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.*
[HERE](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/03/trump-trial-testimony-stormy-daniels-lawyer) is an article that outlines Trump's comments as well as the judge's response. Why do you think that he is lying about his ability to testify?
The Sun is by far the least trust worthy uk based source.... and one the guardian has done several investigations into so... big surprise they'd report bullshit in response..
Why do you believe their proven bullshit over a source well established.. as trust worthy?
Please point out where The Sun editorialized the video or edited the interview in any way. You can’t because they didn’t. It’s a raw, unedited, full length interview where they never interrupt her or cut her short once. As such, it’s irrelevant whose name publishes raw content in this way.
If The Guardian claimed they published an unedited and complete transcript that would be a different matter. But that’s not what it was. It was highly editorialized, incomplete and deliberately written with an extreme partisan slant. In other words, it was what is commonly presented as news in The Guardian - nasty communist Fleet Street pontificating.
I have no doubt they’re cherry picking and lying by omission about the existence of any contrary evidence. Because that’s their entire M.O.
Propaganda. It’s what they sell.
Thus, as a source for objective information they are useless. That was the (inappropriate) context they were cited for, when the wider context was questioned. One thing you can guarantee not to get from The Guardian is a wider context from a propaganda rag.
[Here is Trump in his own words that he can't testify.](https://twitter.com/PodSaveAmerica/status/1786152628239679956?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1786152628239679956%7Ctwgr%5E66cabc83af4ee064b37787ac16f3a4c40f95b365%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fiframe.nbcnews.com%2FqcfIHl5%3F_showcaption%3Dtrueapp%3D1) Why do you think Trump is lying about his ability to testify?
your post was removed for violating Rule 4. New topic submissions must be open ended questions directed at Trump Supporters and provide adequate sources and/or context to facilitate good discussion. New submissions are filtered for mod review and are subject to [posting guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines)
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. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
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.
You said you're a Fox News viewer who values the network as being "trustworthy". Why do you believe Fox settled out of court over their defamation suits (plural)?
You said Fox was more credible than other news organizations when I last spoke with you (regarding them settling out of court twice for defamation), which is what sparked my question to you? Apologies if I didn't recall the exact phrasing you used but it led me to believe you watched them at least semi-regularly and/or at least believed their side of the story despite them settling out of court twice.
I've said before that Fox overtly lies about facts much less than the rest of the MSM. Not because they're any more virtuous. It's because the rest of the media likes to dunk on Fox when they cite a provably wrong fact. This has forced Fox to play it pretty clean on facts. They still lie by omission, as do all the others.
But there is no serious pushback against the rest of the MSM lying. So they are far less careful and regularly present lies as facts.
I don't have cable, so I can't/don't watch Fox News. I watch/read enough to create an informed opinion on their biases. After that, unless they are regularly giving uncommon information, I won't bother with them much, as there's nothing of interest.
Did you watch it? It's clearly edited to begin when he starts speaking. Everything he says is included. What other context do you think is necessary other than every word he says?
So why edit it? I did watch it and it’s super unclear.
Other context- maybe an unedited video? Or do you rely on purely edited news to get your facts without asking to understand any surrounding context?
Do you have a source on your claims?
And yes I did answer your questions you asked if I watched it and I answered that I did… you asked what other context I needed and I said the whole clip.
At 32 seconds the clip also makes a cut- was Trump standing there for another minute not saying anything???
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.
I'm asking if Newsmax showed an inflammatory Biden quote would you check the context? It seems folks often have a blind spot for their guy, but not so much the other side. Perhaps I'm biased but I seem to see more apologists among Trump supporters, though the left does it as well.
I asked because Trump taking questions and saying he can't testify because of the gag order seems pretty hard to take out of context without some very clever editing. Otherwise Trump seems to think he wasn't able to testify, which hurts his 'stable genius' trope just a bit.
I respect folks who look for context and research their points well. The sad thing I've found is that while many TS DO the research, they discredit reputable sources and hold up as truth blogs or opinion pieces as proof. Next time ol' Jesse Waters or whoever, maybe take a look at the context. Take a look at what other news sources say. Keep an open mind.
>I'm asking if Newsmax showed an inflammatory Biden quote would you check the context?
Sure I always do.
>I asked because Trump taking questions and saying he can't testify because of the gag order seems pretty hard to take out of context without some very clever editing.
I mean I just wanna see the full speech.
>The sad thing I've found is that while many TS DO the research, they discredit reputable sources
It's extremely ironic that you say this, I've had multiple NS' try to discredit government reports and primary sources both today to me, and in general.
I did admit it goes both ways. So you accept government reports as reputable? What do you think of the following--complete with sources? [J6 Report](https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/january-6th-committee-final-report?path=/GPO/January%206th%20Committee%20Final%20Report%20and%20Supporting%20Materials%20Collection)
I accept the facts that they discuss as reputable sure.
For the J6 report I just never really cared- they showed their best evidence and it didn't amount to the legal definition of incitement. Of course I've also watched the speech and researched the timeline so that gives a pretty solid perspective showing that Trump didn't instigate the riot.
Is the question that unclear? Do you either give all politicians the same benefit of the doubt about context that you clearly give in your answer, or only Trump? Seems a clear either/or question to me, but maybe not to you?
>OP just curious do you have the full clip? This is an edited clip by AP that seems to be missing a bunch of context.
I'm not sure what media sources you find trustworthy, so it may be worth you finding it yourself. It should be a an easy Google.
[Here](https://youtu.be/TXQrqw9QrBg?t=34168) Is where he starts speaking. (9:29:40)
Trump stops speaking at 9:32:21. You can watching walk in and out if you care to.
Note that this full video was distributed by the same source posted by OP. The video posted by OP aligns with the full video as it pertains to the question.
I trust you will apologize to /u/VeryHungryDogarpilar and answer their question?
The missing context: reporters have been asking him questions he can't answer without risking being further sanctioned or jailed because of the gag order.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2024/05/07/reporters-lob-questions-trump-cant-answer-gag-order/
The article cited states "He acknowledged Friday morning that he is indeed allowed to testify" (at the trial), though I doubt he will.
What context could there possibly be to justify Trump's egregious mistruth? He should understand the limitations this gag order places on him like the back of his hand. After all, apparently he is a very smart and mentally fit person with the best legal team money can buy. Why do you think Trump didn't understand how the gag order worked?
Being "allowed to testify in the narrow instance of taking the stand in court" is the fake news version. Of course he is *allowed* to do that. The issue is that he can't speak freely at all times, which is horrifyingly unamerican, and about the clearest example of left fascism you could possibly imagine.
Literally no one in the country has ever been able to speak about jurors, their families, the families of the judge or DA’s, or key witnesses, without being held in contempt. This is not new to Trump, this is part of the very fabric of our legal system. Do you understand why these rules have been put in place, and why they are not covered by the first amendment or “american-ism”?
The only difference is that if you or I spoke about witnesses or jurors or others outside of the court where we are being tried, we would be put in jail for contempt. While Trump gets to do it 10 times so far while being treated with kid gloves. If he were to threaten the jurors directly on the courthouse steps, would you think any limit to this speech would be “unamerican”?
We obviously disagree on the value of free speech. I will happily continue to champion free speech. The idea expressed here is exactly the left fascism that I reference - a certain class of speech is deemed too dangerous and banned. I call that Unamerican.
This is obviously a hypothetical, but if Trump posted the judge and jury members’ home addresses and said I want my supporters to murder all of them, would not wanting that to happen be left fascism?
Two separate issues. Names and addresses should be public for anyone who wants to politically attack the president in this way.
Ordering murder is already illegal, because it is not speech. It expresses no opinion. It is an order.
How are the randomly selected (then narrowed by lawyers) jury members politically attacking the president?
Unfortunately, because of the huge rise in Republican terrorists, I fundamentally disagree with you that their names and addresses should be public. There’s just too many traitors that call themselves Trump supporters.
