368
'He is in serious jeopardy': Legal expert warns Trump his back is against the wall
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
368 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3943 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not really, as you said it's just not within the realm of possibility for anyone else.
Trump stands a good chance of being elected in a few weeks. An unfavourable court ruling would undermine that. Do you want to live in a country where courts are more powerful than the will of the people?
Also, imagine what would happen if he did get locked up now. It would be pandemonium, and not without reason.
The only way to get rid of Trump is to vote against him, then watch him fade into irrelevance.
It's not just. He should be locked up for his crimes. If people would want him released, they'd have to vote for a candidate who promises to do that. Just being a promising candidate isn't a reason not to be prosecuted. There is simply no law for that.
The justice system is being intimidated by an angry mob into waiting out the situation. This is against everything what the justice system is supposed to do.
It's not the will of "the people", it's the will of a minority. He HAS been voted out. Courts should indeed be more powerful than that.
Of course there's "a law for that" - it's the basic paradigm of democracy.
You feel that it's unjust, but half the country apparently disagrees with you.
I absolutely understand the feeling - he deserves to be locked up and to become irrelevant, and it would seem to be a convenient escape from this nightmare.
The uncomfortable truth though, is that if a court does anything to diminish Trump, he will become a martyr.
The voting public needs to decide they want him held accountable.
The half the country that disagrees isn't disagreeing with the laws Trump broke and voting to repeal them. If they were, your argument would have standing. Trump wins, those laws get repealed, no one ever has to be subject to these unjust laws. In a scenario where someone was campaigning to legalize pot nationally but was in court for possession you would be 100% correct.
However, this half the country wants those laws to continue to apply to everyone else, but not to apply to Trump, one of the most corrupt, self serving people ever to hold office. The whole country agrees that those laws should exist (fraud, sexual assault, corruption, election interference, insurrection). Half the country thinks Trump should just be above the law, and you can't have democracy when the law treats people differently.
Your argument sounds logical on the surface, but it's deeply flawed to the point where it's almost suspicious in its dishonestly.
What is suspicious or dishonest about my argument? What are your suspicions?
You're correct that the voting public wants all those laws, but just doesn't want them to apply to Trump.
The point of my illustration layout out the manner in which the voting public controls the courts, is merely to show that the court must be subservient to the will of the voting public.
Not hearing the cases against Trump is problematic, but it's less so than a situation where cases against candidates are allowed to undermine elections.
The "voting public" deciding a candidate is above the law isn't democratic.
The courts are not a democratic institution, they're there to apply the laws passed by a democratically elected government in a fair and impartial manner.
Sure the laws should be subject to the will of the people, but the application of the law should not. That's nonsense.
Saying it's dangerous to apply a law everyone agrees with to a politician who committed crimes is absurd.
Thanks for the response, now I KNOW you're just a Trumptard playing "Devils advocate".
Sorry chief, you've misunderstood my argument. I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseam so you're welcome to keep thinking that I'm a Trumptard and that I (along with every judge in the US) am mistaken about the role of courts in democracy and more specifically in elections.
You're describing why convictions shouldn't bar people from voting or running for office and deciding it means the powerful should be above the law.
Not really.
Are you suggesting that a guilty verdict wouldn't effect the result of the election?
It should when they're guilty, great mind.
The problem, of which I'm sure you're aware, is that courts in the US tend to be partisan, so guilt will be determined according to the ideology of the accused.
It might feel great when Trump is on the pointy end, but how would you feel if a corrupt court was hearing a case against Harris? I'm quite sure you would feel as though the court shouldn't hear a case that can influence an election.
You're just not operating on good faith, huh.
Good luck with that, I don't think you're being paid enough to be a class traitor but whatever.
Ad hominem, the hallmark of lazy thinkers with nothing to say.
Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't make it wrong.
Can the press be above the voting population? Surely not. So they shouldn't be allowed to publish articles with uncomfortable thruths about a candidate? Also the democrats, they say bad thruths about trump. They shouldn't be allowed to say that.
Sorry I'm struggling to understand your meaning.
That figures.
Witty.
Thanks.