2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Savonarola]

Actual news story:  Meryl Streep Dressed up as Donald Trump.

Her greatest role since "Bridges of Madison County."   

[alfred russel]

Trump's attacks are racist and he is scum, but using public means to try to influence a court case is SOP. How many times is there disclosure of inadmissable evidence in a court case, or public grandstanding with a sequestered jury, or any number of matters? Theodore Roosevelt went hard after the court, FDR did as well, and Obama recently put the USSC on blast in a state of the union address. All sorts of people try to influence court decisions outside of the legal process--including protesters outside (and sometimes inside) courts.

It's not that he's using public pressure to influence a court case - it's that he's using his position as Republican nominee for President to do so.

And actual elected politicians have used their platforms to do so for years.

It seems the weakest link in the chain to attack Trump. Is his attack on the judge racist? Yes. Was Trump University a scheme to defraud less well off people out of money they likely didn't have? I think so. Is it horrible that he is using his political position to try to pressure a court into ruling in is favor? It depends on your perspective, but it is hardly unique that he is doing so.

[Berkut]

Can you cite me some other examples of where presidents or nominees have used their standing to attempt to influence private court cases they are involved in?

[Barrister]

Can you cite me some other examples of where presidents or nominees have used their standing to attempt to influence private court cases they are involved in?

The Clinton's and the Starr investigation, although perhaps that was not a 'private' court case.

[Berkut]

Can you cite me some other examples of where presidents or nominees have used their standing to attempt to influence private court cases they are involved in?

The Clinton's and the Starr investigation, although perhaps that was not a 'private' court case.

Of course it was not. That was a case brought *because* he was the President.

I don't even mind Trump commenting on the case - it is out there, and certainly news that the Republican nominee is being tried for fraud.

[alfred russel]

Can you cite me some other examples of where presidents or nominees have used their standing to attempt to influence private court cases they are involved in?

You are very narrowly defining the terms. "Presidents and nominees" is a serious scope limitation, as is "private court cases". I don't see why it is acceptable to use political influence on a court considering public matters but not private matters. I'm not sure there is even a clear distinction here: isn't every court case a public matter?

[Berkut]

Can you cite me some other examples of where presidents or nominees have used their standing to attempt to influence private court cases they are involved in?

You are very narrowly defining the terms. "Presidents and nominees" is a serious scope limitation, as is "private court cases". I don't see why it is acceptable to use political influence on a court considering public matters but not private matters. I'm not sure there is even a clear distinction here: isn't every court case a public matter?

You don't see the difference between a President opining about public cases that have public impact, and using his position to influence a court deciding on a strictly personal legal matter?

Really?

There is no difference between Trump (as a potential President) using his position to influence a private suit brought against him, and Trump using his position as President to opine about the SC ruling on campaign contributions or some environmental case or some other public action that he may very well have a part in as the executive?

OK. If you think those are the same thing, there isn't much to discuss.

[Legbiter]

I look forward to Sanders' never ending fight for the Democratic nomination after Hillary has been elected president.

Well Trump's looking for a veep...

[Jacob]

All sorts of people DO NOT try influence *private* legal cases using their public status. And if they do, they lack integrity when they do so.

There is a grey area, I agree, when the "private" matter is taken against a public figure clearly as a consequence of their public persona. But that isn't the case here - this case existed completely outside the scope of Trump's public status as a candidate, and it is reprehensible that he is willing to use his candidacy as a means of trying to intimidate the judge in question.

Like I said, what does that say about his willingness to use his potential Presidency as a bludgeon in his personal affairs?

It says that he'll be somewhere between Berlusconi and Putin, depending on how far he can push it.

[alfred russel]

You don't see the difference between a President opining about public cases that have public impact, and using his position to influence a court deciding on a strictly personal legal matter?

Really?

There is no difference between Trump (as a potential President) using his position to influence a private suit brought against him, and Trump using his position as President to opine about the SC ruling on campaign contributions or some environmental case or some other public action that he may very well have a part in as the executive?

OK. If you think those are the same thing, there isn't much to discuss.

There is a dramatic blurring of lines when someone is a prominent public figure, which in this instance Trump qualifies. If you want two examples: Watergate, and the Lewinsky situation.

[Berkut]

Neither of those are remotely similar.

And to the extent that Nixon attempted to influence the Watergate investigation, that was very unethical. And notice he was forced to resign over that, so using it as an example of why it is ok kind of backfires.

[Valmy]

And California is called for Hillary.

Yeah that was a pretty strong finish. I was terrified those hippies in Cali were going to make things difficult.

[alfred russel]

Neither of those are remotely similar.

And to the extent that Nixon attempted to influence the Watergate investigation, that was very unethical. And notice he was forced to resign over that, so using it as an example of why it is ok kind of backfires.

So private lawsuits against the Clintons such as this one don't count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

Can you explain why?

[alfred russel]

There is no difference between Trump (as a potential President) using his position to influence a private suit brought against him, and Trump using his position as President to opine about the SC ruling on campaign contributions or some environmental case or some other public action that he may very well have a part in as the executive?

OK. If you think those are the same thing, there isn't much to discuss.

If public pressure on the judiciary impairs its independence in a private matter, then I don't see why it doesn't do so in a public matter as well.

[Berkut]

Neither of those are remotely similar.

And to the extent that Nixon attempted to influence the Watergate investigation, that was very unethical. And notice he was forced to resign over that, so using it as an example of why it is ok kind of backfires.

So private lawsuits against the Clintons such as this one don't count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

Can you explain why?

Sure.

First of all, I don't recall Clinton going on any tirades during press conferences about how the judge was biased against him. So I don't agree that his conduct is anything at all similar to Trumps as it relates to the lawsuit itself. Indeed, Clinton mostly seemed to be very careful to NOT be seen as trying to influence the investigation, at least not publically.

Secondly, Clinton could make a pretty compelling case that the entire thing was political in nature, and that absent him being President, it would never have even come up, and certainly the extent to which it was extended time and again betrayed a clearly political motivation in the prosecution. The case never started except after he became President, and it is very debatable to call it (especially once it went well beyond the bounds of the initial case and into "special prosecutor" bullshit) a "private" case anyway.

No such claim can be made by Trump - this lawsuit existed long before his running for office, and clearly has nothing to do with his being a candidate, and hence his attempt to intimidate the judge cannot possibly be considered as part of the political fray.