DOJ Requests Protective Order After Trump Threat Online

[forkup]

Really? You don’t need all the facts before you impeach and attempt to remove a president? Yes, it takes time, and that’s why they couldn’t wait. They had to because of expediency. I mean, in every other case, you’re supposed to have the facts in hand before you take action.

I guess you support the impeachment of Biden now, and then the right can then investigate later?




Everything is clearer in hindsight, but you have to go on what they knew THEN, which was nothing. They hadn’t done an iota of investigation, they knew of the Eastman memo and a riot. They didn’t know anything else. That’s pretty thin, and even more suspicious when you have nearly everyone on the going after trump from the get go.

This wouldn’t work if the situation were reversed.

Also, the left continues to claim that trump “pointed the mob” at the capital to go storm it. There was no evidence for that then, and there isn’t any now. Yes, trump used rhetoric in his speeches, just like EVERY other politician does. That doesn’t mean that his intention was to get people to go riot. He never told them to go break windows and enter the capitol, he specifically said “go peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”, a statement that was conveniently never even uttered during the entire J6 hearings , and even left out in every video they played.




My bad, ok Cheney and kinsinger only voted 1 time , but kinsinger, after the second impeachment said he regretted not voting to impeach on the first one, based on everything that happened, and Cheney made it clear that she would do everything in her power to prevent trump from getting re elected. Suffice to say, there were no pro trump people on the J6 committee.



No, I’m not saying that, I’m saying that, during the course of the J6 investigation, and the hearings, it seems that there was not a single bit of evidence, nor any testimony that was favorable to trump. I never heard anyone brought in to testify on behalf of trump, doesn’t that seem odd? Are you suggesting that there wasn’t anyone they could have subpoenaed that could have refuted anything that was being said? There seemed to be no alternative viewpoints, everything was in the tone of “orange man bad”. Is that coincidence, or selective subpoena-ing?



Was there an investigation? We’re there witnesses? Was the jury already known to have bias againsnt the boss? Or the secretary? These are scenarios that are not pertinent to what is going on here.

Look, if trump committed a crime, and there wasn’t already an army of people gunning for him, and he was convicted, that would be fine, but, unfortunately, we do have an army of people gunning for him, and have been since he came down the escalator, so that complicated things. Remember also, this is, at least I feel, all political. Nobody really seemed to care about trumps past life, his taxes, who’s “***** he grabbed”, or what his real estate business looked like, until he became political. Everything was hunky dory when he was donating money to the Clinton’s, and everyone loved him…then he decided to run for president, and at that point, the democrats labeled him as public enemy #1.

So, yeah, I’m not confident he will get a fair trial in a liberal haven like DC, just like most dems wouldn’t think he would get a fair trial if the venue was moved to a conservative venue with a conservative judge. They’d throw a fit over it…in fact, they already have been throwing a fit over the possibility of them requesting a change of venue.

You don’t need all the facts before you impeach

No, you don't. I don't need every last detail of a crime in order to establish someone is guilty. Simply enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's in a court with rigorous standards. Impeachment just needs to establish high crimes and misdemeanors to the satisfaction of two thirds of the senate.

guess you support the impeachment of Biden now, and then the right can then investigate later?

It would be bad for the country as a whole so no. Politically speaking though I would welcome it. I'd like nothing more than the GOP trying to defend impeachment during a highly televised hearing on the facts as they are now established. Really, go for it. There's a reason McCarthy is ducking.

Everything is clearer in hindsight

I didn't need hindsight to know that Trump wanted the election results overturned, called the people to Washington to stop the certification and know he send them to the Capitol with the words I'm paraphrasing "give the lawmakers the courage to do the right thing" you might think it not a euphemism. Most people would have no problem sussing it out though. The only thing I needed was reading comprehension skills and ears.

Are you suggesting that there wasn’t anyone they could have subpoenaed that could have refuted anything that was being said?

If all the stuff is true,no.

doesn’t that seem odd?

It's not if you're telling the truth.

we do have an army of people gunning for him, and have been since he came down the escalator, so that complicated things. Remember also, this is, at least I feel, all political.

The guy has been involved in literally thousands of lawsuits, both as plaintiff and defendant. This well before he became president. Does that mean they're gunning for him, or that he's involved in a lot of shady shit?" As for it being political. READ THE INDICTMENTS they describe real crimes covered by real criminal statutes in a highly detailed way.

Nobody really seemed to care about trumps past life, his taxes, who’s “***** he grabbed”, or what his real estate business looked like

People did care. It just wasn't as widely reported prior him becoming president.

just like most dems wouldn’t think he would get a fair trial if the venue was moved to a conservative venue with a conservative judge.

Again. Whenever you say something like that, you're actually saying "if I simply state that some hypothetical Democrat would react in the same way, somehow my reaction would be valid." It's not. Even if you are right that someone else would react the same way you wouldn't get an inch closer to proving your reaction is valid. This isn't even a whataboutism. It's begging the question so you can use a whataboutism. Two fallacious arguments for the price of one.

 

[forkup]

Because you are just one person, and maybe YOUR feelings are not an issue, but “the left”, are certainly the issue here. I can’t argue about how you personally feel, obviously, but I know how the left thinks and what they want. I’ve had plenty of time over the years to listen to both left and right wing talk radio, and read the forums here, to know exactly the kind of hatred the left has for trump. That’s why I use the term “the left”



Preferably, no bias, but I know that’s not possible, but, when you have so many people out to harm someone, and with so much press being focused solely on trump and trying to bring him down, it’s not unreasonable to be concerned about these things. Again, if these trials are held in a conservative stronghold, are you going to be as easy going about this (more about that in a minute)




Ok, so I don’t know your personal level of hatred for trump. Again, you’re not representative of the left as a whole. Im sure there are lefty’s that don’t care, or are not interested in seeing a former president prosecuted, but by and large, the left has been very vocal of their ire for trump.

