-9

I am inquiring about specific actions or legal proceedings involving Donald Trump that could be indicative of a breach of law or a failure to uphold the duties of the presidency, according to established legal or governmental standards.

Please provide a factual account devoid of personal interpretations or opinions.

motosubatsu
  • 502
  • 5
  • 9
Poly Tick
  • 3
  • 1
  • 4
    Claiming you want "pure facts, no opinions" can't be reconciled with the opinion-focused framing of the question. What exactly "would suggest he is not fit for presidency"? This is very much a matter of opinion and not fact. Edit to define this question objectively and I'll change my vote. – Brian Z Oct 03 '23 at 00:13
  • @BrianZ Thank you for explaining I will attempt to define it more specifically – Poly Tick Oct 03 '23 at 00:13
  • 2
    This is a really broad question and looks like it is just digging for dirt on Trump – Joe W Oct 03 '23 at 00:48
  • @joe no it’s changing the pre conceived notion that he has broken the law etc. how would you reword it – Poly Tick Oct 03 '23 at 00:49
  • What is not clear about this question, it seems pretty specific – Poly Tick Oct 03 '23 at 19:10
  • 3
    I think what's not clear at this point is what sort of evidence you expect us to present. As Brian Z already noted in his answer, Trump is already in several legal proceedings, and any evidence against him will be presented during those proceedings. You're correct to point out that being charged - and even being found guilty - doesn't necessarily mean that he has broken the law, but in that case, what standard of proof are you looking for from us? What would a correct answer "devoid of personal interpretations or opinions" look like to you? – F1Krazy Oct 03 '23 at 20:26

1 Answers1

5

To address the most obvious and clear-cut issue in the headlines right now, Trump was served four criminal indictments so far this year. This means that in four separate instances with regard to separate criminal matters, grand juries saw evidence and agreed that there was probable cause to arrest him and bring charges against him. While grand juries are not infallible and Trump has not been convicted in any of these cases yet, the charges are serious and not brought without evidence. If you think any one of these indictments are just political and that the grand juries made bad decisions, that's a serious accusation and the burden of proof is on you to give evidence for this.

Brian Z
  • 17,198
  • 1
  • 49
  • 70
  • It seems there are two cases on election interference though (one state, one federal), one classified documents case, and one state fraud case https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indictments-details-guide-charges-trial-dates-people-case/ – the gods from engineering Oct 03 '23 at 02:29
  • Also, the two federal cases will probably be won by Trump by default if he wins the election, due to DOJ policy (they'll probably be a no show in the middle of the trial, or even ask for their dismissals). AFAICT there's some chance the state case in Georgia will also be moved to federal at some point (appeals etc.) – the gods from engineering Oct 03 '23 at 02:41
  • @Fizz My intent there was just acknowledging that the NY case pertains to actions before Trump was in office, but I guess that parenthetical comment was more distracting then helpful so I removed it. – Brian Z Oct 03 '23 at 02:45
  • And just saw your second comment, made another edit in response, avoiding speculation about final outcomes. – Brian Z Oct 03 '23 at 02:48
  • Cases against him don’t mean that he did what they say he did, it could just as easily mean a corrupt legal system – Poly Tick Oct 03 '23 at 19:06
  • 1
    @PolyTick With that argument even if he got sentenced one could say it's just a corrupt legal system, or being caught red-handed merely means corrupt media. – Martheen Oct 04 '23 at 00:25