What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Will the Justice Department indict Donald Trump? (1 Viewer)

timschochet

timschochet

Footballguy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/03/28/politics/john-eastman-memo/index.html

A federal judge, in his ruling today about one of former President Trump’s attorneys, John Eastman, wrote the following: 

Based on the evidence, the court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Section of Congress on January 6, 2021. 
 

If this is true, then the Justice Department is obligated to begin an investigation and, if warranted, to indict Donald Trump for having committed a serious felony against the United States. They’re supposed to ignore politics and do their job. The question is: will they? 

 
I doubt it.

1. The standard in a criminal court isn't "more likely than not," but "beyond a reasonable doubt."

2. Even if the DOJ thinks it's beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed a felony, what's the likelihood that twelve jurors will think so? At least some of the jurors are likely to be MAGA people. If the DOJ is going to go through the circus of criminally indicting a former president (with aspirations to run again), it should arguably be sure not only that he's guilty, but that he'll be convicted.

While there should definitely not be a hard and fast rule against indicting former presidents (because nobody is above the law), I do think the political awkwardness should be a factor to consider. Criminally charging the previous leader should be exceedingly rare in countries that aren't banana republics. If it's a slam dunk case, fine, but charges that require proving intent will seldom be slam dunks.

 
My concern is that the Justice Department has shown little interest in investigating the potential crimes committed by Trump and his followers in government. That's not to say that the Justice Department ISN'T investigating, but it doesn't appear to be the case thus far. If Trump's attempts to overturn a free and fair election (yes, I believe it was free and fair despite the wailing from Trump and his merry band of strip mall lawyers) are not investigated, and potentially charged, there's no telling what's in store for us in the future. While I still want to believe that Garland is doing everything necessary to bring any guilty parties to justice, the longer it takes to show any results, the less I think justice will be served. 

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1508470214983401487

In his ruling against Trump’s attorney John Eastman, the judge says its “more likely than not" that Trump committed crimes incl. felony obstruction of Congress on 1/6. The Judge bluntly described their behavior as an attempted "coup in search of a legal theory."

 
There's certainly probable cause to charge him, but as stated above, convicting him is a far higher standard and choosing impartial jurors would be next to impossible. Timing also factors in as it would become a midterm political junk show, and getting it to trial before November, 2024 would also be a challenge.  The political risks far outweigh the need to do the right thing, which further erodes faith in our institutions.  

 
I sure as hell hope so. I also think they are more likely to than under the previous Attorney General (meaning Barr.)

Maurile Tremblay said:
I doubt it.

1. The standard in a criminal court isn't "more likely than not," but "beyond a reasonable doubt."

2. Even if the DOJ thinks it's beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed a felony, what's the likelihood that twelve jurors will think so? At least some of the jurors are likely to be MAGA people. If the DOJ is going to go through the circus of criminally indicting a former president (with aspirations to run again), it should arguably be sure not only that he's guilty, but that he'll be convicted.

While there should definitely not be a hard and fast rule against indicting former presidents (because nobody is above the law), I do think the political awkwardness should be a factor to consider. Criminally charging the previous leader should be exceedingly rare in countries that aren't banana republics. If it's a slam dunk case, fine, but charges that require proving intent will seldom be slam dunks.
Click to expand...
I hear you Maurile, I do. I just don't agree. Just because someone is a former President doesn't preclude them from being charged with crimes. The fact that he has never conceded 2020 and also is openly hinting at another run is especially why he should be held accountable right now. In all fairness, according to the Mueller Report he (or his campaign, doesn't matter) was found to have committed obstruction at least ten times during that investigation. (I say it doesn't matter because his campaign is ultimately his responsibility, whether he wants to bear it or not.) He was never held accountable for it. It's no surprise that he's doing it again. Why not? He wasn't held accountable the first time and surely expects the same treatment now. To not hold him accountable for his actions (again) just green lights more of the same in the future. That is not acceptable to me. It should not be acceptable to any American. 

As far as, "Criminally charging the previous leader should be exceedingly rare in countries that aren't banana republics," I'd ask, when was the last time a former President was criminally charged? Never? Seems awfully rare to me. Well, I think that time has come.

 
Mookie said:
There's certainly probable cause to charge him, but as stated above, convicting him is a far higher standard and choosing impartial jurors would be next to impossible. Timing also factors in as it would become a midterm political junk show, and getting it to trial before November, 2024 would also be a challenge.  The political risks far outweigh the need to do the right thing, which further erodes faith in our institutions.  
Click to expand...
Doing the right thing would improve my faith in our institutions, not erode it further. I don't care what anyone says, this should not be a "sides" thing. Any former President, from either side, who is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of felonious crimes should have charges brought and be convicted. Period.

 
By not bringing charges in a case like this, it shows all Americans that there really are two justice systems... not that we don't already see that when it comes to the rich and powerful. @Ruffrodys05, I agree... ANY politician, including a President from either/any party, should be held accountable if they were involved in breaking the law. This isn't a my side/your side issue, it's about upholding the law and equal justice for ALL. I hate that this is even a question at this point. I understand it would be potentially difficult to convict a former President, but doing nothing because of their former position shouldn't be an option either.

 
The Commish said:
Wll they?  No
Click to expand...
Exactly. 

Look, Trump knows exactly where the line is that he can’t cross.  And he knows how to walk right up to that line, like a little 1st grader, and stick his arm and leg across the line saying “you can’t catch me, na na na na na.”

He’s proven that he’s perfectly willing to let other people take the fall for him while he skirts the line.

 
Will the DOJ indict Trump?

No way in hell. I believe he should be. But there's nobody here of any political stripe that doesn't understand all too well that our judicial system is grossly weighted in favor of the rich and powerful.  Especially so when the political ramifications would be so fraught. No one is going to be courageous enough to do the right thing.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I doubt it.

