Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

You're not going to like this: if he loses and is out of office, he should not be prosecuted for his political crimes (campaign finance, collusion, whatever else he did criminally to get into office). I'm worried about how easily abused prosecutions of former office holders/candidates would be and I think it's a good that there's no precedent of doing that. Of course, the remedy for these things is supposed to be impeachment...

Open season on all the other crimes his businesses and "foundation" did, though.

Since he's not going to be prosecuted in office, you're saying that people who commit political crimes should just be able to get away with them? The remedy is impeachment while the President is in office, but why not prosecution afterwards? If you believe in the rule of law, it seems like you should have some faith in the rule of law.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He won by the thinnest of margins. While everything you've said certainly does indicate he doesn't give a fuck, the math still dictates that he cannot afford to lose any voters in PA, MI, WI. Pardoning a tax cheat who fancied $15k ostrich jackets won't play well in the Rust Belt. If he did that and I were a D strategist, I'd kill him with commercials in those states highlighting Manafort's opulent lifestyle. I think Trump is smart enough to understand that risk.

"The President pardoned ____. Bad President!" Has been played out for years. I really have no idea what this guy did, do you think the average Trump voter would? They're fucking morons. He could pardon El Chapo and not lose a vote.

The better question is "would a pardon make any of this fuzzy brained 3rd party voters come to their senses?" If only we knew someone we could ask.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Again, he thinks those states are his. There isn't anyone in this world (except maybe Hannity) who can tell him otherwise. He is a moron.

I disagree. I think he's going down, especially if he loses. No need to impeach. Simply let the justice department do its thing. If the Democrats are going to ignore real (and serious) crimes in order to "heal," I'll lose my fucking mind.

TM

If he still thinks those states are his, 2016 was entirely a fluke and he has not a thimble's worth of grey matter between his ears.

I can't believe after the midterms he'd think those states are his. He is fucked in PA and WI.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

"The President pardoned ____. Bad President!" Has been played out for years. I really have no idea what this guy did, do you think the average Trump voter would? They're fucking morons. He could pardon El Chapo and not lose a vote.

The better question is "would a pardon make any of this fuzzy brained 3rd party voters come to their senses?" If only we knew someone we could ask.

There is no way he's winning PA. He's going to get trounced.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There are a lot of Democrats who feel this way and there aren't going to fewer of them after another 22 months of incessant corruption.

I see a lot of corruption in his business endeavors, but I'm still a bit fuzzy on the corruption in office. It appears to be:

1. Having the govt pay for space in Trump buildings;
2. Emoluments issues (mostly, it seems, re: Trump DC hotel);
3. Getting his kids security passes;
4. Suborning lies about a Trump hotel development in Moscow;
5. $130k of campaign finance violations re: Stormy

Am I missing things? I must be.

2 is a real case, ongoing. But it's civil. 1 has already been vetted. It sounds sketchy, but it's legal. 3 is sketchy but legal. 4 is definitely illegal. Got him there. 5 is illegal, but really hard to prove and small potatoes.

I think the really fucked up stuff Trump has done predates the Presidency and involves possible money laundering through his projects. Those are serious crimes. But his post-election corruption looks like a lot of "meh." I'd say his risk is on the business side.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is no way he's winning PA. He's going to get trounced.

Post a poll or grow from what you thought in 2016.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Since he's not going to be prosecuted in office, you're saying that people who commit political crimes should just be able to get away with them? The remedy is impeachment while the President is in office, but why not prosecution afterwards? If you believe in the rule of law, it seems like you should have some faith in the rule of law.

I think he's saying we're about to normalize the prosecution of politics.

The fed crim code can be used to indict a person like Mother Theresa if a prosecutor feels a desire to so use it. And often that desire is political (or ambition).

Do we really want politicians leaning on prosecutors to send other politicians to jail more than they already do?

We need fewer prosecutions of all kinds in this country. That sort of thing should never be used as a political tool. If you believe in the rule of law, the idea that any man is in jail based on a selective prosecution (where no other person would be prosecuted) simply because he happens to be a high profile or politically useful target should disgust the shit out of you.

Some lady got 5 years in TX a year ago for accidentally voting without having properly registered as a felon. She was, wait for it... Black. And she was prosecuted for one reason and one reason only: To scare other minority voters.

It seems right to punish Trump post-office. And he probably deserves a lot of punishment for many things. But of the many things that characterize banana republics, having courts that are used as political tools is top five. And when that becomes even more commonplace, it won't be used on Trumps as much as it will be on people like that lady in TX.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Post a poll or grow from what you thought in 2016.

whiff


But srsly, he's fucked.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

You're not going to like this: if he loses and is out of office, he should not be prosecuted for his political crimes (campaign finance, collusion, whatever else he did criminally to get into office).

I absolutely disagree.

You're not going to be able to divorce his other crimes from what he did to get into office. It will all be interrelated. And once we discover more evidence of him selling US policy for personal gain (gaining office or financial) or for assurances that info won't get out in order to protect himself, how the fuck do we walk away from that?

I understand not wanting to drag this country through what may appear to those of us who are completely ignorant and stupid to be political trials, but I think, once uncovered, the extent of the fuckery this man is engaged in will be overwhelming.

