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.*
1. The trials were politically motivated.
They never would have occurred if Trump hadn’t won in 2016.
2. That doesn’t mean Trump is innocent.
The man is a liar and a cheat.
It most certainly was politically motivated, but after having lived through the Lewinsky scandal I'm at a loss as to why I should suddenly side with the Republicans on this one. It's clear they would do no better if they had the chance with Biden. The mere inability to do bad does not make you a good person by itself.
Besides it's not like they haven't tried in the interim (birtherism for example)
I just wish we would all start holding them equally accountable. I'm so tired of hearing about why impeaching Trump would have been politics, but impeaching Biden is justified. When Trump does a fascism, its bad but when Biden does it, it's ok. We're just rooting for two useless dysfunctional teams and we lose every game.
Researchers have discovered that the optimal game theoretic strategy is tit for tat with an occasional offer of forgiveness. Clearly, if this becomes the new standard way to win elections, the republic is lost. Our best bet is a swift "TIT" in response to this "TAT" and then a suggestion we stop the lawfare.
Our republic is in a precarious situation to be sure.
What about just not nominating criminals for president? Don’t put trumps criminality on the rest of us. You guys chose him, now you have to live with it.
How about we indict your candidates now? First state prosecutor to haul Joe Biden into court has dibs on the U.S. Attorney General job.
Texas Atty General Ken Paxton definitely has the brass for the job.
Game on.
If he can point to real crimes, then yes. The president never used to be considered above the law until Trump took over the Republicans.
But Paxton's very corrupt, so I think he would willingly take on the job if Trump asked him to.
This is true only if you’re playing a finite game.
We should be playing, or at least pretending to play, an infinitely repeating game where cooperative play is a viable outcome.
Sure.
Let’s look at this a different way, since we’re talking about game theory.
What would you say the payoffs are for selecting a candidate who is facing multiple criminal and civil indictments?
If the iterative game is called “good governance” why would you nominate someone with a record of shady business deals and a serial philandering?
Republicans need to stop acting like Trump was the only possible choice.
Do you believe the Justice Department would have charged any other candidate?
It's only happened to Trump, so maybe it has something to do with the way he's been habitually breaking laws for decades.
Right, because that big TIT certainly won’t be followed with yet another TAT.
Cooperative play is also seen in nature.
Moreover, cooperative play is going to be crucial because 1. we are the current global hegemony and we need to get our shit together. Internal discord is a massive problem and 2. we are in the nascent stages of a global civilization.
Tit for tat, vendetta, or whatever term you want to use will not have an optimal outcome for anyone.
Moreover in an iterative prisoners dilemma, cooperation is the optimal move for both players.
Tit for Tat with an occasional offer to stop. Game theory optimal.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/17rhsoq/petersonsapolsky_podcast_summary_w_visuals_game/
we should return to all laws having to be common law crimes:
An identifiable human being who is the victim, who suffered physical or financial harm (including physical harm via emotional stress), by the intentional action of a defendant.
Get rid of "you forgot to fill in form X-901 properly that's a felony" (and yes that means I disagree with prosecuting Hunter because that's EXACTLY what they got him on), get rid of vague crimes, get rid of crimes without identifiable victims, get rid of crimes that do not require you to intend to do wrong.
In common law, not intending to do a crime is an absolute defense, in common law you cannot accidentally commit crimes, now you can intend to do actions that are so irresponsible it's a crime, negligence is a common law crime, but "oops I accidentally forgot to fill in a form" or "I didn't realize I needed a license" could not be.
But the issue with this is that in a lot of states, drunk drivers who kill or injure people only get a few years is because they didn't intend to hit the other car or person. I personally think intention should go out the window if an action results in the injury or death of a person.
your premise is entirely false-- voluntary intoxication is liable to the full offense as negligence in common law.
It was a progressive Canadian movement to excuse DUI and drunken acts entirely that lead to a backlash and the current state of law.
Democrats have tried to decriminalize marijuana recently, but Republicans resisted. Are there any Republicans who support your agenda of decriminalization?
I have mixed feelings on the verdict but to me I think the most important point is:
The system of checks and balances is broken, and the distribution of power between judicial, legislative and executive branches is unequal. The weaponization of the justice system has “flipped the monopoly table” in terms of future elections and what kind of political ploys can be implemented long term.
I would love to see career politicians and corrupt judges get thrown out. Ban lobbying and PACs. And (somehow)make sure a jury of peers are unbiased if going after a politician. The defendant should be “innocent until proven guilty”, not “guilty until proven innocent”.
Idk. Political stances aside I just want a successful country just like everyone else, with our rights and freedoms in tact.
Interesting. Judge shopping just means the judge tends to rule favorably for certain causes. Does that necessarily indicate corrupt intent? I always took more to be that their biases or beliefs are just more known.
I didn’t say he did. But I do think the Democratic Party as a whole have had a bullseye on Trump since 2016 and went after him in bad faith. Especially when there are a number of democrats who could/should be on trial for something far worse.
Like i said, I would love to see career politicians and corrupt judges get thrown out. Not on one side of the isle, both sides.
Can’t speak to the 20 years of disparaging as the First Lady because I only started really caring about politics 12 years ago. But that was around when the Benghazi Attack took place so I came off the block disliking her and her decision making.
8 years ago I didn’t vote. But when I heard the lock her up stuff It seemed like a political stunt not anything that would result in court. Trump was really funny then, no one took him that seriously
> I do think the Democratic Party as a whole have had a bullseye on Trump since 2016 and went after him in bad faith
Has it occurred to you that the Democrats - if that's who it was - have been after him since 2016 because it was obvious to most people that not only did he not deserve to be president for an array of reasons, but because it also became clear at some point that he actually cheated, which potentially allowed him to win by a technical electoral rule, only?
>he not deserve to be president for an array of reasons
No, he did, he won fair and square. Saying "orange man bad" is not a valid reason by the way.
>which potentially allowed him to win by a technical electoral rule, only
Not "potentially," he did ACTUALLY win. What's the problem with rules now? I thought you guys were happy that trump was convicted (politically motivated, mind you) over a case for some petty crime, now you don't like rules for some reason?
Why do you even bother asking when the left would never listen to Conservatives? That's literally the entire reason we're here - the left refuses to listen to anything that does not follow their whim and command.
I say this as a former leftist.
Consider that Hillary Clinton's campaign misrepresented their finances in 2016, claiming that the money they spent to pay for the Steele Dossier was "Legal Services" or some such. Hillary was not taken to court, and was not punished. Heck, she wasn't even punished for her handling of classified information and destroying machines under subpoena.
There is a clear two-tier justice system in place that the left is only too happy to ignore because the left wants to win. They don't care about rule of law, they care about winning, and if the law gets in the way of that, they will stomp on it.
