Tiberius Posted November 6 Posted November 6 So is this safer for Trump to do than the mass deportations? Boy, his administartion will be a shi t show if he goes after people. What a mess...(already)
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 8 Posted November 8 On 11/6/2024 at 6:59 PM, Tiberius said: So is this safer for Trump to do than the mass deportations? Boy, his administartion will be a shi t show if he goes after people. What a mess...(already) You raise an excellent point here regarding Special Counsel Smith and potential wrongdoing. Members of the House have requested that he retain documents and records related to his investigation, and I’m sure there will be some interesting information in there should he comply. I think we all would agree that complete transparency is in order—notes, texts, court orders, witness interviews and interrogations. It’s also important to know , if possible, who leaked what to whom, and any efforts to find and punish leakers should they exist. With luck, everything was above-board with no impropriety and the country can finally put this ugliness to rest. If, instead, concerns are raised, they should be addressed. I don’t wish it on anyone but how ironic would it be if armed agents served a warrant on SC Smith’s house or Merrick’s place. Beyond that, we know the recommendations of Robt Hur as it relates to JB removing/possessing classified docs over his many decades in office. @ChiGoose has offered up that in spite of wrongdoing on the part of JB, the law allows for “special rules for electeds” presumably meaning some prosecutors would look the other while others might not. Now that we’re here, is it possible to re-evaluate the circumstances and press forward with prosecution when JB is out of office? If rules can be suspended, doesn’t it make sense that they could be interpreted differently by reasonable people? Thanks Tibsy for bringing this up— 3 1
Tiberius Posted November 8 Posted November 8 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You raise an excellent point here regarding Special Counsel Smith and potential wrongdoing. Members of the House have requested that he retain documents and records related to his investigation, and I’m sure there will be some interesting information in there should he comply. I think we all would agree that complete transparency is in order—notes, texts, court orders, witness interviews and interrogations. It’s also important to know , if possible, who leaked what to whom, and any efforts to find and punish leakers should they exist. With luck, everything was above-board with no impropriety and the country can finally put this ugliness to rest. If, instead, concerns are raised, they should be addressed. I don’t wish it on anyone but how ironic would it be if armed agents served a warrant on SC Smith’s house or Merrick’s place. Beyond that, we know the recommendations of Robt Hur as it relates to JB removing/possessing classified docs over his many decades in office. @ChiGoose has offered up that in spite of wrongdoing on the part of JB, the law allows for “special rules for electeds” presumably meaning some prosecutors would look the other while others might not. Now that we’re here, is it possible to re-evaluate the circumstances and press forward with prosecution when JB is out of office? If rules can be suspended, doesn’t it make sense that they could be interpreted differently by reasonable people? Thanks Tibsy for bringing this up— Oh, everything will be preserved. When Trump is out of office the prosecution can again go forward
ChiGoose Posted November 8 Posted November 8 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You raise an excellent point here regarding Special Counsel Smith and potential wrongdoing. Members of the House have requested that he retain documents and records related to his investigation, and I’m sure there will be some interesting information in there should he comply. I think we all would agree that complete transparency is in order—notes, texts, court orders, witness interviews and interrogations. It’s also important to know , if possible, who leaked what to whom, and any efforts to find and punish leakers should they exist. With luck, everything was above-board with no impropriety and the country can finally put this ugliness to rest. If, instead, concerns are raised, they should be addressed. I don’t wish it on anyone but how ironic would it be if armed agents served a warrant on SC Smith’s house or Merrick’s place. Beyond that, we know the recommendations of Robt Hur as it relates to JB removing/possessing classified docs over his many decades in office. @ChiGoose has offered up that in spite of wrongdoing on the part of JB, the law allows for “special rules for electeds” presumably meaning some prosecutors would look the other while others might not. Now that we’re here, is it possible to re-evaluate the circumstances and press forward with prosecution when JB is out of office? If rules can be suspended, doesn’t it make sense that they could be interpreted differently by reasonable people? Thanks Tibsy for bringing this up— I don't see how anything changes regarding the likelihood of success in prosecuting Biden. A new AG may think it's worth prosecuting anyway, but they would almost certainly lose. Just a waste of taxpayer money. As much as I'd love Jack Smith to make all of the evidence and documents public, it would go against practice and also be bad for Trump. Usually, at the end of a Special Counsel investigation, they submit a report. I'm not sure how that even plays out under these circumstances.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 8 Posted November 8 23 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Oh, everything will be preserved. When Trump is out of office the prosecution can again go forward Maybe he shares a cell with JB? MG? Smith? Epic! 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 8 Posted November 8 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I don't see how anything changes regarding the likelihood of success in prosecuting Biden. A new AG may think it's worth prosecuting anyway, but they would almost certainly lose. Just a waste of taxpayer money. As much as I'd love Jack Smith to make all of the evidence and documents public, it would go against practice and also be bad for Trump. Usually, at the end of a Special Counsel investigation, they submit a report. I'm not sure how that even plays out under these circumstances. You may be right, but I think it might be a net gain for the country if the matter was pursued, even if it ends up in a loss. I think the perception of dem overreach on political persecution is one reason voters rejected the same old hash for another 4 years. As has been said so many times re: Trump and associates, if they have nothing to hide, they tell the truth and the chips fall as they do. One thing I wouldn't worry about is concern about wasting taxpayer money, that's a DC tradition. As for Smith, yeah, let's get it all out. Good, bad, ugly. Who they talked to. Who got squeezed. Tone and tenor of communication. 1