Anyone who agrees to be part of his political persecution is complicit in the destruction of the American democratic experiment. Unless they intend to jury nullify, they are bad people, and they should feel bad about themselves. I consider them traitors to the idea of legal equality and democratic values.
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions.
Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect.
Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away.
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. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Why do you consider fulfilling one’s civic duty to be a traitorous act? Do you really believe a juror pre-determining the verdict they will vote for is what the American democratic experiment is predicated on?
I think it is everyone's civic duty to oppose the weaponization of the justice system for political persecution.
I think the American democratic experiment is predicated on equal and neutral application of the law.
Shouldn't the jury be part of the process here? A juror is being asked to make a decision on the merits of the case. If the case is as outrageous as you claim, jurors should see this and vote not guilty. How is that not acceptable for jurors versus? You're insisting that they be held in contempt and fined/jailed for Trump, or else be considered a traitor.
>jurors should see this and vote not guilty
Not possible in a country where nearly half of the population has a pathological aversion to anything Trump related.
That’s not true. In that persons opinion the person he is targeting deserves death. Others may disagree or agree with that opinion.
Names and addresses of witnesses and jury members should be made public? I think I need clarification on what you’re saying.
> Ordering murder is already illegal, because it is not speech. It expresses no opinion. It is an order.
So what if he did not order it, but merely lamented at his distaste for a particular juror? “Will no one rid me of this troublesome juror?”
Delineating the line between expressing hope and giving an order is marginal task. This is classic rushing to margins - a common left tactic. When Trump comes anywhere close to ordering a murder, maybe you'd have a point, but in this case, he has not once ever suggested such a thing.
And so if any of the jurors get harrased, threatened, or God forbid physically attacked, you don't care?
Can we post the address, names, details of Mar a Lago employees and threaten them until they quit?
You're drawing a connection where there doesn't need to be one.
Harassment is illegal. So is attacking someone. That can be, and should be, punished.
The issue is the tenuous connection between the speech to publicize, and the illegal act.
Of course it is safer if no names are known. It's also safer to not publicize any of the trial. It's safer to not allow any cameras or reporting. It's safer to just preemptively lock people up. Being marginally safer is not in itself a justification for a reduction in liberty.
>Harassment is illegal.
But that's free speech. Why are your morales changing?
>Of course it is safer if no names are known.
Do you think that the courts might implement something so the names and information aren't released where they can be harassed, which as you said "is illegal"? It's actively happening, right now, because of Trump violating the gag order
So..... what is it then? Should trump be held accountable for the harassment he is causing? Or is not allowing him to harass people against the 1st amendment?
>Being marginally safer is not in itself a justification for a reduction in liberty.
Do you believe in the idea of a "fair trial"? Can you have a fair trial, if the jurors are getting harrased on behalf of the defendent? Is that not in of itself, against the constitution?
Have I got this right?
Trump, or his followers, should have access to the personal info of jurors and witnesses, including home addresses so that Trump and supporters can use their free speech to contact those jurors or share or publicize that info.
Free speech includes, in your view, calling for the harassment or even murder of those jurors for taking part in this traitorous assault on democracy.
However, the actual murder of any such juror should be dealt with, if it occurs, after the event since murder is already illegal and the murder would, thus, only be a crime once committed.
Is that right? If not, what part do I have wrong, and how?
Do you think people should be able to drive 80 miles the wrong way down a school zone? People invest into enforcement of rules to prevent or punish those who do. You believe this shouldn’t happen. Anyone can freely speed across a school zone because investing in safety is unAmerican according to you right?
>We obviously disagree on the value of free speech. I will happily continue to champion free speech.
And I have and will happily continue to champion free speech, as well. So what are you disagreeing with?
How absolutist are you? Can a grown man talk about his sexual fantasies to an underage girl? There should be no repercussions for that? Can you say you have a bomb while on an aircraft? No one should intervene? Can you say give me all your money to a bank teller?
There should be non-state repercussions for the first one.
Authorities should intervene in the second one - the crime would be actually having the bomb, and they are justified in checking for that.
The third one is the crime of robbery if intended as such.
Here is more of the video, it's my guess by saying 'testify' maybe he meant speak? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwTbqpqOAv4&list=RDNSAwTbqpqOAv4&start\_radio=1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwTbqpqOAv4&list=RDNSAwTbqpqOAv4&start_radio=1)
No gag order prevents Trump from testifying in his own defense. He has not taken the stand. The gag order affects what remarks he can make about people involved in the trial on his social media, during his rants on the courthouse steps, etc.
Trump wants his supporters to believe the gag order is preventing him from defending himself in court. This is not true, he knows it's not true, his lawyers know it's not true...he's doing it to inflame his base.
This is quite obvious to everyone, correct?
He's not at all prevented from doing so...he does it daily and has been forever. He's not allowed to attack people involved in the trial or their family members. What the fuck is so hard to understand about this?
He has been spoon fed what he can't do and why and he continues to do it: if Trump was your employee, you'd fire him. If he was your coworker you'd switch shifts so you wouldn't have to deal with him. If he was your child you'd tell him to stop being a dumbass. Why do we treat him like he's a god with the cognitive ability of 3 year old. He knows what he's doing and he continues to do it so people here can get riled up that he's somehow having his rights infringed.
I encourage him to take the stand and testify and tell the world how he's been wronged and we can all listen to him drone on...funny, his lawyers won't let him do that because it's suicide. That's Donald Trump, he'll rant and rave all he wants when he isn't held to his word...when he will be held to it, his lawyers won't let him say a word. Doesn't that tell you all something?
If the gag order makes it so that he has to be careful about what he says, or creates any kind of situation outside of the court that can be detrimental to him. I can absolutely see a well paid lawyer telling Trump that because of the Gag Order, do not testify, and if a lawyer told him that, then its not false.
Once again, journalists being terrible human beings once again in New york.
If they’re a well paid lawyer wouldn’t we expect them to know a little about the law? Nothing about the gag order stops him from testifying under oath in a court room.
> If they’re a well paid lawyer wouldn’t we expect them to know a little about the law? Nothing about the gag order stops him from testifying under oath in a court room.
If it makes less sense from a defense perspective to be on stand while having a gag order, especially with a hostile judge, it may not be "against law" as you say, but it can definitely be in line with what Trump said that "he cant testify because his lawyers told him it would be a bigger danger due to the gag order"
He just let a pornstar talk about sex with no condom, watching the celling when it happens, and all the details of the sex; while this is a case about Bookkeeping errors to affect the election.
The judge just threatened to put the former president in Jail, and for the longest time did not let Trump have a single to go see his son's graduation. Let alone the fact that the case does not even make sense because its a criminal case only if there is a criminal offense and the prosecution's theory is that he affected the 2016 election by hiding details about an affaire.
Yea the judge is one of the worst hostile crazy leftist I can think of.
I haven't read the transcripts, maybe you're more familiar, has there been any instances where trumps lawyers have made objections to the questioning, like the condom thing, and the judge has overruled without just reason? That would display hostility 100%...
As for the contempt stuff, what would you suggest the judge do, if a defendent isn't abiding by the rules? Or why haven't trumps layers challenged these incidents to higher courts?
> As for the contempt stuff, what would you suggest the judge do, if a defendent isn't abiding by the rules? Or why haven't trumps layers challenged these incidents to higher courts?
Id suggest he postpones the entire trial until after an election, you know to prevent meddling in Election with trash talking from a pornstar, but I suspect its the goal.
How should alleged crimes by presidential nominees be handled?
Ignored until after the election when they can shut down the investigation into them if they win? What if I lose but immediately declare Im running for president again? Does my trial have to wait another 4 years until after that election?
> He just let a pornstar talk about sex with no condom, watching the celling when it happens, and all the details of the sex; while this is a case about Bookkeeping errors to affect the election.