Also, you have an advantage here, and that there are a friggen million indictments against trump (just saying that sarcastically), so, losing one or two probably isn’t a big deal, most lefty’s think that “it only takes one”, and that’s what they are banking on. Just like was mentioned earlier, that “the indictments were carefully crafted to ensure the highest possibility of conviction”.

If the Florida case was the only indictment he was facing, would you be so accepting of the verdict that came out of it, knowing there’s a good chance trump might be found innocent in a red state, with a right leaning judge, and could go on to potentially be president again? I can assure you, the vocal majority of the left would not.




Everything being equal, no jury tampering, and no funny business, no “lawyer shenanigans”, then yes, if both sides preset their case, and a fair and impartial judge and jury find him guilty, then yes, I’d accept that. It’s how the law works.

Now, if he is found innocent, come back here and watch all the left complaints about “it was a rigged jury” and “judge cannon put her own weight in the case”. You know that will happen.

there are a friggen million indictments against trump (just saying that sarcastically), so, losing one or two probably isn’t a big deal, most lefty’s think that “it only takes one”, and that’s what they are banking on. Just like was mentioned earlier, that “the indictments were carefully crafted to ensure the highest possibility of conviction”.

First, as I stated before those million friggen indictments all have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of 12 people. Not one can dissent. That's a pretty big advantage wouldn't you say?
Second, the reason there are a million friggen indictments is because Trump broke the law a million friggen times.
Third, it is literally the job of a prosecutor to try to ensure conviction if he decides to indict. Saying a prosecutor would "carefully craft" his indictment to that aim is like saying water is wet.

If the Florida case was the only indictment he was facing, would you be so accepting of the verdict that came out of it, knowing there’s a good chance trump might be found innocent in a red state, with a right leaning judge

Yes. Again, I prefer to look at the world as it is, rather than how I feel it should be. I live by certain rules. Rules that I apply to myself first, and foremost. One of those rules is that my opinion needs to be well-informed. This means that if I believe in a standard of behavior, I can't just change that standard because the consequences of applying it are inconvenient.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They had the investigation after the impeachment because an investigation takes time. Hundreds of witnesses. Leads to follow. Actual court battles to get people to honor subpoenas etc etc. It takes time. That doesn't mean you can't have an impeachment. You don't need all the facts for that.

In this case it was clear from the beginning that Trump wanted the certification stopped. For that he called a mob to Washington and send them to the Capitol making him at the very least morally responsible for what occurred.

This is not just my words by the words of both McCarthy and McConnell. That is if not criminal then at least impeachable. And doesn't require a full investigation to conclude.

And you recall wrong. Both Cheney and Kinzinger voted against the first impeachment. The committee had Guilliani testify he pleaded the fifth repeatedly, Eastman the Same, Ivanka Trump, Stephen Miller currently in Trump's reelection campaign, Rusty Bowers said he would vote for Trump again. Hutchinson served until Trump's last day. So no they weren't all Trump haters.

By the way I find it interesting that you seem to assert that if one isn't loyal to Trump and quits over something, like for instance Bill Barr, that fact makes him biased and therefore unreliable, does that work for everybody?

Would you for instance reject a testimony from a secretary that accuses her boss off sexual assault and got fired as a result of it? Would that make her a "biased" and unreliable witness?

They had the investigation after the impeachment because an investigation takes time. Hundreds of witnesses. Leads to follow. Actual court battles to get people to honor subpoenas etc etc. It takes time. That doesn't mean you can't have an impeachment. You don't need all the facts for that.

Really? You don’t need all the facts before you impeach and attempt to remove a president? Yes, it takes time, and that’s why they couldn’t wait. They had to because of expediency. I mean, in every other case, you’re supposed to have the facts in hand before you take action.

I guess you support the impeachment of Biden now, and then the right can then investigate later?

In this case it was clear from the beginning that Trump wanted the certification stopped. For that he called a mob to Washington and send them to the Capitol making him at the very least morally responsible for what occurred.

Everything is clearer in hindsight, but you have to go on what they knew THEN, which was nothing. They hadn’t done an iota of investigation, they knew of the Eastman memo and a riot. They didn’t know anything else. That’s pretty thin, and even more suspicious when you have nearly everyone on the going after trump from the get go.

This wouldn’t work if the situation were reversed.

Also, the left continues to claim that trump “pointed the mob” at the capital to go storm it. There was no evidence for that then, and there isn’t any now. Yes, trump used rhetoric in his speeches, just like EVERY other politician does. That doesn’t mean that his intention was to get people to go riot. He never told them to go break windows and enter the capitol, he specifically said “go peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”, a statement that was conveniently never even uttered during the entire J6 hearings , and even left out in every video they played.

And you recall wrong. Both Cheney and Kinzinger voted against the first impeachment. The committee had Guilliani testify he pleaded the fifth repeatedly, Eastman the Same, Ivanka Trump, Stephen Miller currently in Trump's reelection campaign, Rusty Bowers said he would vote for Trump again. Hutchinson served until Trump's last day. So no they weren't all Trump haters.

My bad, ok Cheney and kinsinger only voted 1 time , but kinsinger, after the second impeachment said he regretted not voting to impeach on the first one, based on everything that happened, and Cheney made it clear that she would do everything in her power to prevent trump from getting re elected. Suffice to say, there were no pro trump people on the J6 committee.

Would you for instance reject a testimony from a secretary that accuses her boss off sexual assault and got fired as a result of it? Would that make her a "biased" and unreliable witness?

Was there an investigation? Were there witnesses? Was there a jury with a bias against the secretary? Or the boss? I wouldn’t consider the secretary’s word as bias, it’s an accusation, but if those who were tasked with judging the outcome of the situation had a preconceived and well known affinity, either for or against the boss or the secretary, then I would be suspect about their decision.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, you don't. I don't need every last detail of a crime in order to establish someone is guilty. Simply enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's in a court with rigorous standards. Impeachment just needs to establish high crimes and misdemeanors to the satisfaction of two thirds of the senate.

