How Would You Defend Trump?

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No it doesn't you butthead!!!

 

(note - this parody post was for comic relief and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the poster.  No Buttheads were harmed in the making of this post.)

Hahaha. The poster is a known agitator and now expects everyone to "walk softly". Well guess what booby, you got another thing coming. That's right... there's plans afoot to clean up this horse's trough.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

I thought it would be interesting  to create a thread which simply focused on the facts of the legal case, but everything here always has to devolve into somebody insulting someone else. 

Facts of the legal case... what facts are there other than complete obfuscation of the issue. I do recall reading early on that Trump's lawyers said they had tried to notify relevant authorities as to the possession of these documents and their location, but no one would listen. Presumably they were already getting the knives out.

I'm no expert on US politics but there is a thing called presidential executive privilege. I would defend Trump by looking at comparable cases involving former presidents.

Finally in the end it's not the case that's defensible, because they've gone so far out of their way to frame Trump with anything and everything they can. So the question is kind of non-sequitur. Bigger issue is what's next.

As if no one knows this is all about making him look as bad as possible prior to the next election run. Even if the charges don't stick, they will drag the case out so that he will still be facing these charges while running for president. That's the real motivation. Fact, the Dems look the other way for the president if he's from their party.

What do you think will be the reaction if almost half of Americans support Trump, and he's thrown in jail for something like documents? You people are simply nuts, from a Canadian perspective. Keep that shit away from us.

Edited June 23, 2023 by OftenWrong
Double post, somehow

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Hahaha. The poster is a known agitator and now expects everyone to "walk softly". Well guess what booby, you got another thing coming. That's right... there's plans afoot to clean up this horse's trough.

Sure kid.

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Sure kid.

That's right. The poster I refer to is "re_something". One of the three R's. I get 'em mixed up sometimes, all kinda the same to me.

But if you felt I meant you? Oh well,

no problem.

The shoe fits... 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

 

But if you felt I meant you? Oh well,

no problem.

The shoe fits... 

Yeah - I refer to myself as the poster in my post, you reply to my post referring to the 'poster" ....  what COULD i have been thinking  

What was it you were saying about known agitators?

[Americana Antifa]

On 6/18/2023 at 7:47 PM, robosmith said:

Make up crap; throw it against the wall, and see if it sticks.

Same. Also, make sure you get paid upfront.

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - I refer to myself as the poster in my post, you reply to my post referring to the 'poster" ....  what COULD i have been thinking  

What was it you were saying about known agitators?

Naa. Just different wavelength. Misunderstanding being the course when it comes to communicating through text.

A true conservative knows to be patient and hold ones breath. Not react by impulse

[Rebound]

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Facts of the legal case... what facts are there other than complete obfuscation of the issue. I do recall reading early on that Trump's lawyers said they had tried to notify relevant authorities as to the possession of these documents and their location, but no one would listen. Presumably they were already getting the knives out.

I'm no expert on US politics but there is a thing called presidential executive privilege. I would defend Trump by looking at comparable cases involving former presidents.

Finally in the end it's not the case that's defensible, because they've gone so far out of their way to frame Trump with anything and everything they can. So the question is kind of non-sequitur. Bigger issue is what's next.

As if no one knows this is all about making him look as bad as possible prior to the next election run. Even if the charges don't stick, they will drag the case out so that he will still be facing these charges while running for president. That's the real motivation. Fact, the Dems look the other way for the president if he's from their party.

What do you think will be the reaction if almost half of Americans support Trump, and he's thrown in jail for something like documents? You people are simply nuts, from a Canadian perspective. Keep that shit away from us.

I see. I am not agitating, I only stating verifiable facts. You don’t like these facts because the fake news media you rely on doesn’t report these facts to you, but they are still facts. 

You said that Trump’s lawyers notified the government that he had retained Classified documents.  If that were true, why didn’t Trump simply return the documents when the Federal Government asked? And a few months after that, when Donald was served with a Federal court order to return all the Classified documents, why did he still refuse to comply? 

Do you see how the excuse of “We told the government he had the documents” doesn’t hold up at all?
 

