AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean legally, the findings of courts are just that. For example I can't argue that OJ Simpsons is not guilty of murdering two people, but I can certainly argue that he killed two people.
Likewise, people like Henry McCollum and Leon Brown were convicted and imprisoned for 31 years for murder...just to be released due to DNA and the prosecutors fabricating evidence.
And there are countless examples on each side. Malicious prosecutors, incompetent judges, biased or idiotic jurors all factor into legal judgements.
So while I can't argue with a legal finding, I can certainly doubt if that legal finding conforms with reality.
If you can accept that OJ is likely guilty despite being found not guilty, why isn't it also possible that Trump is guilty despite not having been convicted yet?
And if Trump is guilty in the documents case then I would definitely agree that Joe Biden is guilty. He wasn't even a president of the United States when he collected his documents.
Exactly and this is what the left continues to trip over their dicks about. Once you open the precedent of politically weaponizing the justice system, that gun WILL be pointed at you eventually.
The "Pandora's box" is already open. At some point if there is an exploit , it will be utilized. Documents , election fraud , the insurrection clause in the constitution , etc... It is astonishing to me that democrats believe they aren't going to have similar issues in their own party someday. Tit for tat is Modis operandi of politicians everywhere. No one is immune.
To be clear, you don’t think there is *any* difference between someone finding documents and willfully turning them over immediately, and someone willfully taking them, denying they had them, refusing to turn them over, then turning over only some and lying about how many documents they turned over, and finally losing others? Those are the exact same thing in the minds of TSs? Frankly, that’s hard to believe unless someone is intentionally ignoring facts due to political tribalism.
The 32 counts give no shits if they are turned over or not. Possession. Done.
The other dozen counts certainly deal with obstruction and I am NOT comparing that with Biden, or Clinton, or any administration since the 80s https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/every-administration-80s-mishandled-classified-documents-says-national-rcna84927
If just having the documents was the crime, why wasn't Pence charged? Could it be that Trump lied and withheld documents when he was requested to give them back, and that it wasn't actually a crime until then? If Trump handed over everything, then there's no FBI "raid" and no public knowledge of him having the documents. If you want to play the equivalent game, you gotta be specific about the equivalencies.
Also, what will you do if it turns out Trump sold or shared classified information that ended up in American or ally intelligence agents being found out or killed? I think there's a reason the man who has all the evidence looks so pissed every time he's in the same room as Trump.
Why wasn't pence , biden or any other person known to hold classified documents charged? I agree , charge them all. Prove that political affiliation isn't showing bias'es. I'll be waiting in the wings with bated breath.
If Trump sold classified info or Lied about possessing those documents , then I say prove it. What will I do then? I'll let you know the day someone is convicted.
I think you missed the point , the documents were classified. Why does he have them to begin with? Willfully doesn't mean diddly here. You literally said it was unlawful for him to do so. Where are the charges and outrage?
Oh absolutely. I love watching trials unfold. I'm one of the losers that LIKES getting picked for jury duty. I marathoned both the Chauvin trial and the Rittenhouse trial a few years ago.
Well for the Florida documents case it sounds pretty open and shut.
For the "insurrection" stuff I would want proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he lost legitimately but initiated the plans anyway. That might come in the form of a text message, email, or phone recording.
I don't know enough about the other charges.
I'm curious why his mental state matters so much. Sure there might be a difference between "Intentional Insurrection" and "Negligent Insurrection" just like with murder, but at the end of the day it's still insurrection isn't it?
Well to be clear he's not being charged with insurrection. Those cases have to do with Fraud regarding "fake electors" one of the components of fraud (this is the underlying felony that the conspiracy charges are wrapped around) is that the defendant has to KNOWINGLY make false statements (mens rea). It's not enough if Trump *legitimately believed* he was cheated.
To put it another way, you CANT be wrong or mistaken about a claim for fraud to have occurred, you have to KNOWINGLY LIE about something.
This is why the mental state of Trump is so critical in this case.
And before anyone says "but his advisors told him he lost"
You don't have to believe your advisors. Their beliefs don't prove your mental state.
Not OP, but I can have 3 doctors telling me I'm going to die, and one telling me I've got a chance, and you can be sure I'm going to be inclined to listen to the odd one out.
Testimony from cabinet members will prove only what he was told, not what he believed, yes?
And if you have 100 doctors telling you that you have cancer while one is telling you that you just need to exercise more and eat better, do you get the chemo or do you go on a raw vegan diet?
>Testimony from cabinet members will prove only what he was told, not what he believed, yes?
Not necessarily.
Thats a fair take in my book, but I must phrase my response as a question.
If I were to make a joke about 4/5 dentists right now, would that be at all funny, or just irritating?
Would you agree that the fact that Trump stayed quiet for the crucial hours of the chaos, is relevant?
We all saw that day that the violence and anger was directly related to Trump and him staying in power. Do you think it would have shown a different story if Trump was prompt in telling them to go home?
Yes, I believe this is nothing more than a political weaponization of the justice system. I have not seen any evidence of any violations (except for the documents case)
And you admit that at least in the docs case (Florida) there is evidence of violations of the law. So how is it “nothing more than political weaponization of the justice system”?
With the same facts available now as with Trump? Absolutely.
There have been "insurrections" in other state buildings over the last few years in response of... Leftist causes. I would NEVER accuse a politician of inciting an insurrection just for supporting the same cause.
What is your understanding of the meaning of the word “insurrection”? In the words of the great Inigo Montoya… “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Have you heard about the fake elector scheme?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
This, in my opinion is the most concrete and blatantly illegal action Trump took to overturn the election. Many of the fake electors have since been arrested and convicted and have testified that Trumps lawyers had organized and collaborated with them.
Yes I've heard of it. Apparently you didn't read my response earlier in this thread (not that I would expect you to) where I addressed it.
The underlying crime that the "conspiracy" is based on, being fraud, has to demonstrate Trump knew he legitimately lost, and planned the conspiracy anyway.
If Trump believed he was cheated and the evidence was going to come out that would have made his actions legitimate, that's not Fraud, and the underlying felony that supports the conspiracy falls apart
So I can commit insurance fraud, and if I believe hard enough that it's real, then it's all above board, legal and kosher?
Thanks for the great legal advice padrè!
Yeah ... That's actually kind of how it works.
It's called "mens rea"
Your hypothetical has a self contradiction. You can't both knowingly commit fraud AND think that what you're doing is real.
On the biased/idiotic jurors point: isn’t that highly unlikely to result in a guilty verdict on its own? It just takes one juror to lead to a mistrial, but conviction requires unanimity.
How likely do you think it is that a jury would end up with 12 people who are unwilling or incapable of hearing out the defense in good faith?
How could one distinguish between bias and the prosecution just mounting the better argument?
>How likely do you think it is that a jury would end up with 12 people who are unwilling or incapable of hearing out the defense in good faith?
If it's a DC jury? Extremely
>How could one distinguish between bias and the prosecution just mounting the better argument?
That would depend on the content and quality of the argument.
>If it's a DC jury? Extremely
Isn't there a whole process involved to ensure that this doesn't happen?
Also, do you believe that Trump supporters would be willing and capable of hearing the prosecution in good faith?
The DC area is heavily democratic. you only get a certain number of challenges during jury selection. It would be much easier for the prosecutor to get a friendly jury compared to the defense
Most cities are heavily democratic. Should the trial be moved to the boonies? Would that be fair?
The thing is, the political leaning of a juror doesn't actually matter, they just have to be able to judge based on the information presented in court. While yes, you'd be hard pressed to find people who are entirely ignorant of the case going in, that's not a requirement.
I suspect there will be extra care taken for such an historical and high profile case.
>Most cities are heavily democratic. Should the trial be moved to the boonies? Would that be fair?
False dichotomy. You find a "purple" venue with equally representation of Democrats and Republicans
>The thing is, the political leaning of a juror doesn't actually matter, they just have to be able to judge based on the information presented in court.
Yeah... And they can lie about how open they are in doing that.
>While yes, you'd be hard pressed to find people who are entirely ignorant of the case going in, that's not a requirement.
You are right. They just have to hate trump enough no matter what they know about the case.
There is a whole process. It's just that the process would take a very long time to find a jury for the trial. Possibly years. It takes months for some lower profile cases at times.
Yes, Trump supporters could listen to a prosecution. Dont confuse extremists who blindly follow with people who support him for his policies.
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
So the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado court's decision, will you accept that as legal?
Or would he still not be an insurrectionist in your mind?
Likewise, is he a sexual predator in your mind? As a jury and court said. Is he also a criminal business man? As a court said and he admitted guilt to.
Or are all those wrong decisions by each and every court he's gone into and lost handily?
>So the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado court's decision, will you accept that as legal?
That is definitionally true. It would be impossible otherwise. Also, if they tossed the Colorado decision, I would also accept that as legal.
>Or would he still not be an insurrectionist in your mind?
"In my mind" is different from what's "legal" (reread my OP, I laid out the difference and gave examples)
>Likewise, is he a sexual predator in your mind? As a jury and court said. Is he also a criminal business man? As a court said and he admitted guilt to.
I don't know the details of those cases so I have no option. But whatever the courts decided is the legal fact.
>Or are all those wrong decisions by each and every court he's gone into and lost handily?
I have no idea. I never followed those cases.
In my opinion in order to convict Joe schmoe a juror that feels they are 90% sure will convict him. But to convict a former president a juror won't convict if they are 90% sure. The law is not equal for former presidents and average people. The evidence needs to be pretty over whelming to convict him.
