Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Democrats manufacture their own evidence. Fact is, if you try hard enough, you can find evidence to convict every single American for something. But, the left seems fine with only doing it to Trump.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
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.
Well, it's addressed in regards to hunter, not joe Biden. Even still, one person's feelings In an op ed is a far cry from what would actually happen. My question relates to dems as a whole being open to the same situation if/when Joe Biden comes into the spotlight.--------------------------------------------------------------
Read the link, that aspect is addressed.
What documents do you contend were “protected?” In what way were they “protected?”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
There is a distinction between the Presidential documents that are the property of the US Government and other documents that may not be governed by the PRA.from the people for one's personal use and possession,
Be specific. When exactly did he “deny” having documents when he was in negotiations with the government over which to return and how and when?denying that one has them,
You can’t demand the return of his personal documents and as I get it, part of his position was that some of the items weren’t covered by the PRA. He has every right to contest the issue.refusing to return them (even after subpoena),
What documents do you claim he denied existed?and continuing to deny they exists....
Wrong. They weee known to exist. They were the subject of negotiations. That point alone shatters your premises.until a physical search reveals they really do exist....well, ....
Of course, that’s not what I said. What I did say was that the government frequently resorts to “process” crimes when they have no substantive charges. And I hope they don’t try that crap here.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'.
Nobody really cares what Chilliconfuzed finds potentially “challenging.”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.
Nope. He declassified them. And it will be up to the government to disprove same if they dare to charge him with any such crime.But then, some of these files were classified.
Hardly relevant.He no longer had a 'need-to-know' allowance for seeing them or possessing them.
Not really.He refused a subpoena to deliver all of them.
Nobody except you and your fellow libtard hyenas give a shit what Barr says.Even his former AG, Bill Barr, said Trump and his team were "jacking around" the FBI and DOJ.
No. There need be no reaction to what was actually done.All that must not be done with impunity. There must be accountability. There must be consequences.
Do they? If so, that might portend an indictment. A very bad move. And based on many of the very misconceptions you have laid out.So, if the government feels they have sufficient evidence, of a quality and quantity that can be demonstrated in a court of law.....
It would be nice if they were to uphold our laws in a non politically partisan fashion.well, it seems they have a mandate to uphold our laws.
That’s why it would be nice if they did their actual jobs.After all, that is the job they swore an oath to our Constitution and to the people to fulfill.
And the saying is kind of a trite little saw. Not prosecuting Trump doesn’t suggest that he’s above the law. It suggests either that they realize there is no genuine case here OR that prosecutorial discretion allows for them to be selective in what they prosecute and that this bullshit isn’t worth it.No man is above the law, the saying goes.
No mention of Biden and sons criminal operation? Just Trumps paperwork is her issue?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
No mention of Biden and sons criminal operation? Just Trumps paperwork is her issue?
Do you really believe this?Trump was the greatest president in the last 100 years and an American hero. Dems just need to deal with the fact he whooped their ass for 4 years.
What criminal operation? Is it illegal to do business with China? Nope! Just ask Trump, and the Trump family!No mention of Biden and sons criminal operation? Just Trumps paperwork is her issue?
Well, it's addressed in regards to hunter, not joe Biden. Even still, one person's feelings In an op ed is a far cry from what would actually happen. My question relates to dems as a whole being open to the same situation if/when Joe Biden comes into the spotlight.
Aside from that, both sides are already very galvanized, and neither side, if feel, would accept the outcome of any trial if it went against their party. This is the intended effect of the liberal media over the last 7 years, and the current J6 committee. I think there is less and less chance they will make DOJ referrals when they are done, but they are hoping that the court of public opinion will have done all the damage they needed it to do for the next election cycles. Its why the left are so feverishly trying to associate anything right wing with Q or trumpism. It's all about public opinion.
I may be wrong, but I still think you are not going to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit, in leg irons being perp walked into a prison cell, as many here have described. It's just not going to happen. They just want to damage the reputation.
That's a good tradeThe charges against Trump are Fake, and when the man is exonerated the sound of millions of liberal brains exploding would render the rest of us deaf.
Not a good idea.
You underestimate the amount of hatred for the 74 million Little Trumpsters out there.
No one goes to jail for a minor misdemeanor, so Trump won't either, if guilty of one or two or three...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.
I guess it depends on the business. By all appearances, the Biden's are into some seriously corrupt shit with China, Russia and Ukraine. Now im sure that you will tell us that its impossible that Biden did anything wrong, but no one on Earth will believe that.What criminal operation? Is it illegal to do business with China? Nope! Just ask Trump, and the Trump family!
What would the charges be?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 wished the far left and far right could let Trump go so we could heal and move on."
No one goes to jail for a minor misdemeanor,
so Trump won't either,
I wasn’t talking about misdemeanors.if guilty of one or two or three...
He isn’t a perp. His lawyers might explore a plea deal. Whether he would accept any offer requiring a criminal conviction is not nearly as sure a thing as you seem to imagine.Even if guilty of a felony, perps like him, an elected official or government official, usually work a Plea deal down to a misdemeanor, with cash penalty and probation, like Petraeus.
I bet all you leftwits would LOVE to "try" Donald Trump. He don't swing that way, boi's.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
Trespassers on Jan. 6 do.You are incorrect. Many do.
Tell us, communist, what felonies has he committed?No one goes to jail for a minor misdemeanor, so Trump won't either, if guilty of one or two or three...
Even if guilty of a felony, perps like him, an elected official or government official, usually work a Plea deal down to a misdemeanor, with cash penalty and probation, like Petraeus.
If there are any 1/6 defendants still incarcerated over a mere misdemeanor charge, the legal system has failed.Trespassers on Jan. 6 do.
