Donald Trump Has Been Indicted

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Ponymotes
File
Flags	Spoiler Image NSFW Image
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

Donald Trump Has Been Indicted Sleepy Walrus 03/31/23 (Fri) 03:18:56 No.11883

File: 1680232735989.jpg (67.43 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 230304181103-02-donald-tru….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

https://apnews.com/article/trump-arrest-process-what-to-know-02a2ce34e03e25ab2fdd0e81dbcc62c7

The former POTUS has been formally accused of legal wrongdoing and will be processed as a criminal defendant in the State of New York.

My personal point of view is that this is a great attempt at supporting civic morality, promoting the objective rule of law, and resisting attempts to turn the U.S. into a right-wing police state. However, I think it will mean little in the long-run because Trump is completely impervious to all forms of negativity against him: he has been the subject of countless ethical and legal complaints for decades without any form of accountability whatsoever before (always regarded as not guilty of anything). This likely won't change. I halfway believe that Trump literally cannot die and will last until the heat death of the universe because even the Grim Reaper is afraid of him. I have voted against Trump twice and consider his status as a singular personification of America nightmarish (such status has also helped me in leaving Christianity and the Republican Party as well as to stop supporting capitalism, given how he represents all three), so I recognize my viewpoints are unusually hardened and significantly unlike most U.S. voters.

Alternately, of course, one can view this indictment as flatly unjustified. The legal process is coming out of an institution that can be criticized for multiple reasons here. Many arguments are possible. It must be factually noted that Trump labels himself "completely innocent". An American in his status is to be considered not guilty of anything as a default: accusations are not convictions. As well, one can have no opinion on all this. What do you guys think?

Mellow Platypus 03/31/23 (Fri) 06:48:48 No.11909

>>11883
The case itself is incredibly weak. It hinges on the testimony of a star witness who, unfortunately for the prosecution, adamantly claims Trump had no direct part in what transpired. But as the saying goes, "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." Proving guilt will be a much more difficult matter.

I don't think Trump is innocent of all wrongdoing, but the trend of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks was already old 4 years ago, especially given the hypocritical nature of those doing the flinging.

Sleepy Walrus 03/31/23 (Fri) 07:55:27 No.11922

>>11909
As far as I've heard, blackmail and being blackmailed are both technically legal so long as strict conditions occur (i.e. it's purely just "give me money so that I will choose to avoid doing something I would freely do otherwise"). It becomes a crime if you make it one, essentially. Such as by engaging in financial fraud to misreport what you paid, how you paid, why you paid, and such. And lifting funds from your own account required to be monitored and spent in a specific way while covering your tracks will psychologically push you to worse acts. Also, of course, taking somebody else's money for blackmail payments you make is stealing.

I don't think that the case is weak per se, but I can see what's technically illegal being so minor (or so vaguely defined) that he gets off the hook entirely.

Mellow Platypus 03/31/23 (Fri) 09:28:40 No.11934

>>11922
As I understand it, that isn't the issue or why it's supposedly illegal in this case. The question is whether Trump authorized guywhosenameIdon'trecall to try to bribe [Stormy Daniels I think?], or whether guywhosenameIdon'trecall did it of his own volition. And according to guywhosenameIdon'trecall, he did it of his own volition, without Trump having any knowledge of the bribe. Even if you think Trump was directly involved, i.e. that he's lying, it's going to be incredibly difficult to prove without guywhosenameIdon'trecall's testimony to that effect.

I can't even be bothered to look up guywhosenameIdon'trecall's name. It's that much of a nothingburger in my opinion.

Sleepy Walrus 03/31/23 (Fri) 09:49:11 No.11936

>>11934
There's some context at: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64920037.amp

Trump says that he gave money to this one dude, and said dude clearly got it. The dude asserts that this was a fixer type situation with him to use the money for bribery. Trump counter-asserts that the dude is lying and just was normally paid as an employee doing whatever generic stuff would.

The bribed lady got the money. And apparently was physically threatened or at least says that she was. She reports being told Trump wanted to bribe and threaten her, but that's hearsay.

That's my understanding of the matter at heart.

Now, well, all three of them are sleazy, obnoxious, and untrustworthy people, and the two who aren't Trump are convicted criminals if I remember right. It's a hard case to make if you want to find Trump guilty. No question. Even if you loathe Trump, there's no witness who hasn't flip-flopped to go against him here, I believe.

Mellow Platypus 03/31/23 (Fri) 10:04:12 No.11938

>>11936
edit: After reading over the article a couple of times, I'm even less convinced that anything illegal happened.

Sleepy Walrus 04/01/23 (Sat) 21:32:18 No.11956

>>11938
As stated before, in technical legal terms I'd resonably predict that the prosecution doesn't get a conviction.

Hilarious Tiger 04/04/23 (Tue) 18:13:33 No.11975

>>11883
End of the day, irrespective of any potential factual basis of the claims given, this type of thing only serves to cause distrust in the system by citizens, as well as other nations.
It's why often enough indictment of political opposition in other nations often results in sanctions from the United States.
There's been a long running issue of law enforcement being used as a political weapon, especially in the case of Trump.
I see no possible benefit in this, even if we assume the claims of the prosecution are true. All it will do is further drive up tensions.
And this all ignores the rough basis and numerous issues that make it, frankly, undeniable that this has been brought forward as a politically motivated prosecution.

Hilarious Gazelle 04/06/23 (Thu) 08:25:56 No.11979

Politically ambitious attorneys seeking charges against partisan opponents sets a bad precedent. But not one as bad as declaring that sitting, former, and future politicians are immune from being investigated for financial crimes.