly as some others, the Bill Clinton investigation cost around $69 million and Iran-Contra was $47 million, not adjusted for inflation.

Still a giant chunk of change we're not seeing again.

They could just take some of Trump's properties to pay for it, after of course they liquidate his assets to pay all the people he didn't pay over the years.. if there is anything left after that (there is a long line of unpaid bills to get in line behind).

EDIT: Although that was made somewhat in jest, Trumps accounts were flagged for possible Money Laundering. If further investigation shows that to be the case, under Federal law, they very well could seize his properties. It has also been shown that he has committed Fraud, another crime that could result in Asset Forfeiture.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/deutsche-bank-money-laundering-suspicions-trump-kushner.html
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/criminal-division/asset-forfeiture-and-money-laundering

Regardless, Justice would be served if he was forced to pay everyone he didn't pay and all the monies he cost people over his lifetime, with interest.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

When the opposition to me has something other than a load of lies and bullshit, I will have a discussion with it.

No, no you won't. You'll spew invective and unilaterally pronounce them "lies and bullshit", and accuse them of being "pro-Trump", just as you always do. Just as you just did. Please, allow me to prove it.

The problem with this is while Trump shouldn't be "above" the law, he shouldn't be below it, either. Personally, I don't believe the DoJ should be empowered with appointing special counsels to investigate allegations of Executive malfeasance in the first place, because the same conflicts of interest that are the reason to appoint special counsels in the first place (DoJ is part of the Executive department, and DoJ appointments are Executive appointments), also apply to special counsels as DoJ appointments. True for Trump, true for Clinton, true for Nixon, true for all the special counsels that preceded it.

Oh, but I already hear the cries of "buh buh Nixon!". Jaworski worked with the House Judiciary committee, to convince them to subpoena the tapes. That act came from Congressional authority, not the DoJ. Cox fought with the White House for six months or so prior to get the tapes and got nowhere. The existence of the taping system and tapes in the first place, came to light due to Senate Watergate committee hearings. The special counsel ultimately went nowhere and got nothing done, other than to provide a confidential memo to the Judiciary committee as to what evidence to subpoena.

And, as for Clinton? Ken Starr's report recommended impeachment; he made no attempt to indict Clinton himself, despite believing special counsels had the authority to indict sitting Presidents, and even having drawn up a draft indictment. Which is what Mueller was certain to have done had he found a credible case for impeachment. The issue boils down to the interplay between prosecutorial discretion and the reasonable-doubt standard, as applies to cases in which a sitting President would be the defendant.

If a prosecutor doesn't have a strong enough case to have a credible chance at conviction, they have the discretion to nol-pros the case. In other words, if the prosecutor doesn't believe they can prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused committed the crime, they don't indict. Except in this case, Mueller stood by precedent (bipartisan precedent), which put him in an impossible situation: if he can't indict, it stands to reason he can't nol-pros either. Therefore, his only recourse was to report and defer to the House, in which impeachment powers lie.

At the end of the day, the ball's in the House's court. It always was. Democrats' entire platform, it seems, in 2018 was investigating Trump with the intent to impeach; time to fufill that campaign promise, eh?

 

[Saelune]

We aren't robots, we are people. Mueller has said if he was innocent, he would say he was innocent, but because the Department of Justice has the position of 'The Sitting President is above the law/cannot be persecuted by the law' so he refuses to outright say he is guilty.

The only way anyone can read that Trump is not guilty is because they are Pro-Trump.

No, he said that he cannot charge the president. Charging someone doesn't make them guilty either. He couldn't have said Trump is guilty regardless of him being president or not. A court has to determine guilt.

So as far as we know he's neither innocent or guilty. He's potentially both. While imho he seems guilty, that doesn't make it true.

Mueller has said Trump is not innocent and that he wont declare a sitting President guilty. Its really not complicated beyond Mueller's support of a fascist line of thinking where the President is above the law.

 

[Saelune]

When the opposition to me has something other than a load of lies and bullshit, I will have a discussion with it.

No, no you won't. You'll spew invective and unilaterally pronounce them "lies and bullshit", and accuse them of being "pro-Trump", just as you always do. Just as you just did. Please, allow me to prove it.

The problem with this is while Trump shouldn't be "above" the law, he shouldn't be below it, either. Personally, I don't believe the DoJ should be empowered with appointing special counsels to investigate allegations of Executive malfeasance in the first place, because the same conflicts of interest that are the reason to appoint special counsels in the first place (DoJ is part of the Executive department, and DoJ appointments are Executive appointments), also apply to special counsels as DoJ appointments. True for Trump, true for Clinton, true for Nixon, true for all the special counsels that preceded it.

