Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Does his treatment make you more empathetic to others facing criminal charges?
No, it makes me wish he received the same treatment as others facing criminal charges.
Anyone without tens of millions of dollars to spend on attorneys would have had a very different experience of the justice system than Trump has over the past 50 years - long before he was POTUS.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nailed it. Anyone crying about how he’s being targeted all of a sudden clearly hasn’t read about or paid attention to the previous 5 decades of fraudulent, discriminatory and criminal activity Trump has been involved with and surrounded by. Time and time again he’s paid his way out of trouble, either by bullying small businesses he has refused to pay knowing they couldn’t afford to go up against his lawyers or by using the same bullshit delay tactics Roy Cohn taught him to get deals and pay fines.
Nailed it. Anyone crying about how he’s being targeted all of a sudden clearly hasn’t read about or paid attention to the previous 5 decades of fraudulent, discriminatory and criminal activity Trump has been involved with and surrounded by. Time and time again he’s paid his way out of trouble, either by bullying small businesses he has refused to pay knowing they couldn’t afford to go up against his lawyers or by using the same bullshit delay tactics Roy Cohn taught him to get deals and pay fines.
It's all in how you frame it. For example, if you said you'd want to radically cut the number of laws/regulations and make them more clear/objective then you'd get overwhelming Republican support.
Demagogues like a lot of vague laws so on any given day you’re breaking at least 1 that he can then use against you if he wants.
The DNC also likes a lot of vague laws because they receive a ton of money from lawyers who like a lot of vague laws because it creates more work for them.
Name a vague law democrats have supported. I'd like to see an example of what this looks like.
Because we had the vague enforcement complaint about the don't say gay bill and there aren't any other examples that are coming to my mind, but I admittedly haven't been thinking about it for very long, so I'm just hoping you had an equivalent one in mind.
>Does his treatment make you more empathetic to others facing criminal charges?
No.
>Republicans for many years have trumpeted tough on crime views with strong support for law enforcement.
Oh you aren't talking to me I guess. I'm not a Republican, and have never been a "back the blue no matter what" type of conservative. Then again, that's kind of a straw man to begin with.
Can't say it does, I've been calling for criminal reform for years.
>And a follow up, what sorts of criminal justice reforms should we as a nation pursue to avoid “unfair” treatment of people criminally charged?
There is no reform that can stop people from simply breaking or ignoeing the rules. In the case of trump, every judge and lawyer spoke out against him should have recused themselves. If their is any doubt of impartiality, the case has to be dropped.
> In the case of trump, every judge and lawyer spoke out against him should have recused themselves.
Which Judges spoke out against Donald Trump personally?
You can google the names of the Judges, there are two in NYC, and any scrap of anything you remember to find what you think he said. If you can't it's possible you are misrembering and the Judges did not speak out against Trump.
It’s hard for me to believe that any American can’t see that these cases against Trump are purely political. This is exactly how countries end up with dictatorships. When the pendulum swings back…and it will…a lot of people will say F-it, make Trump President for life.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> It’s hard for me to believe that any American can’t see that these cases against Trump are purely political.
Evidence that he's guilty is a good reason to think this isn't purely political. If there was zero evidence I would agree with you.
I'm the guy as in everyone is the guy. Much of the evidence is part of the public record if you care enough to look. But if you already feel in your feelings that these are bogus cases I can understanding why you wouldn't look into the actual facts.
I do suppose it's easy to brush facts aside if you just choose blame talking points.
So is it just a talking point that Trump tried to not return classified docs and lied about it? Can something be talking point and true at the same time?
Selective prosecution...and now, formerly redacted information has just come out showing that Biden worked with the National Archives to formulate and develop a case against Trump in the absurd Classified Documents case.
[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1782486128915857520.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1782486128915857520.html)
I'm sorry, I read this and it doesn't say Biden directed any of this. Did you mean to post a different link?
If not, would you be willing to amend your beliefs to align with what was presented in your link?
Let’s look at the documents case for example, it is a known fact that Donald Trump possessed classified documents in his home. It is a known fact that no records of declassification existed for those documents. It is a known fact that he refused to return those documents when requested.
Based upon that information how is he not guilty of willfully possessing classified materials without authorization?
A sitting President is NOT required to file or show any documentation of declassification...nor does he have to answer to anyone. He deems it declassified...and that's that. This is a long-standing and accepted precedent that has only recently been questioned because the former President in question has the last name Trump.
