Trump Admin Lawlessness Begins

[godzilla]

just the beginning. the mold is being cast.

judges? who cares? the president is immune and has pardon power. who is going to stop this lawlessness? the DOJ? the FBI? nah!

EPA spending freeze continues despite court orders

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, godzilla said:

just the beginning. the mold is being cast.

judges? who cares? the president is immune and has pardon power. who is going to stop this lawlessness? the DOJ? the FBI? nah!

EPA spending freeze continues despite court orders

Well that's the challenge when one side weaponizes the law. It's inevitable that both the public and the other side are going to completely lose respect with the law as a result.

I mean the left was warned about this. Tons of people including myself said again and again there will be serious ramifications if you just blatantly ignore the laws or weaponize the courts to take advantage of the laws inappropriately. 

Honestly if this is as bad as it gets the left can count itself as damned lucky, but i doubt it will be. Considering what the democrats did with the courts and the FBI etc I would imagine this is the tip of the iceberg

Ye reap what Ye sow, And it's pretty hard to put that Genie back in the bottle once it's open

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's the challenge when one side weaponizes the law.

Prosecuting CRIMES is NOT "weaponizes the law," LIAR.

It is and always has been the US criminal justice system. Duh

[godzilla]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's the challenge when one side weaponizes the law. It's inevitable that both the public and the other side are going to completely lose respect with the law as a result.

I mean the left was warned about this. Tons of people including myself said again and again there will be serious ramifications if you just blatantly ignore the laws or weaponize the courts to take advantage of the laws inappropriately. 

Honestly if this is as bad as it gets the left can count itself as damned lucky, but i doubt it will be. Considering what the democrats did with the courts and the FBI etc I would imagine this is the tip of the iceberg

Ye reap what Ye sow, And it's pretty hard to put that Genie back in the bottle once it's open

the US has one of the most solid judiciaries on the planet. one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. the number of safe guards in place to protect the innocent often allow the guilty to walk free.

if a jury of your peers can be convinced that there is sufficient evidence to indict you and another jury of your peers can be convinced that you are guilty... then you are guilty.

sure, there can be an argument to be made that the "other side" is NOT being prosecuted to the same degree. its not an excuse. it does not mean that those adjudicated to be guilty are not felons.

if Trump didn't put enough of the guilty in jail his first term then he is just "soft of crime". Hillary did not get "locked up"!

and Bidens recent pardons do not prevent him from investigating people anyways and identifying their crimes. but... he won't. because he's not "soft on crime", there just isn't anything to prosecute.

no, the Democrats are not to blame for lack of trust in the judiciary. Trump is. thats the tyrants agenda. to constantly be communicating until its believed...that the three pillars of democracy are corrupt. the judiciary, the media and the electoral process. its an ancient model of populist power.

Edited February 4 by godzilla

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Prosecuting CRIMES is NOT "weaponizes the law," LIAR.

It is and always has been the US criminal justice system. Duh

Faking crimes is. Only applying them to political opponents is.  Waiting 4 years to do it right before an election is.  Transferring a lawyer from your party to the prosecution specifically to go after him is.  etc etc. 

But considering it wasn't that long ago i had to explain what a subpoena was to you i guess it's to be expected you wouldn't know all that. 

[godzilla]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Faking crimes is. Only applying them to political opponents is.  Waiting 4 years to do it right before an election is.  Transferring a lawyer from your party to the prosecution specifically to go after him is.  etc etc. 

But considering it wasn't that long ago i had to explain what a subpoena was to you i guess it's to be expected you wouldn't know all that. 

you haven't identified anything illegal here.

whatever it takes to get criminals behind bars within the law is how it works.

Edited February 4 by godzilla

[CdnFox]

Just now, godzilla said:

you haven't identified anything illegal here.

 

When did I say it was illegal? I said they weaponized the courts and legal system to go after a political opponent.

If you want to discuss their illegal activities then we'll have to go over what the FBI did.

1 minute ago, godzilla said:

whatever it takes to get criminals behind bars within the law is how it works.

Whatever it takes to get your political opponent behind bars while appearing to operate within the law is how it has worked for the democrats.

You let me remind you, the courts have ruled that the president isn't breaking the law when he's acting in his role as president. So ignoring the courts is perfectly legal.

Happy now?  

Pratt's behaved in such a way that it eroded the respect for the law tremendously both in the public and in the opposition parties. That has consequences. These are probably just the very very first and most minor of consequences. I suspect it gets worse

[godzilla]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

When did I say it was illegal? I said they weaponized the courts and legal system to go after a political opponent.

