Concerned American
Diamond Member
He lives in your head and has turned whatever brain that might have occupied it into mush.Trump is a mob boss.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He lives in your head and has turned whatever brain that might have occupied it into mush.Trump is a mob boss.
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
He lives in your head and has turned whatever brain that might have occupied it into mush.
They absolutely adore their flamboyant, hypersensitive, metrosexual, NY City billionaire. A hero to them.Trump is a mob boss. He would betray you in a heartbeat...
Trump is trash and not very bright. He wants revenge. He doesn't care about the US. Listen to what he says.
They absolutely adore their flamboyant, hypersensitive, metrosexual, NY City billionaire. A hero to them.
PT Barnum would be proud.
LMAO, and I am going to listen to the opinion of a partisan hack over what I have witnessed in the past 15 years? Good luck with that shitferbrains.Trump is trash and not very bright.
She comes across as an Anti-American Globalist to me...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
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.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
And yet he's 10x better than any puke Dem leader.Trump is a mob boss. He would betray you in a heartbeat...
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.
Damn right!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
If is a big if.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
--------------------------------------------------------------I just hope you dems can give the same answer if investigations into Biden turn up real evidence of crimes, as well.
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.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
Huh? You are so off the mark!!! Who the heck cares if Hunter is tried or makes a plea deal?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 it were a serious real crime (not some horseshit process crime), then sure maybe a trial would be legally appropriate."
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.