371
'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
371 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3888 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
I get the frustration, but I also get where the authorities are coming from. Imagine if precident gets set that a political candidate can be mired down in lawsuits, regardless if they're plausible or not. Then someone like trump comes along and says cool that worker great against me, I'll just throw a shit ton of made up lawsuits and cases against all my future opponents.
No that's a false narrative, the criminal cases are based on public prosecutors running them.
What you are claiming is for civil suits, of which a couple have been settled, despite obstruction attempts by Trump.
If it gets to a point where a politician can ask public prosecutors to put opponents in jail, USA has long ceased to be a democracy.
Trump is already a convicted criminal, and cannot vote in several states, still he can run for president, and enjoy privileged treatment.
Where an ordinary person voting because she was told she could, got 5 years prison for voter fraud!
*ceased to be
Thanks, brain fart. 😋
In your scenario, do you imagine that all the Trump-appointed prosecutors and the Trump-appointed judges will willingly delay the cases of Trump's "enemies of the state" until after the election out of some respect for the sanctity of the democratic process?
It is a horrible, dangerous precedent to say we can't justly hold the guilty accountable because some bad actor in the future may unjustly hold the innocent accountable.
Except that he's explicitly choosing to be a political candidate for the purpose of avoiding the lawsuits. A lot of these allegations occurred before he announced he was re-running, and then the lawsuits got put on hold.
Your scenario creates a method for anyone to delay consequences by running for office. Although we both know it wouldn't really work for anyone. Trump gets his special treatment.
I don't think the lawsuits are his major problem, and they're not a good example of badness in the system. Civil suits are often delayed if one of the parties has unavoidable scheduling conflicts, because they can be solved by money, and a month or two here or there doesn't make a big difference to that, at least not most of the time.
There can be corruption in civil suits, and there are reasons to use delay tactics if you're trying to spend your money or shift it to offshore accounts, so rich people certainly can and will gain the system. But simply getting your court dates scheduled in November instead of October is not in itself nefarious on the civil stage.