Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
7 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

that's your opinion, and I put no stock in it.

Of course you don't. You're a Libbie.

But you are wrong...a lot.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
2 hours ago, Radiorum said:

the problem with this is that Trump really did the crimes.

That depends entirely on who you listen to. My favourite 'legal source' is Alan Dershowitz as I have mentioned a number of times in here. He was of the opinion that it was basically all BS. They made legal mountains out of molehills time and time again.

I suppose the Democrats will once again, do what they can to start up the lawfare machine again and any other dirty tricks they have up their sleeves. 

Perhaps more assassination attempts?

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Posted
6 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

I read Jack Smith's filings. it wasn't BS. Trump is a corrupt politician.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alan-dershowitz-explains-why-jack-smith-has-uphill-fight-with-new-trump-charges/ar-AA1pCnrt

Dershowitz said that Smith would have an “uphill fight” to prove Trump knew he lost to then-former Vice President Joe Biden in 2020.

“The indictment charges that Donald Trump knew, knew and believed that he had actually lost the election. How’s the government gonna prove that?” Dershowitz asked. “He never said that to anybody. He never wrote that anywhere. Did he ever think it? I don’t know. Did he say it on a phone call that was illegally overheard? I doubt it.”

“I have spoken to President Trump about this,” Dershowitz continued. “I think he’s wrong. I think he lost the election, fair and square. Now I’m not talking about the influence of Russia and all kinds of things external, but in terms of the counting of votes, that’s just what I’m talking about now, I think he lost Georgia, I think he lost Arizona and I think he lost enough states so that Joe Biden was officially and correctly elected president of the United States. It’s not a crime to disbelieve that, in fact, the indictment says that it’s not a crime to speak about that and to oppose it, but if he believed it, if he honestly believed it, if he talked himself into it, even if he was wrong, if he believed it if he thought he had won the election, then everything he’s accused of doing is protected by the First Amendment, Article Two of the Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment.”

Dershowitz said that if Trump did believe he had legitimately won, then his actions were not any different from other historical challenges to election results, including the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush, the 1876 presidential election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden and the 2016 presidential election between Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“I think it’s an uphill fight for the prosecution to win this case. Now they will win it, it’s not uphill in the District of Columbia. They could have indicted him, for you know, eating a salami sandwich and a jury in the District of Columbia will convict,” Dershowitz said. “We’ll wait and see what the instructions are, whether the instructions require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence not based on surmise but based on hard evidence that Donald Trump actually knew and believed that he had lost the election and he just was lying.”

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Posted
27 minutes ago, ironstone said:

That depends entirely on who you listen to. My favourite 'legal source' is Alan Dershowitz as I have mentioned a number of times in here. He was of the opinion that it was basically all BS. They made legal mountains out of molehills time and time again.

I suppose the Democrats will once again, do what they can to start up the lawfare machine again and any other dirty tricks they have up their sleeves. 

Perhaps more assassination attempts?

Perhaps you will someday FACE the REALITY that it is Trump who is PROMISING LAWFARE, and has demonstrated that already by appointing a dozen sycophants to run the DoJ who have already arranged an illegal quid pro quo with NYC Mayor Adams. 

Meanwhile, Democrats have ONLY enforced the LAW. But maybe you believe inciting a RIOT at the Capitol was completely legal. 🤮

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, ironstone said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alan-dershowitz-explains-why-jack-smith-has-uphill-fight-with-new-trump-charges/ar-AA1pCnrt

Dershowitz said that Smith would have an “uphill fight” to prove Trump knew he lost to then-former Vice President Joe Biden in 2020.

“The indictment charges that Donald Trump knew, knew and believed that he had actually lost the election. How’s the government gonna prove that?” Dershowitz asked. “He never said that to anybody. He never wrote that anywhere. Did he ever think it? I don’t know. Did he say it on a phone call that was illegally overheard? I doubt it.”

“I have spoken to President Trump about this,” Dershowitz continued. “I think he’s wrong. I think he lost the election, fair and square. Now I’m not talking about the influence of Russia and all kinds of things external, but in terms of the counting of votes, that’s just what I’m talking about now, I think he lost Georgia, I think he lost Arizona and I think he lost enough states so that Joe Biden was officially and correctly elected president of the United States. It’s not a crime to disbelieve that, in fact, the indictment says that it’s not a crime to speak about that and to oppose it, but if he believed it, if he honestly believed it, if he talked himself into it, even if he was wrong, if he believed it if he thought he had won the election, then everything he’s accused of doing is protected by the First Amendment, Article Two of the Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment.”

Dershowitz said that if Trump did believe he had legitimately won, then his actions were not any different from other historical challenges to election results, including the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush, the 1876 presidential election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden and the 2016 presidential election between Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“I think it’s an uphill fight for the prosecution to win this case. Now they will win it, it’s not uphill in the District of Columbia. They could have indicted him, for you know, eating a salami sandwich and a jury in the District of Columbia will convict,” Dershowitz said. “We’ll wait and see what the instructions are, whether the instructions require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence not based on surmise but based on hard evidence that Donald Trump actually knew and believed that he had lost the election and he just was lying.”