1. The standard in a criminal court isn't "more likely than not," but "beyond a reasonable doubt."

2. Even if the DOJ thinks it's beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed a felony, what's the likelihood that twelve jurors will think so? At least some of the jurors are likely to be MAGA people. If the DOJ is going to go through the circus of criminally indicting a former president (with aspirations to run again), it should arguably be sure not only that he's guilty, but that he'll be convicted.

While there should definitely not be a hard and fast rule against indicting former presidents (because nobody is above the law), I do think the political awkwardness should be a factor to consider. Criminally charging the previous leader should be exceedingly rare in countries that aren't banana republics. If it's a slam dunk case, fine, but charges that require proving intent will seldom be slam dunks.
Click to expand...
I'd defer to you and the other lawyers for if this will happen. The Prez can pretty much do what they want it seems.

This period after the election is settled but before Jan 20th is some dangerous territory if you have a motivated Prez with questionable motives.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
I sure as hell hope so. I also think they are more likely to than under the previous Attorney General (meaning Barr.)

I hear you Maurile, I do. I just don't agree. Just because someone is a former President doesn't preclude them from being charged with crimes. The fact that he has never conceded 2020 and also is openly hinting at another run is especially why he should be held accountable right now. In all fairness, according to the Mueller Report he (or his campaign, doesn't matter) was found to have committed obstruction at least ten times during that investigation. (I say it doesn't matter because his campaign is ultimately his responsibility, whether he wants to bear it or not.) He was never held accountable for it. It's no surprise that he's doing it again. Why not? He wasn't held accountable the first time and surely expects the same treatment now. To not hold him accountable for his actions (again) just green lights more of the same in the future. That is not acceptable to me. It should not be acceptable to any American. 

As far as, "Criminally charging the previous leader should be exceedingly rare in countries that aren't banana republics," I'd ask, when was the last time a former President was criminally charged? Never? Seems awfully rare to me. Well, I think that time has come.
Click to expand...
We need to set the bar like our democracy depended on it.

 
BladeRunner said:
Cool.  We'll start when the next Democrat screws up.  Let's see how motivated you are then for justice.
Click to expand...
Why do you constantly do this? So far as I know, @dozer doesn’t go around defending criminal Democrats. Heck I don’t even know if he’s a Democrat. Yet this is your constant go to in every thread. No matter what the issue it’s always “what about the Democrats”? Doesn’t it seem tired to you? 

 
George Costanza said:
By not bringing charges in a case like this, it shows all Americans that there really are two justice systems... not that we don't already see that when it comes to the rich and powerful. @Ruffrodys05, I agree... ANY politician, including a President from either/any party, should be held accountable if they were involved in breaking the law. This isn't a my side/your side issue, it's about upholding the law and equal justice for ALL. I hate that this is even a question at this point. I understand it would be potentially difficult to convict a former President, but doing nothing because of their former position shouldn't be an option either.
Click to expand...
what did they give you a timeout for?  c'mon we're all friends here.

 
BladeRunner said:
Cool.  We'll start when the next Democrat screws up.  Let's see how motivated you are then for justice.
Click to expand...
If a Dem breaks the law, they should be held accountable just like anyone else. I have no problem saying that. Nobody should be above the law. Having said that, where there’s smoke, there tends to be fire… and I for one hope Trump is finally held accountable.

 
knowledge dropper said:
So a Clinton appointed judge from California makes this ruling and it’s “now we got him” for the millionth time? 
Click to expand...
Damn that Clinton was a genius. To be able to see that far into the future to appoint a Judge who would come out well over a decade later to say something negative against Trump. That’s foresight and 4d chess if I’ve ever seen it.   

Also I love the idea we can all just ignore Republican appointed Judges from red states too as they clearly can’t be counted on to be honest either.  Between those left appointments in blue states and right appointments in red states that’s a whole lot of Judges we can all dismiss.  So fun. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Why do you constantly do this? So far as I know, @dozer doesn’t go around defending criminal Democrats. Heck I don’t even know if he’s a Democrat. Yet this is your constant go to in every thread. No matter what the issue it’s always “what about the Democrats”? Doesn’t it seem tired to you? 
Click to expand...
This is another example of you playing obtuse. You know exactly why I say it.

The same people that are calling for justice now are nowhere to be found when a Democrat screws up. Ever.

Do you see any of these people in the Joe Biden thread calling for Justice over his dealings in Ukraine with his son? No, you don't.

 
BladeRunner said:
This is another example of you playing obtuse. You know exactly why I say it.

The same people that are calling for justice now are nowhere to be found when a Democrat screws up. Ever.

Do you see any of these people in the Joe Biden thread calling for Justice over his dealings in Ukraine with his son? No, you don't.
Click to expand...
Bull…sorry…but bull.

Almost everyone has said of Hunter Biden…if guilty…put him away. The same was said for Hillary.  For Cuomo. For pretty much anyone.

You are creating a completely false narrative.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
kodycutter said:
c'mon let us know who you are.   no one joins footballguys board to hop right into the PSF.     inquiring minds want to know.      tell us what happened.
Click to expand...
I am completely and honestly telling you that I have been reading the forums for a long time, just never created an account until recently. I LOVE politics, and wanted to engage in debate with the rest of you. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
GordonGekko
OP/ED: J6 Committee's Liz Cheney Embodies The Worst Character Traits Of Donald Trump (6/24/22 18:05 PST)
Replies
26
Views
811
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Newsweek: Muslim & Christian Parents Unite In Michigan Against "Sexually Explicit" School Books (10/14/22 02:46 PST)
2
Replies
53
Views
1K
Captain Cranks
Captain Cranks

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top