You let me remind you, the courts have ruled that the president isn't breaking the law when he's acting in his role as president. So ignoring the courts is perfectly legal.

if you are innocent and can't be proved guilty then it is impossible to weaponize the courts against a political opponent. its just when the political opponent is guilty that it becomes a problem.

yes, the president is immune from prosecution for actions he took while executing his duties as president. conspiring to overthrow the election process is not one of those duties and the possession of classified materials after leaving office is not one of those duties either.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, godzilla said:

if you are innocent and can't be proved guilty then it is impossible to weaponize the courts against a political opponent. 

Nonsense. Heck just putting them through the trial process consumes huge amounts of time and money and casts doubt on them whether they're innocent or not. We had dozens here who claimed that trump must be guilty for literally every single thing he went to court for including the ones that he won because otherwise if he was innocent he wouldn't have tried to avoid a trial. That's basically how stupid people are

Then there is the creation of fake charges. The so-called crime they found trump guilty for has never existed before, never been tried before and nobody else has ever been charged with it. It hasn't gone to appeal because he hadn't been sentenced but the fact of the matter is most competent lawyers have said that it really doesn't stand up to legal principles and probably would have been wiped out on appeal

I mean you're talking about a situation where whether or not a crime happened is dependent on whether or not another crime happened that you don't prove in court and that he was never charged for.

And then there's the fake misuse of the civil stuff where they found him guilty of fraud where he had committed no real fraud and nobody was complaining.

Sorry but they totally disrespected the law and now it's coming back to bite them as predicted. Hold on to your house

[godzilla]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nonsense. Heck just putting them through the trial process consumes huge amounts of time and money and casts doubt on them whether they're innocent or not. We had dozens here who claimed that trump must be guilty for literally every single thing he went to court for including the ones that he won because otherwise if he was innocent he wouldn't have tried to avoid a trial. That's basically how stupid people are

Then there is the creation of fake charges. The so-called crime they found trump guilty for has never existed before, never been tried before and nobody else has ever been charged with it. It hasn't gone to appeal because he hadn't been sentenced but the fact of the matter is most competent lawyers have said that it really doesn't stand up to legal principles and probably would have been wiped out on appeal

I mean you're talking about a situation where whether or not a crime happened is dependent on whether or not another crime happened that you don't prove in court and that he was never charged for.

And then there's the fake misuse of the civil stuff where they found him guilty of fraud where he had committed no real fraud and nobody was complaining.

Sorry but they totally disrespected the law and now it's coming back to bite them as predicted. Hold on to your house

yeah, only in the echo chambers that you live in. others went to jail for the same "non existent" crimes where they broke "non existent" laws. funny that. when a jury of your peers feels that you need to be punished then it doesn't matter.

but you conspicuously ignore the big stuff... the conspiracy to steal the election. the withholding of classified documents. the stuff he got caught doing RED HANDED. and he was indicted by juries of his peers.

Biden didn't pardon himself. so if he's so guilty then he's waiting for the FBI to indict him. its not going to happen because there isn't a jury of his peers that will do so. you watch. or is Trump just soft on crime again?

Edited February 4 by godzilla

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, godzilla said:

yeah, only in the echo chambers that you live in. others went to jail for the same "non existent" crimes where they broke "non existent" laws.

Well of course that's not exactly what I said but you couldn't actually refute what I said so you decided to make something up. Very left wing of you

Who exactly went to jail for these crimes before? What's that guy's name? Nobody? None? Interesting  

Pulling at the time showed that even democrats felt it was entirely political. The democrats just felt it was justified to be entirely political because they didn't like trump. But this is the consequence

28 minutes ago, godzilla said:

but you conspicuously ignore the big stuff... the conspiracy to steal the election. the withholding of classified documents.

Well the conspiracy one is pretty much dead in the water. I felt that one held a little bit of merit but it was mostly political. The documents one seemed completely legitimate and there's more than enough evidence to suggest it should have gone to trial. That doesn't mean he's guilty but regardless I don't think anyone would have suggested that one shouldn't go to trial.

That's what they should have focused on. Instead they charged him with a hundred other things that were completely Illegitimate and people learned to tune it out. It became normal to use the courts and the laws to your advantage and to ignore them when you felt like, as the dems did with the whole 'russian' thing.

Now that that bar has been set that low this is what happens and there won't be a public outcry.

Again again. This is exactly what was predicted.

[Legato]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Prosecuting CRIMES is NOT "weaponizes the law," LIAR.

It is and always has been the US criminal justice system. Duh

Reap/Sow. That was explained yesterday. Memory retention needs help

Here, try this.

[godzilla]

49 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well of course that's not exactly what I said but you couldn't actually refute what I said so you decided to make something up. Very left wing of you

Who exactly went to jail for these crimes before? What's that guy's name? Nobody? None? Interesting  

Pulling at the time showed that even democrats felt it was entirely political. The democrats just felt it was justified to be entirely political because they didn't like trump. But this is the consequence

Well the conspiracy one is pretty much dead in the water. I felt that one held a little bit of merit but it was mostly political. The documents one seemed completely legitimate and there's more than enough evidence to suggest it should have gone to trial. That doesn't mean he's guilty but regardless I don't think anyone would have suggested that one shouldn't go to trial.

That's what they should have focused on. Instead they charged him with a hundred other things that were completely Illegitimate and people learned to tune it out. It became normal to use the courts and the laws to your advantage and to ignore them when you felt like, as the dems did with the whole 'russian' thing.

Now that that bar has been set that low this is what happens and there won't be a public outcry.

Again again. This is exactly what was predicted.

i'm sorry if i didn't explain myself more. 

laws are up for interpretation in each context. if the jury is convinced that that interpretation is sufficient then the defendant is guilty of a crime. laws cannot be written to encompass the exact details of every conceivable crime. what is the definition of "public nuisance"? i've seen all of the lawyers claiming that there was no law to indict Trump... they're all a bunch of ambulance chasers. they feed this ignorance.

like paying from company accounts to lawyers to silence pornstars when running for political office and then chalking it up as a business expense. jury decided it was a crime.

like religiously giving banks one inflated asset valuation and then turning around and giving an undervalued asset valuation to an insurance company and the IRS. jury decided it was a crime.

the conspiracy one is NOT dead in the water. it was the most damning. for the same reasons i just mention. no one is down with the fake electors plot and subverting an election. a jury would decide it was a crime.

but whatever... thats not the OP. the OP is... the Trump administration is already breaking the law and now also IGNORING the judiciary. because of the LEFT? REAP/SOW? hilarious.

Edited February 4 by godzilla

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Reap/Sow. That was explained yesterday. Memory retention needs help

Here, try this.

Your "reap/sow" trolling never changes THE FACTS. Duh

Now take ^YOUR medicine so you can recall that.

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, godzilla said:

i'm sorry if i didn't explain myself more. 

Are you though?  

 

Quote

laws are up for interpretation in each context. if the jury is convinced that that interpretation is sufficient then the defendant is guilty of a crime. laws cannot be written to encompass the exact details of every conceivable crime. what is the definition of "public nuisance"? i've seen all of the lawyers claiming that there was no law to indict Trump... they're all a bunch of ambulance chasers. they feed this ignorance.

Utterly irrelevant.  And courts work on precedent for the most part. There may be minor differences in interpretations of 'nuisance' but everyone agrees that  it's not the same as jaywalking. 

Quote

like paying from company accounts to lawyers to silence pornstars when running for political office and then chalking it up as a business expense. jury decided it was a crime.

Amusingly they did not.  And here's where we run into a problem 

It IS a legitimate business expense.  That was never in doubt. Nobody claimed otherwise. 

there was an obscure law that ONLY applies in new york that said it's a minor non criminal offense to record it the way they did whereas everywhere else in the united states thats' perfectly fine.  But in new york they want to see it recorded differently and you pay a small fine if you've recorded it wrong. 

BUT - there is an obscure law that says IF he committed this minor offense AS PART of a greater crime ... THEN he can be found guilty of a crime.  Now.... we don't have to prove the other crime happened.  We don't even need to say what that other crime is. But  IF YOU BELIEVE HE PROBABLY COMMITTED SOME CRIME.... then this was a crime. 

And the jury was instructed thusly by the judge. The jury doesn't just get to do what it wants, the judge gave instructions to the jury as to what to do. If you believe trump may have committed a crime somewhere, then you must find him guilty of a crime here even tho the crime here that we did prove is a minor misdemeanor.

SO the jury did what they were told to do.  They didn't get to decide based on evidence if the greater crime ACTUALLY happened. Just that they believed it. 

and in a situation that became common with many of trump's trials and attacks there was never any evidence at all shown that is actually impacted anyone anywhere in any way shape or form or was in any way intentional. It is 100% perfectly normal in most business cases to record this kind of thing as a legal expense, taxes were appropriately paid, there was no real crime here

It is very obviously a faked up charge and the jury did what they were told to.  And despite the fact his daughter was getting rich off the trial the judge refused to switch judges or venues and held it in the most anti trump district in the USA. 

