Biden does not want Feds to go after Trump for crimes. If they don't, does that finally mean a President is above the law?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,407
8,698
136
What other countries have attempted to prosecute their former leader? Because what would the blowback be for the country if it was successful? Well with how much a joke the US is currently with most of the world, can't really go much lower
The USA is truly a madhouse. You watch network news, they say every day that the POTUS is saying he was robbed by election fraud and they say the accusations are baseless and unsubstantiated. Every time. Trump's Kewpie doll press secretary annoys me no end. Every word out of her mouth (that I hear) is so much diarrhea.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
18,597
11,287
136
What's Biden got to do with the price of fish, I don't get it? Surely whoever is in power, the feds should be doing their jobs. If they go to Biden for clarification, then the answer must surely be "do your jobs".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Muse

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
I am curious as to what actual criminal statue would be levied against Trump. The only one that could have almost come close is when he suggested to use his hotel for a meeting once that never happened. That could have been breaking of the emolument clause. So not doing something is not exactly a crime. Doing things you don't like isn't criminal. Not in a single one of those articles have they articulated a single actual criminal statute that he supposedly broke. It's nothing but "I hate what here did here" platitudes which aren't criminal.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,907
136
The one huge beef that the apologists defend is that when Obama took office hundreds of thousands of deaths, more than COVID here meaning the Iraq war, nothing was done. A half a million, maybe a million who never saw the beginnings of justice.

Biden? Let's just say that I won't hold my breath however that's not functionally important. NY has enough on Trump and his family to put Donnie in a max prison for the rest of his life and the Kids for a couple of decades.

NY- our unofficial motto is "Zero fucks given, we are going to kick your ass when you seriously break the law"
While you are correct about the Iraq War remember Congress gave Bush an almost opened authorization for that War. While politically malfeasant I don't believe it violate US law.

Breaking the law vs political misconduct should be treated differently
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,907
136
I am curious as to what actual criminal statue would be levied against Trump. The only one that could have almost come close is when he suggested to use his hotel for a meeting once that never happened. That could have been breaking of the emolument clause. So not doing something is not exactly a crime. Doing things you don't like isn't criminal. Not in a single one of those articles have they articulated a single actual criminal statute he he supposedly broke. It's nothing but "I hate what here did here" platitudes which aren't criminal.
Same law broken by Michael Cohen for starters who happens to be in jail.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Same law broken by Michael Cohen for starters who happens to be in jail.

Nope. No evidence there Trump broke the law. There is a reason Cohen went to jail and that was there was evidence of a law broken. Cohen went to jail for tax evasion and bank fraud.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,649
26,746
136
I am curious as to what actual criminal statue would be levied against Trump. The only one that could have almost come close is when he suggested to use his hotel for a meeting once that never happened. That could have been breaking of the emolument clause. So not doing something is not exactly a crime. Doing things you don't like isn't criminal. Not in a single one of those articles have they articulated a single actual criminal statute that he supposedly broke. It's nothing but "I hate what here did here" platitudes which aren't criminal.
Sure thing legal beagle.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,118
10,942
136
Nope. No evidence there Trump broke the law. There is a reason Cohen went to jail and that was there was evidence of a law broken. Cohen went to jail for tax evasion and bank fraud.

“I pled guilty in federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with ‘Individual 1,’” Cohen said, reading from his prepared statement. “And for the record: ‘Individual 1’ is Donald J. Trump.”
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,407
8,698
136
What's Biden got to do with the price of fish, I don't get it? Surely whoever is in power, the feds should be doing their jobs. If they go to Biden for clarification, then the answer must surely be "do your jobs".
Yeah, really, attributing everything that happens under a president's "watch" to the president is stupid. The buck stops there but how much can one person know and do? Biden should not, does not want public perception to be that prosecution of Donald Trump is attributable to him, his feelings, much less a vendetta. It's Donald who will be on trial, not Biden. That's how it should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,649
26,746
136
If you have a statute to throw out there go for it.

I'll let professional investigators that are allowed to actually investigate make that determination. You've made a declarative statement without even being able to see the evidence. Aren't you always the "wait for the evidence" guy? Yet you've already made a determination here.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
“I pled guilty in federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with ‘Individual 1,’” Cohen said, reading from his prepared statement. “And for the record: ‘Individual 1’ is Donald J. Trump.”


Cohen can't plead guilty for someone else. He never fought any of the campaign charges and most lawyers would say the charges regarding campaign finance would never had stuck had he not plead guilty. He even said he did so to get a lower sentence which is quite common.



No one is questioning the legitimacy of the guilty pleas Cohen entered Aug. 21 in federal court to six tax evasion and bank fraud charges. But those charges have nothing to do with President Trump. They involve Cohen’s failure to report over $4 million in income from work with taxi companies, along with several hundred thousand dollars in other income, to the Internal Revenue Service.

But you have to wonder about the legal advice Cohen received when he pleaded guilty on the same day to two violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act – the law that governs the financing of federal elections campaigns. Many election law experts, including former commissioners on the Federal Election Commission (FEC), say his conduct, however sleazy, didn’t violate the law.

I’m one of those former commissioners and I’m also a former Justice Department attorney. Based on my experience serving in government and now as a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, it appears to me that Cohen was innocent of the campaign finance law violations.