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm worried about how easily abused prosecutions of former office holders/candidates would be and I think it's a good that there's no precedent of doing that. Of course, the remedy for these things is supposed to be impeachment...

There needs to be actual evidence. I'm sure parties could force those out of office to go through endless investigation, but you think we're not already almost there when it comes to Republicans? That's no excuse for avoiding actually applying the fucking law.

If the level of criminality I think this asshole is engaged in is made public, it would be a crime not to go after him.

Originally Posted by Adder

Open season on all the other crimes his businesses and "foundation" did, though.

I fucking hope so.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If he still thinks those states are his, 2016 was entirely a fluke and he has not a thimble's worth of grey matter between his ears.

Correct.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can't believe after the midterms he'd think those states are his. He is fucked in PA and WI.

He absolutely does not see it that way.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Since he's not going to be prosecuted in office, you're saying that people who commit political crimes should just be able to get away with them? The remedy is impeachment while the President is in office, but why not prosecution afterwards? If you believe in the rule of law, it seems like you should have some faith in the rule of law.

I think they're something to be said for having a full reconciliation. That said, I'd like it to be very carefully insulated from politics. You need to have a prosecutor with a sterling reputation, an ability to play it by the book, and a political past that doesn't suggest he'd have a partisan axe to grind .... someone like, say, Robert Mueller.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

whiff

Nope. There is an exception to that particular type whiff limited to you, and as long as Trump is prez. NTTAWWT

But srsly, he's fucked.

Dunno. This summer my neighbor had a garage sale and I wandered in, as one does. Do not know this particular, over educated lib family, but they had a few political buttons for sale. One was a Jill Stein "why pick the lesser of two evils?" button. For these people to advertise they had a hand in this shit means there has not been growth in the "OMG we fucked it up" department. I don't know 1 Trump voter who acknowledges it was a mistake. If the 3rd party people don't, how you getting to another result?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I see a lot of corruption in his business endeavors, but I'm still a bit fuzzy on the corruption in office. It appears to be:

1. Having the govt pay for space in Trump buildings;
2. Emoluments issues (mostly, it seems, re: Trump DC hotel);
3. Getting his kids security passes;
4. Suborning lies about a Trump hotel development in Moscow;
5. $130k of campaign finance violations re: Stormy

Am I missing things? I must be.

2 is a real case, ongoing. But it's civil. 1 has already been vetted. It sounds sketchy, but it's legal. 3 is sketchy but legal. 4 is definitely illegal. Got him there. 5 is illegal, but really hard to prove and small potatoes.

This Administration is rife with grifters. Corruption only comes to light when someone else in the Administration exposes it while jockeying for position. I think it's a safe bet that sunshine will turn up quite a bit more. One example: the Florida woman who owns a chain of brothels and who has been selling access to Trump.

Also, you are missing the issue with 2. The Emoluments Clause is about whether Trump should be allowed to accept facially legit payments for things like hotel use. Even if that's OK, do you doubt that there are people in the government who are using their position to encourage third parties to make those payments?

It's not clear to me if 3. is legal, either. It depend on how it happened. The law imposes a bunch of process requirements. Not clear that they were met. Also, clearly there was something in Jared's dealings that made national security officials uncomfortable with him being in the loop. What do you think it was? High possibility for corruption there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think he's saying we're about to normalize the prosecution of politics.

The fed crim code can be used to indict a person like Mother Theresa if a prosecutor feels a desire to so use it. And often that desire is political (or ambition).

Do we really want politicians leaning on prosecutors to send other politicians to jail more than they already do?

We need fewer prosecutions of all kinds in this country. That sort of thing should never be used as a political tool. If you believe in the rule of law, the idea that any man is in jail based on a selective prosecution (where no other person would be prosecuted) simply because he happens to be a high profile or politically useful target should disgust the shit out of you.

Some lady got 5 years in TX a year ago for accidentally voting without having properly registered as a felon. She was, wait for it... Black. And she was prosecuted for one reason and one reason only: To scare other minority voters.

It seems right to punish Trump post-office. And he probably deserves a lot of punishment for many things. But of the many things that characterize banana republics, having courts that are used as political tools is top five. And when that becomes even more commonplace, it won't be used on Trumps as much as it will be on people like that lady in TX.

If someone breaks the law, and you prosecute, that's not (necessarily) selective prosecution or using prosecution as a political tool. We all have seen Mueller operate and understand that it's possibly to run a professional, unpoliticized investigation and prosecution. The fact that criminals will complain that they are being singled out does not mean that they are being singled out or are not criminals. Consider, for example, the prosecution of Dinesh D'Souza. He did what he did, and had no defense. So he got nailed. He complained that he was being singled out, but that was a load of crap, and the criminal justice system did its job. Floodgates were not opened.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not clear to me if 3. is legal, either.

I'm not sure if either of the commas you used were appropriate, but surely the use of both is not. When I post on the Detroit Board I do try and maintain a high standard of proper grammar and intellectual honesty given my high office there. We have all given up on you caring about the later, but as the admin, can you not at least try to respect the former?