Publicly held Trump trials - ongoing - page 8.

Hispo

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 2025

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: BADecker on January 17, 2024, 05:44:21 PM

Quote from: Hispo on January 14, 2024, 09:01:54 PM

Quote from: paxmao on January 14, 2024, 08:34:59 PM

Quote from: Hispo on January 14, 2024, 03:39:38 PM

So, a couple of days ago I saw one of the Trump's Lawyers trying to make a case about the presidential legal immunity which alledgely the president has while the performance of his duties. All of it was being discussed in front of judges and it was quite disturbing and unprecedented for the fact Trump's lawyer seemed to question whether the President of the United States could theorically order the execution/assassination of their political rivals (who are as well American residents and Citizens) and not being prosecuted because of his immunity. According to what I understood, it would take the lawmakers of the senate/house to impeach the president for him to be later procesuted of those crimes, otherwise, he would as free as usual when going back into the civil life, after the conclusion of the term.

That is weird, disturbing and unprecedented... Specially scary because no one in the Republican party seems to care about it and nobody dares to call out Trump or his lawyers for even putting such distasteful legal scenario on the table and in front of judges... This kind of stuff will only continue to divide the country, in my opinion.

The theory of full immunity is more complex that it seems at first glance. It is intended to allow the president to take pretty much any action in defence of the country and give orders that ordinarily would be classed as crime, and it also frees him from prosecutions. However, the "impeachment" is not based on the legal aspects, but on a political judgement and this can potentially become a dictatorship by elimination of the opponent since all that is needed is a majoriy.

My personal conclusion is that there has to be a limit to the immunity precisely to protect the system from people like Trump who are fine breaking the system while owning a party.

To be it is clear that there is supposed to be a legal limit to what sitting president is supposed to be allowed to do, regardless he is a president from the United States or other country.
I have red before that the founding fathers of the United States forged the rules and the constitution of the country in a very smart way, but they could not foresee someone like Donald Trump to try to even suggest to misuse the office of the presidency for whatever plans he has. Within the laws or rules of the presidential immunity there would be some article which explicitly states the president of the country cannot target a citizen or a resident with out having some Approbation from a percentage of the senate or at least permission from a judge.

I don't know to what extent he would be actually capable of abusing political power in such disturbing way as his lawyer suggested.

If you want to see misuse of the presidency, just look at all the lives that Biden took by funding Ukraine. Trump only brought about peace.

Of course, the President has limited powers if Congress wants to stop him. He's not a king, you know.

Cool

I am not suggesting he is a king or he is supposed to be a king. But keeping that to one side, I would like to know how funding is supposed to work when comes to aiding the allies of the United States abroad and around the world. Let us assume there is some kind of attack on some USA ally in the Americas or in Europe and they are asking for funding so they can defend themselves easily. Who is supposed to be the one in DC taking the decisions on how much is supposed to be given away for them?

You would probably argue that your country should not intervene with those regional conflicts going on in other places, that would imply you are okey with China wagering war against anyone of USA allies, I am not explicitly talking about Russia.

Would be the house of representatives, the senate, both the VP and the President together? What would be the fairest thing to do with the money of the people of the United States to help to defend others?

paxmao

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1575

Do not die for Putin

Quote from: BADecker on January 17, 2024, 05:44:21 PM

Quote from: Hispo on January 14, 2024, 09:01:54 PM

Quote from: paxmao on January 14, 2024, 08:34:59 PM

Quote from: Hispo on January 14, 2024, 03:39:38 PM

So, a couple of days ago I saw one of the Trump's Lawyers trying to make a case about the presidential legal immunity which alledgely the president has while the performance of his duties. All of it was being discussed in front of judges and it was quite disturbing and unprecedented for the fact Trump's lawyer seemed to question whether the President of the United States could theorically order the execution/assassination of their political rivals (who are as well American residents and Citizens) and not being prosecuted because of his immunity. According to what I understood, it would take the lawmakers of the senate/house to impeach the president for him to be later procesuted of those crimes, otherwise, he would as free as usual when going back into the civil life, after the conclusion of the term.

That is weird, disturbing and unprecedented... Specially scary because no one in the Republican party seems to care about it and nobody dares to call out Trump or his lawyers for even putting such distasteful legal scenario on the table and in front of judges... This kind of stuff will only continue to divide the country, in my opinion.

