In a recent poll, 60% of Americans approve of this indictment including a whopping 22% of Republicans (good for them). 94% of Democrats approve and 62% of independents approve.
So, at least 60% of Americans are right about this.
Funny how people can approve (or disapprove) of something they have not seen or read (and most of it likely will not be understood by most as it likely deals with legal minutaie).
You mean after all those years shooting his mouth off and his sidekicks falling like flies in the courts Trump being a criminal is something that no one has known about? Where do you live?
Sorry, you're wrong about that. Constitutional law experts have explained that an indictment or conviction doesn't stop him from running for office or even being elected. It's quite a loophole in your constitutional framework.
Nope, you are the wrong one. He can run for office, but he can't be on the ballot of his home state UNLESS he pays up, or other states with similar laws (all republican run). No constitutional loophole, except the one made by you. State laws govern ballots and elections. Not federal laws. Why don't you know this?
You can blame, or thank, Florida republicans for passing a law that prevent felons from being on their ballots who haven't paid up. That's their law. What are the chances Trump pays up?
With a grand jury indictment of former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump, a legal scholar explores what the law says about the consequences of such an unprecedented act.
"Thus, because the Constitution does not require that the president be free from indictment, conviction or prison, it follows that a person under indictment or in prison may run for the office and may even serve as president."
"This is the prevailing legal standard that would apply to former President Trump. The fact of his indictment and potential trial is irrelevant to his qualifications for office under the Constitution."
Nope, you are the wrong one. He can run for office, but he can't be on the ballot of his home state UNLESS he pays up, or other states with similar laws (all republican run). No constitutional loophole, except the one made by you. State laws govern ballots and elections. Not federal laws. Why don't you know this?
You can blame, or thank, Florida republicans for passing a law that prevent felons from being on their ballots who haven't paid up. That's their law. What are the chances Trump pays up?
"Thus, because the Constitution does not require that the president be free from indictment, conviction or prison, it follows that a person under indictment or in prison may run for the office and may even serve as president."
"This is the prevailing legal standard that would apply to former President Trump. The fact of his indictment and potential trial is irrelevant to his qualifications for office under the Constitution."
You post has absolutely nothing to do with state laws that control voting and ballots. Sure, Trump can run. But there is no requirement for states to put anyone on their ballots if they have not complied with states laws. There are NO federal laws requiring people who run for president to be on every state ballot. Stop proving your are put of your element.
No constitutional expert I have read suggests state laws could prevent him running.
States laws would prevent him from being on a ballot. He can run all day long and that won't change. And Trump believes running steal his seconds from his life.
In a recent poll, 60% of Americans approve of this indictment including a whopping 22% of Republicans (good for them). 94% of Democrats approve and 62% of independents approve.
So, at least 60% of Americans are right about this.
I can't stand the dipspit and hope he goes away one way or another however I'm not sure this is the issue he should be facing a judge about. The Georgia and document case seem more significant to me.
I think this poll is more of a reflection of how Americans want to move on from this guy.
1) We don't just decide not to charge someone with a crime simply because they have other more serious potential crimes to be charged with.
2) As of this writing, it is still before when we know what is included in the indictment, so you don't yet know "this" is an issue he should be facing a judge about. There are a reported 34 charges. It is LIKELY that among those are felony fraud charges. IF that's the case, should he be charged with THOSE? Also, I assume by "this" you mean paying off Stormy Daniels. Michael Cohen spent time in jail on that charge. Should Cohen have to go to prison over that and Trump not? How is that fair?
In a recent poll, 60% of Americans approve of this indictment including a whopping 22% of Republicans (good for them). 94% of Democrats approve and 62% of independents approve.
So, at least 60% of Americans are right about this.
Funny how people can approve (or disapprove) of something they have not seen or read (and most of it likely will not be understood by most as it likely deals with legal minutaie).
That is a fair comment. SOME of those people do not know what they are approving or disapproving (like many on this thread), BUT, we do know that at least PART of the indictment includes the situation surrounding Stormy Daniels, so those people COULD just be commenting on that.
