How Would You Defend Trump?

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Rebound said:

the maximum penalties are very unlikely to apply. 

Or any.

[Rebound]

27 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Or any.

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

 

Shouldn't the laws be applied equally?

If you arrest one, then one gets a cushy retirement with far more serious crimes, is it really about law?

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Rebound said:

 

This message brought to you by "The Society Of People Who Have Never Ever Heard of Hillary Clinton"  

 

[Rebound]

7 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Shouldn't the laws be applied equally?

If you arrest one, then one gets a cushy retirement with far more serious crimes, is it really about law?

You are engaging in the argument of Whataboutism.  Will it help you if you get a DUI? “Hey Judge, what about Chappaquidick, huh?”  Guarantee you, it won’t work. 

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This message brought to you by "The Society Of People Who Have Never Ever Heard of Hillary Clinton"  

 

Your message brought to us by the people who elected a guy who promised to lock up Hillary Clinton and didn’t. 
 

To repeat myself again: READ THE LAW.  I already quoted it for you. Tell us the statute she violated, by quoting the statute number and the text of the statute. Otherwise, you’re blowing hot air. 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Rebound

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You are engaging in the argument of Whataboutism.  Will it help you if you get a DUI? “Hey Judge, what about Chappaquidick, huh?”  Guarantee you, it won’t work. 

It will if one is trying to convince the public they are unfairly being targeted. In courts not so much, but if he somehow wins his case, this stunt would get him millions of votes.

 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You are engaging in the argument of Whataboutism. 
 

No, whataboutism is something different. Whataboutism is when you take one bad act and excuse it by pointing to another completely unrelated bad act.

As in - "that republican stole public money!"  Followed by "So? THAT Democrat slept with an underage girl! Whatabout that?!!?!"

That is whataboutism.

When you're comparing two of the same things its' not whataboutism, its precedent.  "They shouldn't prosecute trump"  "You're right, they didn't prosecute hillary for the same crime". That's precedent or direct comparison.

I notice these days that there is a tendency on the left to conflate the two - they are VERY different. It is ENTIRELY appropriate to look at how similar cases were handled in the past.

 

Quote

Your message brought to us by the people who elected a guy who promised to lock up Hillary Clinton and didn’t. 

Yeah - he was convinced he was wrong to do so. Turns out he should have.    You KNOW you're doing something wrong when you go ahead and do something even trump realized was morally wrong   LOLOL
 

Quote

To repeat myself again: READ THE LAW.  I already quoted it for you. Tell us the statute she violated. 

I have read  it carefully AND i know it better than you do, just based on a few of your comments. 

But two things can be true at the same time.  it can be true that trump violated the law,  AND it can ALSO be true that it's a massive and dangerous double standard to charge him when your own people did the same thing not long ago but benefitted from the 'no charge political opponent' rule.

Had obama prosecuted hillary then fine. Trump is fair game.  Had Trump done it - totally fine. He's fair game.

But everyone in the free universe can see the double standard here and you can't make that 'right'.  What the dems are doing is banana republic stuff. For their own - anything goes.  For their opponents - the law.  That's not ok.

7 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

It will if one is trying to convince the public they are unfairly being targeted. In courts not so much, but if he somehow wins his case, this stunt would get him millions of votes.

 

This is true.

Edited June 19, 2023 by CdnFox

[Rebound]

25 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

It will if one is trying to convince the public they are unfairly being targeted. In courts not so much, but if he somehow wins his case, this stunt would get him millions of votes.

 

I don’t think I’m the first person to break this to you, but Trump is a serial liar. 
 

I’m getting very tired of repeating this: The facts in the Clinton case were very different. But my answer to Trump whining that Hillary wasn’t prosecuted is, “Hey, a-hole, you were President, you held the big stick, you didn’t use it.” Of course, the reason he didn’t prosecute her is that there was nothing to prosecute. That didn’t stop the GOP from prosecuting husband Bill and it isn’t stopping them from going after Hunter Biden, so stop with the victim nonsense. 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

I don’t think I’m the first person to break this to you, but Trump is a serial liar. 
 

 

But he's not lying about there being a double standard and everyone is going to see that. That part is true.

Quote

I’m getting very tired of repeating this: The facts in the Clinton case were very different.