The theory of full immunity is more complex that it seems at first glance. It is intended to allow the president to take pretty much any action in defence of the country and give orders that ordinarily would be classed as crime, and it also frees him from prosecutions. However, the "impeachment" is not based on the legal aspects, but on a political judgement and this can potentially become a dictatorship by elimination of the opponent since all that is needed is a majoriy.

My personal conclusion is that there has to be a limit to the immunity precisely to protect the system from people like Trump who are fine breaking the system while owning a party.

To be it is clear that there is supposed to be a legal limit to what sitting president is supposed to be allowed to do, regardless he is a president from the United States or other country.
I have red before that the founding fathers of the United States forged the rules and the constitution of the country in a very smart way, but they could not foresee someone like Donald Trump to try to even suggest to misuse the office of the presidency for whatever plans he has. Within the laws or rules of the presidential immunity there would be some article which explicitly states the president of the country cannot target a citizen or a resident with out having some Approbation from a percentage of the senate or at least permission from a judge.

I don't know to what extent he would be actually capable of abusing political power in such disturbing way as his lawyer suggested.

If you want to see misuse of the presidency, just look at all the lives that Biden took by funding Ukraine. Trump only brought about peace.

Of course, the President has limited powers if Congress wants to stop him. He's not a king, you know.

Cool

Biden has used his rights correctly and requested congressional support for the Foreign Policy he has chose to implement, as is his right as elected President. We are back to you really trying to not understand dumBAss - the fact that you do not like something does not make it illegal. Breaking the law does however make it illegal and gets you tens of felony charges.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: Hispo on January 14, 2024, 09:01:54 PM

Quote from: paxmao on January 14, 2024, 08:34:59 PM

Quote from: Hispo on January 14, 2024, 03:39:38 PM

So, a couple of days ago I saw one of the Trump's Lawyers trying to make a case about the presidential legal immunity which alledgely the president has while the performance of his duties. All of it was being discussed in front of judges and it was quite disturbing and unprecedented for the fact Trump's lawyer seemed to question whether the President of the United States could theorically order the execution/assassination of their political rivals (who are as well American residents and Citizens) and not being prosecuted because of his immunity. According to what I understood, it would take the lawmakers of the senate/house to impeach the president for him to be later procesuted of those crimes, otherwise, he would as free as usual when going back into the civil life, after the conclusion of the term.

That is weird, disturbing and unprecedented... Specially scary because no one in the Republican party seems to care about it and nobody dares to call out Trump or his lawyers for even putting such distasteful legal scenario on the table and in front of judges... This kind of stuff will only continue to divide the country, in my opinion.

The theory of full immunity is more complex that it seems at first glance. It is intended to allow the president to take pretty much any action in defence of the country and give orders that ordinarily would be classed as crime, and it also frees him from prosecutions. However, the "impeachment" is not based on the legal aspects, but on a political judgement and this can potentially become a dictatorship by elimination of the opponent since all that is needed is a majoriy.

My personal conclusion is that there has to be a limit to the immunity precisely to protect the system from people like Trump who are fine breaking the system while owning a party.

To be it is clear that there is supposed to be a legal limit to what sitting president is supposed to be allowed to do, regardless he is a president from the United States or other country.
I have red before that the founding fathers of the United States forged the rules and the constitution of the country in a very smart way, but they could not foresee someone like Donald Trump to try to even suggest to misuse the office of the presidency for whatever plans he has. Within the laws or rules of the presidential immunity there would be some article which explicitly states the president of the country cannot target a citizen or a resident with out having some Approbation from a percentage of the senate or at least permission from a judge.

I don't know to what extent he would be actually capable of abusing political power in such disturbing way as his lawyer suggested.

If you want to see misuse of the presidency, just look at all the lives that Biden took by funding Ukraine. Trump only brought about peace.

Of course, the President has limited powers if Congress wants to stop him. He's not a king, you know.