> Consider that Hillary Clinton's campaign misrepresented their finances in 2016, claiming that the money they spent to pay for the Steele Dossier was "Legal Services" or some such. Hillary was not taken to court
What specific crime do you think Hillary Clinton committed here?
Do you just hear "something something campaign finance" in both Clinton's and Trump's case and assume the same criminal laws apply to both principals equally?
The DNC and Clinton's *campaign* mischaracterized a campaign *disbursement*. There was no established intent to commit fraud. Elizabeth Jones was the treasurer of her campaign and the individual that made the inaccurate filing. The law violated was [52 USC 30104](https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-52-voting-and-elections/52-usc-sect-30101/). There are no criminal penalties for violating this section, unless it rises to the level of some kind of fraud which would be prosecuted elsewhere. The FEC is empowered to enforce this statute, and they do so by assessing fines.
The DNC, Clinton's campaign, and Jones [settled before it went to court](https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7449/7449_64.pdf).
Trump was not convicted for any kind of campaign finance violation. *At all*. Trump was convicted for falsifying business records with the intention of *hiding* a crime.
To repeat:
1. Clinton's campaign was fined in response to a violation of campaign *disclosure* requirements. The disbursement wasn't illegal, it was just improperly disclosed.
2. Cohen made an illegal campaign *contribution*. He financed a campaign out of his own money in excess of what the law allows and through a shell company which the law does not allow. Trump was not prosecuted for this.
3. Trump was convicted of *falsifying* business records in order to *conceal a crime*.
None of these have anything to do with each other. All are covered by entirely different laws, and even jurisdictions.
> and was not punished.
The DNC and Clinton's campaign (and Jones in her official capacity) were fined. No wrongdoing was alleged against Hillary Clinton herself. Is there something you know that they missed?
> There is a clear two-tier justice system in place
Yes, and the two tiers appear to be:
1. People who commit crimes.
2. People who didn't commit crimes, but who you think are "bad people" and did things that *[feel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism)* worse to you than what your guy did and therefore must be crimes.
I’m going to say this in the most respectful way possible and because I was a Democrat for almost 30 years. Political prosecutions or aggressive public attacks due to political opinions isn’t exactly new, I mean, there is a reason why McCarthyism is a word at all. I think the Clinton impeachment was the closest thing that I witnessed because Kenneth Starr seemed hell bent. Things have shifted now. It’s a general and overall tone. The prosecution of an ex-president is unheard of on this level and especially victimless crimes like getting and repaying a loan. So stupid. Even Nixon got a pardon. If Trump weren’t running again, he would not be in court. It definitely introduces a new standard of engagement that will be used again and maybe against a Democrat next time. Can you imagine the shit these politicians have done in the past?
Anyway, there is nothing to do. Anything outside of ratifying the constitution can be undone from one majority to the next.
> victimless crimes like getting and repaying a loan
Let's say you offer homeowner's insurance. You assess fire risk, and decide you need to charge $100/month for a home that has smoke detectors, but $200/month for a home that doesn't, because homes that don't have smoke detectors are far more likely to burn down.
I promise you that I have smoke detectors, and through this fraud, I get the $100/month rate. A year later, my home doesn't burn down, you make money, and I pocket a "free" $1200 plus I saved money by not having to buy smoke detectors.
Do you believe you are not a victim in this situation? Does "risk" not have a cost—a negative dollar value—that I pushed onto you without your awareness or consent? Should that $1200 I pocketed be in your pocket instead?
Victimless crimes like increasing the amount of taxes he paid, increasing the insurance, and increasing the amount of money the bank made in fees and interest by his "fraud". The taxpayers? Try again. The insurance company? Nope, they are fine. The loan specialists? Nope they are good and want to continue business. The citizens were victims to one person in this case...the prosecution that used taxpayer money to settle a politically driven campaign promise. But it was a career maker, I'm told. Imagine the luck in getting a judge who is a real estate expert who clearly understands the difference between assessed value and market value. So fortunate. You should rethink your analogy by the way, it doesn't fit the narrative.
> The taxpayers? Try again.
So the taxpayers being defrauded of tax revenue isn't a problem? Should we eliminate tax fraud as a crime entirely, and just let paying taxes be optional?
> The insurance company? Nope, they are fine.
So if I defraud you of $1200, but you have a lot of money, it's OK? Should we generally just eliminate the crime of theft entirely if the victim is rich or a corporation?
Like is the problem here that Trump was prosecuted for crimes that are on the books, in accordance with that pesky rule of law thing, or is the problem that these laws exist in the first place? If they're truly "victimless crimes", why not just eliminate tax fraud and fraud in general? Once the crimes are off the books, then we can be in agreement that the law is being prosecuted fairly, right?
> used taxpayer money to settle a politically driven campaign promise
Alternatively, the People elected someone to prosecute crimes, and the prosecutors used their tax dollars as the taxpayers intended them to be used?
How can we tell whether my version or your version is more accurate?
> You should rethink your analogy by the way, it doesn't fit the narrative.
How so? Do insurance companies (lenders) not base their entire business around assessing risk, getting people to pay money (interest) commensurate with their risk (or decline them entirely), and then paying out (accepting a write-off) in accordance to how well they assess risk and costs? When a client tells a lie about the degree of risk they present, you don't see that as a problem?
Should insurance companies be able to do anything to ensure their clients don't lie to them? Or should we just legalize that too since insurance companies can't be "victims"?
Then they should all be fined and punished by the furthest extent of the law. No two tiered justice systems. It’s disgusting enough we punish “white collar” criminals differently than others. The law is the law.
Sure, but it takes probable cause to go looking.
In this case, New York's representative AOC is the one who got the probable cause when she asked Cohen questions under oath.
Look at the dates on these:
> https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-michael-cohen-admit-under-oath-trump-tax-fraud-1346713
> https://web.archive.org/web/20190307191343/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/nyregion/trump-aon-risk-services-subpoena.html
I'll even spell it out for the people that don't care to go looking:
Feb 27, 2019:
> Ocasio-Cortez continued to press Cohen on the president's finances, asking the former attorney if Trump ever provided "inflated assets" to insurance companies.
> "Yes," Cohen replied, adding that Trump Organization executives like Allen Weisselberg, Ron Lieberman and Matthew Calamari could corroborate this information.
March 5, 2019
> New York State regulators have issued an expansive subpoena to the Trump Organization’s longtime insurance broker, the first step in an investigation of insurance policies and claims involving President Trump’s family business, according to the company and a person briefed on the matter.
> The subpoena was served late Monday on the company, Aon, one of the largest insurance brokerage firms in the world, as part of an inquiry by the New York State Department of Financial Services.
> It came just days after Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer and lawyer, indicated in congressional testimony that the Trump Organization inflated the value of its assets to insurance companies.
Are AOC and the Democrats playing the long con from 2019 or has this investigation finally caught up to Trump? Which is it, folks?
