Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
There’s a New York state law against committing a crime to benefit an electoral candidate and I believe Bragg alluded to that in his statement. What isn’t clear is if that law can apply to a federal election, and is likely the best target for a legal challenge so I wouldn’t be surprised if the charges are reduced to misdemeanours. But even misdemeanours should be prosecuted.
Exactly. You being a prime example.
Quoting yebiga
Quoting Benkei
Quoting yebiga
But nice speech.
I do find it strange that he wasn’t indicted directly for this other crime.
Does it have to?
As Trump is (or was) fond of saying: "we'll see". Perhaps he no longer says that is because he is afraid of what we might see.
Trump’s Idling Plane Got More TV Coverage Than Biden Cutting Healthcare for 15 Million
Quoting https://fair.org/home/trumps-idling-plane-got-more-tv-coverage-than-biden-cutting-healthcare-for-15-million/
That's expected in a nation where the right amount of money can free you of anything. The US has never been a nation of justice, it has always been a nation of entertainment. The legal system is there as a show for the public, just like public executions were there as a show of force by the state.
The only way for the legal system to be fair and righteous would be to get rid of the jury system and have the people at the top consist of a balanced group of judges who are ONLY working by the law and have absolute legal power. Politics shouldn't be allowed to even walk the corridors, it should be a place outside of the political spectacle.
At least that is a start. Constitution needs to be rewritten to reflect modern times and the responsibility of a president and politics need to be absolute, meaning, any crime of any kind or any kind of corruptive behavior will permanently ban them from acting as politicians.
If anything smells like corruption it's when citizens lose all rights at the most minor misdemeanor while politicians can do whatever they want and nothing happens or they just get a slap on their fingers and nothing more.
https://wapo.st/41mwKXC
Quoting Christoffer
That’s more the French model, isn’t it? A tribunal. But I can’t see it. They won’t even adopt metric, they’re amazingly conservative in some ways.
I think it has to do with their delusion of hegemony. If you believe that your nation is the biggest and best in the world, has the best state system, and has moral superiority, then no other system can be better.
It's a basic cognitive bias. It doesn't matter if I would show how well, for example, the Swedish system works, both politically and legally, they will get lost in their biases and propose arguments that make no sense or have no actual rationality behind them.
It's a nation built on the cognitive bias that they are morally superior, it has been infused into the culture and mind of every citizen to the extent that even the most open-minded people still don't know that there are better systems out there that lead to far better legal equality and politics less prone to corruption.
It's like showing them the list of "the best places to live" in the world, formed by combining a number of statistics for a society, pointing to the top of the list, and asking what they see and they will just answer like any other robot of Westworld... "it doesn't look like anything to me".
What are some of those places, according to you?
It's something alright..
A tremendous public disservice!
Once again Republicans are doing what they accuse others of, turning a legal matter into politics. They are going to do whatever they can to make it go away.
Text messages reveal Trump operatives considered using breached voting data to decertify Georgia’s Senate runoff in 2021
[sup]— Zachary Cohen, Sara Murray, Jason Morris, Paula Reid · CNN · Apr 21, 2023[/sup]
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/27/pence-appears-before-jan-6-grand-jury-00094310
What final nail in his coffin are we at now?
According to predictit.org, his chances of winning the presidency are only down 1% on the day. Sad.
Yeah, pretty funny.
KAPLAN: And you say – and again this has become very famous – in this video, ‘“I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p*ssy. You can do anything.” That’s what you said. Correct?
TRUMP: Well, historically, that’s true with stars.
KAPLAN: It’s true with stars that they can grab women by the p*ssy?
TRUMP: Well, that’s what, if you look over the last million years I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately.
KAPLAN: And you consider yourself to be a star?
TRUMP: I think you can say that. Yeah.
You think that's funny? Where's the humor? You think someone like that should be president?
I have no interest in the sexual lives of politicians. But yeah, the conversations between males can get quite sleazy.
Well, I just as soon have a woman president. Less skeletons in the closet.
I think most people would agree that sexual assault says something about a persons character.
There is no evidence. Her claims of sexual assault can be discarded along with her accusations of rape. Believing such accusations without evidence says a lot about character.
Some people find his performances merely laughable, others find them merely repugnant. Another false dichotomy.
A jury has convicted. Now miscarriages of justice can happen, but at this stage, your claim that there is no evidence itself requires evidence in the form of a detailed rebuttal of the prosecution case.
There is no evidence that there is no evidence; on the contrary, the conviction is positive evidence that there is convincing evidence, because a jury has been convinced. You have to provide evidence that they have been corrupted or misled, that will convince us otherwise, if you want to be taken seriously.
Americans have the right to an impartial jury. That’s why during voir dire jurors are often questioned to decide whether they can be fair and impartial. They weren’t in this case, and in an anti-Trump city. It was corrupted from the very beginning.
She didn’t know when the date was, meaning no alibi could be established. They wouldn’t accept Trump’s DNA, despite finding male DNA on the dress. Statute of limitations have long passed. The alleged incident is almost 30 years old and now conveniently starts after Trump mentions his candidacy.
Give me one reason why I should believe any of it.
No. you give me one reason to believe that the jury and the justice system and now the whole city is so corrupt as to be completely unbelievable and totally ignored. Everyone in the whole world can be convicted in your mind except Trump. Bizarre.
That’s because I know you cannot name one reason. You don’t have any reason.
Of course I don't, you have already convicted me of joining the conspiracy against Trump. :rofl:
He practically confessed to it in the deposition, saying something like ‘*stars* have been sexually assaulting women for millions of years, unfortunately or fortunately’, and he regards himself as a star.
I think they were all in on it. None of them can remember the year it happened. The supposed episode never appears in E. Jean Carrol’s diary. None of them spoke about it until 2019. They all hate the man.
It’s not far fetched in clown world.
I don't remember what year I was given morphine and underwent surgery. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, because it did. I remember it vividly. I have the scar to prove it.
Why did they wait so long?
You can prove it in court. The scars, the medical records, the witnesses. They’re probably all there. Supposing there is medical malpractice, would you wait 30 years to accuse someone?
Exactly.
Sure, but you were implying that her not knowing the year is evidence that she made it up. I'm simply giving you an example of how that's a non sequitur. People can forget which year traumatic events happen.
Quoting NOS4A2
So could she, and she did, hence Trump being found liable.
Quoting NOS4A2
Probably not, as I'd have no reason not to. But I can understand why someone wouldn't want to take someone to court for being sexually assaulted. I know a few people who have confided in being victimised in this way but who never reported it, myself included.
See also this.
So again it's a non sequitur to infer that she's a liar.
It's evidence she doesn't have a case and one of the reasons why we have statute of limitations. She neither remembers the date nor wrote about the episode in her diary.
There was no evidence of any battery, and certainly no rape, like she claims.
She was funded by a democrat mega-donor. She just released a book. The man she hates is running for president. There is plenty of incentives beyond justice for her actions.
I'm not a NY lawyer, but from the little research I did, the statute of limitations on personal injury matters is 3 years. Whether it's less than that for intentional torts like rape, I don't know, but we can assume the statute intially expired in the late 1990s because the incident occurred allegedly in 1996.
In 2022, New York created a 1 year look back statute for adults who allege they were previously raped but did not bring their actions within the applicable period back when it occurred. I suppose the reasoning is that it is felt that in years past society was not as receptive to such claims and women were intimidated from bringing them, but in today's society women feel more empowered to bring these claims.
So, this answers two questions:
1. This claim was not brought outside the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations was extended in 2022 to allow these sorts of actions.
2. She waited to bring the claim because she was fearful of bringing her claim in the mid 1990s and she then was not provided a second chance to bring her claim until 2022 when the new law was passed.
As to whether the extension of the statute of limitations is "unfair" is something you can argue, but why? The criminal rape statute of limitaitons is unlimited, so I'm not sure why when it comes to depriving someone of their liberty there is no statute of limitaitons, but there should be one when it comes to seeking money damages isn't clear.
Wouldn't all that have been argued to the jury? Apparently they rejected it.
As far as I know the judge didn't allow any of it, including the admission of Trump's DNA to compare to the male DNA found on the dress.
If you are a lawyer, Hanover, what is your opinion on anonymous juries and the 6th amendment?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/15/trump-e-jean-carroll-defamation-lawsuit-dna
I'm not a lawyer but the 6th Amendment applies to criminal trials, not civil.
It would prove that the DNA wasn't Trump's, that it was some other person's DNA.
Then why would they have voir dire in civil cases?
Because of the 7th Amendment?
Edit: Although it doesn't apply to States, but many States choose to follow it anyway.
So then why was it not allowed in this case?
Because it doesn't apply to States, although most States choose to follow it to some extent. In this case the judge ruled that the danger posed to the jury warranted them remaining anonymous.
In my cases, I learn of the jurors names when they walk into the courtroom, and those names and addresses give me no important information.
My understanding is that anonymous jurors are also used in criminal cases, particularly those involving organized crime.
What are we theorizing occurred that wouldn't have occurred if we knew their names and addresses and how do we theorize that was helpful to the Plaintiff and not the Defendant? It seems we're going a long way to invalidate a verdict against a rapist.
One reason I would have found against him was because he decided not show up. Silence can be used against you in a civil trial. It's hard defending an empty chair.
Because it was Donald Trump.
That seems to be why he lost, not because E. Jean Carrol established anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, the jury were especially at risk because it was Donald Trump who was being tried. If he wasn't such a twat and if his supporters weren't such psychos then the jury wouldn't have been kept anonymous.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-face-anonymous-jury-high-profile-new-york-defamation-trial-2023-03-23/
Trump only has himself to blame.
In a civil trial the requirement is a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence in a civil trial, meaning she only needed to prove her claims were more likely than not.
Choosing not to show up is an important piece of evidence that the jury was able to consider. That was his strategy and his choice. That blame is on him.
Yes, the sordid fears of a New York judge take precedence over an individual’s right to an impartial jury.
Anonymous doesn't mean not impartial.
I guess that’s why they went from rape to battery. It’s just more likely. Utterly bonkers justice system. But thanks for your expertise.
It doesn’t mean partial, either.
Don't you think the Access Hollywood tape and deposition also hurt Trump in the eyes of the jury?
There's no grand unjust conspiracy here @NOS4A2. He just lost.
It obviously did, which is nonsense because the access Hollywood tape occurred a decade later and was irrelevant.
I’m quite aware he lost. But the fact remains there is no evidence of his supposed crimes.
Clearly the jury disagreed. There was more evidence that he was guilty than there was evidence that Carroll and the others were lying.
A guy who brags about walking in on teenager girls’ dressing rooms and grabbing women’s genitalia because, as a star, you can get away with it — who has multiple accusers over the years…Yeah, no way this jury is correct. Has to be a conspiracy.
Doesn’t matter though, he’ll still be the nominee.
They disagreed with her rape accusation. So it’s clear they thought she was lying.
Clearly they thought that either a) the evidence of what Trump did didn't satisfy the legal definition of rape or b) the evidence of rape wasn't a "preponderance" of evidence.
He was talking about the publicist, whom he didn’t grope and kiss directly after his comments.
What evidence? There was no evidence of either rape or battery. But they went with one and not the other, for whatever reason.
I wasn't at the trial so I don't know. You'd have to ask the jury.
There was the claims of the accused, the access Hollywood tape, other accusers, and Trump’s deposition, none of which establish any rape or battery occurred.
You supported the system back when he'd never been convicted of anything. Now you're saying he was convicted because he's Trump. Have a little integrity, please.
Your nagging is unwanted, Frank. Grow a pair.
So you choose to be like all the rest. No integrity. You stand for nothing. Jeese.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Perhaps you can show me.
So great.
Why would it be a bonkers justice system if he did in fact sexually assault her? Wouldn't that give rise to a lawsuit and shouldn't there be an award against him?
Neither of us were obviously there when the allegations supposedly occurred, nor did we watch the trial from beginning to end, so this certainty you're attempting to espouse is based on a whole lot of nothing other than your confirmation bias, where you say Trump must be getting a raw deal because the world is against him.
I truly don't care about the outcome of that case or what happens or doesn't happen to Trump, but my inclination is to believe he did what he is said to have done because I have a general trust in the system in deciphering truth. My general trust isn't absolute, so I wouldn't be surprised if some new evidence arrived and that proved his innocence with certainty. But right now, it seems like he did it.
What I can say is that your posts questioning his liability here just smack of someone who can't see Trump as anything but a victim.
NOS doesn't support anything that has the potential to infringe on his FREEDOM. :razz:
It’s true. I think he is the victim here and my bias is evident. But so is everyone else’s. This includes the DA’s and AG’s in New York and Georgia, or federal prosecutor Jack Smith. You can go on Twitter and observe his anti-Trumpism. It’s political animus all the way down. The difference is I’m not in charge of the law.
My presumption of innocence has yet to be affected by any of the countless, myriad accusations he has received since he came down that escalator. They are using the justice system to engage in lawfare, and the ease with which they can do it makes the system a bloody joke.
If you admit to bias, then how do you others are biased?
Is this just a general philosophical claim about the lack of objectivity in all things, or are you saying you're so biased that you're not in a position to judge? If the latter, then the appropriate response would be not to judge.
Don't act surprised! The man with thousands of lawsuits under his belt. who lived his life engaging the legal system against others, with the greatest ease, anytime that it appeared to be profitable, has now had the tables turned on him. Could you expect anything other than this?
Unless you’re Hunter Biden, of course. Then it’s just obvious.
He just invites his own problems. Either a second lawsuit or more evidence for the second trial if he gets an appeal.
REALITY: He grabs them by the pussy.
CULT MEMBERS: "WITCH HUNT!"
Claim: "Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
Fact: He does not grab by the pussy the woman he was just talking about.
Cult Members: "He grabs them by the pussy!"
Proof: He did not grab one woman he was talking to in front of the cameras, therefore contrary to what he said, he has never grabbed any women by the pussy.
Quoting NOS4A2
When someone's sexual life includes sexual assault it is no longer a private matter. This reflects poorly on you. Do you not know the difference?
You then switch gears and claim their is no evidence of sexual assault. The list of women who have accused him of sexual assault is long and goes back many years. But none of this matters to you because you have no interest in the sexual lives of politicians.
You can't know that's a fact and by your own reasoning that appears to make you a cult member.
You can watch it on video directly after he was speaking about her. But I wouldn’t want you to betray your own senses.
I don't know what you mean. If he was talking about a past incident with a particular woman, I'm pointing out that you could not know what actually occurred during that incident. You appear to be believing what Trump, a person who lies like a child, reported.
He clearly admits in the first-person what he does. As for grabbing pussy, he’s clearly speaking in the second person. You have neither the incident nor the admission, but you believe both occured.
Again, I don't know what you're talking about. Eariler you wrote:
"Fact: He does not grab by the pussy the woman he was just talking about."
How do you know that's a fact?
You can watch it on video. The woman he was speaking about greets him at the door of the bus.
He is speaking as a "star" about what stars can do.
On the other side of your misrepresentation, he is not talking about some particular person but "they".
He was talking about an incident of pussy grabbing that hadn't occurred yet?
So when NOS says: "Fact: He does not grab by the pussy the woman he was just talking about." He's saying that Trump has never grabbed for pussy and this is a fact.
He was saying what you can get away when you’re a star, not what he does when he meets people. But it was in the context of meeting the woman standing just outside.
So here it is:
You're claiming that "cult members" watched this video and saw Trump sexually assaulting the woman in the purple dress? Seriously?
Nope. I'm saying from the video that his actions do not match his boasts, and its stupid to believe that it does. He neither latches on to her like a magnet, without waiting, and starts kissing her. It was boasting.
You're claiming that "cult members" watched this video and came to believe that Trump sexually assaults every woman that he comes into contact with?
I said "cult member" in parody because someone else used it in reference to those who do not find any evidence that he assaulted someone.
Nonetheless, many people claim he is admitting to assault. They even claimed it in the E. Jean Carrol's trial and that it showed a pattern. The jury obviously believed it. Except there is no such admission, and neither can they point to any sexual assault he has admitted to.
Let's see if we can straighten this out. You wrote:
From what you've explained, you appear to be claiming that "cult members" believe that Trump sexually assaulted the woman in the purple dress, even though that's not what the video shows. Although you write that the cult members say "them" and not her.
That's pretty crazy, I have to say.
Yes, they appear to believe he grabs women by the pussy, that this video proves it, despite there being no admission nor no evidence that he does. Clear enough for you?
The video is not proof that Trump sexually assaults women.
Can you give an example of ANYONE claiming that it is proof of sexual assault? If not, you appear to be the believer.
The same video was submitted as evidence in the E Jean Carrol trial to show a pattern of Trump’s behavior.
You can't give an example of anyone claiming that the video is proof of sexual assault but you believe that such people exist anyway. Kinda cultish, I gotta say.
A direct quote from E Jean Carrol trial regarding the video:
“He's telling you in his own words how he treats women. It's his modus operandi.”
I don’t understand the weird evasions here.
She’s not claiming that it’s proof of sexual assault, obviously.
Try again?
It was literally presented as evidence in a rape trial. I don’t get what you’re saying here.
That appears to be what he is arguing. I don't know if he actually believes what he says though. He also argues that Trump was just boasting. I don't know if he actually believes that either.
Note how he misrepresents in order to deny what no one has claimed:
Quoting NOS4A2
So, unless he grabs "people" by the pussy when he meets them it cannot be true that he has grabbed some women by the pussy. He seems to think that since he did not grab this woman on camera it cannot be true that he has ever done this.
Quoting NOS4A2
He does not admit to assault because he does not see it as assault. It is what "stars" do. They can do anything. But not this, it is just boasting.
One point that he continues to ignore is that a number of other women have accused him of the same thing. But by some perversion of reason he thinks or at least claims to think that is not evidence. In addition, the unanimous decision of the jury based on the evidence they heard is not evidence either because they are all biased against him.
If you can show where someone in the trial claimed that the video proves that Trump sexually assaulted a woman then do so.
Do you think that when "they let you do it", it is assault?
What I seem to think to you can be contrasted to what I actually do think: Nowhere does he admit to any assault in the video. Nowhere has assault been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. That's it. All there is are accusation, all of which can be seriously doubted.
You would think that Trumps lawyers would have done better in the jury selection process. I hear he only hires the best people.
Are you saying that I think that others believe Trump assaulted someone in the video?
There was no jury selection process. Such a fair trial.
I’m no legal buff but just did a quick search and it looks like your delusions are deepening.
Sure, I'll go further down the rabbit hole. Do you think that others believe Trump assaulted someone in the video?
If they let you do it without them wanting him to do it, it is.
Quoting NOS4A2
If he grabs them by the pussy without their consent then he is admitting to assault. Groupie might consent because someone is a star, but this does not mean that if a star lets them do it they consent. Do you think Harvey Weinstein was innocent?
Quoting NOS4A2
As others have already pointed out, this was not a criminal case. He was found guilty based on the preponderance of evidence.
There was a jury selection process.
As I am sure you know, the best people will not work for him. I don't think they could have done better at selecting impartial jurors, although team Trump, led here by NOS will argue that any jury that finds him guilty must be biased against him.
None of your straw-grasping can contend with the fact no evidence of any sexual assault or admission of any sexual assault occurred in the video. All sexual assault has been explicitly denied. He said; she said. You: She said, therefor he did. I just don't follow it.
As for the jury selection it was an anonymous jury. No lawyers had access to them during the process, therefor no voir dire.
Wrong again. It was an unusual voir dire, which I assume was designed to protect the identities of the jurors. Protect them from delusional Trump supporters. Trump supporters often don't have a good grasp on reality and have been known to be violent when things don't go their way.
It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Treat unjustly a group of people and then get angry when they get mad. The logic of petty tyrants.
They were talking about hanging Trump's VP on Jan 6. His partner in governance! Imagine what they'd do to some poor jurors for holding Trump liable for sexual assault.
He admits to grabbing women by the pussy. Perhaps it is just boasting, but if so, thinking that this is something to boast about says a lot. The fact that he does not assault anyone in the video is evidence that he did not assault anyone in the video. Nothing more.
Quoting NOS4A2
He explicitly denies lots of things he is guilty of. One example from last night is his explicitly denying he did not ask for votes to be "found" in Georgia.
Quoting NOS4A2
Anonymous does not mean that there was no jury process.
If they don't consent then yes. Letting someone do something and consenting to them doing something are different things. The former only implies that they don't object and/or resist.
For example, you let the government tax you, but you've made it clear in the past that you don't consent to it.
And even if Trump meant it in the sense of "consent", that he says that they do isn't that they do, only that he thinks that they do. If he just assumes consent and so "just starts kissing them ... [without] even wait[ing]" then it's assault.
They are going to hang them on gallows too small and weak to be used. Fact is, people often erect mock gallows at protests.
I answered in the same way. Does he really not know this? Giving him the benefit of the doubt he is just being stubbornly argumentative. Otherwise ...
It’s a threatening sign, yes. I think it was a good idea to protect the jurors from similar signs directed at them.
The act was introduced by Senator Hoylman-Sigal, known as he is to use legislation to persecute Trump, proving to me that bending the law is the only way to make it seem like the president broke it. Political from conception to use. According to E Jean Carrols lawyer they had much to do with it as well. It wouldn’t be so bad if it was about principle, but the tiny window of one year proves it’s about expediency. Maybe they realized how dangerous it is to to forgo the statute of limitations entirely, but their hatred ran hotter than their sense of justice.
Answer this question in the style of Donald Trump: Why should Americans put you back in the White House?
ChatGPT: Well, let me tell you something folks, nobody, and I mean nobody, has done as much for this great country as I have. When I was in the White House, we had record-low unemployment, we rebuilt our military, and we put America first.
But then the Democrats, and the fake news media, they came after me. They spied on my campaign, they impeached me for nothing, and they tried to steal the election. But I'll tell you what, I'm not a quitter. I'm a fighter. And I fought back harder than anyone else would have.
And you know what? We almost won. We almost took back the White House in 2020, but they cheated, folks. They cheated like you wouldn't believe. They rigged the election, they stole it from us, and they installed Sleepy Joe Biden in the White House.
But I'm not giving up, folks. I'm not giving up on America. I love this country too much. And I know you love it too. That's why I'm asking for your support. Because together, we can make America great again. Again.
Answer this question in the style of Donald Trump: But Mr. President, you know that the election wasn't stolen? The election wasn't stolen.
ChatGPT: Well, let me tell you something, fake news. You're wrong, as usual. The election was stolen, and it was stolen from me. We had massive voter fraud, we had dead people voting, we had illegal immigrants voting, we had ballots being shipped in from other countries. It was a disgrace, and everybody knows it.
But you know what? We're not gonna let it stand. We're not gonna let the Democrats get away with stealing the election. We're fighting back, and we're gonna keep fighting until we get to the truth.
Because that's what we do, folks. We fight for what's right, and we never give up. And I know that the American people are with us, because they know that the election was stolen too. They know that Sleepy Joe Biden didn't win, he lost, and he lost bigly.
So don't try to tell me that the election wasn't stolen, fake news. I know the truth, and the American people know the truth too. And we're not gonna stop fighting until we get the justice that we deserve. Because that's what true patriots do. We fight for our country, we fight for our freedom, and we fight for the truth.
Answer this question in the style of Donald Trump: Do you have any regrets about your actions on January 6?
ChatGPT: Well, let me tell you something, folks. What happened on January 6 was a disgrace. It was a disgrace to our country, and it was a disgrace to the millions of Americans who support me and my vision for America.
But you know what? I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't incite violence, and I didn't encourage anyone to break the law. What I did was speak the truth and fight for what's right.
And that's why I have no regrets about my actions on January 6. I was standing up for the millions of Americans who feel like their voices aren't being heard, and I was standing up to the corrupt politicians who are trying to silence us.
Now, some people might try to twist my words or take them out of context, but the truth is that I never encouraged violence or lawlessness. I simply encouraged people to fight for what's right and to demand that our voices be heard.
More at Thedailybeast.com
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/11/nyregion/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation.html
Good. :clap:
He’s too stupid to learn, but that’s no excuse.
