Are Republican's claims valid that Trump's indictment is 'political'?

[tahuyaman]

Of course Trump's indictment is political. You have to be a special kind of retarded not to understand that.

Of course it is. The pursuit of Trump has been political
Since he announced his candidacy in 2015.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It does not matter if the indictment is over campaign funds or private funds being used to pay hush money.
Both are perfectly legal.
And any relevant law is federal, not state.

Not if you falsify business records.

There is no legal means by which the "statue of limitation" can ever be "put on hold" just because someone is frequently "gone from the state for long periods".

Yes there is.

The only purpose of the actual law is to allow those who escaped prosecution by fleeing, to be later prosecuted if they are later captured.
The amount of time a person is out of state, is legally irrelevant.

That isn't the only purpose.

You seem to be about 3 weeks or so behind on your talking points. Did you take a vacation?

 

[Dadoalex]

You sound stupid.

Sound?
So you read this out loud?
The , obviously, it's you that sounds stupid.
But then, we already knew that.

 

[konradv]

I suggest that such claims by Republicans, itself, is political. It certainly gives Republicans, many of whom, privately, have expressed their dislike of Trump, while publically either being indifferent or approving of him, the claims of 'political' give Republicans a political advantage if they succeed in convincing a large swath of the electorate that the claim is true.

But is it true? Let's take a deep dive (and please, those with short attention spans are not invited).

The recent indictment of former President Donald Trump on over 30 counts of crimes has brought to light once again the problematic claim of Republicans that this is a political move. This claim conveniently ignores the numerous examples of hypocrisy in their own actions, such as their investigations into Hunter Biden and current President Joe Biden, both of whom have not been indicted for any crimes in which there is one salient and glaring fact: Rep. Comer's investigation, when assigned to the task, his committee was investigating Jared Kushner, which he stalled in favor of investigating Hunter Biden (but the target of the investigation, as admitted by Comer, is Joe Biden), and to date, their 'memo' does not actually prove any illegal activity by the 'Biden family', a characterization which, though intended to imply, does not include include Joe Biden

Moreover, this claim also overlooks the fact that Trump's own family members, including Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, have benefited from their connections to foreign officials, which could potentially constitute conflicts of interest and unethical behavior.

Let us first examine the claims made by Republicans that Trump's indictment is politically motivated. While it is true that politics can play a role in legal proceedings, it is important to note that the evidence presented against Trump is extensive and has been gathered over several years by multiple investigators. It is also worth mentioning that the indictments were issued by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which is not a partisan entity and has a long history of impartiality.

Contrast this with the Republican-led investigations into Hunter Biden, who is not, nor has he ever been, a public official. These investigations seem to have been motivated purely by political gain and have not resulted in any criminal charges being brought against Biden. It is also worth noting that Joe Biden himself has not been indicted for any crimes, despite the intense scrutiny he has faced from Republicans.

However, the hypocrisy of the Republicans does not end there. Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, held a senior advisory position in the White House and reportedly received $2 billion from Mohammed Bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. This payment was allegedly made in exchange for soft treatment by the Trump White House, and Bin Salman himself is suspected of involvement in the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Similarly, Ivanka Trump also held a senior advisory position in the White House and received accelerated trademarks worth millions from China. These trademarks allowed her to sell products to the tune of millions in profits while her father was negotiating with China on a trade deal.

It is difficult to argue that these actions by Kushner and Ivanka Trump do not constitute conflicts of interest and potentially unethical behavior. Yet, Republicans have largely ignored these examples of possible corruption within their own party.

In conclusion, the Republican claim that Trump's indictment is politically motivated is problematic and ignores the extensive evidence gathered against him. Moreover, it highlights the hypocrisy of their investigations into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, who have not been indicted for any crimes given that no evidence has ever been forthcoming (though plenty of implication and innuendo), while ignoring the potential conflicts of interest and unethical behavior of their own party members, such as Kushner and Ivanka Trump. It is important for us to hold all public officials, regardless of party affiliation, accountable for their actions and to demand transparency and integrity in our political system.

One or two might be political, but the number of cases that are in the works now seems to indicate a pattern of criminality that in normal times would see him ostracized from the political system. Nixon resigned over less, IMO.

 

[tahuyaman]

Sound?
So you read this out loud?
The , obviously, it's you that sounds stupid.
But then, we already knew that.

Ok. You make yourself look stupid. Is that better?

 

[Dadoalex]

Ok. You make yourself look stupid. Is that better?

There's that mirror again my little monkey boy.

 

[Rigby5]

Money laundering/.

Wrong.
Laundering is where the source or destination of the money is falsified in order to hide it.
What I am referring to is laying so that individuals gain the protection of a larger financial entity, without anything being at all hidden.