I’ve posted several other cases of government officials who were authorized to access Classified documents, but they took them home and kept them… and those people went to prison for 3-5 years for doing so, even though they did not disclose or sell the documents. The ones who sell the documents to Russia or put them on Wikileaks, they usually die in SuperMax prison.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Naa. Just different wavelength. Misunderstanding being the course when it comes to communicating through text.

 

Misunderstanding do occur.

Quote

A true conservative knows to be patient and hold ones breath. Not react by impulse

Dude - We're conservatives, not ninja. Lets not overblow it.

[OftenWrong]

On 6/23/2023 at 7:05 AM, Rebound said:

I see. I am not agitating, I only stating verifiable facts. You don’t like these facts because the fake news media you rely on doesn’t report these facts to you, but they are still facts. 

You said that Trump’s lawyers notified the government that he had retained Classified documents.  If that were true, why didn’t Trump simply return the documents when the Federal Government asked? And a few months after that, when Donald was served with a Federal court order to return all the Classified documents, why did he still refuse to comply? 

Do you see how the excuse of “We told the government he had the documents” doesn’t hold up at all?
 

I’ve posted several other cases of government officials who were authorized to access Classified documents, but they took them home and kept them… and those people went to prison for 3-5 years for doing so, even though they did not disclose or sell the documents. The ones who sell the documents to Russia or put them on Wikileaks, they usually die in SuperMax prison.

You exemplify why facts are not the only thing that matters in politics. There's the law as written in books, and then there's the application of civics in the real world. To be more clear, I know and accept there is corruption at the most high levels. In truth there must be, for things to work. That is the nature of duality, and it especially applies to politics. The bigger you are, the higher you go, the more you must accept it. If you understand why it is, you would also understand it has to be hidden from the public for them to have "faith" in so-called democratic structures.

Every president, every national leader has to face certain reality and do things that are illegal for anyone else to do.

So while I cannot dispute your facts because they might be true, it doesn't necessarily equate to the need to press charges and actually go through with it. It depends on the specifics of the case. At what point does executive privilege cross the line? I don't have the answer to that. Depends on the consequences on society as a whole.

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You exemplify why facts are not the only thing that matters in politics. There's the law as written in books, and then there's the application of civics in the real world. To be more clear, I know and accept there is corruption at the most high levels. In truth there must be, for things to work. That is the nature of duality, and it especially applies to politics. The bigger you are, the higher you go, the more you must accept it. If you understand why it is, you would also understand it has to be hidden from the public for them to have "faith" in so-called democratic structures.

Every president, every national leader has to face certain reality and do things that are illegal for anyone else to do.

So while I cannot dispute your facts because they might be true, it doesn't necessarily equate to the need to press charges and actually go through with it. It depends on the specifics of the case. At what point does executive privilege cross the line? I don't have the answer to that. Depends on the consequences on society as a whole.

That is absolutely ridiculous.  
 

You are claiming that the President of the United States is free to break any law he wants for the rest of his life.  That is absolutely untrue and courts have already held that Presidents are not immune from prosecution.  

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

That is absolutely ridiculous.  
 

You are claiming that the President of the United States is free to break any law he wants for the rest of his life.  That is absolutely untrue and courts have already held that Presidents are not immune from prosecution.  

You extended my thought to the extreme, which does make it ridiculous. I asked a question that is about the reality of politics.

Go after Trump, if you have the right to do so. But then I would insist you must go after them all, by the same right. Then what... how far does one go and where do you cross the line. There's a thing called opening a can of worms. Pandora's box.

You people want to create a civil war for yourselves, go right ahead. It's a pity to see the world's best hope for democracy and freedom tear itself apart because emotional pap-smears have been incited to spout off their superlatives, people who don't know history and don't understand that corruption is part of the very fabric civilization is built on. Again where do you cross the line and stop making excuses for them.

From what I understand with this here document shit, doesn't look like much. If you people have a security problem with your classified docs you better clean that up.

[Rebound]

23 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You extended my thought to the extreme, which does make it ridiculous. I asked a question that is about the reality of politics.

Go after Trump, if you have the right to do so. But then I would insist you must go after them all, by the same right. Then what... how far does one go and where do you cross the line. There's a thing called opening a can of worms. Pandora's box.

You people want to create a civil war for yourselves, go right ahead. It's a pity to see the world's best hope for democracy and freedom tear itself apart because emotional pap-smears have been incited to spout off their superlatives, people who don't know history and don't understand that corruption is part of the very fabric civilization is built on. Again where do you cross the line and stop making excuses for them.

From what I understand with this here document shit, doesn't look like much. If you people have a security problem with your classified docs you better clean that up.

What’s a shame is that there are American citizens who know perfectly well that Donald Trump incited a deadly attempted insurrection and they defend and excuse it. 
 

You’re trying to compare a bloody attempted government coup against sleeping with an intern, and I know why: You want to defend Trump’s lawlessness.  This is only about Republicans in general because they are defending it.  

Edited June 24, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

What’s a shame is that there are American citizens who know perfectly well that Donald Trump incited a deadly attempted insurrection and they defend and excuse it. 

What's a shame is that there are some American citizens who think that 700 unarmed people out of 350 million in the highest firearms owning country in the world represents a 'deadly attempt at insurrection'.   

I'm a believer in the many worlds theory but there is no world where democracy could possibly have fallen that day.

It was horrible, they were criminals, those who committed crimes should be jailed.  I'd say the same for all the riots the left egged on during a year or so prior to that.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What's a shame is that there are some American citizens who think that 700 unarmed people out of 350 million in the highest firearms owning country in the world represents a 'deadly attempt at insurrection'.   

I'm a believer in the many worlds theory but there is no world where democracy could possibly have fallen that day.

It was horrible, they were criminals, those who committed crimes should be jailed.  I'd say the same for all the riots the left egged on during a year or so prior to that.

 

Nobody ever said they weren't really, really crap at it.

I don't think democracy could have fallen that day either, but what if they had gotten their hands on Mike Pence?

It was deadly, and it was an attempt at insurrection.  They were just useless.

 

[Rebound]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

Nobody ever said they weren't really, really crap at it.

I don't think democracy could have fallen that day either, but what if they had gotten their hands on Mike Pence?

It was deadly, and it was an attempt at insurrection.  They were just useless.

 

They think that illegally keeping Trump as President would not be an act of rebellion.  

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

 

Nobody ever said they weren't really, really crap at it.

 

LOL!

Quote

I don't think democracy could have fallen that day either, but what if they had gotten their hands on Mike Pence?

It still wouldn't have, lets be real.  Likely what would have happened is an already tragic event would have ended up more tragic.  But no matter what mike pence did or didn't do or what happened to him it wouldn't have changed anything. There was no way trump would have been allowed to stay as president.

 

Quote

It was deadly, and it was an attempt at insurrection.  They were just useless.

Deadly yes.  Perhaps some thought it was an actual insurrection  - but honestly i don't think it really was or that most thought of it that way.

I mean let's be clear, call it what you like it was still absolutely horrible and disgusting and deplorable. And these people clearly intended to interfere with the election process even if they thought that the process had already been interfered with and they were simply correcting an error. But rather than try an overthrow a government I believe what they intended Was to prevent someone they believed had a legally stolen the election from completing his theft. In that respect in their eyes they were probably Patriots fighting to preserve the government rather than the other way around.

[Rebound]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL!

It still wouldn't have, lets be real.  Likely what would have happened is an already tragic event would have ended up more tragic.  But no matter what mike pence did or didn't do or what happened to him it wouldn't have changed anything. There was no way trump would have been allowed to stay as president.

 

Deadly yes.  Perhaps some thought it was an actual insurrection  - but honestly i don't think it really was or that most thought of it that way.

I mean let's be clear, call it what you like it was still absolutely horrible and disgusting and deplorable. And these people clearly intended to interfere with the election process even if they thought that the process had already been interfered with and they were simply correcting an error. But rather than try an overthrow a government I believe what they intended Was to prevent someone they believed had a legally stolen the election from completing his theft. In that respect in their eyes they were probably Patriots fighting to preserve the government rather than the other way around.

“Let’s be clear?” Ok, let’s be clear and agree on one fact: Donald Trump was intent on remaining President no matter what the electoral results were. 
 

Let’s be clear about something else: If the results of January 6 would have declared Trump President, that would be a successful insurrection. 
 

Let’s be clear about a third thing: The definition of insurrection is “A violent uprising against an authority or government.” (Win or lose). That’s what happened on January 6.  

