USA Politics

____no5 said:
I don’t think so it’s exactly what happens.

View attachment 33162

They = those who “grinding us down” as described in The Clansman and those who described as “them” in Be Quick or Be Dead.
:p

You're no longer part of the System. You're above the System. Over it. Beyond it. We're "them." We're "they." We are the Men in Black.
Click to expand...
How is the legal system used to damage or delegitimize Trump? What is happening right now is Trump facing the consequences of his own actions. Hell, what is happening is constitutional since the 14th Amendment's relevant section is self-executing (unless otherwise ruled in the future). I know we may not see eye to eye often with regards to sociopolitical topics, but @Jer is absolutely right in this instance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jer
The law applies to everybody except high level politicians. You can't prosecute them because it might infringe on their likelihood to get re-elected.



/sarcasm

Now, the fact that Trump talked about using, and actively used his DOJ for his personal vendettas, is something that, shocker, is largely ignored. Look at Cohen, for one.
 
Corrupt courts and judges? Legal system is used to imprison opposition leaders or even ordinary citizens?
Welcome to russia.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Jer is 100% right here. Trump did things that are under legitimate investigation as crimes. The whole point of a special prosecutor is someone who is removed from standard political jurisdiction to investigate people as they need, and Trump got his ass indicted on the evidence.
 
Guys let’s be real if Trump weren’t running none of these would happen and it didn’t while he wasn’t running. Crimes were same but nothing happened for 2 years. And suddenly a storm of lawsuits. If this is not a lawfare I don’t know what is.
 
____no5 said:
Guys let’s be real if Trump weren’t running none of these would happen and it didn’t while he wasn’t running. Crimes were same but nothing happened for 2 years. And suddenly a storm of lawsuits. If this is not a lawfare I don’t know what is.
Click to expand...

Trump should be in jail for leading a coup attempt, as would happen in any other country. Some countries would have him on the end of a rope.
 
srfc said:
Trump should be in jail for leading a coup attempt, as would happen in any other country. Some countries would have him on the end of a rope.
Click to expand...

Yes, except that it didn’t happen -and yes it should. Then he’s running for nominee and you got a storm of lawsuits.

See, I didn’t examine if he broke the law or not but when all this hunt began.

Perun said:
Feel like I've been here before.
Click to expand...

True. Except that now I don’t have any doubts.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jer
____no5 said:
True. Except that now I don’t have any doubts.
Click to expand...
Did you actually read the indictment like I suggested? I'm assuming you didn't, but just in case you did, which parts specifically did you believe to be trumped up (if you'll pardon the pun)?
 
____no5 said:
Yes, except that it didn’t happen -and yes it should. Then he’s running for nominee and you got a storm of lawsuits.

See, I didn’t examine if he broke the law or not but when all this hunt began.



True. Except that now I don’t have any doubts.
Click to expand...
Let's break it down, because it's actually quite simple:

Timothée Chalamet cannot run for President because he's too young.
Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot run for President because he wasn't born in the US.
Trump shouldn't be able to run for President anymore because he was found of engaging in insurrection.

There are quite literally only three things that can barr someone from running and the only one that can be applied later, Trump inflicted on himself. He's the only presidential candidate who engaged in insurrection. Furthermore, Trump has broken the law time and time again; to act that he's being treated unfairly is absolutely wild to me.
 
Jer said:
Did you actually read the indictment like I suggested? I'm assuming you didn't, but just in case you did, which parts specifically did you believe to be trumped up (if you'll pardon the pun)?
Click to expand...
Didn't you also write a couple of posts some time ago outlining that the U.S. justice system generally is slow, in reponse to no5's argument that "these prosecutions popped out of nowhere!"?

I mean, for one, the Jan 6 commitee gathered much of the evidence Smith is leaning on. The documents case started about right away when it was clear he would not return the documents after a year of back and forth, giving him plenty of chances to rectify the situation.

This is also not the first time he's been in legal trouble, albeit civil lawsuits. The Trump University for one - and it took quite some time to resolve.

Edit: I also think it's wild, that while you no5 often talk about western corruption etc, the paramount time the system works to prosecute the worst possible type of corruption, it's suddenly "unfair". Let's be consistent here.
 
Yax said:
Didn't you also write a couple of posts some time ago outlining that the U.S. justice system generally is slow, in reponse to no5's argument that "these prosecutions popped out of nowhere!"?
Click to expand...
Yes, more or less. Large-scale investigations in the U.S. often take 2-3 years to reach an indictment, and sometimes longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
Generally a slow moving legal process is a good one, the problem is that this is a time sensitive case. The voters have the right to know whether the guy they're about to vote for to become president is going to be a convicted felon or not. Nevermind the fact that if Trump becomes president he will pardon himself for all federal crimes and will probably be able to argue successfully that the state trials against him in NY and GA are getting in the way of his presidential duties. That this all landed in an election year seems consistent with how the justice system typically operates, and maybe that will bolster Jack Smith's case in a roundabout way, although I wish this could have been litigated before the primaries began.
 
Again, no argument if it’s right or wrong only the fact that it actually is a lawfare.
Mosh summarizes it nicely:

Mosh said:
Generally a slow moving legal process is a good one, the problem is that this is a time sensitive case. The voters have the right to know whether the guy they're about to vote for to become president is going to be a convicted felon or not.
Click to expand...

The key is “time sensitive case” and that’s why all this rush to get him indicted.
That rush plus the huge number of felony charges make the case of lawfare. Again I don’t say it’s good or bad, I simply say that it’s lawfare.
 
____no5 said:
Again, no argument if it’s right or wrong only the fact that it actually is a lawfare.
Mosh summarizes it nicely:



The key is “time sensitive case” and that’s why all this rush to get him indicted.
That rush plus the huge number of felony charges make the case of lawfare. Again I don’t say it’s good or bad, I simply say that it’s lawfare.
Click to expand...
Just saying "it is lawfare" doesn't make it so. You went through the trouble to post the definition, so please answer the question:
How is the legal system used to damage or delegitimize Trump?
 
That doesn't answer the question in any way :rolleyes:


Edit: To elaborate a bit more, is it "lawfare" if a murderer is convicted? What about a rapist? A thief? If not, why not? What if any of those is a political candidate? Should we drop any legal matters because they run for office? Should criminals just run for president so that they can't be convicted of their crimes?

I hope you see how nonsensical this position is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
When you judge a common criminal you don't rush it. In this case we have a race and clearly law is used to damage Trump in that race. If you use the law to damage your opponent it's lawfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top