Home | About | Donate

Legal Experts Aghast At Trump's Careless Call for Death Penalty for NYC Suspect


#1

Legal Experts Aghast At Trump's Careless Call for Death Penalty for NYC Suspect

Julia Conley, staff writer

"Advocating the death penalty before trial isn't justice, it's a lynching."


#2

I just love the term “expressed grave concerns”, don’t you?
Yep, dump is his own law agency, guilty-hang 'um, scary thought ain’t it?
If that were the case it could be you next, or it could be me…what did you do?..me? I cannot nor will I quit calling him something other than his name, he doesn’t deserve a name, he’s an it, under the bridge in a clown suit…


#3

I miss having a president who called the country together when there was a crisis. Did he actually speak to the nation as a whole? No, he did not. And this happened in his home city no less. In the mean time, I like many, many others feel terrible for the victims and their families.


#4

His braying for blood with a full page ad in the New York Times (and 3 other local papers) in 1989 was truly nauseating. I do have to point out that while he was particularly egregious, it wasn’t just him. As the linked article puts it (mildly):

Mr. Trump quickly jumped to conclusions about their guilt, as did many in New York City.

Actually, all of New York City was in an hysteria. A woman! A white woman! A white female investment banker! OMG, we’re being attacked by savage black thugs from right there in Harlem who are out wilding - the word was on everyone’s lips.

Editing a quote from that linked article:

So we are left with Mr. Trump’s [white rich New York’s] presumption that because they were black and brown teenagers from Harlem, they must have committed a crime. The idea that teenagers who were in a park while crimes were being committed by others deserved to be labeled rapists [violent thugs who bludgeoned and raped her, but yes I suppose because she’s a woman our primitive minds conceive of a rape that she didn’t remember as worse than having her skull smashed in and being left with brain damage] and sent to prison for between 8 and 13 years [murdered] is an affront to our Constitution [basic sense of justice and humanity].


#5

The demented dimwit is still careless, witless, useless, and worthless and no one should be surprised by his daily crass, crazy, and cruel diatribes


#7

He was in a hell of a hurry to condemn the Central Park 5 as well. Happily they were not executed quickly. They were instead exonerated. We can’t rush to judgement. Clearly this guy did what he is accused of doing. But he still gets due process.


#8

We really need to police Trump much more closely. The writers of the Constitution must have believed we’d never have such a destructive president as Trump. We want presidents who can police themselves, who have a strong sense of responsibility and compassion, a powerful knowledge of the law, and the strong will and fortitude to uphold it.

Trump has none of these things, and neither do the large majority of Republicans. So it’s up to responsible Democrats (if there are any) to get him and his cabal/cabinet out of Washington. The Clintonistas and centrist Democrats are as corrupt as Trump, so we don’t need them policing anybody. The Supreme Court is not reliable either.

However it’s done, they need to be gone!!!


#9

No it is not lynching or akin to it. That term specifically applies only to non judicial executions.

The continual intentional abuse of language harms the argument otherwise being made.


#10

So the ends justify the means.

Your version of democracy appears to apply only when you win.

Enough people disagree with your values and goals to beat you in an election. They deserve the right to represention and service of their goals, or else democracy is a one sided sham.

You are not owed power or rule.


#11

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I’ll let it ride. It doesn’t need to be answered.


#12

**

Six times in 24 hours, desperate Donald calls for DOJ and FBI to investigate Hillary

**


#13

Oh you didn’t say ‘whatever it takes’? Aren’t you justifying methods other than elections?

Do you think not answering means the issue goes away because you don’t want to think about what your argument implies?


#14

No, because you love to provoke posters, and I don’t play that game. Blather on all you want.


#15

Oh, it’s ‘provoking’ people to ask difficult questions?

When, exactly, do you take responsibility for your choice to be ‘provoked’ instead of merely answering questions?

Do questions which you decide ‘provoke’ have no possibility of being valid questions? That’s an excellent method of dismissing anything you don’t agree with and obtaining an echo chamber unable to handle any pushback.

My questions stand, and you evade them instead of dealing with them.