As with Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby it's:
He said; she said. And she said, and she said, and she said ...
All after he became a political target of the highest order. Just a big coincidence, I guess.
That is incorrect.
Why do you repeat his lies? Is it ignorance or blind loyalty?
Look at the date of their accusations. October 2016. Why are you lying?
Yes, LOOK at the dates.
She backtracked in October of 2016. Just a big coincidence?
Jill Harth
As is typical, when others come forward those who thought they were alone speak out. You would do well to educate yourself on #MeToo. That 25 or more women accused Trump because he was a political target does not stand up to reason. Why Trump and not every political candidate? Your defense of Trump, trying to spin it as if he is the victim, is a callous disregard for the true victims of his abuse.
Harth dropped the lawsuit right after Trump settled an outstanding business lawsuit from her partner. Weird how that happens.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/20/donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations-jill-harth-interview
Ivana walked back the allegation back in 93:
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/donald-trumps-wife-ivana-disavows-rape-allegation/story?id=32732204
Why aren’t you mentioning these things?
She dropped the lawsuit but stands by her accusations. If you read the article you cited you would know that.
Quoting NOS4A2
As I said:
Quoting Fooloso4
Once again Trump and his lawyers resorted to his default position: he is the victim. In damage control mode she denied it was rape "in a literal or criminal sense" but also said:
An important element that she mentioned is the children she had with him. Children who hold important positions in his business/charitable/political organization. Since he demands unquestionable loyalty but is incapable of being loyal she was protecting her children.
CNN's Anderson Cooper came out in defense of the network, saying that the CNN audience, who would normally never tune in to Trump, need to know what he's saying and doing, and that it's no use living in a silo. Which is all fair and good - EXCEPT that the format of the event was such that it clearly amounted to pandering. The 'carefully-selected' audience cheered every word, even cheering the gratuitous insults directed at the woman who had just successfully sued him for $5 million. The hapless interviewer tried to 'hold Trump to account', which was as laughable as holding off machine gun fire with an umbrella, and the only time she got close to really landing a point he brushed her off as 'nasty' (audience applauds). So the result was a success for Trump, and did nothing to really expose him to any kind of honest interrogation or a critical media.
So I agree, it was badly judged, even if Cooper is right in saying that public awareness of Trump's malignant delusions is required.
I think Cooper is absolutely correct.
Any (perceived) attempt to suppress Trump's idiotic ramblings would be counterproductive.
If economic issues were the concern then they'd be voting for Democrats.
It's clearly social issues (the "culture war") that elicit support for Trump and the Republicans.
Yes, I think that's more or less the way we ought to look at things. The first question is just to take on the establishment's voice and they don't really need (or deserve) any help.
Quoting Benkei
Yeah, I would say that the problem is the dynamic whereby neither side has anything real to offer, where the debate is over whoever has the better table manners while throwing scraps to the plebs barking underneath.
Rather than the life conditions of each U.S. citizen, I think the success of Donald Trump is due to the mass media. Yes, I am aware that there are journalists out there who put criticism on him, but they are not notorious. FOX news holds a lot of power and monopolizes information. On the other hand, I remember some "famous" instagrammers or "influencers" cleaning up his image. (Kanye West, for example).
Trump is the creation of other people's businesses.
Quoting Michael
Whether it’s more one than the other has been an interesting debate. I think it’s mostly material conditions. That makes people much more vulnerable to media bombardment, false answers, scapegoating, demonization, and wedge issues that exist. We see it on the left as well, to a different degree.
Remember that Trump always claim he’s in favor of working people. It’s not always about Mexicans and China and anti-wokeness. There is an economic message. Which is why he tried to imitate Bernie in 2016 to a certain degree. Anti-NAFTA, anti-TPP, “rigged system,” etc.
No probable cause, systematic failures, personal bias, two-tiered justice—the works. It's difficult and maddening to believe people were led so easily to such false and dangerous conclusions by what amounts to lies, corruption, and stupidity.
Durham Report
It should also be recalled that despite Trump trumpeting that Durham would unearth a massive scandal, in fact he scored one minor conviction and two acquittals. The rest is just harumphing. Any law enforcement worth their salt would have been suspicious of Trump 'Russia - are you listening?' - and his continual brown-nosing of Putin (whom he continues to defend to this day.)
Bring on the indictments, for God's sake.
So funny to watch his cult followers (naturally) throwing a tantrum. :rofl: Always brightens my day.
Thanks Jeep!
They're not done... There's more than the public at large will ever be able to know. Trump was and is compromised.
Quoting 180 Proof
2. Miami, Federal indictment 8Jun23 :up:
re: 37 counts "Mishandling Documents, Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, Violating Espionage Act, Making False Statements to Federal Authorities, Witness Tampering" etc
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/08/donald-trump-charged-retention-classified-documents
update:
9Jun23 Federal indictment unsealed ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/09/trump-indictment-unsealed-pdf-text-criminal-charges
WTF is wrong with the Dems? Biden is six years my junior and I can tell you someone that age should not be president. And then there is VP Harris.
:up:
More popular with his base, that's for sure. It's less certain when it comes to the rest of the country. I like to think they won't elect an imprisoned felon who will likely try to dismantle the justice system from within if he ever becomes president again, but who the hell knows.
Quoting jgill
It's a race to the bottom for both sides. Oddly enough I'd feel pretty good about a party's 2024 chances if they just nominated a generic Rep/Dem while the other side continues to do what they do, but it's looking to be Biden vs. Trump again.
That may be a topic for another thread but George Packer's piece How America Fractured into Four Parts in The Atlantic suggest to me an interesting way in which culture and economics intersect to sustain both the economic inequalities and the culture war by means of the four-fold division that he details. On the left, Smart America (academics, mainstream media, tech gurus, Democrat politicians) stands on top of Just America (SJWs, students, progressive activists) while, on the right, Free America (libertarians, capitalists, lobbyists, Republican politicians) stands on top Real America (Trumpists, patriots, poor and middle class conservatives). On each side, those on top protect their economic status by redirecting the anger and grievances of their 'cultural allies' below against their fellow destitute on the other side of the exacerbated cultural divide.
Peter N. Limberg and Conor Barnes' The Memetic Tribes Of Culture War 2.0 further refines Packer's fourfold division and underlines other dimensions of the ideological polarisation.
Special Counsel going after a criminal.
Quoting NOS4A2
Me too. It's not a new investigation.
[s]A wholly biased special prosecutor who displayed his bias in his tweets, and all for a glorified paperwork dispute. If justice is supposed to be blind then this isn’t justice. [/s]
Meanwhile, Biden, who never had unilateral declassification powers, took and kept classified documents for almost a decade in unsecured locations. Not a criminal, I guess.
Nope. I just checked and found out it’s a parody account. What a dupe.
You just figured that out today?
Just reasserting the obvious because there seems to be a few people cheering this kind of tyranny.
A tyrant is a dictator, like the former president wanted to be, but utterly and completely failed to be.
I’m sure you can read Trump’s mind, knowing his wants and desires.
Tyranny is cruel and oppressive government.
Cheering for stupidity and corruption in government? Does your undying cheerleading for Trump count?
37 counts.
I think representing Trump would be a nightmare for a lawyer. He has no discipline, is scatter-brained, tends not to take advice, and has a reputation for stiffing his lawyers. I hope those representing him now will demand a very large retainer, and do nothing until they know the money is in the bank.
Either Pence is lying or he is deeply ignorant of the law. OK maybe he misspoke in the heat of the moment. But either way Pence did not break any laws. Merely possessing documents is not a crime since the documents came into Pence's possession through procedural/bureaucratic error - and Pence reported the documents as soon as he became of them and immediately turned them over to the FBI.
Whether Biden committed a crime is still under investigation. As with Pence, he immediately notified the FBI as soon as he became aware of them and turned them over.
Again - there has to be intent in order for possession to be a crime.
He says that he got more votes than any other president in history but actually even Hillary Clinton received almost three million more votes than he did. Biden had seven million more votes than Trump.
This new inditement couldn't be a hoax when it's clear that he had the documents and knew they were classified.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/814066
Nope. He’s the one being persecuted.
It's spelled "prosecuted".
No it isn’t.
Ohhh I love it I love it I love it.
Makes you think…
:scream:
Quoting unenlightened
Yeah, I’m just not so sure about that.
A God-Emperor isn't Jesus.
Where can we buy those new NFTs?
Assuming you will chant then that "His blood be upon us and on our children". Or something on that line.
Quoting Pierre-Normand
Google it!
I know, people being prosecuted for breaking the law. It's terrible.
I don't advocate execution, by the way.
Random Trump quote, just for fun:
The details in the indictment make it clear that Mr. Trump knew that he was not authorized to keep national security secrets in his possession and that he played a cat-and-mouse game to conceal them from the F.B.I. and other federal officials. At one point he suggested his lawyer take some documents to his hotel room and “pluck” out anything really bad, the indictment says. “Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” he asked his lawyers. He added, “Well, look, isn’t it better if there are no documents?” Meanwhile, he instructed his lawyers to falsely inform federal investigators that they had cooperated fully.
With these actions, the former president demonstrated once again his contempt for the rule of law, his disregard for America’s national security and his mockery of the oath he took to support and defend the Constitution.
[/quote]
How could the Great Man do any wrong? It’s not like he has a history of lying and conning. Doesn’t seem to be something he’d do.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-finalizes-25-million-settlement-victims-donald-trumps/story?id=54347237
What did you think would happen when you boarded the Trump Train? Did you think it would end well? Like the Scorpion said to the Frog, "You knew I was poison when I got on your back."
I think now you're just trolling people here to get a rise out of them.
I thought he would be president awhile and that would be the end of it. But his opponents took a piece of Clinton campaign disinformation and conspiracy theory and other lies to the top of the federal government, spreading it worldwide, destroying any chance at diplomacy between two now warring countries.
That would have been the end of it, after he lost in 2020, but the GOP went nuts with the stolen election crap, and now he's the GOP frontrunner.
Good. It’s no surprise, then, that his opponents are abusing power to keep him out of it.
If a cabal of corporate and activist interests didn’t work behind the scene to alter election laws, subverting democracy under the nose of American citizens, there might not have been such a reaction.
They were threatened by rioting activist groups, who for all of 2020 burned a lot of their property to the ground, for some reason.
Right, that must be the “behind the scene” activists work you mentioned.
That’s the one.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
For instance, New York Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal is the one who signed into law the Adult Survivors Act, which gave that woman a one-year window to sue Trump over allegations long past their statute of limitations. He also did many others, aimed specifically at one man. So some victims of gaslighting can pretend Trump is losing, and not that the system is being rigged in a fashion that can only be described as persecution.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2023/04/ny-bills-specifically-targeted-donald-trump/384793/
Did you actually read the indictment, or listen to analysis of it?
I was thinking it would sound more nefarious.
I did, yes.
It is nefarious. Recall that true information was suppressed in the lead up to the election.
NOS is a chatbot
I thought I was a Russian bot. I see we’ve expanded the goalposts a bit.
What info and how was it suppressed?
The glorified sophisticated plagiarizer will echo all the bullshit... The intelligences services were charged with suppressing the info. The charge is false. Hunter was investigated by Trump's own administration... nothing found worth further investigation.
:lol: Disinformation about disinformation, you seriously think that cost Trump the election?
What???
I'm just telling you what NOSBOT is going to answer....
Not sure how you arrived at the belief that you're privy to my thoughts about why and/or how Trump lost.
This is the specific article that was suppressed before the election.
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/amp/
They had congressional hearing about it. Here’s Twitter’s Jack Dorsey regretting that he censored it.
https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/dorsey-says-blocking-posts-hunter-biden-story-was-total-mistake/amp/
Here’s mark Zuckerberg regretting it, blaming the FBI, despite creativesoul’s claims.
https://nypost.com/2022/08/26/zuckerberg-blames-fbi-for-censoring-the-posts-hunter-biden-scoop/amp/
Whatever you parrot, NOSBOT... whatever you parrot...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/hunter-biden-investigation-being-mishandled-irs-whistleblower-says
Quoting NOS4A2
What's that mean NOSBOT????????
Had American voters only known about Hunters laptop it would have been a fair election. Such a pity that no one knew about it.
It is a pity they were duped by misinfo, all of which was coordinated by the Biden campaign.
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/biden-campaign-blinken-orchestrated-intel-letter-discredit-hunter-biden-laptop
There's a new investigation into Hunter now... the sophisticated electronic parrot plagiarizer is confused...
I think that I just read the word “Hunter” and assumed it was from NOS. Didn’t have any caffeine yet. :yikes:
No worries... :wink:
I edited after you read... I'd guess. Originally, it said just that... "Hunter"...
New? It’s been going on since 2018, despite what you say.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/08/white-house-prepares-for-possible-charges-against-hunter-biden
I’ll pass. I’m just giving you some info. It looks like you’re misinformed.
What's that mean?
Actually, you seem to be one of the people duped by disinformation about disinformation.
Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by him, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by May 2023.
The laptop was not the subject of the first investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/biden-inquiry-republicans-johnson.html
…and the second investigation is not over. The second investigation unearthed some shady things.
https://archive.ph/4RQtP
Whistleblowers have asserted that the FBI, the IRS, are slow-walking the investigations.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/hunter-biden-investigation-whistleblower-disclosures-allege-fbi-procedures-not-followed-chuck-grassley-james-comer/
Just the other day the house oversight committee claim they have evidence that Joe Biden accepted bribes.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jun/9/biden-accused-pocketing-5-million-bribe-while-vice/
It’s weird you don’t mention any of this.
It’s weird that I didn’t mention accusations? For one thing, there are so many I wouldn’t know where to start. :lol:
@NOS4A2
Shokin himself had previously accused Biden of getting rid of him to supposedly stop the Burisma investigation, as has some of his cronies. I realize the GOP is going to milk this for all its worth, but it's highly unlikely to go anywhere.
On the other hand, the CBS News article sounds more interesting - warranting investigation. I'm sure the House will get right on it. It seems to only implicate Hunter, unless they find some evidence Joe intervened.
Lol.
Yes. Would have made all the difference. 7 million votes worth.
So we should be up in arms about this. But hoarding classified documents, inciting an insurrection, lying repeatedly about the election, trying to pressure officials to “find votes,” etc. Somehow all of that can be rationalized away.
Anyway — who cares. Trump’s getting what he deserves. Actions have consequences.
Guess this is fine. Unless of course the ruling is unfavorable— then it’s a deep state plot.
That doesn’t seem to have been proven true from what I can find. If it is true he shouldn’t be held accountable.
What do you know that few others seem to know?
The parrot forgets to mention that the people making the claims cannot seem to find this informant now...
It's all distraction... designed...
I don’t know if it’s true. What I do know is that the media, the intel community, ran with any allegation against Trump for years, won Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting, or were lauded for their persecutory delusions, and all was found to be false and unjust. If they did the same for everyone it would all be fine, but of course it appears they’re working hard to discredit it before seeing the documents in question.
Bullshit...
Mirror, mirror...
Give this report a read, friend. But I know you won’t.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf
Old news parrot... nothing found criminal... waste of taxpayer dollars... example of using the government and justice department to punish one's political rivals(witch hunt).
Old news that you believed and helped spread, despite its falsity. The irony.
Let's read the indictment... Trump's a traitor. Sharing the most highly sensitive information. Remember what he said about Hillary's case of mishandling with a couple of classified docs?
Trump stole, lied, and intentionally concealed far more sensitive information...knowingly.
The irony?
Indeed.
Clinton destroyed evidence with hammers. Biden kept classified docs in his garage. Neither of them had the unilateral declassification powers that a president had. No indictments for them; nothing.
Meanwhile Assange is rotting in prison. Snowden is in hiding. Trump is getting the full force of the US government on his back.
3. The classified documents TRUMP stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack. The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.
4. At 12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2021, TRUMP ceased to be president. As he departed the White House, TRUMP caused scores of boxes, many of which contained classified documents, to be transported to The Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, where he maintained his residence. TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain those classified documents.
5. The Mar-a-Lago Club was an active social club, which, between January 2021 and August 2022, hosted events for tens of thousands of members and guests. After TRUMP’s presidency, The Mar-a-Lago Club was not an authorized location for the storage, possession, review, display, or discussion of classified documents. Nevertheless, TRUMP stored his boxes containing classified documents in various locations at The Mar-a-Lago Club—including in a ballroom, a bathroom and shower, an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room.6. On two occasions in 2021, TRUMP showed classified documents to others, as follows:
3a. In July 2021, at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey(“The Bedminster Club”), during an audio-recorded meeting with a writer, a publisher, and two members of his staff, none of whom possessed a security clearance, TRUMP showed and described a “plan of attack” that TRUMP said was prepared for him by the Department of Defense and a senior military official. TRUMP told the individuals that the plan was “highly confidential” and “secret.” TRUMP also said, “as president I could have declassified it,” and, “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”
3b. In August or September 2021, at The Bedminster Club, TRUMP showed a representative of his political action committee who did not possess a security clearance a classified map related to a military operation and told the representative that he should not be showing it to the representative and that the representative should not get too close.
7. On March 30, 2022, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) opened a criminal investigation into the unlawful retention of classified documents at The Mar-a-Lago Club. A federal grand jury investigation began the next month. The grand jury issued a subpoena requiring TRUMP to turn over all documents with classification markings. TRUMP endeavored to obstruct the FBI and grand jury investigations and conceal his continued retention of classified documents by, among other things: a. suggesting that his attorney falsely represent to the FBI and grand jury that TRUMP did not have documents called for by the grand jury subpoena; b. directing defendant WALTINE NAUTA to move boxes of documents to conceal them from TRUMP’s attorney, the FBI, and the grand jury; c. suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents called for by the grand jury subpoena; d. providing to the FBI and grand jury just some of the documents called for by the grand jury subpoena, while claiming that he was cooperating fully; and e. causing a certification to be submitted to the FBI and grand jury falsely representing that all documents called for by the grand jury subpoena had been produced—while knowing that, in fact, not all such documents had been produced...
Look over there... anywhere... other than at Trump.
None of that is relevant to Trump's espionage and obstruction of justice violations. None of it. Stay focused will ya?
Then you could be willfully spreading disinformation, but are nevertheless somehow able to shamelessly criticize others for doing the same.
It's called projection... lots of current Republican officials muddy the water by accusing others of exactly what they are doing... it's rampant currently. The accusations of weaponizing the dept of justice after Bill Barr assigned Durham to investigate the investigators. They found nothing criminal because there was nothing criminal to find.
Mueller did. Trump, Barr, and congress swept it under the rug and lied about the report weeks prior to it being released. Jack Smith has. Trump has no power(Bill Barr and congress) to stop it this time. Instead, his bootlickers in the house are doing everything they can to distract. They want him to be elected again so they will never have to face justice themselves for conspiracy to defraud the United States regarding the BIG lie.
Sorry, which part wasn’t true?
The president can take documents to Mar-a-lago, as he did throughout his entire presidency. He did it openly, as is his right as president. Obstructing injustice is above board, especially with a glorified paperwork dispute.
He did far more than that.
Sadly, these are edible words.
Perhaps. But, I think that there's far more to it than our intelligence services will make public. The stuff kept more secret will ensure that he's done.
If found guilty of violating the espionage act, which he clearly has, he cannot run for public office ever again. I think he was compromised while president.
Quoting NOS4A2
:rofl:
I didn’t claim that any part wasn’t true. Though I do recall you claiming that some part is true.
Quoting NOS4A2
I would ask what part but you’ve proven to be someone who willingly spreads disinformation and are therefore unreliable.
If only it were funny. The huge swathe of people that have been brainwashed by the likes of Trump and pro-Trump media are mindfucked right now.
Yeah, and it’s obvious to anyone who isn’t a Trump bootlicker.
And to be clear: Hunter Biden can go to jail for all I care. So can Joe. But it’s the selective outrage that’s so funny. Literally trying to overturn an election and outright lying about it being stolen = just things we don’t like. Nothing to see there. But Joe Biden’s kid does cocaine and hires prostitutes? The sky is falling.
It’s so lopsided it’s embarrassing. But it is also very, very funny. One would almost think it’s satire.
What a buffoon.
Read that indictment in it's entirety...
He's done.
He's not the problem. Rather, he's a symptom thereof.
Personally I don’t care. It’s obvious he’s a criminal, based on evidence accumulated long before he was president. He’s also a sociopath and rabid narcissist, which is why our resident Trumpist will defend him to the bitter end, having similar qualities.
But no, I don’t think he’s done. That’s been said forever. I’ll believe it when I see it. He’ll be done when he’s dead— which, thankfully, is probably not too long, given his age. In the meantime, I wouldn’t get my hopes up. In any sane society, he would have been “done” long ago.
I do care. I have children and grandchildren.
Those charges are ones that they are certain that they can convict him of by showing the evidence to a jury of citizens. That evidence, the prosecution believes, proves his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Trump was elected not because the US is not sane. Rather, it was because the US is chock full of historically misinformed rude inconsiderate people who find it entertaining to make fun of others at the others' expense.
Equally believable.
By those whose main motivation was to garner the attention of as many people as possible in order to increase the value of commercial time....
The department of justice is not profit driven.
He's done. Read the indictment in it's entirety. Do not be like NOSBOT and neglect to carefully consider the actual relevant information in lieu of rhetorical drivel.
Not intended to 'go low'. Rather, given it seems you care enough to not be like NOSBOT, I figured you may like to know that some of what you're doing is the same as what 'they' are doing...
Making fun of others in this situation trivializes the severity and real danger.
It's completely unhelpful to ridicule Trump supporters.
Ridicule me all you want. Call me any name. Pretend I’m a bot. Use emojis if it helps. I believe you guys need it for catharsis and I genuinely care about your mental health.
As for the indictment, I don’t care. The FBI, the DOJ, are some of the most corrupt institutions ever created. Trump is just another victim of its malfeasance.
You did.
I think it's nuts for someone to claim - on the one hand - to genuinely care about others not hurting themselves or anyone else whilst - on the other hand - fomenting and fostering situations and parroting misleading and false narratives that tremendously increase the likelihood of people getting hurt.
So, what does it mean when someone does that?
It means that they are inconsistent. It is a performative contradiction. It could be that you're unaware of it, or it could be that you do not believe what you write.
Quoting creativesoul
Definitely makes sense in this context. :roll:
I always love when people try to save face by resorting to such stupid contortions like this. Oh well.
What do you think is Trump’s egregious crime? One that could net him 100 years in prison?
Are you aware of the similarity between your moral sensibilities and Trump's when it comes to what counts as acceptable treatment of those with whom you differ?
You devalue others in much the same way he does for much the same underlying reasons(being different).
Are you aware of the damaging role that the glorification of ridicule in American society played as it helped cultivate the ground for the rise of Trump?
Not really. I’ve read the comment sections on sites like Brietbart and Fox and have watched many interviews with Trump supporters, and there’s the template of Trump himself. All mind-numbingly stupid, too stupid to be funny.
Quoting creativesoul
Trump strategically devalues others for personal gain.
No I don’t. But coming from a guy claiming those he disagrees with are “bots”, which is the very definition of dehumanizing, I’ll take it for what it is. But I’ll leave it at that.
There's more than one. Care to discuss?
Counts 1 through 31. Willful retention of national defense information
Count 32. Conspiracy to obstruct justice
Count 33. Withholding a document or record
Count 34. Corruptly concealing a document or record
Count 35. Concealing a document in a federal investigation
Count 36. Scheme to conceal
Count 37. False statements and representations
Count 38. False statements and representations
You cherry pick one example. I'm not certain that NOS is not a bot driven source of information. This situation is the only one where I've thought that. So, your claiming that I accuse others of being bots is misleading at best.
I could also be wrong about that.
I'll butt in because this issue has been on my mind lately. I believe the reason ridicule of Trump and his supporters energized his base was because they already tend to feel inferior. There's angst among them toward the coastal intellectual crowd.
I don't know if there's really much of a glorification of ridicule. People who are over-flowing with ridicule just aren't particularly emotionally mature, you know? You jerk!