It would be bad for the country as a whole so no. Politically speaking though I would welcome it. I'd like nothing more than the GOP trying to defend impeachment during a highly televised hearing on the facts as they are now established. Really, go for it. There's a reason McCarthy is ducking.

I didn't need hindsight to know that Trump wanted the election results overturned, called the people to Washington to stop the certification and know he send them to the Capitol with the words I'm paraphrasing "give the lawmakers the courage to do the right thing" you might think it not a euphemism. Most people would have no problem sussing it out though. The only thing I needed was reading comprehension skills and ears.

If all the stuff is true,no.

It's not if you're telling the truth.

The guy has been involved in literally thousands of lawsuits, both as plaintiff and defendant. This well before he became president. Does that mean they're gunning for him, or that he's involved in a lot of shady shit?" As for it being political. READ THE INDICTMENTS they describe real crimes covered by real criminal statutes in a highly detailed way.

People did care. It just wasn't as widely reported prior him becoming president.

Again. Whenever you say something like that, you're actually saying "if I simply state that some hypothetical Democrat would react in the same way, somehow my reaction would be valid." It's not. Even if you are right that someone else would react the same way you wouldn't get an inch closer to proving your reaction is valid. This isn't even a whataboutism. It's begging the question so you can use a whataboutism. Two fallacious arguments for the price of one.

I never said you need every last detail, but you need something. You need to at least investigate so you know exactly what went on. You’re literally saying that all that is needed to satisfy impeachment against a president is rudimentary knowledge of the situation. Personally, I think you need more than that, but, seeing how the dems have acted over the last few years is making me rethink that..

It would be bad for the country as a whole so no.

But that’s what they literally did with trump, and you supported that.

There's a reason McCarthy is ducking

It’s because he’s spineless. I’ve made no bones about my feeling that republicans in congress are some of the most gutless people around. They are too afraid of angering certain people that could hurt their re election chances, while dems seem to enjoy complete insulation from that because you can do as you please, and apparently, your base supports it. As such, republicans can’t play the same games that dems do.

I didn't need hindsight to know that Trump wanted the election results overturned

But you needed to understand the circumstance. All anyone had, at that time, was the Eastman memo, they didn’t really understand what was really going on. You can’t knowledge you have NOW to justify actions back then.

called the people to Washington to stop the certification

Where did he call anyone to riot? He asked people to come to a rally and to protest “peacefully and patriotically” by making their voices heard. Never once did he tell anyone to be violent and enter the capitol.

send them to the Capitol with the words I'm paraphrasing "give the lawmakers the courage to do the right thing" you might think it not a euphemism. Most people would have no problem sussing it out though. The only thing I needed was reading comprehension skills and ears.

If that’s what you got out of his words, then it’s because that’s what you wanted to hear. Again, his rhetoric was no different than any other politician. Why does the left continuously gloss over the entirety of his statements. He said the election had been stolen, and people should to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard, and encourage the senators to do the right thing. The left hears that and thinks “he sent them to destroy the capitol”.

Not sure how you make that jump but…

The guy has been involved in literally thousands of lawsuits, both as plaintiff and defendant. This well before he became president. Does that mean they're gunning for him, or that he's involved in a lot of shady shit?"

If he was into some shady shit, nobody cares until he ran for president. So yes, that means they were gunning for him. That and the fact that dems were talking impeachment almost immediately after he announced his candidacy.

People did care. It just wasn't as widely reported prior him becoming president.

The trump valuation scheme goes all the way back to 2010, if I read correctly, strangely, it only became a concern recently. There’s also the thing about Letitia James announcing her intent to start investigations on trump, as soon as she was elected…

Again. Whenever you say something like that, you're actually saying "if I simply state that some hypothetical Democrat would react in the same way, somehow my reaction would be valid." It's not. Even if you are right that someone else would react the same way you wouldn't get an inch closer to proving your reaction is valid. This isn't even a whataboutism. It's begging the question so you can use a whataboutism. Two fallacious arguments for the price of one.

No, it’s a fact. Hell, we’re already seeing the left lose their crap at the prospect of getting a venue change. There’s a reason they want the case tried in DC, and not another place.

 

[forkup]

I never said you need every last detail, but you need something. You need to at least investigate so you know exactly what went on. You’re literally saying that all that is needed to satisfy impeachment against a president is rudimentary knowledge of the situation. Personally, I think you need more than that, but, seeing how the dems have acted over the last few years is making me rethink that..



But that’s what they literally did with trump, and you supported that.



It’s because he’s spineless. I’ve made no bones about my feeling that republicans in congress are some of the most gutless people around. They are too afraid of angering certain people that could hurt their re election chances, while dems seem to enjoy complete insulation from that because you can do as you please, and apparently, your base supports it. As such, republicans can’t play the same games that dems do.



But you needed to understand the circumstance. All anyone had, at that time, was the Eastman memo, they didn’t really understand what was really going on. You can’t knowledge you have NOW to justify actions back then.



Where did he call anyone to riot? He asked people to come to a rally and to protest “peacefully and patriotically” by making their voices heard. Never once did he tell anyone to be violent and enter the capitol.



If that’s what you got out of his words, then it’s because that’s what you wanted to hear. Again, his rhetoric was no different than any other politician. Why does the left continuously gloss over the entirety of his statements. He said the election had been stolen, and people should to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard, and encourage the senators to do the right thing. The left hears that and thinks “he sent them to destroy the capitol”.

Not sure how you make that jump but…



If he was into some shady shit, nobody cares until he ran for president. So yes, that means they were gunning for him. That and the fact that dems were talking impeachment almost immediately after he announced his candidacy.