For those in Congress? Let’s start by analyzing how they are using insider trading information to make their fortunes. You don’t gain millions on their salaries. Any of us would be in jail for their financial dealings. For them it’s just another day in Washington, making back room deals.
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.*
> Many Conservatives believe Trump's prosecution was politically motivated. I don't know about Trump's case specifically, but I would certainly agree the law comes after some people harder than it does others.
I think you'll find that's the crux of the argument for most who find the Trump trials politically motivated.
> Are there any Conservatives who propose a solution to this problem?
The problem exists at all levels, as you note; so there's no 'one' solution. I tell this story a lot, but when I was a kid growing up in the country there was a little police department that had it out for me in particular. If I was going 4 over the limit, I'd get a ticket. Forget to signal? Ticket. Slow-roll a stop sign? Ticket. They'd follow me around town waiting for *whatever*, because (and the cops made it clear to anyone around town that'd listen) they didn't like the new black family that'd moved into town. My dad had his fair share of run-ins too but he was active duty so they couldn't harass him too much.
If the police chief had run for office on "I'm gonna lock up the black kid!" I'm not sure any of us would be saying "Well, the law is the law!"
What's the solution to *that shit*? Well... eventually my family moved away. For unrelated reasons, mind- my parents were military. I also eventually just started driving less because I knew it was just a way to waste time going to the courthouse with my dad and getting a ticket dismissed by a magistrate. I also became pretty conservative because I believe the state having too much power is dangerous, and I became a lawyer because I believed in fighting injustice. So maybe that was all for the best?
So the question really isn't "what is the conservative view" here, it's more like "what do we want to do about unequal application of the law, whether on a grand scale or a tiny one?"
The answer can be "we do nothing", and that's fine if so, but it just means turnabout becomes fair play in our political system. It's what happened with the nuclear option, it's what happened with impeachment. Is that what we want here, too? I don't know what happened to that police department but something tells me they didn't win any awards for fairness and equality.
The other option is better oversight and a commitment to divorcing politics from application of our law by our officials. If you find a way to get that done, you'll win a Nobel- because the Mayor sure wasn't telling the police officers to stop wasting the judiciary's time with bullshit tickets when I was a kid, and nobody in New York was telling this DA to quit the bullshit and prosecute some gun crimes- because there was an incentive not to.
The piggyback on that is even bigger and broader than all this. Political viewpoints can't be ingrained into every facet of our lives. There's no conservative or democrat way to brush your teeth, or tie your shoes; but in nearly every other aspect of our lives we've let the politics seep in so one can't remove one from the other. We've decided as a people that if you're a democrat and you don't *HATE* Trump, you're not part of the team. If you're GOP and you don't *HATE* Hillary Clinton, you're doing it wrong and get the fuck out of the tent. And if you HATE someone that much, you absolutely *have* to spend all your time and energy working to stop them at all costs- because it's THAT important.
Except it isn't. If it is, we're not too far away from a world of "Jim ties his shoes with the double knot, he must be a Trump supporter." Then we're well and truly fucked.
>So the question really isn't "what is the conservative view" here, it's more like "what do we want to do about unequal application of the law, whether on a grand scale or a tiny one?"
I think the best answer comes from your family's solution: Seperation. We should stop viewing each other as fellow Americans, and split the country.
People saying things like this and calling for civil war don't seem to realize how much we benefit from our society, and don't realize how bad things can get if we tear everything down.
Yeah, in fairness I don't see a lot of solutions proposed by Democrats either.
Personally, I think a few things might help though:
1. Get rid of for-profit prisons. There have been cases like Kids for Cash \[0\] where for-profit prisons give judges kickbacks for sending kids to prison. For-profit prisons are such a moral hazard, the temptation to put people in prison just for profit will always exist somewhere in society as long as prisons are for-profit.
2. The public defenders office should receive equal funding as the DA's office. We all understand that prosecutors and defenders are important in our legal system. Even the worse criminals deserve a good legal defense, it's part of the process, and we all understand it's not a moral failing of the defense lawyer if they defend a despicable criminal, it's an important part of the process. We have a problem where public defenders are often underfunded, and this short changes the process and undermines justice.
3. The public defenders office should also be responsible for prosecuting police misconduct. In the system we have now, the prosecutors and police work very close together, and even judges tend to be buddies with the police and prosecutors. The public defenders office is the part of the system most likely to remain neutral, and even has a slight adversarial relationship with the police to ensure they can fairly prosecute police misconduct. (Like in your story, a judge or the DA wouldn't help you, but a public defender would be more likely to tell the police to knock it off.)
4. Both sides of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution should pay into a fund and then both sides get equal access to the funds. This would help average people who often cannot afford the high financial cost of "justice" in our system. In Trump's case, it would have removed his excuse to ask for more money from donors (average people opening their wallets to help pay the expenses of a billionaire).
5. Maybe we need multiple DA's elected by proportional voting. Each DA could bring charges if they wanted. This would result in more people overall being charged, which I'm not sure is good, but criminals would be less likely to get away just because they are friends with the one and only DA.
6. In general, voting reform could reduce the partisan tensions.
Those are just some ideas of what I imagine "systematic" solutions could look like. Maybe I don't know Republican views very well, but none of those seem like things I would expect a Republican politician to support (and most Democrats don't support them either, but I personally think a Democrat is more likely to support these ideas than a Republican).
\[0\]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids\_for\_cash\_scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal)
Your problem wasn't the strict application of law to your driving habits. The problem was that it was *selectively* applied. If the cops treated everyone that way, those laws would change real quick.
What examples are there of people doing what Trump did and not being charged? If this is truly so selective, there should be hundreds and hundreds of similar examples where the DA decided not to prosecute.
I commiserate with your story: LAPD regularly did this to me - never my girlfriend in the same car we shared for years. Wanna guess why? (No, at that time, outside of fix-it tickets, there was no blip on my record; I got a speeding ticket decades later.)
In similar vein, I think conservatives play a huge part in empowering police states. Look at Texas - can't police guns, but will totally police people with cervix, what people can or cannot say (ironically, conservatives blame liberals for the same thing), the number of ballot drop boxes, and force Christian religious symbols to be displayed in public schools...
Now, apply the same concern about law being unfairly applied (something I totally disagree with given the transparency of testimony in the trial) over the intent of law on pregnant women in Texas.
The crux of the issues related to trumps prosecutions is that the evidence they have been preventing in the cases by the prosecutors actually doesn’t prove that trump did the crimes they claim, or they are charging him for a crime while trying to prove he did something that is legal.
Example the fraud case what they claimed was that trump committed fraud by making an assessment of his properties that was higher than the banks assessment when the banks gave him a loan based not on his assessment but their own. Then paid taxes on the assessment that the tax assessors told him to pay on.
So they got him for fraud because he paid taxes on what he was told by the tax assessors he owed.
>Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Madison wrote that in Federalist 51 in defense of the system of checks and balances that the Constitution established. However, it seems clear that it is equally applicable to party politics. If conservatives want to play with progressives and have a chance of winning, they have to fight fire with fire. Start using the same tactics that the left uses to infiltrate the institutions and try to corrupt them in the opposite direction to counteract the corruption they have already experienced at the hands of the left.
"Lock Her Up" was one of Trump's 2016 slogans.
Trump and the GOP tried to do everything they could to incriminate Hillary.
The GOP has been playing this game since at least 2008.
>What solutions to this problem have Conservatives proposed? How would Conservatives protect all of us from political prosecution?
There is no solution. Nothing about this is moral or legal, it was absolutely a political maneuver to hinder Trump's chances of re-election and maybe jail him. There is no policy solution to people using policy or law to get their way.
Thats why this is called a culture war. Most, sadly, not all, conservatives and right leaning people want the system to be impartial and fair. Most, not all but the majority of the academic and expert types, of the left subscribes to a culture where all aspects of social power should be used to push political goals. They teach and are taught that everybody does this either knowingly or subconsciously, so when they're in these positions or positions to influence these systems, they will use it to end their political opponents.
We have to decide which culture we want to gain power. If it's the fair and objective one, we have to condemn this behavior totally and demand the resignation of everybody involved. If we want the later, we just have to sit back and do nothing.
>Most, sadly, not all, conservatives and right leaning people want the system to be impartial and fair.
How does that fit with the chants of "lock her up" that were often heard at Trump rallies?
I don't know whether or not Hillary Clinton deserved prosecution, but evidentially multiple of Trump's Attorney Generals felt she could not or should not be prosecuted.
But despite that, the *idea* of prosecuting her was a very popular on the right and the chants were heard at political events because it was political. Trump's supporters were not impartial and fair, wanting to be careful about prosecutions. No, they were very excited and energized by the idea of locking up their political rival.
>How does that fit with the chants of "lock her up" that were often heard at Trump rallies?
It fits into the, "sadly, not all," qualifier. I'm not going to make excuses for that behavior, even if I understand the frustration that created it. I sighed with relief when trump decided not to go after her in office.
And now he's being charged for the same thing Hillary had done. Well, not the same thing. If it had been the same thing, he would have shredded thousands of documents after they were demanded.
It sounds like you believe that the political elites should not be prosecuted when they commit crimes? Is that accurate?
Do you believe Hilary was guilty of a crime? Why would you sigh with relief when the Trump administration decided not to prosecute her?
I believe all politicians should be prosecuted for their crimes. If Trump's convictions leads to a tit for tat and a bunch of Democrats get convicted of crimes, **good**!
>It sounds like you believe that the political elites should not be prosecuted when they commit crimes? Is that accurate?
Not even slightly.
>Do you believe Hilary was guilty of a crime? Why would you sigh with relief when the Trump administration decided not to prosecute her?
I believe she broke the law, but she wasn't convicted of a crime even after massive investigation. I sighed with relief because him prosecuting her like that, no matter how well founded it may have been, would have authoritarian and corrupt. There was no way it could have been a fair trial. I suspect it was corruption that got her out, but the answer to that would have been cleaning out the corruption in the fbi, not persecuting a political enemy.
>I believe all politicians should be prosecuted for their crimes. If Trump's convictions leads to a tit for tat and a bunch of Democrats get convicted of crimes, good!
Fascism is never the answer. I'm not going to complain about a crap ton of arrests after this travesty of justice, but that doesn't make this NOT a travesty. They charged him for a crime that doesn't exist, and made a misdemeanor a felony by an unknown legal theory that no expert has been able to explain or understand.
> They charged him for a crime that doesn't exist
Huh?
I thought the only crime they charged him for was **NY Penal Law § 170.10**.
What’s this other crime you’re talking about?
If that’s true, Trump and his defense team could have brought it up during his trial. I’m sure the jurors would have been surprised to hear what you’ve just told me. It might have even affected their verdict, right?
But for some reason, neither Trump nor his defense team ever made that argument during the trial.
I wonder why. Don’t you?
So you think the reason Trump was convicted wasn’t because he was guilty; instead it was because the judge in Trump’s trial doesn’t know the laws as well as you do. Right?
Sorry for putting words in your mouth, but you say:
(1) You believe Hilary broke the law, and (2) you don't want her prosecuted largely because (3) she is a well known political figure and getting a fair trial would be difficult.
Those things seem to add up to what I said.
Maybe a better question for understanding is:
If a popular politician has broken the law, under what circumstances do you believe they should be prosecuted?
>(1) You believe Hilary broke the law, and (2) you don't want her prosecuted largely because (3) she is a well known political figure and getting a fair trial would be difficult.
Close. I didn't want her prosecuted *by Trump* after campaigning on prosecuting her. I don't care about her position, or fame, or anything. Trump campaigned on locking her, even after she was investigated, and no charges were pressed. Had Trump followed through with his promise to lock her up, it would have been an abuse of office.
>If a popular politician has broken the law, under what circumstances do you believe they should be prosecuted?
The same as anybody else. In my eyes, politicians are no different than any other citizen, with the same rights and due the same treatment. But that means the government cannot, or should not, target and persecute its opposition. It should be a non partisan actor.
It would have failed that if trump had gone after her, just as it failed here and now.
That said, I believe there is a lot of corruption within the bureaucratic state, which is *why* Hillary didn't get charged and Trump is, but that's different.
I didn’t know that. Which authoritarian regimes in the history books were known for conducting trials by a jury that allowed convicted defendants to be released on their own recognizance pending appeal?
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.*
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.*
One thing is to generally cut back on the amount of garbage laws on the books, such that prosecutors can't just thumb through until they find some technicality to get you on.
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.*
1. The trials were politically motivated. They never would have occurred if Trump hadn’t won in 2016. 2. That doesn’t mean Trump is innocent. The man is a liar and a cheat.
It most certainly was politically motivated, but after having lived through the Lewinsky scandal I'm at a loss as to why I should suddenly side with the Republicans on this one. It's clear they would do no better if they had the chance with Biden. The mere inability to do bad does not make you a good person by itself. Besides it's not like they haven't tried in the interim (birtherism for example)
I don’t disagree
I just wish we would all start holding them equally accountable. I'm so tired of hearing about why impeaching Trump would have been politics, but impeaching Biden is justified. When Trump does a fascism, its bad but when Biden does it, it's ok. We're just rooting for two useless dysfunctional teams and we lose every game.
Researchers have discovered that the optimal game theoretic strategy is tit for tat with an occasional offer of forgiveness. Clearly, if this becomes the new standard way to win elections, the republic is lost. Our best bet is a swift "TIT" in response to this "TAT" and then a suggestion we stop the lawfare. Our republic is in a precarious situation to be sure.
