...so, if the evidence is there -- should we try DTrump?...

Chillicothe said:
In this morning's Washington Post there is a thoughtful opinion piece by a law professor out of university of Iowa --- Maya Stenitz.
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.

Now look, Professor Stenitz ain't some college prof from corn country. She was raised in Israel, served at the Hague and on staffs for trials in Rwanda and in South Sudan. She has seen the international legal system address big and bad actors.

For the United States, at this time in our political zeitgeist....she posits this, in her own words:

"Some 30 years of research in transitional justice — the multidisciplinary study of how societies can constructively emerge from conflict and assert or reassert democratic values — provides evidence that, contrary to the understandable worry that a trial would be divisive, trials can instead help heal. In fact, they are considered one of the main methods to bring about “truth and reconciliation.”

"Examples of such “transitional trials” include the prosecutions of Slobodan Milosevic in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, and of Augusto Pinochet for human rights violations committed during his presidency of Chile. In a less dramatic example of alleged corruption (rather than human-rights violations and war crimes), former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criminal charges in a deeply divided Israel. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of tax fraud."

"The reasons trials help promote reconciliation are many. Trials are a performative affair. They are, among other things, a drama in which conflict is enacted and resolved. As such, they can compel attention in a way that pierces the disinformation bubble that has contributed to this era’s divisiveness."

"Trials are about the establishment of truth through evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The truth gathered and amplified through the drama of a trial creates a historical record and shapes the collective memory. Trials are a stage upon which individuals with firsthand knowledge can be compelled to testify about what they know, and must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury. Trials are as much about educating the public about wrongs that have been done as they are about seeking retribution for harms done (though they are about that as well)."

"At trial, the defendant gets to testify and be heard, and has the opportunity to compel the testimony of others. Milosevic, for instance, used his stage at The Hague to great effect.."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I offer the above because it serves as a reflective and rationale view that ---if the evidence exists ---- then we must not offer 'protections' for criminal wrongdoing to political leaders that the man-on-the-street American is not afforded.

And, in the context of some of the more screechy postings we read on this venue.....it offers America a view that 'civil war', 'armed rebellion by MAGA and QAnon' is not inevitable and not the only course to address America's divisiveness-du-jour.

IMHO
Click to expand...

This isn't thoughtful. This is just another seething raging hating liberal op ed on trump. That's all. The libs can't stop thinking about trump. It's some form of psychosis.
 
surada said:
Trump is trash and not very bright. He wants revenge. He doesn't care about the US. Listen to what he says.
Click to expand...

Mac1958 said:
They absolutely adore their flamboyant, hypersensitive, metrosexual, NY City billionaire. A hero to them.

PT Barnum would be proud.
Click to expand...

PT is proud. Orange man pushed operation warp speed and the masses climbed all over top of each begging to snake his snake juice. PT couldn't be prouder now. They have a hero in the office now who took showers with his daughter, had little girls pull his leg hairs, and loves to sniff him some adolescent hair.
 
Chillicothe said:
In this morning's Washington Post there is a thoughtful opinion piece by a law professor out of university of Iowa --- Maya Stenitz.
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.

Now look, Professor Stenitz ain't some college prof from corn country. She was raised in Israel, served at the Hague and on staffs for trials in Rwanda and in South Sudan. She has seen the international legal system address big and bad actors.

For the United States, at this time in our political zeitgeist....she posits this, in her own words:

"Some 30 years of research in transitional justice — the multidisciplinary study of how societies can constructively emerge from conflict and assert or reassert democratic values — provides evidence that, contrary to the understandable worry that a trial would be divisive, trials can instead help heal. In fact, they are considered one of the main methods to bring about “truth and reconciliation.”

"Examples of such “transitional trials” include the prosecutions of Slobodan Milosevic in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, and of Augusto Pinochet for human rights violations committed during his presidency of Chile. In a less dramatic example of alleged corruption (rather than human-rights violations and war crimes), former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criminal charges in a deeply divided Israel. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of tax fraud."

"The reasons trials help promote reconciliation are many. Trials are a performative affair. They are, among other things, a drama in which conflict is enacted and resolved. As such, they can compel attention in a way that pierces the disinformation bubble that has contributed to this era’s divisiveness."

"Trials are about the establishment of truth through evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The truth gathered and amplified through the drama of a trial creates a historical record and shapes the collective memory. Trials are a stage upon which individuals with firsthand knowledge can be compelled to testify about what they know, and must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury. Trials are as much about educating the public about wrongs that have been done as they are about seeking retribution for harms done (though they are about that as well)."