The trump valuation scheme goes all the way back to 2010, if I read correctly, strangely, it only became a concern recently. There’s also the thing about Letitia James announcing her intent to start investigations on trump, as soon as she was elected…



No, it’s a fact. Hell, we’re already seeing the left lose their crap at the prospect of getting a venue change. There’s a reason they want the case tried in DC, and not another place.

all that is needed to satisfy impeachment against a president is rudimentary knowledge of the situation

Never said rudimentary knowledge. I said enough knowledge to prove high crimes and misdemeanors to the satisfaction of two thirds of the Senate. In my view the knowledge available was plenty.

But that’s what they literally did with trump, and you supported that.

I supported it because in the first case he was caught blackmailing an ally who is as we speak in a hot war with Russia. By withholding Congressionally approved aid for the purpose of improving his election chances.

In the second case he was at least morally responsible for an assault on the Capitol.

It’s because he’s spineless.

No it's because at the moment the only thing you have is a sense that the family of a vice president isn't supposed to do business with foreign companies.

Pleeeeeeease try to make that case publicly while supporting Trump. I dare you.

All anyone had, at that time, was the Eastman memo

We had sixty plus failed lawsuits. The only legal remedy provided to challenge election results. We had Trump's tweets calling them to Washington, we had Trump's speech on the elipse, we had Trump's first reaction to the violence, consisting of berating his vice-president as he was being evacuated from the Capitol, this was more than an hour after the cordon around Capitol was breached. You think he was unaware that that happened.

Never once did he tell anyone to be violent and enter the capitol.

If you douse a house in gasoline, give kids some matches and tell them to go play in the house, you can't claim you had no idea the house would burn down, even if you told the kids to be careful.

Not sure how you make that jump but

It's not the Da Vinci code. Again, McConnell, McCarthy, not to mention most of the people convicted of the events all said Trump was responsible. The people said in court that they understood that this was what Trump wanted.

nobody cares until he ran for president.

They did care. The press simply didn't. His legal troubles didn't start with him becoming president. You can't claim he is being targeted for political reasons if you have been in court constantly for over 3 decades.

There’s a reason they want the case tried in DC, and not another place

It's being tried in DC because that's were the crimes he's charged with occurred. The same for South-Florida. The special counsel could have tried to bring those charges in DC and probably New Jersey if he was trying to game the system. He choose to play it above board.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Never said rudimentary knowledge. I said enough knowledge to prove high crimes and misdemeanors to the satisfaction of two thirds of the Senate. In my view the knowledge available was plenty.

I supported it because in the first case he was caught blackmailing an ally who is as we speak in a hot war with Russia. By withholding Congressionally approved aid for the purpose of improving his election chances.

In the second case he was at least morally responsible for an assault on the Capitol.

No it's because at the moment the only thing you have is a sense that the family of a vice president isn't supposed to do business with foreign companies.

Pleeeeeeease try to make that case publicly while supporting Trump. I dare you.

We had sixty plus failed lawsuits. The only legal remedy provided to challenge election results. We had Trump's tweets calling them to Washington, we had Trump's speech on the elipse, we had Trump's first reaction to the violence, consisting of berating his vice-president as he was being evacuated from the Capitol, this was more than an hour after the cordon around Capitol was breached. You think he was unaware that that happened.

If you douse a house in gasoline, give kids some matches and tell them to go play in the house, you can't claim you had no idea the house would burn down, even if you told the kids to be careful.

It's not the Da Vinci code. Again, McConnell, McCarthy, not to mention most of the people convicted of the events all said Trump was responsible. The people said in court that they understood that this was what Trump wanted.

They did care. The press simply didn't. His legal troubles didn't start with him becoming president. You can't claim he is being targeted for political reasons if you have been in court constantly for over 3 decades.

It's being tried in DC because that's were the crimes he's charged with occurred. The same for South-Florida. The special counsel could have tried to bring those charges in DC and probably New Jersey if he was trying to game the system. He choose to play it above board.

Never said rudimentary knowledge. I said enough knowledge to prove high crimes and misdemeanors to the satisfaction of two thirds of the Senate. In my view the knowledge available was plenty.

Then that was a pretty low bar. One would think if you were trying to remove a president, you’d have more than just the bare minimum. The dems turned the impeachment process into a willy nilly thing. I seem to recall “high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever congress says they are”. You’re suggesting that they didn’t need to fully understand the events that took place to hold an impeachment vote.

You’re asking us to believe they had enough knowledge of the events that they could attempt to remove him, but then they had to conduct an investigation to find out what happened. That’s putting the cart before the horse.

I supported it because in the first case he was caught blackmailing an ally who is as we speak in a hot war with Russia.

Huh…Biden also blackmailed Ukraine…who is now in a hot war with Russia. Where’s your condemnation of that?

By withholding Congressionally approved aid for the purpose of improving his election chances.

Where’s your proof that he did it for that reason? I already know you’re going to respond with “it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that’s what he meant”, but, the thing is, you can assume all you like, but trump never mentions he was looking for help with his campaign, only trump knows what his motives were, and in a legal sense, you have to have proof of those motives. Trump asking Zelenskyy to look into possible corruption that may have happened, in itself, is not illegal.

In the second case he was at least morally responsible for an assault on the Capitol.

I’ll admit, he should have been quicker in making a statement to those people at the capitol, but I fail to see how he is morally responsible for it taking place. Are you suggesting that trump can’t say he thinks the election was stolen? Can he not use rhetoric and inflammatory words? I mean, all politicians do this.

While I agree he should have been quicker in helping to get it stopped, there is no evidence to suggest that the goal trump set out with at his speech was to get people to go attack the capitol. Once again, “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” was the only actually call to action he made that day.

No it's because at the moment the only thing you have is a sense that the family of a vice president isn't supposed to do business with foreign companies.

No, there’s more than that. Every day, more and more information is coming out that ties joe Biden into the whole scheme. There is certainly enough to begin an impeachment inquiry.