Cool

Hispo

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 2025

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: paxmao on January 14, 2024, 08:34:59 PM

Quote from: Hispo on January 14, 2024, 03:39:38 PM

So, a couple of days ago I saw one of the Trump's Lawyers trying to make a case about the presidential legal immunity which alledgely the president has while the performance of his duties. All of it was being discussed in front of judges and it was quite disturbing and unprecedented for the fact Trump's lawyer seemed to question whether the President of the United States could theorically order the execution/assassination of their political rivals (who are as well American residents and Citizens) and not being prosecuted because of his immunity. According to what I understood, it would take the lawmakers of the senate/house to impeach the president for him to be later procesuted of those crimes, otherwise, he would as free as usual when going back into the civil life, after the conclusion of the term.

That is weird, disturbing and unprecedented... Specially scary because no one in the Republican party seems to care about it and nobody dares to call out Trump or his lawyers for even putting such distasteful legal scenario on the table and in front of judges... This kind of stuff will only continue to divide the country, in my opinion.

The theory of full immunity is more complex that it seems at first glance. It is intended to allow the president to take pretty much any action in defence of the country and give orders that ordinarily would be classed as crime, and it also frees him from prosecutions. However, the "impeachment" is not based on the legal aspects, but on a political judgement and this can potentially become a dictatorship by elimination of the opponent since all that is needed is a majoriy.

My personal conclusion is that there has to be a limit to the immunity precisely to protect the system from people like Trump who are fine breaking the system while owning a party.

To be it is clear that there is supposed to be a legal limit to what sitting president is supposed to be allowed to do, regardless he is a president from the United States or other country.
I have red before that the founding fathers of the United States forged the rules and the constitution of the country in a very smart way, but they could not foresee someone like Donald Trump to try to even suggest to misuse the office of the presidency for whatever plans he has. Within the laws or rules of the presidential immunity there would be some article which explicitly states the president of the country cannot target a citizen or a resident with out having some Approbation from a percentage of the senate or at least permission from a judge.

I don't know to what extent he would be actually capable of abusing political power in such disturbing way as his lawyer suggested.

paxmao

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1575

Do not die for Putin

Quote from: Hispo on January 14, 2024, 03:39:38 PM

So, a couple of days ago I saw one of the Trump's Lawyers trying to make a case about the presidential legal immunity which alledgely the president has while the performance of his duties. All of it was being discussed in front of judges and it was quite disturbing and unprecedented for the fact Trump's lawyer seemed to question whether the President of the United States could theorically order the execution/assassination of their political rivals (who are as well American residents and Citizens) and not being prosecuted because of his immunity. According to what I understood, it would take the lawmakers of the senate/house to impeach the president for him to be later procesuted of those crimes, otherwise, he would as free as usual when going back into the civil life, after the conclusion of the term.

That is weird, disturbing and unprecedented... Specially scary because no one in the Republican party seems to care about it and nobody dares to call out Trump or his lawyers for even putting such distasteful legal scenario on the table and in front of judges... This kind of stuff will only continue to divide the country, in my opinion.

The theory of full immunity is more complex that it seems at first glance. It is intended to allow the president to take pretty much any action in defence of the country and give orders that ordinarily would be classed as crime, and it also frees him from prosecutions. However, the "impeachment" is not based on the legal aspects, but on a political judgement and this can potentially become a dictatorship by elimination of the opponent since all that is needed is a majoriy.

My personal conclusion is that there has to be a limit to the immunity precisely to protect the system from people like Trump who are fine breaking the system while owning a party.

Hispo

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 2025

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

So, a couple of days ago I saw one of the Trump's Lawyers trying to make a case about the presidential legal immunity which alledgely the president has while the performance of his duties. All of it was being discussed in front of judges and it was quite disturbing and unprecedented for the fact Trump's lawyer seemed to question whether the President of the United States could theorically order the execution/assassination of their political rivals (who are as well American residents and Citizens) and not being prosecuted because of his immunity. According to what I understood, it would take the lawmakers of the senate/house to impeach the president for him to be later procesuted of those crimes, otherwise, he would as free as usual when going back into the civil life, after the conclusion of the term.

That is weird, disturbing and unprecedented... Specially scary because no one in the Republican party seems to care about it and nobody dares to call out Trump or his lawyers for even putting such distasteful legal scenario on the table and in front of judges... This kind of stuff will only continue to divide the country, in my opinion.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 2015

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: BADecker on January 07, 2024, 01:29:30 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 07, 2024, 01:03:54 PM

Quote from: BADecker on January 07, 2024, 12:33:02 PM

If Trump or anybody personally breaks the law, let the punishment fit the crime.