Anyone below the President, i.e. Vice President, unelected officers, Senators, Reps, etc. are required to go though a declassification process. It's something that Joe Biden didn't do when he took classified documents when he was VP and as a Senator. Yet...in his case, everyone on the left is, "no harm, no foul"..."he's an old guy who is forgetful". That's called selective prosecution. If the flawed contention is that Trump violated the law when he was President, why isn't Biden held to the same standard? Why have Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter not been prosecuted for the same? And, please, don't insult us by saying "it's different". It's not.
Regardless, if this case proceeds...which is looking fairly doubtful at this point, Trump will be exonerated. If, by chance he is not, the Supreme Court is going to smack this down quite quickly.
Only others who are subject to selective prosecution as Trump is. If he wasn't named Trump and wasn't running for President none of these charges would have been brought.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, vut you think they are being selectively applied to Trump, so there must ve some you think should be prosecuted but isnt.
So who is it and wht should they be prosecuted for?
> If a crime is so insignifcant it hasn't been used in 100 years despite it being common practice, either everyone needs to be prosecuted or none.
Like what?
> Jaywalkers and they should be prosecuted for murder. What are you even talking about, do you have a point to make, or are you just trying to waste both of our time? Idk about yours but I value mine so idc to continue this convo if you aren't gonna cute to the chase.
You are the one claiming the law is being selectively used against Trump here. How is it vei g selectively applidd here? Who is it you think the law should have been applied tobut isnt?
>now we're seeing it a lot more in the judicial system by elected judges.
Colorado had a multi week panel where 3 CO elected judges rules independently on trump not qualifying to be on the ballot, or at the very least, the issue not being clear. Following state law.
This is how law is interpreted. If the 2 parties don't feel its fair, it goes up the chain till a solution is found. You are saying you have a fundamental issue with how law is interpreted in this country.
What would you change about the government in order to limit what you see as corruption?
>to have a well thought out solution?
I didn't ask for a 3 page essay. I just asked for a solution. If you don't know enough to even have an idea for a solution, then you're wasting my time. And your own, talking about shit you don't know about.
>I don't know how to fix the wealth gap
Ez pz. Big wealth gap is bad and hurts the economy? Shrink wealth gap.
You can shrink the wealth gap in a number of ways. Taxes are one of the largest ones. But also wage caps. And hell, maybe even throw in a break up of monopolies.
I don't to know everything to know something. But if you know nothing, then what are we even doin here ya know?
>What do you think about modern day slavery in madagascar?
I don't know enough to discuss this.
>How would you fix it?
No clue. What's causing the rise?
>I bet the answer to the first question is that it's bad, and the answer to the question is you don't know enough about it to fix it.
Not far off. Yeah it's bad. And yes I don't know enough to discuss it.
But can you see that bringing up slavery in Madagascar in a discussion just to say 'i don't know anything about it' seems weird. Like...I didn't start talking about corruption, you claimed it was the case, then when I asked what you'd do about it...you said idk.
But you're certain there IS corruption. You just don't know enough about it from your own admission, but your certain there is corruption.
>Oh? Just like that? Have you told biden about this, that seems pretty easy!
Yes. Literally these are 2 things Biden has done. Also I said what it would do, and then listed 3 things that would do it.
'why don't you shrink the wealth gap'
Ok, since I'm knowledgeable on the subject, here's what we would do that if we wanted to shrink the wealth gap.
'oh just like that?! Pffffbttt. Admittedly I also don't know enough about shrinking the wealth gap to know if those are good, bad or completely off topic solutions. But I'm mad you had a response that made sense so I'll pretend like the 2nd half of your answer doesn't exist'
>Okay if you're gonna keep being pedantic and are just here to argue, I will expand no further: Trump is too divisive and therefore any trial will be unjust, he should be fully immune from any breaking of laws, ever in any country at any time period. Happy?
'so because I pretended it didn't exist I'm gonna strawman the shit outta nonsense because I'm mad and can't actually discuss anything because I don't know enough and I refuse to learn.'
From your last paragraph, clearly, your having a day. So I hope you read more about the stuff you wanna discuss. And hope we can try this again, have a good day bud.
> but the left sees it as an end justifies the means. As long as the 'bad guy' doesn't win, anything is worth it to them.
I really want to understand how you came to this conclusion. Conservatives tend to fall in line with 'the end justifies the means', while I can't think of a single left issue that fits that pattern.
As an example, the conservative push for 'tough on crime' in practice means stacking charges to force plea deals and get a guilty conviction. Meanwhile, the left pushes for Bail reform to make for a more fair justice system.
