ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Wild, this what Trump did when he had actual power to throw the (federal) book at HRC
pretty sure now he won't do the same mistake
I didn't say Trump, I said Republicans. Republican lawmakers did everything they possibly could to get Hillary to stand trial dating back to before Trump was even a factor in the Republican party. She testified for hour upon hour in front of congress but despite doing everything in their power they couldn't come up with a single thing to even take to a grand jury to ask for a prosecution.
Trump became a loud mouthpiece but was ultimately largely irrelevant when it came to the actual efforts to prosecute Hillary.
P.S. I'm sure I mentioned this ages ago but please get out of the habit of posting giant images when linking to an article with a two sentence summary would be just as easy. It's really annoying to have giant images loading every time the page is opened.
the images self-size to fit screen properly at least for me on mobile I thought it was the same for everyone else.
as for republicans wrt HRC
/While Congress can investigate conduct that may be criminal, Congress itself lacks the authority to bring criminal charges or otherwise initiate a criminal prosecution./
they were never in a position to indict her.
ofc they milked "her emails" and the rest as much as they could for political gain, that's not throwing the book at her, they didn't have book-throwing options basically.
when they did with trump winning the presidency, they didn't use them.
but ofc the norm breaking is theirs, who... didn't break the norm of not prosecuting your direct political opponents.
I mean it's all ok, just don't pretend it's unprecedented if RDS or Abbot or someone like them starts to weaponize the judicial system surgically against democrats or democrat donors operating in their states
Personal conduct matters a lot in sentencing, right? Like, admitting fault and obeying orders and such. I understand the first time offense, non violent side but jail time seems like a credible possibility?
Personal conduct matters a lot in sentencing, right? Like, admitting fault and obeying orders and such. I understand the first time offense, non violent side but jail time seems like a credible possibility?
I thought the same but evidently they all think he would get allowed to be out on bail during the very long NYS appeal process.
the images self-size to fit screen properly at least for me on mobile I thought it was the same for everyone else.
as for republicans wrt HRC
/While Congress can investigate conduct that may be criminal, Congress itself lacks the authority to bring criminal charges or otherwise initiate a criminal prosecution./
they were never in a position to indict her.
ofc they milked "her emails" and the rest as much as they could for political gain, that's
Nothing about what Trump was found guilty of had anything to do with there being a Democrat president. Outside of the Jan 6th investigation all of the prosecutions could have happened with a (non Trump) Republican president. The only difference having the presidency (or more accurately control over the Attorney General) makes is the ability to appoint a special counsel. Trump's conviction had nothing to do with a special counsel and similarly Hillary could have been prosecuted as a result of the FBI investigation, which was the direct result of congressional investigations, if there had actually been a strong enough case.
This is what I was referring to with Trump having so many issues in so many jurisdictions. It's simply not normal for that to be the case, even for someone who has lived an incredibly complex life and it is his unique propensity to operate on or beyond the edge of the law in all aspects of his life that have made him so vulnerable to these prosecutions. It has virtually nothing to do with the power of the presidency being used to prosecute him (the Jan 6th investigation being the one exception).
I'm by no means an expert but from a little reading it seems to me like the only realistic reason the judge would deny bail pending appeal would be if he considers the appeal frivolous and purely done to delay with no real likelihood of success, with the only other potential concern being witness tampering/intimidation because of his history of breaking gag orders.
My take is that a fine is much more likely than a jail sentence given zero criminal history and that being granted bail pending appeal is much more likely than it being denied in the case he is sentenced to jail, making the overall likelihood of him actually going to jail any time before November very slim.
This should surprise absolutely nobody but the entirety of el Señor big IQ Copium posting in politics have come in the 24 hours since trump’s conviction and 1/7/21 in the 1/6 thread
You’ll be shocked to learn what his stance was then
Nothing about what Trump was found guilty of had anything to do with there being a Democrat president. Outside of the Jan 6th investigation all of the prosecutions could have happened with a (non Trump) Republican president. The only difference having the presidency (or more accurately control over the Attorney General) makes is the ability to appoint a special counsel. Trump's conviction had nothing to do with a special counsel and similar
? trump was prosecuted by the state of new York because a democrat thought it could help his party to do so, that's the political reason.
ofc Biden has nothing to do with it I am not even sure he even agrees with what happened there, and/or if he thinks he gained politically from this.
trump prosecution had to do with democrats in NYS hating him enough to use an obscure statute almost always only used when the predicated crime was tried as well (like we indict for crime x, and one of the accessories to that is you falsified business records to try to get away with x) and doing that timing it for the election year on purpose filing basically the last possible legal day to do so (it was like 2 days from going on the statute of limitations threshold).
oh btw Trump made another mistake in not breaking the norms and pardoning Cohen as well (clear reason to think he didn't consider his actions accomplished through Cohen illegal, otherwise he would have defused that mine).
