Posts Made By: Greg Shaffer

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

If it were only that simple...
That said, I don't recall you having any issues with Trump and company spending like drunken sailors on their watch. And much of that requires a raise in the debt ceiling that we're facing now...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

At latest count,  there are reportedly around 34 counts that appear in the Trump indictment. And of these, of course, Levin, Dershowitz and yourself have reviewed exactly:
A, Zero
B, One
C, Three, or one apiece
D, Didn't know there were that many
E, A&D

Hmm, anybody wonder what the answer is?...

Originally Posted by James Lacey

The rule of law is not dead. Just because we have a presumption of innocence in this country does not mean you cannot be indicted for a crime. If a prosecutor convenes a grand jury, and that grand jury views evidence that convinces them beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed, they most likely will vote to indict you. That is the rule of law in this country. There is nothing Stalinist about that, and Trump is not a political enemy being imprisoned without due process. What Jim told you is exactly right. You are too blinded by partisan rage to see the extreme hyperbole you are engaging in. One might even say you are "butt-hurt."

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Tomato, tomatho. Potato, potahtoh.

Exonerate himself, prove his innocence, defend himself (your words). These phrases have little to no difference in meaning. You and Rich are a couple of snowflakes, driven by your feelings, who are getting butt-hurt because you can't seem to accept that a grand jury found probable cause that Trump committed a crime. This is how our justice system works, and if a grand jury had found that Hillary Clinton committed campaign or business fraud and indicted her, you would be applauding the action.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Greg, you, and obviously Jim, know that this is exactly how our system works. A jury will decide if the prosecution has proved their case, not whether Trump proves his innocence.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Being indicted means, at the least, a grand jury thought there was probable cause to charge him with a crime. That is not "very little." And it seems to me that now you are moving the goalposts. Suddenly you don't care about the indictment; all that matters is the conviction. Right-wingers will still be pissing and moaning that Trump was mistreated, even if he is convicted. You can't have it both ways. If it would have been good for Hillary, then it's good for Trump. You don't get to be the party of law and order only when it suits your political goals. It is ridiculous how the law-and-order party suddenly hates our justice system merely because it has come for Trump.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Being indicted means, at the least, a grand jury thought there was probable cause to charge him with a crime. That is not "very little." And it seems to me that now you are moving the goalposts. Suddenly you don't care about the indictment; all that matters is the conviction. Right-wingers will still be pissing and moaning that Trump was mistreated, even if he is convicted. You can't have it both ways. If it would have been good for Hillary, then it's good for Trump. You don't get to be the party of law and order only when it suits your political goals. It is ridiculous how the law-and-order party suddenly hates our justice system merely because it has come for Trump.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Sort of.  The grand jury votes based upon the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.  It is a one-sided process.  I'm not saying that this particular prosecutor manipulated the grand jury.   I do think that in the extremely rare case where a grand jury indictment turns out to be totally bogus, it is more likely to be the prosecutor's fault, not the citizens on the grand jury panel.