It doesn't matter if Trump knew he lost. He HAD NO ROLE to play in "correcting" the vote count because the vote is run by the STATES.

He went to court AND LOST. Fake electors and riots to stop EC vote certification were completely ILLEGAL.

  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Radiorum said:

It's official. Autocracy has arrived to the US. The US authoritarian has made it clear. He posted this on the official White House account.

When the FBI was committing crimes, lying, fabricating evidence, running entrapment schemes, bringing CNN along to film sensational raids, coercing false testimony from people who they convicted of crimes unrelated to the case they're working, getting legitimate stories shut down to run election interference, raiding homes at gunpoint to recover the president's daughter's diary, etc, were you not worried about democracy? 

  • Thanks 1

If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

Bug-juice is the new Kool-aid.

Ex-Canadian since April 2025

Posted
Just now, robosmith said:

It doesn't matter if Trump knew he lost. He HAD NO ROLE to play in "correcting" the vote count because the vote is run by the STATES.

He went to court AND LOST. Fake electors and riots to stop EC vote certification were completely ILLEGAL.

Don't have a meltdown, but I'll take the opinion of Dershowitz over yours. Are election challenges only illegal when Republicans try it?

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Posted
9 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Don't have a meltdown, but I'll take the opinion of Dershowitz over yours. Are election challenges only illegal when Republicans try it?

What part of "Trump went to court and LOST" do you not understand?

As was told you before, Douchowitz can LIE HIS ASS off out of court to get CLIENTS, and does that all the time.

Of course if you were American, you might know his HISTORY. But you have a poor memory, so you probably wouldn't remember.

Posted
2 hours ago, robosmith said:

What part of "Trump went to court and LOST" do you not understand?

What part of Trump did not go to court and lose do you not understand?

Almost everything done so far has been a TRO. These are still working their way through the process and not all of these are being granted either. 

If you would stop hiding from me like the coward you are...

 

3 hours ago, Radiorum said:

I read Jack Smith's filings. it wasn't BS. Trump is a corrupt politician.

Oh my, well, if you say so...

 

 

Posted
3 hours ago, Radiorum said:

that's your opinion, and I put no stock in it.

Which is all your repeated silly threads are. You offer no substance. When challenged you change the subject. 

 

Just now, Radiorum said:

The evidence says so.

That is what you say... 

 

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, User said:

Which is all your repeated silly threads are. You offer no substance. When challenged you change the subject. 

The president of the US has posted to the official White House account that the law does not apply to him.

Do you support this position?

Posted
Just now, Radiorum said:

The president of the US has posted to the official White House account that the law does not apply to him.

Do you support this position?

Give me the exact words. 

 

 

Posted
7 minutes ago, User said:

Give me the exact words. 

You can read.

By the way, that is a quote attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte.

Legal experts have been weighing in, warning that Trump is spurring on a constitutional crisis.

Here's what a few are saying:

“There have been so many unconstitutional and illegal actions in the first 18 days of the Trump presidency. We never have seen anything like this,” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told The New York Times in early February. Kate Shaw, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, described the administration’s early moves as demonstrating “maximum contempt for core constitutional values” like the separation of powers, the freedom of speech, and equal justice under the law.

Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, said in the Times article that a constitutional crisis occurs when the president “doesn’t care what the Constitution says regardless whether Congress or the courts resist a particular unconstitutional action.” “Up until now,” she continued, “while presidents might engage in particular acts that were unconstitutional, I never had the sense that there was a president for whom the Constitution was essentially meaningless.”

 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Radiorum said:

You can read.

By the way, that is a quote attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte.

Legal experts have been weighing in, warning that Trump is spurring on a constitutional crisis.

Here's what a few are saying:

“There have been so many unconstitutional and illegal actions in the first 18 days of the Trump presidency. We never have seen anything like this,” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told The New York Times in early February. Kate Shaw, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, described the administration’s early moves as demonstrating “maximum contempt for core constitutional values” like the separation of powers, the freedom of speech, and equal justice under the law.

Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, said in the Times article that a constitutional crisis occurs when the president “doesn’t care what the Constitution says regardless whether Congress or the courts resist a particular unconstitutional action.” “Up until now,” she continued, “while presidents might engage in particular acts that were unconstitutional, I never had the sense that there was a president for whom the Constitution was essentially meaningless.”

 

 

Ya see that @User? A few are saying these things. It must be true.

I'm one of a few. I say Trump hasn't done anything that remotely resembles unconstitutional actions.

What he's done is make you Libbies look like immature little brats.

  • Like 1

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
3 hours ago, Radiorum said:

You can read.