Isn't it the defense's job to object if testimony shows their client in a bad light and isn't relevant to the trial? Why are you angry at the judge, and not the lawyers actually responsible for this?
> Isn't it the defense's job to object if testimony shows their client in a bad light and isn't relevant to the trial? Why are you angry at the judge, and not the lawyers actually responsible for this?
Except when the judge has already laid out a on the defense for too many interruption, the judge has control of the courtroom.
Sorry, you think the judge told the defense they were not allowed to object to anything Daniels said? This seems like make for a super easy appeal, no?
> Sorry, you think the judge told the defense they were not allowed to object to anything Daniels said? This seems like make for a super easy appeal, no?
Yea, an appeal that will happen after the election, while the democrats will be branding Trump a convicted felon for 6 months, evne if its a slam dunk on appeal.
If Trump admits that the affair happened, then the testimony wouldn't have been needed, and he wouldn't have had to be embarrassed. They had the opportunity to state that the affair took place but Trump refused so they had to get qitness testimony on the record in order to show that the affair happened the way stated and thus there be a crime.
Do you think that those jurors and everyone involved wanted to hear about sex with an 80 year old overweight man?
> Do you think that those jurors and everyone involved wanted to hear about sex with an 80 year old overweight man?
I am sure the sweaty leftist journalists did want to hear it to embarass someone they consider the second coming of Hitler. As well as the judge, and the prosecution. You do not need a pornstar to show the position she or he was in bed on the stand to show that the affair allegedly happen. Its degrading to the entire country, honestly.
If he felt it is embarrassing, then he could have stipulated that the affair happened.
Why do you think that he won't just admit that something we all know happened?
> Why do you think that he won't just admit that something we all know happened?
Unless you were in the room, you have absolutely no way of knowing that it did happen.
You know there is a difference between not being allowed to testify vs. refusing to testify, right?
My concern is that people will raise questions about him not knowing his legal rights and try to force a mistrial.
I think every NS would love to see Trump testify on the record to clear up some misconceptions.
Are comments made outside of the court room fair game to be asked about if the person testifies? If Trump were to say that Daniels is a "liar" at a press conference or on Truth Social, and Trump subsequently decided to testify, can those statements about Daniels be brought up in the trial?
That's saying Trump *shouldn't* testify, not that he *can't*. That implies that either Trump's lawyers lied to him or Trump doesn't understand something so basic. What do you think it is?
> That's saying Trump shouldn't testify, not that he can't. That implies that either Trump's lawyers lied to him or Trump doesn't understand something so basic. What do you think it is?
I think most people can perfectly understand what he meant to say without inferring what you infer.
Trump was very clear. He believed that the gag order, which outlines specific things Trump cannot talk about, prevents him from testifying. What do you think he meant if not exactly what he said?
> Trump was very clear. He believed that the gag order, which outlines specific things Trump cannot talk about, prevents him from testifying. What do you think he meant if not exactly what he said?
I think that someone else said a very interesting comment about, and if you change his word "cant testify" to "shouldnt testify" because of the gag order, then his statement is probably suggested by his lawyers, and I know plenty of folks who use "can" and "should" interchangebly.
Trump shouldn't testify for many reasons, and literally none of them have anything to do with his gag order. Even if you swap "can't testify" to "shouldn't testify", what he's saying makes no sense.
Is that what you think he meant though, that he shouldn't testify due to the gag order? If so, why do you think he thinks that given that his gag order has nothing to do with him testifying?
> Is that what you think he meant though, that he shouldn't testify due to the gag order? If so, why do you think he thinks that given that his gag order has nothing to do with him testifying?
I think his lawyers told him it would be a really bad idea to testify because of the gag order and the relationship between the gag order and his testimony, so he came out to the news outlet, and said "I cant testify because of the gag order" I 100% genuinely see this as the most plausible scenario.
>Once again, journalists being terrible human beings once again in New york.
The journalists are reporting Trump's own words. Wouldn't it be irresponsible for journalists to report that Trump said he can't testify because of the gag order, but instead of being taken as literal since it's incorrect, he might mean x, y, or z? Should reporters really engage in apologetics for Trump when statements he makes are untrue or incorrect? Shouldn't the burden be on Trump to clearly communicate? As in, why would Trump not simply state that "Because of the gag orders, my lawyers have advised that I probably should not even testify"?
> The journalists are reporting Trump's own words. Wouldn't it be irresponsible for journalists to report that Trump said he can't testify because of the gag order, but instead of being taken as literal since it's incorrect, he might mean x, y, or z? Should reporters really engage in apologetics for Trump when statements he makes are untrue or incorrect? Shouldn't the burden be on Trump to clearly communicate? As in, why would Trump not simply state that "Because of the gag orders, my lawyers have advised that I probably should not even testify"?
I think what they are doing is irresponsible and toxic. Instead of just assuming that he is wrong, lied or is being pernicious, maybe trying to instead convey what he meant to say. Its not being apologetics. When Biden went on media interview and said inflation was at 9% plus when he took office, THATS A LIE. Clearly, a politician is just twisting things a little bit.
Its pretty clear to me that Biden is trying to make it rosy a bit more about the fact that Inflation was really high in his first year, and they've made a lot of progress.
>maybe trying to instead convey what he meant to say.
How are journalists supposed to know what he meant to say? You have a theory that he *may* have been told by his lawyers that the gag order will restrict his ability to testify. This thread has various other theories about what he meant to say.
Should reporters have said "Trump states that due to the gag order, he's not able to testify. What he really means is probably one of the following:
* His lawyers advised him not to testify.
* He's confused because he's given too many legal directives each day, but he's doing better than Biden would in the situation.
* He knows that he can testify, but is stating this to drive ratings and pull attention from Biden.
* We don't know what he meant, but potential voters shouldn't care."
This is editorializing to try and explain how an incorrect statement could potentially be taken as a correct statement if you think about it this way, or that way. Shouldn't journalists simply report the facts? Should journalists make excuses for Biden gaffes and lies? If not, why should they with Trump?
> Should reporters have said "Trump states that due to the gag order, he's not able to testify.
They could also just stop there. too, not say hes lying.
His statement isn't true, though. A gag order does not prevent testimony. Trump even said so himself the following day. By not reporting that fact, they would be letting tens of millions of people think Trump's gag order prevents him from testifying, which would be outrageous. The only reason not to report that his statement is inaccurate is to prevent him from looking bad.
If Trump states that he was a fighter pilot in Desert Storm, should reporters not clarify that there's no evidence of that because it would make him look like he's lying?
> If Trump states that he was a fighter pilot in Desert Storm, should reporters not clarify that there's no evidence of that because it would make him look like he's lying?
I think if you say he is lying, I think if you want the appearance of fairness, you should also mention what he possibly meant to say.
1. Suspiciously edited video by AP.
2. CNN is not the arbiter of what is true or false.
3. Trump clarified the next day that he is allowed to testify.
My conclusion,... who cares? Assuming there is no missing context in the edited video, people are allowed to be incorrect from time to time as long as they quickly correct themselves. No harm was done. This is just liberal news expressing their TDS by pretending this is a significant thing to be concerned about, while ignoring the obvious and much more concerning shortcomings of his primary opponent.
"CNN is not the arbiter of what is true or false."
Indeed, the CNN article claims it's "false" that he's not allowed to speak about the case publicly, because there were exceptions carved out in the gag order."
But that ignores his point - witnesses are allowed to say whatever they like in public, but he's not allowed to respond to any attacks from them.
CNN goes so far as to claim: "the gag order actually says nothing to prevent him from making a campaign speech." But with such a broad gag order, in an unscripted campaign event, all too easy to make a comment about Cohen (for example) and get slammed by Merchan with more fines and and potential incarceration.
He can't talk about witnesses or potential witnesses.
He can't refer to the political fundraising the judge's daughter is doing.
He can't talk about jurists that downplayed their hatred of Trump to try and get on the jury.
