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

[kyzr]

All for it.

Fine

A political opinion, even when delivered by a 'law professor', therefore becomes level with all pundits. The links I've provided on law professors comment to the law and the facts of the case as are currently known, noting that the indictment with the charges have not been released, and commenting on those would be premature.

I would write you a long treatise on the fallacy of the premise, but, I won't.

Any investigation, which is what the Mueller investigation was, a hybrid investigation, part crime finding, part report to congress because of OLC policy no determination of criminality was given effort insofar as Trump was concerned, only facts and how they might apply to law, is provided.

Numerous criminal referrals were given on others. and on 'collusion', note that there is no crime of collusion. But, the objective of an investigation is either to, 1. Determine potential criminality. 2. Investigate russian interference, 3. exonerate where appropriate, an provide a report to congress. The 500 page report was detailed, thorough, noting that it's potential robustness was cut short by Barr under pressure from Trump. As such, it was successful and most definitely not a 'witch hunt' which is a weasel word.

More on that point:
There have been reports that former President Donald Trump did pressure his then-Attorney General, William Barr, to get Special Counsel Robert Mueller to wrap up the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. However, both Trump and Barr have denied that any such pressure was applied.

In his testimony before Congress in 2019, Barr stated that Trump never asked him to interfere with the investigation, but he did acknowledge that Trump had expressed frustration with the probe and its impact on his presidency. Barr also stated that he believed that Mueller was allowed to complete his investigation without interference.

However, there have been reports from other sources, including former White House counsel Don McGahn, that Trump did try to pressure Barr to end the investigation or limit its scope. The exact nature and extent of any pressure applied by Trump on Barr is still a matter of debate and investigation.

Given his credentials, your assessment is hyper-partisan. You need to explore your allegations and opinions with greater depth, if you ever want to be closer to the truth, as life is nuanced far more than what appears to be simplistic notions.

Note that a competent attorney, legal scholar, or law professor, will confine his comments to known facts and applicable law.
I suggest that for such persons, it is wiser to avoid political opinions, but if they are given, political opinions are level to punditry, in general. You appear to be putting far to much weight on Turley's and Dershowitz's political opinions, and they are full of them.
Here are two videos of Weiss commenting on the recent indictment, or various aspects of it which are known.
You should also go back and review the other two videos of law professors I provided.

Thanks for the detailed explanations. We'll probably be posting more in the weeks ahead after the case gets dismissed or goes to trial.

 

[bripat9643]

All for it.

Fine

A political opinion, even when delivered by a 'law professor', therefore becomes level with all pundits. The links I've provided on law professors comment to the law and the facts of the case as are currently known, noting that the indictment with the charges have not been released, and commenting on those would be premature.

I woudl write you a long treatise on the fallacy of the premise, but, I won't.

Any investigation, which is what the Mueller investigation was, a hybrid investigation, part crime finding, part report to congress because of OLC policy no determination of criminality was given effort insofar as Trump was concerned, only facts and how they might apply to law, is provided.

Numerous criminal referrals were given on others. and on 'collusion', note that there is no crime of collusion. But, the objective of an investigation is either to, 1. Determine potential criminality. 2. Investigate russian interference, 3. exonerate where appropriate, an provide a report to congress. The 500 page report was detailed, thorough, noting that it's potential robustness was cut short by Barr under pressure from Trump. As such, it was successful and most definitely not a 'witch hunt' which is a weasel word.

More on that point:

There have been reports that former President Donald Trump did pressure his then-Attorney General, William Barr, to get Special Counsel Robert Mueller to wrap up the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. However, both Trump and Barr have denied that any such pressure was applied.

In his testimony before Congress in 2019, Barr stated that Trump never asked him to interfere with the investigation, but he did acknowledge that Trump had expressed frustration with the probe and its impact on his presidency. Barr also stated that he believed that Mueller was allowed to complete his investigation without interference.

However, there have been reports from other sources, including former White House counsel Don McGahn, that Trump did try to pressure Barr to end the investigation or limit its scope. The exact nature and extent of any pressure applied by Trump on Barr is still a matter of debate and investigation.

Given his credentials, your assessment is hyperpartisan. You need to explore your allegations and opinions with greater depth, if you ever want to be closer to the truth, as life is nuanced far more than what appears to be simplistic notions.

Note that a competent attorney, legal scholar, or law professor, will confine his comments to known facts and applicable law.
I suggest that for such persons, it is wiser to avoid political opinions, but if they are given, political opinions are level to punditry, in general. You appear to be putting far to much weight on Turley's and Dershowitz's political opinions, and they are full of them.

Here are two videos of Weiss commenting on the recent indictment, or various aspects of it which are known.





You should also go back and review the other two videos of law professors I provided.

You only proved that you're a douchebag who licks prog butthole.

 

[Dadoalex]

The "crimes" are pure delusions.

This is Trump you're deluding over.

The only real question here is how many of his cronies will he give up to stay out of prison.

 

[bripat9643]

This is Trump you're deluding over.

The only real question here is how many of his cronies will he give up to stay out of prison.

Is this supposed to mean something?

 

[Dadoalex]

Is this supposed to mean something?

In English, yes.
'In Trumpanese, who knows?

 

[Kitty Cat]

View attachment 771407

But did she get locked up? It was just rhetoric from those partisans against her. Nothing happened.

 

[Rumpole]

You only proved that you're a douchebag who licks prog butthole.

 

[Rumpole]

deleted

 

[Independent thinker]

As long as the charges are based on facts of evidence, and applicable law, I believe in the justice system. not perfect, but better than a lot of countries.

It is not better than other countries when you can abuse your power for political purposes.

 

[Rumpole]

It is not better than other countries when you can abuse your power for political purposes.

IF that were true, you'd have a point. But, you have no evidence to support that allegation.

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 772073​

your sleazy idiocies do not justify any kind of substantive response. You're a douchebag who has earned nothing but contempt.

 

[bripat9643]

IF that were true, you'd have a point. But, you have no evidence to support that allegation.

Only a fucking commie would make a statement like that.

 

[bripat9643]

This is Trump you're deluding over.

The only real question here is how many of his cronies will he give up to stay out of prison.

None.

Talk about delusion.

You're a fucking imbecile.

 

[Dadoalex]

None.

Talk about delusion.

You're a fucking imbecile.

Sorry. Imbeciles aren't my thing. Go find some of your MAGAT buddies. You're always fucking imbeciles.

 

[sartre play]

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.

The bottom line in this post is that that the ONLY thing that should be important to all Americans,
That ALL public officials be honest & accountable for their actions.

 

[whitehall]

Why are lefties so hysterical about a sealed indictment? Do they understand what happens in a Banana Republic in central America where rogue elements routinely punish political opponents with secret indictments? Is that the future for America that CPUSA envisions?

 

[bripat9643]

The bottom line in this post is that that the ONLY thing that should be important to all Americans,
That ALL public officials be honest & accountable for their actions.

No, that isn't the only thing.

When will Biden be held accountable for his actions?

 

[tahuyaman]

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

Duh…

 

[tahuyaman]

View attachment 771407

When was she arrested?

However, she was not arrested because of political concerns.

 

[themirrorthief]

This is Trump you're deluding over.

The only real question here is how many of his cronies will he give up to stay out of prison.

so you tell me, what horrible crimes did he committ.....taking money from china maybe....throwing a gun in the trash....whoops those were the bidens, my bad