There is a lot of "concern" being bandied about that the Trump trials will spark a new, even more dysfunctional, era in which politicians are constantly under legal attack from their opponents. I don't contest that this seems like a strong likelihood in the near future. However, I find it hard to get super-concerned about this. People who run for office are generally going to have the resources to afford good legal representation, so if they are innocent of wrongdoing then that will come out in court (or at least in an appeal) and if they are guilty then I think it's good that their guilt is brought to light and they are accountable to it. I am perfectly fine with leaders being held to a high standard of propriety.

This might introduce some inefficiencies into our electoral system if people are going to need to add "legal defenses" into their calculated costs to run for office, but I actually think that it might be worth it if the result is the people who have committed crimes choose not to run for office.

For context, I think Trump was probably properly found guilty according to New York law, but I think that on appeal the law will be found to violate due process and be unconstitutional.

The weakness of my position (I think) is that innocent people get found guilty of crimes all the time, so the likelihood that you get criminally prosecuted if you run for office may dissuade people from running for office even if they haven't committed any crimes. My counter to that is that it's much more often people without resources and good legal representation who get found guilty of crimes they didn't commit. The justice system, when running properly, is pretty heavily tilted in the favor of the accused.

Neat! Thanks for sharing

Most innocent people don't have crimes fabricated so they can be prosecuted and kept off the election trail.

Thanks. I am pretty sure all of us were waiting for your opinion.

its beyond that

Go back to Carter Page

Intelligence community orchestrating ways to spy on trump and his associates

Manafort and FARA, Fara hadn't been used against lobbyist hardly at all, and yet the dems escaped. a list that included Podesta's brother, Bidens brother and Son, and many others.

Contempt of congress for Bannon and others

Going after Trumps attorneys

Louis Lerner and the IRS

General Flynn

Alex Jones

All the Jan 6th farse

New York going after all conservative entities like the NRA and gun manufacturers

New york going after big oil for climate lawsuits

The divestment initiatives, theyve used this and lawsuits

Debanking people that deal in conservative areas

Colorado baker case

Fast and Furious


I could probably go on all day

solishu said:

---

There is a lot of "concern" being bandied about that the Trump trials will spark a new, even more dysfunctional, era in which politicians are constantly under legal attack from their opponents. I don't contest that this seems like a strong likelihood in the near future. However, I find it hard to get super-concerned about this. People who run for office are generally going to have the resources to afford good legal representation, so if they are innocent of wrongdoing then that will come out in court (or at least in an appeal) and if they are guilty then I think it's good that their guilt is brought to light and they are accountable to it. I am perfectly fine with leaders being held to a high standard of propriety.

This might introduce some inefficiencies into our electoral system if people are going to need to add "legal defenses" into their calculated costs to run for office, but I actually think that it might be worth it if the result is the people who have committed crimes choose not to run for office.

For context, I think Trump was probably properly found guilty according to New York law, but I think that on appeal the law will be found to violate due process and be unconstitutional.

The weakness of my position (I think) is that innocent people get found guilty of crimes all the time, so the likelihood that you get criminally prosecuted if you run for office may dissuade people from running for office even if they haven't committed any crimes. My counter to that is that it's much more often people without resources and good legal representation who get found guilty of crimes they didn't commit. The justice system, when running properly, is pretty heavily tilted in the favor of the accused.

---

Uh, No!

The weakness of your position is that you fundamentally don't understand lawfare.

The term is generally used when referring to using antiquated/obsolete statutes, spurious judicial theories, and innovative (read untested) legal tests in order to attack current legal precedents or political rivals.

It's not new, it's been in action since at least the Bush days that I'm aware of. Some might argue it was used in the Clinton impeachment.

The Trump trial is an easy thing to point to because we're watching it unfold but a real lawyer versed in the subject could probably point to a many cases that fit the description.

Get back to me when Biden is indicted by 10 different small county DAs in Texas next year and let me know this is all cool.

Democrats destroyed the justice system by electing Soros funded DAs and Soros funded local criminal court judges. Soros DAs put bodega owners who are violently attacked in jail, but release violent criminals on 10+ concurrent felony personal recognizance bonds.

Alex Soros bragged about the politically motivated conviction his dad and him paid for. He said "repetition is key".

Democrats and liberals will suffer the most from this since they overwhelmingly live in the urban counties that Soros DAs are destroying. Look up Ryan Carson. He was a Soros DA fan. He thought Soros DAs were a great thing and was a proud activist for Soros DAs.

Soros DAs: Harsh political lawfare for anybody to the right of Marx, but multiple time violent offenders get a free pass to go ruin the lives of more innocent law abiding people.

Quote:

---

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a Jew.
Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemöller

---

LOL

I could tell by the bad take in the OP....premium poster.

Dear Lord...what's in the water on premium?

I would be more than cool with that.

I don't know, but for whatever reason, the premium posters who don't post here but show up just to give their hot takes are always smug, tremendously intellectually outmatched, and wrong.