 

[Rigby5]

Money laundering ? Who’s using LLC’s to cover up corruption? Let me think about that for a minute.

LLCs can't hide anything.
All they can do is limit who can get sued if something goes wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

You should rush out and tell the courts. They seem to have a different opinion.

The NY prosecutor likely is pushing a fake case in order to bias the election.
There is no legal basis for it.

 

[Rigby5]

Numerous Trump Staff used private email servers.
What people might do if they could is not a cause of action prosecutable. It could be predication for investigation.

Wrong.
It is perfectly legal for Trump staff to use any email they want.
But Hillary was Sec of State, and was supposed to follow the laws that mandated her to use state dept email servers, in order to satisfy FOIA.

 

[Rigby5]

Iraq was a bipartisan affair, but it was Bush & Co who did the bamboozling of congress and the US people.
You're beating a dead horse. After four years, no indictment. How many 'illegal' ops have been ordered by Presidents since time began? Hell, in Trump's first week in office, Trump got a soldier killed. During Bush, there were 13 attacks on US embassies and some 60 persons killed.

Shit happens. but nothing compares to the crimes of Trump.

I disagree.
Bush never had any influence on Congress to authorize the war.
That was done entirely by Hillary and Kerry, and they had to know the CIA was lying, because every other country in the world except Britain, said Saddam had no WMD.

You seemed to totally miss the point about Benghazi, in that it was a totally secret and illegal war she was conducting on her own, against Assad and other Mideast leaders.

This has nothing to do with who "got a soldier killed".
It is about illegal secret wars that murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

And it is bogus to claim Trump did any thing remotely similar.
He did not start a single war.
Nor is there a single crime that can be attributed to Trump.
I do not like Trumps politics, but he is squeaky clean compared to Hillary.

 

[Rigby5]

Trump
It was part of his conviction.

Trump was never convicted of anything.

 

[Rigby5]

Not if you falsify business records.



Yes there is.


That isn't the only purpose.

You seem to be about 3 weeks or so behind on your talking points. Did you take a vacation?

It is NOT falsifying business records to generalize hush money as a broad business or campaign expense.
That is no law you have to be specific as to the intent of the payment, just the amount and general purpose.
There were no records falsified,

The statute of limitations has a number of absolute legal needs that can not legally be ignored.
There is no legal way for legislators to try to write loopholes in the statute of limitations due to someone traveling a lot.
That would be a crime by the legislators.
The only time it would be legal to make a statute of limitations exception is if the person had prevented themselves from being prosecuted by leaving the jurisdiction perpetually, which Trump did not do.
The could have served him any time in those 8 years.
So it is illegal to wait until now.

But I am just catching up.
Odd you noticed.
Just got over covid.

 

[Rigby5]

One or two might be political, but the number of cases that are in the works now seems to indicate a pattern of criminality that in normal times would see him ostracized from the political system. Nixon resigned over less, IMO.

Backwards in my opinion.
With Nixon, there was no obvious attempt to lynch, but there is a huge track record of illegal prosecution against Trump, to the point of it being totally fraudulent.
Like the 2 ridiculous impeachments, the illegal mar-a-lago raid, and now this ancient sex trial.
None of which should ever have been allowed by anyone.
It is all those involved in pushing these obviously bogus cases who should be in jail.

 

[BULLDOG]

The NY prosecutor likely is pushing a fake case in order to bias the election.
There is no legal basis for it.

You seem to know a lot that our judges just don't seem to know. Where did you get such an extensive legal education? Trump University?

 

[konradv]

Backwards in my opinion.
With Nixon, there was no obvious attempt to lynch, but there is a huge track record of illegal prosecution against Trump, to the point of it being totally fraudulent.
Like the 2 ridiculous impeachments, the illegal mar-a-lago raid, and now this ancient sex trial.
None of which should ever have been allowed by anyone.
It is all those involved in pushing these obviously bogus cases who should be in jail.

What I see as bogus is every other word out of Trump’s mouth.

 

[Dadoalex]

Wrong.
Laundering is where the source or destination of the money is falsified in order to hide it.
What I am referring to is laying so that individuals gain the protection of a larger financial entity, without anything being at all hidden.

Trump's lawyer admitted the money laundering so...
That would make you WRONG!

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

They're far more credible than the charges against Trump.

They're not, though.

 

[bripat9643]

They're not, though.

Yes they are.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

The goddamn Democrats claimed that Crooked Hillary was innocent, even after Comey laid out her crimes but then made the unbelievable and ridiculous determination that she had "no intent".

All you stupid Moon Bats are in denial about The Worthless Negro's lies and incompetency and Poatohead's corruption and disastrous record.

So just go fuck yourself Moon Bat.

So, you've got nothing. We already knew that.