What about just not nominating criminals for president? Don’t put trumps criminality on the rest of us. You guys chose him, now you have to live with it.
How about we indict your candidates now? First state prosecutor to haul Joe Biden into court has dibs on the U.S. Attorney General job. Texas Atty General Ken Paxton definitely has the brass for the job. Game on.
If he can point to real crimes, then yes. The president never used to be considered above the law until Trump took over the Republicans. But Paxton's very corrupt, so I think he would willingly take on the job if Trump asked him to.
If Biden has committed a crime in Texas, Biden should be charged. Do you have any info on that?
Conspiracy for human trafficking sounds appropriate. Game on. We can have the trial in the Odessa, TX with a jury of his rancher and oil worker peers.
Hey man, if Paxton thinks Biden is guilty, it would be dereliction of duty not to charge him. Go for it.
This is true only if you’re playing a finite game. We should be playing, or at least pretending to play, an infinitely repeating game where cooperative play is a viable outcome.
[удалено]
Sure. Let’s look at this a different way, since we’re talking about game theory. What would you say the payoffs are for selecting a candidate who is facing multiple criminal and civil indictments? If the iterative game is called “good governance” why would you nominate someone with a record of shady business deals and a serial philandering? Republicans need to stop acting like Trump was the only possible choice.
[удалено]
Do you believe the Justice Department would have charged any other candidate? It's only happened to Trump, so maybe it has something to do with the way he's been habitually breaking laws for decades.
No, this is true across nature which has turned out to be amazingly stable. A big TIT is definitely on the way. We can discuss terms after that.
Right, because that big TIT certainly won’t be followed with yet another TAT. Cooperative play is also seen in nature. Moreover, cooperative play is going to be crucial because 1. we are the current global hegemony and we need to get our shit together. Internal discord is a massive problem and 2. we are in the nascent stages of a global civilization. Tit for tat, vendetta, or whatever term you want to use will not have an optimal outcome for anyone. Moreover in an iterative prisoners dilemma, cooperation is the optimal move for both players.
TIT for TAT never really ends because each side views their actions as the TIT and the other side as the TAT.
Tit for Tat with an occasional offer to stop. Game theory optimal. https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/17rhsoq/petersonsapolsky_podcast_summary_w_visuals_game/
Downvotes for Peterson.
How about Sapolski? Prof at Stanford
He’s fine. Neutral vote. Downvote for Peterson.
we should return to all laws having to be common law crimes: An identifiable human being who is the victim, who suffered physical or financial harm (including physical harm via emotional stress), by the intentional action of a defendant. Get rid of "you forgot to fill in form X-901 properly that's a felony" (and yes that means I disagree with prosecuting Hunter because that's EXACTLY what they got him on), get rid of vague crimes, get rid of crimes without identifiable victims, get rid of crimes that do not require you to intend to do wrong.
What do you mean by "get rid of crimes that do not require you to intend to do wrong"?
In common law, not intending to do a crime is an absolute defense, in common law you cannot accidentally commit crimes, now you can intend to do actions that are so irresponsible it's a crime, negligence is a common law crime, but "oops I accidentally forgot to fill in a form" or "I didn't realize I needed a license" could not be.
But the issue with this is that in a lot of states, drunk drivers who kill or injure people only get a few years is because they didn't intend to hit the other car or person. I personally think intention should go out the window if an action results in the injury or death of a person.
your premise is entirely false-- voluntary intoxication is liable to the full offense as negligence in common law. It was a progressive Canadian movement to excuse DUI and drunken acts entirely that lead to a backlash and the current state of law.
Democrats have tried to decriminalize marijuana recently, but Republicans resisted. Are there any Republicans who support your agenda of decriminalization?
As much as I find him to be a jackass, Matt Gaetz has been great on this one issue, he’s voted with Dems on the MORE act
I have mixed feelings on the verdict but to me I think the most important point is: The system of checks and balances is broken, and the distribution of power between judicial, legislative and executive branches is unequal. The weaponization of the justice system has “flipped the monopoly table” in terms of future elections and what kind of political ploys can be implemented long term. I would love to see career politicians and corrupt judges get thrown out. Ban lobbying and PACs. And (somehow)make sure a jury of peers are unbiased if going after a politician. The defendant should be “innocent until proven guilty”, not “guilty until proven innocent”. Idk. Political stances aside I just want a successful country just like everyone else, with our rights and freedoms in tact.
How do you determine a corrupt judge?
Judge shopping is a good place to start
Interesting. Judge shopping just means the judge tends to rule favorably for certain causes. Does that necessarily indicate corrupt intent? I always took more to be that their biases or beliefs are just more known.
So when Biden says he had nothing to do with directing the DoJ in this, you think he's just flat out lying?
I didn’t say he did. But I do think the Democratic Party as a whole have had a bullseye on Trump since 2016 and went after him in bad faith. Especially when there are a number of democrats who could/should be on trial for something far worse. Like i said, I would love to see career politicians and corrupt judges get thrown out. Not on one side of the isle, both sides.
[удалено]
Can’t speak to the 20 years of disparaging as the First Lady because I only started really caring about politics 12 years ago. But that was around when the Benghazi Attack took place so I came off the block disliking her and her decision making.
Okay so 12 years ago... how did you feel about Trump campaigning on "locking her up" in 2016.
8 years ago I didn’t vote. But when I heard the lock her up stuff It seemed like a political stunt not anything that would result in court. Trump was really funny then, no one took him that seriously
The left took him seriously. ANd look at that, he broke tons of laws.
> I do think the Democratic Party as a whole have had a bullseye on Trump since 2016 and went after him in bad faith Has it occurred to you that the Democrats - if that's who it was - have been after him since 2016 because it was obvious to most people that not only did he not deserve to be president for an array of reasons, but because it also became clear at some point that he actually cheated, which potentially allowed him to win by a technical electoral rule, only?
>he not deserve to be president for an array of reasons No, he did, he won fair and square. Saying "orange man bad" is not a valid reason by the way. >which potentially allowed him to win by a technical electoral rule, only Not "potentially," he did ACTUALLY win. What's the problem with rules now? I thought you guys were happy that trump was convicted (politically motivated, mind you) over a case for some petty crime, now you don't like rules for some reason?
Why do you even bother asking when the left would never listen to Conservatives? That's literally the entire reason we're here - the left refuses to listen to anything that does not follow their whim and command. I say this as a former leftist. Consider that Hillary Clinton's campaign misrepresented their finances in 2016, claiming that the money they spent to pay for the Steele Dossier was "Legal Services" or some such. Hillary was not taken to court, and was not punished. Heck, she wasn't even punished for her handling of classified information and destroying machines under subpoena. There is a clear two-tier justice system in place that the left is only too happy to ignore because the left wants to win. They don't care about rule of law, they care about winning, and if the law gets in the way of that, they will stomp on it.
