Don’t Tear Down the Rule of Law to Indict the Trump Organization

[struth]

excalibur the rule of law was tossed under the obama regime. The left has weaponized the executive to persecute anyone that gets in their way.

 

[struth]

C_Clayton_Jones no evidence besides all the evidence produced in the OP...geez

 

[Esdraelon]

the whole org is guilty of tax fraud.

well since everybody is guilty:

Why does this matter? Well, because almost everyone in America has done something illegal at some point — yes, including you — and if the government were to spend enough time and money looking into them, it would almost always find something.
-------------------------------------------------
they just got caught.

There's a lot of truth in your words. I believe that ANY business of that size and scope will inevitably have broken some laws. The issue is our loss of "equal justice under law". We've watched dozens of revelations of criminal behavior by Obama administration officials yet not one has been held accountable. While that was unfolding we were watching those same organizations actively trying to remove a duly elected president by using government power to investigate endlessly while the media pushed their lies.

The danger all of us face is very real. This tribalistic hatred that the media are pushing has had enough buy-in that roughly half the nation is willing to believe any proclamation of guilt, any accusation of wrongdoing even when evidence exists to the contrary. The same people in DC are pushing America toward Marxism and are using government agencies to investigate people who disagree with them and who have the courage to do so publically.
Biden's people have launched an APP and are encouraging Americans to report their neighbors for possibly being "radicalized" or being "domestic terrorists".

Tens of millions of Americans seem to believe this is necessary and may think it's their duty to become snitches against their political opponents.

I see this quote a lot today and usually, it's being used as a tag line for Democrat supporters on the sites I visit:

Voltaire — 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.'

Voltaire is absolutely correct. Before Hitler's rise to power, Germans were some of the best-educated and most refined people on the planet. Had they been asked if they could believe it was possible for them to do what they eventually DID do, I doubt 1% would have believed it possible...
ANY group that stops trying to question political motives and is willing to give themselves over to hate and tribalism, can be convinced to help slaughter their own neighbors.

Those here on the Left who will mock this may someday have to face what their hate led to. Perhaps some of them should educate themselves about a guy named Robespierre. He was cut from the same cloth.

 

[hadit]

the whole org is guilty of tax fraud.

well since everybody is guilty:

Why does this matter? Well, because almost everyone in America has done something illegal at some point — yes, including you — and if the government were to spend enough time and money looking into them, it would almost always find something.
-------------------------------------------------
they just got caught.

Which means, of course, that the next Republican administration will feel free to pursue destruction of the prior democrat president, which will leave that presidents supporters, many of whom cheered on this prosecution, weeping and wailing about how unfair it all is. I will try to muster some sympathy for them.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Conservatives main problem seems to be all about evidence.

My overwhelming concern when it comes to court cases, regardless of whether they're criminal cases or a civil cases, has to do with the evidence presented.

If you can show me compelling evidence in favor of a conviction, whether it's a preponderance of the evidence in a civil trial, or the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, I don't have a problem with convicting someone, anyone, regardless of their political views.

However, evidence seems to be the last thing in the world that conservatives care about. They stand up and cry voter fraud even when Giuliani goes to court without the evidence to support his claims. And now, apparently, the Trump Organization is facing the possibility of criminal charges, and my firm conviction (pun intended) is that it won't matter to conservatives how much evidence is presented and how compelling it is. They'll simply say that the case has no merit and that it's politically motivated.

This is why it's best for America and the rule of law to prevent conservatives from having the reins of power because I don't want to live in a country where acquittal or conviction hinges on ideology while evidence is ignored.

Normally in a civil case, a case is filed, then both the plaintiff and respondent get subpoena powers to research evidence. The courts didn’t allow a single one of the many election fraud cases to go that far. There was no discovery allowed to confirm or deny well over a hundred allegations of improper procedures or wrongdoing spread over numerous states. The allegation were often based upon written complaints filed with the knowledge that the witnesses could be charged with perjury if the allegations were baseless. Why was no one charged with perjury? Why were no cases allowed to go forward to the discovery phase?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Even the NY Times admits what is going on is crap.