What kind of punishment would fit the crime of retaining government documents that are classified at the highest level that included foreign and domestic nuclear secrets, and then refusing to give them back, defying a subpoena for them, and obstructing an investigation into their whereabouts by lying about them, all violations of the espionage act and committed by a civilian after having their security clearance revoked.

Forget it's Trump that did all this. Just in general, what should the punishment be for someone that does this, regardless of any political affiliation.

Squirm away.

There you go, again. Trump hasn't been adjudicated of any wrongdoing in declassifying government docs. Wake up. Even if he is adjudicated to have done something wrong, he is certain to appeal it. It's not over until it's over.

Now, I realize that you are simply asking questions and voicing your opinion in a way that makes it look like you are slandering when you really aren't. Or are you? slandering Trump, I mean?

If you want to see what the punishment has been for people giving away government secrets, simply get over to a law library and find info on Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg. Neither you nor I are close enough to the Trump trials to understand the investigation that has gone into them. There is no way to answer your question without knowing the details.

Cool

Forget about Trump for a second. I know it's hard, but try. Being objective is good.

What kind of punishment do you think would be appropriate for someone who doesn't have any security clearance to keep classified documents (important ones, with Nuclear secrets) at their home, defy a federal subpoena and obstruct the governments attempt to secure them?

Do you think the government should punish civilians that lie to the FBI about highly classified documents (important ones, with Nuclear secrets) in their home after being served with a subpoena?

Remember, don't think about Trump. It shouldn't matter who does it. It could be anyone.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 2015

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

So Trumps fraud trial wrapped up this week in NYC. On deck for next week: Another civil trial in NYC, where a jury will decide if Trump defamed a woman on the very same day (or within a day I think?) that another jury found him liable for defaming her and sexually assaulting her.

That's right, he was found liable for the assault and defamation, ordered to pay millions, and he went right over to CNN and repeated the same lies that he got sued for the first time - and so he got sued again. He also bragged about how the jury did not find him liable for raping her (he didn't mention it was because he used his fingers, and in NY State for it to be rape you gotta use the penis).

Hispo

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 2025

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: DooMAD on January 12, 2024, 11:44:22 AM

Quote from: Hispo on January 11, 2024, 08:58:32 PM

You know. The most bizarre fact about the Trump indictment on the holding of Secret information, is how he could have easily prevented all this criminals allegations from happening to him.
All he had to do was to give back all documents when the people from federal government asked him to do so.

-

I'm of the view that potential candidates should have to sit a test to ensure they don't suffer from sort of chronic personality disorder before they're cleared to run for leadership.

Some may argue it would be against the law or the constitution to have tests for candidates, either because could be some kind of exclusion against certain kinds of personalities or because there could be some bias against the one being tested and the one performing the test.
Anyways, as far as I know there has not been any precedent in the history of the north American Democracy about some presidential candidate being subjected to psychological tests.
Here in my country there are laws which allow such tests to happen but only to sitting presidents whose ability to govern is being questioned by the parliament. If the team of doctors are specialists believe the president is not capable of governing, then he/she is supposed to be removed from the position.
In general terms, I have learnt that in the United States anyone can be a presidential candidate, and Kanye West is a living proof of it. If there is someone needing to be evaluated would be him but it does not happen.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3724

Merit: 3063

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: NotATether on January 12, 2024, 01:18:25 PM

You do know there's two kinds of justice systems in corporate America now, right?

One for the rich and powerful and one for the rest of us.

Trump's trials are a manifestation of the former.

He'll almost certainly get off lighter than he ought to. But if he doesn't face at least some jail time for that many crimes across that many states, then the American Judicial System is a sham.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: DooMAD on January 12, 2024, 11:44:22 AM

Or, better yet, the voting public could stop fawning over dangerous narcissists who were never fit to hold office in the first place. Trump was always going to answer to his ego first and the rules last. You're either with him and what he wants, or you're against him. Morality and law don't enter the equation. What he wants is always "right" and that's as far as the line of thought goes in his brain. That's why he's so adamant that he's innocent. He can't even see why he's wrong. Even now that it's all been spelled out to him over the course of all these court appearances. And it still won't register when he's behind bars either.

You do know there's two kinds of justice systems in corporate America now, right?

One for the rich and powerful and one for the rest of us.