B-Man Posted November 8 Posted November 8 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You may be right, but I think it might be a net gain for the country if the matter was pursued, even if it ends up in a loss. I think the perception of dem overreach on political persecution is one reason voters rejected the same old hash for another 4 years. As has been said so many times re: Trump and associates, if they have nothing to hide, they tell the truth and the chips fall as they do. One thing I wouldn't worry about is concern about wasting taxpayer money, that's a DC tradition. As for Smith, yeah, let's get it all out. Good, bad, ugly. Who they talked to. Who got squeezed. Tone and tenor of communication. Transparency is the best disinfectant. Clean DC out !
ChiGoose Posted November 8 Posted November 8 14 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You may be right, but I think it might be a net gain for the country if the matter was pursued, even if it ends up in a loss. I think the perception of dem overreach on political persecution is one reason voters rejected the same old hash for another 4 years. As has been said so many times re: Trump and associates, if they have nothing to hide, they tell the truth and the chips fall as they do. One thing I wouldn't worry about is concern about wasting taxpayer money, that's a DC tradition. As for Smith, yeah, let's get it all out. Good, bad, ugly. Who they talked to. Who got squeezed. Tone and tenor of communication. Your solution for perceived political prosecution is to do *actual* political prosecution? Also, I think Trump would be pretty upset if all of the special counsel materials were made public. It would certainly be pretty bad for him and also set a bad precedent. But I would be lying if I didn't say there's a part of me that wouldn't mind seeing it happen.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 8 Posted November 8 1 minute ago, ChiGoose said: Your solution for perceived political prosecution is to do *actual* political prosecution? Not at all. I would have thought the US Government would have had strict guidelines and rules for handling classified documents, but come to find out it was like one of those swinger parties where people just throw keys into a bowl and whomever goes with whom is ok. It seems to boil down to high ranking politicians can do whatever they want for however long they want, but if lines are crossed the likelihood of adverse consequences really depends on who is running the investigation. One guy, decades, cool, fine, you're a good man for stealing documents in such a classy way. The other guy, life in prison, mob rule. The way you restore trust is to get to the bottom of it. If criminal charges are appropriate, push forward. If Biden broke a law but it was kind of a only pretend law, that should be completely explainable. As you were trusting the system to do system things, I'm simply saying the same thing with the committee investigating. Seems pretty straight forward to me. 1 minute ago, ChiGoose said: Also, I think Trump would be pretty upset if all of the special counsel materials were made public. It would certainly be pretty bad for him and also set a bad precedent. But I would be lying if I didn't say there's a part of me that wouldn't mind seeing it happen. I guess we'll see, but I would hope the Trump admin and AG would be as just as transparent as Biden's AG.
ChiGoose Posted November 9 Posted November 9 2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Not at all. I would have thought the US Government would have had strict guidelines and rules for handling classified documents, but come to find out it was like one of those swinger parties where people just throw keys into a bowl and whomever goes with whom is ok. It seems to boil down to high ranking politicians can do whatever they want for however long they want, but if lines are crossed the likelihood of adverse consequences really depends on who is running the investigation. One guy, decades, cool, fine, you're a good man for stealing documents in such a classy way. The other guy, life in prison, mob rule. The way you restore trust is to get to the bottom of it. If criminal charges are appropriate, push forward. If Biden broke a law but it was kind of a only pretend law, that should be completely explainable. As you were trusting the system to do system things, I'm simply saying the same thing with the committee investigating. Seems pretty straight forward to me. I guess we'll see, but I would hope the Trump admin and AG would be as just as transparent as Biden's AG. If you mishandle classified documents you have access to as part of your job, you can be punished by your employer and even fired. But people don’t get charged with a crime unless the prosecutors believe they can prove intent to a jury. And mere possession is not sufficient to establish intent. This really isn’t as hard or complicated as you seem to think it is.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 9 Posted November 9 16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: If you mishandle classified documents you have access to as part of your job, you can be punished by your employer and even fired. But people don’t get charged with a crime unless the prosecutors believe they can prove intent to a jury. And mere possession is not sufficient to establish intent. This really isn’t as hard or complicated as you seem to think it is. I don’t think it’s complicated at all. In fact, it’s actually pretty straightforward. As you said, people don’t get charged with a crime unless the prosecutors believe they can prove intent to a jury. I’m simply suggesting that a second review by a new, independent party may have a different view on intent. Bigger picture, relentless, aggressive and politically motivated prosecution seemed to move the needle in the opposite direction intended by the Dems.
