• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prosecutors unlikely to charge Trump Org executives

Cardinal said:
So you think it's okay for a minority of the country's voters to select the President because you don't like New York and California?

That certainly seems like an evolved political philosophy.
Click to expand...

LOL More along the lines of, I don't think it's ok for California and New York to select the President......amazing, that you are.
 
Oborosen said:
Both of those are still allegations and no evidence for anything of the sort, currently exist.
I've been told time and time again to read the Mueller report and it says the exact same thing it did the first time I read it.
Click to expand...

No they are not lol. He did go bankrupt, he did get busted for racism and he did defraud thousands of people with his fake university. He also did break the law with his fake charity.
 
ElChupacabra said:
What's always been interesting about Trump in this regard is he's one of those people whom you suspect is involved with some type of impropriety but nothing ever sticks. This has been the case with his real estate dealings for a long time. At the end of it we can only go by what sticks, and if the SDNY can't find anything then what's left is only assumptions of guilt based on the perception by some of him being a text book cartoon villain. I've never seen Trump as some criminal mastermind; just an ambitious and assertive person who did whatever it took to get things done; be that for better or worse.
Click to expand...
What we're seeing now more than ever is the power of the OLC opinion in action.

When you have a president that can't be indicted and an AG that has no shame in acting as his personal attorney, we effectivly have a DOJ that are an arm of the Trump business, and the only way to stop it is to vote he and his gang out of DC and back to NY.
 
Chomsky said:
That's a great rebuttal.

If a newly elected President is elected by a majority, then they would in effect by acting through democratic principles, and would need to only stay within constitutional limits. Hopefully though, they would consider the broader America-at-large, so as to expand democratic inclusion.

A large problem with Trump, is he was not elected fully democratically, losing the popular vote, and only winning the Electoral College. He was elected Constitutionally, but not fully democratically. And now we have tyranny of the minority over the majority, which has manifest itself in all the civil unrest we currently see.

It's my hope the next Dem administration can figure-out a way to dump the EC, and get us to a more democratic process.
Click to expand...

The 'civil unrest' is a result of the country being split down the middle-- Mrs. Clinton didn't obtain 50% of the vote.
 
haymarket said:
I have been advocating for the aboshing of the Electoral College sine 1966 - at least.

Trump is a racist and xenophobe who appeals to the worst sort of persons who see him as one of them. He truly is a deplorable excuse for a human being.

People want him out now. Is that clear enough for you?
Click to expand...

The 'norms' of a democratic society would indicate the next chance is in 2020. Or is it only certain people attacking certain 'norms' of a democratic society they danger to democracy?
 
PeteEU said:
And Ken Starr spent far more to expose Bill Clintons blowjob. Also Mueller got 40 million back, so he actually made profit. And he did identify crimes, but because of Justice Department policy and Barr, no sitting President can be indicted on any crimes.
Click to expand...

Barr had said that Mueller could have recommended indictment. The OLC ruling notwithstanding.
 
sjmay said:
LOL More along the lines of, I don't think it's ok for California and New York to select the President......amazing, that you are.
Click to expand...

I can't discuss democratic systems with somebody whose political philosophy is governed by their hatred for the people of two states.
 
Cardinal said:
I can't discuss democratic systems with somebody whose political philosophy is governed by their hatred for the people of two states.
Click to expand...

I can't discuss anyone who is idiotic enough to construe that previous statement as hatred.

Guess you are part of the me too movement to eh snowflake?
 
Chomsky said:
And THEN take care of him. Same as with Epstein. :thumbs:
Click to expand...
What should happen is there should be a review of ALL actions by Barr from any Democratic AG, just as they are doing to Obama right now.

Find out how these separate investigations into matters relating to Trump have been surpervised.
 
haymarket said:
He has prevented witnesses from testifying before appropriate committees.

He has refused to hand over evidence that they have a legal right to have such as tax returns.

This negates some of powers in checks and balances.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion...I'd say he has been more forthcoming than many Presidents of the past.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The 'norms' of a democratic society would indicate the next chance is in 2020. Or is it only certain people attacking certain 'norms' of a democratic society they danger to democracy?
Click to expand...

You are confusing a written and scheduled election with unwritten norms that help to produce the written rules of society.
 
j-mac said:
That's your opinion...I'd say he has been more forthcoming than many Presidents of the past.
Click to expand...

Actually what I provided was not opinion but facts.

Of course hold that opinion .... you would as a good Trumpkin would always do.
 
