So one’s dislike for a candidate/president is sufficient to disregard hundreds of years of precedent?
The feds, in the form of the DOJ and SEC declined to prosecute this initially - you didn’t answer my question, why Trump, why now?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What precedent are you even talking about?
Show me the legal precedent of NOT prosecuting former Presidents for crimes committed before taking office or while in office.
It doesn’t exist.
Candidates for office….hell, holders of office….have been charged and even convicted and jailed for crimes they committed. What is so special legally (since we are talking about precedence) about the single office of President that make him immune from facing justice?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I’m starting to think you don’t even know what legal precedent is. Just because it hasn’t happened before doesn’t mean there is “hundreds of years of precedent”. There isn’t. He is the President….a public servant…bound by the same laws of those he serves. He’s not a king.
It has absolutely nothing…ZERO…ZIP…ZILCH…to do with not liking a candidate.
Like them, don’t like them, that’s completely irrelevant.
Reasonable suspicion to investigate.
Probable cause to charge.
Beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.
It’s the same standards FOR EVERYONE.
No matter who it is.
Why Trump?
Because Trump COMMITTED THE FRICKING CRIME.
Why now? Because he committed these crimes in 2016.
I cannot believe you are seriously arguing that a prior President or a candidate shouldn’t be prosecuted for crimes he or she committed while in office simply because they once held office.