The Omnibus Convicted Felon Trump Criminal Investigation Thread

Focus on one thing at a time. Make your point bite-sized, not a whole carcass

You quoted my post, but didn’t address it. I assume you missed something.

The Clinton campaign fine was due to the FEC saying that declared spending by the campaign had an inaccurate description.

The Trump charges related to falsified business records, essentially secretly funneling funds through a business to a campaign expense, without it being declared as such at all.

They are not the same.

Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign

It shouldn't astonish me that people who suggest Biden is corrupt against precisely zero hard evidence of any shadiness will not say word one about the coincidence of potential witnesses suddenly getting major windfalls from Trump just before they are set to testify in Trump-related cases.

That is one of the things I find to be a problem with both sides. They completely ignore the problems on their side.

Didn't Jesus also bless those who persecuted him?

I don't find that the case with the Democrats/leftists at all. Indeed, it's more common for people on the left to highlight the many minor problems with those on the left, whether it's an attempt to be fair and balanced among pundits, or because they do have high consistent standards, or because certain issues are so key to them that failings there overshadow everything else.

The sorts of stuff that got Al Franken and Anthony Weiner and other Dems purged from the ranks was chump change compared to the stuff the right currently does on an ongoing basis. But it was rare to find an apologist for them. I don't think anyone's saying that it's a witch hunt against Bob Menendez, for example, other than him and people who work directly for him.

Okay. The charges he was convicted of were previously misdemeanors that originated in 2016, why weren’t charges brought then?

Of course there are always little guys who get eliminated by both parties. When it comes to the big guy presidential candidates they overlook what is going on with their guy. It does not just happen with republicans, or even with the present candidates. Trump is just really obvious where other candidates do try to cover up their shit and spin a lot more. The sycophants are always there saying their guy is the one when they have done a large number of corrupt and terrible things.

Normally I would say there was a better possibility with the dem candidate to be better on moral issues like LGBT, prejudice, or sexism issues. But Joe has really illustrated how the dems are just as bad as the repugs at rewriting the past of their people when they want to pretend their guy is not awful. Biden has been anti-abortion, pro-school segregation, pro-corporation, anti-lgbtq, pro-christianity, anti-muslim, racist, sexist, and gotten away with it. He does locker room talk out in the open. He has been touchy feely. He is clearly a devout catholic caught up in that religious cult. It is not like he is just doing it for image, he is a true believer.

Now all of a sudden we are supposed to believe this guy is the champion oif progressive ideas? That is stupid when the right says it, and it is stupid when the left triess to pretend he is that way. Joe is a regressive religious white male. He has always been corrupt and worked within the unethical e4nd of the system. The big difference betwen Joe and Trump is that Joe makes effort to cover things up properly and to try and seem or do corrupt things legitimately.

@Raoul the Red Shirt I think your argument goes right to why I feel I cannot vote for Biden as the better candidate. It is because the people in the dem party, not on the left, but in the dem party will vote for a bad actor in the dem party simply because they have a D next to their name just like lots of people in the republican party.

These people are so prevalent and stuck in the idea that the D or the R brand endorsement means that person is the good candidate because of whatever reason. Neither party allows their best to run, and the both cheat and manipulate their primaries to keep them composed of loyalists. especially in the presidential elections. Once the person gets the primary vote we are supposed to just forget about all their shortcomings, and the shortcomings of the primaries and cheer for them or else the other brand will win. We really lose track of the fact the brand means much more than the policies they fight for.

Now that we have a better system of communication over distance in a small time I think representative government flaws start to overcome the reasons why we used it to begin with.

Good question, as a student of history can you identify anything that happened to Trump in 2016 that may have made it practically impossible to take him into a court trial.

A. The prevailing wisdom is that a sitting president cannot be tried for any crime while he remains in office. So the earliest he could have been tried was 2020.
B. It takes some time to investigate, line up witnesses and so forth in the most expeditious of circumstances to try a case. Very little happens quickly in litigation, despite whatever impression one might get from courtroom dramas.
C. There has to be some weight and thought given to trying a former president, as well as whether the prosecution theory was viable. Despite the across-the-board conviction and the claims that the prosecution was rigged and the prosecutor was biased, an ethical prosecutor would have had to do some soul-searching about the case and would have known that there was a chance a jury might not come back with 34 guilty verdicts
D. The fact that this particular president had three other pending criminal trials and two civil trials meant that there had to be some issues with scheduling on top of that.
E. Part of Trump's legal strategy in all his cases was to try to delay, delay, delay.

P.S. It would be more correct to say that the charges could have been brought as misdemeanors if the falsification was not in support of committing another crime. The jury found that they were, which makes them felonies.

@Steal Your Face and the other Trump bootlickers needn't worry too much. Their hero won't suffer any serious consequences due to these convictions. He's rich and powerful...he'll be okay.

I refuse to answer anyone who uses any variation of as a student of history or who calls into question my history degree or who mocks my history degree in any way. I'm getting sick of this bullshit that's been going on for ten fucking years. Fuck off.

Oh no, it's the consequences of your own actions.

Oh, come on. It’s not like you’re even old enough to have earned a history degree.

Just to be clear: Is it OK to ask questions about your stunning lack of understanding of history if we don't reference your degree in it?

No one’s seriously mocking your history degree, you petulant child, we’re mocking your apparent inability to use the better judgment you should have learned from it.

Likewise, when we call you a petulant child, no one literally thinks you are 5 or 12 or 17, just that you behave like you are. Your inability to tell the difference in both cases, is quite in line with that.

Fine, as someone with no special insights into investigating history can you go visit the Wikipedia page for Donald J Trump and tell us if there's anything in the very first sentence on the page that could shine a light on why it was not practical to charge him with anything for a few years?

Actually, my theory was that he signed on as a precocious 9 year and has been going backward ever since.

Trump Got Due Process and Then Some
No matter his or his allies’ feelings about the verdict, it was based on evidence, testimony, and argument—not conspiracy.

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

A real Benjamin Butthurt, one might say.

https://x.com/cturnbull1968/status/1798395155373842655?s=46&t=iYW3foyqIA6Tn8VWwn3nwQ

This is not a restriction for federal office holding. This is not even a restriction to be on the ballot as for as that reads. This is a state restriction for state office which would not apply to the federal position of POTUS as that has it's own superceding federal requirements.

For the cheap seats POTUS is not a state office. If this shit could work a state could pass a law restricting a person from being POTUS in their state and apply that to federal law.

About the only thing that could be done is restrict someone from being on the ballot in the state, which this does not seem to prevent, and other states have not restricted Trump from their respective primary ballots as of yet so that has yet to be an option.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/07/politics/aileen-cannon-judge-trump-classified-documents/index.html

https://www.axios.com/2024/06/07/sc...or-bill-to-support-trump-after-guilty-verdict

Do you really need a vote to endlessly jerk someone off?