Pleeeeeeease try to make that case publicly while supporting Trump. I dare you.

I am making that case publicly, I’ve said this several times over the years. Also, you misunderstand where I’m coming from. I’m not a trump supporter. I’ve also said this over the years, you can see this in my post history. I’m just against the antics that the democrats have pulled over the last few years, combined with the hate and divisiveness I’ve witnessed coming from some of your more hardcore progressive talk shows, so, my arguments about this are not coming from a position of support for trump.

We had sixty plus failed lawsuits. The only legal remedy provided to challenge election results. We had Trump's tweets calling them to Washington, we had Trump's speech on the elipse, we had Trump's first reaction to the violence, consisting of berating his vice-president as he was being evacuated from the Capitol, this was more than an hour after the cordon around Capitol was breached. You think he was unaware that that happened.

But you never had trump actually make a call to violence. You only have him making a call to be peaceful.

If you douse a house in gasoline, give kids some matches and tell them to go play in the house, you can't claim you had no idea the house would burn down, even if you told the kids to be careful.

Ok, let’s go with that. Where is your call to have Schumer removed because he made threatening rhetorical language towards kavanaugh and gorsuch, which later we found that a man had been arrested who was on his way to kavanaughs house, with guns and zip ties. Where’s your call to action to get the various politicians removed who encouraged and supported the riots that lead to billions of dollars in destruction to private property, and that lead to setting a police station on fire? That lead to antifa and blm protesters harassing people on the streets and at restaurants.

The left is very selective in their outrage when it comes to the use of rhetoric.

If by pouring gas on the fire, you mean that trump used rhetorical language, yes…yes he did, but that’s the same kind of stuff every…other…politician…does. There not any shred of evidence that trump meant for those people to go do what they did. In fact, many people who attacked the capitol were there before trump ended his speech.

The people said in court that they understood that this was what Trump wanted.

Someone said that trump told them, or at least got the idea that trump wanted people to attack the capitol? Who said that? I didn’t get a chance to watch much of the hearings. Who testified that trumps intent that day that it was his intention that those people would go to the capitol that day, and attack it?

His legal troubles didn't start with him becoming president. You can't claim he is being targeted for political reasons if you have been in court constantly for over 3 decades.

Then why is it that nobody bothered trump when he supposedly fraudulently estimated his property values, back in 2010, but in 2018, Letitia James, after just having become attorney general, during her acceptance speech claims she is going to “look into every dark corner of trumps real estate dealings”

Sounds kinda political to me.

I’ve no proof of this, obviously, but I strongly suspect that had trump never decided to run for president again, none of these lawsuits would have ever been filed. Hell, I have half a suspicion that if trump came out tomorrow and dropped out of the race, the left would find a way to make all these lawsuits go away. They’d probably say “well, trump dropping out of the race is punishment enough, no use in kicking a man while he’s down” or some such.

You can’t say it’s not political when you had people calling for his impeachment before he really even got started with his campaign.

 

[forkup]

Then that was a pretty low bar. One would think if you were trying to remove a president, you’d have more than just the bare minimum. The dems turned the impeachment process into a willy nilly thing. I seem to recall “high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever congress says they are”. You’re suggesting that they didn’t need to fully understand the events that took place to hold an impeachment vote.

You’re asking us to believe they had enough knowledge of the events that they could attempt to remove him, but then they had to conduct an investigation to find out what happened. That’s putting the cart before the horse.



Huh…Biden also blackmailed Ukraine…who is now in a hot war with Russia. Where’s your condemnation of that?



Where’s your proof that he did it for that reason? I already know you’re going to respond with “it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that’s what he meant”, but, the thing is, you can assume all you like, but trump never mentions he was looking for help with his campaign, only trump knows what his motives were, and in a legal sense, you have to have proof of those motives. Trump asking Zelenskyy to look into possible corruption that may have happened, in itself, is not illegal.



I’ll admit, he should have been quicker in making a statement to those people at the capitol, but I fail to see how he is morally responsible for it taking place. Are you suggesting that trump can’t say he thinks the election was stolen? Can he not use rhetoric and inflammatory words? I mean, all politicians do this.

While I agree he should have been quicker in helping to get it stopped, there is no evidence to suggest that the goal trump set out with at his speech was to get people to go attack the capitol. Once again, “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” was the only actually call to action he made that day.



No, there’s more than that. Every day, more and more information is coming out that ties joe Biden into the whole scheme. There is certainly enough to begin an impeachment inquiry.



I am making that case publicly, I’ve said this several times over the years. Also, you misunderstand where I’m coming from. I’m not a trump supporter. I’ve also said this over the years, you can see this in my post history. I’m just against the antics that the democrats have pulled over the last few years, combined with the hate and divisiveness I’ve witnessed coming from some of your more hardcore progressive talk shows, so, my arguments about this are not coming from a position of support for trump.



But you never had trump actually make a call to violence. You only have him making a call to be peaceful.



Ok, let’s go with that. Where is your call to have Schumer removed because he made threatening rhetorical language towards kavanaugh and gorsuch, which later we found that a man had been arrested who was on his way to kavanaughs house, with guns and zip ties. Where’s your call to action to get the various politicians removed who encouraged and supported the riots that lead to billions of dollars in destruction to private property, and that lead to setting a police station on fire? That lead to antifa and blm protesters harassing people on the streets and at restaurants.

The left is very selective in their outrage when it comes to the use of rhetoric.

If by pouring gas on the fire, you mean that trump used rhetorical language, yes…yes he did, but that’s the same kind of stuff every…other…politician…does. There not any shred of evidence that trump meant for those people to go do what they did. In fact, many people who attacked the capitol were there before trump ended his speech.



Someone said that trump told them, or at least got the idea that trump wanted people to attack the capitol? Who said that? I didn’t get a chance to watch much of the hearings. Who testified that trumps intent that day that it was his intention that those people would go to the capitol that day, and attack it?