"At trial, the defendant gets to testify and be heard, and has the opportunity to compel the testimony of others. Milosevic, for instance, used his stage at The Hague to great effect.."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I offer the above because it serves as a reflective and rationale view that ---if the evidence exists ---- then we must not offer 'protections' for criminal wrongdoing to political leaders that the man-on-the-street American is not afforded.

And, in the context of some of the more screechy postings we read on this venue.....it offers America a view that 'civil war', 'armed rebellion by MAGA and QAnon' is not inevitable and not the only course to address America's divisiveness-du-jour.

IMHO
Click to expand...
She comes across as an Anti-American Globalist to me...




And Trump is in her way of her wonderful New World Order where Communists get to participate in the trials of Americans....

The Case for an International Court of Civil Justice (page 7)
 
Chillicothe said:
In this morning's Washington Post there is a thoughtful opinion piece by a law professor out of university of Iowa --- Maya Stenitz.
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.

Now look, Professor Stenitz ain't some college prof from corn country. She was raised in Israel, served at the Hague and on staffs for trials in Rwanda and in South Sudan. She has seen the international legal system address big and bad actors.

For the United States, at this time in our political zeitgeist....she posits this, in her own words:

"Some 30 years of research in transitional justice — the multidisciplinary study of how societies can constructively emerge from conflict and assert or reassert democratic values — provides evidence that, contrary to the understandable worry that a trial would be divisive, trials can instead help heal. In fact, they are considered one of the main methods to bring about “truth and reconciliation.”

"Examples of such “transitional trials” include the prosecutions of Slobodan Milosevic in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, and of Augusto Pinochet for human rights violations committed during his presidency of Chile. In a less dramatic example of alleged corruption (rather than human-rights violations and war crimes), former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criminal charges in a deeply divided Israel. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of tax fraud."

"The reasons trials help promote reconciliation are many. Trials are a performative affair. They are, among other things, a drama in which conflict is enacted and resolved. As such, they can compel attention in a way that pierces the disinformation bubble that has contributed to this era’s divisiveness."

"Trials are about the establishment of truth through evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The truth gathered and amplified through the drama of a trial creates a historical record and shapes the collective memory. Trials are a stage upon which individuals with firsthand knowledge can be compelled to testify about what they know, and must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury. Trials are as much about educating the public about wrongs that have been done as they are about seeking retribution for harms done (though they are about that as well)."

"At trial, the defendant gets to testify and be heard, and has the opportunity to compel the testimony of others. Milosevic, for instance, used his stage at The Hague to great effect.."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I offer the above because it serves as a reflective and rationale view that ---if the evidence exists ---- then we must not offer 'protections' for criminal wrongdoing to political leaders that the man-on-the-street American is not afforded.

And, in the context of some of the more screechy postings we read on this venue.....it offers America a view that 'civil war', 'armed rebellion by MAGA and QAnon' is not inevitable and not the only course to address America's divisiveness-du-jour.

IMHO
Click to expand...
Absolutely. If they have real evidence, not. "I think he did this so it means that", or circumstantial, or out of context stuff, but if they have REAL evidence, then yes, absolutely he should be tries. Everyone is subject to the law.

I just hope you dems can give the same answer if investigations into Biden turn up real evidence of crimes, as well.
 
Chillicothe said:
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.
Click to expand...

The same could have been said about Hillary Clinton and her unprotected email server a few years back. The abject failure of Obama's DOJ to handle that case in an impartial manner has led many people to the obvious conclusion that our justice system is compromised. And no trial of DJT is going to make a difference, especially in view of the fact that so many Americans support him as the next POTUS in 2024.

Here's a thought: if anyone wants a trial that would offer the country the opportunity to heal, then how about they put Hunter Biden on trial, assuming there is sufficient evidence to warrant it. Would such a trial divide us further, or not? Does anyone believe it is remotely possible that the Biden DOJ would actually do that? Going after Trump is just business as usual for them, but going after one of their own is another story regardless of whatever evidence still exists.
 
If the 'evidence' exists the government will need to present it fully and openly to the public. Anything less looks like some secret kangaroo court nonsense with no legimacy. There is a reason smart people don't make clerical silliness into a federal case. Sadly Democrats are idiots.
 