Trump's trials are a manifestation of the former.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3724

Merit: 3063

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: Hispo on January 11, 2024, 08:58:32 PM

You know. The most bizarre fact about the Trump indictment on the holding of Secret information, is how he could have easily prevented all this criminals allegations from happening to him.
All he had to do was to give back all documents when the people from federal government asked him to do so.

Or, better yet, the voting public could stop fawning over dangerous narcissists who were never fit to hold office in the first place. Trump was always going to answer to his ego first and the rules last. You're either with him and what he wants, or you're against him. Morality and law don't enter the equation. What he wants is always "right" and that's as far as the line of thought goes in his brain. That's why he's so adamant that he's innocent. He can't even see why he's wrong. Even now that it's all been spelled out to him over the course of all these court appearances. And it still won't register when he's behind bars either.

I'm of the view that potential candidates should have to sit a test to ensure they don't suffer from sort of chronic personality disorder before they're cleared to run for leadership.

Hispo

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 2025

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: paxmao on January 08, 2024, 07:29:16 PM

Quote from: BADecker on January 07, 2024, 01:29:30 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 07, 2024, 01:03:54 PM

Quote from: BADecker on January 07, 2024, 12:33:02 PM

If Trump or anybody personally breaks the law, let the punishment fit the crime.

What kind of punishment would fit the crime of retaining government documents that are classified at the highest level that included foreign and domestic nuclear secrets, and then refusing to give them back, defying a subpoena for them, and obstructing an investigation into their whereabouts by lying about them, all violations of the espionage act and committed by a civilian after having their security clearance revoked.

Forget it's Trump that did all this. Just in general, what should the punishment be for someone that does this, regardless of any political affiliation.

Squirm away.

There you go, again. Trump hasn't been adjudicated of any wrongdoing in declassifying government docs. Wake up. Even if he is adjudicated to have done something wrong, he is certain to appeal it. It's not over until it's over.

Now, I realize that you are simply asking questions and voicing your opinion in a way that makes it look like you are slandering when you really aren't. Or are you? slandering Trump, I mean?

If you want to see what the punishment has been for people giving away government secrets, simply get over to a law library and find info on Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg. Neither you nor I are close enough to the Trump trials to understand the investigation that has gone into them. There is no way to answer your question without knowing the details.

Cool

Trump has been effectively indicted of 42 counts regarding the classified documents case.

Quote

32 counts of willfully retaining national defense information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e))
5 counts of obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1512)
1 count of interfering with a federal investigation (18 U.S.C § 1519)
4 counts of making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a))

In your view, if he is guilty, what should be the punishment? This is a very simple question you are being asked... have you got an answer or another excuse?

If you ask me, if the Rossembergs were killed by the US government on a simple declaration by Ethel's brother - in fact for nothing proven, then I do not see why Trump, who send people to assault the Capitol and killed several people, should not be given the needle.

Quote

In June 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for conspiracy to commit espionage under the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917. Members of the communist party, the Rosenbergs were convicted of passing secret information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union in 1945.

You know. The most bizarre fact about the Trump indictment on the holding of Secret information, is how he could have easily prevented all this criminals allegations from happening to him.
All he had to do was to give back all documents when the people from federal government asked him to do so.
It is completely out of the character of a president of former president to illegally hold that amount of classified documents in that way and assume no one is going to care or seek for them.

The defense he has wield ranges from not actually being aware of those documents being in his property to actually being aware of them but saying he has the right to have them. Pretty wacky stuff, not proper for a country like the United States.

paxmao

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1575

Do not die for Putin

Quote from: BADecker on January 07, 2024, 01:29:30 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 07, 2024, 01:03:54 PM

Quote from: BADecker on January 07, 2024, 12:33:02 PM

If Trump or anybody personally breaks the law, let the punishment fit the crime.

What kind of punishment would fit the crime of retaining government documents that are classified at the highest level that included foreign and domestic nuclear secrets, and then refusing to give them back, defying a subpoena for them, and obstructing an investigation into their whereabouts by lying about them, all violations of the espionage act and committed by a civilian after having their security clearance revoked.

Forget it's Trump that did all this. Just in general, what should the punishment be for someone that does this, regardless of any political affiliation.

Squirm away.