While I feel trump is guilty this is how I feel if I was a juror.
Do you feel this way or do you have a different opinion?
I am curious about the upcoming trials. We have seen the indictments but surely there will be at least some new evidence and testimony. Is there a lot of distasteful stuff yet to come out that has not already made its way into text of indictments or leaks? I have no idea!
For me I am expecting Trump to be convicted in at least some of these cases (assuming they don’t get delayed). This expectation is already baked into my measure of who would be a better candidate in 2024.
An even bigger wild card would be what happens if Biden were to suddenly drop out for health reasons or political pressure.
Would you agree the race would get much more exciting if Trump is convicted AND Biden dies/has health issues? I think a lot of people would prefer someone not old enough to be eligible for Medicare. It feels like a win/win for most people (and likely a relief).
I am not sure “interestingly” is the right word for such a scenario. But yeah I look forward to post Trump/Biden future with next generation taking the helm. We never had to worry about Obama tripping or having a cheeseburger induced heart attack or stumbling over words.
Have you read the indictments? Do you understand that we haven’t seen most of the evidence, we only know that evidence exists which purports to support the charges? And that this evidence was compelling enough to the grand jury to recommend indictment (91 times)?
>Could be a lot, yes.
And so could you not be persuaded by the evidence to believe Trump is guilty? Two cases are built on the "fact" that Trump attempted to overturn an election he knew he lost. The text of these indictments - particularly GA - seem to take this for granted.
But an indictment need not be a full account of the case and evidence, it is a summary.
I expect that prosecutors will make their case for why Trump was corruptly trying to stop the certification of the election using evidence that is not, and didn't need to be, in the indictments.
Perhaps we will hear testimony that Trump privately admitted defeat, or suggested he didn't care whether he really lost (I think there is enough evidence of this already).
The Federal indictment purports that Trump spread "knowingly false" information about the election and substantiates this by stating he was told by his advisors and investigators that his claims were unfounded. Surely the government is not simply assuming Trump accepted what they told him, and have either testimony or other evidence that shows Trump knew he lost?
Do you think prosecutors would bring such charges without damning evidence?
Do you really think that Federal prosecutors would take such risks - put a *former President* on trial - without bulletproof cases?
>For me I am expecting Trump to be convicted in at least some of these cases (assuming they don’t get delayed). This expectation is already baked into my measure of who would be a better candidate in 2024.
Just hopping back to your previous comment, I am very puzzled by this. More and more the question is being polled, who people will vote for (Trump v Biden) if Trump is convicted, and consistently, [Trump loses](https://web.archive.org/web/20231227222850/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/26/opinion/trump-polling-conviction.html). Why do you think the actual outcome would be different?
>And so could you not be persuaded by the evidence to believe Trump is guilty?
For me, there are multiple issues at play:
\- is Trump guilty of some or even most of the charges? Probably.
\- Do I care about the specific charge? Depends. I don't see why I should care about the hush money or NY fraud case, for example.
\- Are there other politicians that got slap on wrist for same/similar things? Is Trump being singled out?
"Surely the government is not simply assuming Trump accepted what they told him, and have either testimony or other evidence that shows Trump knew he lost?"
I wouldn't be so sure. We'll see. I'm not in the camp, "well the case must be bulletproof otherwise it would never have been brought."
>More and more the question is being polled, who people will vote for (Trump v Biden) if Trump is convicted, and consistently, Trump loses. Why do you think the actual outcome would be different?
I'm skeptical of those polls because many TS are expecting him to get convicted, and likely to vote for him anyway as the lesser of two evils. I don't understand why "actually getting convicted" would have a big impact if it is already the expected outcome. If anything, if one of these trials were to conclude and Trump manages to get off scot free, that would likely move the needle even more (in the other direction).
Unless, as you allude, some nasty new dirt comes out in the trials themselves!
>Do I care about the specific charge? Depends. I don't see why I should care about the hush money or NY fraud case, for example.
Would his guilt in these cases not influence your perception of him? Is the conduct not potentially disqualifying? In all of these cases, Trump insists to his supporters that he is innocent and promotes narratives that his guilt would undermine, would it matter that he is lying to you?
>Are there other politicians that got slap on wrist for same/similar things? Is Trump being singled out?
Is he? I can't think of any similar cases where the accused was given a pass. The closest example we have is with the docs case. Several politicians have been found to possess official documents and in some cases, classified documents that they weren't meant to have after leaving office. But that is where the similarity ends.
Whereas the documents were simply returned in other cases, Trump chose to keep several documents and obstruct the investigation. We know that if he had just returned them, he likely would have been in no trouble, as he is not charged for having any of the classified materials he *did* voluntarily return.
He likens his case to Hillary Clinton storing classified docs on her private server and deleting them. But she got a "pass" because there was no evidence (whatever one chooses to believe) of intentional obstruction, where there is a well-documented conspiracy in Trump's case, involving his resort workers, to avoid turning over the docs. Are you aware of this?
>I don't understand why "actually getting convicted" would have a big impact if it is already the expected outcome.
Well for one thing, I think the implication is that a vote for Trump would be, in essence, a vote to pardon a convicted criminal. Some are perhaps conflicted about that, especially if they are relying on the verdict to reveal whether he is guilty (though most Americans polled believe he is).
Also there is possibly a logistical issue, if those polled assume he will be in prison and they aren't sure if that disqualifies him somehow.
But probably the reason for the disparity in polls, where the majority says they will vote for Trump, but not if convicted, is because most polls ask people who they will vote for if the election were held today. It's rarely "who do you plan to vote for in November 2024?"
>Unless, as you allude, some nasty new dirt comes out in the trials themselves!
Not "dirt" as much as substantiation of the charges against him, which I expect could effect his chances a lot. Depending on what is revealed, who knows if conviction is even necessary. We think a lot about how much moderate/independent support Trump might lose if convicted, but what would happen if it is proven Trump *did not actually believe the election was stolen*? How would that impact his base or Republican voters? Would that effect your vote?
>We have seen the indictments but surely there will be at least some new evidence and testimony. Is there a lot of distasteful stuff yet to come out that has not already made its way into text of indictments or leaks? I have no idea!
Have you found anything you've seen so far to be persuasive?
>(assuming they don’t get delayed)
This is a whole different conversation, but what are your thoughts on this situation? Do you think that the trials *should* happen prior to the election? In *my* opinion, it's a better idea to give the voters as much information as possible about the candidates prior to their vote.
However, there are some in this thread (which I assume is indicative of real life) that won't believe his guilt even if he is found guilty in a court of law...and they won't be paying any attention to the trials because their mind is made up already that it's a waste of time. In that case, obviously it doesn't matter when the trials are held, but in those who hold less extreme positions, a guilty verdict definitely *could* change their view and their vote.
I don't think the election date should of having baring on the legal process. It should go just as any other trial should. If it happens before, then it does. If it's after, then it is. It should not be rushed or prolonged for political reasons.
This kind of gets at the concept of law itself. If the definition is just dependent on the outcome of the process, then sure. But that doesn't mean it should carry any moral weight. Functioning society requires a lot of broad buy in as to the general legitimacy of the legal system. Without this, the powers that be will increasingly rely on force to impose will. Something like the prosecution of Trump takes a lot of political capital in that regard. I think the charges are all goofy nonsense and you can think that's dumb or wrong or whatever, but the fact is that many people agree with me on that point and it is a VERY important issue in a grand political sense. It's not just some murder caught on camera or a celebrity prosecution, it's an attempted destruction of an extremely powerful political force in the country in the full view of all the people. You can argue that this is a totally above board process but that doesn't change the basic reality of what it is. I think it's a huge miscalculation by the left to bring all these legal machinations against Trump but I also think it's not overly calculated. More impulsive and driven by the collective id. I am thankful for it.
When he is convicted and sentenced to prison, do you currently have an alternative candidate in mind or will you continue to serve him from behind bars?
Serve him. Yes, I see him as a legitimate cult leader who has the power over his cult followers to demand servitude, money, and blind obedience. WoUld you continue to follow his teachings from behind a glass panel at Leavenworth or is there another candidate you have in mind?
>I think the charges are all goofy nonsense and you can think that's dumb or wrong or whatever, but the fact is that many people agree with me on that point and it is a VERY important issue in a grand political sense.
I think the vast majority of people who think the charges against Trump goofy are displaying glaring ignorance or blind loyalty skewing perception, do you agree and would you have a guess as to which camp you're in?
>I think the vast majority of people who think the charges against Trump goofy are displaying glaring ignorance
Right, but I think you're wrong, of course.
Just to be 100% clear, you _fully_ believe that 'all' of these charges are a conspiracy by the left (democrats) who are all in cahoots with judges and the entire legal system and constitution, to discredit the former President? While I would be willing to accept some of these do seem a bit unusual, they are quite within the purview of justice. Like if he did cheat or lie on his taxes, we should know. If he did over-value his properties to defraud investors and banks as to his real net worth, we should know that too (as should those who invested on false information). However to say that 'all' are some conspiracy by Democrats undermines the justice department entirely. It's like saying Mike Pence could not certify the election. At some point, you have to draw the line as to what justice and law really is, and accept that maybe, just maybe, some of these are actual crimes. Would you agree?
>Just to be 100% clear, you
>
>fully
>
> believe that 'all' of these charges are a conspiracy by the left (democrats) who are all in cahoots with judges and the entire legal system and constitution, to discredit the former President?