Glorifying ridicule of someone who disagrees with and/or is different...
Yeah, that really is a striking similarity.
That is true as well for Trump... I see no reason to attribute that to Mikie.
This is true, and that sort of thing was increased and perpetuated by many trusted sources in media. Still is to this day.
Only 'Trump supporters' are stupider than Trump himself. There are millions of MAGA morons who love to be lied to – lying to themselves – and many who are locked-n-loaded (some radicalized) too. Apparently, @NOS4A2 is a card-carrying member of that cult. Pathetic if he isn't a bot. :mask:
I'm wondering if correlations can be drawn between specific documents in Trump's possession... and certain activies by foreign governments and/or adversaries.
National defense information.
That case, if there is one(or more) would need more time to be made. Meanwhile, this one seems to have already been.
I was also disappointed that even outlets like CBS would occasionally spin and report falsehoods with the aim of ridiculing Trump. And MSNBC and CNN? They lost whatever integrity they ever had. But that's capitalism for you. Money over integrity.
Look Mikie, here's what seemed to have happened...
I strongly suspect that NOS is bot driven and bot informed, at the very least, mining from a treasure trove of pro-Trump data. I do not believe that that profile is a person and nothing more.
On the other hand, you seem to strongly believe that NOS is an actual person.
So...
When I mentioned the unhelpfulness of ridicule, from your vantage point, I was being hypocritical, and did not see it. Thus, you attempted to ridicule me for such with the sarcastic "no self-awareness" comment. Which makes perfect sense, if I believed NOS was a human, and nothing but.
I did not, and do not.
When profit is the sole motive, to hell with what's right, moral, just, best, true, or fair...
Doesn’t fly because no Trump supporter would agree that NOS is a bot. To them you appear to be dehumanizing an ‘other’, and they are the others.
Exactly. The world is just full of marks waiting to be played.
Well whatever...
I mean, I'm certainly not an angel when it comes to ridiculing others. However, in this case, I do not believe that I am, or was. One cannot sensibly be charged with deliberately ridiculing a person if one does not believe that the target is a person, but rather that it is a bot.
There is also most certainly no reason to continue and/or perpetuate such things as the glorification of ridiculing others when we realize their unhelpfulness... simply because we have been guilty of such things in past.
:brow:
All those laws are designed to protect state power and prestige, not to protect citizens and their human rights. There is nothing morally wrong with what Trump did.
NOS is not a bot and I doubt you actually believe that he is. I imagine that a Trump supporter would not believe NOS is a bot and would take your efforts to dehumanize personally.
More distractions. Designed to confuse the issue and muddy the water.
Trump stole very sensitive national defense information. He did so knowingly. He concealed those items. He deliberately lied about having them. He attempted to recruit others to do all the dirty work(of hiding or destroying) for him so that he could claim plausible deniability. He lied to the American public at large repeatedly about the classification level of the information in his possession. He lied repeatedly about the motivations for the investigation in attempts to discredit it. He lied repeatedly about all of it.
He continues to do so.
Whether or not you believe it's morally wrong is irrelevant. What he did was criminal. He knew it too.
How do you know that?
What evidence convinces you that an internet avatar is a person? What evidence would convince you that an avatar is not a person, but rather a very sophisticated form of plagiarism?
:100:
Possibly.
Appealing to law is a fallacy for a reason, and following the law is no sign of morality. Nazis followed the law as they rounded up Jews. Dr. MLK was a criminal. You’re going to need a better argument.
No, I don't need an argument at all. It's a matter of fact.
You asked what crimes he committed. The crimes are established by law.
And again...
Whether or not you believe it is immoral is irrelevant. You asked what crimes he committed. That has nothing to do with whether or not the law establishing those crimes are moral or not. That's an entirely different matter, and as far as it goes... you've yet to have offered any argument yourself.
So...
Pots and kettles.
I asked what you thought his most egregious crime was, then you listed off all of them. You couldn’t answer the question. You just parroted the indictment.
Touche.
What better way to set out the actual crimes he's being accused of than to quote them verbatim?
Ready to discuss the indictment?
ChatGPT say:
You're right, NOS is a bot.
I do not know if I am or not. I certainly would question the veracity of sourcing a bot for information about how to tell if an interlocutor is a bot!
:joke:
I just added a telltale sign to the end.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
I'll address this.
His most egregious moral failure is to manipulate his followers into believing his false narrative (e.g. he did nothing wrong, he committed no crime, it's a witch hunt, DOJ is weaponized...). One effect of this is that it undermines rule of law, and only an anarchist would think that a good thing. 2nd worse (but related to his false narrative) is his hypocrisy - compare what he said in 2016 about Hillary's misdemeanor mishandling of lowest classification emails to his handling of highest security documents).
Moral failures are not crimes, and so he won't be held accountable (partly because of his power over his supporters).
His most serious crime was the concealment of highly classified documents he wasn't legally entitled to, in response to a Grand Jury Subpoena to surrender them. This is also morally wrong (lying, theft).
Contrast Trump's crime with Edward Snowden. Snowden seems to have had noble intentions. There's no evidence of noble intentions by Trump. The recorded conversation he had regarding Milley's war plan with Iran was entirely self-serving (yet another moral issue).
Those are the biggest things, IMO, but others are close behind.
Will be funny if no one shows like last time. Although it is Florida rather than NY.
The thing about the hypocrisy is that it goes both ways. Trump was president. Clinton wasn’t. Trump had unilateral declassification power. Hillary didn’t. The only reason to bring up Hillary is to point at the preferential treatment she got. She stored classified info in her basement. She and her staff destroyed evidence. No indictment. People fell over themselves to defend her, call Trump a fascist, and look at those people now.
I don’t think Trump has the manipulative abilities you pretend he does. It is a witch hunt. They are literally inventing laws in New York, for example, to make his life hell. People campaign on getting him. There is no other way to describe it when your political opponents do that to you.
Rather, I believe his detractors are being manipulated, for instance by the years-long Russia hoax, which people fell for world-wide and still repeat it. I won’t name names but people here thought I was Russian. There has yet to be a single moment of clarity even after that whole charade. We’re in the midst of mass hysteria.
I don’t think he broke the law nor do I care if he did. But I’m certain they will do everything in their power to get him.
[quote=fmr US AG (and Trump-fixer) Bill Barr, FOX Noise 11Jun23]I was shocked by the degree of sensitivity of these documents and how many there were, frankly. If even half of it is true, then he is toast. It's a very detailed indictment and it's very very damning. And this idea of presenting Trump as a victim, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous. Yes, he's been a victim in the past. Yes, his adversaries have obsessively pursued him with phony claims, and I've been at his side defending against them when he is a victim. But this is much different. He's not a victim here. He was totally wrong.[/quote]
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/11/bill-barr-donald-trump-classified-documents-indictment/70310878007/
[quote=Jonathan Turley, MAGA legal spin-master, FOX Noise 9Jun23]it is an extremely damning indictment ... this is not an indictment that you can dismiss. It's really breathtaking. Obviously, this is mishandling, you know, putting classified documents into ballrooms and bathrooms is -- it borders on the bizarre. ... the visual and audio tape evidence is really daunting.
There are indictments that are sometimes called narrative or speaking indictments. These are indictments that are really meant to make a point as to the depth of the evidence, there are some indictments that are just bare bones. This is not one of those indictments. The Special Counsel knew that there would be a lot of people who were going to allege that the Department of Justice was acting in a biased or politically motivated way. This is clearly an indictment that was drafted to answer those questions. It's overwhelming in detail.
The Trump team should not fool itself. These are hits below the waterline. These are witnesses who apparently testified under oath [and] gave statements to federal investigators, both of which can be criminally charged, if they're false. Those witnesses are directly quoting the president in encouraging others not to look for documents or allegedly to conceal them. It's damaging.
It's hard to show a picture of these boxes surrounding a toilet and saying ‘we really acted responsibly'. The government is bringing dozens of counts – they only have to land one of those punches. Keep in mind that every one of these counts is coming with a substantial potential sentence.[/quote]
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-legal-commentator-jonathan-turley-trump-indictment-extremely-damning-2023-6
@NOS4A2 :victory: :mask:
Case in point: you bought the false narrative: Declassification Power Absolution/Hillary/Witch Hunt/Russia Hoax.
Hillary didn't get preferential treatment. She was treated the same as anyone who unintentionally mishandled classified documents. During the investigation, Comey asked the DOJ to review every past case of mishandling of classified materials that had been prosecuted. They all fit into one of more of 4 categories; 1) clearly intentional mishandling; 2) very large quantities; 3) behavior indicating disloyalty to the US; 4) active obstruction of justice. Comey discussed this when he gave his televised speech in 2016, in which he chastised her carelessness, a speech that's been characterized as election interference. No way to know if this cost her votes, but it clearly wasn't helpful).
Less severe cases (which happen often) are treated as administrative infractions - discipline by a superior, and a mark on their employment record. All such cases, including Hillary's, entail a technical violation of the Records Act, so it's true Hillary violated the law. But GOP wanted to treat her worse than everyone else: a clear example of "two tier justice" against her.
The documents that she mishandled were the lowest classification level (confidential), Trump had documents at the highest level. There's no evidence that Hillary knew she'd mishandled anything classified. Trump knew he had classified documents. Hillary didn't hide any classified documents*, ,Trump hid some, including in defiance of a Grand Jury Subpoena for "all documents with classificaton markings" -which made his claim of having declassified them, or even "owning them" irrelevant (per the Presidential Records Act, the government owns everything except personal materials - and classified documents clearly wouldn't apply). Trump also lied and accused the FBI of planting documents. Finally, Trump is being prosecuted for crimes related to the Espionage Act, which entails risking exposure of national security secrets and isn't contingent upon the official classification level. And yet, you're reciting Trump's irrelevant assertion that as President, he declassified everything he took (which the recording referenced in the indictment proves to be another lie).
Even though Trump knowingly had possession of top secret materials, even though his actions fit 3 of the 4 categories Comey discussed, and even though he failed to send everything back when requested by National Archives - all of which puts him in a different category than Hillary, if he had fully complied with the Grand Jury Subpoena, he would not have been prosecuted. So the claim that he's been treated worse is 100% nonsense, and this should be clear to anyone who is aware of all the facts. I'll assume you weren't aware before now, but now you are (and I encourage you to research my claims to verify or dispute them).
* Deleting personal emails is not a a crime. The records act only requires the retention of government emails.
**using a personal server was stupid, but not illegal. It DID create an environment that resulted in some classified emails being inappropriately sent through it. 38 individuals were involved for a total of 497 violations (this is based on an intensive analysis conducted by the state department - see this.)
I don't know if you will have read this entire, lengthy post. It's so much easier, and satisfying, for GOP to embrace the much simpler false narrative that Trump so adeptly drummed into all you guys, particularly because it involves the hated Hillary Clinton.
P. S. For completeness, and to demonstrate my desire for objectivity: Hillary has consistently denied that she even had a technical violation of the law. This lie is the 2nd worst thing she did in the matter, behind using the private server in the first place. But it's not a crime (if lies were crimes, think about where this would leave Trump!)
Finally, regarding your parroting Trump's "witch hunt" claim (again confirming my point) the classified documents case ain't that. It began with a crime - a minor one of violating the Presidential Records act, and obstinate refusal to return documents, and in the process, Trump committed even worse crimes. It wasn't necessary to seek something to pin on him. The crimes were right in front of the government entities that were involved.
I will say that Alvin Bragg's case seems a bit shakier, but even here - it was well known that Trump was involved in a crime - this came out when Michael Cohen was prosecuted. I personally think it shouldn't have been prosecuted, but then again, should we really have a 2-tier system that prosecutes only one of the 2 co-conspirators?
Quoting NOS4A2You've demonstrated that you buy the false narratives. Then you add:
Quoting NOS4A2
My guess is that Trump made you care that Hillary broke the law, but perhaps you can point me to some old post of yours where you said the same thing about her. You obviously care that Biden MIGHT have broken the law, since you were able to point to the accusations. I trust you understand the epistemic weakness of an unsubstantiated, vague accusation vs the epistemic strength of the evidence that's referenced in the indictment, which you haven't read, at least not with understanding, since you recited Trump's talking points and said you don't care.
Well that just says everything.
If only these guys could persuade elected politicians to confront the evidence. The majority are ignoring the evidence and reciting the false mantra of "witch hunt" and "two-tier justice system". (on this latter point, you might take a gander at the above lengthy post I directed at NO4A2.. I don't expect him to read it).
:mask:
Two questions, in all seriousness:
(1) Is your low opinion of the FBI and the DOJ independent of their performance in matters related to Trump? If you already had good reason to distrust them, or to distrust them with respect to certain sorts of issues, and if matters related to Trump presented such issues, then indeed you might infer that their actions with regard to Trump are suspicious. Is that your view, and if so what were your separate reasons for considering the FBI and the DOJ so corrupt?
(2) Many people would decline to give much weight to the accusations of someone's political opponents -- in Trump's case, Democrats, certain Republicans. That's understandable. But as I understand it, you consider the FBI, the DOJ, and the mainstream media also to be, at least in effect, Trump's political opponents, and thus similarly untrustworthy. Some people consider these institutions neutral, and thus trustworthy sources of truth. -- Within obvious limits! Institutions are big, have a lot of moving parts and involve a lot of different agendas, so we're not talking about perfection here, just overall, in-the-long-run sort of truth. --- Organizations like Reuters, the Associated Press, they seem to many people, me among them, to be by and large nonpartisan, impartial sources, if imperfect. But not to you, so what source of bad news about Trump would you trust? And, as with my first question, do you have independent reasons for finding that source trustworthy, and if so what?
There is a wrinkle here: sometimes people find bad news more trustworthy if its source is unexpected -- for a politician, for instance, if his long-time allies are the ones bringing the bad news, that might carry particular weight, not because they're neutral but because they were known not to be. In this case, however, only a small fraction of Republicans are likely to care what someone like Bill Barr says, because by saying it, he simply becomes an opponent of former President Trump and thus untrustworthy, however high their opinion of Bill Barr may have been before. It's just possible that there will come a time when a great number (and eventually nearly all) of Trump's high-profile allies and defenders lose faith -- as I recall, it took many months for Republicans in Congress to turn on Nixon after the Watergate hearings -- but since that's somewhat unlikely, my second question is hoping for a source you consider neutral and thus trustworthy, independent of any issues related to Trump.
Nice. Well put.
Your lengthy post is suspiciously missing one key fact, that Trump was president and has unilateral powers of declassification that neither Hillary nor Biden had. Second, that Trump was elected by the people, that means you and me. So for some strange reason, which I can only assume is propaganda driven, you’ve opted to attack those who are elected to represent the will of the people, while running defense for those who weren’t, the career politicians and bureaucrats who made a living seeking power and telling people how they should live their lives.
I wager that you’ve never made a stink about Patreaus or Panetta, two Obama officials like Clinton and Biden, who leaked and mishandled classified information, but were handled with kid’s gloves, while Assange, Snowden, and now Trump are subject to the espionage act as determined by the very same people. The penalty for that is to rot in prison, but you run defense for those who get off with a light verbal scolding. So you’ve demonstrated that your sense of justice is perverted and backwards.
Your "key fact" (taken from Trump's talking points) is a red herring, and it's moot because:
1. Trump's own words clearly indicate that the "war plan" document that he showed to an unauthorized person had not been declassified. He had the document, knew he had it, acknowledged he couldn't show it to him, and did not return this document when requested by NARA, nor even in response to the Grand Jury Subpoena for all documents "with classification markings" (note the careful wording). This also calls into question the claim that he had a standing order to declassify any documents he took.
2. Trump is not charged with mishandling classified documents. Instead, he was charged with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information under the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act provision does not depend on official classification level.*
Who else has willfully retained national defense documents (or even classified documents) that hasn't been prosecuted? The willfullness of the acts is a big deal. The associated obstruction is also a big deal. You seem to ignore this and focus solely on the aspects of the case that are similar to other cases.
Quoting NOS4A2
Your assumption of "propaganda" is incorrect, because I'm merely stating facts - facts that you haven't actually disputed (you've simply ignored them). Still, I guess bringing up facts does constitute an attack, but a reasonable one. By contrast, you stated Trumpian talking points that are irrelevant (like his erstwhile declassification power), false (e.g. the Russian investigation was a "hoax"), and questionable (e.g. there was a "witch hunt"). Your practice of presenting falsehoods and half truths better fits the term "propoganda" than my catalog of facts you haven't even disputed. Reminder: I even criticized Hillary, whereas I've noticed nothing from you that's critical of Trump.
Quoting NOS4A2
Re: Panetta, I assume you're referring to his discussing Top Secret information at an awards ceremony. I agree he did wrong, but did it meet a prosecutorial standard? His excuse was that he thought all attendees had clearance. Is that plausible? I don't know, but to meet a prosecutorial standard, you have to establish (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he was consciously aware. Like with Hillary, he should be slammed for his mistake. But if you think this should have been prosecuted, you'll need to make the case.
As I said previously, intent matters (in legalese: mens rea). Can you not grasp that? Trump's technical violation began on Jan 20, 2021 when he ceased being President. No one has proposed he should have been prosecuted for that, and yet it's the closest analogy to Biden, Clinton, and (AFAIK) Panetta.
I referred to prosecutorial standards, as identified by Comey. Was Comey mistaken? I'm open to hearing evidence that shows he was. But perhaps you'd prefer to prosecute everyone with a technical violation. You'd be consistent with Trump in 2016, when he said:
[b]"I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."
"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information."[/b]
Did you agree with him? If so, I hope you realize that this couldn't work retroactively, so you shouldn't complain when applying it to events AFTER 2016. Personally I think that's too harsh (although I do think there need to be process improvements that reduce the incidence). But as I said, the standards described by Comey seem to be what's been done historically and currently, and your guy is unfortunately on the wrong side of those standards.
-------------------------------------
* On the off chance you think charging under the Espionage Act entails an irrelevant technicality, consider the risks associated with both declassification (without vetting, as you and Trump claim was done) + careless handling of national defense documents. It's absurd on its face to suggest this ought to be OK. You said you didn't care if Trump broke the law. Criminality aside, do you care that he risked national security? Has he done nothing deserving of, at least, NOS4A2's criticism?
I do agree with Trump. You’ll remember that he was the commander in chief of the armed forces. He is the only one above those rules. He can declassify what he wants. It doesn’t matter whether it’s classified documents or national defense information, which is a distinction without a difference. None of that is true in any other case.
Sorry, I do think it is an irrelevant technicality. Some bureaucrat or spook marking documents as classified does not have more authority than the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. They cannot re-classify Trump’s documents. They cannot seize them. The documents are no longer theirs. It doesn’t matter what law you evoke, because none of them apply.
There is a difference. See here:
A document being declassified doesn't mean that it is legal for any person to possess it. A declassified document can still be subject to the provisions of other legislation, such as the Espionage Act and Atomic Energy Act.
And as I mentioned in the other discussion, the Presidential Records Act doesn't give Presidents the authority to simply assert that agency documents are their private property.
The documents in question were not automatically declassified.
Even if manually declassified they may still contain information covered by additional restrictions that would require continued withholding of information from disclosure, such as the Espionage Act and Atomic Energy Act.
Executive Order 13526 doesn't circumvent legislation.
It says on your page:
WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY FOR AUTOMATIC DECLASSIFICATION?
Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information”.
They can:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
And in Trump's case, even if he did declassify it, it was never "release[d] to the public under proper authority", given that "prior to public release, all declassified records shall be appropriately marked to reflect their declassification."
You clearly just don't understand anything about what classification is or how it works.
You are clearly reaching.
A document being declassified can still be subject to the provisions of legislation. Your claim that if Trump declassified a document then he is legally entitled to it after leaving the Presidency is factually incorrect. Jack Smith and his prosecutors know more about the law than you.
So you’re saying that after the president leaves office, they can retroactively re-classify it and arrest him for having it?
I'm saying that it can be illegal for him to retain it when subpoenaed to return it even if it is, and remains, declassified.
You mistakenly believe that "unclassified" means "legal to have". That isn't the case. A document can be unclassified and illegal to have.
Do you think the government can take back personal records of a former president, circumventing the presidential records act, if the next administration deems them illegal to retain?
They weren't personal records. The Presidential Records Act doesn't given the President authority to declare that agency records are his personal records.
He was the commander-in-chief and supreme authority of those agencies, though. Someone below him has more authority then?
He's subject to the legislation like everyone else, which says:
So you're agreeing with his statement, "I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."
Setting aside the contradiction, you are conflating past tense with present tense. The crimes he is charged with all occurred after his term as President was over.
When he was President, he COULD HAVE declassified what he wanted, but it would be reckless to do so without vetting the information with the organizations that classified it in the first place. It's reckless because it puts people at risk and risks our intelligence apparatus.The formal declassification process was put into place to ensure there were no adverse ramifications. It was established by executive order, so it arguably doesn't apply to him. Hypothetically, he could have declassified everything he took, and thus exposed no documents that were technically classified when he stacked them in the ballroom at Mar-a-lago - but it's still reckless. Is this not deserving of at least some criticism from you?
Even if a President isn't subject to executive order, private citizen Trump IS subject to law, including the Espionage Act. It's the law that makes such reckless behavior a crime. He's also required by law to comply with a Grand Jury Subpoena. Not only did he fail to return all the documents demanded in the subpoena, he lied and claimed he had. What's your excuse for private citizen Trump's illegal acts with respect to the subpoena?
Your standard of judgement seems incoherent. In terms of legal judgement: you implied the letter of the law should be applied to Clinton (and everyone else who carelessly, but unintentionally, mishandled even low level classified docs), but you choose to dismiss the relevance of the laws that Trump broke. Why letter-of-the-law enforcement in one set of cases, but not in Trump's?
You said you didn't care if Trump broke the law, so set laws aside and focus on morality. What moral standard puts Hilllary's behavior on the bad side, and Trump's on the good side?
So NARA has more authority than the president in deciding what are presidential and personal records. But we’ve already seen that play out in court and it didn’t go well for the plaintiff.
Hillary wasn’t elected by the people as the authority of the US government. She was afforded no such right by the people of the United States. Trump was.
How does being elected confer the moral right to expose national security and put lives at risk?
Why did you ignore everything else I said?
Whose lives did he put at risk?
Given that there is no record of Trump categorising such documents as personal records during his Presidency, they cannot be considered his personal records under the Presidential Records Act. Simply taking them with him when he left isn't sufficient.
It appears he did file them separately, took them with him, and disputed with NARA over them. If you find that he took something designated as presidential records with him, be sure to let me know.
Directly: The people involved with collection of the information, including informants in other countries and the agents who collected it.
Indirectly: the entire US and some allies, by risking exposure of military capabilities of the US and allies, and identifying what we know and don't know about our adversaries.
Text of the indictment:
"The disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military and human sources, and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods."
Quoting NOS4A2
The Presidential Records Act defines what are Presidential Records. Follow the link and read it.
Also remember that, after months of demands from NARA, Trump returned 15 boxes of documents that included some with classification markings, some of which are related to National Security and would be covered by the Espionage Act. In the court filing for the motion for a Special Master, Trump's attorneys referred to all of these as "Presidential Records".
Regarding "filed separately", review the picture that Nauta took of the documents spilled on the floor. The contents include newspapers, photos, and a classified document.
It continues by saying:
So it appears you're incorrect in your claim that NARA doesn't have the authority to take back documents it considers Presidential records.
He took things that were neither presidential records nor personal records; documents with classification markings related to national defence.
You can read the indictment for a list of the one's he's being charged over.
Incredible article, written by Andrew McCarthy - a former DOJ prosecutor, who's a staunch Conservative with a history of defending Trump's behavior. I hope NOS4A2 reads it.
Fox News labels Joe Biden a ‘wannabe dictator’ during Trump speech
[sup]— Royce Kurmelovs · The Guardian · Jun 14, 2023[/sup]
He also turned over at least fifteen boxes of material to the Archives in the first go round. Why did he do that if they were all personal records? The NARA discovered material with classification markings in these boxes and alerted the Justice Department, and yadda yadda yadda here we are.