34 felony convictions due to an AP accountant coding an invoice from a lawyer as legal fees.

Nonsense OP. "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime." That's why.

We complain about not having good choices in elections. Newsflash - having to be prepared to fight lawfare means no sane person would run for office

Quote:

---

Ultimately, the judge in the case -- who donated to his defendant's political opponentin their last election match-up -- told the Manhattan jury that they could select from a menu of three options that could be considered the critical, felony-creating 'other crime.' These options were not adjudicated at trial, let alone proven. They weren't spelled out in the indictment. The defense was not able to defend against them. Attempts at educating the jury on the most likely of the options were barred by the Biden donor judge. A top expert's highly-relevant testimony was preemptively disallowed, and therefore never heard. One of the prosecutors in the courtroom joined Bragg's legal team from President Biden's Justice Department, where he'd been serving as the third highest-ranking official. He quit and became an assistant in a local DA's office, which is unheard of. This man, who was paid thousands of dollars for political consulting by the Democratic National Committee during Trump's presidency, clearly had a very specific objective in mind. Days before Trump's conviction, his electoral opponent's team held a campaign event at the courthouse. These facts -- in isolation, and especially taken together -- are breathtaking.

---

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2024/05/31/how-might-voters-react-to-a-trump-conviction-n2639727

As a child, I believed the tale of the emperor's new clothes was some far fetched exaggeration.

Many leftist prove its real life everyday whether it be the justification of his dementia, justifying his unjustifiable policies, overlooking his corruption, dismissing his countless lies...and now cheering his abuse of the law.

Premium posters are literally the worst.

It used to be that paying off a stripper you had an affair with while your wife was pregnant was a political career ender. Thankfully, we have progressed past that barbaric time in history and we now live in times where the opposing party has to make up crimes associated with the paying off the stripper he had an affair with while his wife was pregnant to try to end his political career.

solishu said:

---

For context, I think Trump was probably properly found guilty according to New York law, but I think that on appeal the law will be found to violate due process and be unconstitutional.

---

If he was found guilty under New York law.

1) what law did he break?
2) what crime did he commit?

Go on.....I will wait.

solishu said:

---

There is a lot of "concern" being bandied about that the Trump trials will spark a new, even more dysfunctional, era in which politicians are constantly under legal attack from their opponents. I don't contest that this seems like a strong likelihood in the near future. However, I find it hard to get super-concerned about this. People who run for office are generally going to have the resources to afford good legal representation, so if they are innocent of wrongdoing then that will come out in court (or at least in an appeal) and if they are guilty then I think it's good that their guilt is brought to light and they are accountable to it. I am perfectly fine with leaders being held to a high standard of propriety.

This might introduce some inefficiencies into our electoral system if people are going to need to add "legal defenses" into their calculated costs to run for office, but I actually think that it might be worth it if the result is the people who have committed crimes choose not to run for office.

For context, I think Trump was probably properly found guilty according to New York law, but I think that on appeal the law will be found to violate due process and be unconstitutional.

The weakness of my position (I think) is that innocent people get found guilty of crimes all the time, so the likelihood that you get criminally prosecuted if you run for office may dissuade people from running for office even if they haven't committed any crimes. My counter to that is that it's much more often people without resources and good legal representation who get found guilty of crimes they didn't commit. The justice system, when running properly, is pretty heavily tilted in the favor of the accused.

---

I'm not convinced you are paying attention.

Yeah, up until Trump we only elected righteous preachers


Get real, lest we not forget about the congressional slush find using taxpayer money nor mention Clinton, Edwards, Kennedy and a bunch of others

What a garbage post

Thanks for dropping by like anyone cares about your worthless opinion and not coming back to respond to anyone.

solishu said:

---

The weakness of my position (I think) is that innocent people get found guilty of crimes all the time, so the likelihood that you get criminally prosecuted if you run for office may dissuade people from running for office even if they haven't committed any crimes.

---

I see your problem. It's emboldened.

Democrats f'ing loved Trump before he ran for office as a Republican.

I'm ready for the rule of law to break down so we can just get this over with already.

pacecar02 said:

---

Yeah, up until Trump we only elected righteous preachers


Get real, lest we not forget about the congressional slush find using taxpayer money nor mention Clinton, Edwards, Kennedy and a bunch of others

What a garbage post

---

You're right. We've become them. Yay us!

Phatbob said:

---

It used to be that paying off a stripper you had an affair with while your wife was pregnant was a political career ender. Thankfully, we have progressed past that barbaric time in history and we now live in times where the opposing party has to make up crimes associated with the paying off the stripper he had an affair with while his wife was pregnant to try to end his political career.

---

Affairs, payoffs and even rapes didn't seem to end Clinton's career.

JamesE4 said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

It used to be that paying off a stripper you had an affair with while your wife was pregnant was a political career ender. Thankfully, we have progressed past that barbaric time in history and we now live in times where the opposing party has to make up crimes associated with the paying off the stripper he had an affair with while his wife was pregnant to try to end his political career.