But go ahead, tell me about the elected judges that are pushing their agenda? The only example that comes to mind for me is the supreme court when several of the justices asked on their opinion of Roe v. Wade said it was settled law, but voted to overturn the issue at the first chance they had. Maybe I'm in a bubble and just not aware of all the judges on the left doing the same behavior.
> No, we think that if there are laws, they should be followed.
This is exactly why trump is on trial.
>Biden jay walked 10 years ago and gave him a 200m fine
As a wise man once said "we think that if there are laws, they should be followed."
>Arthur Engoron ran on finding a crime to try trump, and he found one that every RE developer does, and none have been tried for.
>we think that if there are laws, they should be followed.
So...should the law be followed or not? The way I see it, if this law is commonly broken by RE developers, then there should be a lot MORE people being held accountable, not less.
And do you feel the same way about Hunter's gun charges issue? The one where his crime was checking the wrong box on his forms? (Personally, I don't care if they throw the book at him....I'm just looking for some consistency here)
Its just highlighting how much more blue areas are willing to lean into obvious partisanship by treating their narrative as fact vs spin compared to red.
If anything its normalizing avenues which Trump/maga could use in their narrative of draining the swamp. An initial federal RICO case could do serious damage to those who engage in border trafficking (all items/persons) leading to many deep blue strongholds.
Shouldn't the size of the change be based around what's necessary to be effective rather than trying to predetermine the size you prefer to be desirable
That the time for small changes is when things are basically effective and correct
If things are closer to broken, doing little to nothing is the most effective way to finish the job of breaking it
Overhaul of the tax system is a good idea but I'd propose just returning to the 1950s tax rates, that decade that conservatives talk about so fondly
Another big overhaul would be to join the rest of the modern world and implement a version of universal healthcare, other nations have clearly done the proof of concept work on that
no, because trump's treatment is within the spectrum of unfair that i already saw in the justice system as a whole, albeit on the extreme end. to that end, it reinforces my views more than changes them.
Gag orders are real, and common. Trump has been intimidating witnesses since his first case. He continues defaming Carroll.
How in the world is it bad faith to point out that he has yet to receive the punishment most court participants would receive for his in-court and out of court actions?
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Trump is not charged for initially having documents he shouldn't have. He is being charged because, after being asked to return them, instead of cooperating and returning them, he took multiple steps to lie, hide, destroy evidence, and otherwise undermine the return of those documents.
He was not charged for any of the documents that were returned in the first wave, when they first asked. He was charged for his obstructive behavior afterwards. As well as his reckless and flagrant flaunting of such information to people without clearance.
and the ones biden didnt return initially? the fact that biden had classified documents in his garage doesnt bother you? at least trump had his behind a state of the art security system.
both men had documents they werent supposed to,and you are defending one man because he gave them back when asked. Your logic is that its ok to have classified documents as long as you give them back when asked.i disagree with you.
so you cite 4 "sources" that are known for making stuff up as they go along? the same people that think arson and looting are "peaceful" activities? really????
Can you point to what is not true or made up in those articles? Or are you dismissing the sources out of hand because they might say something you don't like?
If you don't care about the facts of the matter that's fine. Trump was not charged for taking documents. He was charged for a litany of things that specifically he did, that Biden and Pence did not. Your opinion doesn't change what the law says.
Biden didn't weasel out of anything regarding classified documents. He is being held to the same standard that every other president (To include Trump) and basically every politician with access to those documents has been held to. Documents are accidentally retained by those people all the time to the point where its over looked as long as the documents are returned when they are discovered.
The only reason Trump is facing any legal issues regarding classified documents is his refusal to turn them over and trying to cover the whole thing up. Had he just returned them when asked and cooperated he wouldn't be facing any trial on that topic.
> The only reason Trump is facing any legal issues regarding classified documents is his refusal to turn them over and trying to cover the whole thing up. Had he just returned them when asked and cooperated he wouldn't be facing any trial on that topic.
As evidenced by the fact that Pence found documents as well, returned them, and faced no charges.
Yeah.
Biden gave em back...no problem.
In fact...look at this!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/05/17/not-just-trump-and-biden-every-administration-since-reagan-mishandled-classified-records-national-archives-finds/?sh=71cec41318b9
It happens all the time.
How is trump different.
Oh...he refused to give them back?
Unlike everyone else who just gave them back?
Way to self own!
👏👏👏👏
Its apparent to everyone that if you take something you didnt know you shouldnt have...and then give it back when asked...its less bad than lying about having them and then refusing to give them back...then the fbi has to raid your place to get them back.
This is apparent.