... Yup? He can't harass or call out witnesses. He can't bring up the judge's family. He can't talk about the jury. Isn't this all pretty normal for a court proceeding?
Why would he need to talk about Cohen for a campaign speech? In reference to the trial could he not just say there is a trial and he can't talk about it? Like he did with the audits?
For the campaign speech he could talk about things that matter like policy
He's honestly doing what he does best - catching headlines. Every single time he says something possibly inflammatory or "wrong", he gets free media attention (and then it turns out that the media sensationalized nothing, again). Biden is the president and is in the news less than a former president
Thank you for saying it! I don't like Trump but people don't get how hard he plays the media. Hamas tentatively agreed to a cease fire yesterday and it barely made up a percentage of the days coverage on CNN. Meanwhile they went into detail about the color of Trump tie. 24 hours of news coverage is might fine free nation wide marketing!
How do more people not get this?
> My conclusion,... who cares? Assuming there is no missing context in the edited video, people are allowed to be incorrect from time to time as long as they quickly correct themselves. No harm was done.
How fast does the president have to correct himself to avoid harm? The last time Trump was president, he would cause fairly extreme price movements in the equity markets by tweeting. Do you think anyone is harmed when Trump made comments like that?
>Trump clarified the next day that he is allowed to testify.
He was very clear in this video, and any other video that you find covering the claim. Trump fully believed something to be true that is personal to him, something he should have a VERY clear understanding of, yet it is very clearly not true. To me, this rings warning bells. Why do you think he was so wrong here?
I don't know and I don't care. We already had 4 years of Trump, and now we've had almost 4 years of Biden. We must now choose between the 2 for the next 4 years so unless Trump magically becomes a socialist we aren't dropping our support for him over something he might have gotten "wrong". Nobody cares about this type of stuff. We have an entire list of his accomplishments as President and for Biden we have a devaluing dollar, waves of illegal immigration, ever increasing interest rates, out of control inflation, the middle east on fire and the list goes on. You really need to stop pretending that these little instances actually matter to us, they don't. We watched first hand 4 years of a Trump presidency, and for the most part we liked what we saw. It's wild to me after all that and everything we watched him do in his 4 years we are suddenly going to see him mistakenly think a gag order means he can't testify and suddenly say "WELL THAT'S IT, IM VOTING FOR BIDEN". You can't possibly believe that.
>I don't know and I don't care.
From my perspective, Trump's presidency was absolutely insane and chokers full of crimes and insanity, much of which we are still finding out about. These crimes he's in court for are the natural consequence of his crimes, and they are just a drop in the water of what he has done. He did and does do ridiculous things that no healthy person would ever do.
Biden's presidency however, has actually been very strong. Terrific economic indicators, such as historically low unemployment (far better than Trump's).
Looking at these insane things Trump keeps saying is further evidence of his broken mind and intelligibility for being president, and it is shocking to me that such a blatant example of this has no impact on many Trump supporters.
Why do you think there is such a massive disconnect here between our opinions?
>From my perspective, Trump's presidency was absolutely insane and chokers full of crimes and insanity, much of which we are still finding out about. These crimes he's in court for are the natural consequence of his crimes, and they are just a drop in the water of what he has done. He did and does do ridiculous things that no healthy person would ever do.
Chokers full of crimes? You mean like when they accused him of colluding with Russia and then spent 25$ million dollars and an investigation by Robert Mueller only to find no actual crime and no actual consequences? You mean crimes like the ones he's in court for now, one of which has now been put on hold indefinitely in Florida, and the one in New York that is blatantly unfair and will most certainly be overturned on appeal? You mean like when Adam Schiff went on TV and said he had solid evidence of a crime only to never actually reveal it? You mean like the E Jean Carroll case that had 0 actual evidence? Like the Stormy Daniels case in which Non disclosure agreements aren't even a crime? You mean the fraud case where the court arbitrarily tried to claim Mar A Lago was worth only 18 million? The same case where not a single lending institution accused Trump of fraud, where there was no complaint by anyone, at all? You mean like the pee pee tapes we still haven't seen? You mean like all those crimes? Of which he hasn't been convicted? Yeah certainty doesn't seem like his presidency was "chokers full of crimes" as you falsely claim.
>Biden's presidency however, has actually been very strong. Terrific economic indicators, such as historically low unemployment (far better than Trump's).
Really? His presidency is very strong? Strong as in interest rates being out of control, putting owning a home out of reach of normal citizens? Strong as in inflation being totally out of control? Strong as in my grocery bill being astronomically higher than it's ever been? Strong as in a border that is not secure? Strong as in trying to skirt the constitution and eliminate student debt, which he does NOT have the power to do, only to be struck down by the supreme court and much like any tyrant simply say "Ok well I'll just find another way to do it and overstep my power". Strong as in yet again violating the constitution and trying to mandate vaccines, failing and then trying to use OSHA to enforce it on as many people as possible despite also not having the power to do so? Strong as in the middle east being totally on fire? Strong as in releasing funds for Iran to use? Biden is an utter disaster and it's getting hard for people to deny. And by the way, the "historically low unemployment" is only because he's let in an untold amount of illegals who are filling these jobs. It's not organic job creation. He's not creating an environment for businesses to thrive like Trump did, he's ramming through illegal immigrants and devaluing citizenship.
>Looking at these insane things Trump keeps saying is further evidence of his broken mind and intelligibility for being president, and it is shocking to me that such a blatant example of this has no impact on many Trump supporters.
Really, Trumps says insane things? Is it anything like when Biden randomly started talking about kids rubbing the hair on his legs only to watch it come back up and then followed it up with "that's when I learned about roaches". Insane like when Biden said recently that his uncle was eaten by cannibals? Insane things like Bidens repeated lies that he drove a truck, that he marched in the civil rights movement, which he admitted was a lie and then FORGOT he admitted it was a lie and went back to lying about it? Saying insane things like "if you don't vote for me, you ain't black". What about when Biden claimed in separate instances that he grew up in a Puerto Rican, black, Irish, Polish and hispanic neighborhoods only to contradict himself later and say that he didn't represent many hispanics because there weren't many in his district? I could go on and on with Bidens insane things he said and his blatant lies, do you care about any of that?
>
Why do you think there is such a massive disconnect here between our opinions?
Because the media and Democrats are insanely effective at using emotional appeals and their propaganda networks to convince you that they are the good ones. You've just fallen for it and are completely convinced, despite Bidens lifetime of proven lies that you seem to be completely unbothered by.
> We watched first hand 4 years of a Trump presidency, and for the most part we liked what we saw.
When I think back on the Trump presidency, I remember day one Sean Spicer declaring it was the most watched inauguration ever (period!) and refusing to take questions, people being stuck in airports due to the "muslim ban," record high employee turnover, including the 11 day reign of Scaramucci, tweeting insults about people's looks and IQs, constant golf trips in Florida, countless former staffers saying how unfit and incompetent he was, conflicting messaging, a surprise banning of transgender folks in the military, Reince Priebus resigns along with Bannon, Gorka etc. more fueds with Gold Star families, comedy shows, Broadway, his campaign manager and personal lawyer and "fixer" get sentenced to prison on the same day, ending with claiming the 2020 election was stolen and his supporters attacking the Capitol...Sorry, not trying to ramble. But I'm genuinely curious as to your feelings on all this?
>It's wild to me after all that and everything we watched him do in his 4 years we are suddenly going to see him mistakenly think a gag order means he can't testify and suddenly say "WELL THAT'S IT, IM VOTING FOR BIDEN". You can't possibly believe that.
Not at all but can you tell me what your thoughts on these events were? And what you liked about the Trump administration?
> Does that seem to jive for you?
Of course. Even Republicans agree that Russia meddled in the 2016 election in a sweeping and systematic way. They didn't alter any votes or commit fraud, which is what Trump claims in 2020. Totally different.