If you're finding being dishonest like that is tiring ,  just stop     The facts were not substantially different in the end, other than she wasn't president and didn't even have that excuse.

She committed a crime.  That is a simple truth even the FBI noted .  They claimed they coudn't prosecute because they coudln't prove she intended to commit a crime. But - we all know that's a lie.

So  -  lets just stop pretending there's any real difference.

 

Quote

“Hey, a-hole, you were President, you held the big stick, you didn’t use it.”

Because it's wrong.  You don't put your political opponents in jail.

But - biden just threw that out the window.

Watch what happens now. If you thought things were partisan before - we'll see more and more political appointments in law and courst and they will be used to attack political opponents.

Was that really a good idea?

Edited June 19, 2023 by CdnFox

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

I don’t think I’m the first person to break this to you, but Trump is a serial liar. 

All politicians are. 

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

so stop with the victim nonsense. 

It works for the far left.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You don't put your political opponents in jail.

Exactly. The absence of this, separates the US from a third world country where jailing opponents is the norm.

[Rebound]

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The absence of this, separates the US from a third world country where jailing opponents is the norm.

Wrong. In a third world country, the leaders are exempt from prosecution.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Rebound

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Wrong. In a third world country, the leaders are exempt from prosecution.

I said opponents. Meaning they are vying for your position. Last time I checked, Trump isn't a president, making him an opponent o_O

[Rebound]

5 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I said opponents. Meaning they are vying for your position. Last time I checked, Trump isn't a president, making him an opponent o_O

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Rebound said:

 

If you can't put things in words, just accept maybe your point isn't as good as you think it may be.

[Rebound]

Just now, Perspektiv said:

If you can't put things in words, just accept maybe your point isn't as good as you think it may be.

I’ve already put it in words. You’re repeating the same absurd argument that Donald Trump is immune from the law.  He is not.  

[WestCanMan]

On 6/18/2023 at 5:06 PM, WestCanMan said:

Tough to say because it depends on what is contained in those documents. 

It could be that he kept a record of some things for the sake of defending himself from future witch hunts, like the Russian collusion show trial and the Ukrainian collusion farce, and if he did that's completely understandable considering that the FBI already committed several crimes and tried to coerce false testimony from several witnesses to frame him for a crime that they don't have a shred of evidence that he committed.

In case you don't recall, the Ukrainian collusion case was actually about the Russian collusion case, because when asked Zelenski for a bit of help he specifically asked about crowdstrike - which had no bearing on anything else in the world aside from the first witch hunt.

Whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not, the above is an actual example of Trump trying to get information to protect himself from FBI malfeasance.

If the docs that he had in his possession contain US military secrets of a highly sensitive nature then there really is no defence because 1) things like that can't be left lying around, even if there is SS at his house all the time and 2) things like that are only accessible on a "need to know" basis and he definitely doesn't need to know them anymore once he's no longer president. His possession of those kinds of documents would have posed an actual, verifiable threat to the US. 

I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the case though or this would have been resolved by now, to Trump's detriment.

That's the exact opposite of the Dems' last attempt to get Trump: they tried to make 36 separate charges out of him being on one equal payment plan. 

Further to the above, with respect to some information that the thread-starter posted in the "Doc19" thread, it appears that American authorities were already aware that Trump had those exact docs in his possession, and they knew exactly where to go to get them, so this is clearly not a case of Trump "having documents which he never should have taken home, and whose information posed a massive threat the the security of the US", it's a case of him having stuff that they already knew he had and they're basically just squabbling over the timeline in which they should have been returned. 

This is a misdemeansnothing or a mehlony at best. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

Wrong. In a third world country, the leaders are exempt from prosecution.

 

 No, YOU are wrong..  In  FIRST world countries leaders are exempt. In THIRD world countries - one party's leaders are exempt and one party puts its political opponents in jail

Which is what  The US has on the go right now

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Further to the above, with respect to some information that the thread-starter posted in the "Doc19" thread, it appears that American authorities were already aware that Trump had those exact docs in his possession, and they knew exactly where to go to get them, so this is clearly not a case of Trump "having documents which he never should have taken home, and whose information posed a massive threat the the security of the US", it's a case of him having stuff that they already knew he had and they're basically just squabbling over the timeline in which they should have been returned. 