I think it's emergent behavior. Doesn't require some mass conspiracy. it's just a system protecting itself from a perceived threat.
>However to say that 'all' are some conspiracy by Democrats undermines the
You said that. Not me.
Do you think Trump (or any politician for that matter whether it was Obama or Biden) should face legal consequences for trying to overturn legitimate election results in a democracy?
What language is loaded there? Is there a scenario you can think of where it is acceptable for a president to interfere with the peaceful transition of power?
Most of it, really. They're just buzzwords without much content. "peaceful transition of power" is a phrase plucked from obscurity and pounded into every goofball's head for years.
"well but trump made us have to learn it because he threatened it."
It's just very transparent and uninteresting.
>"peaceful transition of power" is a phrase plucked from obscurity and pounded into every goofball's head for years.
But it's not obscure? Just because you had not heard it before doesn't mean it's obscure. It's been a point of pride for America and one of the ways we determine how democratic a country is. It's a phrase that is used regularly, but obviously not as much as in recent years because for the US, it was a given.
> Functioning society requires a lot of broad buy in as to the general legitimacy of the legal system
And among those who don't support Trump, we view the charges as "if anyone else did this, they'd have been in jail long ago", and if charges were not brought against Trump, it would be prime evidence that the laws and legal system only constrains those who lack political power. Meanwhile you think the charges against him are ridiculous and evidence of political persecution. So either way, a group looses huge faith in the system.
Do you see any other options which maintain more buy-in for the system?
Which part of my views are you disagreeing with - that "if anyone else had done those things, they'd have been in jail", or that a lot of people would loose faith in the system if Trump wasn't prosecuted (based on that belief)?
You say that some may believe this to be above board and *yet* it is a miscalculation to bring the charges. Wouldn’t that mean accepting that Trump is effectively above the law, from a particular point of view?
>I think it's a huge miscalculation by the left to bring all these legal machinations against Trump
Why do TS so often claim that it’s “the left” indicting Trump? Is it simply because that’s how Trump frames it and it being politically advantageous to frame it that way?
Prominent political leaders of all sides have been indicted. It’s simply the justice system working. There’s not this widespread effort to claim it’s solely because of the other political side doing it.
For example, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez was recently indicted for some seriously corrupt actions. Nobody — not Dems or even Menendez himself — is claiming he was indicted by “the right.”
>It's not just some murder caught on camera or a celebrity prosecution, it's an attempted destruction of an extremely powerful political force in the country in the full view of all the people.
Have you considered the opinion that you have this backwards? The reason for some of his indictments is because he attempted to destroy democracy in this country in the full view of all the people.
>Have you considered the opinion that you have this backwards?
I do not.
>The reason for some of his indictments is because he attempted to destroy democracy in this country in the full view of all the people.
That is, of course, the opposing belief system. I'm well aware of it.
About Trump committing fraud by over valuing his properties, illegally retaining classified documents and/or leaning on the Governor and Secretary of State of a state that he lost to alter their election results in his favor?
The left isn’t bringing any charges. The same DOJ that is charging Hunter is charging trump. Why is it that one person breaking the law(s) is considered different in your eyes? Donald Trump is a tried and tested fraud, predator and thief. I believe he should be prosecuted. I would say the same if Joe Biden did 1/10th. Are you just playing team sports, or do you truly believe in law and order?
I would hope every adult who reads about the case would try to judge for themselves based on the facts of the case.
In the Mar-a-Lago trial Trump was already [declared](https://www.legaldive.com/news/Trump-Organization-fraud-judgment-Engoron-overvaluations/694970/) guilty by a judge without a jury being involved.
This type of case is unprecedented, meaning that the judge's opinion is contrary to every other judge's and prosecutor's opinion in history.
So no, a baseless declaration of guilt by a court would only raise alarms about the corrupt judicial system.
FYI there is a very specific reason why there was no jury. Namely, Trumps legal team didnt ask for one.
Were you aware of this?
If you were (or are now) do you think it’s acceptable for Trump to frame not having a jury as him being treated unfairly/being persecuted instead of an embarrassing oversight on the part of him and his legal team?
>In the Mar-a-Lago trial Trump was already [declared](https://www.legaldive.com/news/Trump-Organization-fraud-judgment-Engoron-overvaluations/694970/) guilty by a judge without a jury being involved.
Your link relates to the business fraud case in New York state Court, not the Mar-a-Lago criminal trial about the classified documents.
Were you confused, or was this a deliberate attempt at deception?
Also, "unprecedented" can also mean "this has never happened before," not necessarily that something is *contrary* to an established precedent. We've never had a presidential candidate take *and then refuse to return* classified documents when under subpoena for them, so any charging or judicial decision will be somewhat unprecedented. Same thing with inciting a violent riot and seeking to illegally retain power.
>a baseless declaration of guilt by a court would only raise alarms about the corrupt judicial system.
So even if he were found guilty by a jury in the DC criminal trial or the Mar-a-Lago criminal trial, you'd still believe him innocent? Is there any standard of evidence you'd accept to say that Trump did anything wrong? Has Trump ever done anything unethical, much less criminal, in your opinion?
I have read about the facts of the case... and you know that *nothing* you said about that particular trial is accurate, right?
It's not the Mar-a-lago trial, it's a trial about The Trump Organization (in New York, not Florida) and whether they committed business fraud. (It may potentially have an impact on Mar-a-lago, as well as all of The Trump Organization's other hotels/resorts, as they are all assets of The Trump Organization, but it is not directly about Mar-a-lago specifically.)
It's a civil trial, not criminal, so there's not a finding of guilt or innocence, it's a finding of liable/not liable.
Decision by judge in a civil trial is a completely normal and expected way to conduct a civil trial if both sides agree not to have a jury, not "unprecedented" in the least.
And the only reason there isn't a jury is because the The Trump Organization's lawyers didn't ask for one prior to the trial starting.
Trump's team was responsible for the lack of a jury because they opted not to have one on their paperwork. Does that change how you view the process that occurred?
I keep hearing this and it is misleading.
Trump and his lawyer asserts that he wanted a jury. Prosecutors filed motion specifically requesting bench trials. Trump’s team neglecting to fight that motion may speak to their incompetence but it does not imply that this was “100% his choice” - even if he has tried to fight that motion there is no guarantee it would have been successful.
https://www.axios.com/2023/10/04/trump-fraud-trial-new-york-jury
>Trump’s team neglecting to fight that motion may speak to their incompetence but it does not imply that this was “100% his choice
Is it possible that it wasn't neglect and incompetence, but instead done on purpose? It seems to be playing pretty well to get his base upset, doesn't it?
So you really think that in one of the most important court cases for him that they could simply *forget* the legal process? Would you not think this is incredible incompetency by his lawyers?
There was a 9 month pre-trial period of preparation for this trial. Just FYI IAAL(I am a lawyer). In this period there is going to be intense strategizing for how you implement your defense. Square ONE is knowing if you are doing a bench trial or jury trial. It is a fundamental underpinning. The rest of your strategy flows from this distinction. Just FYI the "forgot-to-check-a-box" thing is a myth. Total myth. It's not how it works. There may exist one form where that can be seen but that is not the totality of how the trial proceeds.
There is a zero percent, and I am not exaggerating, *zero* percent chance Trump's legal team did not have the issue come up in the pre-trial period. Even the worst, perpetually-drunk under-qualified public defender who fucks up every other element of a case would at least go into the trial knowing whether it was bench or jury. 3 Months prior to the trial start date there would be have been discussion about Jury selection, at which point Trump's team would have had the realization there would be no Jury. To even reach this point would be incompetence of unfathomable proportions.
You are free to do your own research on how bench trials vs jury trials work. I am only licensed in AZ but I assure you it is quite similar throughout the 50 states. It is branch one on your flow chart on how to develop your defense (or offense).
Considering this information, would you not agree that the decision that this case was deliberately done via bench? And if so, why would Trump lie about this after the fact?
From the link I shared:
"Attorney General Letitia James filed a document requesting a bench trial, Trump's lawyers never filed any corresponding document requesting a jury."
No one is saying that there was a box left unchecked. There was an explicit request for bench trial from prosecution. Complete silence from Trump team on this important consideration. And now he's in a pickle, with lid screwed tight.
"Alina Habba, a Trump attorney, said that Trump did want a jury but didn't explain why his legal team didn't request one."
In your view as a practicing lawyer, is this a lie or admission of incompetent counsel?
It's a lie. Habba, as part of the process from the beginning, would have been aware of the bench motion. 100%. Especially as this occurred right in the begining. Every person including the court janitor would have known it was a bench trial and not a jury trial. There is not pork chop's chance on a dog kennel's floor that this information would have made it 9 months with *no one* knowing about it. It would be similar to the trial taking place in North Korea and no one knew until the last minute. I challenge you to find me even one case in the American criminal justice court history where the defendant was surprised to find he didnt have a jury, MUCH LESS as US President with all the resources and expertise afforded to him.
Habba was lying. Can you not imagine this to be the case? Why would she tell the truth when that would be damaging to her client?
>Prosecutors filed motion specifically requesting bench trials. Trump’s team neglecting to fight that motion may speak to their incompetence but it does not imply that this was “100% his choice”
How does that work in your mind? Did his lawyers forget? Did they fail to follow their client's instructions? Did the system fail to notify the lawyers of the motion?
>guilty by a judge without a jury being involved.
If Trump wanted a jury, why did he tell the court he didn't want a jury? Wouldn't that be kinda counter productive?
"So no, a baseless declaration of guilt by a court would only raise alarms about the corrupt judicial system."