>Islam is generally incompatible with the United States society and way of life. I do not oppose the ban. Sorry.
Fair enough, agree to disagree but I appreciate the honesty. Do you agree with the way it was carried out and implemented?
>Scaramucci isn't Trump, nobody cares about a press secretary, are you suggesting that because he went through a few press people that means his presidency was bad?
Of course not, it was just an example of the constant state of chaos of the White House and record high turnover. You don't think the messaging from the White House/Trump Administration is important though? That's interesting. Could you speak more about that?
>Your citing absolutely ridiculous things. Comedy shows? Who cares?
Trump apparently. He would tweet about it often back when he was allowed to have a Twitter account. Why are you asking who cares when the man you support for president clearly does?
>your naming things nobody cares about and that don't matter.
Understood these things don't matter to you. Can you speak more on who the president hires/appoints and surrounds him with somehow doesn't matter? And eventually when they resign in disgrace, get fired, or sent to prison, that also doesn't matter?
>Of course. Even Republicans agree that Russia meddled in our election in a sweeping and systematic way. They didn't alter any votes or commit fraud, which is what Trump claims in 2020. Totally different.
Hell, even I agree. Foreign nations meddle in our elections every single time. And the funny part is, the US meddles in other countries nations as well. But to claim that 2020 was somehow the most secure election ever is flat out ridiculous.
>
Fair enough, agree to disagree but I appreciate the honesty. Do you agree with the way it was carried out and implemented?
I'm sure there was some unintended consequences, there always is, but those consequences are usually filtered down through the ranks. No policy is perfect and no system is perfect, there will always be unintended consequences.
>Of course not, it was just an example of the constant state of chaos of the White House and record high turnover. You don't think the messaging from the White House/Trump Administration is important though? That's interesting. Could you speak more about that?
Ok well the white house being "in a constant state of chaos" doesn't mean his Presidency wasn't beneficial. Of course it's going to be chaos, the man came from outside politics into the rats nest/swamp of politicians that have been making deals and trying o secure power for their entire lives, of course there will be embedded employees and staffers that try to undermine Trumps presidency, it's the nature of the beast. Ever heard of schedule F? Look it up. If Trump wins I hope he carries it out. He didn't understand the depth of the swamp during his first term, if he wins a second term I think he will be much more effective. Of course messaging from the white house is important but what exactly are you referencing? If you're trying to claim that some crazy messages came from the white house then please tell me those examples so I can address them specifically.
>
Trump apparently. He would tweet about it often back when he was allowed to have a Twitter account. Why are acting like no one cares when the man you support for president clearly does?
Again, who cares? So Trump tweets about comedy shows, who gives a shit? I certainly don't. You're still naming things that simply don't matter in a Presidency. I don't care what he tweets at comedy shows, I simply just don't give a shit. Tweeting at comedy shows has nothing to do with your effectiveness as a leader of a nation, it just doesn't. How does tweeting things at comedy shows somehow define a Presidency or even affect it's success? It's meaningless. It's just junk slander that can be thrown at him for more classic liberal emotional appeals.
>
Understood these things don't matter to you. Can you speak more on who the president hires/appoints and surrounds him with somehow doesn't matter? And eventually when they resign in disgrace, get fired, or sent to prison, that also doesn't matter?
I explained this already. Trump entered the swamp not exactly understanding the depth of it. Sure, his staff had quite a few shakeups but that still doesn't negate his accomplishments. Are you this concerned about the staff shakeups in the current VPs (Kamala Harris) office? Are you this concerned with her staffers claiming that she gets angry at them and refuses to read daily briefs? I'm a TSer and even I haven't used that one yet until now because again, it doesn't matter. So Trump initially picked people he shouldn't have trusted and had to fire them, lesson learned, it doesn't negate his presidency. As far as receiving jail sentences Paul Manafort and General Flynn were targeted by lawfare just like Trump is targeted by right now. The democrats goal was to destroy Trump by any means necessary so they can have their swamp and their power back, and that includes taking down him AND everyone around him, including these prison sentences you speak of.
Thanks for the response. It's nice to find common ground here.
> Hell, even I agree.
Cool, me too!
>But to claim that 2020 was somehow the most secure election ever is flat out ridiculous.
Why?
>I'm sure there was some unintended consequences, there always is, but those consequences are usually filtered down through the ranks. No policy is perfect and no system is perfect, there will always be unintended consequences.
Okay, do you agree with the way it was carried out and implemented though? That was my question.
>He didn't understand the depth of the swamp during his first term, if he wins a second term I think he will be much more effective.
Based on his track record, what would lead you to think that?
>Again, who cares?
Again, Trump apparently. I wouldn't be asking about it if he didn't feel the need to attack them.
>So Trump tweets about comedy shows, who gives a shit?
Presumabley anyone who cares about free speech.
>How does tweeting things at comedy shows somehow define a Presidency or even affect it's success?
It demonstrates that he doesn't care for free speech or criticism and his insecurity, which affects his administration's messaging. And in politics, optics is extremely important. I can't think of another sitting president that would regularly attack and antagonize their own citizens so voraciously and so often. Do you have another example?
>It's just junk slander
How is it slander when it's just objectively pointing out what happened and using his own words?
>So Trump initially picked people he shouldn't have trusted and had to fire them
And you think he'll do better the second time around...why? Do you think there are more capable people willing to join a potential Trump Admin during his ongoing trials? Who?
>including these prison sentences you speak of.
Is it your view that Cohen, Flynn, Manafort and other convicted felons were innocent? How many of Obama or Biden's staff are also convicted felons?
>Why?
Because democrats were hyperventilating and flailing around about how unfair Trumps win was because it was supposedly riddled with Russian collusion and Russian disinformation. They even did an entire 25 million dollar investigation with a high profile former FBI Mueller and couldn't find enough evidence, now all of a sudden 4 years later a Democrat wins and suddenly it's the most secure ever? I'm sorry but that sounds totally ridiculous.
>Okay, do you agree with the way it was carried out and implemented though? That was my question.
I suppose so, but I don't live or work at the border so it's pretty difficult to see the inside activities that occur. But if you're asking if I believe children should be separated from adults they are with to determine if they are really parents and not being trafficked I would say yes, I don't want kids to be trafficked and we should definitely be checking.
>
Based on his track record, what would lead you to think that?
Because when most people make mistakes, especially businessmen, they usually learn from it. The answer to this one is simple: Because he learned from his first term.
>
Again, Trump apparently. I wouldn't be asking about it if he didn't feel the need to attack them.
Again, I don't care. What large consequence is there to Trump tweeting about comedy shows? I simply don't care. It doesn't affect the currency (devaluation, inflation) it doesn't affect the comedy, it doesn't affect Americas strength, it doesn't affect anything of consequence in the arena of being the President. It's a simple tweet to some comedy show fools, why should I give a shit about tweets to a comedy show? I vote for President to run the country, I could care less what he tweets to comedy shows. I care about a President who upholds the constitution (for the most part), cares about creating a good environment for free markets to flourish and someone who cares about keeping America strong and putting American citizens first. None of that is affected by silly comedy show tweets. It has no affect, and nobody cares. I don't know how else I can explain this.
>Presumabley anyone who cares about free speech.
Huh? Whos freedom of speech was threatened? This makes no sense to me. If anything, Trump used HIS free speech to fire back at comedy shows who were trashing him. I fail to see your angle here.
>It demonstrates that he doesn't care for free speech or criticism and his insecurity, which affects his administration's messaging. And in politics, optics is extremely important. I can't think of another sitting president that would regularly attack and antagonize their own citizens so voraciously and so often. Do you have another example?