There you go, again. Trump hasn't been adjudicated of any wrongdoing in declassifying government docs. Wake up. Even if he is adjudicated to have done something wrong, he is certain to appeal it. It's not over until it's over.

Now, I realize that you are simply asking questions and voicing your opinion in a way that makes it look like you are slandering when you really aren't. Or are you? slandering Trump, I mean?

If you want to see what the punishment has been for people giving away government secrets, simply get over to a law library and find info on Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg. Neither you nor I are close enough to the Trump trials to understand the investigation that has gone into them. There is no way to answer your question without knowing the details.

Cool

Trump has been effectively indicted of 42 counts regarding the classified documents case.

Quote

32 counts of willfully retaining national defense information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e))
5 counts of obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1512)
1 count of interfering with a federal investigation (18 U.S.C § 1519)
4 counts of making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a))

In your view, if he is guilty, what should be the punishment? This is a very simple question you are being asked... have you got an answer or another excuse?

If you ask me, if the Rossembergs were killed by the US government on a simple declaration by Ethel's brother - in fact for nothing proven, then I do not see why Trump, who send people to assault the Capitol and killed several people, should not be given the needle.

Quote

In June 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for conspiracy to commit espionage under the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917. Members of the communist party, the Rosenbergs were convicted of passing secret information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union in 1945.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 07, 2024, 01:03:54 PM

Quote from: BADecker on January 07, 2024, 12:33:02 PM

If Trump or anybody personally breaks the law, let the punishment fit the crime.

What kind of punishment would fit the crime of retaining government documents that are classified at the highest level that included foreign and domestic nuclear secrets, and then refusing to give them back, defying a subpoena for them, and obstructing an investigation into their whereabouts by lying about them, all violations of the espionage act and committed by a civilian after having their security clearance revoked.

Forget it's Trump that did all this. Just in general, what should the punishment be for someone that does this, regardless of any political affiliation.

Squirm away.

There you go, again. Trump hasn't been adjudicated of any wrongdoing in declassifying government docs. Wake up. Even if he is adjudicated to have done something wrong, he is certain to appeal it. It's not over until it's over.

Now, I realize that you are simply asking questions and voicing your opinion in a way that makes it look like you are slandering when you really aren't. Or are you? slandering Trump, I mean?

If you want to see what the punishment has been for people giving away government secrets, simply get over to a law library and find info on Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg. Neither you nor I are close enough to the Trump trials to understand the investigation that has gone into them. There is no way to answer your question without knowing the details.

Cool

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 2015

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: BADecker on January 07, 2024, 12:33:02 PM

If Trump or anybody personally breaks the law, let the punishment fit the crime.

What kind of punishment would fit the crime of retaining government documents that are classified at the highest level that included foreign and domestic nuclear secrets, and then refusing to give them back, defying a subpoena for them, and obstructing an investigation into their whereabouts by lying about them, all violations of the espionage act and committed by a civilian after having their security clearance revoked.

Forget it's Trump that did all this. Just in general, what should the punishment be for someone that does this, regardless of any political affiliation.

Squirm away.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1368

Quote from: paxmao on January 07, 2024, 06:36:08 AM

Quote from: Hispo on January 07, 2024, 12:01:21 AM

Quote from: Vod on January 06, 2024, 10:29:19 AM

In his speech, Trump seemed to be making excuses for his 2024 loss already. A lot of hate in that person.

Not only hate, he has something more dangerous within him himself and that is a complete disregard for the future of the politics in the United States and democracy in that country. If he cared at least a bit, then he would have realized he is undermining the trust people have on elections and that may continue to hurt the country, even after he steps down his political career, but no.
Besides of that, I would have not expected Trump to start to make excuses for the posibility of him being defeated, because he seems to have a good chance to actually get his second term in the White House. It makes me wonder whether he actually believes he could lose because he won't have the support of the moderates or he just wants to further fearmonger his followers into the election fraud theories.
Regardless of it, he has said a little bit of everything in his speeches, being amount the worst the way he mocked the husband of Nancy Pelosi after being brutally attacked with the hammer. Not the kind of stuff one is supposed to find in serious politics, to be honest.