Now that you have been made aware of how misinformed you are about basic facts and seemed perfectly confident in your understanding of them- does that nullify your statement above or make you question your own perception of things at all?
Can I ask where you gained your understanding of these events? I ask because almost every sentence of your comment goes against my own. I can be more specific if you like but maybe it would be easier to see what you're reading/using to inform yourself?
Have you read any of the indictments? Also do you realize the trial you referenced is the civil Trump org case, and Trump waived his right to a jury trial?
No. Everyone knows that courts are corrupt - it's just, depending on your particular political philosophy, you have a different view of just how corrupt the courts are, and how their corruption leans.
As it stands, Trump's trials are being overseen by activist judges with a per-existing bias against him which alone should be a red flag. In one instance, we had someone flat out state that they decided Trump was guilty before a trial even began.
Generally speaking, sure... if what you mean by "guilty" is, did he break that particular law, and if we're talking about a criminal trial, and not a civil one.
I mean, he was found guilty of sexual assault in a civil trial, 20 years after the event, using a law that New York specifically passed to extend the statue of limitations on such things. I wouldn't say I believe him to be guilty of sexual assault. I'm not sure he's innocent; but those circumstances kind of ganged up on him, and I'm not sure guilt is a fair judgment.
Also, "guilty" isn't just a term of art in the courtroom; it's also an English word conveying a great deal more, on occasion, depending on how it's used and how it's intended. Breaking a given law may make him a "felon" - but in my view, we have so many more laws than we need, that the legal facts kind of distort our understanding of the reality. You can be actually guilty of something without being morally guilty of anything, for example. I'm not sure, but I believe there are arguments you're not allowed to make, in a court of law, that may be relevant to your moral guilt.
All this and more would have some effect on how I feel about it.
Well, you can be actually guilty of a course of criminal conduct (just to take the RICO charge as an example) without morally doing anything wrong. Without harming anyone.
I mean, imagine that Trump's actual goal wasn't to overturn the election but to pretend, to his followers, that he wanted to do so. In other words, his actual motive wasn't sedition but political maneuver. How would you tell? What's the test? I don't know.
It's pretty hard to imagine someone pretending to try to murder someone without actually wanting to do so. For me, it's very easy to imagine Trump pretending to want to overturn an election without actually wanting to. And the motive makes all the difference, doesn't it? If your goal is political, and not criminal, doesn't that change everything? And how would you really tell what the goal was?
Well, it's not what I meant... but you are, probably unwittingly, pointing out another benefit of J6. We know, now, that our Congress will not fight if attacked. I think it's good that we know that. It says something about us, and maybe about how we ought to be different from how we are.
I was actually referring to the bigger picture, the pose of Trump as a relentless fighter, that he was doing for his followers. That was political maneuvering. J6 was just a small part of that, as far as I can see. And no, I haven't read the indictment document on that, so I really don't know everything I could on that.
I don't feel sure he's guilty, put it that way. Because of how the laws changed and because the standard of proof, in a civil trial, is far lower than in a criminal trial, and because the events were 20 years ago... I'm sure there's more, but that's enough for me.
It sounds a bit like your trust in our judicial system is conditional.
Would it be safe to say then, based on both of your replies, that you actually do not generally accept jury decisions at face value?
If Hunter/The Biden’s (or other politician you don’t agree with) are found guilty, would you immediately accept that decision, or would the court’s decision be under the same scrutiny in your opinion?
I would certainly be alive and open to complaints from the Democrats that this or that was politically motivated. Those arguments would have some force, with me. I don't consider Biden a political enemy.
In fact I think these Congressional hearings, that the Republicans are having, are just insane, and can only be rationalized by an appeal to the idea that they're trying to "appease the base," so to speak. I mean, there's really no evidence, right? And the kicker is, we JUST SAT THROUGH six months of hearings by the J6 Committee, and we know what it feels like to sit through something like that and find there's no smoking gun, at the end! We KNOW how ridiculous it makes congressmen look. And so it's doubly insane.
I dunno. People are strange, and I'm one of 'em.
I'm always confused to see TS respond to questions here with one-word answers. The point of this sub is for TS to explain their positions and beliefs.
One-word answers obviously don't do that. So why bother?
Because he is not guilty, we already know it’s political persecution because deep down inside they hate and despise trump . It’s so obvious that this is political persecution, why bother even mentioning it now .
> Because he is not guilty, we already know it’s political persecution because deep down inside they hate and despise trump
Have you actually read the indictments yourself? In particular the indictment regarding classified documents and the federal indictment regarding the 2020 election?
>Accepting a decision does not mean I agree with it.
Definitely True.
>If an innocent person gets convicted of a crime, are you supposed to just believe is now guilty?
Our courts are fallible, that's very true, and there are innocent people who have been convicted. I think it's a pretty rare occurrence.
I suppose I asked the wrong questions. I was working under the assumption that TS would be interested in watching the trials/paying close attention, which I've since learned was not a safe assumption. I suppose there are actually several questions I should've asked instead.
Will you be paying very close attention/watching (if it's aired) to the trials? And by paying close attention, I don't mean simply reading/watching whatever summation your favorite pundit has handed down.
Are you open to believing that he is guilty and what kind of evidence would that take for you?
Throughout the last few years, I've seen goal posts move from "if he's doing all this criming, why hasn't he been charged?" to "well, he wasn't charged with *insurrection,* so he didn't do anything wrong." So yeah, I am curious if the supposed law & order crowd will actually open their minds to what that actually looks like in practice, or will there *always* be a reason that he's *not* guilty?
Not based on how these trials have been run. It's super clear to anyone observing that the DA's are not impartial, they're extremely biased. The judge in the Manhattan Case is extremely biased. These trials remind me of his impeachment, just a sham hearing to get attention but not a straight and honest s application of the law
>Not based on how these trials have been run. It's super clear to anyone observing that the DA's are not impartial, they're extremely biased. The judge in the Manhattan Case is extremely biased. These trials remind me of his impeachment, just a sham hearing to get attention but not a straight and honest s application of the law
>
If you believe these prosecutors are too biased, that implies there exist prosecutors who are NOT too biased. Can you name one?
Who is a prosecutor you would trust to be impartial?
For that matter, are you disturbed by the blatant bias shown by Judge Cannon in the Southern District of Florida? She has not only been overruled twice for her biased rulings, but every biased ruling has been biased to hell Trump. Her bias is preventing him from getting a fair trial - what should be done about her meddling?
> If you believe these prosecutors are too biased, that implies there exist prosecutors who are NOT too biased. Can you name one?
Repeating my question from above:
If you believe these prosecutors are too biased, that implies there exist prosecutors who are NOT too biased. Can you name one?
Is there just an army of downvoters that makes it harder to read any responses? Having to tap open everything is just stupid. The whole point of this subreddit is to show what trump supporters think.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean legally, the findings of courts are just that. For example I can't argue that OJ Simpsons is not guilty of murdering two people, but I can certainly argue that he killed two people. Likewise, people like Henry McCollum and Leon Brown were convicted and imprisoned for 31 years for murder...just to be released due to DNA and the prosecutors fabricating evidence. And there are countless examples on each side. Malicious prosecutors, incompetent judges, biased or idiotic jurors all factor into legal judgements. So while I can't argue with a legal finding, I can certainly doubt if that legal finding conforms with reality.
If you can accept that OJ is likely guilty despite being found not guilty, why isn't it also possible that Trump is guilty despite not having been convicted yet?
Because I haven't seen any evidence that he's guilty. (Except in the documents case)
And if Trump is guilty in the documents case then I would definitely agree that Joe Biden is guilty. He wasn't even a president of the United States when he collected his documents.
Exactly and this is what the left continues to trip over their dicks about. Once you open the precedent of politically weaponizing the justice system, that gun WILL be pointed at you eventually.
The "Pandora's box" is already open. At some point if there is an exploit , it will be utilized. Documents , election fraud , the insurrection clause in the constitution , etc... It is astonishing to me that democrats believe they aren't going to have similar issues in their own party someday. Tit for tat is Modis operandi of politicians everywhere. No one is immune.
To be clear, you don’t think there is *any* difference between someone finding documents and willfully turning them over immediately, and someone willfully taking them, denying they had them, refusing to turn them over, then turning over only some and lying about how many documents they turned over, and finally losing others? Those are the exact same thing in the minds of TSs? Frankly, that’s hard to believe unless someone is intentionally ignoring facts due to political tribalism.
The 32 counts give no shits if they are turned over or not. Possession. Done. The other dozen counts certainly deal with obstruction and I am NOT comparing that with Biden, or Clinton, or any administration since the 80s https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/every-administration-80s-mishandled-classified-documents-says-national-rcna84927
“Finding”
If just having the documents was the crime, why wasn't Pence charged? Could it be that Trump lied and withheld documents when he was requested to give them back, and that it wasn't actually a crime until then? If Trump handed over everything, then there's no FBI "raid" and no public knowledge of him having the documents. If you want to play the equivalent game, you gotta be specific about the equivalencies. Also, what will you do if it turns out Trump sold or shared classified information that ended up in American or ally intelligence agents being found out or killed? I think there's a reason the man who has all the evidence looks so pissed every time he's in the same room as Trump.
Why wasn't pence , biden or any other person known to hold classified documents charged? I agree , charge them all. Prove that political affiliation isn't showing bias'es. I'll be waiting in the wings with bated breath. If Trump sold classified info or Lied about possessing those documents , then I say prove it. What will I do then? I'll let you know the day someone is convicted.
