Lock him up! CNN reports Trump to be indicted

What was subjective in Champs post?

 

Other banana republics that have prosecuted former presidents …

 

How about, please comply with the law? No? Well … pretty please? No, well, here’s a subpoena, now you have to comply. No, well, now we are going to make you comply. Hold on, you lied to us about compliance and moved documents to hide them from us? Then we will come to your home to seize the documents. Wait, you hid them from us again? And did so in unsecured storage areas where documents are just littered in the floor?

Time to charge you…

 

All he had to do was give the documents back and all would’ve been forgiven. It’s like they did it on purpose for the sole purpose of creating this disruption, expense, and potential jail time to gain the nomination.

 

Exactly!! When you read the indictment, it is a storyboard of obstreperous, deliberate noncompliance, followed up with obstructionist defalcations.

I’ve asked before, but what was the government supposed to do when faced with the litany of FUs from Trump.

 

The government gave him every opportunity to fix it, but he was that petulant child whose mother would say “No you can’t have a cookie. Put down that cookie jar. You better not take any cookies. Put that cookie down. You better not put that cookie in your mouth.” Then finally WHACK across the bottom before the tears start to flow.

 

Incorrect. I think if you participate in big time politics, you can expect to have a proctoscope applied to your life and business. This is a disincentive to run a criminal for office, one the RNC chose to ignore in the case of Trump.

 

The difference is they never actually found anything on the Clinton foundation, all you have is Republican mythos like that the foundation paid for Chelsea Clinton’s wedding. Whereas we are well aware of numerous Trump crimes committed right out in the open. It’s just a matter of prosecuting them.

I view the Clinton foundation like I view Trumps IRS records. There’s probably something there, I’m sure they used it to reward friends and such by putting them in jobs or donating to their favored charities, but they can’t nail down anything illegal (of course I’m more confident that Trump is a criminal here too, because of his general disregard for the law, but until there is a case for money laundering or tax evasion it’s nothing but assumptions/speculation). I would assume “good lawyering” just keeps them both inside the confines of the law even where their actions are shady, but that’s the thing with Trump, he is often times so ridiculous and so brazen about NOT respecting the law the inclination is to assume the opposite.

Which brings us to this records case. There is no speculation. Trump did it. Worse, even when caught he continued the crime. He had the opportunity to simply return the documents, but instead he committed more crimes in furtherance of his original issue. He lied to his own damn lawyers and had some poor stooge move the documents to hide them from his own lawyers. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.

 

Champs suggested that the Clinton foundation is a completely legitimate enterprise, while Trump is in actuality a criminal. By their nature, these claims must be judgements. I am ok if we want to take the pragmatic step of defining truth as those judgements on which we all agree, but clearly we do not have universal agreement on these two claims. Many on the right still believe that the Clinton foundation was a front and that Trump didn’t really do anything out of the ordinary. How do we know what is true if people on the right see one reality and those on the left see another?

 

If we didn't have the evidence of the last seven years including the FBI raid itself, I would be with you. And I do believe in this presumption of fair play by law enforcement.

We've just seen too much in regards to Trump over the last 7 years.

 

Clinton’s foundation was investigated fore at least four years under trumps administration with nothing found. Claiming both-sidisms makes your argument weak in this particular case. I am not calling your point weak, just weakly argued in this case.

 

I don't think that's accurate. I think most right wingers either a) believe Trump is probably guilty but it's selective prosecution by political party or b) they refuse to read the indictment and just think it's a witch hunt.

 

I agree with you 100%. Welcome into the light.

 

Yes, you’ve identified what I think should be the deciding factor: Finding prosecutable evidence.

Now it could be that the only reason that this evidence was found for Trump and not the Clintons is because of a systemic left leaning bias in the justice system. Even though we can’t rule this out with 100% certainty, I am still uncomfortable with the claim, because it’s basically unfalsifiable. Once one decides that the justice system can’t be trusted, it doesn’t just cast doubt on the charges against Trump but all charges against everyone. At that point, we’ve basically created an epistemological anarchy, where it’s just as likely that Clinton eats babies as Trump is secretly Elvis taking orders from lizard people.

 

The stakes here are a little higher than that, even though there's a lot of truth to this analogy.

In the end, it comes down to the fact that we shouldn't want elections decided by the Justice Department targeting their black sheep.

 

As a general rule, I think the justice system can be trusted. In regards to Trump, I think there is clear evidence of internal bias against Trump in the FBI (Peter Strzok and Lisa Page), and motive for resentment towards Trump by both Merrick Garland and Joe Biden.

Pair all of that with the Clinton investigation comparisons and the fact that Biden himself is being investigated for the same thing, and it has to be enough to raise some eyebrows.

Doesn't have to be a premise or conclusion you agree with, but you have to admit there's some evidence of prejudice there.

 

I thought we we talking subjective versus objective. Did you lose sight of the thought train?

 

Translation
Weaponization of the justice system - Treating a former president and current presidential candidate the same as any other person accused of the same crimes based on similar facts or in other words not treating him as if he was above the law.

It should also be noted that the other announced Republican presidential candidates with the exception of Asa Hutchinson as well as almost all Republican officeholders who addressed the subject used the "W word" when the indictment of Trump was announced but before it was unsealed.

 

And just for clarity, I agree and respect your point of objectivity

 

Seems to be confirmed through the one poll taken after the indictment was announced.

CBS News Poll: After Trump indictment, most see security risk, but Republicans see politics