This is a misdemeansnothing or a mehlony at best. 

False.

The National Archives did not know that Trump took Classified information from the White House. They only knew that he took Presidential Records. When they first asked him to return ALL of the records, he sent some boxes back (by mail, I think) and the Archives staff found Classified information in the boxes he returned.  That’s what kicked off the FBI investigation, which lead to a subpoena, and then to the search warrant. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

You’re repeating the same absurd argument that Donald Trump is immune from the law.  He is not.  

He is not. But he likely will avoid any jail time.

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

True but also evidence of the third charge as well.   the first proves he knew that he had the boxes still and that they were classified, not just personal momentos. So it weakens his 'moved by accident' story.  And the second shows he was actively working out how to best hide the boxes -  remember you can't have an obstruction charge without there being some sort of underlying crime.  If he accidentally moved teh boxes then there's no obstruction.

Who told you ^this? Thanks for proving ONCE AGAIN you don't understand US LAW.

18 U.S.C. § 1503: WHAT EXACTLY IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

Quote

When Obstruction of Justice Occurs

• With or without pending proceeding – Though obstruction charges often arise from attempts to influence active cases, the offense has no requirement for there to be any official proceeding or court case pending in order for a person to be charged with a crime. This was highlighted in the case of Martha Stewart, who was convicted of obstructing justice for conduct which occurred very early in an investigation into insider trading.
• With or without charges – As a process crime, obstruction of justice can form the basis for what’s known as “pretextual prosecution,” where the government targets defendants for one offense but prosecutes them for another. That means it can occur even if a person has not been charged with a crime, and is often used in situations where the prosecution has difficulty charging a person for an underlying suspected offense, such as charging Al Capone for tax evasion, rather than his other purported crimes. This concept is also a large part of the conversation related to President Donald Trump, who, although not charged with an offense for which his administration was being investigated, engaged in conduct which arguably constituted obstruction.
• Innocence – There’s no requirement for a person to be proven guilty of another crime in order to be charged with or convicted of obstruction. A person can obstruct justice even if they are innocent of an underlying allegation against them. Should an investigation yield no evidence a person committed a particular offense, that person can still be charged with obstruction.
• No involvement in a case – A person may also be charged with obstruction even if they have nothing to do with a case whatsoever. A family member who threatens witnesses or co-conspirators implicated in a case involving their loved one, for example, can be charged with the offense. A person who discloses the existence of a criminal investigation, or grand jury inquiry, to the target of the investigation, for the purpose of hindering it, may also be charged with obstruction.

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

if ALL they are left with is the final charge of not returning the boxes when ordered then that's much tougher to pull off

Well that's not accurate.  If it was then biden would be in real trouble. 

^More BULLSHIT from you. Biden returned all the documents he had WHEN DISCOVERED, almost all BEFORE "ordered."

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What they're going to stick him with is INTENTIONALLY not turning the docs over.  And if you just forgot they were there then that's not 'intentional' no matter what kind of car you store them with

There's plenty of EVIDENCE outlined in the indictment that PROVES Trump knew he had classified documents.

Including several that were squirreled away in Trump's personal desk.

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Shouldn't the laws be applied equally?

Of course. And they are for the most part, except when Trump was POTUS due to the BULLSHIT OLC memo (written by WH lawyers) which prohibits charging a sitting POTUS.

9 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

If you arrest one, then one gets a cushy retirement with far more serious crimes, is it really about law?

To what "far more serious crimes" do you refer? For instance ACCIDENTAL misstorage of UNMARKED post classified documents is NOT a "far more serious crime." If someone mails you an unmarked classified document, you will not be charged with it's possession, because your intent cannot be proven when you don't even know it's classified.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

To what "far more serious crimes" do you refer?

George W Bush started an unwarranted war, based off of false pretense.

It at best was unwarranted. At worst, and judged by some under the UN charter, was illegal.

How is he enjoying a cushy retirement, and Trump facing jail?

The crimes aren't remotely the same. One cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and violated several war crime laws (torture, rape, indiscriminate killing of civilians, etc).

Again. People are outraged at Trump and there is a perverse satisfaction that he may face jail.

This is purely political.

He refuses to be silenced, so they were meticulous in finding a way to muzzle him.