As said, does any of this not match the main characteristics of a Narcissistic Personality disorder? I can break the law because it is me, I can threaten and harass my political opponents (please not that Nacy Pelosi's husband, in his 80s, was attacked at his own home!) and anyone criticising is (underline those applicable: deep-state, crooked, Chinesse, anti-USA, wrong, corrupted, democrat,...) The law has to be changed to favour me, ... If something goes wrong is never my fault is because (deep-state, democrats, judges, ...) are against me.

I mean ... textbook + a bit of other diagnosable mental health issues in the pot. The type of personality that attracts moths like dumBAss.

On the moderate support, look, the problem is not Trump, the problem is that Republicans have been kidnapped by trump for several years and unfortunately candidates not endorsed by his have mostly lost. There is no "moderation" there is simply desire to grab the Presidency to ban abortion, try to stop migration flows and go on with the protectionist + low tax agenda.

On the other hand, I see Trump as a high-risk candidate. I wonder why the donors have not chosen another horse already - no fan of conspiracies, but there are parts missing in the puzzle.

Your problem is that you don't have a leg to stand on... except maybe your mouth, and the desire for corruption.

If Trump or anybody personally breaks the law, let the punishment fit the crime. So far, the only thing Trump has been convicted of is doing good as President. So, everything you say is slander. And why is it slander? Because you like to see Ukrainian soldiers killed off, and the Ukrainian population reduced that way.

Look at Trump's record in the Presidency. It's peace and prosperity. Then look at what Biden started doing the first day of his presidency. He nullified a whole bunch of Trump's good things. Because of it, we see maybe 600,000 Ukrainian and Russian soldiers killed and maimed. And you seem to like it that way.

By the same standards that you judge Trump (without findings of guilt), you are calling yourself a murderer... and accomplice to the murdering that the Biden Team and the Dems have done by sending $billions to Ukraine

Cool

paxmao

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1575

Do not die for Putin

Quote from: Hispo on January 07, 2024, 12:01:21 AM

Quote from: Vod on January 06, 2024, 10:29:19 AM

In his speech, Trump seemed to be making excuses for his 2024 loss already. A lot of hate in that person.

Not only hate, he has something more dangerous within him himself and that is a complete disregard for the future of the politics in the United States and democracy in that country. If he cared at least a bit, then he would have realized he is undermining the trust people have on elections and that may continue to hurt the country, even after he steps down his political career, but no.
Besides of that, I would have not expected Trump to start to make excuses for the posibility of him being defeated, because he seems to have a good chance to actually get his second term in the White House. It makes me wonder whether he actually believes he could lose because he won't have the support of the moderates or he just wants to further fearmonger his followers into the election fraud theories.
Regardless of it, he has said a little bit of everything in his speeches, being amount the worst the way he mocked the husband of Nancy Pelosi after being brutally attacked with the hammer. Not the kind of stuff one is supposed to find in serious politics, to be honest.

As said, does any of this not match the main characteristics of a Narcissistic Personality disorder? I can break the law because it is me, I can threaten and harass my political opponents (please not that Nacy Pelosi's husband, in his 80s, was attacked at his own home!) and anyone criticising is (underline those applicable: deep-state, crooked, Chinesse, anti-USA, wrong, corrupted, democrat,...) The law has to be changed to favour me, ... If something goes wrong is never my fault is because (deep-state, democrats, judges, ...) are against me.

I mean ... textbook + a bit of other diagnosable mental health issues in the pot. The type of personality that attracts moths like dumBAss.

On the moderate support, look, the problem is not Trump, the problem is that Republicans have been kidnapped by trump for several years and unfortunately candidates not endorsed by his have mostly lost. There is no "moderation" there is simply desire to grab the Presidency to ban abortion, try to stop migration flows and go on with the protectionist + low tax agenda.

On the other hand, I see Trump as a high-risk candidate. I wonder why the donors have not chosen another horse already - no fan of conspiracies, but there are parts missing in the puzzle.

Hispo

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 2025

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Vod on January 06, 2024, 10:29:19 AM

In his speech, Trump seemed to be making excuses for his 2024 loss already. A lot of hate in that person.