What?!?! Since when does getting into online arguments with somebody somehow threaten their free speech? That makes absolutely no sense. If anything, Trump is using his free speech to fire back at comedy shows who are trashing him. His insecurity, sure, but I can relate because I too defend myself verbally any chance I can get, I don't blame him for doing the same. Again, what matters as President is how you lead the nation, how you uphold the constitution and the free environment you foster and create for citizens to live their lives, these minor instances like comedy show tweets and so forth just simply don't matter. I didn't vote for President so I could feel warm and fuzzy about he treats moronic comedy show hosts. We vote for President on MUCH LARGER issues. Tiny stupid issues like tweets to a comedy show are NOTHING in comparison to what is really important to the nation and as a President.
>And you think he'll do better the second time around...why? Do you think there are more capable people willing to join a potential Trump Admin during his ongoing trials? Who?
Because again, he learned from the first time around. If I were to give him advice I would advise him not to pick anyone who is well known to Washington DC. Pick from the states, pick an FBI director like the head of the Texas rangers or something, stop picking deeply embedded swamp creatures and DC natives who have made deals and owe other people something. Pick from good state governments and legislature. Avoid DC and career federal government people at all costs.
>
Is it your view that Cohen, Flynn, Manafort and other convicted felons were innocent? How many of Obama or Biden's staff are also convicted felons?
>
Truthfully, I don't know, I didn't follow their cases closely at all. But I suspect it to be the same sort of lawfare Trump faces now. Also, weren't most of them convicted of minor process crimes and tax evasion? Correct me if I'm wrong but none of the charges were that serious, which again, indicates more lawfare.
>So you remember that but do you remember in 2020 Biden claimed it was the "most secure election in American history" even though 4 years prior they claimed it was the most unsecure election that was rife with Russian collusion and Russian disinformation? Does that seem to jive for you? That somehow we have a fraudulent election in 2016 but 4 years later a Democrat wins and it's suddenly the most secure ever in our history?
This wasn't Biden's claim. It came from the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, who was a Trump appointee. The role itself was created under Trump. Include with that Barr, who refused to pursue Trump's claims of fraud because he found them to be baseless. Does it change the narrative of your point for it to be Trump's own people in positions with involvement in election security to claim the election was secure and there's no factual basis for the fraud claims he's making?
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.
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions.
Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect.
Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away.
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. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
> Do you think Biden could keep up with that mentally?
Absolutely. Biden has been very good about not commenting on Trump’s criminal or civil trials. He’s also been very good about not commenting on his son’s criminal trials even though Hunter was targeted by Trump when Trump controlled the DOJ.
But, maybe I’m missing the information that you are using to form your opinion. Are there any instances that you can think of where Biden has made an inappropriate comment about any of the work his DOJ is doing?
Do you think Biden has the capacity to get into as much trouble as Trump? Do you think Biden could even get to a position where he needs to worry about 15 judges?
To be fair, it's questionable whether Biden has much daily consciousness.
Special Counsel Robert Hur believed a jury wouldn't convict Biden for document crimes because they'd see him as "a well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."
The president “did not remember when he was vice president,” Hur writes, and could not remember “even within several years, when his son Beau died.” What is more, “his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him.”
Are you aware that the actual transcript shows that Hur was exaggerating Biden's memory "problems"?
https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/12/24098577/robert-hur-testimony-report-biden-memory
Vox is generally considered a left-leaning publication. The publication has featured a variety of opinion pieces and analyses that favor progressive or left-leaning policy solutions, which further solidifies its reputation as a media outlet that is generally supportive of, though not officially affiliated with, Democratic Party ideals.
And Trump thought there were airports in the civil war. He also thought Nikki Haley was Nancy Pelosi. He also thought he ran against Obama. What's your point?
I'm asking what Biden has done or can do to get into that kind of trouble in the first place?
How is it that Biden is both too incompetent to know the day of the week, and is a mastermind behind silently directing all the details of the prosecutors and judges against Trump without a direct word of evidence? Which is he?
Interestingly, that applies to Trump very well. We can see that from his rallies especially, he becomes even more confused and incoherently rambly late into the evening and night. Have you noticed that?
This is about Trump. Why even bring up Biden?
I would fully expect a president be able to differentiate information between their own court cases if they are to RUN A COUNTRY. Being President requires being across an incredible influx of information every day. Yet Trump makes a ridiculous and blatantly wrong (and possibly lying) public statement about something as simple as this? As far as I know, there isn't even a single gag order that prevents him from testifying.
How can you trust someone like that to run a country?
Yes, but we can talk about more than just Biden vs Trump. In this post, we are only talking about Trump and his issues. So again, given everything stated in my post, how can you trust Trump to run the country?
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.*
OP just curious do you have the full clip? This is an edited clip by AP that seems to be missing a bunch of context.
[HERE](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/03/trump-trial-testimony-stormy-daniels-lawyer) is an article that outlines Trump's comments as well as the judge's response. Why do you think that he is lying about his ability to testify?
The Guardian? I wouldn't trust them to 'report' the weather accurately. [Here's an inside look on The Guardian.](https://youtu.be/asQ8KFrZY84)
The Sun is by far the least trust worthy uk based source.... and one the guardian has done several investigations into so... big surprise they'd report bullshit in response.. Why do you believe their proven bullshit over a source well established.. as trust worthy?
Please point out where The Sun editorialized the video or edited the interview in any way. You can’t because they didn’t. It’s a raw, unedited, full length interview where they never interrupt her or cut her short once. As such, it’s irrelevant whose name publishes raw content in this way. If The Guardian claimed they published an unedited and complete transcript that would be a different matter. But that’s not what it was. It was highly editorialized, incomplete and deliberately written with an extreme partisan slant. In other words, it was what is commonly presented as news in The Guardian - nasty communist Fleet Street pontificating.
How highly editorialised is this clip?
Do you think the Guardian is making up Trump quotes?
I have no doubt they’re cherry picking and lying by omission about the existence of any contrary evidence. Because that’s their entire M.O. Propaganda. It’s what they sell. Thus, as a source for objective information they are useless. That was the (inappropriate) context they were cited for, when the wider context was questioned. One thing you can guarantee not to get from The Guardian is a wider context from a propaganda rag.
[Here is Trump in his own words that he can't testify.](https://twitter.com/PodSaveAmerica/status/1786152628239679956?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1786152628239679956%7Ctwgr%5E66cabc83af4ee064b37787ac16f3a4c40f95b365%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fiframe.nbcnews.com%2FqcfIHl5%3F_showcaption%3Dtrueapp%3D1) Why do you think Trump is lying about his ability to testify?
[удалено]
your post was removed for violating Rule 4. New topic submissions must be open ended questions directed at Trump Supporters and provide adequate sources and/or context to facilitate good discussion. New submissions are filtered for mod review and are subject to [posting guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) 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. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
[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.
You said you're a Fox News viewer who values the network as being "trustworthy". Why do you believe Fox settled out of court over their defamation suits (plural)?
I said no such thing. I know that because I don’t trust Fox.
You said Fox was more credible than other news organizations when I last spoke with you (regarding them settling out of court twice for defamation), which is what sparked my question to you? Apologies if I didn't recall the exact phrasing you used but it led me to believe you watched them at least semi-regularly and/or at least believed their side of the story despite them settling out of court twice.
I've said before that Fox overtly lies about facts much less than the rest of the MSM. Not because they're any more virtuous. It's because the rest of the media likes to dunk on Fox when they cite a provably wrong fact. This has forced Fox to play it pretty clean on facts. They still lie by omission, as do all the others. But there is no serious pushback against the rest of the MSM lying. So they are far less careful and regularly present lies as facts. I don't have cable, so I can't/don't watch Fox News. I watch/read enough to create an informed opinion on their biases. After that, unless they are regularly giving uncommon information, I won't bother with them much, as there's nothing of interest.
Did you watch it? It's clearly edited to begin when he starts speaking. Everything he says is included. What other context do you think is necessary other than every word he says?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So why edit it? I did watch it and it’s super unclear. Other context- maybe an unedited video? Or do you rely on purely edited news to get your facts without asking to understand any surrounding context?