Edited June 24, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

They think that illegally keeping Trump as President would not be an act of rebellion.  

More accuately they probably thought that keeping biden from not "illegally stealing" the election would not be an act of rebellion.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It still wouldn't have, lets be real.  Likely what would have happened is an already tragic event would have ended up more tragic.  But no matter what mike pence did or didn't do or what happened to him it wouldn't have changed anything. There was no way trump would have been allowed to stay as president.

No it wouldn't have.  But what would have happened?  It's all conjecture, but what is the protocol if the VP is prevented from certifying the results?  I have no idea.  What if the wrong people had gotten hold of him, and they had killed him?  Where would that have stopped? 

 

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Deadly yes.  Perhaps some thought it was an actual insurrection  - but honestly i don't think it really was or that most thought of it that way.

I mean let's be clear, call it what you like it was still absolutely horrible and disgusting and deplorable. And these people clearly intended to interfere with the election process even if they thought that the process had already been interfered with and they were simply correcting an error. But rather than try an overthrow a government I believe what they intended Was to prevent someone they believed had a legally stolen the election from completing his theft. In that respect in their eyes they were probably Patriots fighting to preserve the government rather than the other way around.

What they thought of themselves was not relevant.  I'm sure anyone who ever decided to change the government through violent means thought they were doing the right thing.  They were trying to interfere with the election process to prevent Biden being declared POTUS.  They obviously wanted Trump to be installed in his place, no matter how preposterous such an outcome might appear to the rational among us.

This was the USA.  They must have known there were courts for that kind of thing. 

The problem is, many of them thought it was fun.  They seriously miscalculated how the government and the justice system would view their actions.

I sympathize with many of them.  Not the Proud Boy types, but those who were simply caught up in the moment without realising the enormity of what they were trying to do.

[CdnFox]

12 hours ago, Rebound said:

“Let’s be clear?” Ok, let’s be clear and agree on one fact: Donald Trump was intent on remaining President no matter what the electoral results were. 
 

Well that's not quite as clear as you'd think. Nobody anywhere has suggested that the insurrection was planned and organized by trump. I get a strong impression that trump wasn't unhappy to see it but i doubt at the time he though for a second this would keep him in power, more like punishing those who wanted hi out of power.

It IS true that trump would look for any possible way to find that he won the election. But storming the capital wasn't a possible way.

12 hours ago, Rebound said:

Let’s be clear about something else: If the results of January 6 would have declared Trump President, that would be a successful insurrection. 

Well it wouldn't have been possible for jan 6 to 'declare'  anything.  I mean - there was no sane path for trump to be declared president.  I mean if you're going that route why not say "if hundreds of thosuands of armed trump supporters rose up and seized control of the country trump could be president."  Welll... sort of but i suspect they'd have fought back

 Sorry - for it to be successful trump would have had to be declared president and gone on to serve his term and there was no chance of that happening - and if there WAS a chance of it happening some how then it would have had to have been by a lawful mechanism, and that would mean it wasn't an insurrection. If the law recognized trump as president then it wasn't 'insurrection'.

12 hours ago, Rebound said:

Let’s be clear about a third thing: The definition of insurrection is “A violent uprising against an authority or government.” (Win or lose). That’s what happened on January 6.  

That's a pretty weak definition - any of the riots would have qualified as 'insurrection' then.  Perhaps in the most general terms. Bur any real definition of insurrection has got to include the intent to overthrow the lawful gov't. Cambridge says: an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:

I don't think they saw it that way. I think they thought that trump was the president lawfully and they were trying to preserve that.

You're awfully clear about a lot of things that aren't very 'clear'.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No it wouldn't have.  But what would have happened?  It's all conjecture, but what is the protocol if the VP is prevented from certifying the results?  I have no idea.  What if the wrong people had gotten hold of him, and they had killed him?  Where would that have stopped? 

They most likely would have immediately appointed another VP and continued.  Failiing that i believe the speaker of the house becomes president and would have then had the authority to proceed.

There has always been provision in law for disaster.  If a date and a person is required but due to severe and unavoidable circumstance that can't happen then the next reasonable date and person will do.  There's a lot of things that winds up covering in the US and Canada.  My guess is the matter would have been agreed upon and cleared up in about 2 days.