It appears that Team Trump is focusing on this form of gaslighting:
Both Braggs and Jack Smith are the true felons because news of their investigations have leaked. This is coming from a President of an administration with the most leaks in history. Most often the leaks were intentional and strategic as he sought to get out ahead of bad news and other wrongdoing.
It is unlikely that this gaslighting will work on anyone other than Trump's base. But that is all he cares about at this point.
Funny how people can approve (or disapprove) of something they have not seen or read (and most of it likely will not be understood by most as it likely deals with legal minutaie).
Yep. Its a sealed Afrodavid. No one even knows whats in it, how could they have an informed opinion against Trump.
More signs of Trump derrangement syndrome.
A kernel of truth in what you say, but we do know that at least part of it has to do with Stormy Daniels and the payoff there. What is likely to happen is that after all of the charges are known, the percentage of people who are FOR his indictment will go UP.
You know, most Americans don't like Trump because he's a career criminal. He is finally on the precipice of being held accountable, and this stuff in NY is not going to be the last.
It appears that Team Trump is focusing on this form of gaslighting:
Both Braggs and Jack Smith are the true felons because news of their investigations have leaked. This is coming from a President of an administration with the most leaks in history. Most often the leaks were intentional and strategic as he sought to get out ahead of bad news and other wrongdoing.
It is unlikely that this gaslighting will work on anyone other than Trump's base. But that is all he cares about at this point.
It appears that Team Trump is focusing on this form of gaslighting:
Both Braggs and Jack Smith are the true felons because news of their investigations have leaked. This is coming from a President of an administration with the most leaks in history. Most often the leaks were intentional and strategic as he sought to get out ahead of bad news and other wrongdoing.
It is unlikely that this gaslighting will work on anyone other than Trump's base. But that is all he cares about at this point.
Typical lib argument:
STOP GASLAMPING AND TRIGGERING ME
Lmao
Since 2016 there has been so much faux manufactured rage. Get out of your own heads.
Statute of limitations can be extended when the criminal has lived out of the state. At least know the applicable laws before you spew.
Chief witness is a known perjuror lmao
There will probably be several "chief" witnesses, and all of them could be supported by a paper trail, bank transfers, emails and texts.
And shouldn't you acknowledge that the "perjurer" did so, and went to prison, to PROTECT Donald Trump (you know, the unindicted co-conspirator to the original charges)?
Yes, I lied under oath to protect the current defendant.
Here are the documents to support the truth I am now telling.
If that is the case that is made, a jury is capable of "getting it."
Funny how people can approve (or disapprove) of something they have not seen or read (and most of it likely will not be understood by most as it likely deals with legal minutaie).
You mean after all those years shooting his mouth off and his sidekicks falling like flies in the courts Trump being a criminal is something that no one has known about? Where do you live?
You are NOT a criminal UNTIL you have been convicted of a crime. Do you not understand that?!?
You mean after all those years shooting his mouth off and his sidekicks falling like flies in the courts Trump being a criminal is something that no one has known about? Where do you live?
You are NOT a criminal UNTIL you have been convicted of a crime. Do you not understand that?!?
crim·i·nal [ˈkrimənl, ˈkrimn(ə)l] NOUN a person who has committed a crime:
You mean after all those years shooting his mouth off and his sidekicks falling like flies in the courts Trump being a criminal is something that no one has known about? Where do you live?
You are NOT a criminal UNTIL you have been convicted of a crime. Do you not understand that?!?
Trump is a criminal. A conviction will merely confirm that fact.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Statute of limitations can be extended when the criminal has lived out of the state. At least know the applicable laws before you spew.
Chief witness is a known perjuror lmao
In the end, Trump surrendered like a common coward. All that puffery and big words, yet he surrendered his rights and his dignity like some broken street ponk.
You mean after all those years shooting his mouth off and his sidekicks falling like flies in the courts Trump being a criminal is something that no one has known about? Where do you live?
You are NOT a criminal UNTIL you have been convicted of a crime. Do you not understand that?!?
No, not in America. Just being charged is usually enough for everyone to conclude a person is a criminal. Something like 99% of these degenerate criminals get convicted or plead guilty eventually. So Trump is a criminal now. You can't turn back the hand of fate.