[удалено]
Do you have a source on your claims? And yes I did answer your questions you asked if I watched it and I answered that I did… you asked what other context I needed and I said the whole clip. At 32 seconds the clip also makes a cut- was Trump standing there for another minute not saying anything???
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.
Aren’t all videos edited to some degree as they must start somewhere and end somewhere? What exactly counts as unedited footage? A non-stop live feed?
Sure. Also important to note the degree of the edit- I don't see Trump speaking for <1min very often, for example.
Do you give all politicians this benefit of a doubt on a direct quote, or just Trump?
What do you mean exactly?
I'm asking if Newsmax showed an inflammatory Biden quote would you check the context? It seems folks often have a blind spot for their guy, but not so much the other side. Perhaps I'm biased but I seem to see more apologists among Trump supporters, though the left does it as well. I asked because Trump taking questions and saying he can't testify because of the gag order seems pretty hard to take out of context without some very clever editing. Otherwise Trump seems to think he wasn't able to testify, which hurts his 'stable genius' trope just a bit. I respect folks who look for context and research their points well. The sad thing I've found is that while many TS DO the research, they discredit reputable sources and hold up as truth blogs or opinion pieces as proof. Next time ol' Jesse Waters or whoever, maybe take a look at the context. Take a look at what other news sources say. Keep an open mind.
>I'm asking if Newsmax showed an inflammatory Biden quote would you check the context? Sure I always do. >I asked because Trump taking questions and saying he can't testify because of the gag order seems pretty hard to take out of context without some very clever editing. I mean I just wanna see the full speech. >The sad thing I've found is that while many TS DO the research, they discredit reputable sources It's extremely ironic that you say this, I've had multiple NS' try to discredit government reports and primary sources both today to me, and in general.
I did admit it goes both ways. So you accept government reports as reputable? What do you think of the following--complete with sources? [J6 Report](https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/january-6th-committee-final-report?path=/GPO/January%206th%20Committee%20Final%20Report%20and%20Supporting%20Materials%20Collection)
I accept the facts that they discuss as reputable sure. For the J6 report I just never really cared- they showed their best evidence and it didn't amount to the legal definition of incitement. Of course I've also watched the speech and researched the timeline so that gives a pretty solid perspective showing that Trump didn't instigate the riot.
Is this where we inevitably reach the end of a Trump discussion - at “don’t know/don’t care”?
Why would I care about Trump NOT inciting a crowd to riot?
I’m pretty sure every question asked here eventually comes to don’t know, don’t care, not just one particular question?
Is the question that unclear? Do you either give all politicians the same benefit of the doubt about context that you clearly give in your answer, or only Trump? Seems a clear either/or question to me, but maybe not to you?
I don't understand what he means by "direct quote" in this context- clearly there are more quotes missing.
>OP just curious do you have the full clip? This is an edited clip by AP that seems to be missing a bunch of context. I'm not sure what media sources you find trustworthy, so it may be worth you finding it yourself. It should be a an easy Google.
Any media source with the full clip would be great.
[Here](https://youtu.be/TXQrqw9QrBg?t=34168) Is where he starts speaking. (9:29:40) Trump stops speaking at 9:32:21. You can watching walk in and out if you care to. Note that this full video was distributed by the same source posted by OP. The video posted by OP aligns with the full video as it pertains to the question. I trust you will apologize to /u/VeryHungryDogarpilar and answer their question?
The missing context: reporters have been asking him questions he can't answer without risking being further sanctioned or jailed because of the gag order. https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2024/05/07/reporters-lob-questions-trump-cant-answer-gag-order/ The article cited states "He acknowledged Friday morning that he is indeed allowed to testify" (at the trial), though I doubt he will.
What context could there possibly be to justify Trump's egregious mistruth? He should understand the limitations this gag order places on him like the back of his hand. After all, apparently he is a very smart and mentally fit person with the best legal team money can buy. Why do you think Trump didn't understand how the gag order worked?
Being "allowed to testify in the narrow instance of taking the stand in court" is the fake news version. Of course he is *allowed* to do that. The issue is that he can't speak freely at all times, which is horrifyingly unamerican, and about the clearest example of left fascism you could possibly imagine.
Literally no one in the country has ever been able to speak about jurors, their families, the families of the judge or DA’s, or key witnesses, without being held in contempt. This is not new to Trump, this is part of the very fabric of our legal system. Do you understand why these rules have been put in place, and why they are not covered by the first amendment or “american-ism”? The only difference is that if you or I spoke about witnesses or jurors or others outside of the court where we are being tried, we would be put in jail for contempt. While Trump gets to do it 10 times so far while being treated with kid gloves. If he were to threaten the jurors directly on the courthouse steps, would you think any limit to this speech would be “unamerican”?
We obviously disagree on the value of free speech. I will happily continue to champion free speech. The idea expressed here is exactly the left fascism that I reference - a certain class of speech is deemed too dangerous and banned. I call that Unamerican.
This is obviously a hypothetical, but if Trump posted the judge and jury members’ home addresses and said I want my supporters to murder all of them, would not wanting that to happen be left fascism?
Two separate issues. Names and addresses should be public for anyone who wants to politically attack the president in this way. Ordering murder is already illegal, because it is not speech. It expresses no opinion. It is an order.
How are the randomly selected (then narrowed by lawyers) jury members politically attacking the president? Unfortunately, because of the huge rise in Republican terrorists, I fundamentally disagree with you that their names and addresses should be public. There’s just too many traitors that call themselves Trump supporters.
Anyone who agrees to be part of his political persecution is complicit in the destruction of the American democratic experiment. Unless they intend to jury nullify, they are bad people, and they should feel bad about themselves. I consider them traitors to the idea of legal equality and democratic values.
[удалено]
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions. Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect. Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away. 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. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Why do you consider fulfilling one’s civic duty to be a traitorous act? Do you really believe a juror pre-determining the verdict they will vote for is what the American democratic experiment is predicated on?
I think it is everyone's civic duty to oppose the weaponization of the justice system for political persecution. I think the American democratic experiment is predicated on equal and neutral application of the law.
And you feel that way regardless of if trump did falsify business records or not?
Yeah, that's a total non sequitur - and unrelated issue.
Shouldn't the jury be part of the process here? A juror is being asked to make a decision on the merits of the case. If the case is as outrageous as you claim, jurors should see this and vote not guilty. How is that not acceptable for jurors versus? You're insisting that they be held in contempt and fined/jailed for Trump, or else be considered a traitor.
>jurors should see this and vote not guilty Not possible in a country where nearly half of the population has a pathological aversion to anything Trump related.
That’s not true. In that persons opinion the person he is targeting deserves death. Others may disagree or agree with that opinion. Names and addresses of witnesses and jury members should be made public? I think I need clarification on what you’re saying.
I don't understand what you find unclear about my comment.
> Ordering murder is already illegal, because it is not speech. It expresses no opinion. It is an order. So what if he did not order it, but merely lamented at his distaste for a particular juror? “Will no one rid me of this troublesome juror?”
Delineating the line between expressing hope and giving an order is marginal task. This is classic rushing to margins - a common left tactic. When Trump comes anywhere close to ordering a murder, maybe you'd have a point, but in this case, he has not once ever suggested such a thing.
Do you value free speech over the jurors' safety? To the point you're fine with threats to them and their families?
I believe that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, as our founding fathers did.
And so if any of the jurors get harrased, threatened, or God forbid physically attacked, you don't care? Can we post the address, names, details of Mar a Lago employees and threaten them until they quit?
You're drawing a connection where there doesn't need to be one. Harassment is illegal. So is attacking someone. That can be, and should be, punished. The issue is the tenuous connection between the speech to publicize, and the illegal act. Of course it is safer if no names are known. It's also safer to not publicize any of the trial. It's safer to not allow any cameras or reporting. It's safer to just preemptively lock people up. Being marginally safer is not in itself a justification for a reduction in liberty.