You compare that to the documents case. The documents case involved a legitimate straight up crime. There's real harm to having classified documents unsecured. There is real evidence of wrongdoing. Etc.   He still deserved a trial and maybe he's innocent, but nobody would claim that the charges were faked or he shouldn't go to jail. 

I mean this discussion is done. It was already had back when the trials were happening. The vast majority of Americans realized it was completely political and not based on any actual justice. And that was reflected in the results in the election

So it's not even debatable anymore. They went after trump every single way they could using the law, and a few ways they couldn't considering that the FBI was already convicted of committing crimes and then a report came out showing that even what they did that wasn't criminal was extremely unusual and suspect.

Now you get this. Enjoy

 

 

 

[godzilla]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Are you though?  

 

Utterly irrelevant.  And courts work on precedent for the most part. There may be minor differences in interpretations of 'nuisance' but everyone agrees that  it's not the same as jaywalking. 

Amusingly they did not.  And here's where we run into a problem 

It IS a legitimate business expense.  That was never in doubt. Nobody claimed otherwise. 

there was an obscure law that ONLY applies in new york that said it's a minor non criminal offense to record it the way they did whereas everywhere else in the united states thats' perfectly fine.  But in new york they want to see it recorded differently and you pay a small fine if you've recorded it wrong. 

BUT - there is an obscure law that says IF he committed this minor offense AS PART of a greater crime ... THEN he can be found guilty of a crime.  Now.... we don't have to prove the other crime happened.  We don't even need to say what that other crime is. But  IF YOU BELIEVE HE PROBABLY COMMITTED SOME CRIME.... then this was a crime. 

And the jury was instructed thusly by the judge. The jury doesn't just get to do what it wants, the judge gave instructions to the jury as to what to do. If you believe trump may have committed a crime somewhere, then you must find him guilty of a crime here even tho the crime here that we did prove is a minor misdemeanor.

SO the jury did what they were told to do.  They didn't get to decide based on evidence if the greater crime ACTUALLY happened. Just that they believed it. 

and in a situation that became common with many of trump's trials and attacks there was never any evidence at all shown that is actually impacted anyone anywhere in any way shape or form or was in any way intentional. It is 100% perfectly normal in most business cases to record this kind of thing as a legal expense, taxes were appropriately paid, there was no real crime here

It is very obviously a faked up charge and the jury did what they were told to.  And despite the fact his daughter was getting rich off the trial the judge refused to switch judges or venues and held it in the most anti trump district in the USA. 

You compare that to the documents case. The documents case involved a legitimate straight up crime. There's real harm to having classified documents unsecured. There is real evidence of wrongdoing. Etc.   He still deserved a trial and maybe he's innocent, but nobody would claim that the charges were faked or he shouldn't go to jail. 

I mean this discussion is done. It was already had back when the trials were happening. The vast majority of Americans realized it was completely political and not based on any actual justice. And that was reflected in the results in the election

So it's not even debatable anymore. They went after trump every single way they could using the law, and a few ways they couldn't considering that the FBI was already convicted of committing crimes and then a report came out showing that even what they did that wasn't criminal was extremely unusual and suspect.

Now you get this. Enjoy

 

 

 

well, we will see if his appeals are successful... or not.

i've noticed you don't like to talk about the conspiracy to defraud the people of the election results.

back to the OP. i'm calling it. Trump ignores the judiciary. he will additionally ignore congress when they ask for oversight materials. claiming he can do it because other presidents did it is the path to tyranny.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, godzilla said:

well, we will see if his appeals are successful... or not.

Indeed we will although it's going to be a while.

 

19 minutes ago, godzilla said:

i've noticed you don't like to talk about the conspiracy to defraud the people of the election results.

I have never shied away from it and have talked about it whenever anyone's asked me about it. You need a longer attention span

19 minutes ago, godzilla said:

back to the OP. i'm calling it. Trump ignores the judiciary. he will additionally ignore congress when they ask for oversight materials. claiming he can do it because other presidents did it is the path to tyranny.

Probably. I would also expect he will make a serious effort to go after some of this political opponents as he was gone after in the past.

Once people lose respect for the rule of law it tends to have a lot less power. That's why up till now there has been a general attempt to try and keep the respect for the rule of law pretty strong amongst presidents. But that really went out the window with Biden hard and trump is the worst person in the world to be doing that to as far as likely to hold a grudge goes. That door is open and I expected to get a fair bit of foot traffic in the foreseeable future

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Are you though?  