[quote=John Kelly, retired US Marine General and fmr WH Chief of Staff (R)][Trump's] scared shitless. This is the way he compensates for that. He gives people the appearance he doesn’t care by doing this...For the first time in his life, it looks like he’s being held accountable...Up until this point in his life, it’s like, ‘I’m not going to pay you. Take me to court.’ He’s never been held accountable before.[/quote]
https://twitter.com/ReallyAmerican1/status/1669008051959889920
Crappy Birthday, Traitor-1.
It would be so gratifying to see him go to jail, probably for the rest of his life since he's 77.
I would be adequately gratified merely by his exit from my in-box. To be replaced by something more boringly acceptable and mediocre. Where he festers is of no consequence to me as long at is no longer in my consciousness. A luxury retirement home would be a very small price to pay as long as it had no outgoing internet.
1) As Commander in Chief obtained the blueprints for building an H-Bomb (or the nuclear codes or a list of all foreign secret assets or etc),
2) Declared them to be his personal property,
3) Taken them with him when he left office (since they're now his personal property)
4) And then sell them to the highest bidder (or put them on Truth Social)
And all this would be perfectly legal. Am I getting this correct?
I hear you.
Somewhere, out there, some poor soldiers life was at risk. This is the kind of propaganda that justifies jailing dissidents, starting wars, and droning innocents.
You cannot name a single person whose life is at risk, I’m afraid, which leads me to believe this is just the NatSec, neoconservative propaganda we tell ourselves to justify state tyranny. The only thing at risk is the power and prestige of the US government, people like General Mark Milley, who apparently was drawing up plans to invade Iran despite what he wrote in his book. Or people like the FBI, who put spooks in a presidential campaign, spied on a candidate, based on lies and misinformation. People here are advocating for the use of the Espionage Act to jail political opponents, perhaps yearning for the opaque and censorial days of the Obama administration, which jailed more people under that law than all previous administrations combined. Former official John Kiriakou said it best, jailed as he was for speaking to a reporter:
“The purpose of an Espionage Act prosecution, however, is not to punish a person for spying for the enemy, selling secrets for personal gain, or trying to undermine our way of life. It is to ruin the whistleblower personally, professionally and financially. It is meant to send a message to anybody else considering speaking truth to power: challenge us and we will destroy you.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/obama-abuse-espionage-act-mccarthyism
This is a new sort of McCarthyism and I’m glad I’m not on your side. Morally speaking, I put all activities of this sort in the morally depraved category, and any defense of it under the category of deep-state boot licking.
I note that you had nothing to say with regard to my debunking your claim about these documents being his personal records, as opposed to Presidential Records under the PRA. Instead, you've moved the goalpost - making it unreachable, since I cannot possibly know what's in the documents. Neither do you, and yet you assume it's a false claim. No national security expert would agree with you.
Quoting NOS4A2
Trump is a hypocrite, not a whistleblower exposing some bad acts by the government (btw, actual whistleblowers, like Snowden, understand the legal risk they're taking), and he's only being prosecuted because he hid documents he should not have had from Evan Corcoran, who was conducting a search to satisfy the demands of the Grand Jury subpoena, and because Trump's words and actions led to a false statement in the affidavit confirming the search was thorough and all docs with classified markings had been found and returned. Had he made a good faith effort to comply with the search warrant, there would be no charges. This is unequivocal obstruction of justice (remember Nixon? Obstruction was the final nail in HIS coffiin), and this is what establishes his corrupt intent.
What's your excuse for putting him above prosecution for obstruction of justice?
This short video featuring Bill Barr makes the same case I made.
I know it's terrible. I think he's going to crash land in jail this time. :starstruck:
Google.
Yes, one man's indictment is the same as hundreds imprisoned and thousands losing their jobs. Trump's ego is just that big.
Unfortunately I cannot find it, but there was a great BBC documentary about how totally surreal the world of the media in Putin's Russia had become where people could not know facts from fiction and thus, how truth was meaningless and how the objective was to have the people confused. This documentary was made many years ago, far earlier than there was any Ukraine war. Then I had difficulties to understand the whole documentary: how can it be that Russians cannot separate fact from fiction?
In a similar fashion, I think Trump goes (and will go) into the surreal. Anything doesn't matter, there is no objectivity or truth or falsehood, it's all about just where you stand and if with whom you support, that is do you support Trump or are you against him. Everything is just a rhetorical attempt to get new supporters and hold the supporters you have. And that there cannot be any other way. As if objectivity and truth and falsehood doesn't exist.
Longer time goes when Trump isn't in jail, furthermore it is proof to Trump's supporters that everything is a political witch hunt, the giant liberal conspiracy against Trump. And that's Trump's line: everything is a witch hunt against him that isn't supportive.
I think the next US elections will be quite surreal.
I think you're talking about the firehose propaganda technique.
The aim is to devalue truth by continuously changing the official story. Trump doesn't have the discipline or power over the media necessary to match Putin at that.
Donald Trump threatens to prosecute Hillary Clinton
[sup]— CNN · Oct 9, 2016 · 1m:1s[/sup]
Presidential Debate - DT: Bc you'd be in jail! - Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump
[sup]— ABC15 Arizona · Oct 9, 2016 · 36s[/sup]
Trump’s Threat to Jail Clinton Also Targets Democracy’s Institutions
[sup]— Max Fisher, Amanda Taub · The New York Times · Oct 11, 2016[/sup]
Trump team won't pursue charges against Hillary Clinton
[sup]— Jon Sopel · BBC · Nov 22, 2016[/sup]
11 times Trump threatened Clinton with prison
[sup]— CNN · Nov 15, 2017 · 1m:18s[/sup]
Whether ironic or not, the rhetoric/tactic wasn't new.
He doesn't have to.
What Trump lacks his supporters simply dream to exist as his abilities. Total bumbling is 4D Chess, remember? And as every negative news article is part of the global conspiracy against him, he is then absolutely fabulous.
Trump supporters aren't in the majority, though. Trump has never been able to control what information Americans have access to the way Putin controls Russian information. I agree that they both use the firehose technique, but Putin has more power to create that sense of disconnection from facts. I'm not saying Americans are particularly well-informed.
And we shouldn't forget that many who vote for Trump aren't the ones wearing the MAGA hats. Just as many of those who vote for Democrats aren't the stereotypical American liberal.
Not only that, but he has considerable support among Christian fundamentalists despite being a womanizer, a liar and a cheat, a man obsessed with earthly wealth and prestige, and from New York City of all places! I remember when Mike Huckabee published a book that opened with a story about going to a fancy restaurant in New York and they didn't even know what grits are. 'Nuff said. "New York" used to be code for "everything wrong with America". You might as well say "Babylon". And then they turned out in droves to support the quintessential New Yorker.
The most convincing explanation I've heard is that what these Americans practice is in fact an heretical offshoot of Christianity that is essentially a cult of masculinity. (Josh Hawley's new book is Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs. He got the memo.) Trump fits that bill, despite having nothing else in common with these folks. You would think the Access Hollywood tape all by itself would be disqualifying to conservative Christians, but it certainly wasn't to these folks. That needs explaining.
It is deeply peculiar that so much of the current posture of the GOP can be understood as anxiety among certain people about the place of men in a changing world.
Exactly.
The reason it doesn’t matter, and they support him no matter what, is because they’ve been conditioned to do so— through the dominance of conservative media. Limbaugh, Fox News, WSJ, etc. Once social media was added to the mix and Trump ran for president, the stage was already set and people already primed.
They’ve gone off the rails now. Now everything is a conspiracy— elections are stolen when we lose, facts are rejected if they go against the narrative we prefer, or if Trump says so, etc. The left has problems and are also conditioned, but not to the degree of reality-denying delusion. They still try to maintain some contact with the world.
Looking from the outside, I'd say the psychological rot set in when the first cowboy actor, Reagan, got elected. It's been government by fantasy ever since.
Yes, sure; but who was elected, the governor or the cowboy?
I get that things have gone from cowboys and indians to nightmare on Elm street, with Nixon as the honest crook somewhere in the middle. I guess it's arbitrary in a way to pick a moment to begin the story of 'how it came to this pass'. But politics as pure media performance with no relation to reality is where we're at, and Reagan was the first. It's not personal to him as politician, it's the obvious fact that his fame was as a fantasy, and that was what won the votes. It's the voters that had lost touch with reality, rather than Reagan himself.
:rofl:
“I have to take all of my things out…”
Don't know why that stuck out to me.
I also love his defence is "I was too busy to comply with the law".
He’s also looking and sounding a lot older these days. Not as old as Biden, but it still shows through the bronzer.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-slavery-lawmakers/
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Who fucking cares?! What an absurd thing to point out.
:lol: :lol:
I think your boy is done, as is any semblance of “the misunderstood and demonized victim of liberal hatred” shtick you got going.
Not descended from slave owners :rofl:
Thank you so much for this piece of information. Up to now I was convinced that Trump was a horrible person and the worst president we ever had, but you have totally changed my mind. Trump's lack of slave holding ancestors demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that he is innocent of all the nasty terrible things that the evil communist Democrat controlled justice system has falsely accused him of doing.
No problem. I’m glad you liked it.
You don’t like that he averted a war with Iran? That says enough for me.
Pulled right outta your ass. I didnt say anything about him averting war in Iran. Nice try though.
Im not the guy who cant admit Trump did good things, I’m the guy who had a good chuckle at your expense.
Now Im the guy pointing out your pathetic attempt to sidestep to Iran rather than take accountability for this moronic introduction of :lol: Trumps status as a descendant of non-slave owners.
You need to stop having such dumb conversations with people, its making you dull.
Oh dear, he’s using emojis. Is this how you get across your mockery? I usually read your words in a valley-girl voice, but this is hilarious.
Your chuckling is exactly what I wanted to see. I’ll let you know if your opinion ever means anything. For now, I’m happy you’re so risible.
No, I used words for the mockery. The emoji’s express emotions such as laughter hence the name “emojis” for the little cartoons we use to express emotions via text. Neat huh?
Quoting NOS4A2
No you don’t.
Quoting NOS4A2
No you didnt. At best you were trolling the anti trumpists but Im not one of them so me chuckling couldn't have been your goal. My well rounded sense of humour has little to do with your expectations.
See this what I mean…you pick too many low hanging fruit and now you cant stand up straight anymore. Sad.
You assumed, wrongly, that I was posting it for any other reason than a joke. Sorry pal. Your humor isn’t as well-rounded as you are pretending it is.
You're sounding kind of bitter of late. Cheer the fuck up.
I do not believe you. You wanted to provoke a response so you can go low hanging fruit picking. The idea that you posted that in jest is implausible to me. Who exactly did you think would respond with something like “good one Nos!”??
Lol, nobody. Nice try though…sorta.
Happy as a clam, friend.
I thought it was pertinent info for those who believe one man should be another’s master. Either way, believe what you want.
Well, this:
Quoting NOS4A2
is not happiness. It's bitterness.
Very interesting, I had always heard that all the whites were descendents of slave owners, and ispo facto, all racists. :chin:
The tape just reaffirms what everyone with a brain already knew. But his supporters will come up with something — anything — to minimize or outright deny what he did. I don’t see it changing any minds there. Still, it’s the jury that counts.
Too bad this is what he’ll get nailed for and not attempting to literally overturn the election and then inciting an insurrection. He continues to lie about the election to this day — and roughly 80% of Republicans believe it.
Anyway — may he rot in jail if he gets there. Traitorous piece of shit.
I've also heard James Lindsay and Tucker Carlson claim that woke leftists generally believe this, but I've never heard a leftist actually say it.
All the indications are that he will be indicted on those charges, and also on the Georgia election interference charges. He's going to have a very busy 2024, what with scheduling campaign rallies between court appearances. Although there is something grotesque about the fact that, even after all that, he can be regarded as a legitimate candidate. He really is a knife at the throat of the Republic.
Surprising no-one.
He's basically been saying it outright for years.
In a recent conversation with the esteemed Duran team, Attorney Robert Barnes argued that the myriad indictments paraded before us are nothing more than a grand theatrical performance, devised for the up coming election. Barnes observed that the labyrinthine nature of these cases renders their completion prior to the 2024 election an insurmountable feat.
Hence, should Trump emerge triumphant in the electoral arena, the entire spectacle becomes inconsequential, for he wields the power to grant himself a pardon. Conversely, should he taste defeat, the pursuit of these indictments would be abruptly abandoned. Barnes postulated that the most plausible outcome involves the Democrats nominating an alternative candidate, owing to the grave concerns surrounding President Biden's health. The dread of his well-being faltering during the campaign, thereby unwittingly ceding victory to Trump, or the prospect of Vice President Harris assuming the mantle of the presidency, both present intolerable choices.
Thus, in these peculiar circumstances, Biden may relinquish his position to someone like Newson, perhaps enticed by the assurance of receiving a pardon from future prosecution. This maneuver would effectively render Trump's further prosecution untenable even for the Democrats. Consequently, the indictments serve no purpose beyond their endeavor to derail Trump's pursuit of the GOP Presidential nomination.
One has to marvel at the media's prowess— to successfully ring the same Pavlovian Bell for a span of seven years. It's an unwaveringly consistent collective outcry, replete with breathless exclamations, uncontrolled spittle, and a voracious yearning for Trump's imminent demise.
Such too is the allure of predicting Armageddon or any calamitous event—regardless of how frequently one's predictions falter, the tantalising prospect, the fervent hope, of being proven right tomorrow never wanes. Yes, this time, Wild Coyote has finally caught the Roadrunner! ...beep beep...
There is an interesting aspect. Bobby Sands was a member of the IRA who died in prison on hunger strike while an elected member of the British parliament. I cannot help feeling that such an event as the election of a known criminal can only be understood as a democratic indictment of the democratic system itself. One has arrived at the borderline between normal politics and civil war. The winners of a civil war don't need to pardon themselves, because they are the lawmakers. It is the losers that need pardons.
Trump represents a constituency in rebellion against the government and the government needs to reach an agreement with that constituency one way or another. "Remember Bobby Sands!" became a slogan, and I always have. When a criminal gets elected, it is no good blaming the criminal. Something bigger than any individual is very wrong.
But imagine that you're one of of Trump's
supporters. You really believe Trump has been unfairly targeted by authorities to keep him from fulfilling his Godly mission.
From a certain point of view, it's just a big movie screen we're projecting our myths upon, as we've done generation after generation. An epic saga is partly history, partly religion, partly a justification of the power structure, and partly entertainment.
You just have to allow yourself to be enchanted.
As an aside, Sands is an interesting case because he died protesting the re-categorization of IRA members such as himself as criminals rather than de-facto prisoners of war. So his epistemic status was in dispute. The British "knew" he was a criminal because they decided to know that, whereas he and his supporters "knew" he wasn't because they decided not to recognize that decision.
I tend to agree with Plato...democracy is the best system for a tyrannical state, but the worst system for a just state. Whatever the case, Nietzsche was right in calling democracy a slave morality.
I don't let my diagnosis define me.
Whilst, Julian Assange lies in Prison because he revealed crimes committed by our Democracies, every elected Representative is an accomplice to this crime. The whole electorate, acquiescent, robotic and morally reprehensible.
.
The criticism of democracy in light of the Trump example is not that democracy is a slave morality but it's that it allowed its leader to abide by a master morality and be above the law.
That is, N opposed democracy not because he thought the general public too stupid to select competent representation, but because he thought it crushed the uberman's quest for dominance by imposing the rules of the slaves upon the masters.
Trump might be seen by N as an uberman, so much a master that he was able to live by a master morality despite specific democratic structures that were designed to make sure he was not treated as above the common man.
I think Trump would be seen by Nietzsche as an exemplar of the last man. The uberman is first and foremost not a matter of dominance over others but of self-dominance, self-mastery, self-overcoming. The uberman is a higher man, a superior man, a man of a higher order. The creator of new higher values not someone who disregards values.
:100: :fire:
Doesnt that show that its the people, not Trump? It tracks for Trump to merely be a mouthpiece for the real enemy, the cynical exploiter. Maybe its the movement thats revered, not Graham or Trump?
Yes, if anyone shows even a modicum of intelligence and/or compassion, except for the "plight" of white people, they become persona non grata.
In that case guess he has good chances with the hard-core Republicas, I guess.
As a Democrat, what I'm hoping for from the Republican candidate is (1) who will do the least harm and (2) who will respect the Constitution the most.
Hell, at this point it would be an improvement to have a republican president commit to a peaceful transfer of power, and then honour that commitment.
Peaceful transfers are for losers.
[quote= Enoch Powell]All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.[/quote].
It's true. William the Conqueror died as a result of an injury to his groin caused by the horn on his saddle as he was proceeding out to squash someone. He should have allowed a peaceful transfer of power.
I wonder if it is anything very different to what happens in science? There is a current theory that is accepted, and as anomalies start to appear, ad hoc additions are made to explain them - 'dark matter', 'dark energy' for examples, and it seems a bit uncomfortable to some but what can you do, until eventually someone will come up with a new theory that does not need these arbitrary additions to make it work, and then it is easier to change one's mind, but some are still reluctant..
Conspiracy and deep state are like dark matter, and dark energy - ad hoc additions to save a theory in trouble. In this case the theory is that Trump is going to make America great again - just as soon as he's dealt with the pesky deep state, etc.
I have a radical new theory that dispenses with the need for conspiracies — That America never was that great, at least in terms of giving opportunities to the poor, or freedom or democracy or morality; rather a few people made a lot of money from slavery and exploitation at the expense of a great many people's hardship and misery. And those days never ended, but continue unabated. I don't think it'll catch on though.
Another example of what I'm talking about is how Mike Pence has to tell people over and over again that he didn't have the power to overturn the election. But Trump said he did, so people believe it. They believe it even though it has been explained over and over again that the VP doesn't have the power to do this.
I'm sure Pence is right in law; but he could have done it anyway. People do break the law sometimes. Trump clearly feels the function of the law is to be on his side, and he wanted the result overturned.
But I'm not saying science is the same as politics, but that psychologically the same resistance to change operates. This is not an original observation on my part.
[quote=?Max Planck]An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.[/quote]
There was a moral panic when Trump showed up on the scene. He was the next big dictator, compared to everyone from Mussolini, to Mugabe, to Mao. He was the harbinger of a new fascism. He was a Manchurian candidate. He was going to start world war 3 and throw us into nuclear holocaust.
None of this would turn out to be true, but the reality warp you speak of was so severe and traumatizing for some that it has had its immediate effects in reality. There was a spate of fake hate crimes, for example, most notably the case of Jussie Smollette, where people tried to exploit the moral panic for their own gain. It worked, however briefly, because some people refuse to come to their senses.
I remember when over 50 democrats refused to attend Trump’s inauguration, with people like John Lewis calling him illegitimate because something something Russia. That was unprecedented, but there was no psychoanalysis of his supporters. It was all above board. Or when mass worldwide protests occurred during Trump’s inauguration, even right outside of it, to the point where supporters were told by police not to wear their hats for fear of a beat down. In retrospect I’m glad Trump didn’t do what Biden did, which was ban the public from attending and use the US military to enforce a perimeter, because that’s what fascism is.
Questioning the results of a rigged election is small potatoes to the greatest feat of election denialism ever, which was the proliferation of the Russia hoax. This conspiracy theory reached the highest levels of the establishment and the US government. They spied on an American political campaign and obstructed the winner throughout most of his term. This reality warp you speak of is still persisting.
That's what you hoped he would be because you wanted him to wreck the system. The system abides.
I knew they were wrong from the get go. But you believed it.
So you were pessimistic. You knew January 6th wouldn't accomplish anything. And it didn't.
I think it did come true in the sense of Trump trying to stay in power illegitimately. That is what would-be dictators do and it is very scary. It was disturbing when even before the election Trump was undermining the validity of mail in voting -- even though he himself had used mail in voting. It was disturbing how even before the election he claimed the only way he could lose if it was rigged. And then, on election night, surprise, surprise, he claimed he did win even though we all knew all the votes hadn't been counted yet. And then after that, he tried a multi-pronged attempt to retain power. He filed lawsuits. He pressured the DoJ to say the election was corrupt. He conspired with Republican members of Congress and others in the "Green Bay Sweep" plan involving fake electors and returning real electors to Republican-controlled state legislatures. He pressured local election officials in swing states like Georgia to "find more votes." He pressured Mike Pence to not certify the election results. And on January 6th, he unleased a mob onto the Capitol in an attempt to intimidate Mike Pence and Congress on the day they were supposed to be certifying a new president.
Maybe in that reality warp you speak of such an act is disturbing, but if beneath the noses of American voters shadowy and conspiratorial groups with vast sums of dark money were changing how elections fundamentally operate, contesting it was the right thing to do.
I’m not sure the lawsuits were a good idea because everything they did to alter how elections were ran was done legally at the legislative level, with the collusion of those in power. The people should have contested the election en masse but the propaganda was by then too thick.
By rigging elections legally I am guessing you are not talking about gerrymandering. We know that happens.
One big tip off that claiming "the election was stolen" was a strategy and not an actual belief is how Trump declared victory on election night when we all knew all the votes couldn't possibly have been counted yet. Also, he foreshadowed doing this for months ahead of time. You can't know election results are illegitimate before the election has occurred. Yet Trump claimed that the only way he could lose was if the election was stolen. How could he possibly know that? He couldn't. It wasn't a belief, it was a strategy.
Anyone with a brain cell knew Trump would claim the election was stolen if he lost. He would have done so in 2016. He did so in Iowa that year when Cruz won the caucus. It was foregone.
He’s been lying about a stolen election for years, and the reality is that he tried his best to steal it himself. The Georgia “perfect call” is a good taste, not to mention what he did to Pence. To say nothing of deliberately inciting an insurrection, using his followers to throw a tantrum for him.
Quoting GRWelsh
Oh I’m sure they’ll come up with something — like the fact that during a pandemic, mail-in voting (which has been around for decades) was expanded. In 2016 it would have been that buses of immigrants were given the right to vote in California, etc. etc. In other words: when we lose, it’s rigged by the deep state (despite plenty of split voting), because there’s no way Trump is hated by so many Americans — and when we win, nothing to see. We will in fact rail against the Russia narrative, which at least was based in reality and was shown to be true, despite the fact that the interference did not swing the election to Trump.
Years later, they sound exactly like what they accused the Democrats of sounding like. It’s hilarious.
[sup]— Preston Padden, Ken Solomon, Bill Reyner · Jul 12, 2023[/sup]
Reported elsewhere ...
Ex-Fox Execs Are Now Appalled By 'Disinformation Machine' They Helped Create
[sup]— Ed Mazza · HuffPost · Jul 13, 2023[/sup]
Former Fox executives express ‘deep disappointment’ for helping build ‘disinformation machine’
[sup]— Lauren Sforza · The Hill · Jul 13, 2023[/sup]
The "machine" and Dump share a category or something.
I don't think the presidential pardon power should extend to oneself. For a president to even ask if he theoretically has this power is, in my opinion, unethical. It implies that as president one could intentionally and knowingly commit crimes and then afterward pardon himself allowing a never-ending cycle of illegal activity that can never be prosecuted. It would be legal invulnerability by taking advantage of a loophole. Constitutional scholars, the courts and Congress should close this loophole. It shouldn't be possible for a president, governor or any elected or appointed official in the USA to pardon themselves.
I can't believe we are at a point in America's history when we are even talking about this.
:up:
Many of us thought that the idea of Trump getting elected in the first place was absurd. There must be magic wand out there somewhere.
Short of a bullet to his skull, the efforts to remove and keep the boxing promoter from power have not been constrained by any norms of morality. As a result, the already hollowed out shell of US democracy circa 2016, is so damaged today that even the performative constitutional rituals are beyond its ability.
If would be one thing If the wild animus were directed solely at just his one odd man. The hate is not really for him it is towards that sizeable portion of the electorate that persistently supports him and will not be budge.
The mutual contempt between those that hate this man and for those who support him is not reconcilable.
I'd say Georgia is more important. If Trump wins the next election then he's obviously going to pardon himself. Or if another Republican wins then they might pardon him.