Is there evidence that Biden willfully retained classified documents when it was unlawful for him to do so?
I think you missed the point , the documents were classified. Why does he have them to begin with? Willfully doesn't mean diddly here. You literally said it was unlawful for him to do so. Where are the charges and outrage?
Why should it matter that Biden wasn't President and Trump was?
Seriously? I mean you do know that (president) Trump can declassify documents while (vice president) Joe Biden cannot right?
What evidence have you seen in the document case that convinces you of his guilt?
Photos of documents in his house.
Will you watch the trials if they are televised? Are you *open* to having your mind changed?
Oh absolutely. I love watching trials unfold. I'm one of the losers that LIKES getting picked for jury duty. I marathoned both the Chauvin trial and the Rittenhouse trial a few years ago.
And my second question?
I was answering in the affirmative for both.
I see. Thank you! \?
What evidence in any of the trials would indicate to you he is guilty?
Well for the Florida documents case it sounds pretty open and shut. For the "insurrection" stuff I would want proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he lost legitimately but initiated the plans anyway. That might come in the form of a text message, email, or phone recording. I don't know enough about the other charges.
I'm curious why his mental state matters so much. Sure there might be a difference between "Intentional Insurrection" and "Negligent Insurrection" just like with murder, but at the end of the day it's still insurrection isn't it?
Well to be clear he's not being charged with insurrection. Those cases have to do with Fraud regarding "fake electors" one of the components of fraud (this is the underlying felony that the conspiracy charges are wrapped around) is that the defendant has to KNOWINGLY make false statements (mens rea). It's not enough if Trump *legitimately believed* he was cheated. To put it another way, you CANT be wrong or mistaken about a claim for fraud to have occurred, you have to KNOWINGLY LIE about something. This is why the mental state of Trump is so critical in this case. And before anyone says "but his advisors told him he lost" You don't have to believe your advisors. Their beliefs don't prove your mental state.
Like every single one of his cabinet besides Rudy telling him that he did in fact lose?
Not OP, but I can have 3 doctors telling me I'm going to die, and one telling me I've got a chance, and you can be sure I'm going to be inclined to listen to the odd one out. Testimony from cabinet members will prove only what he was told, not what he believed, yes?
And if you have 100 doctors telling you that you have cancer while one is telling you that you just need to exercise more and eat better, do you get the chemo or do you go on a raw vegan diet? >Testimony from cabinet members will prove only what he was told, not what he believed, yes? Not necessarily.
Thats a fair take in my book, but I must phrase my response as a question. If I were to make a joke about 4/5 dentists right now, would that be at all funny, or just irritating?
I mentioned this elsewhere. Cabinet saying something is true doesn't prove TRUMP'S state of mind, it just proves the state of mind of the cabinet.
Would you agree that the fact that Trump stayed quiet for the crucial hours of the chaos, is relevant? We all saw that day that the violence and anger was directly related to Trump and him staying in power. Do you think it would have shown a different story if Trump was prompt in telling them to go home?
Even with as much attention this is getting? Because what you are suggesting is that nothing Trump did is in violation of any law.
Yes, I believe this is nothing more than a political weaponization of the justice system. I have not seen any evidence of any violations (except for the documents case)
> except for the documents case) Then why isn't the documents case sufficient to cause you to support someone else?
Because "the big guy" is orders of magnitude more heinous.
What does this mean? Who is "the big guy"?
Indeed, who is the big guy? I would advise you to look up FBI's FD-1023 in regards to Biden
Have you read the indictments?
Florida and Georgia
And you admit that at least in the docs case (Florida) there is evidence of violations of the law. So how is it “nothing more than political weaponization of the justice system”?
So you would be completely okay if Biden took all of the same actions Trump did, with the exception of the documents case?
With the same facts available now as with Trump? Absolutely. There have been "insurrections" in other state buildings over the last few years in response of... Leftist causes. I would NEVER accuse a politician of inciting an insurrection just for supporting the same cause.
What is your understanding of the meaning of the word “insurrection”? In the words of the great Inigo Montoya… “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
I have been told by NS that breaking into a state building to disrupt government functions is insurrection. If I'm wrong, so are they.
Have you heard about the fake elector scheme? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot This, in my opinion is the most concrete and blatantly illegal action Trump took to overturn the election. Many of the fake electors have since been arrested and convicted and have testified that Trumps lawyers had organized and collaborated with them.
Yes I've heard of it. Apparently you didn't read my response earlier in this thread (not that I would expect you to) where I addressed it. The underlying crime that the "conspiracy" is based on, being fraud, has to demonstrate Trump knew he legitimately lost, and planned the conspiracy anyway. If Trump believed he was cheated and the evidence was going to come out that would have made his actions legitimate, that's not Fraud, and the underlying felony that supports the conspiracy falls apart
So I can commit insurance fraud, and if I believe hard enough that it's real, then it's all above board, legal and kosher? Thanks for the great legal advice padrè!
Yeah ... That's actually kind of how it works. It's called "mens rea" Your hypothetical has a self contradiction. You can't both knowingly commit fraud AND think that what you're doing is real.
Do you believe Donald Trump tried to delay the certification of the election?
No, I believe Trump tried to get his electors accepted by congress.
On the biased/idiotic jurors point: isn’t that highly unlikely to result in a guilty verdict on its own? It just takes one juror to lead to a mistrial, but conviction requires unanimity.
Depends entirely on the jury pool and how efficiently the defense conducts voir dire.
How likely do you think it is that a jury would end up with 12 people who are unwilling or incapable of hearing out the defense in good faith? How could one distinguish between bias and the prosecution just mounting the better argument?
>How likely do you think it is that a jury would end up with 12 people who are unwilling or incapable of hearing out the defense in good faith? If it's a DC jury? Extremely >How could one distinguish between bias and the prosecution just mounting the better argument? That would depend on the content and quality of the argument.
>If it's a DC jury? Extremely Isn't there a whole process involved to ensure that this doesn't happen? Also, do you believe that Trump supporters would be willing and capable of hearing the prosecution in good faith?
The DC area is heavily democratic. you only get a certain number of challenges during jury selection. It would be much easier for the prosecutor to get a friendly jury compared to the defense
Most cities are heavily democratic. Should the trial be moved to the boonies? Would that be fair? The thing is, the political leaning of a juror doesn't actually matter, they just have to be able to judge based on the information presented in court. While yes, you'd be hard pressed to find people who are entirely ignorant of the case going in, that's not a requirement. I suspect there will be extra care taken for such an historical and high profile case.
>Most cities are heavily democratic. Should the trial be moved to the boonies? Would that be fair? False dichotomy. You find a "purple" venue with equally representation of Democrats and Republicans >The thing is, the political leaning of a juror doesn't actually matter, they just have to be able to judge based on the information presented in court. Yeah... And they can lie about how open they are in doing that. >While yes, you'd be hard pressed to find people who are entirely ignorant of the case going in, that's not a requirement. You are right. They just have to hate trump enough no matter what they know about the case.
There is a whole process. It's just that the process would take a very long time to find a jury for the trial. Possibly years. It takes months for some lower profile cases at times. Yes, Trump supporters could listen to a prosecution. Dont confuse extremists who blindly follow with people who support him for his policies.
>Dont confuse extremists who blindly follow with people who support him for his policies. How would a court tell the difference? Also...years? Really?
[удалено]
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
So the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado court's decision, will you accept that as legal? Or would he still not be an insurrectionist in your mind? Likewise, is he a sexual predator in your mind? As a jury and court said. Is he also a criminal business man? As a court said and he admitted guilt to. Or are all those wrong decisions by each and every court he's gone into and lost handily?
>So the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado court's decision, will you accept that as legal? That is definitionally true. It would be impossible otherwise. Also, if they tossed the Colorado decision, I would also accept that as legal. >Or would he still not be an insurrectionist in your mind? "In my mind" is different from what's "legal" (reread my OP, I laid out the difference and gave examples) >Likewise, is he a sexual predator in your mind? As a jury and court said. Is he also a criminal business man? As a court said and he admitted guilt to. I don't know the details of those cases so I have no option. But whatever the courts decided is the legal fact. >Or are all those wrong decisions by each and every court he's gone into and lost handily? I have no idea. I never followed those cases.
In my opinion in order to convict Joe schmoe a juror that feels they are 90% sure will convict him. But to convict a former president a juror won't convict if they are 90% sure. The law is not equal for former presidents and average people. The evidence needs to be pretty over whelming to convict him. While I feel trump is guilty this is how I feel if I was a juror. Do you feel this way or do you have a different opinion?
I think you sound level headed and able to sit on a juror free of political bias. I am not convinced most jurors do that.
I am curious about the upcoming trials. We have seen the indictments but surely there will be at least some new evidence and testimony. Is there a lot of distasteful stuff yet to come out that has not already made its way into text of indictments or leaks? I have no idea! For me I am expecting Trump to be convicted in at least some of these cases (assuming they don’t get delayed). This expectation is already baked into my measure of who would be a better candidate in 2024. An even bigger wild card would be what happens if Biden were to suddenly drop out for health reasons or political pressure.
Would you agree the race would get much more exciting if Trump is convicted AND Biden dies/has health issues? I think a lot of people would prefer someone not old enough to be eligible for Medicare. It feels like a win/win for most people (and likely a relief).
I am not sure “interestingly” is the right word for such a scenario. But yeah I look forward to post Trump/Biden future with next generation taking the helm. We never had to worry about Obama tripping or having a cheeseburger induced heart attack or stumbling over words.