Chillicothe said:
In this morning's Washington Post there is a thoughtful opinion piece by a law professor out of university of Iowa --- Maya Stenitz.
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.

Now look, Professor Stenitz ain't some college prof from corn country. She was raised in Israel, served at the Hague and on staffs for trials in Rwanda and in South Sudan. She has seen the international legal system address big and bad actors.

For the United States, at this time in our political zeitgeist....she posits this, in her own words:

"Some 30 years of research in transitional justice — the multidisciplinary study of how societies can constructively emerge from conflict and assert or reassert democratic values — provides evidence that, contrary to the understandable worry that a trial would be divisive, trials can instead help heal. In fact, they are considered one of the main methods to bring about “truth and reconciliation.”

"Examples of such “transitional trials” include the prosecutions of Slobodan Milosevic in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, and of Augusto Pinochet for human rights violations committed during his presidency of Chile. In a less dramatic example of alleged corruption (rather than human-rights violations and war crimes), former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criminal charges in a deeply divided Israel. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of tax fraud."

"The reasons trials help promote reconciliation are many. Trials are a performative affair. They are, among other things, a drama in which conflict is enacted and resolved. As such, they can compel attention in a way that pierces the disinformation bubble that has contributed to this era’s divisiveness."

"Trials are about the establishment of truth through evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The truth gathered and amplified through the drama of a trial creates a historical record and shapes the collective memory. Trials are a stage upon which individuals with firsthand knowledge can be compelled to testify about what they know, and must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury. Trials are as much about educating the public about wrongs that have been done as they are about seeking retribution for harms done (though they are about that as well)."

"At trial, the defendant gets to testify and be heard, and has the opportunity to compel the testimony of others. Milosevic, for instance, used his stage at The Hague to great effect.."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I offer the above because it serves as a reflective and rationale view that ---if the evidence exists ---- then we must not offer 'protections' for criminal wrongdoing to political leaders that the man-on-the-street American is not afforded.

And, in the context of some of the more screechy postings we read on this venue.....it offers America a view that 'civil war', 'armed rebellion by MAGA and QAnon' is not inevitable and not the only course to address America's divisiveness-du-jour.

IMHO
Click to expand...
Damn right!
 
Chillicothe said:
In this morning's Washington Post there is a thoughtful opinion piece by a law professor out of university of Iowa --- Maya Stenitz.
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.

Now look, Professor Stenitz ain't some college prof from corn country. She was raised in Israel, served at the Hague and on staffs for trials in Rwanda and in South Sudan. She has seen the international legal system address big and bad actors.

For the United States, at this time in our political zeitgeist....she posits this, in her own words:

"Some 30 years of research in transitional justice — the multidisciplinary study of how societies can constructively emerge from conflict and assert or reassert democratic values — provides evidence that, contrary to the understandable worry that a trial would be divisive, trials can instead help heal. In fact, they are considered one of the main methods to bring about “truth and reconciliation.”

"Examples of such “transitional trials” include the prosecutions of Slobodan Milosevic in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, and of Augusto Pinochet for human rights violations committed during his presidency of Chile. In a less dramatic example of alleged corruption (rather than human-rights violations and war crimes), former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criminal charges in a deeply divided Israel. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of tax fraud."

"The reasons trials help promote reconciliation are many. Trials are a performative affair. They are, among other things, a drama in which conflict is enacted and resolved. As such, they can compel attention in a way that pierces the disinformation bubble that has contributed to this era’s divisiveness."

"Trials are about the establishment of truth through evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The truth gathered and amplified through the drama of a trial creates a historical record and shapes the collective memory. Trials are a stage upon which individuals with firsthand knowledge can be compelled to testify about what they know, and must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury. Trials are as much about educating the public about wrongs that have been done as they are about seeking retribution for harms done (though they are about that as well)."

"At trial, the defendant gets to testify and be heard, and has the opportunity to compel the testimony of others. Milosevic, for instance, used his stage at The Hague to great effect.."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I offer the above because it serves as a reflective and rationale view that ---if the evidence exists ---- then we must not offer 'protections' for criminal wrongdoing to political leaders that the man-on-the-street American is not afforded.

And, in the context of some of the more screechy postings we read on this venue.....it offers America a view that 'civil war', 'armed rebellion by MAGA and QAnon' is not inevitable and not the only course to address America's divisiveness-du-jour.

IMHO
Click to expand...
If is a big if.

