135
Trump complains it took Alvin Bragg too long to charge him
(www.msnbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
135 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19103 readers
3003 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You do realize investigations take time? And that charges of this level tend to take even more time?
How long do you think the Watergate investigation took? I'll give you a hint, ~2 years.
With the number of players involved and all the shady shit that prosecutors and investigators have to go through, plea deals made, using that information to find corrobating evidence if it doesn't exist yet, possibly flipping another witness and repeating the cycles, new witnesses coming forward, etc etc, I'm surprised we're even seeing charges this year.
So, you're saying that the timing of these charges seems political, just political in the other direction, moving the trial up instead of back. This has got to be one of the strangest comment chains I've ever started. Everybody essentially agrees with what I've said, but they're still insisting that I'm wrong.
What you just did with using my words to fit your narrative is called a straw man logical fallacy, with a nice dash of false dillema.
I'm saying that these people are good at their fucking jobs and surpassed my expectations as somebody that's not a legal expert but has watched a few high profile investigations play out in my time. Hence my surprise to seeing charges this year.
Nobody is agreeing with you. Your use of logical fallacies are causing you to think everybody is agreeing you.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, so let me ask you this. Do you think the timing of these cases has nothing to do with the upcoming election in 2024?
I think it has nothing to do with the upcoming election. The investigation took time, and that time happens to be about now. If Trump wasn't running, I don't think the timing would have changed.
So, your belief is that Trump was being investigated by New York, Georgia, and the DoJ for years, and that the first indictment was on March 30, and the fourth indictment was on August 1, and that all four of these indictments that came within a four month window, because that was simply the time frame in which their investigations were complete, and that it had nothing to do with whether Trump was running or not?
I suspect there aren't many people who would genuinely agree with your assessment.
Edit: I see your downvote, but I don't see your response. Did you just now realize why odelik didn't respond to the comment that you responded to?
I never said it was bad that it was political, and in truth I don't think it's bad if it's political.
Have you stopped and considered that all of the prosecuters are pulling from the same evidence pool? That they all worked together to deliver relevant information to eachother as they pulled on the specific investigations? Let's not forget they were given a boatload of information from the Senate investigation. Then they worked together to tighten up all of their cases? Then the rest is up to judicial process and timing for the specific courts where filed.
With how fucking transparent the Trump conspiracies were you expect me to believe that there's some conspiracy going on here with the courts and the current executive & senatorial leadership and that that hasn't been leaked yet? I'm not sure how many philosophical razors that this runs afoul too, but my guess is close to all of them.
I said that everything they were doing was legal, so what do you mean by saying that I am asking you to believe in a conspiracy?
If you're not talking about a criminal conspiracy, then your assertion that "they worked together" would count as a conspiracy. So, you specifically say that a conspiracy exists and then immediately afterwards guffaw that anybody would believe that a conspiracy exists.
This is hilariously hypocritical.
Also, why are you answering here, odelik? Are you the same person as BassTurd, but using two different accounts? That would seem a bit underhanded.