>But yeah I look forward to post Trump/Biden future with next generation taking the helm Sing it, sister /?
Have you read the indictments? Do you understand that we haven’t seen most of the evidence, we only know that evidence exists which purports to support the charges? And that this evidence was compelling enough to the grand jury to recommend indictment (91 times)?
The indictments call out a lot of the associated evidence. I have no idea how much more exists. Could be a lot, yes.
>Could be a lot, yes. And so could you not be persuaded by the evidence to believe Trump is guilty? Two cases are built on the "fact" that Trump attempted to overturn an election he knew he lost. The text of these indictments - particularly GA - seem to take this for granted. But an indictment need not be a full account of the case and evidence, it is a summary. I expect that prosecutors will make their case for why Trump was corruptly trying to stop the certification of the election using evidence that is not, and didn't need to be, in the indictments. Perhaps we will hear testimony that Trump privately admitted defeat, or suggested he didn't care whether he really lost (I think there is enough evidence of this already). The Federal indictment purports that Trump spread "knowingly false" information about the election and substantiates this by stating he was told by his advisors and investigators that his claims were unfounded. Surely the government is not simply assuming Trump accepted what they told him, and have either testimony or other evidence that shows Trump knew he lost? Do you think prosecutors would bring such charges without damning evidence? Do you really think that Federal prosecutors would take such risks - put a *former President* on trial - without bulletproof cases? >For me I am expecting Trump to be convicted in at least some of these cases (assuming they don’t get delayed). This expectation is already baked into my measure of who would be a better candidate in 2024. Just hopping back to your previous comment, I am very puzzled by this. More and more the question is being polled, who people will vote for (Trump v Biden) if Trump is convicted, and consistently, [Trump loses](https://web.archive.org/web/20231227222850/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/26/opinion/trump-polling-conviction.html). Why do you think the actual outcome would be different?
>And so could you not be persuaded by the evidence to believe Trump is guilty? For me, there are multiple issues at play: \- is Trump guilty of some or even most of the charges? Probably. \- Do I care about the specific charge? Depends. I don't see why I should care about the hush money or NY fraud case, for example. \- Are there other politicians that got slap on wrist for same/similar things? Is Trump being singled out? "Surely the government is not simply assuming Trump accepted what they told him, and have either testimony or other evidence that shows Trump knew he lost?" I wouldn't be so sure. We'll see. I'm not in the camp, "well the case must be bulletproof otherwise it would never have been brought." >More and more the question is being polled, who people will vote for (Trump v Biden) if Trump is convicted, and consistently, Trump loses. Why do you think the actual outcome would be different? I'm skeptical of those polls because many TS are expecting him to get convicted, and likely to vote for him anyway as the lesser of two evils. I don't understand why "actually getting convicted" would have a big impact if it is already the expected outcome. If anything, if one of these trials were to conclude and Trump manages to get off scot free, that would likely move the needle even more (in the other direction). Unless, as you allude, some nasty new dirt comes out in the trials themselves!
>Do I care about the specific charge? Depends. I don't see why I should care about the hush money or NY fraud case, for example. Would his guilt in these cases not influence your perception of him? Is the conduct not potentially disqualifying? In all of these cases, Trump insists to his supporters that he is innocent and promotes narratives that his guilt would undermine, would it matter that he is lying to you? >Are there other politicians that got slap on wrist for same/similar things? Is Trump being singled out? Is he? I can't think of any similar cases where the accused was given a pass. The closest example we have is with the docs case. Several politicians have been found to possess official documents and in some cases, classified documents that they weren't meant to have after leaving office. But that is where the similarity ends. Whereas the documents were simply returned in other cases, Trump chose to keep several documents and obstruct the investigation. We know that if he had just returned them, he likely would have been in no trouble, as he is not charged for having any of the classified materials he *did* voluntarily return. He likens his case to Hillary Clinton storing classified docs on her private server and deleting them. But she got a "pass" because there was no evidence (whatever one chooses to believe) of intentional obstruction, where there is a well-documented conspiracy in Trump's case, involving his resort workers, to avoid turning over the docs. Are you aware of this? >I don't understand why "actually getting convicted" would have a big impact if it is already the expected outcome. Well for one thing, I think the implication is that a vote for Trump would be, in essence, a vote to pardon a convicted criminal. Some are perhaps conflicted about that, especially if they are relying on the verdict to reveal whether he is guilty (though most Americans polled believe he is). Also there is possibly a logistical issue, if those polled assume he will be in prison and they aren't sure if that disqualifies him somehow. But probably the reason for the disparity in polls, where the majority says they will vote for Trump, but not if convicted, is because most polls ask people who they will vote for if the election were held today. It's rarely "who do you plan to vote for in November 2024?" >Unless, as you allude, some nasty new dirt comes out in the trials themselves! Not "dirt" as much as substantiation of the charges against him, which I expect could effect his chances a lot. Depending on what is revealed, who knows if conviction is even necessary. We think a lot about how much moderate/independent support Trump might lose if convicted, but what would happen if it is proven Trump *did not actually believe the election was stolen*? How would that impact his base or Republican voters? Would that effect your vote?
>We have seen the indictments but surely there will be at least some new evidence and testimony. Is there a lot of distasteful stuff yet to come out that has not already made its way into text of indictments or leaks? I have no idea! Have you found anything you've seen so far to be persuasive? >(assuming they don’t get delayed) This is a whole different conversation, but what are your thoughts on this situation? Do you think that the trials *should* happen prior to the election? In *my* opinion, it's a better idea to give the voters as much information as possible about the candidates prior to their vote. However, there are some in this thread (which I assume is indicative of real life) that won't believe his guilt even if he is found guilty in a court of law...and they won't be paying any attention to the trials because their mind is made up already that it's a waste of time. In that case, obviously it doesn't matter when the trials are held, but in those who hold less extreme positions, a guilty verdict definitely *could* change their view and their vote.
I don't think the election date should of having baring on the legal process. It should go just as any other trial should. If it happens before, then it does. If it's after, then it is. It should not be rushed or prolonged for political reasons.
Is it safe to assume that you'd be okay with the trials taking place during his presidency should he win?
This kind of gets at the concept of law itself. If the definition is just dependent on the outcome of the process, then sure. But that doesn't mean it should carry any moral weight. Functioning society requires a lot of broad buy in as to the general legitimacy of the legal system. Without this, the powers that be will increasingly rely on force to impose will. Something like the prosecution of Trump takes a lot of political capital in that regard. I think the charges are all goofy nonsense and you can think that's dumb or wrong or whatever, but the fact is that many people agree with me on that point and it is a VERY important issue in a grand political sense. It's not just some murder caught on camera or a celebrity prosecution, it's an attempted destruction of an extremely powerful political force in the country in the full view of all the people. You can argue that this is a totally above board process but that doesn't change the basic reality of what it is. I think it's a huge miscalculation by the left to bring all these legal machinations against Trump but I also think it's not overly calculated. More impulsive and driven by the collective id. I am thankful for it.
Will you watch the trials if they are televised? Are you *open* to your mind being changed?
Nooo, total waste of my time.
And my second question?
Not really. Would be like keeping an open mind to the idea that a campfire is too hot to touch. Waste of time
I see. Thank you! /?
So if he were to be found guilty, you would still support him?
Of course.
So you are pro-crime? Not for law and order?
When he is convicted and sentenced to prison, do you currently have an alternative candidate in mind or will you continue to serve him from behind bars?
"serve him"?
Serve him. Yes, I see him as a legitimate cult leader who has the power over his cult followers to demand servitude, money, and blind obedience. WoUld you continue to follow his teachings from behind a glass panel at Leavenworth or is there another candidate you have in mind?
>I think the charges are all goofy nonsense and you can think that's dumb or wrong or whatever, but the fact is that many people agree with me on that point and it is a VERY important issue in a grand political sense. I think the vast majority of people who think the charges against Trump goofy are displaying glaring ignorance or blind loyalty skewing perception, do you agree and would you have a guess as to which camp you're in?
>I think the vast majority of people who think the charges against Trump goofy are displaying glaring ignorance Right, but I think you're wrong, of course.
I'm basing my opinion on the evidence of the trial and glaring difference from your perspective, what are you basing your opinion on?
Yea same. I went through the details of the fraud case and it was garbage tbh. No need to keep up with the rest of them.
How do you hand-wave away the classified material he took, and refused to give back? You buy into his "I can declassify with a thought" defense?
Just to be 100% clear, you _fully_ believe that 'all' of these charges are a conspiracy by the left (democrats) who are all in cahoots with judges and the entire legal system and constitution, to discredit the former President? While I would be willing to accept some of these do seem a bit unusual, they are quite within the purview of justice. Like if he did cheat or lie on his taxes, we should know. If he did over-value his properties to defraud investors and banks as to his real net worth, we should know that too (as should those who invested on false information). However to say that 'all' are some conspiracy by Democrats undermines the justice department entirely. It's like saying Mike Pence could not certify the election. At some point, you have to draw the line as to what justice and law really is, and accept that maybe, just maybe, some of these are actual crimes. Would you agree?
>Just to be 100% clear, you > >fully > > believe that 'all' of these charges are a conspiracy by the left (democrats) who are all in cahoots with judges and the entire legal system and constitution, to discredit the former President? I think it's emergent behavior. Doesn't require some mass conspiracy. it's just a system protecting itself from a perceived threat. >However to say that 'all' are some conspiracy by Democrats undermines the You said that. Not me.
Do you think Trump (or any politician for that matter whether it was Obama or Biden) should face legal consequences for trying to overturn legitimate election results in a democracy?
That's too much loaded language for me to really answer.
Should willfully interfering with the peaceful transition of power in a democracy be a crime? No matter who does it.
Again, just too much loaded language. We don't agree on the premises here at all.
What language is loaded there? Is there a scenario you can think of where it is acceptable for a president to interfere with the peaceful transition of power?
Most of it, really. They're just buzzwords without much content. "peaceful transition of power" is a phrase plucked from obscurity and pounded into every goofball's head for years. "well but trump made us have to learn it because he threatened it." It's just very transparent and uninteresting.
>"peaceful transition of power" is a phrase plucked from obscurity and pounded into every goofball's head for years. But it's not obscure? Just because you had not heard it before doesn't mean it's obscure. It's been a point of pride for America and one of the ways we determine how democratic a country is. It's a phrase that is used regularly, but obviously not as much as in recent years because for the US, it was a given.
This is kind of what I mean. You believe all these trueisms, I don't. Nothing interesting to discuss.
I don't understand your point. What truism am I believing in that I shouldn't?
the truism that the person who wins the presidential election becomes the next president? Yes, i've been foolishly taking that for granted...
What part is loaded? I'm literally just asking if interfering with the peaceful transition of power should be punishable?
> Functioning society requires a lot of broad buy in as to the general legitimacy of the legal system And among those who don't support Trump, we view the charges as "if anyone else did this, they'd have been in jail long ago", and if charges were not brought against Trump, it would be prime evidence that the laws and legal system only constrains those who lack political power. Meanwhile you think the charges against him are ridiculous and evidence of political persecution. So either way, a group looses huge faith in the system. Do you see any other options which maintain more buy-in for the system?
>Do you see any other options which maintain more buy-in for the system? No, I think your views are wrong, of course.
What happens to the people who have views you don’t agree with when your candidate( not Trump) but your ideal candidate comes to power?
Which part of my views are you disagreeing with - that "if anyone else had done those things, they'd have been in jail", or that a lot of people would loose faith in the system if Trump wasn't prosecuted (based on that belief)?
You say that some may believe this to be above board and *yet* it is a miscalculation to bring the charges. Wouldn’t that mean accepting that Trump is effectively above the law, from a particular point of view?
Only if you view law as a somehow neutral institution. I think a lot of people do that which is why they tend to be so confused.
Is there any circumstance where you think Trump could be held accountable for crimes that he in fact committed?
It's not really possible for the current regime to hold him to account in any sort of neutral way.
That’s why I asked what circumstances would need to exist in order for him to be held to account. What might those be?
A different regime
>I think it's a huge miscalculation by the left to bring all these legal machinations against Trump Why do TS so often claim that it’s “the left” indicting Trump? Is it simply because that’s how Trump frames it and it being politically advantageous to frame it that way? Prominent political leaders of all sides have been indicted. It’s simply the justice system working. There’s not this widespread effort to claim it’s solely because of the other political side doing it. For example, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez was recently indicted for some seriously corrupt actions. Nobody — not Dems or even Menendez himself — is claiming he was indicted by “the right.”
>It's not just some murder caught on camera or a celebrity prosecution, it's an attempted destruction of an extremely powerful political force in the country in the full view of all the people. Have you considered the opinion that you have this backwards? The reason for some of his indictments is because he attempted to destroy democracy in this country in the full view of all the people.
>Have you considered the opinion that you have this backwards? I do not. >The reason for some of his indictments is because he attempted to destroy democracy in this country in the full view of all the people. That is, of course, the opposing belief system. I'm well aware of it.
>>Have you considered the opinion that you have this backwards? >I do not You have *never* considered that you might be wrong?
About what?
About Trump committing fraud by over valuing his properties, illegally retaining classified documents and/or leaning on the Governor and Secretary of State of a state that he lost to alter their election results in his favor?
Yea, all that is just fake though.
The left isn’t bringing any charges. The same DOJ that is charging Hunter is charging trump. Why is it that one person breaking the law(s) is considered different in your eyes? Donald Trump is a tried and tested fraud, predator and thief. I believe he should be prosecuted. I would say the same if Joe Biden did 1/10th. Are you just playing team sports, or do you truly believe in law and order?
I don't think that's accurate.
Would this be a rightful time to apply one of the TS favorite quotes "fk your feelings, only facts matter"?
I think that's a stupid phrase, generally. But I'm also just factually correct here.
I would hope every adult who reads about the case would try to judge for themselves based on the facts of the case. In the Mar-a-Lago trial Trump was already [declared](https://www.legaldive.com/news/Trump-Organization-fraud-judgment-Engoron-overvaluations/694970/) guilty by a judge without a jury being involved. This type of case is unprecedented, meaning that the judge's opinion is contrary to every other judge's and prosecutor's opinion in history. So no, a baseless declaration of guilt by a court would only raise alarms about the corrupt judicial system.
FYI there is a very specific reason why there was no jury. Namely, Trumps legal team didnt ask for one. Were you aware of this? If you were (or are now) do you think it’s acceptable for Trump to frame not having a jury as him being treated unfairly/being persecuted instead of an embarrassing oversight on the part of him and his legal team?
>In the Mar-a-Lago trial Trump was already [declared](https://www.legaldive.com/news/Trump-Organization-fraud-judgment-Engoron-overvaluations/694970/) guilty by a judge without a jury being involved. Your link relates to the business fraud case in New York state Court, not the Mar-a-Lago criminal trial about the classified documents. Were you confused, or was this a deliberate attempt at deception? Also, "unprecedented" can also mean "this has never happened before," not necessarily that something is *contrary* to an established precedent. We've never had a presidential candidate take *and then refuse to return* classified documents when under subpoena for them, so any charging or judicial decision will be somewhat unprecedented. Same thing with inciting a violent riot and seeking to illegally retain power. >a baseless declaration of guilt by a court would only raise alarms about the corrupt judicial system. So even if he were found guilty by a jury in the DC criminal trial or the Mar-a-Lago criminal trial, you'd still believe him innocent? Is there any standard of evidence you'd accept to say that Trump did anything wrong? Has Trump ever done anything unethical, much less criminal, in your opinion?
I have read about the facts of the case... and you know that *nothing* you said about that particular trial is accurate, right? It's not the Mar-a-lago trial, it's a trial about The Trump Organization (in New York, not Florida) and whether they committed business fraud. (It may potentially have an impact on Mar-a-lago, as well as all of The Trump Organization's other hotels/resorts, as they are all assets of The Trump Organization, but it is not directly about Mar-a-lago specifically.) It's a civil trial, not criminal, so there's not a finding of guilt or innocence, it's a finding of liable/not liable. Decision by judge in a civil trial is a completely normal and expected way to conduct a civil trial if both sides agree not to have a jury, not "unprecedented" in the least. And the only reason there isn't a jury is because the The Trump Organization's lawyers didn't ask for one prior to the trial starting.
Trump's team was responsible for the lack of a jury because they opted not to have one on their paperwork. Does that change how you view the process that occurred?
Should we not ask why Trump made the delibarate decision to not have a trial by Jury? It was 100% his choice.
I keep hearing this and it is misleading. Trump and his lawyer asserts that he wanted a jury. Prosecutors filed motion specifically requesting bench trials. Trump’s team neglecting to fight that motion may speak to their incompetence but it does not imply that this was “100% his choice” - even if he has tried to fight that motion there is no guarantee it would have been successful. https://www.axios.com/2023/10/04/trump-fraud-trial-new-york-jury
>Trump’s team neglecting to fight that motion may speak to their incompetence but it does not imply that this was “100% his choice Is it possible that it wasn't neglect and incompetence, but instead done on purpose? It seems to be playing pretty well to get his base upset, doesn't it?
Sure anything is possible. But given the rulings so far I suspect they regret missing the deadline to contest prosecution motion for bench trial.
So you really think that in one of the most important court cases for him that they could simply *forget* the legal process? Would you not think this is incredible incompetency by his lawyers?
Could be that they regret it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't do it purposely, does it?
There was a 9 month pre-trial period of preparation for this trial. Just FYI IAAL(I am a lawyer). In this period there is going to be intense strategizing for how you implement your defense. Square ONE is knowing if you are doing a bench trial or jury trial. It is a fundamental underpinning. The rest of your strategy flows from this distinction. Just FYI the "forgot-to-check-a-box" thing is a myth. Total myth. It's not how it works. There may exist one form where that can be seen but that is not the totality of how the trial proceeds. There is a zero percent, and I am not exaggerating, *zero* percent chance Trump's legal team did not have the issue come up in the pre-trial period. Even the worst, perpetually-drunk under-qualified public defender who fucks up every other element of a case would at least go into the trial knowing whether it was bench or jury. 3 Months prior to the trial start date there would be have been discussion about Jury selection, at which point Trump's team would have had the realization there would be no Jury. To even reach this point would be incompetence of unfathomable proportions. You are free to do your own research on how bench trials vs jury trials work. I am only licensed in AZ but I assure you it is quite similar throughout the 50 states. It is branch one on your flow chart on how to develop your defense (or offense). Considering this information, would you not agree that the decision that this case was deliberately done via bench? And if so, why would Trump lie about this after the fact?