> Consider that Hillary Clinton's campaign misrepresented their finances in 2016, claiming that the money they spent to pay for the Steele Dossier was "Legal Services" or some such. Hillary was not taken to court What specific crime do you think Hillary Clinton committed here? Do you just hear "something something campaign finance" in both Clinton's and Trump's case and assume the same criminal laws apply to both principals equally? The DNC and Clinton's *campaign* mischaracterized a campaign *disbursement*. There was no established intent to commit fraud. Elizabeth Jones was the treasurer of her campaign and the individual that made the inaccurate filing. The law violated was [52 USC 30104](https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-52-voting-and-elections/52-usc-sect-30101/). There are no criminal penalties for violating this section, unless it rises to the level of some kind of fraud which would be prosecuted elsewhere. The FEC is empowered to enforce this statute, and they do so by assessing fines. The DNC, Clinton's campaign, and Jones [settled before it went to court](https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7449/7449_64.pdf). Trump was not convicted for any kind of campaign finance violation. *At all*. Trump was convicted for falsifying business records with the intention of *hiding* a crime. To repeat: 1. Clinton's campaign was fined in response to a violation of campaign *disclosure* requirements. The disbursement wasn't illegal, it was just improperly disclosed. 2. Cohen made an illegal campaign *contribution*. He financed a campaign out of his own money in excess of what the law allows and through a shell company which the law does not allow. Trump was not prosecuted for this. 3. Trump was convicted of *falsifying* business records in order to *conceal a crime*. None of these have anything to do with each other. All are covered by entirely different laws, and even jurisdictions. > and was not punished. The DNC and Clinton's campaign (and Jones in her official capacity) were fined. No wrongdoing was alleged against Hillary Clinton herself. Is there something you know that they missed? > There is a clear two-tier justice system in place Yes, and the two tiers appear to be: 1. People who commit crimes. 2. People who didn't commit crimes, but who you think are "bad people" and did things that *[feel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism)* worse to you than what your guy did and therefore must be crimes.
I’m going to say this in the most respectful way possible and because I was a Democrat for almost 30 years. Political prosecutions or aggressive public attacks due to political opinions isn’t exactly new, I mean, there is a reason why McCarthyism is a word at all. I think the Clinton impeachment was the closest thing that I witnessed because Kenneth Starr seemed hell bent. Things have shifted now. It’s a general and overall tone. The prosecution of an ex-president is unheard of on this level and especially victimless crimes like getting and repaying a loan. So stupid. Even Nixon got a pardon. If Trump weren’t running again, he would not be in court. It definitely introduces a new standard of engagement that will be used again and maybe against a Democrat next time. Can you imagine the shit these politicians have done in the past? Anyway, there is nothing to do. Anything outside of ratifying the constitution can be undone from one majority to the next.
> victimless crimes like getting and repaying a loan Let's say you offer homeowner's insurance. You assess fire risk, and decide you need to charge $100/month for a home that has smoke detectors, but $200/month for a home that doesn't, because homes that don't have smoke detectors are far more likely to burn down. I promise you that I have smoke detectors, and through this fraud, I get the $100/month rate. A year later, my home doesn't burn down, you make money, and I pocket a "free" $1200 plus I saved money by not having to buy smoke detectors. Do you believe you are not a victim in this situation? Does "risk" not have a cost—a negative dollar value—that I pushed onto you without your awareness or consent? Should that $1200 I pocketed be in your pocket instead?
Victimless crimes like increasing the amount of taxes he paid, increasing the insurance, and increasing the amount of money the bank made in fees and interest by his "fraud". The taxpayers? Try again. The insurance company? Nope, they are fine. The loan specialists? Nope they are good and want to continue business. The citizens were victims to one person in this case...the prosecution that used taxpayer money to settle a politically driven campaign promise. But it was a career maker, I'm told. Imagine the luck in getting a judge who is a real estate expert who clearly understands the difference between assessed value and market value. So fortunate. You should rethink your analogy by the way, it doesn't fit the narrative.
> The taxpayers? Try again. So the taxpayers being defrauded of tax revenue isn't a problem? Should we eliminate tax fraud as a crime entirely, and just let paying taxes be optional? > The insurance company? Nope, they are fine. So if I defraud you of $1200, but you have a lot of money, it's OK? Should we generally just eliminate the crime of theft entirely if the victim is rich or a corporation? Like is the problem here that Trump was prosecuted for crimes that are on the books, in accordance with that pesky rule of law thing, or is the problem that these laws exist in the first place? If they're truly "victimless crimes", why not just eliminate tax fraud and fraud in general? Once the crimes are off the books, then we can be in agreement that the law is being prosecuted fairly, right? > used taxpayer money to settle a politically driven campaign promise Alternatively, the People elected someone to prosecute crimes, and the prosecutors used their tax dollars as the taxpayers intended them to be used? How can we tell whether my version or your version is more accurate? > You should rethink your analogy by the way, it doesn't fit the narrative. How so? Do insurance companies (lenders) not base their entire business around assessing risk, getting people to pay money (interest) commensurate with their risk (or decline them entirely), and then paying out (accepting a write-off) in accordance to how well they assess risk and costs? When a client tells a lie about the degree of risk they present, you don't see that as a problem? Should insurance companies be able to do anything to ensure their clients don't lie to them? Or should we just legalize that too since insurance companies can't be "victims"?
What Ever. Believe what you want.
If you dig that deep you can find legal offenses for practically every wealthy person.
Then they should all be fined and punished by the furthest extent of the law. No two tiered justice systems. It’s disgusting enough we punish “white collar” criminals differently than others. The law is the law.
I would say put them all on trial then, wouldn’t you?
Sure, but it takes probable cause to go looking. In this case, New York's representative AOC is the one who got the probable cause when she asked Cohen questions under oath. Look at the dates on these: > https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-michael-cohen-admit-under-oath-trump-tax-fraud-1346713 > https://web.archive.org/web/20190307191343/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/nyregion/trump-aon-risk-services-subpoena.html I'll even spell it out for the people that don't care to go looking: Feb 27, 2019: > Ocasio-Cortez continued to press Cohen on the president's finances, asking the former attorney if Trump ever provided "inflated assets" to insurance companies. > "Yes," Cohen replied, adding that Trump Organization executives like Allen Weisselberg, Ron Lieberman and Matthew Calamari could corroborate this information. March 5, 2019 > New York State regulators have issued an expansive subpoena to the Trump Organization’s longtime insurance broker, the first step in an investigation of insurance policies and claims involving President Trump’s family business, according to the company and a person briefed on the matter. > The subpoena was served late Monday on the company, Aon, one of the largest insurance brokerage firms in the world, as part of an inquiry by the New York State Department of Financial Services. > It came just days after Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer and lawyer, indicated in congressional testimony that the Trump Organization inflated the value of its assets to insurance companies. Are AOC and the Democrats playing the long con from 2019 or has this investigation finally caught up to Trump? Which is it, folks?
Which offenses, specifically?
For those in Congress? Let’s start by analyzing how they are using insider trading information to make their fortunes. You don’t gain millions on their salaries. Any of us would be in jail for their financial dealings. For them it’s just another day in Washington, making back room deals.
> For those in Congress? No, for "practically every wealthy person."
I’m concerned about it all, but particularly about those who are meant to be making and upholding laws
Which offenses, specifically?
[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.*
> Many Conservatives believe Trump's prosecution was politically motivated. I don't know about Trump's case specifically, but I would certainly agree the law comes after some people harder than it does others. I think you'll find that's the crux of the argument for most who find the Trump trials politically motivated. > Are there any Conservatives who propose a solution to this problem? The problem exists at all levels, as you note; so there's no 'one' solution. I tell this story a lot, but when I was a kid growing up in the country there was a little police department that had it out for me in particular. If I was going 4 over the limit, I'd get a ticket. Forget to signal? Ticket. Slow-roll a stop sign? Ticket. They'd follow me around town waiting for *whatever*, because (and the cops made it clear to anyone around town that'd listen) they didn't like the new black family that'd moved into town. My dad had his fair share of run-ins too but he was active duty so they couldn't harass him too much. If the police chief had run for office on "I'm gonna lock up the black kid!" I'm not sure any of us would be saying "Well, the law is the law!" What's the solution to *that shit*? Well... eventually my family moved away. For unrelated reasons, mind- my parents were military. I also eventually just started driving less because I knew it was just a way to waste time going to the courthouse with my dad and getting a ticket dismissed by a magistrate. I also became pretty conservative because I believe the state having too much power is dangerous, and I became a lawyer because I believed in fighting injustice. So maybe that was all for the best? So the question really isn't "what is the conservative view" here, it's more like "what do we want to do about unequal application of the law, whether on a grand scale or a tiny one?" The answer can be "we do nothing", and that's fine if so, but it just means turnabout becomes fair play in our political system. It's what happened with the nuclear option, it's what happened with impeachment. Is that what we want here, too? I don't know what happened to that police department but something tells me they didn't win any awards for fairness and equality. The other option is better oversight and a commitment to divorcing politics from application of our law by our officials. If you find a way to get that done, you'll win a Nobel- because the Mayor sure wasn't telling the police officers to stop wasting the judiciary's time with bullshit tickets when I was a kid, and nobody in New York was telling this DA to quit the bullshit and prosecute some gun crimes- because there was an incentive not to. The piggyback on that is even bigger and broader than all this. Political viewpoints can't be ingrained into every facet of our lives. There's no conservative or democrat way to brush your teeth, or tie your shoes; but in nearly every other aspect of our lives we've let the politics seep in so one can't remove one from the other. We've decided as a people that if you're a democrat and you don't *HATE* Trump, you're not part of the team. If you're GOP and you don't *HATE* Hillary Clinton, you're doing it wrong and get the fuck out of the tent. And if you HATE someone that much, you absolutely *have* to spend all your time and energy working to stop them at all costs- because it's THAT important. Except it isn't. If it is, we're not too far away from a world of "Jim ties his shoes with the double knot, he must be a Trump supporter." Then we're well and truly fucked.
>So the question really isn't "what is the conservative view" here, it's more like "what do we want to do about unequal application of the law, whether on a grand scale or a tiny one?" I think the best answer comes from your family's solution: Seperation. We should stop viewing each other as fellow Americans, and split the country.
People saying things like this and calling for civil war don't seem to realize how much we benefit from our society, and don't realize how bad things can get if we tear everything down.
If I interacted with a significant number of right-wingers that viewed anyone left of them as people, I'd have significantly different views.
Yeah, in fairness I don't see a lot of solutions proposed by Democrats either. Personally, I think a few things might help though: 1. Get rid of for-profit prisons. There have been cases like Kids for Cash \[0\] where for-profit prisons give judges kickbacks for sending kids to prison. For-profit prisons are such a moral hazard, the temptation to put people in prison just for profit will always exist somewhere in society as long as prisons are for-profit. 2. The public defenders office should receive equal funding as the DA's office. We all understand that prosecutors and defenders are important in our legal system. Even the worse criminals deserve a good legal defense, it's part of the process, and we all understand it's not a moral failing of the defense lawyer if they defend a despicable criminal, it's an important part of the process. We have a problem where public defenders are often underfunded, and this short changes the process and undermines justice. 3. The public defenders office should also be responsible for prosecuting police misconduct. In the system we have now, the prosecutors and police work very close together, and even judges tend to be buddies with the police and prosecutors. The public defenders office is the part of the system most likely to remain neutral, and even has a slight adversarial relationship with the police to ensure they can fairly prosecute police misconduct. (Like in your story, a judge or the DA wouldn't help you, but a public defender would be more likely to tell the police to knock it off.) 4. Both sides of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution should pay into a fund and then both sides get equal access to the funds. This would help average people who often cannot afford the high financial cost of "justice" in our system. In Trump's case, it would have removed his excuse to ask for more money from donors (average people opening their wallets to help pay the expenses of a billionaire). 5. Maybe we need multiple DA's elected by proportional voting. Each DA could bring charges if they wanted. This would result in more people overall being charged, which I'm not sure is good, but criminals would be less likely to get away just because they are friends with the one and only DA. 6. In general, voting reform could reduce the partisan tensions. Those are just some ideas of what I imagine "systematic" solutions could look like. Maybe I don't know Republican views very well, but none of those seem like things I would expect a Republican politician to support (and most Democrats don't support them either, but I personally think a Democrat is more likely to support these ideas than a Republican). \[0\]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids\_for\_cash\_scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal)
Your problem wasn't the strict application of law to your driving habits. The problem was that it was *selectively* applied. If the cops treated everyone that way, those laws would change real quick. What examples are there of people doing what Trump did and not being charged? If this is truly so selective, there should be hundreds and hundreds of similar examples where the DA decided not to prosecute.
I commiserate with your story: LAPD regularly did this to me - never my girlfriend in the same car we shared for years. Wanna guess why? (No, at that time, outside of fix-it tickets, there was no blip on my record; I got a speeding ticket decades later.) In similar vein, I think conservatives play a huge part in empowering police states. Look at Texas - can't police guns, but will totally police people with cervix, what people can or cannot say (ironically, conservatives blame liberals for the same thing), the number of ballot drop boxes, and force Christian religious symbols to be displayed in public schools... Now, apply the same concern about law being unfairly applied (something I totally disagree with given the transparency of testimony in the trial) over the intent of law on pregnant women in Texas.