Then why is it that nobody bothered trump when he supposedly fraudulently estimated his property values, back in 2010, but in 2018, Letitia James, after just having become attorney general, during her acceptance speech claims she is going to “look into every dark corner of trumps real estate dealings”

Sounds kinda political to me.

I’ve no proof of this, obviously, but I strongly suspect that had trump never decided to run for president again, none of these lawsuits would have ever been filed. Hell, I have half a suspicion that if trump came out tomorrow and dropped out of the race, the left would find a way to make all these lawsuits go away. They’d probably say “well, trump dropping out of the race is punishment enough, no use in kicking a man while he’s down” or some such.

You can’t say it’s not political when you had people calling for his impeachment before he really even got started with his campaign.

Then that was a pretty low bar. One would think if you were trying to remove a president, you’d have more than just the bare minimum.

I don't think being able to establish that a sitting president is refusing to relinquish power when he has exhausted all legal means to contest the election results. This culminating in an attack on the Capitol by people he convinced that the election was stolen is the bare minimum. In fact, a peaceful transition of power is a core tenet of a functioning Democracy.

Biden also blackmailed Ukraine

No, he didn't the US government did. This for the actual express purpose of removing a corrupt prosecutor. It was a move endorsed by the British, the world bank, I believe the Germans (I'm less sure) and... the Republican controlled US Senate.

Where’s your proof that he did it for that reason?

My proof is common sense to the point that a court of law would consider it beyond reasonable doubt. If a US president asks a foreign leader directly, to investigate the son of his main political rival and some server mentioned in a conspiracy theory. Without going through the official channels that an investigation like this would require. Bypassing the embassy, legal attaché, and justice department in favor of your personal lawyer. Claiming it was a simple ask to look into corruption is incredulous to the point of being absurd.

It's akin to a gangster claiming to a jury that when he said, "nice store, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it." Was a simple expression of concern.

I fail to see how he is morally responsible for it taking place.

The were in the Capitol because Trump told them Pence had the authority to stop the certification. They were at the Capitol because Trump told them to go there. They were in Washington because Trump asked them to come. They wanted to come because Trump told them the election was stolen. If you take Trump out of this equation NONE of that would have occurred. That's why I don't hold Shumer responsible for what happened to Kavanaugh although I abhor it. Without Schumer this guy still would have showed up. He was mad over Roe v Wade. That was his stated motive. I don't hold any Dem responsible for the riots that happened. Because they didn't cause them. A cop sitting on a guy's neck for 9min did. You can take the Dems out of the equation entirely and the same would still happen.

On the other hand, if you take Trump out of the equation none of it would have happened. That's how someone becomes morally responsible.

No, there’s more than that. Every day, more and more information is coming out that ties joe Biden into the whole scheme. There is certainly enough to begin an impeachment inquiry.

Comer putting out a new memo doesn't constitute new information. In fact the memo stating that no direct link to Joe Biden needs to be established should tell you something. But again I wouldn't mind the enquiry simply from the standpoint of political reasoning

I am making that case publicly

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about an impeachment. As I said this would be very public. Litigating nepotism and corruption for Republicans would be a colossal blunder. The only thing a semi-competent Democratic politician need to do is play a feature film worth of clips from those same people defending OPEN corruption by Trump, his administration and direct family.

my arguments about this are not coming from a position of support for trump.

You might tell yourself that but not me. I've seen you make too many arguments that are either very ill-conceived or in bad faith. I'm thinking ill-conceived because I'm pretty sure you're arguing in good faith but such ill-conceived arguments from I think an intelligent person has to be seeded from a deep bias.

at least got the idea that trump wanted people to attack the capitol? Who said that?

Many people appearing in court used that as one of their defenses

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/13/politics/january-6-rioter-trump-defense-dustin-thompson/index.html

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5746/files/Douglas Sweet Defense Sentencing Memorandum.pdf#page=8

I’ll admit, he should have been quicker in making a statement to those people at the capitol

You act like this was some minor oversight. If you see me get slapped and your first response to me is "serves you right" doesn't that very much imply you agree with the slap? By the way Trump to this day is portraying the people who participated in an insurrection that had over 140 LEO hurt as victims.

I strongly suspect that had trump never decided to run for president again, none of these lawsuits would have ever been filed

I agree. Lord knows wouldn't have been able to get a security clearance without becoming president and there would have been no election he could have claimed not to have lost.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What kind of gobblety gook is you talkin' about, Kawliga?

Reading is fundamental.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They'll keep doing this with every utterance Trump makes.

They're trying to silence him.

Good luck with that!

View attachment 811421

Trump’s gonna **** around and find out what pretrial confinement is like.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

IKR? It’s not like he’s out on bail or somethin.

 

[Thunk]

Trump’s gonna **** around and find out what pretrial confinement is like.

The cell will have to be big enough for Trump and 7 SS agents.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's another link to the OP:

Prosecutors Ask Judge To Issue Protective Order After Trump Post Appearing To Promise Revenge​

Judge Swiftly Denies Trump Team Request To Extend Deadline Over Protective Order Debate

The order, different from a “gag order,” would limit what information Trump and his legal team could share publicly about the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.

www.huffpost.com

Propaganda. The just did that just to make Trump look bad. The judge is as corrupt as Biden.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don't think being able to establish that a sitting president is refusing to relinquish power when he has exhausted all legal means to contest the election results. This culminating in an attack on the Capitol by people he convinced that the election was stolen is the bare minimum. In fact, a peaceful transition of power is a core tenet of a functioning Democracy.

No, he didn't the US government did. This for the actual express purpose of removing a corrupt prosecutor. It was a move endorsed by the British, the world bank, I believe the Germans (I'm less sure) and... the Republican controlled US Senate.