Not only hate, he has something more dangerous within him himself and that is a complete disregard for the future of the politics in the United States and democracy in that country. If he cared at least a bit, then he would have realized he is undermining the trust people have on elections and that may continue to hurt the country, even after he steps down his political career, but no.
Besides of that, I would have not expected Trump to start to make excuses for the posibility of him being defeated, because he seems to have a good chance to actually get his second term in the White House. It makes me wonder whether he actually believes he could lose because he won't have the support of the moderates or he just wants to further fearmonger his followers into the election fraud theories.
Regardless of it, he has said a little bit of everything in his speeches, being amount the worst the way he mocked the husband of Nancy Pelosi after being brutally attacked with the hammer. Not the kind of stuff one is supposed to find in serious politics, to be honest.

paxmao

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1575

Do not die for Putin

Quote from: Vod on January 06, 2024, 10:29:19 AM

In his speech, Trump seemed to be making excuses for his 2024 loss already. A lot of hate in that person.

Some of us still remember that he was saying that he would not accept any result in the previous elections other than a win. And accept he did not indeed.

It is a textbook example of a Narcissist Personality disorder: unable to accept critic, will go into aggression mode towards anyone challenging him. Everything he does is "the biggest, the greatest, the what-ever-est of all times". When he fails, breaks the law or is in trouble, it is not ever because he fuck*ed up, it is because "XYZ excuse".

He is not making a excuse, he is a miserable excuse from implanted hair to polished thumbnail.

Quote from: BADecker on January 05, 2024, 02:25:12 PM

Quote from: paxmao on January 05, 2024, 09:32:22 AM

Quote from: BADecker on January 01, 2024, 06:18:12 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 01, 2024, 03:44:41 PM

Quote from: BADecker on January 01, 2024, 03:22:53 PM

The jury did this...

Bundy Brothers Acquitted in Takeover of Oregon Wildlife Refuge - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Bundy+Brothers+Acquitted+in+Takeover+of+Oregon+Wildlife+Refuge&ia=web.

So, for whatever laws the Bundy brothers and their accomplices broke, the Jury struck these laws down in their cases.

This does not mean that the next time they did it, that the juries would act the same way. It also does not mean that the juries would act the same way for other people.

What it shows is that here is a start towards a certain precedent. If more juries acted this way, government might change the laws or repeal them.

If you get into reading American case law, you will find that juries have done this kind of thing all over the place... including reversing 'debts' owed so that the other side owed the money.

Cool

Actually these laws still exist:

Quote

"conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States"; one count of "conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer"; four counts of "using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence"; two counts of "assault on a federal officer"; two counts of "threatening a federal law enforcement officer"; three counts of "obstruction of the due administration of justice"; two counts of "interference with interstate commerce by extortion"; and one count of "interstate travel in aid of extortion."

And the judge dismissed the charges before the jury even began deliberations.

Try again.

One single example of a law being struck down by a jury.

You're a rather strange one, TS. You know that juries rule in court, yet you try to hide that you know. Why? Are you an attorney who realizes that if people found out about it, you just might lose a bunch of clients? Or are you in a position where you have to play devil's advocate because of what your 'companions' might think of you?

Anyway, the court cases are open to anybody who wants to go and look at them. There are many law libraries that have loads of court cases where juries made the decisions in ways they wanted, rather than what the judge wanted.

Cool

Just answer dumBAss, you do not have any example of any law being struck down by a jury. He is not strange, he is asking for a proof you cannot provide because you have lied.

The sad truth is that you want Trump to be judged by a jury and then having the Trump mobsters threatening, and bullying the judge, the jury and possibly even the relator and the Trump controlled media ranting over the judge so that it becomes impossible to have a trial and the people are afraid of giving a honest guilty verdict.

Now why in the world do you want me to show you some court cases? You wouldn't believe them anyway, just like you don't seem to believe much of anything I say. I DID show you the Bundy brothers' case. But you obviously don't believe it. Do your own research.

Everything you say is insignificant. Why? Because you sit over there, and you don't know how things work in America.
...

dumBAss, provide any proof that you are actually American (meaning an US citizen) or shut up about the topic, because your line of posting seems pretty much what a Chinese troll would be saying to weaken and divide the US.

Again, you are not answering because you are lying. Juries do not "strike down laws" and you barely can tell your thumb from your teeth, so do not bother saying that "others do not understand" - It is just way out of your personal possibilities.

Meanwhile, Trump's trials progress and March & April are going to be busy dates for Trump and likely for the supreme court. Until now, no judge has disputed the fact that Trump engaged in insurrection.

Topic: Publicly held Trump trials - ongoing - page 8. (Read 3879 times)