# Should Trump skate on fraud trial?



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

So, now that Trump has been elected, his lawyers are trying to postpone his fraud & racketeering suit related to Trump University until after he is inaugurated, because he will be very busy. One must imagine he will be even busier when he is President. His lawyers seem to be arguing that he shouldn't have to answer these allegations.

Do you think Trump should skate on these allegations because he won the election?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1c109e-a784-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

^^


they should proceed according to the original timeline


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Judge Curiel urged a settlement. It would probably in the best interest of the country for that to happen - and fast. 

I don't know if it would be better to delay or proceed but it seems reasonable to put this behind everyone and get on with running (or ruining) the country.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Settling it is likely going to leave questions about wrongdoing/guilt. Of course, there is the possibility of criminal racketeering charges. Could also lead to grounds for impeachment. Not likely to be a factor until the 2018 elections.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

They should do it like they would anyone. The laws and procedures are for everyone.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Settling it is likely going to leave questions about wrongdoing/guilt. Of course, there is the possibility of criminal racketeering charges. Could also lead to grounds for impeachment. Not likely to be a factor until the 2018 elections.


Links please.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

The President is not supposed to be above the law. The suit should continue regardless. The best way out might be to settle and avoid a long drawn out case. It would be personally costly to Trump but would end the issue and allow him to get on with being President.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The charges should be held in obeyance until after Trump is no longer President, is my opinion.

Unless he decides to settle the lawsuit, Trump should be held to the same standard as everyone else, but there is no urgency that it has to be done right now. Interest should apply to any final judgement should Trump eventually be convicted.

If Hillary Clinton broke the law, she should be held to the same standard as well.

The judiciary should either lay charges or drop them altogether. It will be up to a judge or jury to decide guilt.

The Republicans are also playing political games. They would like to charge Clinton and have her stand trial, but are terrified that if she was eventually exonerated there would be widespread anger that they were unjustly persecuting her. Any trial of Hillary Clinton would be very, very public and information may come out from her defense team that nobody wants to see the light of day.

If they do decide to charge her...they better have a slam dunk case, and it doesn't sound to me like they do.

We have seen some trials that didn't go well for the prosecution and caused great public anger when they didn't.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ Would same be said for Hillary (had she won) and any hypothetical charges related to her emails?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

andrewf said:


> ^ Would same be said for Hillary (had she won) and any hypothetical charges related to her emails?


I believe so. If it was possible to drag a President into court, every wing nut organization in America would be filing lawsuits against them.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

sags said:


> The charges should be held in obeyance until after Trump is no longer President, is my opinion.


What about the rights of the plaintiffs?

Justice delayed is justice denied.



> "Justice delayed is justice denied" is a legal maxim meaning that if legal redress is available for a party that has suffered some injury, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no redress at all. This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights which are meant to expedite the legal system, because it is unfair for the injured party to have to sustain the injury with little hope for resolution. The phrase has become a rallying cry for legal reformers who view courts or governments as acting too slowly in resolving legal issues either because the existing system is too complex or overburdened, or because the issue or party in question lacks political favour.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

wraphter said:


> What about the rights of the plaintiffs?
> 
> Justice delayed is justice denied.


Good question and it is a valid concern, although I think it is more important when it involves the restriction of personal freedom (as in waiting in prison for a trial date) than for trials involving money.

The closing of an estate can often take longer than 4 years.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

If the judge decides to go forward in a way he would for anyone else then he should. If he is guilty then he is guilty and should be charged even if Trump's wife pays the judge a visit much like Bill did on the tarmac.


----------

