undefined | Better HN

0 pointsModernMech2y ago0 comments

> 2016 Republican nomination

Right, but it's 2023. He became POTUS and the entire Republican party reoriented around him. Things change, and the outsiders are now named Cheney and Bush.

> only Trump has been uniquely attacked in this way

Because maybe Trump is uniquely a criminal. I guess we'll see after the trial(s). If he's acquitted, then maybe it was a witch hunt after all. But if he's convicted, then it's more likely it was a legitimate investigation all along that put a deserved criminal behind bars.

> the man clearly has few true friends in Washington.

He has very true friends in life, because he's an odious individual and serial career criminal. I mean, the man has been found guilty in a court of law of fraud. His namesake charity was a fraud. His namesake school was a fraud. His namesake company was found guilty of criminal tax fraud. Is it really such a surprise that now he's crossed the line into criminal territory?

0 comments

adamrezich2y ago

none of those things either are or are on par with war crimes and other sorts of criminal government corruption that countless other high-level officials are most definitely guilty of, so, it's odd that you would characterize Trump as being uniquely criminal among politicians, and it's odd that you think that this move—led by other politicians, many of whom are themselves criminally corrupt—would somehow "open the door" to further politician corruption prosecution down the road.

additionally: is it really still therapeutic to expound on how much you dislike the guy? didn't we all get that out of our systems a few years ago? it would be nice to have a frank discussion about facts and logic instead of letting that sort of thing continue to seep in, all these years later.

ModernMechOP2y ago

> none of those things either are or are on par with war crimes

War crimes are one thing. I have no idea how that kind of prosecution would go, but the DA of Manhattan definitely wouldn't bring that to court.

> crimes and other sorts of criminal government corruption that countless other high-level officials are most definitely guilty of,

Yes, and we routinely prosecute such people for their offenses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_polit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_loc...

These lists are really long. Trump is just one more name to this list, and it shouldn't matter that he was President if he committed the crimes he's accused of.

> Trump as being uniquely criminal among politicians

Well he's not unique in that the law should apply to him, but find me one other politician who has been found to run a fraudulent company, charity, and university; and has been criminally indicted.

> is it really still therapeutic to expound on how much you dislike the guy?

Well I'd be talking less about him if he hadn't tried to overthrow the government I support, and is now running to lead it again. He will be the nominee at this rate, and so these opinions cannot be left unsaid unfortunately.

> it would be nice to have a frank discussion about facts and logic instead of letting that sort of thing continue to seep in, all these years later.

Yes! And at long last we will have that discussion in the courtroom, where facts prevail. We will finally cut through the BS, posturing, politics, and the facts will be presented in front of an impartial jury. They will render a verdict based on the facts, and when they do, he will either be guilty or not. That will be the end of the story for me, and it hopefully that will finally put an end to some of the debate. Obviously it will continue, but we will have heard the evidence.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse