[Action80]

They are held up to be "presidential candidates."

[markjo]

Its actually more likely that Trump is running only to avoid prosecution, not the other way around.

So. now you are claiming there is established  legal precedent that a candidate running for the office of POTUS is exempt from prosecution?

Serious question, and I truly mean this: Have you lost your mind?

*sigh*
Trump is claiming that 4 felony trials will interfere with his election campaign so he wants to delay the trials until after the election that he's hoping to win so that he can't be prosecuted as a sitting president.  But I'm sure that you already know this.

Personally, I think that the justice system should be weaponized to keep people like Trump who are unfit to hold office from being able to be elected to office.  Then again, section 3 of the 14th amendment may have already taken care of that.

[juner]

When Hillary ran for office. I voted for Trump, even though I knew him to be a lifelong democrat, shitbag, because I knew that Hillary was an even BIGGER, democrat shitbag.

Based.

Personally, I think that the justice system should be weaponized

Opinion disregarded after this part...

Also imagine making Secret Service agents live in prison with Trump until he croaks. Talk about a constitutional crisis. Anyway, two more weeks.

[Lord Dave]

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters, so it's not surprising that prosecuting him also won't dissuade his voters. Thankfully, that was never the purpose of prosecuting him.

Horseshit, if Trump wasn't running for president, there would be no prosecution, period, end of sentence.

You know it.

God knows it.

All god's children know it.

Trump's supporters trusting him more than their own friends and families is sad and pathetic, but again, not surprising.

Mara lago raid: August 2022
Trump announces re-election: November 2022.

Its actually more likely that Trump is running only to avoid prosecution, not the other way around.

So. now you are claiming there is established  legal precedent that a candidate running for the office of POTUS is exempt from prosecution?

Serious question, and I truly mean this: Have you lost your mind?

I did not claim that.
He wants to be president to avoid persecution.

Also, Trump is literally making that argument, using the fact that he's a candidate to claim prejudice.  Exactly like you did.   You literally said he wouldn't have been persecuted if he wasn't a candidate.  Thats what Trump wants you to think so he can rile his base.

[Lord Dave]

And while many dems want him out (myself included) I'll take him over Trump.  Which is what all democrats will do.

That's not how the general population works though. If there is an unpopular candidate on their side they just won't vote. Only the political left votes "blue no matter who".

The right does as well.  Look at how many swallowed a Trump vote to avoid Hillary?

[Action80]

Its actually more likely that Trump is running only to avoid prosecution, not the other way around.

So. now you are claiming there is established  legal precedent that a candidate running for the office of POTUS is exempt from prosecution?

Serious question, and I truly mean this: Have you lost your mind?

*sigh*
Trump is claiming that 4 felony trials will interfere with his election campaign so he wants to delay the trials until after the election that he's hoping to win so that he can't be prosecuted as a sitting president.  But I'm sure that you already know this.

Personally, I think that the justice system should be weaponized to keep people like Trump who are unfit to hold office from being able to be elected to office.  Then again, section 3 of the 14th amendment may have already taken care of that.

*sigh*

Must be some of those simple, markjo physics causing you to write this malarkey...

They are really interfering with the campaign...[/sarcasm] The indictments were brought while he wasn't president and as you pointed out, you believe he committed an act of insurrection, negating your entire postulate.

Never mind no act of insurrection ever occurred to begin with in this case...

[Action80]

I did not claim that.
He wants to be president to avoid persecution.

Also, Trump is literally making that argument, using the fact that he's a candidate to claim prejudice.  Exactly like you did.   You literally said he wouldn't have been persecuted if he wasn't a candidate.  Thats what Trump wants you to think so he can rile his base.

What Trump wants me to believe makes no difference.

Even if he wasn't a candidate, the language in these indictments clearly demonstrates them to be clear attacks on the First Amendment rights of all American citizens.

[Lord Dave]

I did not claim that.
He wants to be president to avoid persecution.

Also, Trump is literally making that argument, using the fact that he's a candidate to claim prejudice.  Exactly like you did.   You literally said he wouldn't have been persecuted if he wasn't a candidate.  Thats what Trump wants you to think so he can rile his base.

What Trump wants me to believe makes no difference.

Even if he wasn't a candidate, the language in these indictments clearly demonstrates them to be clear attacks on the First Amendment rights of all American citizens.

Well, yeah.  Thats the point, dipshit.
By indicting Trump in having top secret documents and talking about them, we restrict the first amendment right of freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.

I'm all in favor of whiny bitches being told to shut up instead of being allowed to complain to the government.

[Action80]

I did not claim that.
He wants to be president to avoid persecution.

Also, Trump is literally making that argument, using the fact that he's a candidate to claim prejudice.  Exactly like you did.   You literally said he wouldn't have been persecuted if he wasn't a candidate.  Thats what Trump wants you to think so he can rile his base.

What Trump wants me to believe makes no difference.

Even if he wasn't a candidate, the language in these indictments clearly demonstrates them to be clear attacks on the First Amendment rights of all American citizens.

Well, yeah.  Thats the point, dipshit.
By indicting Trump in having top secret documents and talking about them, we restrict the first amendment right of freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.

I'm all in favor of whiny bitches being told to shut up instead of being allowed to complain to the government.

Good!

STFU!!!

[Lord Dave]

I did not claim that.
He wants to be president to avoid persecution.

Also, Trump is literally making that argument, using the fact that he's a candidate to claim prejudice.  Exactly like you did.   You literally said he wouldn't have been persecuted if he wasn't a candidate.  Thats what Trump wants you to think so he can rile his base.