My proof is common sense to the point that a court of law would consider it beyond reasonable doubt. If a US president asks a foreign leader directly, to investigate the son of his main political rival and some server mentioned in a conspiracy theory. Without going through the official channels that an investigation like this would require. Bypassing the embassy, legal attaché, and justice department in favor of your personal lawyer. Claiming it was a simple ask to look into corruption is incredulous to the point of being absurd.

It's akin to a gangster claiming to a jury that when he said, "nice store, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it." Was a simple expression of concern.

The were in the Capitol because Trump told them Pence had the authority to stop the certification. They were at the Capitol because Trump told them to go there. They were in Washington because Trump asked them to come. They wanted to come because Trump told them the election was stolen. If you take Trump out of this equation NONE of that would have occurred. That's why I don't hold Shumer responsible for what happened to Kavanaugh although I abhor it. Without Schumer this guy still would have showed up. He was mad over Roe v Wade. That was his stated motive. I don't hold any Dem responsible for the riots that happened. Because they didn't cause them. A cop sitting on a guy's neck for 9min did. You can take the Dems out of the equation entirely and the same would still happen.

On the other hand, if you take Trump out of the equation none of it would have happened. That's how someone becomes morally responsible.

Comer putting out a new memo doesn't constitute new information. In fact the memo stating that no direct link to Joe Biden needs to be established should tell you something. But again I wouldn't mind the enquiry simply from the standpoint of political reasoning

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about an impeachment. As I said this would be very public. Litigating nepotism and corruption for Republicans would be a colossal blunder. The only thing a semi-competent Democratic politician need to do is play a feature film worth of clips from those same people defending OPEN corruption by Trump, his administration and direct family.

You might tell yourself that but not me. I've seen you make too many arguments that are either very ill-conceived or in bad faith. I'm thinking ill-conceived because I'm pretty sure you're arguing in good faith but such ill-conceived arguments from I think an intelligent person has to be seeded from a deep bias.

Many people appearing in court used that as one of their defenses

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/13/politics/january-6-rioter-trump-defense-dustin-thompson/index.html

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5746/files/Douglas Sweet Defense Sentencing Memorandum.pdf#page=8

You act like this was some minor oversight. If you see me get slapped and your first response to me is "serves you right" doesn't that very much imply you agree with the slap? By the way Trump to this day is portraying the people who participated in an insurrection that had over 140 LEO hurt as victims.

I agree. Lord knows wouldn't have been able to get a security clearance without becoming president and there would have been no election he could have claimed not to have lost.

I don't think being able to establish that a sitting president is refusing to relinquish power when he has exhausted all legal means to contest the election results. This culminating in an attack on the Capitol by people he convinced that the election was stolen is the bare minimum. In fact, a peaceful transition of power is a core tenet of a functioning Democracy.

I disagree, I think that the removal attempt of a president is a serious thing, and should not be taken lightly. As such, due diligence should be afforded. But, having said that, one day, the left will be on the receiving end of that kind of “shotgun justice”, and maybe you’ll agree with me then.

No, he didn't the US government did. This for the actual express purpose of removing a corrupt prosecutor. It was a move endorsed by the British, the world bank, I believe the Germans (I'm less sure) and... the Republican controlled US Senate.

Again, disagree.

TIMELINE -Key dates in the U.S. political controversy over Ukraine

Some Democrats are calling for the impeachment of U.S. President Donald Trump over reports that he asked his Ukrainian counterpart to launch an investigation that could damage his Democratic political rival Joe Biden.

www.reuters.com

This says that shokin was in the process of investigating burisma, but the investigation was dormant at the time Biden visited Ukraine. That doesnt mean the investigation was over, it was just dormant. Biden made sure it was over, after hunter joined burisma, Biden had shokin fired.

Please answer this, because nobody else ever does. If bidens focus was to remove a “corrupt prosecutor”, why is it that he only focused on the one country where his son was doing business? I’m sure there is corruption in other countries that we give money to, yet Biden made no demands of those countries.

My proof is common sense to the point that a court of law would consider it beyond reasonable doubt. If a US president asks a foreign leader directly, to investigate the son of his main political rival and some server mentioned in a conspiracy theory. Without going through the official channels that an investigation like this would require. Bypassing the embassy, legal attaché, and justice department in favor of your personal lawyer. Claiming it was a simple ask to look into corruption is incredulous to the point of being absurd.

But Biden did the exact same thing. He didn’t go through the proper channels, he directly made the demand, as trump did. However, that wasn’t my question. My question is show me the proof that trump did it to benefit his campaign. Your theories and common sense doesn’t satisfy the legal requirement of proof. “Because that’s what I think” also doesn’t do it.

This is the bias I was referring to earlier. Biden has shokin fired and you say there is no way that his action was wrong, but trump asks Zelenskyy to find out why Biden had shokin fired, and that can be nothing but nefarious.

The were in the Capitol because Trump told them Pence had the authority to stop the certification. They were at the Capitol because Trump told them to go there. They were in Washington because Trump asked them to come. They wanted to come because Trump told them the election was stolen. If you take Trump out of this equation NONE of that would have occurred. That's why I don't hold Shumer responsible for what happened to Kavanaugh although I abhor it. Without Schumer this guy still would have showed up. He was mad over Roe v Wade. That was his stated motive. I don't hold any Dem responsible for the riots that happened. Because they didn't cause them. A cop sitting on a guy's neck for 9min did. You can take the Dems out of the equation entirely and the same would still happen.

The were in the Capitol because Trump told them Pence had the authority to stop the certification. They were at the Capitol because Trump told them to go there. They were in Washington because Trump asked them to come. They wanted to come because Trump told them the election was stolen. If you take Trump out of this equation NONE of that would have occurred.

Ok, I agree up to this point. You’re right, he asked them to come to a rally, and he asked them to go to the capitol. And you’re right, if he had not asked them to do either of those things, they wouldn’t have happened. The connection you have to make is where trumps calling then to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard = “go to the capitol and break in, smash windows, try to get into the senate chambers”.