Meanwhile, Biden is trying to jail his political opponents. ¯\_(?)_/¯
MAGA is losing the culture wars at all levels. Despite being overwhelmingly Christian, MAGA is very much "of the world" and obsessed with their idealized 1950's view of when America was "great". They're so emotionally invested in this, they can't think straight and let a man like Trump become their champion.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/special-counsels-target-letter-trump-2020-election-probe-cites-three-f-rcna95096
I thought it was a good move. If you alienate someone from the world stage, as Biden likes to do, you eliminate any room for negotiations or improvement. The result is war.
What evidence is there to support this claim?
Biden appointed Garland, and later on Garland appointed Jack Smith, but that doesn't equate with "Biden is trying to jail his political opponents." The way it is supposed to work is that the President appoints the Attorney General who is then allowed to act independently. You can be skeptical of that... Sure. But unless you have evidence that Biden directed Garland to go after Trump or anyone else specifically for political reasons, I don't see how you can support your claim that "Biden is trying to jail his political opponents."
To me it looks like Biden has remained independent and aloof and has stayed appropriately quiet about the whole process. No one is above the law, and Trump brought all of these legal troubles on himself through his own arrogance and ignorance. The idea that Trump should be given endless free passes simply because he once was the President seems wrongheaded and unjustifiable... Unless you want to create a caste system where justice works differently for those at a certain level.
I think there is plenty of evidence that Trump has been given preferential treatment by not being in jail already. If it was anybody else handling the classified documents the way he did and refusing to give them back and obstructing that investigation, they would be in prison.
He should have been hung for treason years ago.
:100: :up:
Quoting Michael
Do you really think that’s even conceivable? He’s only ever won one election, every election since has been on a downward trajectory. As is well known, his influence cost the Republican Party dearly at the MidTerms. There’s a hard core of support who will never waver but the swing vote, surely, will not favour him. Even if he is the eventual candidate, which is unlikely in the extreme, in my view.
Who is this MAGA, what are these Culture wars, and this Christian 1950s view of the world. All of this resembles a theatrical pastiche that defies a rational definition. What we have is two sizeable proportions of the electorate in opposition holding increasingly juvenile, antagonistic and irreconcilable views.
Only in this schoolyard scrap the faculty have decided to cheer it on. They've opened a book on the result. There is a daily newsletter detailing every blow.
The saddest part to all of this is observing so many people ,for whom I've held the highest esteem, abandon their intellectual honesty, ethical mores, and personal dignity to star-jump into this sewer.
If these last few strange years have proven anything at all, it is that belonging to a group is no less primal than our need for food, shelter and procreation. Perhaps, the best proof of our physical evolution is just this raw herd survival instinct.
For the plutocrats America was great before Roosevelt and the New Deal.
Also, never underestimate a Democrat's ability to fumble the ball right before crossing the finish line.
It’s Biden’s DOJ. The attorney general reports directly to the president. The attorney general is on Biden’s cabinet, and advises Biden. His DOJ is currently indicting his political opponent in more than one frivolous case. It’s the same DOJ that allegedly slow-walked, obstructed, and ignored IRS investigations into Biden’s criminal son. As a result, Biden’s son won’t have to pay taxes on more than $400,000 in unreported Ukrainian income for the years Biden was vice president. A slow-walk, a plea deal; they resolved what should have been a federal criminal case at the same time the charges were filed in court. Imagine if that was anyone else.
Biden has been a lying, partisan, career politician for half a century. Hell, he’s been holding on to classified documents from the 70s with zero repercussions.
That being said, I think Biden is only a sock puppet in all this. He is not running the country.
True, but it’s so fun to watch! So let’s not spell out the stupidity too much.
They’re all plutocratic criminals that get special treatment. That being said, Trump is in a league of his own.
Yes, the league of "too stupid not to get caught".
Unfortunately you can only push that stuff aside and avoid the argument for so long because even the appearance of any conflict of interest puts the whole system itself into doubt, which is the very reason many people don't trust any of these allegations. If you don't care that the justice system is two-tiered, just say it, move on, and continue to nod your head with whatever Biden's justice department tells you is the case.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pardons-idUSKBN29C2Y6
I can't think of a bigger red flag that a president or presidential candidate is corrupt than for him to entertain the possibility of pardoning himself. No one should have this power.
Those who favor autocratic rule would have us believe that the DOJ does not and should not act independently.
Trump is quite transparent in his intention to put the unitary executive theory into practice. Agencies like the DOJ would not longer be able to act independently. All would be under his control, demonstrate their loyalty to him, and have as their purpose to do his bidding.
Trumpsters would have us believe that there is nothing radical or dangerous about this. That it is established practice. Hence, "Biden's DOJ". They are playing both sides, claiming special treatment for Hunter Biden while supporting Trump's attempt to establish a unitary executive.
Of course if Trump loses to a Democrat then there would be a 180 degree turn around and Trumpsters would accuse Democratic leaders of wrong doing by doing the very thing that Trump has set out to do.
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-elections-donald-trump-campaigns-presidential-4e7e68e2ff57aadd96d09c873a43a317
In my opinion, the gov't branch that appoints the Attorney General shouldn't have the power to fire him. So, if the Executive branch has the power to appoint the AG, it should either be the Legislative or Judicial branch that has the power to remove the AG. That would help the AG and DoJ to act more independently.
I thought it was pretty telling that "Trump's AG" Bill Barr said there wasn't any evidence of widespread election fraud. Very shortly after that, he resigned.
It’s fairly obvious this is one big reason. Trump is easy to predict.
That’s just about 100% certain, yes.
Well 538 has him running ahead in the primary polls and primaries pull the most rabid voters.
Don't be coy, please expound for us these other, ahem, factors.
That "argument" is a political allegation unsupported by evidence. The irony is that there was abundant evidence of Trump's efforts to influence the DOJ. It's as if Trumpists think that was normal, and thus assume Biden is following suit.
'Six weeks after he was indicted in Miami on 37 charges relating to sensitive documents taken from the White House after he left office, Trump has been hit with an additional charge of “wilful retention” of national defence information and two new obstruction charges.
The additional charges form part of a “superseding indictment” that was returned by a grand jury in Florida.
As part of the latest indictment, a third person, Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos de Oliveira, was also charged in addition to Trump and his valet, Walt Nauta.'
Do you think the DOJ is an independent agency of the US government?
He's the frontrunner. He'll be there. There's a good chance he'll be the next president.
Zero chance, I say. Let's revisit later, because it won't become clear for a few months. But he's only ever won one election, every one since has been on a downward trajectory and he hasn't done anything to convince anyone other than his fanatics that he's worth voting for. He would be on a loosing trajectory even without having to juggle multiple federal and state lawsuits.
He's the frontrunner, so he'll probably be up against Biden. So his chances are about 50%. That's how close presidential elections are here.
Quoting Quixodian
He's the frontrunner, so he's not on a losing trajectory. He has a good chance of beating Biden.
In the polls. But as I said above, there are many, many other factors in play in this case.
Like the law suits? That won't stop him.
:rofl: What a weird thing to say.
[quote=A Republican nightmare seems about to become real; https://wapo.st/3OyPDTw] even without the legal baggage, Trump would face an uphill climb to match his 2016 results. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and documentary filmmaker Mac Heller recently wrote for The Post that “between Trump’s election in 2016 and the 2024 election, the number of Gen Z (born between the late 1990s and early 2010s) voters will have advanced by a net 52 million against older people.” Put differently, the 2024 electorate will be younger and more Democratic — by a lot — than the electorate that chose Trump in 2016. The GOP will be pleading with a less Trump-friendly electorate to ignore his alleged crime spree and re-elect the Jan. 6 instigator.
If it seems fantastical, even unimaginable, that a party would put itself in such a position, remember this is a party that obsesses over Hunter Biden, elevates to prominence Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and still won’t admit that Joe Biden won the White House in 2020. Maybe it’s time to acknowledge that, barring an epiphany, the GOP’s self-delusion is risking a political wipeout that will take out more than its disastrous nominee. And it won’t be able to claim it wasn’t warned.[/quote]
I have a subscription to the WaPo. A couple of things that editorial doesn't mention: yes, gen-z'ers are coming of age to vote. The problem is: they won't. Young people don't vote in numbers that compare to older voters. This was discussed back when Trump was originally elected with regard to millennials.
The other thing that writer doesn't seem to notice is how much power Trump still has, after everything that's happened. It's not that all Republicans are crazy. It's that the crazy ones have all the power right now.
There's nothing controversial about any of this. If people who don't want Trump don't get out and vote, he'll have a second term
I agree, but I hope and believe that they are going to end up loosing. They are alienating millions of mainstream voters with their extremist ideology and conspiracy theories. They did poorly in Nov 22 and I think they’re going to do even worse next year.
I hope so. We'll see.
I didn’t like when he said he was going to ban certain vaping products. Have you ever applauded him here?
No. But as I said, there's no evidence the DOJ is being influenced by Biden as Republicans allege.
Such a hypocrite.
I don't agree. The plea deal that fell apart was a sweetheart deal. It looks bad.
What's the evidence Joe Biden had anything to do with it?
No evidence, except it's his son and his son is getting preferential treatment from the justice department. It looks bad.
Quoting praxis
Barr resigned before he was fired (although he might well have been fired had he not resigned).
And there are two whistleblowers who stated under oath that there was.
"IRS supervisory special agent Greg Shapley, and a second agent, Joe Ziegler, claimed there was what Shapley called in testimony a pattern of “slow-walking investigative steps” into Hunter Biden, including during the Trump administration in the months before the 2020 election that Joe Biden won."
https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-irs-justice-department-congress-republicans-32d9f33fb0d05c483d76926504d45bef
Also:
“I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,” according to testimony the whistleblower gave to Congress, which quotes from texts that are allegedly from Hunter Biden to the CEO of a Chinese fund management company.
The message continues: “Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand. And now means tonight.” The message goes onto say, “I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/28/politics/hunter-biden-joe-biden-2017-text-message/index.html
Is it truly a sweatheart deal? It's hard to find objective analysis. GOP still claims Hillary should have been indicted, although the evidence shows she was treated the same as others.
You referenced the whistleblowers:
Quoting RogueAI
And yet, David Weiss disputes their claims. They could be giving their honest perceptions, but may not have an accurate understanding.
The alleged quote from Hunter claiming to be sitting next to his dad may, or may not, be accurate (Hunter's lawyers have denied it). But assuming Hunter actually said it, it only implicates Joe if Hunter was telling the truth (which is questionable). Finally, it has nothing to do with the plea deal, but it is something that needs to be investigated.
And furthermore….
"NBC News hasn’t corroborated this reporting, but Lowell’s confirmation, as reported by Business Insider, that Biden knew some of his buyers is, in and of itself, alarming. It raises the possibility that buyers could use his art as a way to buy political influence or favors through his connections to the president."
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/hunter-biden-art-sales-democrat-donor-identity-rcna96411
This constant drip drip of shady activities is making it harder for Democrats to draw a contrast to Trump's rampant corruption.
Hunter Biden's activities are an embarrasment for Biden, no question about that. The right-wing activitists in the Republican Party are spending millions of dollars trying to rake up muck on Hunter Biden, purely and simply as revenge and whataboutism. Many of their alleged witnesses can't be located, and at least one is under international arrest warrant. Meanwhile let's not forget (even though everyone constantly appears to forget) the Jan 6th insurrection and commission, the attempts to pester election officials and workers into actually overthrowing election results, the stealing and mistreatment of highly classified nuclear warfare secrets, and the other litany of lies and cheating, as opposed to the possibly nefarious activities of a wayward and troublesome son. Mountains and molehills.
Most Republican voters are in denial about Trump's crimes - there's no other explanation for his current polling. More indictments won't change that. I think Will Hurd is right that Trump is running to stay out of prison, so the number of indictments won't matter.
Although he'd have no formal power to call off the State indictments, he'd have an excuse to get the trial postponed while he's in office - and meanwhile, pressure the state to drop the charges.
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding
Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding
Conspiracy Against Rights
Quoting 180 Proof
2.1 Miami, Federal Superceding Indictment (1), 27Jul23 :up:
+3 felony charges (+1 Espionage (32), +2 Obstruction), etc
+ new exhibit – "Iran war plan" documents (audio, July 2021)
*
3. Washington, DC, Federal indictment
1Aug23 :up:
re: 4 counts
[i]• Conspiracy to Defraud the U.S.;
• Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding;
• Obstruction of and attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding;
• Conspiracy Against Rights[/i]
1Aug23 Federal Indictment unsealed ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/01/trump-indictment-full-text-2020-election-jan-6
[quote=Joe Biden]
“Today’s indictment serves as an important reminder: Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,”
[/quote]
[hide]
Oops—wait, that was Mike Pence.
[/hide]
How Trump can even be considered a Presidential candidate beggars belief.
It's kind of pathetic. You hate us but you can't shake your obsession. Let's drop the big one now. We'll save Australia - wouldn't want to hurt no kangaroos.
More fake indictments. What's next, more fake court proceedings? Then more fake legal expenses for Trump?
Don't be so selfish Clarky. Learn to share.
There are also 6 co-conspirators involved:
Nattering nabob of nitpicking grammarians here... The sons of bitches should leave the US politics to us Americans. "Us" is the object of the preposition "to". "We Americans never interfere in other counties' affairs" (cough, cough). We Americans is the subject of the sentence.
Interesting.
Thanks BC. I learned a new lesson on English grammar this morning, while I am taking my breakfast. :up:
It just seems to me feriners could find something closer to home to be obsessed with, like the endangered Tasmanian devil or the price of bilibongs.
I asked myself that question while I was writing the post. I think you're wrong. "We" is not the object of the prepositions, "Americans" is.
And I have three Scottish nieces. I'm interested in politics in the UK and I pay attention a bit, but it's not an obsession. You guys seem to care more about US politics than I do, and I'm actually responsible for it.
Anyway, I don't expect you guys to change. I was just venting and rabble-rousing. You and your cohort being the rabble I was trying to rouse.
What's the basis of your judgement that the DOJ indictments are "fake"?
On a related note, have you read the indictments?
Note my correction of @BC.
Quoting Changeling
You use subjective pronouns, e.g. "we", as the subject of a verb. You use objective pronouns, e.g. "us," as the object of a verb or in a prepositional phrase. As I noted, "we" in my usage is not the object of the preposition. I looked on the web and got different answers, but I think I remember Stephen Pinker saying that either word would be appropriate in this particular usage.
I have no problem with non-Americans finding fault with American policies and international actions, but it makes you look like a bunch of chooches when you obsess about the intricacies of our internal politics. You should just worry about the fluffernutters or whoever it is that rules the Netherlands. And what kind of a name is that for a country, anyway?
Actually... I've been to Europe twice, and both times the Netherlands were my favorite place. I think that's at least partly because I'm an engineer and it's a country of engineers.
If you'll check my post, you'll see I didn't demand anything. And I have no issue with non-Americans taking an interest in our politics. It's the obsession that is so unbecoming.
What does this mean? That he didn’t commit the crimes he’s been indicted for or that the criminal statutes cited in the indictment don’t exist?
I see. You consider “Americans” as the object of the preposition. This is more interesting for me than Trump himself, and I want to know what @BC thinks about your answer, but I do not want to get off topic and I am aware that this is not the correct thread to discuss these things.
Hey Clarky, thanks for teaching me lessons on English grammar. I appreciate it.
On behalf of Spain and Charles V, I am sorry @Benkei for this.
That's King Flutternutter to you.
The Ancient Order of English Majors endorses grammar discussions in any thread on any topic. One must exploit the teachable moment.
Quoting T Clark
I wondered about that as well. I agree that you are correct in claiming "Americans" as the object of the preposition "to"; but unavoidably, so is the attached pronoun.
Let us examine the sentence
"I wish you fucking foreigners would leave the US politics to we Americans."
"I" is the subject of the sentence, "wish" is the verb. The dependent clause "you fucking foreigners would leave the US politics to we Americans" is the object of the verb "wish". "Americans" is an object of a preposition, but so is the pronoun you used with "Americans". The pronouns "we" or "us" emphasizes that the speaker is part of the collective noun "Americans" and not a third party,
Thank you for the clarification.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say whatever kind of crazy-ass thing you want.
I will keep in mind this principle and try to improve my grammar skills!
They knowingly made false accusations that Trump knowingly made false claims.
More or less what I do in this thread. Plus expressing a sense of exasperation and bafflement.
Actually this is almost correct - at least from Trump's perspective. Of course things can and will likely change as events take place, but for the moment it looks like Trump's defense is going to be that he "unknowingly made false statements" - i.e. that he was given bad advice. In other words he will put the blame on his advisors. Hence the unindicted co-conspirators.
But you don't have to take my word for this: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pence-trump-indictment/story?id=101953368
There's no basis for claiming Smith "knowingly made a false allegation. You obviously didn't read the indictment. Here's a bit of the evidence Smith presents:
A number of sources told Trump there had been no outcome determinative fraud:
-His campaign hired the Berkely Group Simpatico Software Systems to investigate, and both concluded there was no widespread fraud.
-Bill Barr told him there was no fraud (subsequently, Barr resigned)
-Chris Krebs, head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) told him there was no fraud. Trump fired him.
-White House Counsel advised him there was no fraud.
-Various State Officials told him there was no fraud in their states (e.g. Rusty Bowers in Arizona, Raffensberger in Georgia, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey).
-Mark Meadows told Trump he’d observed the efforts of Georgia officials were “conducting themselves in an exemplary fashion”…who would find fraud if it existed. Within hours, Trump tweeted that the election officials were “terrible people” who were trying to cover-up evidence of fraud. Another lie to support his false narrative. (As Jack Smith says, lying is not a crime, per se. But perpetuating a fraud by lying IS a crime).
-Deputy AG Richard Donoghue and acting AG Jeffrey Rosen refuted every allegation Trump asked them about. Despite their clearly stated position, Trump asked them to to lie (weaponizing the DOJ): “say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congress”. Trump tried to replace Rosen with a co-conspirator who WOULD support his false claim, but backed down over threats of widespread resignations.
In his famously recorded call to Georgia officials on Jan 2, Trump brought up a variety of fraud allegations (e.g. the State Farm Arena claim about suitcases of ballots appearing from nowhere, out of state voters, dead voters, destruction of ballots). The Georgia Secretary of State explained that each of them had been thoroughly investigated and the claims were false. Regarding the State Farm Arena allegation, the Secretary offered to send Trump a full video showing the alleged suitcases of ballots were innocent. Trump declined, and the very next day, he issued a statement falsely stating the Georgia Secretary of State had not addressed his allegations, and that the Secretary of State had been unwilling or unable to answer questions such as “the ‘ballots under the table’, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters and more”. Trump lied about what had been said, and clearly was not interested in examining the refutation of the “ballots under the table” claim.
In a meeting on Jan 5, Pence told Trump he did not have the power to obstruct the election certification. That evening, Trump released the false statement “The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.
So the evidence shows Trump told multiple self-serving lies, disregarded evidence, attempted to weaponize the DOJ by trying to get the AG and Deputy AG to lie. This demonstrates a corrupt state of mind and a blatant disregard for the truth. There’s also 2 bits of direct evidence Trump knew he lost:
1. In a Jan 3 meeting with General Milley, Trump said, "it's too late for us" and "we're going to give that to the next guy."
2. While watching Biden on TV in mid-November, Trump said to White House Aide Alyssa Farah, “can you believe I lost to this effing guy”?
All this adds up to evidence Trump knew he lost, so you’re absolutely wrong to claim the Special Counsel lied about this. Of course, you could deny this evidence proves his knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. But what’s the explanation for dismissing the analyses of so many, in favor of people like Sydney Powell (who Trump referred to as “sounding crazy”)? Any defense he might use cannot reflect positively on him.
.
I don’t care if God himself told him the election was legit. You, like Smith, are trying to read Trump’s mind. You in fact do not know that he knowingly made false claims. You know you don’t know because you in fact cannot read minds. You’re guessing, making it up, or being told what to believe, and I’m not sure which is worse.
Every statement and action he has made during and since that election says that he believes the election was a sham. You haven’t quoted him saying otherwise; you have not provided the results of a lie detector test; nothing.
Now we’re on the road to criminalizing political speech because a man dared to doubt the results of an election.
Not only that but they’ll have to prove the statements were false. Maybe we’ll finally get some thorough and unbiased investigations into the matter.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.92.0_1.pdf
That will be trivially easy. The election was legit. His own people told him that - Pence, Barr, Wray, Krebs, etc, etc. They will testify as such in court. And there are 1000s of election officials all across the country who have stated that the election was fair - I'm sure they would be willing to testify if called upon.
It's now been over 2 & 1/2 years and yet there is no evidence of any fraud that would have altered the outcome. All Trump's lawyers have is just hand waving.
But if you have any evidence of a specific person or persons who committed a specific illegal act that would have altered the outcome of the election then you should pass this information to Trump's legal team.
Trump's only hope is to delay and hope that he (or a sympathetic Republican) wins in 2024.
And dozens of court cases, where the lawyers were laughed out of court. Also, look no further than Arizona -- where the Arizona senate-commissioned "Cyber Ninjas" conducted their 9 million dollar "audit" and found ugatz: https://www.americanoversight.org/records-reveal-high-cost-of-security-contractors-for-arizona-election-audit
Trump was saying the election was going to be stolen if he lost long before the election, and so any thinking person knew he was going to say it was stolen if he lost. I was calling it long beforehand -- as anyone would. It wasn't going to matter if it was the cleanest election in history -- which it turned out to be -- or if there were massive glitches.
(We knew, for example, that mail-in votes, which are counted later, would swing democratic because Trump was screaming about voter fraud and telling his followers to go in person. So his numbers spiked at the beginning, and gradually tapered off...which was expected--again-- by anyone with a thinking mind. He seized on this, of course, pretended he didn't know it, and made out like the election was someone being stolen from him.)
What's sad about all this is that we even have to talk about the predictable tantrum-ramblings of a man-child. It's so very obvious it's all bullshit -- it didn't need to go to the courts, or have million-dollar audits, or anything else. It was all fabricated, predictably, by a man who psychologically cannot lose. In his mind, he cannot be a loser. What did we think he would do, concede graciously?
If our country was rational, a person like this would be relegated to the fringes of society, easily ignored. But we have to go on about it because 30% of the country actually believes this stuff. Sad indeed.
Prosecution doesn't require the certainty of mind-reading, it merely requires establishing corrupt intent based on evidence. I presented some of the evidence, and you ignored it - labeling all of it "political speech". Perpetrating a fraud is not protected political speech. Asking the acting AG (who clearly knew the election wasn't stolen) to lie entails fraud. If Trump truly believed the election was stolen, it reflects a truly reckless disregard for the truth. The 2 counts of conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding do not depend on Trump's knowing there was no fraud. By Jan 6, there was no legal recourse even if there actually had been fraud.
Oh, look! Here's something in a foreign country, right next door, that we can obsess about: Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau are separating after 18 years of marriage. What effect will this have on Canadian-Australian relations? Did King Charles have anything to do with this? Were one or both of the Trudeaus untrue to the other? How will this affect the war in Ukraine? Will the firefighters in BC and Quebec be less efficient with a DIVORCED Prime Minister at the helm? Will Justin resign? How will this affect the trade balance between the US and Canada? Will global heating get worse with the first family of the frosty north breaking up?
Yes, I share your concern.
I do have to wonder how you think a criminal trial works. According to you, the only way to convict someone would be to get a confession.
Judges "read minds" every day.
Trump supporter defense. Airtight.
A former, 30 year veteran, Federal Prosecutor reads the latest indictment of Seditionist-Traitor1...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/826109
[quote=The Atlantic] Trump remains the party’s central figure. Each time GOP voters and leaders have had the opportunity to move away from him—whether in the shock immediately after January 6, or the widespread disappointment over the poor performance of his handpicked candidates during the 2022 election—the party has sped past the off-ramp. ...