ChiGoose Posted November 9 Posted November 9 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I don’t think it’s complicated at all. In fact, it’s actually pretty straightforward. As you said, people don’t get charged with a crime unless the prosecutors believe they can prove intent to a jury. I’m simply suggesting that a second review by a new, independent party may have a different view on intent. Bigger picture, relentless, aggressive and politically motivated prosecution seemed to move the needle in the opposite direction intended by the Dems. A different view won’t change the fact that a prosecution will almost certainly fail. It may just change the calculus of whether or not charging someone who you will not convict is worth the political win. If the Dems were looking to use the law to end Trump, they would have indicted him for the crimes Mueller identified that he had committed. The fact that they didn’t should tell you something. There is a yawning gap between what was actually happening with the Trump prosecutions and what the public understands about them.
Unforgiven Posted November 9 Posted November 9 13 hours ago, Tiberius said: Oh, everything will be preserved. When Trump is out of office the prosecution can again go forward dream on ya sick ***** nazi 1
Tiberius Posted November 9 Posted November 9 15 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Maybe he shares a cell with JB? MG? Smith? Epic! Smith isn't going to jail. Hopefully the House GOP calls on him to testify and Dems get to allow him to lay out his cases, in public, against the President.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted November 9 Posted November 9 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Smith isn't going to jail. Hopefully the House GOP calls on him to testify and Dems get to allow him to lay out his cases, in public, against the President. Four long years of thinking about TRUMP 24/7. Glorious! 1
Tiberius Posted November 9 Posted November 9 1 minute ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said: Four long years of thinking about TRUMP 24/7. Glorious! Hmmmm....not sure about that. He might have a mental breakdown before that. And if he doesn't he will stay in charge of GOP longer than that
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted November 9 Posted November 9 8 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Hmmmm....not sure about that. He might have a mental breakdown before that. And if he doesn't he will stay in charge of GOP longer than that The question - will you be ok? Thinking about TRUMP 24/7 can’t be healthy.
Tiberius Posted November 9 Posted November 9 1 minute ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said: The question - will you be ok? Thinking about TRUMP 24/7 can’t be healthy. Me? I'm great! Watching this sh it show will be a hoot. You clowns won, but Trump can't govern, we already know that. Sad for Ukraine, but hopefully she will hold out somehow. Do you think you will be ok? I mean you guys will be doing clean up on aisle 5 every time you turn around and Trump does something stupid.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 9 Posted November 9 10 hours ago, ChiGoose said: A different view won’t change the fact that a prosecution will almost certainly fail. It may just change the calculus of whether or not charging someone who you will not convict is worth the political win. If the Dems were looking to use the law to end Trump, they would have indicted him for the crimes Mueller identified that he had committed. The fact that they didn’t should tell you something. There is a yawning gap between what was actually happening with the Trump prosecutions and what the public understands about them. I understand you’re dug in here, and I’m only thinking of the greater good. It was your point that special rules are followed, not mine. I scoured the internet to find an example, and found this story about former NYS AG Cuomo, speaking about one of the many cases against Trump. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4734858-andrew-cuomo-donald-trump-alvin-bragg-hush-money-case-new-york/ “If his name was not Donald Trump and if he wasn’t running for president … I’m the former AG of in New York, [and] I’m telling you that case would’ve never been brought.” We can argue whether or not both parties are reasonable, but it is what it is. Representative Jim Jordan seems to be interested in looking into this case, and his education and subsequent experience certainly makes this noteworthy. I’m concerned, as I always am, that congressional committees are glorified dog and pony shows, but this seems to be the way to get answers Americans are looking for. If you’re correct—and you could be—-there’s certainly no harm in asking questions and rooting around in the details. We both agree there I would think, beyond concern for taxpayer funds obv.
Recommended Posts