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

What they thought of themselves was not relevant

Well of course it's relevant. if they had no intent of overthrowing a lawful gov't it wasn't insurrection.

 

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

The problem is, many of them thought it was fun.  They seriously miscalculated how the government and the justice system would view their actions.

Sure.  This is one of the reasons i'm not a fan of protest in general as a method of bringing about change. I dont' think it's nearly as effective as some people think, I think it's sloppy and i think it's a little dangerous.  And i think it's common for good intents to be co-opted. and for people to get caught up in a moment  and do things they didn't go there to do, whether it's burn and loot or storm the capital or whatever.

But - whatever. It was a horrible terrible thing that should NEVER have happened. But - it was not going to lead to trump being president or the end of democracy.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well of course it's relevant. if they had no intent of overthrowing a lawful gov't it wasn't insurrection.

But they did.  You're point seems to be that they thought they were justified, due to some weird conspiracy about election fraud.  You can call overthrowing the government "correcting an error" if you want,  but it's still overthrowing the government.

 

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure.  This is one of the reasons i'm not a fan of protest in general as a method of bringing about change. I dont' think it's nearly as effective as some people think, I think it's sloppy and i think it's a little dangerous.  And i think it's common for good intents to be co-opted. and for people to get caught up in a moment  and do things they didn't go there to do, whether it's burn and loot or storm the capital or whatever.

I don't disagree.  While I support the right to peaceful, law abiding protest whatever the cause, it can go awry. 

[CdnFox]

52 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

But they did. 

That does not appear to be the case. Based on their statements and the information available they did not believe they were overthrowing a legitimate gov't.

Quote

You're point seems to be that they thought they were justified, due to some weird conspiracy about election fraud.  You can call overthrowing the government "correcting an error" if you want,  but it's still overthrowing the government.

No, they weren't actually looking to over throw the gov't no matter how you slice it. This was simply about who was going to be president, the gov't would stand either way.  And they appear to believe that the "Legitimate" president was being "illegally" forced out and were taking steps to address this "illegal coup of the office"  so to speak.

You can say that's nuts, you can comment on whether they were deluded or not but that is not the same as 'overthrowing' the gov't .

It would be like saying lee harvey oswald was attempting to 'overthrow democracy' when he shot jfk. No - just because they are targeting one person doesn't' mean they're 'overthrowing the gov't'"  Even if trum had somehow magically remained president the next day and congress had just said "oh well, i guess that means he wins" and let it go somehow the gov't would be the same gov't, all that would have changed is who was president.

Quote

I don't disagree.  While I support the right to peaceful, law abiding protest whatever the cause, it can go awry. 

Yep. There's a fine line between peaceful and "mostly peaceful".

[Guest]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They most likely would have immediately appointed another VP and continued.  Failiing that i believe the speaker of the house becomes president and would have then had the authority to proceed.

There has always been provision in law for disaster.  If a date and a person is required but due to severe and unavoidable circumstance that can't happen then the next reasonable date and person will do.  There's a lot of things that winds up covering in the US and Canada.  My guess is the matter would have been agreed upon and cleared up in about 2 days.

Sure, but this would not be a plane crash or a tornado.  The Speaker of the House takes over if both the POTUS and the VP are out of action, yes, but having the VP hung from a hastily erected gallows outside the Capitol building would have thrown a wrench into the smooth running of the accepted protocols.

 

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, they weren't actually looking to over throw the gov't no matter how you slice it. This was simply about who was going to be president, the gov't would stand either way.  And they appear to believe that the "Legitimate" president was being "illegally" forced out and were taking steps to address this "illegal coup of the office"  so to speak.

You can say that's nuts, you can comment on whether they were deluded or not but that is not the same as 'overthrowing' the gov't .

It would be like saying lee harvey oswald was attempting to 'overthrow democracy' when he shot jfk. No - just because they are targeting one person doesn't' mean they're 'overthrowing the gov't'"  Even if trum had somehow magically remained president the next day and congress had just said "oh well, i guess that means he wins" and let it go somehow the gov't would be the same gov't, all that would have changed is who was president.

It's hard to see how the US government would have carried on as is if Trump had been illegally installed in the White House by a violent mob.  I doubt "oh well" would have been the reaction.

But I certainly can't say I know what would have happened.