The law Cohen pleaded guilty to violating bans campaign contributions by banks, corporations and labor unions. It also limits the amount that an individual can contribute to a candidate. During the 2016 election cycle, that limit was $2,700


He was hoping if he could somehow implicate Trump in anything that the leftist judge would do something for him. It did not. Nor is that evidence of Trump committing a crime. The payment to Daniels was not part of campaign violation law he plead guilty to either. So not sure what law you are inferring here Trump broke.

Cohen was hoping that he could get a sweet deal through Muller with that whole Russia fiasco that didn't pan out. There was no evidence for Russian collusion, and Cohen certainly had nothing to contribute to it either as evidenced by the report.
 
Last edited:

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
I'll let professional investigators that are allowed to actually investigate make that determination. You've made a declarative statement without even being able to see the evidence. Aren't you always the "wait for the evidence" guy? Yet you've already made a determination here.

Oh yah, I am all for waiting, but you have to have probable cause of a crime to investigate. Which means you have to have an indication of an articulate-able crime that was committed. I haven't even seen that. Just wanting to send investigators out to hunt down any crime because you don't like Trump isn't exactly how the judicial process works.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,907
136
Nope. No evidence there Trump broke the law. There is a reason Cohen went to jail and that was there was evidence of a law broken. Cohen went to jail for tax evasion and bank fraud.
Cohen went to jail executing Trump's orders. Ever heard of individual #1? Being President saved him from prosecution at that time. Also look up the phrase "unindicted co-conspirator"
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Oh yah, I am all for waiting, but you have to have probable cause of a crime to investigate. Which means you have to have an indication of an articulate-able crime that was committed. I haven't even seen that.
This is false.

Probable cause is required to get warrants or to seize property, it is not required to investigate. (Basically, police can investigate anything)

Regardless, Cohen’s statement that he acted at Trump’s direction along with the recordings of their discussion of the payments Cohen is currently serving a criminal sentence for is certainly probable cause that Trump committed a crime. As Trump directed Cohen to perform these actions he is a co-conspirator.

This doesn’t mean Trump would certainly be convicted as they also need to prove he broke the law knowingly and willingly, but he’s certainly in significant legal jeopardy for all the same offenses Cohen pleaded guilty to.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,907
136
This is false.

Probable cause is required to get warrants or to seize property, it is not required to investigate. (Basically, police can investigate anything)

Regardless, Cohen’s statement that he acted at Trump’s direction along with the recordings of their discussion of the payments Cohen is currently serving a criminal sentence for is certainly probable cause that Trump committed a crime. As Trump directed Cohen to perform these actions he is a co-conspirator.

This doesn’t mean Trump would certainly be convicted as they also need to prove he broke the law knowingly and willingly, but he’s certainly in significant legal jeopardy for all the same offenses Cohen pleaded guilty to.
ding...ding...ding
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
I also guess some folks are humbly ignoring the Mueller report as well.
Yeah, in case anyone forgot or is deliberately pretending not to know the Mueller report details between around four to eight felonies by Trump.

6a00d8341bf80c53ef0240a4807d4c200d-800wi
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
18,597
11,287
136
This doesn’t mean Trump would certainly be convicted as they also need to prove he broke the law knowingly

I was under the impression that ignorance of the law cannot be used as an excuse for breaking it (exceptions aside e.g. a minor).

Otherwise "sorry guys, I don't know it was against the law to shoot a random person on Fifth Avenue!"?

Aside from lack of mental capacity issues, if competence had to be proven then Trump being the dumbest fuck ever to have a million dollars in his account can get away with anything.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,187
136
Cohen was hoping that he could get a sweet deal through Muller with that whole Russia fiasco that didn't pan out. There was no evidence for Russian collusion, and Cohen certainly had nothing to contribute to it either as evidenced by the report.

FALSE.




 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
I was under the impression that ignorance of the law cannot be used as an excuse for breaking it (exceptions aside e.g. a minor).

Otherwise "sorry guys, I don't know it was against the law to shoot a random person on Fifth Avenue!"?

Aside from lack of mental capacity issues, if competence had to be proven then Trump being the dumbest fuck ever to have a million dollars in his account can get away with anything.
Ignorance of the law GENERALLY cannot be used as an excuse. With some crimes it is though!

You will surely be shocked to learn that most of those cases where you have to prove they knowingly broke the law involve the sort of crimes white guys in fancy suits tend to commit.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
I don't understand why people continue to argue legal points with someone who has been proven wrong on virtually every legal argument they've ever made. Every time you engage with them, every time you're suckered in to responding, a Republican earns their MAGA hat.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,907
136
So far consensus seems to be Presidents are above the law. In the case of Trump he's up on so many state charges there is little concern for the federal ones.

In other words, Presidents can create such a political climate around them no one dare prosecute. Doesn't that sound more King-like vs a President, least as intended by the Constitution?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
So far consensus seems to be Presidents are above the law. In the case of Trump he's up on so many state charges there is little concern for the federal ones.

In other words, Presidents can create such a political climate around them no one dare prosecute. Doesn't that sound more King-like vs a President, least as intended by the Constitution?
Yes, based on the (IMO insane) way people read the Constitution today the president is above the law. The only remedy is impeachment.

Of course in other threads I have asked why the president couldn't simply kill every person in Congress trying to impeach him and no one was able to give me an answer as to why law enforcement could legally stop it. The answer was basically 'well people wouldn't stand for it', which is... not comforting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HomerJS and Muse