There is in fact no “there” there.

But if there were any actual credible evidence that President Trump had committed an alleged crime, the next question would be “what crime?” If it were a serious real crime (not some horseshit process crime), then sure maybe a trial would be legally appropriate.

But if we are talking an alleged process crime, or some minor alleged misdemeanor, then no. It is already unseemly enough that the Brandon Administrarion is politicizing Justice especially as against a political rival. Compounding all this crap with a rinky dink criminal prosecution only serves to undermine American credibility.

As things stand, though, it ain’t no thang. There is nothing here and most Americans already recognize that this witch hunt is already just a tawdry cheap-ass Democrap parody campaign ad.
 
Chillicothe said:
In this morning's Washington Post there is a thoughtful opinion piece by a law professor out of university of Iowa --- Maya Stenitz.
She offers a cogent and credible rationale that if the evidence is there in sufficient quantity and quality then putting Don Trump on trial would offer the country the opportunity to heal. Rather than further divisiveness.

Now look, Professor Stenitz ain't some college prof from corn country. She was raised in Israel, served at the Hague and on staffs for trials in Rwanda and in South Sudan. She has seen the international legal system address big and bad actors.

For the United States, at this time in our political zeitgeist....she posits this, in her own words:

"Some 30 years of research in transitional justice — the multidisciplinary study of how societies can constructively emerge from conflict and assert or reassert democratic values — provides evidence that, contrary to the understandable worry that a trial would be divisive, trials can instead help heal. In fact, they are considered one of the main methods to bring about “truth and reconciliation.”

"Examples of such “transitional trials” include the prosecutions of Slobodan Milosevic in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, and of Augusto Pinochet for human rights violations committed during his presidency of Chile. In a less dramatic example of alleged corruption (rather than human-rights violations and war crimes), former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criminal charges in a deeply divided Israel. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of tax fraud."

"The reasons trials help promote reconciliation are many. Trials are a performative affair. They are, among other things, a drama in which conflict is enacted and resolved. As such, they can compel attention in a way that pierces the disinformation bubble that has contributed to this era’s divisiveness."

"Trials are about the establishment of truth through evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The truth gathered and amplified through the drama of a trial creates a historical record and shapes the collective memory. Trials are a stage upon which individuals with firsthand knowledge can be compelled to testify about what they know, and must do so truthfully under penalty of perjury. Trials are as much about educating the public about wrongs that have been done as they are about seeking retribution for harms done (though they are about that as well)."

"At trial, the defendant gets to testify and be heard, and has the opportunity to compel the testimony of others. Milosevic, for instance, used his stage at The Hague to great effect.."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I offer the above because it serves as a reflective and rationale view that ---if the evidence exists ---- then we must not offer 'protections' for criminal wrongdoing to political leaders that the man-on-the-street American is not afforded.

And, in the context of some of the more screechy postings we read on this venue.....it offers America a view that 'civil war', 'armed rebellion by MAGA and QAnon' is not inevitable and not the only course to address America's divisiveness-du-jour.

IMHO
Click to expand...
Well if we prosecute Trump becasue the evidence is there than we should also prosecute Hillary, and both Hunter and Joe Biden because there is even more evidence of their malfeasance.

www.washingtontimes.com

Who’s above the law? How about Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton and BLM rioters, for starters

Recently, we have had to endure a series of reminders that “no person is above the law” from a batch of folks, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Rep. Mike Turner.
www.washingtontimes.com www.washingtontimes.com

***snip***

There are many, many people who are and have been, at least so far, above the law. Here’s a very short list:

.Hunter Biden, and the “big guy,” aka President Biden, assuming he really did profit from whatever Hunter was doing with the communist Chinese, the Ukrainians or the Mexicans.

• The honorable Hillary Clinton.
 
task0778 said:
The same could have been said about Hillary Clinton and her unprotected email server a few years back. The abject failure of Obama's DOJ to handle that case in an impartial manner has led many people to the obvious conclusion that our justice system is compromised. And no trial of DJT is going to make a difference, especially in view of the fact that so many Americans support him as the next POTUS in 2024.

Here's a thought: if anyone wants a trial that would offer the country the opportunity to heal, then how about they put Hunter Biden on trial, assuming there is sufficient evidence to warrant it. Would such a trial divide us further, or not? Does anyone believe it is remotely possible that the Biden DOJ would actually do that? Going after Trump is just business as usual for them, but going after one of their own is another story regardless of whatever evidence still exists.
Click to expand...
Huh? You are so off the mark!!! Who the heck cares if Hunter is tried or makes a plea deal?