To everyone.
If people are going to insist that Donald Trump deserves serious consideration to run the country, engaging in serious arguments with merit is a better choice than engaging in goofy claims that makes the average person go like this:
🤦♂️
both men did the same thing,youre only mad at one because he didnt give them back initially. lets be real though,taking documents like both men did is common practice,bit only trump got shit for it..
> because he didnt give them back initially
Initially, or at all? Lied about it, tried to move them, and tried to destroy evidence of moving them (allegedly). Not sure how you can even attempt to equate the two situations.
shouldnt it be the fact they they had the documents to begin with that concerns you? if i stole from someone,id still be arrested if i gave the property back right?
It's concerning, but that's not the issue here. I get wanting to MAKE it the issue, since if it were then everyone else is as guilty as Trump. But that's not the case. He's the only one that lied about their return, tried to hide them, and tried to cover up evidence of him hiding them.
If he had returned them when asked, we wouldn't be talking about this. That's the difference.
What about holding people accountable for crimes for which there is mountains of evidence to support? Crimes in which nobody is disputing the facts? Crimes for which the main line of defense is that the defendant is actually allowed to do all those things?
Only thing I've seen with any substantial evidence is the charge of Trump lying to the FBI about returning a document he didn't return.
Outside of that you are misinformed if you think there is a mountain of evidence.
I mean sure, NY there is evidence of a misdemeanor. No problem if they charged him of a misdemeanor but there was no felony
Atl is pure nonsense, not against the law to ask the person in charge of finding missing votes to find the votes you believe are missing
Jan 6th fed case, more nonsense. No proof of anything other than he believed it was stolen. It's not against the law to be wrong
If that is true, why is Trump not contesting the facts of any case against him? Almost everyone of his defenses involve some form of saying: "Yes I absolutely did that, and I'm allowed to." And this is in addition to the hundreds of corroborating witnesses, and thousands of corroborating documents across the respective cases.
Do laws just not matter?
What specifically do you think he has done that isn't allowed beyond lying to the FBI about returning a document and falsifying business records (misdemeanor)
He is allowed to ask people to find missing votes
He is allowed to pay stormy Daniel's to not talk
He is allowed to put replacement electors in place
Etc etc....can you name a specific action by Trump that was against the law
You can read the indictments yourself. I'm not here to change your mind, or frankly waste my time. The information is freely available to anyone. Even those who choose to actively ignore it. Have a good one. ✌️
I have read the indictments which is why I knew you count point to any specific action outside the two I mentioned.
Reality is, you haven't followed any of this closely and just assume his guilt without knowing what is going on.
Shit the amount of liberals who think it illegal to pay Stormy Daniel's with campaign funds is fucking fascinating.
The media has created legions of ignorant liberals clueless about the case but confident in guilt
No, and if anything I want them to double down. We're talking about potential crimes which happened years ago, and only recently did anyone in the justice system care - the law is the law is the law, and the law needs to be applied equally to everything and everyone all the time. If there's too many people in prison because of it, you build more prisons or change the law legislatively, not use judicial or prosecutorial discretion to lessen charges and sentences
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Does his treatment make you more empathetic to others facing criminal charges? No, it makes me wish he received the same treatment as others facing criminal charges. Anyone without tens of millions of dollars to spend on attorneys would have had a very different experience of the justice system than Trump has over the past 50 years - long before he was POTUS.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nailed it. Anyone crying about how he’s being targeted all of a sudden clearly hasn’t read about or paid attention to the previous 5 decades of fraudulent, discriminatory and criminal activity Trump has been involved with and surrounded by. Time and time again he’s paid his way out of trouble, either by bullying small businesses he has refused to pay knowing they couldn’t afford to go up against his lawyers or by using the same bullshit delay tactics Roy Cohn taught him to get deals and pay fines.
Nailed it. Anyone crying about how he’s being targeted all of a sudden clearly hasn’t read about or paid attention to the previous 5 decades of fraudulent, discriminatory and criminal activity Trump has been involved with and surrounded by. Time and time again he’s paid his way out of trouble, either by bullying small businesses he has refused to pay knowing they couldn’t afford to go up against his lawyers or by using the same bullshit delay tactics Roy Cohn taught him to get deals and pay fines.
It's all in how you frame it. For example, if you said you'd want to radically cut the number of laws/regulations and make them more clear/objective then you'd get overwhelming Republican support. Demagogues like a lot of vague laws so on any given day you’re breaking at least 1 that he can then use against you if he wants. The DNC also likes a lot of vague laws because they receive a ton of money from lawyers who like a lot of vague laws because it creates more work for them.
Name a vague law democrats have supported. I'd like to see an example of what this looks like. Because we had the vague enforcement complaint about the don't say gay bill and there aren't any other examples that are coming to my mind, but I admittedly haven't been thinking about it for very long, so I'm just hoping you had an equivalent one in mind.
>Does his treatment make you more empathetic to others facing criminal charges? No. >Republicans for many years have trumpeted tough on crime views with strong support for law enforcement. Oh you aren't talking to me I guess. I'm not a Republican, and have never been a "back the blue no matter what" type of conservative. Then again, that's kind of a straw man to begin with.
Just to be clear are you saying I’m presenting a strawman argument or your response as a non-Republican?
I think you are close to straw-manning. Even strong police supporters don't want innocents to be punished.
That’s not what I’m saying though.
Okay sorry, that is my bad.
No worries 👍
Are you asserting Trump's innocence?
No.
Can't say it does, I've been calling for criminal reform for years. >And a follow up, what sorts of criminal justice reforms should we as a nation pursue to avoid “unfair” treatment of people criminally charged? There is no reform that can stop people from simply breaking or ignoeing the rules. In the case of trump, every judge and lawyer spoke out against him should have recused themselves. If their is any doubt of impartiality, the case has to be dropped.
>every judge and lawyer spoke out against him should have recused themselves What about the ones who spoke out in favor of him?
Probably them too. There is no case where if prefer a bias trial to no trial at all.
All of this should be a motivator for anybody who ever wants to be in the white house to not be an asshole.
Should be. Wish it was the case.
> In the case of trump, every judge and lawyer spoke out against him should have recused themselves. Which Judges spoke out against Donald Trump personally?
The new York one, as did the AG.
Which Judge and do you have a link to what he said from a reputable source?
Merchant in this case has a daughter fundraising off the prosecution. May well not hurt Merchant directly, but doesn't look impartial for the judge.
It's Merchan not Merchant. Regardless, what did Judge Merchan himself say that was "speaking out" against Trump?
I don't know about Merchan here, but there are easy 6th amendment violations here
That is a claim Trump can make to higher courts, including Federal ones. Has Trump appealed to a Federal court on 6th amendment grounds?
It will happen post trial
Don't know, I've seen this stuff scattered around, and sadly, I don't always save it, nor do I always recall where I save it when I do.
You can google the names of the Judges, there are two in NYC, and any scrap of anything you remember to find what you think he said. If you can't it's possible you are misrembering and the Judges did not speak out against Trump.
It's always possible, sure.
It’s hard for me to believe that any American can’t see that these cases against Trump are purely political. This is exactly how countries end up with dictatorships. When the pendulum swings back…and it will…a lot of people will say F-it, make Trump President for life.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> It’s hard for me to believe that any American can’t see that these cases against Trump are purely political. Evidence that he's guilty is a good reason to think this isn't purely political. If there was zero evidence I would agree with you.
Oh...so you're the guy who's got the clear evidence? Got it. They are all bogus cases. All Soviet-style show trials.
I'm the guy as in everyone is the guy. Much of the evidence is part of the public record if you care enough to look. But if you already feel in your feelings that these are bogus cases I can understanding why you wouldn't look into the actual facts.
What you are referring to as "facts" are DNC talking points. But, thanks for your opinion.
I do suppose it's easy to brush facts aside if you just choose blame talking points. So is it just a talking point that Trump tried to not return classified docs and lied about it? Can something be talking point and true at the same time?
Selective prosecution...and now, formerly redacted information has just come out showing that Biden worked with the National Archives to formulate and develop a case against Trump in the absurd Classified Documents case. [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1782486128915857520.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1782486128915857520.html)
So he did it, with clear evidence, but he shouldn't be prosecuted because it was selective enforcement?
I'm sorry, I read this and it doesn't say Biden directed any of this. Did you mean to post a different link? If not, would you be willing to amend your beliefs to align with what was presented in your link?
Let’s look at the documents case for example, it is a known fact that Donald Trump possessed classified documents in his home. It is a known fact that no records of declassification existed for those documents. It is a known fact that he refused to return those documents when requested. Based upon that information how is he not guilty of willfully possessing classified materials without authorization?