For those who still count another break of norms:

The US CIC standing in front of the whole world, chooses to accept the words of an adversary over the words of all US intelligence agencies in Helsinki.
I do not recall any such stance by any president.

Meanwhile, notice that we have already provided numerous breaks from the norm that happened before even the end of TRump's first term! And as we all know from history, the most serous abuses by presidents tend to be in the second term when hubris comes natural to those who stay in power.
 
haymarket said:
I told you I would read a summary from you. Just present the material.

Here is an excerpt from the book I recommended to you.

This is how democracies die | Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt | Opinion | The Guardian
Click to expand...

A hit piece on Trump, big surprise. They call Trump a threat to our democracy? Were these idiots asleep for the Obama election and years in office? Two clowns writing for the low information types, that believe everything their leftist, Constitution hating leaders tell them. What a joke. They are the ones who need an education.
 
PeteEU said:
No they are not lol. He did go bankrupt, he did get busted for racism and he did defraud thousands of people with his fake university. He also did break the law with his fake charity.
Click to expand...

Show me where he was personally busted for racism.
 
Anthony60 said:
A hit piece on Trump, big surprise. They call Trump a threat to our democracy? Were these idiots asleep for the Obama election and years in office? Two clowns writing for the low information types, that believe everything their leftist, Constitution hating leaders tell them. What a joke. They are the ones who need an education.
Click to expand...

Your lame whataboutism is a pathetic response. Your response also indicates you DID NOT read the article.
 
MovingPictures said:
Trump Org executives unlikely to be charged, sources say - CNNPolitics

This is very surprising to me. All of the evidence against the Trump Org was so damning. From the checks to the recorded calls, it appeared to be a slam dunk case. I'm going to guess that the SDNY decided that waiting to indict Trump in 2021 just wasn't practical, and would be too political for the office.

What this ought to tell Democrats is that investigating Trump to 'get' him is pointless. He's a rich elitist with the power of the Presidency, who for all pratical purposes IS above the law right now. The only way to end this is to go and beat him at the polls, and just send him back to NY.
Click to expand...

Or, here is a novel concept: All that you think you know is false.
 
sjmay said:
LOL More along the lines of, I don't think it's ok for California and New York to select the President......amazing, that you are.
Click to expand...

I have tried, my friend, to bring you along because I thought you a) cared, and b) were educable. I am disappointed to see that is not the case.
 
haymarket said:
Your lame whataboutism is a pathetic response. Your response also indicates you DID NOT read the article.
Click to expand...

What is lame is your inability to address what I said and just use the standard leftist cry of "whataboutism" as if it is some sort of universal defense against being a hypocrite or just plain old dimwittedism.
 
MovingPictures said:
Maybe, maybe not.

Rich elitists are often allowed to engage in financial chicanery that would otherwise be illegal for the average citizen. They also get away with even more serious crimes such as those of Epstein, where there is damning evidence of sex crimes, but they are given a slap on the wrist.

The evidence that Trump knew Cohen was breaking the law on his behalf is seen in the checks, the wire transfers, the timing, and his knowledg of the payments is right on tape.
Click to expand...

Checks to pornstars to keep quiet arent "breaking the law" because they are not campaign contributions.
 
MovingPictures said:
Then why did Cohen plead guilty to it?.
Click to expand...

To give Mueller what he wanted. An allegation that Trump comitted a crime. Were probably threatening him with the rest of his life in prison. He would of given them whatever they wanted.
 
Chomsky said:
Well that might be your problem right there. I've watched his show, and if it mirrors the contents of his books - it's worthless propaganda.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about his interview show or the radio show? He does his research, knows the Constitution backwards and forwards, and backs up everything he says with facts. So, I wonder what exactly you are talking about when you say "worthless propaganda". Seems like just a blanket statement with nothing to back it up.
 
PeteEU said:
And Ken Starr spent far more to expose Bill Clintons blowjob. Also Mueller got 40 million back, so he actually made profit. And he did identify crimes, but because of Justice Department policy and Barr, no sitting President can be indicted on any crimes.
Click to expand...

The prosecutors were considering charges against the Trump Org. not the President individually. Nothing would have prevented them from bringing an indictment against the Trump companies.
 
NWRatCon said:
I have tried, my friend, to bring you along because I thought you a) cared, and b) were educable. I am disappointed to see that is not the case.
Click to expand...

So I take it you are perfectly fine with 5-10 states out of 50 determining the President? I take it you don't believe that each State has different needs etc ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom