frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




If Trump isn't indicted before the mid terms, will the opportunity to do so be lost?

Debate Information

Hello:

If he hasn't done it by the mid terms, with a Republican victory in the House, the opportunity to do so will have vanished .. It's not a matter of evidence..  He has PLENTY..  We've all seen it to.  Some of you will deny your lying eyes, while others of you see quite clearly. 

It's a matter of crossing the T's and dotting the I's..  Trump won't be able to say that he was treated differently.  Although he will..  We all know that.

excon



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • BoganBogan 195 Pts   -  
    If Donald Trump is indicted on another trumped up charge by the politicized FBI and the politicized US Justice Department, it will convince around half of the US population (the smart half) that their bureaucrats are out of control, are trying to create a left wing socialist tyranny, and the US is heading towards a second civil war.      
  • jackjack 45 Pts   -   edited September 21
    Bogan said:

    the US is heading towards a second civil war.      

    Hello B:

    I'm ready.  We got Apache helicopters..  You got AR-15's..  Let's DO this thing!

    excon, American patriot
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4713 Pts   -  
    jack said:

    It's not a matter of evidence..  He has PLENTY..  We've all seen it to.  Some of you will deny your lying eyes, while others of you see quite clearly. 
    Sweet. Why bother with all the formal procedures such as collection and examination of evidence, a court trial, interrogation of witnesses? "It is not a matter of evidence": we do not like the guy, so let us use the fact that those who do not like it are currently dominating the Congress to get rid of him, while we can!

    Let us forgo the past 500 years of legal developments in the Common Law and return to the times when angry peasants demanded blood and kings complied, or when angry kings demanded blood and peasants complied. That certainly is much better than the current system where a person like Trump can for a few years preside over one of three independent branches of power. Back to burning witches at the stake!
  • jackjack 45 Pts   -   edited September 21
    MayCaesar said:
    jack said:

    It's not a matter of evidence..  He has PLENTY..  We've all seen it too.  Some of you will deny your lying eyes, while others of you see quite clearly. 
    Sweet. Why bother with all the formal procedures such as collection and examination of evidence, a court trial, interrogation of witnesses?
    Hello May:

    I am NOT the trier of fact..  I'm simply a citizen..  As such, I CAN make a pronouncement regarding these matters. The fact that I don't like him has NOTHING to do with my clear eyed legal analysis.  He broke the law - SEVERAL times, and is going to be held to account.. 

    That you, as a fellow citizen, CAN'T see the facts staring you in the face is troubling.  You may NOT yet have drunk the Trump koolaid  but the cup is IN your hand..

    excon


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4713 Pts   -   edited September 21
    @jack

    In the US, a person is presumed innocent unless found guilty in the court. As a citizen of this country, you should know that before claiming that someone "broke the law several times".

    And no, I am not a US citizen, and I am not your fellow. That apparently does not prevent me from understanding how the system functions much better than you.

    Lastly, I do not know what "koolaid" you are talking about: I think that Trump was a horrible president, and most of his supporters are quite delusional. That does not make him a criminal.
  • jackjack 45 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:

    I think that Trump was a horrible president, and most of his supporters are quite delusional. That does not make him a criminal.
    Hello again, M:

    If stealing our nations secrets isn't a crime, I'll eat your hat..  Yes, yes..  You can CLAIM  that he's innocent until proven guilty, and that's true in the legal sense..  But, in the real person's sense, he's guilty as hell.

    You SAW those classified documents the FBI found in Trumps desk, didn't you??  Or did you look away because he hasn't been tried yet??

    You're silly.

    excon

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4713 Pts   -  
    @jack

    What is the "real person's sense"? Divine providence of some sort that gives you accurate knowledge that all the professional investigators do not have (otherwise Trump would have already been in jail)?

    I saw some photos. I do not have the legal expertise necessary to determine if those documents being in Trump's mansion constitute evidence of committed crime. I assume you do? Let us hear a proper legal argument then, rather than all this pathetic emotionalism.
  • jackjack 45 Pts   -   edited September 22
    MayCaesar said:
    @jack
     Let us hear a proper legal argument then, rather than all this pathetic emotionalism.

    Hello May:


    Section 641 of Title 18 prohibits receipt of stolen government property. There are five elements to the offense: the defendant must receive, conceal or retain; stolen property; belonging to the United States; knowing that the property has been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted; and with the intent to convert that property to his own use or gain.

    Those documents you SAW depicted in the photographs shown on TV, were stolen..  He had 'em.  Case closed.

    This case differs from all the other ones Trump is facing, in that to win a conviction in those cases, requires proof of "INTENT".  That's HARD to prove, if not impossible..  But, in a property crime, such as this one, all you gotta do is show that the crook HAD the stolen materials IN his possession..

    Easy peasy..  You're welcome.

    What??  You don't KNOW if the materials were stolen???  The FBI said so..  The Justice Department said so.  The federal prosecutors said so..  My own experience handling classified documents says so.

    excon
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4713 Pts   -  
    @jack

    Not at all: a part of any crime is intent, and you specifically mentioned it when describing Section 641 of Title 18. Intent is impossible to prove, but it is possible to demonstrate it beyond a reasonable doubt in many cases. That has not yet been done, and in general Trump was not found guilty in court, despite what individual FBI representative might have said. If you have an actual legal case to make in favor of declaring Trump officially guilty bypassing the entire proper process, please do so.

    You provided a very selective quote in this context. How about the rest of the text?
    At the outset, it should be noted that the conduct proscribed by this section is set forth in the disjunctive. Thus, a defendant violates the law when he either "receives, " "conceals" or "retains" stolen property. None of these words are terms of art and they should be given their normal construction.

    The intent requirement of this section presents more serious problems. Prosecutions for receiving stolen property require proof of a compound state of mind. First, the defendant must know that the property he has received, concealed or retained is stolen. Note, however, that the defendant need not know that the property was stolen from the United States. See Baker v. United States, 429 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 957 (1970). Ownership of the property by the United States is simply a jurisdictional requirement and is not relevant to the criminal intent needed to violate the law.

    The defendant must also act with the intent to convert the property to his own use. Thus, this offense is a specific intent crime. Proof of this intent, however, does not require evidence showing that the defendant actually derived some benefit from the property. This element is satisfied merely by showing that the defendant intended to convert some property to his personal gain. See United States v. Hinds, 662 F.2d 362, 369 n. 15 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 (1982).


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch