Jump to content

Why do MAGA-nuts find this line of argument so compelling?


TexasTiger

Recommended Posts





The difference being; if there is a crime find the perp and build a case as opposed to I know this guy is guilty of something so lets fine a crime he committed   This has been happening since 2016 with Trump.

That isn’t the way it’s suppose to work.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Isn’t this a key premise of our country’s founding? The king is not above the law?

Supposedly.  In reality, presidents have been above the law. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

The difference being; if there is a crime find the perp and build a case as opposed to I know this guy is guilty of something so lets fine a crime he committed   This has been happening since 2016 with Trump.

That isn’t the way it’s suppose to work.

 

I've never heard of this law or judicial rule.

Where does it say you can't prosecute for a crime when an investigation originated from the suspect and led to the crime committed rather from the crime itself? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

I've never heard of this law or judicial rule.

Where does it say you can't prosecute for a crime when an investigation originated from the suspect and led to the crime committed rather from the crime itself? 

 

It’s called the 4th amendment:   The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

When a DA runs on the premise that he will *get Trump* and tries to make a local misdemeanor into a Federal crime, something is wrong with the government and you should be worried.  Trump’s payment to Stormy has been passed over by the Feds and this DA is stupid enough to try to bring it up again.  Don’t give Trump another win, please. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s called the 4th amendment:   The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

When a DA runs on the premise that he will *get Trump* and tries to make a local misdemeanor into a Federal crime, something is wrong with the government and you should be worried.  Trump’s payment to Stormy has been passed over by the Feds and this DA is stupid enough to try to bring it up again.  

 

The New York DA can't make a State misdemeanor a 'federal crime' that doesn't make any sense. If Trump broke New York law and the DA has enough evidence of such, and its within the statute of limitations, then they have every right under the law to pursue that. 

 He also TOOK OVER investigations into trump, he didn't initiate them. He's concluding findings initiated by his previous predecessors office. 

 

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Don’t give Trump another win, please. 

It's about justice. I don't believe Republican voters are stupid enough to vote for Trump JUST because a Democrat AD is pursuing him for a crime that several witnesses say he committed. Are you saying they are? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

The New York DA can't make a State misdemeanor a 'federal crime' that doesn't make any sense. If Trump broke New York law and the DA has enough evidence of such, and it’s within the statute of limitations, then they have every right under the law to pursue that. 

I know it doesn't make any sense, but that is what he is trying to do.

“It’s moving. It’s alive. It’s alive . . . it’s moving . . . IT’S ALIVE!”

The scene from the 1931 movie “Frankenstein” came to mind this week as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prepared an indictment of former President Donald Trump. 

It is the ultimate gravedigger charge, where Bragg unearthed a case from 2016 and, through a series of novel steps, is seeking to bring it back to life.

Of course, like the good doctor, Bragg shows little concern over what he has created in his Frankenstein indictment.

Bragg is combining parts from both state and federal codes. 

He is reportedly going to convert a misdemeanor for falsifying financial records into a prosecution of a federal crime.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/19/bragg-brings-a-criminal-case-back-from-dead-but-may-have-reanimated-trumps-chances/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s called the 4th amendment:   The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

This isn't applicable to what happened with Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The difference being; if there is a crime find the perp and build a case as opposed to I know this guy is guilty of something so lets fine a crime he committed   This has been happening since 2016 with Trump.

That isn’t the way it’s suppose to work.

Wasn’t that the Whitewater investigation?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This isn't applicable to what happened with Trump.

You don’t think it was unreasonable to try to elevate a misdemeanor into a federal crime?   This seems unreasonable to me, but then again, I’m not a constitutional expert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Wasn’t that the Whitewater investigation?

It still isn’t suppose to work that way, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It still isn’t suppose to work that way, is it?

I think there was ample evidence to warrant an inquiry into Trump/Russia connections. His team lied and withheld info even then. Why? But unlike Whitewater, which may have also warranted a reasonable inquiry, Mueller didn’t go on for years intent on finding something, talking incessantly to the press. Starr loved the limelight. Basked in it daily. Talked to reporters every chance he got.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I think there was ample evidence to warrant an inquiry into Trump/Russia connections. His team lied and withheld info even then. Why? But unlike Whitewater, which may have also warranted a reasonable inquiry, Mueller didn’t go on for years intent on finding something, talking incessantly to the press. Starr loved the limelight. Basked in it daily. Talked to reporters every chance he got.

What’s your thoughts on Bragg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

You don’t think it was unreasonable to try to elevate a misdemeanor into a federal crime?   This seems unreasonable to me, but then again, I’m not a constitutional expert

Whether it is or isn't, that's not a 4th Amendment problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

What’s your thoughts on Bragg?

I haven’t spent any real time on this case. I think it’s the least important of the ones under consideration and I’d prefer one of those be the first if charges are brought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Whether it is or isn't, that's not a 4th Amendment problem.

What is your thoughts on what Bragg is trying to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What is your thoughts on what Bragg is trying to do?

It almost certainly politically motivated - but also, it's not clear that what Trump is alleged to have done is just a misdemeanor under NY state law.  Unfortunately for all of us, that's kind of par for the course these days with major political figures. They get extra scrutiny they otherwise wouldn't see as a regular private citizen and sometimes that scrutiny uncovers stuff they wish it hadn't. 

Unfortunately for Trump, it's also not relevant as to whether he's done what he's accused of and no amount of him crying about it or trying to whip his mindless minions into a violent frenzy over it changes that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

The New York DA can't make a State misdemeanor a 'federal crime' that doesn't make any sense. If Trump broke New York law and the DA has enough evidence of such, and its within the statute of limitations, then they have every right under the law to pursue that.  

Actually, I am pretty sure New York constitution specifies it as more of an obligation:

"In New York, the District Attorney is a constitutional officer charged with "the responsibility to conduct all prosecutions for crimes and offenses cognizable by the courts of the county in which he serves." People v Di Falco, 44 .Y.2d 482, 486 (1978); see also Matter of Haggerry v. Flimefein, 89 N.Y.2d 431, 436 (1997); Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 .Y.2d 46, 52 (1983).

(From Manhatten's general counsel response to Trump's idiot lapdog, Jim Jordan.)

Trump indictment: Alvin Bragg's office pushes back on Jim Jordan (cnbc.com)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

For real. My response to that is, “Good!  That’s how it should be!”

i was hoping you would offer your thoughts on the book banning and the bible thread i posted on smack talk. you always seem fair and thoughtful and folks think i am just trying to start an argument. but i am sincere if you are interested. i might be a big dummy but i am smart enough to know i do not understand a lot of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

ICHY with a truth bomb!!

do you not think we would be better off if we did enforce the laws and maybe send a message?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

do you not think we would be better off if we did enforce the laws and maybe send a message?

I absolutely think we should enforce the law on presidents vices senators reps etc. Send the message. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2023 at 6:33 PM, TexasTiger said:

Isn’t this a key premise of our country’s founding? The king is not above the law? 

People that never paid attention in high school government classes now want to run the government.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...