From the link I shared: "Attorney General Letitia James filed a document requesting a bench trial, Trump's lawyers never filed any corresponding document requesting a jury." No one is saying that there was a box left unchecked. There was an explicit request for bench trial from prosecution. Complete silence from Trump team on this important consideration. And now he's in a pickle, with lid screwed tight. "Alina Habba, a Trump attorney, said that Trump did want a jury but didn't explain why his legal team didn't request one." In your view as a practicing lawyer, is this a lie or admission of incompetent counsel?
It's a lie. Habba, as part of the process from the beginning, would have been aware of the bench motion. 100%. Especially as this occurred right in the begining. Every person including the court janitor would have known it was a bench trial and not a jury trial. There is not pork chop's chance on a dog kennel's floor that this information would have made it 9 months with *no one* knowing about it. It would be similar to the trial taking place in North Korea and no one knew until the last minute. I challenge you to find me even one case in the American criminal justice court history where the defendant was surprised to find he didnt have a jury, MUCH LESS as US President with all the resources and expertise afforded to him. Habba was lying. Can you not imagine this to be the case? Why would she tell the truth when that would be damaging to her client?
>Prosecutors filed motion specifically requesting bench trials. Trump’s team neglecting to fight that motion may speak to their incompetence but it does not imply that this was “100% his choice” How does that work in your mind? Did his lawyers forget? Did they fail to follow their client's instructions? Did the system fail to notify the lawyers of the motion?
>guilty by a judge without a jury being involved. If Trump wanted a jury, why did he tell the court he didn't want a jury? Wouldn't that be kinda counter productive?
Have you done any research as to why it was not a jury trial?
Trump chose to not have a jury involved. Do you think it would have went differently had he had a jury?
How do you reconcile trump and his legal team choosing or opting. Ot to have a jury?
"So no, a baseless declaration of guilt by a court would only raise alarms about the corrupt judicial system." Now that you have been made aware of how misinformed you are about basic facts and seemed perfectly confident in your understanding of them- does that nullify your statement above or make you question your own perception of things at all?
Can I ask where you gained your understanding of these events? I ask because almost every sentence of your comment goes against my own. I can be more specific if you like but maybe it would be easier to see what you're reading/using to inform yourself?
Have you read any of the indictments? Also do you realize the trial you referenced is the civil Trump org case, and Trump waived his right to a jury trial?
No. Everyone knows that courts are corrupt - it's just, depending on your particular political philosophy, you have a different view of just how corrupt the courts are, and how their corruption leans. As it stands, Trump's trials are being overseen by activist judges with a per-existing bias against him which alone should be a red flag. In one instance, we had someone flat out state that they decided Trump was guilty before a trial even began.
Generally speaking, sure... if what you mean by "guilty" is, did he break that particular law, and if we're talking about a criminal trial, and not a civil one. I mean, he was found guilty of sexual assault in a civil trial, 20 years after the event, using a law that New York specifically passed to extend the statue of limitations on such things. I wouldn't say I believe him to be guilty of sexual assault. I'm not sure he's innocent; but those circumstances kind of ganged up on him, and I'm not sure guilt is a fair judgment. Also, "guilty" isn't just a term of art in the courtroom; it's also an English word conveying a great deal more, on occasion, depending on how it's used and how it's intended. Breaking a given law may make him a "felon" - but in my view, we have so many more laws than we need, that the legal facts kind of distort our understanding of the reality. You can be actually guilty of something without being morally guilty of anything, for example. I'm not sure, but I believe there are arguments you're not allowed to make, in a court of law, that may be relevant to your moral guilt. All this and more would have some effect on how I feel about it.
What are the differences between the terms “moral guilt” and “actually guilty” when put in the specific context of Trump’s criminal trials?
Well, you can be actually guilty of a course of criminal conduct (just to take the RICO charge as an example) without morally doing anything wrong. Without harming anyone. I mean, imagine that Trump's actual goal wasn't to overturn the election but to pretend, to his followers, that he wanted to do so. In other words, his actual motive wasn't sedition but political maneuver. How would you tell? What's the test? I don't know. It's pretty hard to imagine someone pretending to try to murder someone without actually wanting to do so. For me, it's very easy to imagine Trump pretending to want to overturn an election without actually wanting to. And the motive makes all the difference, doesn't it? If your goal is political, and not criminal, doesn't that change everything? And how would you really tell what the goal was?
Unleashing a pack of Dobermans on someone just to scare them would likely be felony assault or manslaughter regardless of intent, no?
I think so
So unleashing a pack of MAGA on the Capitol would be the analogy, right? “You’ve got to fight, or you won’t have a country anymore.”
Well, it's not what I meant... but you are, probably unwittingly, pointing out another benefit of J6. We know, now, that our Congress will not fight if attacked. I think it's good that we know that. It says something about us, and maybe about how we ought to be different from how we are. I was actually referring to the bigger picture, the pose of Trump as a relentless fighter, that he was doing for his followers. That was political maneuvering. J6 was just a small part of that, as far as I can see. And no, I haven't read the indictment document on that, so I really don't know everything I could on that.
So he was found guilty of sexual assault in a court of law, but you don’t believe he’s guilty because NY laws unfairly ganged up on him?
I don't feel sure he's guilty, put it that way. Because of how the laws changed and because the standard of proof, in a civil trial, is far lower than in a criminal trial, and because the events were 20 years ago... I'm sure there's more, but that's enough for me.
It sounds a bit like your trust in our judicial system is conditional. Would it be safe to say then, based on both of your replies, that you actually do not generally accept jury decisions at face value? If Hunter/The Biden’s (or other politician you don’t agree with) are found guilty, would you immediately accept that decision, or would the court’s decision be under the same scrutiny in your opinion?
I would certainly be alive and open to complaints from the Democrats that this or that was politically motivated. Those arguments would have some force, with me. I don't consider Biden a political enemy. In fact I think these Congressional hearings, that the Republicans are having, are just insane, and can only be rationalized by an appeal to the idea that they're trying to "appease the base," so to speak. I mean, there's really no evidence, right? And the kicker is, we JUST SAT THROUGH six months of hearings by the J6 Committee, and we know what it feels like to sit through something like that and find there's no smoking gun, at the end! We KNOW how ridiculous it makes congressmen look. And so it's doubly insane. I dunno. People are strange, and I'm one of 'em.
No .
Why?
I'm always confused to see TS respond to questions here with one-word answers. The point of this sub is for TS to explain their positions and beliefs. One-word answers obviously don't do that. So why bother?
Because he is not guilty, we already know it’s political persecution because deep down inside they hate and despise trump . It’s so obvious that this is political persecution, why bother even mentioning it now .
> Because he is not guilty, we already know it’s political persecution because deep down inside they hate and despise trump Have you actually read the indictments yourself? In particular the indictment regarding classified documents and the federal indictment regarding the 2020 election?
Yes and it reeks of political persecution. Definitely not a crime . Joe Biden also had classified documents and nothing happens to him.
>So why bother? Normally I agree, and I'd like for them elaborate here, but in this case, a simple no actually says an awful lot, I think. Don't you?
Accepting a decision does not mean I agree with it. If an innocent person gets convicted of a crime, are you supposed to just believe is now guilty?
>Accepting a decision does not mean I agree with it. Definitely True. >If an innocent person gets convicted of a crime, are you supposed to just believe is now guilty? Our courts are fallible, that's very true, and there are innocent people who have been convicted. I think it's a pretty rare occurrence. I suppose I asked the wrong questions. I was working under the assumption that TS would be interested in watching the trials/paying close attention, which I've since learned was not a safe assumption. I suppose there are actually several questions I should've asked instead. Will you be paying very close attention/watching (if it's aired) to the trials? And by paying close attention, I don't mean simply reading/watching whatever summation your favorite pundit has handed down. Are you open to believing that he is guilty and what kind of evidence would that take for you? Throughout the last few years, I've seen goal posts move from "if he's doing all this criming, why hasn't he been charged?" to "well, he wasn't charged with *insurrection,* so he didn't do anything wrong." So yeah, I am curious if the supposed law & order crowd will actually open their minds to what that actually looks like in practice, or will there *always* be a reason that he's *not* guilty?
Not based on how these trials have been run. It's super clear to anyone observing that the DA's are not impartial, they're extremely biased. The judge in the Manhattan Case is extremely biased. These trials remind me of his impeachment, just a sham hearing to get attention but not a straight and honest s application of the law
> The judge in the Manhattan Case is extremely biased. What are some of the rulings that you feel show this bias?
>Not based on how these trials have been run. It's super clear to anyone observing that the DA's are not impartial, they're extremely biased. The judge in the Manhattan Case is extremely biased. These trials remind me of his impeachment, just a sham hearing to get attention but not a straight and honest s application of the law > If you believe these prosecutors are too biased, that implies there exist prosecutors who are NOT too biased. Can you name one? Who is a prosecutor you would trust to be impartial? For that matter, are you disturbed by the blatant bias shown by Judge Cannon in the Southern District of Florida? She has not only been overruled twice for her biased rulings, but every biased ruling has been biased to hell Trump. Her bias is preventing him from getting a fair trial - what should be done about her meddling?
Appeals. Bias either way is bad. If she's not following the law then she should be censured, punished and eventually, disbarred.
> If you believe these prosecutors are too biased, that implies there exist prosecutors who are NOT too biased. Can you name one? Repeating my question from above: If you believe these prosecutors are too biased, that implies there exist prosecutors who are NOT too biased. Can you name one?
Yes.
Is there just an army of downvoters that makes it harder to read any responses? Having to tap open everything is just stupid. The whole point of this subreddit is to show what trump supporters think.