Oh, but I already hear the cries of "buh buh Nixon!". Jaworski worked with the House Judiciary committee, to convince them to subpoena the tapes. That act came from Congressional authority, not the DoJ. Cox fought with the White House for six months or so prior to get the tapes and got nowhere. The existence of the taping system and tapes in the first place, came to light due to Senate Watergate committee hearings. The special counsel ultimately went nowhere and got nothing done, other than to provide a confidential memo to the Judiciary committee as to what evidence to subpoena.

And, as for Clinton? Ken Starr's report recommended impeachment; he made no attempt to indict Clinton himself, despite believing special counsels had the authority to indict sitting Presidents, and even having drawn up a draft indictment. Which is what Mueller was certain to have done had he found a credible case for impeachment. The issue boils down to the interplay between prosecutorial discretion and the reasonable-doubt standard, as applies to cases in which a sitting President would be the defendant.

If a prosecutor doesn't have a strong enough case to have a credible chance at conviction, they have the discretion to nol-pros the case. In other words, if the prosecutor doesn't believe they can prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused committed the crime, they don't indict. Except in this case, Mueller stood by precedent (bipartisan precedent), which put him in an impossible situation: if he can't indict, it stands to reason he can't nol-pros either. Therefore, his only recourse was to report and defer to the House, in which impeachment powers lie.

At the end of the day, the ball's in the House's court. It always was. Democrats' entire platform, it seems, in 2018 was investigating Trump with the intent to impeach; time to fufill that campaign promise, eh?

You will defend Trump no matter what. You will never believe me no matter what. You want to accuse me of being unable to accept the truth when you are unwilling to accept the truth. At best, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

You will defend Trump no matter what. You will never believe me no matter what. You want to accuse me of being unable to accept the truth when you are unwilling to accept the truth. At best, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Case in point.

My entire point is the Western justice system does not work the way you seem to believe it does, nor does it work the way you seem to believe it should. Because we have adopted the idea those accused of criminal offenses should be given due process in courts of law, and the determination of guilt is based upon an accusers' ability to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. Like him or not, Trump is a citizen of the United States, and as a citizen of the United States he is entitled to due process.

You're arguing a special counsel, appointed by the DoJ who is in turn appointed by the President, should have unilateral right to usurp Congressional authority as enumerated in Article I to indict the President of criminal charges. And for what, to try him in the criminal justice system, itself under the authority of the Judiciary, which is expressly forbidden from this by Article III (likely because, as any person with a functioning brain can note, the federal Judiciary is appointed by the Executive branch). Basically throwing our entire system of procedural checks and balances right the fuck out the window.

For as much as you ***** about Nazis, your ideas of what criminal justice should be are awfully similar to theirs.

The funny thing is, in your eager rush to prove my point you call me a Trump supporter. I actually believe the Democrats should initiate impeachment proceedings, and think all this dithering and feigned outrage by Congressional Democrats is nothing more than an attempt to weasel out of their campaign promises because they believe it may hurt their 2020 prospects. Either you believe he's guilty or you don't; if you do, then you damn well should be arguing for Democrats to impeach the shithead, and asking yourself why they haven't started yet.

Me, I'm going to look at the situation for what it is, based on the facts and behavior at hand. I don't believe Democrats had any intent of impeachment, and their campaign promises were as empty as any other. They want him finishing his term, because that's what they believe will give them the best-available path to winning in 2020. They're only willing to throw the entire country under the bus for it, and this little tantrum they're currently throwing is because now they have to either nut up or shut up.

 

[Marik2]

Ace Attorney should really make a game based on this case. It's so retarded and cartoony, that it would definitely fit with the games aesthetics. Donald, his presidency, and his case is one big live action cartoon.

 

[Squilookle]

What exactly are you planning to do with all this rage over Trump? I mean, I think the guy is a complete asshat as well, but is screaming from the rooftops really achieving anything? Is it helping your state of mind getting so riled up over something you can't control?

Supposing a report found Trump was irrevocably guilty. What then? If Trump stayed in power anyway due to a loophole/money/something else, where would that leave you? Expended a monumental amount of energy all for nothing. If you want to change what's going on, use your vote. Outside that, getting worked up over that which you can't control is a one-way trip to emotional ruin.

 

[Worgen]

You will defend Trump no matter what. You will never believe me no matter what. You want to accuse me of being unable to accept the truth when you are unwilling to accept the truth. At best, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Case in point.

My entire point is the Western justice system does not work the way you seem to believe it does, nor does it work the way you seem to believe it should. Because we have adopted the idea those accused of criminal offenses should be given due process in courts of law, and the determination of guilt is based upon an accusers' ability to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. Like him or not, Trump is a citizen of the United States, and as a citizen of the United States he is entitled to due process.