That's why I don't hold Shumer responsible for what happened to Kavanaugh although I abhor it. Without Schumer this guy still would have showed up.

Are you sure? How do you know? That’s a pretty convenient disassociation, considering Schumer was railing against kavanaugh and gorsuch because of their potential vote on roe, and then this guy attempts to get to kavanaughs house, because of roe. What about all the rhetoric from the rest of the dems in congress? They certainly made, and still make a lot of hay because of roe.

You’re trying to say that , trump can tell his rioters to be peaceful, and when they are not, it’s because of trumps words, but when someone makes an attempt on the life of a scotus judge, well, nobody is to blame but the guy himself. Apparently, something got him riled up enough to do what he did.

What about waters, pelosi, Pressley, Harris, all who encouraged the violent riots that caused destruction to cities, and harm to people? Are they responsible for their rhetoric, or is it just the fault of the people who did the violence?

I don't hold any Dem responsible for the riots that happened. Because they didn't cause them. A cop sitting on a guy's neck for 9min did. You can take the Dems out of the equation entirely and the same would still happen.

And there my answer. You say the dems didn’t cause it…but by the same token you blame trump for not making a speech for his supporters to stop until too late, I also blame the dems for not allowing the police to do their job to stop it, and then going on tv to encourage the riots to continue.

On the other hand, if you take Trump out of the equation none of it would have happened. That's how someone becomes morally responsible.

You’re saying trump isn’t allowed to hold a rally? He isn’t allowed to use rhetoric?

I agree if trump hadn’t held the rally, that none of it would have happened, however, you don’t become morally responsible unless you are calling for action to violence.

Also, if you’re suggesting we’re going to punish people because of their morals….we’re gonna need a new congress…

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about an impeachment. As I said this would be very public. Litigating nepotism and corruption for Republicans would be a colossal blunder. The only thing a semi-competent Democratic politician need to do is play a feature film worth of clips from those same people defending OPEN corruption by Trump, his administration and direct family.

Who knows. All these allegations of the bidens getting paid tens of millions by the Chinese…if they flesh out, could be a problem for bidens defense of hunters actions. If they are corrupt in china, seems to reason maybe the allegations in Ukraine might be true.

You might tell yourself that but not me. I've seen you make too many arguments that are either very ill-conceived or in bad faith. I'm thinking ill-conceived because I'm pretty sure you're arguing in good faith but such ill-conceived arguments from I think an intelligent person has to be seeded from a deep bias.

I don’t need to tell myself that, I have the proof to back it up. I’ll even help you out. Search my post history, you’ll find that I’ve never claimed to support trump, in fact I’ve claimed on a few occasions that I don’t support trump. Use search keywords such as “not a fan”, and “don’t support”, and “doesn’t act presidential” and “would liked to have had someone else win”…or something thereabouts, you’ll find that I’ve never been a supporter of trump. Now, I would vote for him if he’s the nominee, but only because I’d prefer a Republican in office.

The bias you detect is not FOR trump, it’s against the left. As I said before, I don’t vote for the person, I vote for the party.

Many people appearing in court used that as one of their defenses

Ok, I’m sure he believes that trump wanted him to do those things…but that’s irrelevant. “I believe” = the “order” came from his own mind. Show me the president actually telling people to do those things, especially when trump told them to be peaceful. It almost sounds like you’re saying that because trump used rhetoric in his speech, and told them to go to the capitol to protest, that that somehow makes him responsible because people got carried away and took matters way too far. Unless trump had a hand in orchestrating the attack and you can prove that his goal that day was for all that to happen, you can’t pin that on him. People are accountable for their own actions. Also, more information is coming out about FBI infiltration, and say what you want about Epps…he IS on video tape telling people “we need to go INTO the capitol”, and you hear others disagreeing with that notion.

Could it be that maybe those people were prodded into that riot? I’m not discounting personal accountability, but, there are reports that it may have been fbi, antifa, and even the police, dressing up as trump supporters to try and goad the crowd.

If you can show me where trump had intended and told the crowd to attack the capitol, then I’d agree with you. Short of that, you charge him for the riot just because he used some harsh words.

You act like this was some minor oversight

No, it was horrible that he wasn’t more proactive, but that doesn’t imply that he intended for it to happen. We don’t know why he waited so long, there are some indications, but only he know what was going on in his head, and only we know what he spoke publicly, or to those close to him.

By the way Trump to this day is portraying the people who participated in an insurrection that had over 140 LEO hurt as victims.

Well, they were all adults, and apparently trump still thinks the election was stolen. Why? I don’t know, apparently he has admitted he lost…couldn’t tell you why he thinks that.

I agree. Lord knows wouldn't have been able to get a security clearance without becoming president and there would have been no election he could have claimed not to have lost.

No no, I don’t mean in 2016, I mean now. If trump had decided not to run in ‘24, I don’t think any of these indictments would have ever seen the light of day.

Also…uh…this response chain is getting waaay too long, that trying to respond on a phone makes it very time consuming…so I may just start combing responses lol.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

"Appeared to be promising revenge"? Pretty thin isn't it? What did Schumer mean when he said certain Supreme Court Justices "will pay the price"?

Not thin at all. Trump has a clear history of mishandling documents and sensitive information.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I just wonder how anyone as stupid as you can even feed yourself. Trump means he's going to go after their JOBS when he becomes potus you stupid shit. I mean my God, how is that level of overt stupidity even possible?

Uh huh. Which is an explicit threat of retaliation, dupe.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Now do Schumer:

Schumer isn’t out on bail and trying to intimidate witnesses or potential jurors, dupe.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The cell will have to be big enough for Trump and 7 SS agents.

Doesn’t need to be a cell at all. It could be a hotel suite. No leaving, no visitors, no devices, no telephone and no internet.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]