Polls now show Trump leading in the 2024 GOP presidential race by one of the biggest margins ever recorded for a primary candidate in either party. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives has been exploring ways to expunge his two impeachments and/or block the investigations he faces. Even the other candidates ostensibly running against him for the 2024 GOP nomination have almost uniformly condemned the indictments against him, rather than his underlying behavior. Prominent conservatives have argued that Trump cannot receive a fair trial in any Democratic-leaning jurisdiction. ...
All of these actions measure how much of the GOP is now willing to accept Trump’s repeated assaults on the basic structures of American democracy. [/quote]
We can only hope that these conspiracists are resoundingly beaten at the next election. The legal system is holding up its end, now it's up to the electorate.
You do not know that Relativist does not know that Trump knowingly made false claims. You know you don't know because you in fact cannot read minds.
I respect American citizens though. We should not mix up politics/politicians/bureaucracy with the country and its people. I would be mad if someone disrespects "Spanish things" because of the incompetence of our politicians and the 2017 Catalonia conflict. I think one thing is not linked to the other.
Imagine if I been told, "hey do not visit London or Glasgow because of Brexit"
This sounds stupid as hell, right?
Both London and Glasgow voted against Brexit, so yes the logic of not visiting Glasgow or London for that reason, would be a bit logically skewed. However, I think it is absolutely correct, that Brexit has severely damaged Britain, particularly on the European stage. I think most European progressives now see Britain (probably England in particular) as a rather backwards and regressive place, that does not deserve their respect or patronage.
As you suggest, it is wrong and illogical, to tar an entire nation of people with the same brush, but all nations have a global image, based on their historicity compared against their current political and social trajectory.
I always considered the American people, to be, in general, in the final analysis, 'progressive.'
I currently consider American society, regressive.
Is the current circus in America a schism or was my younger view of 'all things American,' naive?
In contrast to @T Clark, I have two American nieces, but that whole family left America and now live in Scotland and they took that decision because of their conclusion that life in America had taken such a general downturn.
They would go back to America to visit but I think they would plan where to visit, based on such as:
From: The federalist papers.org
The state that loves Donald Trump the most is West Virginia, where 61 percent of the residents approve of the job he’s doing. In addition to West Virginia, there are four western states where Trump’s approval rating remains high: Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska; five southern states; Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas; and two midwestern states, both North and South Dakota.
I maintain my view that the whole Trump circus, has damaged the global image of America as a nation of rational thinkers, in ways that will endure for a long long time. I do think that in the future, the call of 'president Trump,' will be used as a hammer against any future attempt by any American group/government to politically guide, on a global platform.
The British and Spanish will forever pay for their legacy of colonialism.
All nations do have some sort of historicity that does not compliment or enhance their ability to be a role model for the human species, on the global stage, and that is fair imo.
I think Trump, and his movement is fast becoming one of the most destructive and corrosive forces against the image of 'all things American,' on the global stage and the longer the circus is allowed to continue, the more long term damage to American societal culture, as perceived by global observers, will occur. Those Americans who state they 'don't care' how the rest of the world perceives them, are fools indeed imo.
I totally agree with your post, but…
Quoting universeness
No. Trust me when I say that most people still see the UK (or just England) as a progressive economy and nation. Yes, Brexit was a mistake, but it doesn't imply that British society went backwards afterwards. There are other nations in this world that are worse than the UK, just see Latin America and Africa.
Quoting universeness
This is the point where I always disagree with you, but I respect your opinion. Whether the Spanish and British should "pay" for whatever is not a problem/issue of modern societies. There are worse things to debate about and find some solutions. For example, Climate change and the civil war of Sudan.
This is mostly what the defense will amount to, but it won't hold up because the charges aren't about Trump doubting the election results or investigating the election or even challenging it in court. All of those things are fair game. But it is what he did subsequently to the results of the investigations and the court challenges that is relevant to this case. Trump refused to accept any evidence or conclusions that there was no widespread election fraud, and pushed forward to develop schemes to stay in power. If you were a reasonable conservative, a reasonable Republican, just a reasonable, thinking person, this is where you would finally have to break with Trump, no matter how much you liked his policies and achievements. This crosses the line from just having doubts or concerns to interfering with the peaceful transfer of power and damaging our democratic institutions, perhaps permanently. Lucky for us, it was mostly conservatives and Republicans who stood up to him and wouldn't go along with his schemes when he crossed this line. Otherwise, we'd be living in an authoritarian country with a president who remained in power by overturning the election results in his favor. Would you really want to live in that country?
Well, we simply disagree on that one. I never find the argument that there are 'worse' in existence, a valid reason for excusing bad and regressive national policy. The existence of a more intense wrong does not make the wrong you do any less wrong imo.
Quoting javi2541997
I equally respect your position. We would never progress in anything, if we all had identical viewpoints.
I don't suggest the British and Spanish 'should' pay for their colonial history, I am insisting they have been paying and they will always be paying for a long time yet. They/we, remain somewhat marred by much of their historical behaviour, as a culture. But as I said, all nations have such legacies, to a lesser or greater degree. From the vile Chin/Han, Spartan/Greek, Egyptian, Persian, Roman empires (to name but a few ancient examples) to the horrible Prussian, Ottoman, French, Spanish and British empires to the American treatment of the indigenous peoples of those lands, The German, Italian and Japanese shame of fascism., to the Russians under Stalin, Cambodia under Pol Pot etc, etc. To modern day horrors such as the Russians under Putin.
I know that many people have many positive things to say about each of the 'empires' or 'cultures' I have mentioned above. But, I hold the opinion that they were all net negative forces in the story of the progression of the human race towards 'my' concept of what I think humans can be. So, this is only my personal viewpoint, and only has any currency, for those who hold the same or similar opinion.
I hope the Trump horror in America does not result in anything like these historical backwards systems, as to a large extent, we still live in a global balance of power, within which, America is probably still, the most significant player. I hope that balance shifts soon and for ever.
I think it's very bad, if we still live in a world where if America sneezes, we can all catch the flu.
These are the actual laws he's alleged to have broken:
18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to defraud the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1512(k) - Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2) - Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding
18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
He's not being prosecuted for doubting the results of the election. He's being prosecuted for conspiring to overturn the results of the election.
To quote Bill Barr from here:
They’ve moved on without any self-reflection. They’ve fallen back on the “overturning the results of the election” canard. “Contesting the election” sounds too legal so another string of The Narrative is chosen in its place because by now people are so used to hearing it.
Are you saying that he didn't do these things or that these things aren't crimes?
No, I’m quite sure he and his lawyers tried to contest the election. I’m not sure he did so fraudulently. The claims that he did so knowingly and fraudulently are without evidence and therefor bullshit. Maybe some evidence will drop in the future but here is nothing.
What it’s doing is criminalizing Trump’s beliefs and his legal counsel, so now the first amendment is thrown under the bus.
They're not criminalising his beliefs and legal counsel. His conspiracy to use fraudulent electors is a crime:
Quoting NOS4A2
Some of the evidence is described in the indictment. For example:
The actual evidence itself will be presented at trial.
Your description of evidence shows Trump did nothing except ask for a statement.
Then everyone has to dissect whether or not there really are Moon People, whether the candidate “really” believes it, etc— and 50/60 million people end up believing it.
There’s just as much evidence for Moon People as there is for voter fraud or a stolen election.
All of these legal proceedings for the ramblings of a narcissistic man/child. It’s an incredible sight. And watching the supporters contort themselves into mental pretzels is astonishing.
You don’t have to quote all of it. Just one would suffice. The first one was a swing and a miss.
Contesting an election isn’t criminal. But criminalizing political speech is.
You are half right. Contesting an election isn’t criminal and while technically not a crime in of itself, criminalizing political speech is unconstitutional.
However, attempting to subvert/overthrow the results of an election is criminal. And his false claims of a "stolen election" were part of his scheme to subvert/overthrow the results of the 2020 election. That is what he's being charged with.
The best analogy I've heard so far is that these attempts to hide behind the 1st amendment are equivalent to a bank robber claiming that his instructions to have the teller hand over money are covered under the 1st amendment.
I don't think he will be able to delay the trial till after the election. He tried that in the documents case and it didn't work. On the other hand, if he is convicted, there will certainly be appeals that will go on for years. So, not matter what, I doubt he will be in jail on November 5, 2024.
I think you're right, and I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. As I kvetched earlier, the world's obsession with the US could use some whittling down, for your sake and ours.
I can imagine a better analogy with a relationship to the perpetrator's belief, not merely what he said in an operational sense. Consider someone who sells a medicine that is actually is a chemical that makes people sick. He is accused of fraud and tried in court. Evidence is presented that he was given data, repeatedly, demonstrating that the medicine didn't make people better but made them sick. Yet he kept selling it and advertising it as a medicinal cure. Those who worked for him and demonstrated this were fired or resigned. He sought out people to work for him who would tell him what he wanted to hear about how the medicine worked. Meanwhile, more and more people got sick from his medicine as he got wealthy from selling it. His defense in court is that he "really believed" it was medicine, and so he wasn't lying he was simply exercising his free speech by advertising what he believed was true.
The way you frame it sounds criminal, but the alternate electors scheme has precedent in the JFK/Nixon election of 1960. The judge there seemed to think them legitimate. Would you call that scheme criminal? An effort to overthrow/subvert an election?
It depends on the specific crime, but I think in common law legalese this would fall under 'knowledge' or 'recklessness', a category of crime just below 'intent' but above negligence. It is reckless to disregard the evidence presented and if any reasonable person should have known that the medicine would cause illness it may be 'knowledge', for some crimes a higher form of intent then recklessness. Common law doctrine on intent and on justifications and excuses is not very precise and not uniform unfortunately.
What if the jury finds him guilty based on evidence? Would that be enough to convince you that he did so fraudulently?
What the heck, man? You've already notified us that even if he really was guilty of a crime, you don't care because you don't believe in laws. So you're just trolling.
No. I am unable to pass off someone else’s judgement with my own, especially a Washington jury.
In the 1960 election JFK got 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. Hawaii at that time was worth 3 electoral votes. In the initial count of the popular votes in Hawaii Nixon was apparently the winner, but it was by a very slim margin and so there was a recount which revealed JFK barely won Hawaii. The entire Presidential election didn't hinge on the outcome of this recount. The alternate electoral votes in that context made sense, one could argue, for the sake of efficiency to have them prepared depending on how the recount went because it was so close. Personally, I would rather that it would be illegal for alternate electoral votes to be prepared on the basis of mere speculation, but apparently it isn't. I think the standard should be to not be able to prepare the certificates until one has the popular election results in support of them... but I digress. In any case the 1960 situation is disanalogous because it couldn't have affected the overall presidential election. In the 2020 election there were enough alternate electors -- 84 -- from enough swing states to potentially do that. Also, you have to look at it in the context of the overall scheming that was going on, such as Trump pressuring the DoJ to "just say the election was corrupt" and pressuring states to "find me more votes" and in particular the pressure on Pence to not certify the election results and return the legitimate electors to the state legislatures. I would say the exception to this would be the alternate electors from Pennsylvania and New Mexico who included the caveat that their votes would only be counted if ongoing court battles went in favor of Trump.
This shows just how deeply anti-democratic you are. It also shows a disregard for the legal system.
[Deleted]
Yep, I think the human race needs a new 'role model' of what we might consider a better civilisation to aspire to. A better way of living as a human community. There don't seem to be many historical or current suitable candidates. Perhaps we still need a lot of new thinking to imagineer one that might be palatable to a significant enough majority.
Juries can be wrong. How do wrongful convictions fit into your notion of democracy?
No kidding. Trump moans that 'this should never happen in America' - who can forget the hundreds of Trump rallies with the Lock Her Up chants and placards with pictures of Hillary Clinton in the lead up the 2016 election?
Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.
Comedy gold.
Good article - well written & researched. I'm not an expert in these matters but as a lay person it seems that your article is making a pretty convincing case that the "scheme" was most definitely not criminal and in no way was it an attempt to overthrow/subvert an election
I should also note that the argument "democrats did it 60 years ago" shouldn't be very persuasive. Maybe the democrats who did it 60 years ago were also fraudulent little pests. Or maybe there was some context there that made sense that's absent here.
For example, I'm not sure of the timing of everything but if those "fake electors" for Kennedy did what they did after knowing that the recounts were in Kennedy's favour, that might be a factor not present in the trump situation.
In any case, regardless of whether some people who are probably dead by now were trying to steal an election, we should judge what's happening here on its own merits. Why was the fake elector scheme devised? What was it's purpose? What were they hoping to achieve?
He loses in 2024 and he asks Kamala Harris to not certify the republican winner. He loses in 2024 and he calls the governor of some state and asks the governor to find him some more votes. He loses in 2024 so he and his team arrange the same sort of fake elector scheme. He loses in 2024 and then has a big speech talking to his supporters about stolen elections, trial by combat, marching to the capitol to show strength and so on, and his supporters then violently charge into the capitol.
What should happen to Biden if he did all that shit?
Give him a Very Stable Genius award?
Even that would not work, because I don't think that Biden fully qualifies as human for a Trump supporter.
The impression I get from Trump supporters is that they feel very deeply alienated from "the establishment". What they mean by that isn't well defined, but it's certainly any Washington politician they don't agree with. They don't feel "the elite" are part of the same people as themselves.
Their stance makes sense if you consider "the elite" to be a bunch of aliens (of the interstellar variety).
Trump is the wrecking ball against an evil system. He can do no wrong (so long as he is arrayed against the system) and comparisons don't apply.
That is indeed the case - as the article NOS linked made clear: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/1960-electoral-college-certificates-false-trump-electors-00006186
Yes. And so can you. Do you want to do away with trial by jury?
As you said:
Quoting NOS4A2
So how is that to be determined if not by a jury based on evidence?
I remember hearing audio clips from Steve Bannon and Roger Stone prior to the election that the plan was for Trump to claim the election was rigged and declare victory on election night if he was behind.
I’m sure you could find it if pressed. But comments from Stone and Bannon don’t mean much, I’m afraid.
The greatest conspiracy to defraud the United States this century was the Russian collusion narrative, which gripped American politics for a number of years and arguably altered American diplomacy, disrupted official business, and forever tarnished the standing of the intelligence community, leading to the war we see today. That episode and those kinds of people, like this indictment and Jack Smith, lays bare the incompetence of state bureaucrats and what they are willing to do to human rights in order to maintain deep-state power. Now they are criminalizing the contesting of an election and accepting of legal counsel; they are violating attorney/client privilege; and they a making a mockery of the bill of rights, all because their little “official proceeding” was protested. It’s all a joke.
And until this indictment dropped, deep-state supporters thought they had Trump dead-to-rights on insurrection and sedition, just like what their political handlers told them to believe. Now they are shown a shiny new charge and act like they knew it all along.
Recommended to read the indictment. My understanding is that Trump is Not being charged for inciting violence. Rather, he is being charged with both (A) obstructing the electoral process, and (B) conspiring to obstruct the electoral process.
They are evidence that there was a plan to overturn the election results if Trump was losing or lost. Stone and Bannon were both confidants and advisors of Trump, and what they said in advance was exactly what Trump did on election night. This is in addition to Trump's own words leading up to the election. No one is saying Trump didn't have the right to doubt the election results or the fairness of the process, but he clearly had a plan ahead of time to declare victory regardless of the election results.
Which is so obvious even a Trump supporter will deny it.
The vote was so close that they had to do a recount - but the electoral ballots had to be cast before they were able to finish the recount. Oops. So the Democrat electors held a public session in which they cast their electoral ballots for Kennedy - and as the article makes clear they had to do this on the designated date - otherwise even if the recount had showed that Kennedy had won (which he did) their ballots could not be legally counted.
While not explicitly stated in the article there is no doubt that if Nixon had won the recount then the Democrats would not have contested the results.
So it was most definitely not an attempt to subvert the legitimate vote counts - as Trump tried to do.
Based on the evidence available to the public so far seems quite clear that Trump is guilty - but he is allowed his day in court - and if he can present a credible defense and the jury finds him innocent I would accept that.
So what evidence would convince you that Trump did the things he is accused of? Or put differently - are you open to the possibility that Trump did the things he is accused of?
He said he would not concede and would contest the results if the election wasn't free or fair. He rightfully feared the dirty pool that occurred in the lead up to that election, with activists, their corporate overlords, and both social and legacy media engaged in a shadow campaign to fundamentally alter how elections were run, right beneath the nose of everyday Americans.
You’d have to prove he did so corruptly. Any quote or admission would suffice, given proper context. Inference by projection or conspiracy theory just doesn’t cut it.
None of your allegations are going to be applicable in court. There are only the unsupported claims, lies, and interference with official operations of the conspirators that will be heard.
Your argument amounts to saying a matrix of crimes you cannot prove justifies a set of crimes that might be.
I never said they were applicable in court. So yours is a mischaracterization and thus an evasion of my argument.
I was observing that you were intentionally using criteria that cannot be used. Doing so is an evasion of the matter of what can be proved (or not).
A blatant example of corruption was Trump's asking Rosen (the acting AG) to lie, and "say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congress". (This came AFTER Trump went through a litany of fraud allegations that deputy AG Donaghue refuted one by one). After the AG refused, Trump pursued replacing him with Jeffrey Clark, who had drafted a letter to be sent to State Legislatures falsely stating exactly that.
That's a lot different from declaring victory on election night when he was behind and all the votes hadn't been counted yet.
Not quite following you here. Are you saying that the only thing to convince you would be if Trump himself acknowledged it he did so corruptly? Or would you be convinced if multiple direct eye witnesses testified that what he was doing was illegal?
The president has the authority to fire who he wants, and for whatever reason. Zero corruption there. You have to show that he corruptly defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, all of which is piffle.
The illegality of the charges is that he intended to corruptly defraud the United States or deny people their rights. No one proved he defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, and they certainly didn’t prove he did so corruptly. On top of that it isn’t up to the government to determine what is true or false, what people should believe, and what they can say about it.
They continued to count votes after election day, on days when there is no election, after the election was over, and magically Biden pulled ahead.
That's like counting chickens after they've hatched! Outrageous!
We knew prior to the election that Trump was planning to declare victory prematurely if it looked like he was ahead, and claim any subsequent votes that put Biden ahead were fraudulent. It was a plan.
https://www.axios.com/2020/11/01/trump-claim-election-victory-ballots
And this article was published days before the election. I guess they’re psychics. Only explanation. Definitely not because any thinking person could see it beforehand.
Quoting EricH
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting EricH
And here's your last response where we seem to lose the thrust of my question:
Quoting NOS4A2
It looks to me that your last response was to a different question. I'm simply asking for clarity on what evidence would convince you that Trump is guilty of the charges? Just to repeat it:
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm looking for clarity on your response - must that be a quote from Donald Trump or can it be a quote from eye witnesses to the events?
The firing was secondary. He wanted them to LIE. How is that not corrupt, irrespective of the (il)legality?
In fact, Trump told a number of lies - including lying about what Mike Pence said and lying about the Georgia Secretary of State. Do you acknowledge he lied about them?
That's precisely what the prosecution will try to do in court. They believe they have the evidence to do so, hence the indictment.
You seem to be suggesting that they must prove to the public their case before the trial even starts? That's not how the legal system works. You're putting the cart before the horse.
https://sports.yahoo.com/video-shows-roger-stone-telling-065216462.html
My Kingdom, for a horse.
Or is it the other way around?
Yeah but it's a good cart. A very fine cart. Some people even say best cart.
We can all just hope that the conditions of @NOS4A2 is not indicative of all Trump supporters, because if it is I'm not sure any of them can ever return to a shared reality.
There is no probable cause. There is no evidence of any crime or criminal activity. They have to stretch the plain meaning of language to argue their case, and the indictment reads as if it was written by a breathless MSNBC reporter. Like the Russia scam, the impeachment efforts, the J6 committee, the lack of probable cause and the proliferation of imaginary crimes are ruinous to their credibility as reasonable people. Since there is no crime and no probable cause, you’ve put the cart before the horse.
If what you say is simple as that, then the best defense would be to argue that in a court of law.
That you know of. They know more than you. They believe they have evidence, hence the indictment.
BELATED HAPPY 3RD INDICTMENT DAY! :party:
BELATED HAPPY 3RD ARREST & ARRAIGNMENT DAY! :clap:
Next up for Seditionist-Traitor-Rapist1 (aka the "Grifter-in-Chief" of Mar-a-Lago):
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/fulton-county/fulton-county-sheriff-says-well-have-mugshot-if-former-pres-trump-is-indicted-locally/TT5AC7DCTBGQLCHRKS2BO5NMRU/
:up:
I don’t know. Unlike Benkei I don’t pretend to know the future.
Of course you don't "know", but most of us are trying to make an educated guess about the future. This entails trying to objectively evaluate the evidence and the laws, and (I suggest) assuming an objective judge and jury. That's what I've been hoping you would do, but you haven't really engaged directly with the evidence.
What you HAVE done is to argue that we can't "know" what's in Trump's mind, while also proclaiming what's in prosecutors' minds:
Quoting NOS4A2
[Quoting NOS4A2
I’m glad you caught that. I used Smith’s proof by assertion to make the same baseless accusation. The difference is I did it in jest. Smith did it to indict a political opponent for crime. Which is worse?
I’m sure he does believe it. He also believed he turned over all evidence to Trump's legal team as required by law and falsely claimed that he had. These guys believe a lot of things, I just suspect that, given the indictments, he does not know the truth of the matter. He doesn’t cite one quote or give any evidence that he does know. The evidence suggests his inferences are utterly baseless.
Trump's Georgia phone call, and subsequent lies about it, suggest otherwise. I brought up specific details earlier, and you ignored them. This is what I mean: you don't engage with the details of the case, but simply make general, dismissive claims.
But this is something that Trump and NOS deny is possible. Trump wants to move the trial to West Virginia not because a jury there would be more objective, or in his words 'unbiased', but because he won West Virginia in 2020 and they would more likely be biased in favor of him.
Trump made his thinking clear back in 2016 when he attempted to discredit Judge Gonzalo Curiel in the Trump University fraud case because she is Mexican.
Even if NOS believes it not possible for the judge and jury to be objective, he could, still evaluate the evidence and help assess what an objective judge/jury would decide, if it were possible. This would then be a better basis to judge whether or not the process was, or wasn't, fair - in the end.
None of us are truly objective, but it helps us be more objective when we have an honest exchange with someone with an opposing viewpoint - if they're willing to be reasonable. I'm giving him an opportunity to be reasonable.
What do you infer from the Georgia phone call and why?
Here's 3 key points from the Georgia call, which seem undeniable:
1)Trump didn't care to see the evidence that disproved his fraud claims. 2) Trump lied about what was said, the day after the call. 3) Trump threatened the governor & Secretary of State.
I am not sure he could. There is a peculiar disjunction is conservative circles, especially among the MAGA faithful. On the one hand a profound distrust of Democrats, American institutions, and the people who run them, but on the other hand, a blind acceptance of whatever Trump says and does. Evidence is suspect and disregarded when it contradicts Trump.
Trump said some things. I want to know what crime he committed, and what evidence there is that he did so corruptly. What act, which thought, and what combination of words was the crime? Who is the victim of said crimes?
But like you, he's not in the USA.
It also seems obvious that were Trump to win, he would be able to finish the job of overturning American democracy, persecuting his opponents and gutting the bureaucracy. It is clear that the reason he admires Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin is because they are the kinds of leaders he wants to be. He wants to be able to jail or execute those who oppose him. But what’s really scary is that, in all this, he is getting millions of Americans to help him overthrow the Constitution, all the while believing that they’re actually protecting it. So the Trump nightmare is still not over, and might not be over even when he’s a convicted felon. It’s deeply disappointing, and deeply troubling.
Cenat's prize: PS5s
Trump's prize: Authoritarian rule of US
No one can incite a riot. It’s just words. How can words be crimes?
Not that those people in question are comparable to Hitler, just showing by example that words can be sufficient.
What I find odd about the different groups packed into the Trump tent is where they are incompatible in terms of theri stated interests. The MAGA zens I have encountered in my family and in society appear in three different displays:
The culture warriors who want to reverse changes in institutions.