By the way, that is a quote attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte.

Legal experts have been weighing in, warning that Trump is spurring on a constitutional crisis.

I can read, apparently you can't type. You made the assertion about what Trump said, you can't back it up. The reality is that you are twisting his words. 

I don't care what so-called "legal experts" are saying and once again you change the subject. "Constitutional crisis" is the new leftist buzz word of the week. 

 

 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Just a question for the Trump supporters. Would you be ok with him suspending the constitution and naming himself president for life (or even another term or two)?

What a stupid question. He doesn't have that power. It doesn't matter if I am OK with it or not. I reject the entire premise of your question. 

Why don't you explain how he can suspend the constitution and name himself president for life. 

 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Just a question for the Trump supporters. Would you be ok with him suspending the constitution and naming himself president for life (or even another term or two)?

In my experience, Trump supporters are okay with anything and everything he does. They justify, excuse, and obfuscate. They have chosen a side, and all that matters to them is that their side trumps. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, User said:

Why don't you explain how he can suspend the constitution and name himself president for life.

Hey - He's got the senate, the house, and the supreme court, and he's bringing in a "Golden Age". 

Just a conspiracy theory of mine. I mean, you guys got lots of them. Just sayin'...

Posted
3 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Hey - He's got the senate, the house, and the supreme court, and he's bringing in a "Golden Age". 

Just a conspiracy theory of mine. I mean, you guys got lots of them. Just sayin'...

I am not "you guys" and I am not the one pushing such absurdity. 

 

 

 

Posted
11 hours ago, Radiorum said:

No, no hatred, no lies, but maybe some fear as we watch regime change in the US.

Better than the delusions of the Trump supporters.

There are concerns over that. The office of the president has been stealing a little bit more and more power for itself for some time, but you're really late to the party. A lot of people raised these concerns vigorously under Obama who is terrible for it but everyone cheered him on. Trump didn't do much on his first run because he was too new at the job to really understand how to take advantage of it but biden certainly overstepped and took more and more into his purview and eroded the protections a little bit further.

Now trump is coming along and pushing the envelope and you guys all of a sudden are horribly terribly concerned about authoritarianism.

You don't get to show up 12 years too late and scream about how we should pump the brakes on that.

This is something that democrats have not been listening to for a number of years now: Everything you do will be turned against you. If you create new powers or you find a way to bypass something then the next guy's going to do it. If you weaponize the courts against your opponents the next guy is going to do it. If you create fake dossiers and weaponize the FBI to go after your opponents the next guy's going to do it.

And it's way too late to complain at that point because nobody's listening because you've already normalized it.

All you can hope for at this point is that trump loses the midterms by enough so that an impeachment process would actually get through the senate. If that happens then he will be far more careful knowing that he could be impeached and thrown out at any time. And that is certainly doable.

But the big takeaway here is that in the future if you see someone abusing the system or cutting corners or taking powers that they shouldn't have or even threatening to even if he's on your own team you want to jump up and scream about that and organize others to do the same because it will be too late when it's the other guy if you let your guy get away with it

  • Like 1

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Posted
8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There are concerns over that. The office of the president has been stealing a little bit more and more power for itself for some time, but you're really late to the party. A lot of people raised these concerns vigorously under Obama who is terrible for it but everyone cheered him on. Trump didn't do much on his first run because he was too new at the job to really understand how to take advantage of it but biden certainly overstepped and took more and more into his purview and eroded the protections a little bit further.

Now trump is coming along and pushing the envelope and you guys all of a sudden are horribly terribly concerned about authoritarianism.

You don't get to show up 12 years too late and scream about how we should pump the brakes on that.

This is something that democrats have not been listening to for a number of years now: Everything you do will be turned against you. If you create new powers or you find a way to bypass something then the next guy's going to do it. If you weaponize the courts against your opponents the next guy is going to do it. If you create fake dossiers and weaponize the FBI to go after your opponents the next guy's going to do it.

And it's way too late to complain at that point because nobody's listening because you've already normalized it.

All you can hope for at this point is that trump loses the midterms by enough so that an impeachment process would actually get through the senate. If that happens then he will be far more careful knowing that he could be impeached and thrown out at any time. And that is certainly doable.

But the big takeaway here is that in the future if you see someone abusing the system or cutting corners or taking powers that they shouldn't have or even threatening to even if he's on your own team you want to jump up and scream about that and organize others to do the same because it will be too late when it's the other guy if you let your guy get away with it

 

To say that somehow Trump's actions are the fault of the Democrats is preposterous in the extreme. Trump is a force within himself. His actions are unprecedented. Trying to steal an election with fake electors? Unprecedented. Trying to concentrate all power in the executive branch? Unprecedented. Psychologically manipulating a cult following? Unprecedented. (Unless you count Huey Long.) 

 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,911
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    AlembicoEMR
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...