You're arguing a special counsel, appointed by the DoJ who is in turn appointed by the President, should have unilateral right to usurp Congressional authority as enumerated in Article I to indict the President of criminal charges. And for what, to try him in the criminal justice system, itself under the authority of the Judiciary, which is expressly forbidden from this by Article III (likely because, as any person with a functioning brain can note, the federal Judiciary is appointed by the Executive branch). Basically throwing our entire system of procedural checks and balances right the fuck out the window.

For as much as you ***** about Nazis, your ideas of what criminal justice should be are awfully similar to theirs.

The funny thing is, in your eager rush to prove my point you call me a Trump supporter. I actually believe the Democrats should initiate impeachment proceedings, and think all this dithering and feigned outrage by Congressional Democrats is nothing more than an attempt to weasel out of their campaign promises because they believe it may hurt their 2020 prospects. Either you believe he's guilty or you don't; if you do, then you damn well should be arguing for Democrats to impeach the shithead, and asking yourself why they haven't started yet.

Me, I'm going to look at the situation for what it is, based on the facts and behavior at hand. I don't believe Democrats had any intent of impeachment, and their campaign promises were as empty as any other. They want him finishing his term, because that's what they believe will give them the best-available path to winning in 2020. They're only willing to throw the entire country under the bus for it, and this little tantrum they're currently throwing is because now they have to either nut up or shut up.

There is impeachment and removal. The chances of him being removed is almost nil since the republican controlled senate would almost certainly vote against it. More moderate democrats are afraid that initiating proceedings will bite them in the butt and give trump a boost, since there is almost no chance of actually removing him. They think the public might assume its just a stunt.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

So...is this thread in any way different to the other Trump thread directly below it? How many threads about Trump do we need cluttering up off topic?

This is why we need the Religion and Politics circle jerk back.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

More moderate democrats are afraid that initiating proceedings will bite them in the butt and give trump a boost, since there is almost no chance of actually removing him. They think the public might assume its just a stunt.

Yeah, they're comparing it to the Clinton impeachment and drawing the exactly wrong conclusions about it that will almost certainly yield similar, if not the same, electoral results. Remember the Lewinsky scandal didn't happen in a vacuum; it was the capstone of six years' worth of controversies and scandals, and virtually nonstop special counsel investigation, all of which played for electoral politics by Congressional Republicans in an environment where even if impeached, the Senate was highly unlikely to vote to remove. I mean, let's count: Gennifer Flowers, Travelgate, Cattlegate, Paula Jones, Whitewater, Filegate, then Lewinsky. That wasn't even the end, because Furnituregate happened after Clinton left office.

Starr was appointed in '94 to investigate Whitewater, and returned four years later with impeachment recommendations for a completely unrelated scandal that were largely thanks to his own investigation and a grammar debate. Just in case we forget how dumb it was.

"Investigate and impeach!" was a clarion call for '94, '96, and '98. By the time '98 came around, Americans were sick and tired of six years' of protracted lunacy and bait-and-switch electoral politics, and protest voted against it. The situation's more comparable to '95 and '96 when Whitewater was still raging, than '97 and '98. Especially for the fact it was another "nearly everyone in POTUS's inner circle ended up indicted, except POTUS because nothing could be proven" situation.

Y'know, kind of like Watergate, Iran-Contra, the S&L crisis, and now "Russiagate". The only exception to this being Watergate, and then only because Butterfield fucked up and admitted to the existence of the tapes in front of the entire country on live television. Twice.

 

[Saelune]

You will defend Trump no matter what. You will never believe me no matter what. You want to accuse me of being unable to accept the truth when you are unwilling to accept the truth. At best, it is the pot calling the kettle black.

Case in point.

My entire point is the Western justice system does not work the way you seem to believe it does, nor does it work the way you seem to believe it should. Because we have adopted the idea those accused of criminal offenses should be given due process in courts of law, and the determination of guilt is based upon an accusers' ability to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. Like him or not, Trump is a citizen of the United States, and as a citizen of the United States he is entitled to due process.

You're arguing a special counsel, appointed by the DoJ who is in turn appointed by the President, should have unilateral right to usurp Congressional authority as enumerated in Article I to indict the President of criminal charges. And for what, to try him in the criminal justice system, itself under the authority of the Judiciary, which is expressly forbidden from this by Article III (likely because, as any person with a functioning brain can note, the federal Judiciary is appointed by the Executive branch). Basically throwing our entire system of procedural checks and balances right the fuck out the window.

For as much as you ***** about Nazis, your ideas of what criminal justice should be are awfully similar to theirs.

The funny thing is, in your eager rush to prove my point you call me a Trump supporter. I actually believe the Democrats should initiate impeachment proceedings, and think all this dithering and feigned outrage by Congressional Democrats is nothing more than an attempt to weasel out of their campaign promises because they believe it may hurt their 2020 prospects. Either you believe he's guilty or you don't; if you do, then you damn well should be arguing for Democrats to impeach the shithead, and asking yourself why they haven't started yet.