---

Affairs, payoffs and even rapes didn't seem to end Clinton's career.

---

Has she ever been President!?

Career. Ended.











Or did you mean Bill?

solishu said:

---

There is a lot of "concern" being bandied about that the Trump trials will spark a new, even more dysfunctional, era in which politicians are constantly under legal attack from their opponents. I don't contest that this seems like a strong likelihood in the near future. However, I find it hard to get super-concerned about this. People who run for office are generally going to have the resources to afford good legal representation, so if they are innocent of wrongdoing then that will come out in court (or at least in an appeal) and if they are guilty then I think it's good that their guilt is brought to light and they are accountable to it. I am perfectly fine with leaders being held to a high standard of propriety.

This might introduce some inefficiencies into our electoral system if people are going to need to add "legal defenses" into their calculated costs to run for office, but I actually think that it might be worth it if the result is the people who have committed crimes choose not to run for office.

For context, I think Trump was probably properly found guilty according to New York law, but I think that on appeal the law will be found to violate due process and be unconstitutional.

The weakness of my position (I think) is that innocent people get found guilty of crimes all the time, so the likelihood that you get criminally prosecuted if you run for office may dissuade people from running for office even if they haven't committed any crimes. My counter to that is that it's much more often people without resources and good legal representation who get found guilty of crimes they didn't commit. The justice system, when running properly, is pretty heavily tilted in the favor of the accused.

---

One of your underlying assumptions is that the legal system, from the courts to the DOJ to the local DA's, are relatively neutral when it comes to politics.

This goes against a basic underlying fundamental differences between conservatives and leftists. Leftists are much, much more concerned with "the ends justify the means" when it comes to the courts, as opposed to conservatives, which are much more concerned with the rule of law.

And, this goes back even further to base assumptions between leftists and conservatives. Conservatives value the rule of law because they don't trust big government. Leftists generally trust and want a bigger government. Conservatives, because of their core belief that the rule of law is the only thing (besides guns) between the common people and a tyrannical government, are less likely to bend the rules in order to punish their political opponents. Leftists have much less reserve in setting negative precedents that will some day come back and bite them on the ass when a political opponent takes advantage of the kinks that the present rule bending opened the door to.

This is the major fundamental difference between the left and right at the current time.

So, no, you are not going to get a lot of support about upending the rule of law in order to combat political opponents here, as most posters here respect the rule of law and its protection against tyranny more than they hate the democratic party, even as they attempt to completely scrap the rule of law, future tyranny be damned.

OP has 278 posts in 15 years. Nuff said...

Exactly, the premise from the OP is so unbelievably childlike and braindead. The ends justify the means to the left - if your politics are not aligned with theirs, you are dangerous and therefore a candidate to be destroyed whether you ever committed a crime or not. They feel zero guilt about a railroad job because they think they're stopping a greater evil. And there are plenty of DAs, judges, and jurors in these districts to make it happen

drive-by posters

Cartographer said:

---

The weakness of your position is that you fundamentally don't understand lawfare.

The term is generally used when referring to using antiquated/obsolete statutes, spurious judicial theories, and innovative (read untested) legal tests in order to attack current legal precedents or political rivals.

It's not new, it's been in action since at least the Bush days that I'm aware of. Some might argue it was used in the Clinton impeachment.

The Trump trial is an easy thing to point to because we're watching it unfold but a real lawyer versed in the subject could probably point to a many cases that fit the description.

---

Thanks for the correcting the layman's misuse of the term lawfare to describe the political use of criminal and civil litigation to prosecute and bankrupt political adversaries with using flimsy legal theories tried before corrupt partisan judges. It would have been so embarrassing for me to keep fundamentally misusing the term lawfare and have lawyers laughing at me behind my back.

Cartographer said:

---

The weakness of your position is that you fundamentally don't understand lawfare.

The term is generally used when referring to using antiquated/obsolete statutes, spurious judicial theories, and innovative (read untested) legal tests in order to attack current legal precedents or political rivals.

It's not new, it's been in action since at least the Bush days that I'm aware of. Some might argue it was used in the Clinton impeachment.

The Trump trial is an easy thing to point to because we're watching it unfold but a real lawyer versed in the subject could probably point to a many cases that fit the description.

---

So there are 4 criminal lawfare indictments against President Trump.

Pretty much

Lawfare covers way more than just political candidates imo. See the current DOJ prosecution of the whistleblower Dr at TX Children's Hospital. He pointed out that the hospital was doing illegal (& immoral imo) things and he gets prosecuted for his trouble for hippa
Violations. It's about shutting down any sort of opposing views .

Meanwhile known brutally violent criminals with clear records of hurting and killing people are released with little or no bond by Soros funded da's and judges

coolerguy12 said:

---

Premium posters are literally the worst.

---

"premium": adj. of exceptional quality or amount.