you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (18 children)

if trump did anything illegal he would have been impeached and removed from office

[–]dingoatemytaco 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

(He was impeached twice, though the GOP kept him in office as their clown puppet.)

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

must have just been dems playing politics, it went by partyline vote

Even now merrick garland says by his inaction that trump did nothing illegal.

[–]dingoatemytaco 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Good point about Garland, though the guy's a moderate, and my view is that the true meanning of his argument is that: Trump didn't do anything more illegal than what other politicians have done. But that there is the problem.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

over in NY the AD seeks to question trump's children. That is the closest any law enforcement type person has done to possibly charging trump with a crime but it is still the fact at this monent, if trump did anything illegal please point to it and explain why top law enforcement officials disagree.

[–]dingoatemytaco 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

do any of these say then why cops don't immedietely arrest him

I think they're just biased political sources

[–]dingoatemytaco 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

They're reporting facts.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

but the facts are that if he did anything illegal, the dems who hate him would charge him

[–]dingoatemytaco 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They did - with 2 impeachments

[–]Trajan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is comical. Take this example from the Washington Post:

Trump also uses his properties to generate revenue from parties doing business with the government, which could justify a bribery investigation. Recent reporting indicates that lobbyists and foreign government officials pay to get into the Trump International Hotel in Washington and the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to obtain access to Trump. If the president rewarded those spending money at his hotels and resorts with favorable official decisions in office, he could be criminally liable.

In short, people pay to stay at his properties. This might be criminal if evidence ever emerges that he did political favours for any paid guest. No actual evidence, insinuation as opposed to accusation. It's a thought exercise you're presenting as evidence of criminality..

By the same logic one could suggest Trump is an aeroplane hijacker. He's been onboard aeroplanes on many occasions. He used to bring armed men aboard flights with him. He could be charged if it's found that he hijacked any one of these flights.

[–]dingoatemytaco 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Though that is obviously a strawman argument, one it is one of many conflicts of interest that show what a small corrupt person Cheeto in Chief was, especially as President, and the smaller the grift, the better example in this contect of greed. Conflicts of interests in the role of President are forms of treason to the American people. The Trump crime family engaged in very serious and not to serious acts of treason. They should all be in jail.

[–]Trajan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, it's not a straw man. You presented those links in response to a request to explain what Trump did that was illegal. The text I quoted is not describing anything illegal - only suggesting Trump could will have broken the law if he does what the author says he could have done. There's no evidence there and not even an accusation, and that's precisely the same as what I said about the hijacking. You appear to not understand what a criminal act is. The reason I say this is that you describe a conflict of interest as treason. Here's why this is wrong:

  1. Having a conflict of interest is not criminal and is not corruption. All statutes on the matter, in common with basic law in most countries, require actions be committed before charges can apply. Even laws that deal with intent have to establish that an action was intended (e.g. possession with intent to supply, conspiracy to murder). It is not criminal to have an opportunity to commit a crime any more than it's criminal to think about committing a crime. This is where the Washington Post excerpt falls down as they lay out a conflict of interest, yet have to then fantasise about the action that would constitute a criminal act. See https://conflictofinterestblog.com/2012/04/what-makes-a-conflict-of-interest-a-crime.html for a little background on this.

  2. Treason is a very specific charge, not one to be invoked whenever people with apparent mental health challenges are unhappy with somebody.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

reason dems won't charge trump with that kind of corruption is they do the same thing