What Trump wants me to believe makes no difference.

Even if he wasn't a candidate, the language in these indictments clearly demonstrates them to be clear attacks on the First Amendment rights of all American citizens.

Well, yeah.  Thats the point, dipshit.
By indicting Trump in having top secret documents and talking about them, we restrict the first amendment right of freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.

I'm all in favor of whiny bitches being told to shut up instead of being allowed to complain to the government.

Good!

STFU!!!

You first.

[honk]

You guys know that you don't actually have to post if all you're going to do is sling insults? Anyway:

Trump could be caught on camera molesting a child and it wouldn't dissuade his voters, so it's not surprising that prosecuting him also won't dissuade his voters. Thankfully, that was never the purpose of prosecuting him.

Horseshit, if Trump wasn't running for president, there would be no prosecution, period, end of sentence.

You know it.

God knows it.

All god's children know it.

Why? What exactly is the benefit of prosecuting Trump in purely political terms? It doesn't stop him from running. It doesn't make him less popular. It doesn't shake the faith of his supporters - entirely the opposite. And it gives him an excuse to play the victim and a whole new crowd-pleasing topic he can bring up at debates and rallies. If anything, being prosecuted is an advantage for Trump politically. So why would the establishment try to prosecute Trump if it's accomplishing the exact opposite of what they want? Hell, why would they keep on doing it with each new indictment when they can clearly see that the previous ones haven't worked?

There's also a common corollary to this sentiment that suggests that the timing of these indictments is suspect, and that rather than being worked on for years by prosecutors, they were actually just quickly fabricated and whipped out of the establishment's ass in response to Trump taking the lead in the race. But this logic doesn't really hold up if you think about it at all. If you suppose that the establishment has the luxury of getting to pick and choose when to present these indictments, then doing it when Trump is enormously popular among Republicans and well on his way to capturing the nomination is the exact worst time they could have chosen. It would have made far more sense to indict Trump when his popularity and sway among Republicans was at its lowest - for example, after last year's midterms, when Republicans blamed him for their losses and many of them publicly started talking about washing their hands of him and embracing DeSantis instead.

[Action80]

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

[beardo]

Trump was elected today. He is inevitable.

[honk]

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

That's not what we were talking about, but in any case, it's not true. Trump isn't being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech, or for saying that he believes that the election was stolen. His alleged crimes involved speech, but so do many crimes. Is it an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute a mob boss who orders a hit? To prosecute a blackmailer who threatens to reveal damaging information about someone? To prosecute a spy who passes classified information to someone he knows isn't cleared for it? Likewise, it's not an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute Trump for asking other people to rig the election in his favor, nor for illegally retaining classified documents and showing them to people he knew weren't cleared for it.

[ichoosereality]

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

That's not what we were talking about, but in any case, it's not true. Trump isn't being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech, or for saying that he believes that the election was stolen. His alleged crimes involved speech, but so do many crimes. Is it an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute a mob boss who orders a hit? To prosecute a blackmailer who threatens to reveal damaging information about someone? To prosecute a spy who passes classified information to someone he knows isn't cleared for it? Likewise, it's not an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute Trump for asking other people to rig the election in his favor, nor for illegally retaining classified documents and showing them to people he knew weren't cleared for it.

Exactly.  Trump exorcised his right to contest  the election.  He went to court 62 times, losing 61 and his single victory did not change any outcome. He went to the supreme court twice and they declined to hear the cases since he offered no evidence of his claims.   There were multiple recounts in multiple states including Trump's own wacky cyber-ninja thing in Arizona and all of it came back with the same result of no systemic issues with Trump losing and Biden winning fair and square.  Its what he did after all that failed to change anything which has lead to his election related indictments (his indictments around false accounting to cover up payments to a pron star and the classified docs case do not involve the election).

[markjo]

Hmm...  Looks like the 14th Amendment might get its day in court after all.

A lawyer from Palm Beach County has filed one of the first legal challenges to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential race under a clause in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Boynton Beach tax attorney Lawrence Caplan filed the challenge in federal court in the Southern District of Florida citing the amendment's "disqualification clause" for those who engage in insurrections and rebellion against the United States.

[honk]

I'm skeptical on that line of argument. I don't think a judge can just take it upon themselves to officially declare that Trump has taken part in an insurrection or rebellion without him first being convicted of something similar in court. I guess we'll see what happens.

[ichoosereality]

This seems like an issue that should go directly to the US Supreme Court.

[Action80]

Again, it is to the benefit of the establishment if any of these cases are successful, as each is a fundamental attack on the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the actual target of progressives.

That's not what we were talking about, but in any case, it's not true. Trump isn't being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech, or for saying that he believes that the election was stolen. His alleged crimes involved speech, but so do many crimes. Is it an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute a mob boss who orders a hit? To prosecute a blackmailer who threatens to reveal damaging information about someone? To prosecute a spy who passes classified information to someone he knows isn't cleared for it? Likewise, it's not an attack on freedom of speech to prosecute Trump for asking other people to rig the election in his favor, nor for illegally retaining classified documents and showing them to people he knew weren't cleared for it.

Well, that is what I am talking about. Trump is being prosecuted for exercising freedom of speech.

He hasn't ordered a hit on anyone, he hasn't passed classified information to anyone, he never asked anyone to rig an election in his favor, and he never illegally retained classified documents.

This whole thing is a farce.

[AATW]

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation. It’s a common misconception, that.