People stating that all former presidents must face the law for crimes, are delusional.

This only applies to those who are hated by their rivals.

[Guest]

I was recently in the Philippines, and outgoing president Rodrigo Duterte, had a strong political rival Leila de Lima who applied immense pressure on him for his senseless killings of perceived drug pushers. 

She was jailed for about 4 years, on what many felt were trumped up charges. This was proven, by those very charges being dismissed. 

He essentially silenced her.

Putin had a reputation for doing the same to rivals.

It is irrelevant how legit the crimes were. You putting a previous president in jail, screams of political hit piece, no matter how heavily it is denied.

The United States are the richest third world country, in allowing itself to devolve to this level.

He has no business in jail, and this has zero to do with the law.

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I was recently in the Philippines, and outgoing president Rodrigo Duterte, had a strong political rival Leila de Lima who applied immense pressure on him for his senseless killings of perceived drug pushers. 

She was jailed for about 4 years, on what many felt were trumped up charges. This was proven, by those very charges being dismissed. 

He essentially silenced her.

Putin had a reputation for doing the same to rivals.

It is irrelevant how legit the crimes were. You putting a previous president in jail, screams of political hit piece, no matter how heavily it is denied.

The United States are the richest third world country, in allowing itself to devolve to this level.

He has no business in jail, and this has zero to do with the law.

So it is your opinion that once someone is elected President, or if they are a candidate for President, they have legal immunity for life? No law says that.  
 

Let me suggest an alternative: When there is a candidate for office, and you’re repeatedly told that he is a brazen criminal with a long history of not paying vendors, of paying huge government fines for blatant racial discrimination, of losing $25 million fraud lawsuits, and repeated sexual improprieties… so so simple… Don’t Vote For Him.  
 

America gives massive massive immunity to the President, for obvious reasons. Nixon bombed Cambodia. Reagan sold weapons to Iran. Bush/Cheney made fake WMD claims that justified a war.  Clinton bombed Bosnia. Obama bombed Libya. None of these things resulted in charges of the President or VP.  Kinda funny that bombing Bosnia was ok but Monica Lewinsky was not, but that’s what it is. 

The most honest, high integrity person on earth could be President and still accused of wrongdoing   There is no way to avoid it.  So to that extent, I agree with you. 

I agree that we give our Presidents very wide latitude. But Trump is clearly different. It’s not just this one thing. He tried to illegally overturn the election, he triggered a massive violent riot to do it and sat alone and did absolutely nothing at all to try to stop it for three solid hours.  He also schemed to get several states to falsely certify fake electors, and he expected Mike Pence to accept those electors instead of the certified ones.  The man belongs in prison, end of story.  
 

In the documents case, if he’d accidentally taken the docs, no charges. If he’d purposefully taken them and returned them, stern warning. If he’d purposefully taken them and he’d been court ordered to return them and he did… amazingly… no charges.  But if he purposefully took them, ignored a court order, lied to the Federal government about it, got others to lie on his behalf and the government needed to execute a search warrant to get the ultra top-secret nuclear weapons secrets back into safekeeping… then he gets prosecuted.  

Edited June 20, 2023 by Rebound

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Rebound said:

then he gets prosecuted

Doesn't mean he goes to jail.

There is no doubt he is a goon and a criminal. 

Am not debating the legitimacy of the claim.

Its the aspect of his opponents pushing for his going to jail, based on a technicality they finally can nail him on. They have tried countless times, and failed each one.

We both know presidents have committed plenty of crimes before. Trump has as well. He deserves jail for January 6th. 

All of his crimes resulted in slaps on the wrists. Heck, some have boosted his numbers.

He is no different than anyone here.

Its the fact he is running. This is a massive threat to the Democrat party. 

I guarantee you, if he is not running we don't have a problem. They threw everything at him, hoping something would stick. 

The fact that he is, will see his opponents try to crush him under the guise of the law, knowing far too well that it does not get applied to all.

"He is different", is hogwash. 

A president committing any crime, is a criminal. Period. 

There should be no difference, otherwise you prove the bias you are seemingly denying.

I don't like Trump. He is not mature enough to run for office. He is like an obstinate toddler.

Was entertaining at first, but the world needs steady leaders that will lead countries out of the covid era.