...​

​

As Charlie Cooke notes, the latest leaks to the New York Times about the Manhattan District Attorney’s office’s investigation suggest that something quite unlike equal justice is going on in Cyrus Vance Jr.’s office if it is seriously considering an indictment of the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, over benefits paid to Weisselberg. As the Times admits:​

​

​

​

​

That is the definition of unequal justice. A target was chosen — Trump — because of his political prominence, and an indictment is being considered in a case where a business without political prominence would face no such threat. This is doubly dangerous because it involves going after a former president of the United States, with the apparent goal of building a criminal case against him. Presidents are not above the law; while there are reasons why a sitting president should not be indicted while in office, the office endows its holder with no special immunity. If Trump — before, during, or after his presidency — unambiguously broke a clear law for which an ordinary person would be prosecuted, such as shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, Vance would have a duty to prosecute him. But trumped-up charges against former leaders are a familiar sight in banana republics, one that America has thus far avoided. Mounting a prosecution against a former president — especially a former president who was investigated extensively in office without the bringing of charges by the self-styled “Resistance” — is a grave step for the nation and its confidence in the rule of law. That Rubicon should be crossed only on the basis of a case that can be easily explained and shown to people outside of deep-blue Manhattan as a well-known and traditional crime.​

​

Robert Jackson, when he was attorney general before going on to be a Supreme Court justice and Nuremberg prosecutor, famously warned:​

​

​

​

​

​

True in 1940, true today. As I have written many times (such as here, here, here, and here), don’t prosecute your enemies under rules you would not want used against your friends. Bringing a case against Trump or his business based on a strained or aggressive reading of the law, or its extension to situations rarely prosecuted, would not be a vindication of the rule of law but a grievous blow against it.​

Don’t Tear Down the Rule of Law to Indict the Trump Organization | National Review

To do so would not be a vindication of the rule of law but a grievous blow against it.

www.nationalreview.com

Poor little pseduo conservative Cooke apparently did not well inform himself before getting his paycheck. The case is about far more than fringe benefits.

 

[Care4all]

Normally in a civil case, a case is filed, then both the plaintiff and respondent get subpoena powers to research evidence. The courts didn’t allow a single one of the many election fraud cases to go that far. There was no discovery allowed to confirm or deny well over a hundred allegations of improper procedures or wrongdoing spread over numerous states. The allegation were often based upon written complaints filed with the knowledge that the witnesses could be charged with perjury if the allegations were baseless. Why was no one charged with perjury? Why were no cases allowed to go forward to the discovery phase?

Normally when a suit is filed, the two parties file court briefs with their best evidence, giving the judge the reasons why their case has merit and should be accepted by the court...the other party gives reasons of why the case should be rejected and has no merit.

The judges rejected and dismissed several of these court cases of Trumps legal teams, because they had no merit...

And this is why they never had the discovery phase of court proceedinhs.

Trump lawyers could not show any thing that gave reason, for a suit....their briefs showed nothing nefarious or illegal being done or even allegedly done....for there to even be a court case.

 

[The Duke]

Lefties and Democrats should really sit up, take notice and give their heads a right good wobble if they still think they're right to go after Trump - especially when someone like the New York Times prints something like that.

But as ever it won't subdue the blood lust where the looney left are concerned.

It never ceases to amaze me just how inhumane they are. They want their pound of flesh and their lust for blood. Even more remarkable as these folk represent themselves as righteous.

Even on a good day, when these types of folks are relaxed and comfortable in their own environments the passive-aggressiveness still rips right out of them. Sneering almost. Like they are on the edge, just casually waiting for something to happen any second that they can go after, cancel or pontificate to.

Dude, they can see past that at all. All they see is "get Trump" for nothing, and it's insanity.

How did I not get brainwashed/conditioned into being the same way? How did they and how can it be fixed? It's like mass hysteria.

 

[The Duke]

So now do Congress people have to pay taxes on preferred stock and free vacations and all perks given them by lobbyists?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

So now do Congress people have to pay taxes on preferred stock and free vacations and all perks given them by lobbyists?

Do you normally defend folks who plead guilty to 15 criminal counts??

 

[The Duke]

Do you normally defend folks who plead guilty to 15 criminal counts??

I'm not defending him at all, but apparently you are clueless.

You sure you have the right poster on this?

Do you normally defend people that are supposed to be representing your best interests being criminals and stealing from you?