 

Utterly irrelevant.  And courts work on precedent for the most part. There may be minor differences in interpretations of 'nuisance' but everyone agrees that  it's not the same as jaywalking. 

Amusingly they did not.  And here's where we run into a problem 

It IS a legitimate business expense.  That was never in doubt. Nobody claimed otherwise. 

there was an obscure law that ONLY applies in new york that said it's a minor non criminal offense to record it the way they did whereas everywhere else in the united states thats' perfectly fine.  But in new york they want to see it recorded differently and you pay a small fine if you've recorded it wrong. 

BUT - there is an obscure law that says IF he committed this minor offense AS PART of a greater crime ... THEN he can be found guilty of a crime.  Now.... we don't have to prove the other crime happened.  We don't even need to say what that other crime is. But  IF YOU BELIEVE HE PROBABLY COMMITTED SOME CRIME.... then this was a crime. 

And the jury was instructed thusly by the judge. The jury doesn't just get to do what it wants, the judge gave instructions to the jury as to what to do. If you believe trump may have committed a crime somewhere, then you must find him guilty of a crime here even tho the crime here that we did prove is a minor misdemeanor.

SO the jury did what they were told to do.  They didn't get to decide based on evidence if the greater crime ACTUALLY happened. Just that they believed it. 

and in a situation that became common with many of trump's trials and attacks there was never any evidence at all shown that is actually impacted anyone anywhere in any way shape or form or was in any way intentional. It is 100% perfectly normal in most business cases to record this kind of thing as a legal expense, taxes were appropriately paid, there was no real crime here

It is very obviously a faked up charge and the jury did what they were told to.  And despite the fact his daughter was getting rich off the trial the judge refused to switch judges or venues and held it in the most anti trump district in the USA. 

You compare that to the documents case. The documents case involved a legitimate straight up crime. There's real harm to having classified documents unsecured. There is real evidence of wrongdoing. Etc.   He still deserved a trial and maybe he's innocent, but nobody would claim that the charges were faked or he shouldn't go to jail. 

I mean this discussion is done. It was already had back when the trials were happening. The vast majority of Americans realized it was completely political and not based on any actual justice. And that was reflected in the results in the election

So it's not even debatable anymore. They went after trump every single way they could using the law, and a few ways they couldn't considering that the FBI was already convicted of committing crimes and then a report came out showing that even what they did that wasn't criminal was extremely unusual and suspect.

Now you get this. Enjoy

You got erroneous information from your usual trash sites. 🤮

Posts misrepresent New York judge's instructions to jury in ...

AP News

https://apnews.com › article › fact-check-trump-trial-jur...

 

Claim: New York Judge Juan M. Merchan told the jury in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial that they don’t need a unanimous verdict to convict Trump.

Claimed by: social media users

Fact check by AP News: False. Merchan said that to convict...

 

False right-wing reports about Trump trial jury instructions ...

NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com › politics › donald-trump › f...

 

Jun 1, 2024 — Merchan instructed the jurors Wednesday that they "must conclude unanimously that a defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of ...

 

Read the jury instructions from Judge Juan Merchan in ...

CNN

https://www.cnn.com › 2024/05/29 › politics › read-the...

 

 

May 29, 2024 — Judge Juan Merchan delivered his instructions to jurors before they began deliberations in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial.

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You got erroneous information from your usual trash sites. 🤮

Posts misrepresent New York judge's instructions to jury in ...

AP News

https://apnews.com › article › fact-check-trump-trial-jur...

 

Claim: New York Judge Juan M. Merchan told the jury in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial that they don’t need a unanimous verdict to convict Trump.

Claimed by: social media users

Fact check by AP News: False. Merchan said that to convict...

 

False right-wing reports about Trump trial jury instructions ...

NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com › politics › donald-trump › f...

 

Jun 1, 2024 — Merchan instructed the jurors Wednesday that they "must conclude unanimously that a defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of ...

 

Read the jury instructions from Judge Juan Merchan in ...

CNN

https://www.cnn.com › 2024/05/29 › politics › read-the...

 

 

May 29, 2024 — Judge Juan Merchan delivered his instructions to jurors before they began deliberations in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial.

 

 

 

That all just proves what I said.

Why would you post something that proves that I'm right?

[Aristides]

Trump intent on making Americans even dumber.

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Trump intent on making Americans even dumber.

There's no way he'd want them Dumber, they might start voting democrats