Why are you comparing HIM to putting a president of the united states on trial???Who gives a shit? Seriously....most Americans are not involved with Hunter, he is not in government, we don't pay him to represent us..... He's not a President

Gees, y'all right wingers, are mentally damaged. Unable to grasp simple concepts, and discuss or debate them without silly, unrelated comparisons, like the one you made about Hunter.
 
BackAgain said:
"If it were a serious real crime (not some horseshit process crime), then sure maybe a trial would be legally appropriate."
Click to expand...

Frankly, I was unsure of an interpretation of what is a 'process crime'. Used in the context that the poster has offered, it seemed somewhat subjective.
So this is what a nano-Google revealed:

"Process crime -- In United States criminal procedure terminology, a process crime is an offense against the judicial process. These crimes include failure to appear, false statements, obstruction of justice, contempt of court and perjury."

So, with that, I am not convinced that taking protected documents from the people for one's personal use and possession, denying that one has them, refusing to return them (even after subpoena), and continuing to deny they exists....until a physical search reveals they really do exist....well, ....

Well, charging for such and calling such a 'process' offense seems to be an exercise in minimalism. An exercise in in 'cover up' or 'whitewashing'.

Now, I readily admit prosecuting Trump for such a crime will be a challenge. There is the "ex-President" thing, the 'intent' thing, the 'political witch hunt' thing. All challenges, in my view.

But then, some of these files were classified. He no longer had a 'need-to-know' allowance for seeing them or possessing them. He refused a subpoena to deliver all of them. Even his former AG, Bill Barr, said Trump and his team were "jacking around" the FBI and DOJ.

All that must not be done with impunity. There must be accountability. There must be consequences.

So, if the government feels they have sufficient evidence, of a quality and quantity that can be demonstrated in a court of law.....well, it seems they have a mandate to uphold our laws. After all, that is the job they swore an oath to our Constitution and to the people to fulfill.

No man is above the law, the saying goes.
 
Batcat said:
Well if we prosecute Trump becasue the evidence is there than we should also prosecute Hillary, and both Hunter and Joe Biden because there is even more evidence of their malfeasance.
Click to expand...

I believe that aspect of the issue is covered in the linked Washington Post column. I would recommend it be read for those who wish to participate in the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

120+ retired military flag officers warn US ‘under assault’ by socialists, Marxists, urges...

< Previous Thread

Body Language Expert to Newsmax: Trump 'Confident,' Biden in Decline

Next Thread >

Similar threads

marvin martian
Hunter Biden's federal tax and gun crime trials will likely take place this summer
2 3
Replies
51
Views
315
sealybobo
sealybobo
Lakhota
DOJ: "60-Day Rule" does not apply since Trump already indicted
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
1K
jbrownson0831
J
munkle
RFK Jr Says Anthony Fauci Used Mostly Healthy Black and Latino Orphans in Deadly Profitable 1990s HIV Vaccine Experiments
2
Replies
26
Views
344
munkle
munkle
Lakhota
  • Locked
Trump Dogs Not Barking
Replies
5
Views
97
AyeCantSeeYou
AyeCantSeeYou
skews13
These Trials Aren't Really About Donald Trump. They're About The Whole Criminal Justice System
2 3
Replies
50
Views
581
C_Clayton_Jones
C_Clayton_Jones

Latest Discussions

munkle
Why Do Democrats Accuse Trumpers of "Authoritarianism" When They are the Ones Throwing Political Opponents in Jail?
Replies
9
Views
30
Oddball
Oddball
horselightning
Black Airman Fatally Shot in Florida by Deputies
13 14 15
Replies
288
Views
1K
Dadoalex
Dadoalex
mikegriffith1
It's Troubling that So Many Liberals Still Believe the Lockdowns Were the Right Response to COVID
5 6 7
Replies
127
Views
595
candycorn
candycorn
Seymour Flops
Biden's Plan to Keep Votes in Michigan by Cutting off Weapons to Israel may Cost Him Election
2
Replies
22
Views
101
Blisterfinger
Blisterfinger
Grumpyolman
In your opinion, who is the most ENTERTAINING right wing talk show host?
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
315
MisterBeale
MisterBeale
View more…

Forum List

Back
Top