Me, I'm going to look at the situation for what it is, based on the facts and behavior at hand. I don't believe Democrats had any intent of impeachment, and their campaign promises were as empty as any other. They want him finishing his term, because that's what they believe will give them the best-available path to winning in 2020. They're only willing to throw the entire country under the bus for it, and this little tantrum they're currently throwing is because now they have to either nut up or shut up.

Mueller said Trump is NOT innocent but that as part of the DOJ he is under the policy that as sitting president, he cant say Trump is guilty.

This is not because Trump is an 'American citizen', rather it is because he is The President and according to Mueller, he is ABOVE THE LAW.


You also dont know what due process is. I would LOVE for Trump to go through due process. That would mean he is being actively tried in a court of law. The problem here IS THAT IS NOT HAPPENING!

 

[Saelune]

What exactly are you planning to do with all this rage over Trump? I mean, I think the guy is a complete asshat as well, but is screaming from the rooftops really achieving anything? Is it helping your state of mind getting so riled up over something you can't control?

Supposing a report found Trump was irrevocably guilty. What then? If Trump stayed in power anyway due to a loophole/money/something else, where would that leave you? Expended a monumental amount of energy all for nothing. If you want to change what's going on, use your vote. Outside that, getting worked up over that which you can't control is a one-way trip to emotional ruin.

This helps me deal with my anger at the terrible situation the US is in. Keeping it in does not help me feel better. Though it is frustrating in its own way, it also validates me that those who oppose me have to rely on hypocrisy, lies and misinformation just to disagree with me. Seeing other people who have proven to care about equal rights and moral decency point out the same things as me helps me maintain some tiny shred of faith in people.


That said, I have to ask what you hope to gain by going out of your way to dismiss my caring about this?

 

[Saelune]

So...is this thread in any way different to the other Trump thread directly below it? How many threads about Trump do we need cluttering up off topic?

This is why we need the Religion and Politics circle jerk back.

The other topic was saying that if he is innocent, he needs to prove it because Trump was actively doing everything he can to obstruct justice and not prove it. That he kept having all this supposed evidence that exonerates him, yet he intentionally tries everything he can to keep it out of anyone else's hands.

This topic is about being proven even more right about Trump's guilt, though really all Mueller did was re-iterate his report, which again said Trump is NOT INNOCENT. I know suddenly Right-Wingers are now pretending to care that if he is not 100% proven guilty it means he is not guilty, despite never giving that caveat to minorities or Democrats in a hypocritical bid to defend him, but the truth is, Trump by being NOT INNOCENT, means he IS GUILTY.

 

[generals3]

No, he said that he cannot charge the president. Charging someone doesn't make them guilty either. He couldn't have said Trump is guilty regardless of him being president or not. A court has to determine guilt.

So as far as we know he's neither innocent or guilty. He's potentially both. While imho he seems guilty, that doesn't make it true.

Mueller has said Trump is not innocent and that he wont declare a sitting President guilty. Its really not complicated beyond Mueller's support of a fascist line of thinking where the President is above the law.

No, no and no. First and foremost, Mueller is not a judge and is not supposed to declare anyone innocent or guilty. His job is to determine whether someone should be charged based on his investigation. Due to current regulations and the findings of his report he had determined he couldn't charge the president and it was up to congress to take over from where he left off. If you want to blame anyone blame the democrats who hold the majority in congress. The ball is in their court now.

There is nothing "Fascistic" about following the rules and expecting others to continue the work you started within the existing legal framework.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Mueller said Trump is NOT innocent but that as part of the DOJ he is under the policy that as sitting president, he cant say Trump is guilty.

This is not because Trump is an 'American citizen', rather it is because he is The President and according to Mueller, he is ABOVE THE LAW.

You also dont know what due process is. I would LOVE for Trump to go through due process. That would mean he is being actively tried in a court of law. The problem here IS THAT IS NOT HAPPENING!

Due process doesn't only apply to crim pro, ya dingus. It applies from everything to tenure disputes in state-funded universities to social benefits. Neither the Fifth nor Fourteenth Amendments apply solely to the judiciary; this is the entire reason the House and Senate drafted and ratified their own rules for impeachment. Conducting the process in accordance with their own rules is all that is necessary to satisfy the due process requirement.

And absolutely, the political question doctrine interferes with the review of due process questions arising from an impeachment procedure, especially with regards to Presidential impeachment. That's exactly what White and Souter were on about in their concurrences to Nixon v. United States (1993).

Mueller's entire fucking point is the President is not "above the law" as you put it. His point is the judiciary has no Constitutional authority in this matter; Congress does. Therefore, it's their decision to impeach. It would be incredibly inappropriate, unprofessional, and unethical for him to make such a statement, even potentially prejudicial.