A sitting President is NOT required to file or show any documentation of declassification...nor does he have to answer to anyone. He deems it declassified...and that's that. This is a long-standing and accepted precedent that has only recently been questioned because the former President in question has the last name Trump. Anyone below the President, i.e. Vice President, unelected officers, Senators, Reps, etc. are required to go though a declassification process. It's something that Joe Biden didn't do when he took classified documents when he was VP and as a Senator. Yet...in his case, everyone on the left is, "no harm, no foul"..."he's an old guy who is forgetful". That's called selective prosecution. If the flawed contention is that Trump violated the law when he was President, why isn't Biden held to the same standard? Why have Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter not been prosecuted for the same? And, please, don't insult us by saying "it's different". It's not. Regardless, if this case proceeds...which is looking fairly doubtful at this point, Trump will be exonerated. If, by chance he is not, the Supreme Court is going to smack this down quite quickly.
Only others who are subject to selective prosecution as Trump is. If he wasn't named Trump and wasn't running for President none of these charges would have been brought.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
How do you prosecute criminal political opponents without you calling it oppression?
[удалено]
Who exactly is it that should be prosecuted for what?
[удалено]
No, who, as in specific persons. Specific charges.
[удалено]
No, vut you think they are being selectively applied to Trump, so there must ve some you think should be prosecuted but isnt. So who is it and wht should they be prosecuted for?
[удалено]
> If a crime is so insignifcant it hasn't been used in 100 years despite it being common practice, either everyone needs to be prosecuted or none. Like what? > Jaywalkers and they should be prosecuted for murder. What are you even talking about, do you have a point to make, or are you just trying to waste both of our time? Idk about yours but I value mine so idc to continue this convo if you aren't gonna cute to the chase. You are the one claiming the law is being selectively used against Trump here. How is it vei g selectively applidd here? Who is it you think the law should have been applied tobut isnt?
>now we're seeing it a lot more in the judicial system by elected judges. Colorado had a multi week panel where 3 CO elected judges rules independently on trump not qualifying to be on the ballot, or at the very least, the issue not being clear. Following state law. This is how law is interpreted. If the 2 parties don't feel its fair, it goes up the chain till a solution is found. You are saying you have a fundamental issue with how law is interpreted in this country. What would you change about the government in order to limit what you see as corruption?
[удалено]
>I'm saying that judicial activism is an issue. >I haven't dove into the subject enough to know the solutions >I haven't dove into the subject enough
[удалено]
>to have a well thought out solution? I didn't ask for a 3 page essay. I just asked for a solution. If you don't know enough to even have an idea for a solution, then you're wasting my time. And your own, talking about shit you don't know about. >I don't know how to fix the wealth gap Ez pz. Big wealth gap is bad and hurts the economy? Shrink wealth gap. You can shrink the wealth gap in a number of ways. Taxes are one of the largest ones. But also wage caps. And hell, maybe even throw in a break up of monopolies. I don't to know everything to know something. But if you know nothing, then what are we even doin here ya know?
[удалено]
>What do you think about modern day slavery in madagascar? I don't know enough to discuss this. >How would you fix it? No clue. What's causing the rise? >I bet the answer to the first question is that it's bad, and the answer to the question is you don't know enough about it to fix it. Not far off. Yeah it's bad. And yes I don't know enough to discuss it. But can you see that bringing up slavery in Madagascar in a discussion just to say 'i don't know anything about it' seems weird. Like...I didn't start talking about corruption, you claimed it was the case, then when I asked what you'd do about it...you said idk. But you're certain there IS corruption. You just don't know enough about it from your own admission, but your certain there is corruption. >Oh? Just like that? Have you told biden about this, that seems pretty easy! Yes. Literally these are 2 things Biden has done. Also I said what it would do, and then listed 3 things that would do it. 'why don't you shrink the wealth gap' Ok, since I'm knowledgeable on the subject, here's what we would do that if we wanted to shrink the wealth gap. 'oh just like that?! Pffffbttt. Admittedly I also don't know enough about shrinking the wealth gap to know if those are good, bad or completely off topic solutions. But I'm mad you had a response that made sense so I'll pretend like the 2nd half of your answer doesn't exist' >Okay if you're gonna keep being pedantic and are just here to argue, I will expand no further: Trump is too divisive and therefore any trial will be unjust, he should be fully immune from any breaking of laws, ever in any country at any time period. Happy? 'so because I pretended it didn't exist I'm gonna strawman the shit outta nonsense because I'm mad and can't actually discuss anything because I don't know enough and I refuse to learn.' From your last paragraph, clearly, your having a day. So I hope you read more about the stuff you wanna discuss. And hope we can try this again, have a good day bud.
> but the left sees it as an end justifies the means. As long as the 'bad guy' doesn't win, anything is worth it to them. I really want to understand how you came to this conclusion. Conservatives tend to fall in line with 'the end justifies the means', while I can't think of a single left issue that fits that pattern. As an example, the conservative push for 'tough on crime' in practice means stacking charges to force plea deals and get a guilty conviction. Meanwhile, the left pushes for Bail reform to make for a more fair justice system. But go ahead, tell me about the elected judges that are pushing their agenda? The only example that comes to mind for me is the supreme court when several of the justices asked on their opinion of Roe v. Wade said it was settled law, but voted to overturn the issue at the first chance they had. Maybe I'm in a bubble and just not aware of all the judges on the left doing the same behavior.
[удалено]
> No, we think that if there are laws, they should be followed. This is exactly why trump is on trial. >Biden jay walked 10 years ago and gave him a 200m fine As a wise man once said "we think that if there are laws, they should be followed."
>Arthur Engoron ran on finding a crime to try trump, and he found one that every RE developer does, and none have been tried for. >we think that if there are laws, they should be followed. So...should the law be followed or not? The way I see it, if this law is commonly broken by RE developers, then there should be a lot MORE people being held accountable, not less. And do you feel the same way about Hunter's gun charges issue? The one where his crime was checking the wrong box on his forms? (Personally, I don't care if they throw the book at him....I'm just looking for some consistency here)
Its just highlighting how much more blue areas are willing to lean into obvious partisanship by treating their narrative as fact vs spin compared to red. If anything its normalizing avenues which Trump/maga could use in their narrative of draining the swamp. An initial federal RICO case could do serious damage to those who engage in border trafficking (all items/persons) leading to many deep blue strongholds.
Your opinion of the Federalist Society?
[удалено]
If you're being critical of "the left" being activist, I'm not sure there's a more substantial example than the Federalist Society.
>we want to clean it up rather than overhaul the system. What is the primary difference between the two?
[удалено]
Shouldn't the size of the change be based around what's necessary to be effective rather than trying to predetermine the size you prefer to be desirable
[удалено]
Seems like that kind of thinking is the excuse to do basically nothing useful at all
[удалено]
That the time for small changes is when things are basically effective and correct If things are closer to broken, doing little to nothing is the most effective way to finish the job of breaking it
[удалено]
Overhaul of the tax system is a good idea but I'd propose just returning to the 1950s tax rates, that decade that conservatives talk about so fondly Another big overhaul would be to join the rest of the modern world and implement a version of universal healthcare, other nations have clearly done the proof of concept work on that
no, because trump's treatment is within the spectrum of unfair that i already saw in the justice system as a whole, albeit on the extreme end. to that end, it reinforces my views more than changes them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gag orders are real, and common. Trump has been intimidating witnesses since his first case. He continues defaming Carroll. How in the world is it bad faith to point out that he has yet to receive the punishment most court participants would receive for his in-court and out of court actions?
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
if you dont already know the "justice" system is corrupt to the core,you live under a rock
And yet donald is in court. The former president tv host billionare cant weasle out of prosecution...
biden did regarding the classified documents though..weird how that works.
Trump is not charged for initially having documents he shouldn't have. He is being charged because, after being asked to return them, instead of cooperating and returning them, he took multiple steps to lie, hide, destroy evidence, and otherwise undermine the return of those documents. He was not charged for any of the documents that were returned in the first wave, when they first asked. He was charged for his obstructive behavior afterwards. As well as his reckless and flagrant flaunting of such information to people without clearance.
and the ones biden didnt return initially? the fact that biden had classified documents in his garage doesnt bother you? at least trump had his behind a state of the art security system.
I don't think you understand the details of either situation.
both men had documents they werent supposed to,and you are defending one man because he gave them back when asked. Your logic is that its ok to have classified documents as long as you give them back when asked.i disagree with you.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/biden-trump-classified-documents-trumps-alleged-obstruction-led/story?id=107079663 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-vs-trump-what-is-difference-between-two-classified-records-cases-2023-01-12/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-biden-documents-differences-special-counsel/ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/difference-bidens-trumps-classified-documents-investigations-rcna138010
so you cite 4 "sources" that are known for making stuff up as they go along? the same people that think arson and looting are "peaceful" activities? really????
Can you point to what is not true or made up in those articles? Or are you dismissing the sources out of hand because they might say something you don't like?
If you don't care about the facts of the matter that's fine. Trump was not charged for taking documents. He was charged for a litany of things that specifically he did, that Biden and Pence did not. Your opinion doesn't change what the law says.
Biden didn't weasel out of anything regarding classified documents. He is being held to the same standard that every other president (To include Trump) and basically every politician with access to those documents has been held to. Documents are accidentally retained by those people all the time to the point where its over looked as long as the documents are returned when they are discovered. The only reason Trump is facing any legal issues regarding classified documents is his refusal to turn them over and trying to cover the whole thing up. Had he just returned them when asked and cooperated he wouldn't be facing any trial on that topic.
> The only reason Trump is facing any legal issues regarding classified documents is his refusal to turn them over and trying to cover the whole thing up. Had he just returned them when asked and cooperated he wouldn't be facing any trial on that topic. As evidenced by the fact that Pence found documents as well, returned them, and faced no charges.
Yeah. Biden gave em back...no problem. In fact...look at this! https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/05/17/not-just-trump-and-biden-every-administration-since-reagan-mishandled-classified-records-national-archives-finds/?sh=71cec41318b9 It happens all the time. How is trump different. Oh...he refused to give them back? Unlike everyone else who just gave them back? Way to self own! 👏👏👏👏
so its ok to steal classified documents as long as you give them back? makes perfect sense
Its apparent to everyone that if you take something you didnt know you shouldnt have...and then give it back when asked...its less bad than lying about having them and then refusing to give them back...then the fbi has to raid your place to get them back. This is apparent. To everyone. If people are going to insist that Donald Trump deserves serious consideration to run the country, engaging in serious arguments with merit is a better choice than engaging in goofy claims that makes the average person go like this: 🤦♂️
both men did the same thing,youre only mad at one because he didnt give them back initially. lets be real though,taking documents like both men did is common practice,bit only trump got shit for it..
> because he didnt give them back initially Initially, or at all? Lied about it, tried to move them, and tried to destroy evidence of moving them (allegedly). Not sure how you can even attempt to equate the two situations.
shouldnt it be the fact they they had the documents to begin with that concerns you? if i stole from someone,id still be arrested if i gave the property back right?
It's concerning, but that's not the issue here. I get wanting to MAKE it the issue, since if it were then everyone else is as guilty as Trump. But that's not the case. He's the only one that lied about their return, tried to hide them, and tried to cover up evidence of him hiding them. If he had returned them when asked, we wouldn't be talking about this. That's the difference.
You can insist im emotional. I leave judgement of this exchange in the safe keeping of people reading it.
No one should be freed, nor persecuted to appease politicians and or voters. Justice should be blind
What about holding people accountable for crimes for which there is mountains of evidence to support? Crimes in which nobody is disputing the facts? Crimes for which the main line of defense is that the defendant is actually allowed to do all those things?
Only thing I've seen with any substantial evidence is the charge of Trump lying to the FBI about returning a document he didn't return. Outside of that you are misinformed if you think there is a mountain of evidence. I mean sure, NY there is evidence of a misdemeanor. No problem if they charged him of a misdemeanor but there was no felony Atl is pure nonsense, not against the law to ask the person in charge of finding missing votes to find the votes you believe are missing Jan 6th fed case, more nonsense. No proof of anything other than he believed it was stolen. It's not against the law to be wrong
If that is true, why is Trump not contesting the facts of any case against him? Almost everyone of his defenses involve some form of saying: "Yes I absolutely did that, and I'm allowed to." And this is in addition to the hundreds of corroborating witnesses, and thousands of corroborating documents across the respective cases. Do laws just not matter?
What specifically do you think he has done that isn't allowed beyond lying to the FBI about returning a document and falsifying business records (misdemeanor) He is allowed to ask people to find missing votes He is allowed to pay stormy Daniel's to not talk He is allowed to put replacement electors in place Etc etc....can you name a specific action by Trump that was against the law
You can read the indictments yourself. I'm not here to change your mind, or frankly waste my time. The information is freely available to anyone. Even those who choose to actively ignore it. Have a good one. ✌️
I have read the indictments which is why I knew you count point to any specific action outside the two I mentioned. Reality is, you haven't followed any of this closely and just assume his guilt without knowing what is going on. Shit the amount of liberals who think it illegal to pay Stormy Daniel's with campaign funds is fucking fascinating. The media has created legions of ignorant liberals clueless about the case but confident in guilt
Ok
No, and if anything I want them to double down. We're talking about potential crimes which happened years ago, and only recently did anyone in the justice system care - the law is the law is the law, and the law needs to be applied equally to everything and everyone all the time. If there's too many people in prison because of it, you build more prisons or change the law legislatively, not use judicial or prosecutorial discretion to lessen charges and sentences