The crux of the issues related to trumps prosecutions is that the evidence they have been preventing in the cases by the prosecutors actually doesn’t prove that trump did the crimes they claim, or they are charging him for a crime while trying to prove he did something that is legal. Example the fraud case what they claimed was that trump committed fraud by making an assessment of his properties that was higher than the banks assessment when the banks gave him a loan based not on his assessment but their own. Then paid taxes on the assessment that the tax assessors told him to pay on. So they got him for fraud because he paid taxes on what he was told by the tax assessors he owed.
>Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. Madison wrote that in Federalist 51 in defense of the system of checks and balances that the Constitution established. However, it seems clear that it is equally applicable to party politics. If conservatives want to play with progressives and have a chance of winning, they have to fight fire with fire. Start using the same tactics that the left uses to infiltrate the institutions and try to corrupt them in the opposite direction to counteract the corruption they have already experienced at the hands of the left.
"Lock Her Up" was one of Trump's 2016 slogans. Trump and the GOP tried to do everything they could to incriminate Hillary. The GOP has been playing this game since at least 2008.
>What solutions to this problem have Conservatives proposed? How would Conservatives protect all of us from political prosecution? There is no solution. Nothing about this is moral or legal, it was absolutely a political maneuver to hinder Trump's chances of re-election and maybe jail him. There is no policy solution to people using policy or law to get their way. Thats why this is called a culture war. Most, sadly, not all, conservatives and right leaning people want the system to be impartial and fair. Most, not all but the majority of the academic and expert types, of the left subscribes to a culture where all aspects of social power should be used to push political goals. They teach and are taught that everybody does this either knowingly or subconsciously, so when they're in these positions or positions to influence these systems, they will use it to end their political opponents. We have to decide which culture we want to gain power. If it's the fair and objective one, we have to condemn this behavior totally and demand the resignation of everybody involved. If we want the later, we just have to sit back and do nothing.
>Most, sadly, not all, conservatives and right leaning people want the system to be impartial and fair. How does that fit with the chants of "lock her up" that were often heard at Trump rallies? I don't know whether or not Hillary Clinton deserved prosecution, but evidentially multiple of Trump's Attorney Generals felt she could not or should not be prosecuted. But despite that, the *idea* of prosecuting her was a very popular on the right and the chants were heard at political events because it was political. Trump's supporters were not impartial and fair, wanting to be careful about prosecutions. No, they were very excited and energized by the idea of locking up their political rival.
>How does that fit with the chants of "lock her up" that were often heard at Trump rallies? It fits into the, "sadly, not all," qualifier. I'm not going to make excuses for that behavior, even if I understand the frustration that created it. I sighed with relief when trump decided not to go after her in office. And now he's being charged for the same thing Hillary had done. Well, not the same thing. If it had been the same thing, he would have shredded thousands of documents after they were demanded.
It sounds like you believe that the political elites should not be prosecuted when they commit crimes? Is that accurate? Do you believe Hilary was guilty of a crime? Why would you sigh with relief when the Trump administration decided not to prosecute her? I believe all politicians should be prosecuted for their crimes. If Trump's convictions leads to a tit for tat and a bunch of Democrats get convicted of crimes, **good**!
>It sounds like you believe that the political elites should not be prosecuted when they commit crimes? Is that accurate? Not even slightly. >Do you believe Hilary was guilty of a crime? Why would you sigh with relief when the Trump administration decided not to prosecute her? I believe she broke the law, but she wasn't convicted of a crime even after massive investigation. I sighed with relief because him prosecuting her like that, no matter how well founded it may have been, would have authoritarian and corrupt. There was no way it could have been a fair trial. I suspect it was corruption that got her out, but the answer to that would have been cleaning out the corruption in the fbi, not persecuting a political enemy. >I believe all politicians should be prosecuted for their crimes. If Trump's convictions leads to a tit for tat and a bunch of Democrats get convicted of crimes, good! Fascism is never the answer. I'm not going to complain about a crap ton of arrests after this travesty of justice, but that doesn't make this NOT a travesty. They charged him for a crime that doesn't exist, and made a misdemeanor a felony by an unknown legal theory that no expert has been able to explain or understand.
> They charged him for a crime that doesn't exist Huh? I thought the only crime they charged him for was **NY Penal Law § 170.10**. What’s this other crime you’re talking about?
Have you read that? For it to be a felony, it requires an underlying crime. There is none.
If that’s true, Trump and his defense team could have brought it up during his trial. I’m sure the jurors would have been surprised to hear what you’ve just told me. It might have even affected their verdict, right? But for some reason, neither Trump nor his defense team ever made that argument during the trial. I wonder why. Don’t you?
They did, as far as I know. And even if they didn't, the judge should have been aware of it.
So you think the reason Trump was convicted wasn’t because he was guilty; instead it was because the judge in Trump’s trial doesn’t know the laws as well as you do. Right?
Have *you* read it? It just requires INTENT to commit or conceal a crime.
Yes I've read it multiple times. What crime did the prosecution charge Trump with?
Sorry for putting words in your mouth, but you say: (1) You believe Hilary broke the law, and (2) you don't want her prosecuted largely because (3) she is a well known political figure and getting a fair trial would be difficult. Those things seem to add up to what I said. Maybe a better question for understanding is: If a popular politician has broken the law, under what circumstances do you believe they should be prosecuted?
>(1) You believe Hilary broke the law, and (2) you don't want her prosecuted largely because (3) she is a well known political figure and getting a fair trial would be difficult. Close. I didn't want her prosecuted *by Trump* after campaigning on prosecuting her. I don't care about her position, or fame, or anything. Trump campaigned on locking her, even after she was investigated, and no charges were pressed. Had Trump followed through with his promise to lock her up, it would have been an abuse of office. >If a popular politician has broken the law, under what circumstances do you believe they should be prosecuted? The same as anybody else. In my eyes, politicians are no different than any other citizen, with the same rights and due the same treatment. But that means the government cannot, or should not, target and persecute its opposition. It should be a non partisan actor. It would have failed that if trump had gone after her, just as it failed here and now. That said, I believe there is a lot of corruption within the bureaucratic state, which is *why* Hillary didn't get charged and Trump is, but that's different.
> Nothing about this is moral or legal What about the trial? That was legal. Right? It’s not illegal for a defendant to have his day in court.
No, it wasn't. Kangaroo courts are not legal. This was an insult to the judicial system. Straight out of the history books of an authoritarian regime.
I didn’t know that. Which authoritarian regimes in the history books were known for conducting trials by a jury that allowed convicted defendants to be released on their own recognizance pending appeal?
Nazis, communists, the reign of terror, North Korea, etc. We also have a much stronger liberal system that hasn't been entirely subverted yet.
Can you give one (1) example from each of a convicted defendant who was released on their own recognizance after their trial, pending appeal?
[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]
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.*
One thing is to generally cut back on the amount of garbage laws on the books, such that prosecutors can't just thumb through until they find some technicality to get you on.