The groups who wish to restore privileges their parents enjoyed.
Business-people who profit from corporate welfare in its many forms.
These interests can overlap but they are not the same and there is friction between them. The outbreaks of violence, for instance, caused some of my family to separate themselves from the movement.
What does not fit with any of these is the absolute form of 'libertarianism' expressed by Nos4a2. The three groups floating the boat all want state power to secure their ends.
I could mix more metaphors but it is time for walkies.
People should read the indictments where the charges are laid out clearly. My questions go in the opposite direction. If you are a Trump supporter, and are outraged by all of the indictments, why is that? Even if you think the motivations for going after him are "all political" how do you know he's innocent? I've never seen so many people insist that a man deserves to be pardoned if convicted of felonies. The trials haven't even happened yet. Why not let the judicial process play out, and then reach your conclusions?
Wrong.
Quoting BC
Right.
"Americans" is an appositive, identifying "us." In a sense this means "Americans" and "us" are 'co-objects' of the verb, or you can you think of the appositive as elliptical for a relative clause, whatever. It's a very compressed form. Under no circumstances can "we" function as an adjective, even if "Americans" were the sole object of the preposition.*
Another rhetorical option in a case like this is repeating the preposition:
And it's obvious now that you can reverse the order, to change the emphasis.
Or you could elaborate the appositive to be another clause, going either way:
Etc.
@BC you were right the first time.
* Almost no circumstances, because English.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/126566/it-is-us-it-is-we
Thank heavens COCA (Council on Child Abuse) has finally recognized the harm bad grammar can cause.
Simply because there is no crime, no victim, no corrupt activity. He is the victim. They are the guilty party. The government perpetrated the greatest fraud against the US in modern history with the Russia hoax, thereby crippling the people’s elected representative, the will of the voters, and the proper function of the US presidency, arguably leading to the war-torn landscape we see today. With that hoax and their fraudulent efforts they directly pushed Trump to doubt the results of the election, and now they are framing him for non-crimes and for saying things they don’t like while remaining unaccountable to their malfeasance.
John Durham’s report in combination with the IG report shows it was a hoax and an utter failure in bureaucratic competence.
Very interesting from pence here. I really hope that Donald trump comes to regret throwing him under the bus.
That was Trump's government. Sessions recused himself over undisclosed conversations with the Russian ambassador. Republican Trump appointee Rod Rosenstein appointed Republican Bob Mueller as special counsel. Republican Trump appointee Chris Wray led the FBI that cooperated with Mueller. Why do you think so many of Trump's own people ended up investigating him?
Also, did Biden get more votes than Trump in the 2020 election?
Wrong. Some errors were made, but the investigation was warranted. It exposed crimes, exposed corrupt activities by the Trump campaign, and hit a brick wall because of Trump's obstruction of justice.
Are you going to respond to the corrupt acts of Trump's that I referenced in my last comment to you?
My guess is because they are incompetent, deep-state bureaucrats. But maybe it was to clear their names from the blizzard of lies by then surrounding the hoax.
It wasn't warranted. Even those who started it said there was nothing to it.
None of the supposed corrupts acts you stated, even if true, rise to the level of corruption, or fraud, or any other criminal or corrupt activity. The best you've shown is that he didn't believe the people he was talking to, that he didn't repeat their claims, and the effect such behavior could have. There is no crime. There is no victim of any crime.
Durham fails to mention that at least a preliminary investigation had to be opened to pursue the Papadopoulous lead. He does allude to it being a judgement call as to whether or not it would be preliminary or full. Durham judged a preliminary was more appropriate (he made this judgement before his investigation); but FBI leadership made a different judgement - and it was within their right to do so. He also fails to note that it would have to be raised to full when the Steele material became available- so it's really a non- point. He also fails to note that Crossfire led to the fruitful Mueller investigation, after Trump fired Comey - for the stated purpose of ending the Russia investigation. During Mueller, Trump behaved suspiciously and obstructed justice by dangling pardons to keep people quiet (like Manafort and Stone). The investigation confirmed illegal Russian interference, the Trump campaign's receptiveness to getting the assistance, and the collusion with Julian Assange on release of the stolen DNC emails. These violated no statutes, but it was sleazy - and closer fits the definition of "cheating" than anything done in 2020. Why did Trump want Stone and Manafort to keep quiet? It's suggestive of wanting to hide something, but we'll never get an answer to that because Barr killed it.
You have not responded to the 3 points I gave you about the Georgia call. What's the problem?
You are doing a good job representing the problems with statements made with such certainty, But your interlocutor will only pick out another detail to put forward in an equally absolute fashion rather than defend previous arguments.
The only way to detect black holes is noticing when they steal material from adjacent stars and planets.
Are Mike Pence, Bill Barr, John Kelly, and James Mattis also "incompetent, deep-state bureaucrats"?
Also: who got more votes in 2020?
Who will Trump select for his VP? Even if one were a completely committed MAGA personality, the burning cars on either side of the road must give pause.
Dammit, that makes sense.
Well, that has always been a factor for Trump since he was marching across NYC real estate deals. Cool with people he hates as long as he gets the better bank rating.
And then matters went another way.
I am shaped by my construction work life put in here in the city. It is astonishing to us that such a dishonorable person was given so much credit by other people.
Yeah man, I was just satirizing.
I think that says something about the quality of the forum.
Are you agreeing with some kind of judgement unavailable to the rest?
I took Metaphysician Undercover to mean the lack of Trump supporters here is a mark of quality.
I figure this measure fits into the question of what figures for itself.
And this question naturally leads into the purposes of rhetoric. When is an argument only for the purposes of convincing people that a particular condition exists or an attempt to think about conditions themselves?
I will try to do better tomorrow.
:100:
Still reckon Trump will never get the Republcan nomination, polling data notwithstanding.
It's an ancient tradition, that kings, even philosopher kings, allow one motley fool to entertain and deflate, lest they cease to question their own wisdom, and become as the emperor with no clothes.
Don't assume the logical with current US politics. And never underestimate how bizarre populist politics and polarization can be.
Trump might not get the Republican nomination, but then go as an independent, which will be absolute poison for the actual Republican nominee. Just like Ross Perot was for Bush.
In any case, Trump running for President will be a bigger red flag and incentive to go to vote for Democrats than Hillary Clinton's run was for Republicans.
:pray:
Let’s not forget Trump’s clinching of the Republican nomination was nearly derailed at the 2016 Republican Convention. I’m certain there would be enough never- and anti-Trumpists to shoot him down in 2024 - even if he does make it as far as the Convention.
I think DeSantis is going to fizzle. Like someone said, he’s the kinda guy who’d confiscate the neighbors’ kid’s soccer ball if it landed on his lawn
I yet think that, unfortunately, this thread will be active even then.
I have responded to your three points.
As for Russian active measures, the activities and impacts were largely overstated. The Mueller case against Concord and the Internet Research Agency, for instance, was dismissed with prejudice, with the Federal judge in that case rebuking Mueller for his insinuation in that report that they worked at the behest of the Russian government. They couldn’t support that claim in a federal court because they could not produce any evidence.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.144.0_1.pdf
In a later congressional hearing, Mueller probably lied to congress when he was asked if the judge’s threat to hold his prosecutors in criminal contempt was the reason for coming out in a press conference and fixing the record. He said “no”.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/full-transcript-robert-mueller-house-committee-testimony-n1033216
Do you only speak in questions? Is this an interview?
Your "response" was to evade the points.You had asked:
Quoting NOS4A2
I answered:
Quoting Relativist
You responded:
Quoting NOS4A2
This is the only "response" you made to my points, and it said nothing - it was neither an agreement nor dispute of the inferences I made. So I tried to prompt a real answer:
Quoting Relativist
And you never replied. If you won't answer, I am left with the impression you have no interest (and perhaps no ability) in having an honest discussion.
I did respond and you ignored it, or missed it, one or the other. Do you need me to quote it for you?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/827679
I don't, because the best you've shown is that he didn't believe the people he was talking to, that he didn't repeat their claims, and the effect such behavior could have.
Obviously, my point is there are a whole lot of people Trump has hired over the years who say terrible things about him now and/or implicate him in crimes. Are they ALL deep state operatives? Of course not. I also don't think you think Trump got more votes than Biden, which leads me to my next question: why do you support Trump over DeSantis? DeSanit's former employees don't hate him. He says the election wasn't stolen. He hasn't been indicted. Etc. Doesn't Trump's stolen election bullshit bug you?
I said they were all incompetent, deep-state bureaucrats.
DeSantis was a JAG lawyer. For one, I don't like lawyers and think that profession is overrated and overrepresented in politics, to a ruinous degree. Two, his employment in the military industrial complex indicates that he will support all of their moves.
From the indictment:
The Defendant raised allegations regarding the State Farm Arena video…In response, the Georgia Secretary of State refuted this: “You’re talking about the State Farm video. And I think it’s extremely unfortunate that [Giuliani]…sliced and diced that video and took it out of context.” When the Georgia Secretary of State then offered a link to a video that would disprove [Giuliani’s] claims, the Defendant responded, “I don’t care about a link, I don’t need it. I have a …much better link.
Clearly, Trump declined to see the refuting evidence. How can you disagree with what I said?
My second point: 2) Trump lied about what was said, the day after the call.
From the indictment:
The next day, on January 3, the Defendant falsely claimed that the Georgia Secretary of State had not addressed the Defendant’s allegations, publicly stating that the Georgia Secretary of State was “unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’ scam…He has no clue
How was Trump's Jan 3 statement NOT a lie, when the Secretary of State had actually responded to every claim Trump made?
My third point:3) Trump threatened the governor & Secretary of State.
From the indictment:
The Defendant said that he needed to “find” 11,780 votes, and insinuated that the Georgia Secretary of State and his Counsel could be subject to criminal prosecution if they failed to find election fraud as he demanded, stating, “And you are going to find that they are-which is totally illegal-it’s,…more illegal for you that it is for them because you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a …criminal offense…That’s a big risk to you and to your lawyer.
How is that NOT a threat?
1) The president of the united states refused to look at a link to a video, and you surmise this as Trump declining to view "refuting evidence". What about the video refuted Trump's claim?
2) It is not a lie because you do not know whether Trump believed otherwise. Did he or did he not believe that the secretary of state was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’ scam?
3) He either insinuated such or you are surmising, without evidence, that he did make such threats. Criminal offenses are in fact big risks.
Absolutely. Read the context. The purpose of the link was explicit - that it showed this fraud claim was false, and Trump clearly declined to see it.
[Quote]What about the video refuted Trump's claim?[/quote]It showed the ballots were packed into the boxes by the election workers when they were told to end their day, and then they were told to stay and continue- so they opened them back up.
Quoting NOS4A2
Trump specifically mentioned the "ballots under the table scam" - which is the State Farm ballot boxes I discussed in #1. The fraud claim was disputed and the evidence offered, and yet Trump claimed the Secretary of state was unwilling or unable to answer questions about it. How could Trump have not remembered that exchange from the day before?
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, criminality carries obvious risks, and Trump explicitly said they'd broken the law:
Trump: "Well, under the law you're not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You're not allowed to do that. And that's what you done."
I've gone ahead and read the context as you've suggested.
In context the surmising is even worse. Trump and his lawyers made too many claims to mention them all, for one, so the idea that one statement about a link proved all his claims were false is itself false. All Raffersperger could do is tell them that they were wrong, without providing any of the evidence that Trump’s team was in fact requesting from the secretary of state. All they could say was “We looked into that”.
This remark by Trump’s lawyer makes the point:
“Mitchell: Mr. Secretary, Mr. President, one of the things that we have been, Alex can talk about this, we talked about it, and I don’t know whether the information has been conveyed to your office, but I think what the president is saying, and what we’ve been trying to do is to say, look, the court is not acting on our petition. They haven’t even assigned a judge. But the people of Georgia and the people of America have a right to know the answers. And you have data and records that we don’t have access to. And you keep telling us and making public statements that you investigated this and nothing to see here. But we don’t know about that. All we know is what you tell us. What I don’t understand is why wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest to try to get to the bottom, compare the numbers, you know, if you say, because - to try to be able to get to the truth because we don’t have any way of confirming what you’re telling us. You tell us that you had an investigation at the State Farm Arena. I don’t have any report. I’ve never seen a report of investigation. I don’t know that is. I’ve been pretty involved in this and I don’t know. And that’s just one of like , 25 categories. And it doesn’t even, and as I, as the president said, we haven’t even gotten into the Dominion issue. That’s not part of our case. It’s not part of our, we just didn’t feel as though we had any way to be able to develop —“
Trump’s lawyer made this claim following Trump’s “I have a better link” comment:
“I will tell you. I’ve seen the tape. The full tape. So has Alex. We’ve watched it. And what we saw and what we’ve confirmed in the timing is that. They made everybody leave, we have sworn affidavits saying that. And then they began to process ballots. And our estimate is that there were roughly 18,000 ballots.”
That video does not address this claim, nor could it. In response, Raffensperger could only say “We had GBI … investigate that”. His lawyer, Ryan Germany, stated further that “We had our law enforcement officers talk to everyone who was who was there after that event came to light.” Of course, “who was who” does not include anyone who signed sworn affidavits saying they made everyone leave.
If there was an investigation and a report, Trump’s team had clearly not seen it and Raffensperger wasn’t offering any.
The evidence was not offered. The lawyers and Mark Meadows requested many times that the two parties meet and compare the numbers, the data, the evidence. But apparently none was forthcoming.
This is your threat in context:
People are going to vote negative. Oh dear.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/826970
It must be a quote from Donald Trump because he is the only one that can speak about his thoughts, intentions, and beliefs. If an eye witness can quote him then that would suffice for me.
"In the audio, recorded three days before the election and published by Mother Jones on Wednesday, Bannon told a group of associates Trump already had a scheme in place for the 3 November vote.
“What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner,” Bannon, laughing, told the group, according to the audio.
“He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/14/steve-bannon-audio-trump-declare-victory
Does that suffice?
He didn’t quote Trump. I want to know Trump’s thoughts, not Bannon’s.
No one said the link proved all the claims false. The link was offered in response to the claim Trump had just made.
Quoting NOS4A2
Notice the lawyer said nothing about the pertinent claim about the boxes of ballots being fraudulent. She only mentions the timing.
Gabriel Sterling gave a press conference on Jan 4, 2021 in which he walked through the allegations and discussed the fact that links to the videos were posted online.
Despite this, in his Jan 6 speech, Trump again referenced the debunked "suitcases of ballots" claim.
Quoting NOS4A2
The state, not the Federal Government, is responsible for election operations. Fraud claims were made to the State and they were investigated. Nevertheless, the FBI also investigated (see this), and confirmed there was no fraud. Barr testified that he reviewed this with Trump. Then on Dec 27, 2020, deputy AG Richard Donoghue also refuted the claims. These are relevant parts of the context.
Only a confession by the accused counts as evidence of a crime.
The Jan. 6 case though, does require the prosecution to establish that Trump's intent was aimed at the result of the conspiracies. There are restrictions on admitting testimony from others about what Trump said due to "hearsay" not being admissable evidence. So yes, we should ignore Bannon's statements insofar as they are interpreted as going to the heart of Trump's intent. However, they corroborate with actual acts by Trump (declaring himself the winner), which in a constellation acts and facts can result as proof of intent. And that constellation of facts seems quite clear to me, the speech, the claims Pence could make him President, the claim of being the winner despite the official results contradicting him, etc. etc. They were all aimed at refusing the official outcome and being made President. There's no adequate alternative explanation as the acts are a concerted effort.
So if Pence testifies in court that Trump said to him “You’re too honest” - and assume for the moment that Trump does not testify - would that suffice? If not, would multiple statements by other witnesses along the same lines suffice?
Is this conspiracy of yours a theory? Or is there some indication that these men met and discussed such ideas at some point before the election?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/14/steve-bannon-audio-trump-declare-victory
https://youtu.be/OxNoUnxN_cs
"In the audio, recorded three days before the election and published by Mother Jones on Wednesday, Bannon told a group of associates Trump already had a scheme in place for the 3 November vote.
“What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner,” Bannon, laughing, told the group, according to the audio.
“He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/14/steve-bannon-audio-trump-declare-victory
You replied to this post less than a day ago. You're just trolling at this point.
??? is this a mis-type? Or maybe I'm not following you. You're not seriously suggesting that someone could commit murder but unless they confess then all other evidence does not count and they should be declared innocent by a jury?
Although, interestingly enough, intent DOES matter in a murder charge. If a lawyer can't prove intent for a murder charge, they can opt to pursue manslaughter charges instead.
So instead of saying declared innocent, he might claim that you can't convict someone of murder without a confession, only manslaughter .
I was being sarcastic as a passive-aggressive jab at NOS4A2's defence of Trump.
Bannon was saying that for months before the election as a part of a speaking tour. He also said that Trump would be inaugurated and Pelosi would invoke the 25th amendment so she could become president. Predictions are one thing, but conspiracies are another. I'm just wondering how you’ve come to believe that him and Trump and Stone were engaging in a criminal conspiracy.
[quote=No, fellow Republicans, the Justice Department is not biased against us; https://wapo.st/3KzfqbM]Remember that we are not seeing Republicans arrested for wearing their Make America Great Again hats or their Don’t Tread on Me bumper stickers, both fine examples of free speech. The key difference is this: Speech that leads to crime has never been protected from prosecution. Wearing a Second Amendment shirt is not a crime, but conspiring to commit murder is a crime, separate from the murder itself. Lying to masses of Americans that their right to vote was taken away and encouraging them to take it back by any means — as Trump is accused of doing — can, based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, constitute a crime.
To suggest that special counsel Jack Smith’s latest indictment on the Jan. 6 assault is just an attack on free speech, as some Republican partisans are claiming, is itself an attack on the rule of law. If a private citizen had organized the events on Jan. 6, there is little doubt that they would have been arrested and prosecuted. The Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol should not be held to a higher standard than the former president. If we decide that presidents should never be charged with crimes after they leave office for actions committed while in office, we are no longer a democracy.[/quote]
He was joking
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/828383
Ah - I didn't pick that up
If I barge into someone's home and shoot them in the head, then without a confession you can't prove that I didn't intend to shoot approximately in their direction and I just accidentally shot them in the head.
It's an inference but not that big of a stretch. It's not like they don't know each other and the best explanation is that Bannon's and Stone's predictions are simply coincidences. Bannon and Stone were both advisors to Trump in the past, they had relationships with him and each other, and they had insight into how Trump thinks. You could argue that alone is explanation enough to why they were able to accurately predict what Trump did, but I would argue that alone is enough to warrant investigating whether they conspired with Trump to come up with this plan of action for 2020 with the goal of staying in power if he lost the election. I think them talking to each other beforehand to brainstorm this course of action is more likely than them each coming up with it independently. After all, Bannon is often credited with being the mastermind behind Trump's 2016 campaign. And Roger Stone cosplays as a Bond villain... I could be wrong and if if this conspiracy isn't be proven to be true, I will admit that.
What we can say for sure is that these people are scum. The idea of declaring victory on election night before all of the votes are counted as a political strategy is corrupt and vile -- and so is anyone who would recommend or admire that.
Of course - that's what I'm trying (in my own way) to get NOS to understand
In this case you do need a confession, or some substantial evidence, because all of the evidence points to Trump believing the election was stolen. I can provide pages of quotes, activities, and witnesses to prove this. All of it is documented. And you would provide…what exactly?
Edit: meaning criminal intent can arise irrespective of what he believed to be the case. It is sufficient that he intended the result of the conspiracy.
Contesting an election is legal.
I've known chronic liars and the question always comes up from others who know them: "What if they really believe what they're saying?" It's a ridiculous question. They're toxic people and I want nothing to do with them. Yet we elected one to be President in 2016... and what do you know, we're still dealing with the repercussions of that toxic relationship.
I still can’t figure out what particular act was the criminal one or who the victims were.
I’m just curious as to why you believe it or not. If not for evidence or lack thereof, then what?
A victimless crime lacking any overt criminal act or criminal intent doesn't seem like much of a crime. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, to me.
He failed to make a victim (arguably), should his failure count in his favour?
He didn't say something others wanted him to say. That appears to be the extent of his crimes in the minds of his detractors.
Euthanasia is legal where I live.
Yeah, I am aware they are illegal according to law and will be prosecuted by lawyers. According to law it was once legal to own human beings. That's why its a fallacy to appeal to law, and you're consistently guilty of it.
To that point, the case does not depend upon the intent of the POTUS but to proving whether this planned activity was carried out as planned as evidenced by the words and actions of the operators.
If the prosecution is able to convince a jury that these are the facts that have to be accepted, then the intent of POTUS is either seen as integral to those actions or an unfortunate misunderstanding of what was done in his name. In that context, what the accused truly believed is not sufficient proof by itself of his degree of involvement. That state of mind can only be presented as likely or unlikely given evidence of his words and actions in a plot to illegally overturn the election results.
The indictment starts by noting that the accused has the right to lie to people. That obviously includes himself. The argument that he knew better is part of establishing to what degree he was involved in the scheme, not a question of whether the scheme was put into action.
I get it. It's illegal because it's illegal. It's a crime because it's a crime. Fascinating stuff. Thanks for your input.
Disgraced FBI official who probed Trump-Russia ties set to plead guilty to illegally working for Russian oligarch
https://nypost.com/2023/08/07/ex-fbi-official-slated-to-plead-guilty-in-corruption-case/
It's a fallacy to appeal to the law when arguing over whether or not someone broke the law?
What are you smoking?
I said it didn’t seem like much of a crime and gave reasons why.
You want a puff?
Meaning he only broke the law a little? Or that the laws he broke shouldn’t be laws at all?
Either way it isn't a fallacy to appeal to the law when discussing whether or not Trump broke the law.
Like the Russia hoax. It embroiled the world in a fake scandal for many years and deceived the American people, even the world, so much so that it reached the highest echelons of the government.
Yes.
But on the other hand, he’s such a deeply pathological liar that he may have convinced himself somewhere along the way that what he was saying was true.
So if the charges rely on him being something other than a pathological, sociopathic, narcissistic liar— I think it’s doomed to fail.
Not relevant with respect to the intent that matters. It's not what he believed to be true. I can believe you're part of a Martian invasion and kill you, it's still going to be murder because my intent was to bring about your death. The reason for that could be a mitigating circumstance but in itself is not relevant for establishing intent.
I'm not entirely sure I know how to process the extreme fucked-upness of this situation. It's absurd, is surreal. There's no way anybody who values democracy could consider him getting power again would be an acceptable outcome.
America's fucked.
Here's an alternative hypothesis. that when two patties are 99% politically identical, matters of style become all important: back to the future v forward to the good old days hatred of tolerance v tolerance of hatred. When there is nothing to choose between the parties, the monsters of mythology must be invoked on each side to create a significant difference, otherwise no one will bother to vote at all.
They say that Trump could run or govern from a jail cell, but let's see how that works out in practice.
It seems to me like you can buy the occasional democrat representative. It seems to me that republican representatives exist to be bought.
:up:
I would hope so.
It is important not only for Trump's campaign, but for Federalist Society, conservatism, and the constitution,
That's a lot of evidence.
I don’t know how that number could be real :chin:
"The more a party makes “inflammatory” statements that could taint a jury pool, she said, “the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly” to ensure a fair trial."
The carrot is also a stick.
Quoting 180 Proof
News flash @NOS4A2 – Anti-"Deep State" Federalist Society legal scholars argue that Seditionist-Traitor-Rapist1 is CONSTITUTIONALLY DISQUALIFIED from ever being POTUS again:
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/william-baude-and-colleague-write-about-section-3-disqualification-trump-holding-office
Thoughts?
@Ciceronianus @Hanover @Maw
So Trump could hire a team of 1,000 lawyers, and each would have 11,600 pages to mull over. I think there is going to be a request for more time to prepare.
I read that (fooloso4 posted the link.) If the seditious conspiracy trial, now slated for Jan 2 2024, results in a guilty verdict, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for an interested party to file suit on this basis, with a very firm constitutional foundation. Here’s hoping it happens, and that some decent conservatives - there are such - become party to it. (Although one would have hoped that the very fact that DJT will not recognise the validity of the last election he contested would itself be sufficient grounds for disqualification from the next one. Alas, common sense does not have much footing in the current American political scene.)
Trump burns through lawyers like most folks do toilet rolls, and the supply of the former is considerably more constrained than the latter. Not to mention the expense :yikes:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/12/trump-legal-costs-pac-00110960
Maybe, just maybe, Trump has gotten himself in over his head this time. We might need a new phrase to describe his upcoming position, 'real bankruptcy', meaning that you actually suffer the effects of having no money, as opposed to Trump's usual position, 'fake bankruptcy', meaning that you declare bankruptcy to avoid paying your creditors, and they suffer the effects of having no money.
I saw something similar at Reason magazine, online. I'm not overfond of The Federalist Society, with which Clarence ("The Moocher") Thomas and Samuel ("The Crank") Alito and others I think less than admirable are associated. It's avowed commitment to "individual liberty" seems to me to be limited and often in conflict with its avowed commitment to "traditional values."
Regardless, I think this provision of the Fourteenth Amendment applies. But I can't claim to have read the law review article and likely won't (I loathe law review articles). I think Michael Popek is overly optimistic, though. The leaders of the Republican Party are the most part craven, the followers of this Rupert Pupkin-like figure are too zealous in their ignorance to pay attention to such things, and conservative media is largely made up of his shills. The only hope is with the courts, though it's possible the majority of the voters recognize him for what he is.
@Hanover @Maw
Any guesses how much bail the judge will set for Seditionist-Traitor-Rapist1 in Fulton County, Georgia?
It's also not clear who gets to decide here whether it was an insurrection or rebellion. The current indictments themselves don't use those words. Would it be Congress' duty to make such a finding, or maybe just one of the houses, or perhaps the courts. Maybe the journal article discussed that. Seems all academic talk mostly for law professors to ponder over. The way, I fear, we must put an end to Trump is to not elect him. The power is in the hands of the people, probably the way it was intended, and we can blame no one but ourselves with the outcome.
As to bail, I've read that the thought of Trump ever going to jail is around 0%. I'm told the Secret Service has weighed in and declared any sort of jail time would create a national security issue that they couldn't protect. I know you want to see the perp walk out the door and into the patrol car, leaning forward with cuffs behind his back, then streched out on a bench waiting for a friend to come by with some cash to get him out. Let's not think so big and instead just hope we don't see him back in the oval office, feet propped up on his desk.
The timeline of MAGA Loser #1's legal reckoning for his 2016-2023 crime spree (excluding potentially ruinous civil lawsuits):
[quote=180 Proof]1. NYC felony indictment
31Mar23 :up:
"34 counts of Business Documents Fraud Crealing and/or Covering-up Felonies", etc
https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-full-document-640043319549?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=RelatedStories&utm_campaign=position_02
2. Miami, Federal indictment
8Jun23 :up:
re: 37 counts "Mishandling Documents, Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, Violating Espionage Act, Making False Statements to Federal Authorities, Witness Tampering" etc
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/08/donald-trump-charged-retention-classified-documents
9Jun23 Federal indictment unsealed ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/09/trump-indictment-unsealed-pdf-text-criminal-charges
2.1 Miami, Federal Superceding Indictment (1)
27Jul23 :up:
+3 felony charges (+1 Espionage (32), +2 Obstruction), etc
+ new exhibit – "Iran war plan" documents (audio, July 2021)
3. Washington, DC, Federal indictment
1Aug23 :up:
re: 4 counts
[i]• Conspiracy to Defraud the U.S.;
• Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding;
• Obstruction of and attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding;
• Conspiracy to Deprive Voting Rights[/i]
1Aug23 Federal Indictment unsealed ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/01/trump-indictment-full-text-2020-election-jan-6[/quote]
4. Fulton County, GA, felony indictment
14Aug23 :up:
re: 41 counts, 19 defendants (+ 30 unindicted co-conspirators*)
*cooperating witnesses for the state :wink:
In sum: RICO Defendent-1 is charged with Violation of Georgia RICO Act + 12 other felonies...
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/14/politics/read-trump-indictment-georgia-election/index.html
LOCK HIM UP! :victory: :rofl:
Does someone need to file suit in order for Trump to be found ineligible to stand? I mean, it wouldn’t automatically follow from a conviction without a separate suit being filed would it? (When McConnell declined to convict Trump on his second impeachment, he pointedly said that civil laws have other remedies for Trump’s acts. He might have been referring to that.)
Quoting Benkei
And Trumpism might succeed better without Trump and with Trump being a fond memory.
Or actually it should just be called populism.
Not exactly. This case information file was posted and then removed. It seems to be an error given that the case number on it (23SC188945) is apparently unrelated to Trump.
My guess is that someone mistyped the case number and so when case 23SC188945 had its information posted it included the Trump file by mistake.
Or a simple mistake that does nothing to exonerate Trump from the crimes he is alleged to have committed.
Trump's current trials are set as follows:
The D.C. case - Conspiracy to defraud the US by overturning an election - January 2, 2024.
The Manhattan case - Improper use of campaign funds - March 2, 2024.
The Miami case - Illegal possession of classified documents - May 20, 2024.
The Atlanta case - Conspiracy to change the results of the election - Not yet set.
It should be a busy campaign season for him.
I'm not sure what the procedure would be. As far as I know, there's been no proceeding under it. This mountebank and the myrmidons that assist him have been relatively rare since the Amendment was adopted. Suckers, of course, are born every minute as P.T. Barnum or someone else said.
I suspect McConnell was merely trying to justify his cowardice in failing to support impeachment when he made the remarks you refer to.
Either malice or incompetence. Neither are good, and it let’s me know the level of expertise we’re working with here.
[Quote=CNN; https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/19/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-2024-race/index.html]Prominent conservative legal scholars are increasingly raising a constitutional argument that 2024 Republican candidate Donald Trump should be barred from the presidency because of his actions to overturn the previous presidential election result.
The latest salvo came Saturday in The Atlantic magazine, from liberal law professor Laurence Tribe and J. Michael Luttig, the former federal appellate judge and prominent conservative, who argue the 14th Amendment disqualifies the former president from returning to the Oval Office.
“The people who wrote the 14th Amendment were not fools. They realized that if those people who tried to overturn the country, who tried to get rid of our peaceful transitions of power are again put in power, that would be the end of the nation, the end of democracy,” Tribe told CNN’s Kasie Hunt on “State of the Union” on Sunday.
Luttig, who’s become a strong critic of Trump’s actions after the election, called for officials to look carefully at his qualifications for being on the ballot.
“All officials, federal and state, who have a responsibility to put on the ballot candidates for the presidency of the United States are obligated under the Constitution to determine whether Donald Trump qualifies to be put on the ballot,” Luttig said.[/quote]
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/829968
update:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/
I think there's a bit more thought behind this than you credit.
Trump knows his audience. He knows they love it when he denigrates and belittles his opposition. This is a classic macho move that he knows he can pull off, because his opposition is both weak politically and spineless personally.
It has also been suggested it's a deliberate snub of Fox News, retaliation for them not towing sufficiently close to the line.
Just got back from vacation, looks like 200K, I would have guessed 100K
Prosecutors: Trump Mar-a-Lago security aide flipped after changing lawyers
Georgia’s fake electors acted at Trump’s direction, indicted ex-GOP chair says
Meadows told special counsel he could not recall Trump ever declassifying Mar-a-Lago docs
This is very selective reading of the entire court submission, which can be found here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.310324/gov.uscourts.gand.310324.2669.0.pdf
@Hanover @Ciceronianus Are you familiar with the 1960 Hawaii case and how this differs from the current situation?
EDIT: Never mind. I googled: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/big-differences-between-1960-hawaii-electors-2020-ga-trump-electors
The long history of that hijacked phrase.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again#:~:text=%22Let's%20make%20America%20great%20again,at%20home%20marked%20by%20stagflation.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/
I can't wait to see his mugshot and perp-walk. It's the end result of their conspiracy theories, their propensity to stretch the plain meaning of language to form a narrative so ridiculous, but so believable to the same people who fell for the Russia hoax, that it will expose why they ought not to have power ever again. The authoritarians are shooting themselves in their jackboot and it's glorious.
I'm gonna need you to sit down, take a breath, listen to this video, and realize that everything is going to be ok...
I am sitting down, frank. You might want to give your imagination a rest for a while because your projections are becoming commonplace.
It's not adding up. Surely someone as competent and concerned about election integrity at trump could have done something to ensure that there was election integrity...
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/110938777359431324
Poor cowardly Trump too afraid to attend the debates and resigns himself to the kid's table. :lol:
My projections have always been commonplace I'll have you know.
Administrators at the state and local level are responsible for running elections. The president isn't.
His countless efforts to root out fraud and hold the shadow campaign to account are by now public record.
It was before, as well. They were trying to block the efforts to make fundamental changes to how elections were run, all of which was occurring under the noses of everyday Americans.
:rofl:
I couldn’t write better jokes.
You mean efforts like this?
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-election-2020-ap-top-news-elections-politics-14a2ceda724623604cc8d8e5ab9890ed
We already know you can't write, but you sure can pad it with other people's ideas.
Exactly.
Well, the hyperbole of "countless" efforts aside, it appears that his efforts were designed to suppress the votes of Democrats.
How does one suppress votes by attempting to block fundamental changes to election laws?
In what world is blocking changes automatically good and not bad? Sometimes changes are good
How is it a fundamental change? I've been voting by mail for years. It's claimed that Trump votes by mail.
It just so happened to favor one candidate, one party, some people, some states, at the expense of the rest.
Yeah, I figured that one would irritate you. Must be frustrating times for the Trump cult.
Sorry for piling on. But it’s just so hilarious.
Can you explain how it favored one candidate? Trump voters are too stupid to put something in the mail?
Changes, plural.
:up:
I welcome it. The more emojis I get from you the better. It's all on record.
That doesn't explain how there was a fundamental change. Just more hyperbolic language?
A voting change favouring one party doesn't mean the voting change is bad. If a neighborhood of old conservatives couldn't vote one year because there was no easily accessible place to vote for them, and someone changes election laws to make sure they have a place to vote, is it bad just because they're mostly conservatives?
I don't think a change benefitting one party is in itself proof that that change is bad or unethical. Can you understand why I think that?
Hey I just like to meet the person on their level.
Changes to election laws—laws that were not there before are now in effect. There were hundreds of them a cross numerous states. I don’t know how to make it more clear.
Why alter election laws in the first place?
Trump wins? Democracy in action.
Biden wins? [s]Fraud[/s]! Election interference.
Do you not understand that a change may not be a fundamental change?
I don’t.
If we're talking about the same thing, because of the circumstances involved, namely the pandemic.
Yes, it just so happens that allowing more citizens to vote and have their ballots counted may favor one candidate. Trump's fear was that in this case it would favor Democrats, but that is how this representative democracy works.
Would you agree that lockdowns were suppressing votes, then?
But, just as an example, if the existing law was crap for some reason, then changing it to be less crap might be good. Why change anything ever? Because some things can be improved. Maybe an election law was making it unreasonably hard for some people to vote, or a new law was going to make voting much more accessible to more people. Changes can be good. Surely you can think of changes that are good in general, not all changes make things worse in the world right?
The generic question "why change an election law?" has the generic answer "to make it better".
Hi ChatGPT! Can you explain the difference between a minor change and a fundamental change to my simple-minded friend?
ChatGPT
Of course, I'd be happy to help you explain the difference between a minor change and a fundamental change to your friend!
A minor change and a fundamental change refer to two different levels of alteration or modification in something. Let's use an example to make it clearer:
Imagine you have a car. Making a minor change to the car would involve things like getting a new paint job, changing the seat covers, or adding a sticker. These alterations don't drastically affect the car's overall functionality or structure. They are small adjustments that might improve the appearance or comfort, but the core nature of the car remains the same.
On the other hand, a fundamental change to the car would involve altering its basic structure or purpose. For instance, if you were to replace the engine with a completely different type of engine that runs on a different fuel source, that would be a fundamental change. It would likely lead to significant alterations in how the car performs and what it's capable of doing. This kind of change goes beyond surface-level adjustments and has a more profound impact on the overall nature of the object.
In essence, a minor change is something small and often cosmetic, while a fundamental change is something substantial that can alter the very nature or functionality of the thing being changed.
I’m not sure they were changing election laws in the lead up to an election out of the goodness of their hearts.
Trump was such a terrible president that people voted him out anyway, in spite of Republican interference and lies. I realize this must really be frustrating to the cult.
Think for yourself for a second. Do you think changing a law is cosmetic and minor?
It obviously depends on the change. PLEASE READ WHAT THE AI WROTE FOR YOU.
Changing laws is cosmetic and minor, according to praxis.
:rofl:
https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_election_dates,_procedures,_and_administration_in_response_to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020
Mostly minor extensions of deadlines and early voting/mail voting. Including in DNC-controlled, liberal bastions like Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Montana.
Or in NOS’s world: massive, sinister liberal election interference.
The appropriate response to such a level of stupidity.
I took a few seconds to google it and this is the first thing that came up:
Trump Extends Coronavirus Lockdown Until April 30
:chin:
From Praxis’s link. I laughed out loud at “very good job.”
Apparently, the lockdowns were supposed to save lives rather than suppress votes. At least Trump seemed to think so.
Yeah, I’m beginning to see the pattern. If Trump or republicans do it, it’s fine. Unless the changes lead to democrats winning…then it’s election interference…from Republicans…or Biden suppressing votes…even though he wasn’t in office…
No, I guess I don’t get it.
It’s almost as if all of it is a bunch of bullshit. :chin:
They're like the hipsters of the conspiracy world. They only like stuff before it's cool.
The election was in November.
Maybe I misread what you were suggesting. You seemed to be suggesting that the lockdowns were designed for the purpose of voter suppression and not for the purpose of saving lives or generally mitigating the pandemic. I pointed out that at one point Trump extended the lockdowns, or at least took credit for doing so, in an effort to save lives. So even Trump thought that the point was mitigating the pandemic.
Anyway, besides all that I still don't get it. Republicans were far more comfortable voting in person than Democrats so employing a pandemic/lockdown to suppress voting would seem to be most effective against Democrats.
Suggesting? I was asking a question.
Okay, nevermind then.
Well, once there's sound and agreed upon evidence of a conspiracy, it actually becomes a fact. And then the much hated "mainstream media" takes it as a fact too. And that's the last thing conspiracy theorists want to promote: same things as the "mainstream media" is reporting!
Think about it. How much do conspiracy theorists talk about the conspiracy of the White House neocons saying that Iraq was behind 9/11 too and there is a large and functioning WMD project in Iraq? Actually White House personnel would have gone to prison, if they wouldn't have been pardoned by the outgoing US President. You can watch now movies about it.
Hence that's something you can read in the mainstream media now. And in history books also...
Because this certainly was...
Hi again ChatGPT! I have another question to help my simple-minded friend if you please. Can a question be suggestive?
ChatGPT
Hello again! Of course, I'd be happy to help. Yes, a question can definitely be suggestive. A suggestive question is one that implies a certain answer or a particular way of thinking. It may guide the person being asked the question towards a specific response or conclusion. This type of question can sometimes influence the person's thoughts or decisions, even if subtly.
For example, consider the following question:
"Sally, isn't it true that you enjoy spending time with your new friends?"
This question suggests that Sally does indeed enjoy spending time with her new friends and might make her more likely to answer in the affirmative, even if her true feelings are more complex. Suggestive questions can be used intentionally or unintentionally to influence conversations or gather information in a biased way. It's important to be aware of the wording of questions to ensure that they're fair and unbiased, especially in situations where objectivity is crucial.
I suppose this is what you would call a leading question?
ChatGPT
Exactly! A suggestive question is often referred to as a leading question. A leading question is designed to lead or guide the person being asked toward a specific answer or response. It can sway their perception or influence their opinion on a matter. In legal contexts, leading questions are sometimes used to shape a witness's testimony in a desired direction. However, in other situations where objectivity and fairness are important, it's generally best to avoid leading questions to ensure that the responses obtained are as unbiased as possible.
Most enlightening. Thanks for your assistance!
ChatGPT
You're very welcome! I'm glad I could help. If you or your friend have more questions in the future, don't hesitate to ask. Happy learning!
According to the defense they were given too much data in discovery that there is no chance they could go through it in time. But it might be for the same reason Biden’s DOJ and their special prosecutor waited until election year to start their trials: politics.
Your question seems meant to prove that Trump fears trial because he knows he's going to eventually be found guilty because otherwise he'd look forward to offering the proof of his innocence.
This assumes that what Trump wants most of all is to prove he's innocent or that the election was truly stolen. Trump doesn't care about that. What he wants is to be President. That's why he said the election was stolen. That's why he went through all those lawsuits, pressured local elections officials, and then tried to block Biden from being voted in.
His complaints about whether the process is delayed, expedited, modified, or whatever are targeted to getting himself re-elected, and he's playing this really well. Over 50% of Republicans say they will vote for him and less than 15% favor DeSantis, who is in second place. It's a dead tie with him versus Biden right now. These idictments are helping his cause. He kept himself center stage for 4 years while out of office and now he's a martyr.
What Trump wants is to be President. He's not in the business of setting the record straight or in proving his innocence.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters" - the man certainly knows his target audience
You seem to be conflating "much talk" with the judicial process. The presumption of innocence does not mean that he does not have to defend himself against the charges brought against him. It will be up to the court and not "much talk" to reach a determination as to whether he is innocent.
Sure, his innocence is assumed as a matter of legal principle and the burden is on the prosecution to establish his guilt. I agree with you on that. But if he is capable of proving his innocence, why wouldn't he do it? For example, with the classified documents case, if he declassified the documents prior to taking them to Mar-A-Lago, he could tell us when he did that, what the process was that was used, and who was present. Instead we get rambling and contradictory nonsense about how he could declassify documents with his mind, or that he once had the power to declassify as president but no longer does. Plus, we have the obstruction charges with contradictory statements of not having the classified documents, or having them but having a right to keep them, or of already having turned them over. It appears to me that Trump could have avoided all of this by simply turning over the documents when he was initially asked for them. Instead, he dragged his feet and refused to cooperate, had his lawyers lie, and got raided by the FBI and got caught in the lie, and now Trump and his team are all in deep legal trouble. And that's just one indictment.
The presumption of innocence is either a basic human right or it is not. You either believe in it or you don’t. Anyone who says Trump should prove his innocence believes one and not the other, and reveals why we ought to have such rights in the first place: to protect the innocent from people like them.
So, sure, he like anyone may be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but the evidence already in the public domain is damning. And as I've said many times, how can he even be part of a contest, if he doesn't agree to abide by the rules, which he patently ignores and flouts. Wouldn't even be allowed into a tennis tournament with that attitude, let alone an election for public office.
Mughsot!
Inmate No. P01135809 - RICO Suave!
From where I'm sitting Trump looks more and more the undefeatable superhero, the rebel, the outlaw, the legend. Where we're going, we don't need facts...
I'm eager for the orange jumpsuit edition.
I wonder how long he practiced for that?
Quoting Benkei
I think many have been convinced - or convinced themselves - that the current political and economic system is moribund and that Trump is their best hope to wreck it.
They're not entirely wrong.
Quoting Wayfarer
Under the above analysis, transgressions actually increase Trump's appeal.
Perhaps he is wearing a mask:
Or if we follow Oscar Wilde, perhaps he has taken one off.
The presumption of innocence means he has the right to defend himself against the charges in a court of law. That is exactly what is happening.
Yup. That is why I said that NOS is conflating "much talk" with the judicial process.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-64411569 :smirk:
:up:
That means you hold it true of some men and not others. Two sets of standards.
One standard that applies to everyone including Trump.
One standard that applies to those who prosecute in courts, but to no one else. Only they should presume innocence. Only they require the burden of proof.
https://nypost.com/2023/08/24/trump-already-selling-merch-featuring-his-mug-shot/amp/
$25 for just a coffee mug. Jesus Christ...
The price of the t-shirt is $34, holy molly!
He litterally surrendered himself to authorities but the shirts say NEVER SURRENDER! :chin:
Another incongruity, Trump's arrest record states that he is 6 feet, 3 inches tall and weighs 215 pounds. However, as reported in April, after being arrested in an unrelated case in New York, he was 6 feet, 2 inches and weighed 240 pounds—suggesting Trump has gained an inch and lost 25 pounds in little over three months.
I bought an official space force hat for $25 back in 2018 or something and sold it for around $250 last year.
Are you claiming that those who are prosecuting should presume he is innocent? How does that work? Should they not look for or present evidence of his crimes because he cannot be guilty because he is presumed innocent?
Are you claiming that since we are not prosecutors we should not presume he is innocent?
I meant to say the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, or anyone who makes accusations against others. Those who presume innocence should be everyone else. But apparently it’s different according to some degree of statism or other. It applies only to the state, juries, judges, courts. Anyone else it does not nor ought not apply.
Does that makes sense?
Assuming you're actually interested in this:
Presumption of innocence is explicitly a protection of the individual against the state and meant to hold those that wield the ultimate violence of the state to the most exacting standard.
Notably it's not an epistemological principle. It's not an effective way to judge [I]in general[/I]. Applying it as a practical principle in your everyday life is liable to produce very skewed results.
Exactly how we should deal with accusations, notably including of criminal behaviour, is a question that "presumption of innocence" cannot answer.
NO.
The prosecution does have the burden of proof. We do not. There is, for example, no burden for us to trust someone we suspect of being a con man until we are able to prove his guilt.
If we are on the jury the presumption of innocence means that we should decide whether someone is guilty on the basis of the evidence presented, not on whatever it is we may presume.
So you do not believe the burden of proof should lie with an accuser?
No, in the sense that I don't think "burden of proof" is a useful standard to apply generally.
Fair enough, though I think dismissing the burden of proof is a bad idea when it comes to making claims, especially one’s that involve accusations against human beings.
Some people say Trump sucked Giulani's cock.
or this one for the original teflon don
That image certainly captures the arrested development. But the Dorian Gray avatar unveiled at the jailhouse is probably the one E.J. Carroll saw coming through the dressing room door.
I think that depends on the context.
If, for example, I intend to hand someone my money for investment, I'm not going to wait until it is conclusively proven that they're a fraud before I rethink my plans.
Quoting Benkei
:rofl: @NOS4A2
Imagine the kind of dupe you have to be to buy this crap. :lol:
Anyway— the hope from his cult is that this will be the “biggest thing ever,” and will lead to him winning. It won’t. It’ll last about a week, die down like everything else, and be forgotten by the public. Most people think he should be convicted anyway.
We were told for two years how badly the democrats were gonna be wiped out by the Republican “red wave” …same kind of wishful thinking here I guess.
Lol
Photoshop reality. At least she's consistent. :roll:
Just shows how utterly f***ed the GOP and their voters have become by following Trump into the abyss. My sincere hope is that in November 2024 this is resoundingly proven by the election results.
Which was the problem of the previous results not being accepted because one can do that if desired. The proof cannot be proven because the forces of evil are just that good.
It is sort of like a self-fulfilling prophecy but with an extra bit of puppet theater where the strings become more important than the movements on stage.
The Art of the Deal:
I think giving way to cynicism actually feeds the Trump myth. I think there's an electoral wipeout coming for the Republicans. There was already one in 2022, but the next will be much bigger. I don't entertain the idea that Trump/MAGA is *actually* powerful, as distinct from generating the illusion of power. At the end of this cycle, the electorate will make it crystal clear.
Furthermore, that when the current indictments are brought to trial, that Trump will be found guilty and and that by Jan 6th 2025, he and many of his co-conspirators will be in jail. Don't forget that a large number of persons have already been imprisoned over the disgraceful Congress invasion. It will take time, but that will be the outcome.
Well, I was a ventriloquist, throwing my voice with that observation. I sincerely hope that certain groups do not get the upper hand restricting rights and access to equal treatment under the law.
The puppet shows influences who it influences. But it is the survival of institutions that will determine how the next generation will live.