This should surprise absolutely nobody but the entirety of el Señor big IQ Copium posting in politics have come in the 24 hours since trump’s conviction and 1/7/21 in the 1/6 thread
You’ll be shocked to learn what his stance was then
But something something not a Trump supporter, like all the other vocal not-Trump-supporters who always somehow seem to support Trump (looking at you, losen), presumably.
You seriously might not know this, but this is the sort of crap Trumpers make up to make it seem like there's some sort of big movement happening. There is ZERO chance James Woods wasn't going to vote for Trump. Like he would've done it and made a speech about it.
It's like the anti-vaxers that read made up stories on facebook and suddenly they "know" 6 people that died from the vaccine.
You're saying this guy:
Was just not going to bother vot
I have a question...to people that use terms like 'trumpers' and 'anti-vaxers' etc. ...
If trump was declared not guilty here...would you still consider it true that he committed a crime?
trump prosecution had to do with democrats in NYS hating him enough to use an obscure statute almost always only used when the predicated crime was tried as well (like we indict for crime x, and one of the accessories to that is you falsified business records to try to get away with x) and doing that timing it for the election year on purpose filing basically the last possible legal day to do so (it was like 2 days from going on the statute
people keep saying some version of this and i haven't seen it borne out. the state of New York brought 9,794 charges of the same offense since 2015. that certainly doesnt seem obscure
did you go through the 9,794 offenses charged in the last decade to see that what your saying is true?
this prosecution is political in the way that ALL prosecutions in this country are political. DAs are elected, they attempt to successfully prosecute crimes to get elected again. prosecution is not a "seek justice, find truth" type institution in this country.
when they dont attempt to prosecute someone like hillary it's not because they don't want to it's much more likely because they simply cant make the case.
also we should chase and prosecute white collar criminals FAR more than we do whether they end up in politics or not. it's an absolute farce that the perpetrator of the largest Medicare scam in history is a senator in florida.
I have a question….to people who are trump supporters or use terms like ‘cope’ or ‘TDS’ or ‘libtard’…
What does trump give you that some replacement level Republican candidate doesn’t? Feeling emboldened to be the worst version of yourself cuz who’s gonna stop you? Having your identity tied to culture war nonsense? Or you just wanna say the n word and feel like it should be ok?
why are you all so sure the judge won't sentence Trump to jail? I mean maybe you are right but what makes you so confident about that?
It's not a certainty just somewhat uncommon for a first-time offender for these types of crimes. Beyond that my very strong sense is that the judge is a little on the reluctant side but my read could be off.
Plus it helps to occasionally remind yourself that overall, the US justice system is somewhat predictable as far as the types of crimes and people it tends to drop the hammer on.
Random thought after a long day, but for whatever reason my imagination just conjured up an image of DJT bringing a "wrap it up" sign to sentencing.
“Dox the Jurors. Dox them now,” one user wrote after Trump’s conviction on a website formerly known as “The Donald,” which was popular among participants in the Capitol attack. (That post appears to have been quickly removed by moderators.)
“We need to identify each juror. Then make them miserable. Maybe even suicidal,” wrote another user on the same forum. “1,000,000 men (armed) need to go to washington and hang everyone. That’s the only solution,” wrote another user. “This s--- is out of control.”
Let’s be absolute clear here, y’all ****ing deranged subhuman **** I wouldn’t piss on to save you from being on fire
Have your identity and self-worth and life’s motivations be tied to something worthwhile instead of white knighting Mein Heffer
The good thing about trump , we can say now the « Republican » party can no longer say it is the representative of the law and order for electing a 1 time convicted president .
And other convictions coming ….
I have a question...to people that use terms like 'trumpers' and 'anti-vaxers' etc. ...
If trump was declared not guilty here...would you still consider it true that he committed a crime?
A crime is a crime regardless of verdict or whether there is a prosecution at all. OJ Simpson didn't become any less a murderer when the verdict came in. He wasn't a convicted murderer, but that's purely a legal distinction.
So, given the considerable evidence, yes.
you just contradicted yourself within 2 sentences. you're right with the first one, this doesn't really do anything. he was prosecuted for criminal accusations, and convicted, and not because it has any bearing on him being president again. he isn't being precluded from running for president, the judge and jury have determined nothing of the sort. you're just mad because you think he should be above the law.
Such a dumb conclusion. The judge and jury did not determine our next president. It convicted him of a crime(s). That’s why he could still be the nominee and still win.
In the battle of the institution vs. the individual, the institution is almost undefeated. Republicans, as in institution, are about to determine who is bigger, them or Trump. It will end like the Belichek era in New England - a termination of an old man and a public
I was responding to a poster who said he’s surprised someone convicted can even run for president. I was merely pointing out how terrible that would be if that was a law.
When most people rate stuff on a scale 1 is the worst and whatever the other option is it is the best. I find it interesting that previously you’ve said my posting is bad and now you are saying my posting is the best. What changed for you?