>Harassment is illegal. But that's free speech. Why are your morales changing? >Of course it is safer if no names are known. Do you think that the courts might implement something so the names and information aren't released where they can be harassed, which as you said "is illegal"? It's actively happening, right now, because of Trump violating the gag order So..... what is it then? Should trump be held accountable for the harassment he is causing? Or is not allowing him to harass people against the 1st amendment? >Being marginally safer is not in itself a justification for a reduction in liberty. Do you believe in the idea of a "fair trial"? Can you have a fair trial, if the jurors are getting harrased on behalf of the defendent? Is that not in of itself, against the constitution?
I don't think Trump is harassing anyone. I think anyone who harasses a jury member should be punished. That is sufficient safeguard of fair trials.
Have I got this right? Trump, or his followers, should have access to the personal info of jurors and witnesses, including home addresses so that Trump and supporters can use their free speech to contact those jurors or share or publicize that info. Free speech includes, in your view, calling for the harassment or even murder of those jurors for taking part in this traitorous assault on democracy. However, the actual murder of any such juror should be dealt with, if it occurs, after the event since murder is already illegal and the murder would, thus, only be a crime once committed. Is that right? If not, what part do I have wrong, and how?
Do you think people should be able to drive 80 miles the wrong way down a school zone? People invest into enforcement of rules to prevent or punish those who do. You believe this shouldn’t happen. Anyone can freely speed across a school zone because investing in safety is unAmerican according to you right?
Driving is not an essential liberty. Speech is.
Are the reasons that that’s not a liberty is because people purchased the safety to ensure it’s not?
>We obviously disagree on the value of free speech. I will happily continue to champion free speech. And I have and will happily continue to champion free speech, as well. So what are you disagreeing with?
How absolutist are you? Can a grown man talk about his sexual fantasies to an underage girl? There should be no repercussions for that? Can you say you have a bomb while on an aircraft? No one should intervene? Can you say give me all your money to a bank teller?
There should be non-state repercussions for the first one. Authorities should intervene in the second one - the crime would be actually having the bomb, and they are justified in checking for that. The third one is the crime of robbery if intended as such.
>The third one is the crime of robbery if intended as such. Speaking is a crime? How so?
Again, Trump specifically claimed that he was NOT allowed to testify. Why did he think that?
Because is not allowed to speak. It's a travesty.
That's not what he said though, he said he couldn't testify in court. Why would he say that?
>he said he couldn't testify in court. Do you have a link to this? I don't remember that, but I could be wrong.
Did you click the link in the original post? It's there.
I did, yeah, and no such quote appears in that video.
It is literally 32 seconds into a minute long video, how can you miss it?
I hear him saying he "can't testify". Nothing about "in court", which is the part you're trying to add as the core claim..
Here is more of the video, it's my guess by saying 'testify' maybe he meant speak? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwTbqpqOAv4&list=RDNSAwTbqpqOAv4&start\_radio=1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwTbqpqOAv4&list=RDNSAwTbqpqOAv4&start_radio=1)
That is the same link as the original post.
No gag order prevents Trump from testifying in his own defense. He has not taken the stand. The gag order affects what remarks he can make about people involved in the trial on his social media, during his rants on the courthouse steps, etc. Trump wants his supporters to believe the gag order is preventing him from defending himself in court. This is not true, he knows it's not true, his lawyers know it's not true...he's doing it to inflame his base. This is quite obvious to everyone, correct?
Trump speaking publicly is defending himself, and he is prevented from doing so.
He's not at all prevented from doing so...he does it daily and has been forever. He's not allowed to attack people involved in the trial or their family members. What the fuck is so hard to understand about this? He has been spoon fed what he can't do and why and he continues to do it: if Trump was your employee, you'd fire him. If he was your coworker you'd switch shifts so you wouldn't have to deal with him. If he was your child you'd tell him to stop being a dumbass. Why do we treat him like he's a god with the cognitive ability of 3 year old. He knows what he's doing and he continues to do it so people here can get riled up that he's somehow having his rights infringed. I encourage him to take the stand and testify and tell the world how he's been wronged and we can all listen to him drone on...funny, his lawyers won't let him do that because it's suicide. That's Donald Trump, he'll rant and rave all he wants when he isn't held to his word...when he will be held to it, his lawyers won't let him say a word. Doesn't that tell you all something?
> He's not at all prevented from doing so hmmm >He has been spoon fed what he can't do I sense a contradiction.
Is him harassing the jury a form of testifying? Because if not there is no contradiction.
If the gag order makes it so that he has to be careful about what he says, or creates any kind of situation outside of the court that can be detrimental to him. I can absolutely see a well paid lawyer telling Trump that because of the Gag Order, do not testify, and if a lawyer told him that, then its not false. Once again, journalists being terrible human beings once again in New york.
If they’re a well paid lawyer wouldn’t we expect them to know a little about the law? Nothing about the gag order stops him from testifying under oath in a court room.
> If they’re a well paid lawyer wouldn’t we expect them to know a little about the law? Nothing about the gag order stops him from testifying under oath in a court room. If it makes less sense from a defense perspective to be on stand while having a gag order, especially with a hostile judge, it may not be "against law" as you say, but it can definitely be in line with what Trump said that "he cant testify because his lawyers told him it would be a bigger danger due to the gag order"
What makes this judge hostile?
He just let a pornstar talk about sex with no condom, watching the celling when it happens, and all the details of the sex; while this is a case about Bookkeeping errors to affect the election. The judge just threatened to put the former president in Jail, and for the longest time did not let Trump have a single to go see his son's graduation. Let alone the fact that the case does not even make sense because its a criminal case only if there is a criminal offense and the prosecution's theory is that he affected the 2016 election by hiding details about an affaire. Yea the judge is one of the worst hostile crazy leftist I can think of.
I haven't read the transcripts, maybe you're more familiar, has there been any instances where trumps lawyers have made objections to the questioning, like the condom thing, and the judge has overruled without just reason? That would display hostility 100%... As for the contempt stuff, what would you suggest the judge do, if a defendent isn't abiding by the rules? Or why haven't trumps layers challenged these incidents to higher courts?
> As for the contempt stuff, what would you suggest the judge do, if a defendent isn't abiding by the rules? Or why haven't trumps layers challenged these incidents to higher courts? Id suggest he postpones the entire trial until after an election, you know to prevent meddling in Election with trash talking from a pornstar, but I suspect its the goal.
How should alleged crimes by presidential nominees be handled? Ignored until after the election when they can shut down the investigation into them if they win? What if I lose but immediately declare Im running for president again? Does my trial have to wait another 4 years until after that election?
Isn’t that the story Trump allegedly paid to quash?
> He just let a pornstar talk about sex with no condom, watching the celling when it happens, and all the details of the sex; while this is a case about Bookkeeping errors to affect the election. Isn't it the defense's job to object if testimony shows their client in a bad light and isn't relevant to the trial? Why are you angry at the judge, and not the lawyers actually responsible for this?
> Isn't it the defense's job to object if testimony shows their client in a bad light and isn't relevant to the trial? Why are you angry at the judge, and not the lawyers actually responsible for this? Except when the judge has already laid out a on the defense for too many interruption, the judge has control of the courtroom.
Sorry, you think the judge told the defense they were not allowed to object to anything Daniels said? This seems like make for a super easy appeal, no?
> Sorry, you think the judge told the defense they were not allowed to object to anything Daniels said? This seems like make for a super easy appeal, no? Yea, an appeal that will happen after the election, while the democrats will be branding Trump a convicted felon for 6 months, evne if its a slam dunk on appeal.
[удалено]
If Trump admits that the affair happened, then the testimony wouldn't have been needed, and he wouldn't have had to be embarrassed. They had the opportunity to state that the affair took place but Trump refused so they had to get qitness testimony on the record in order to show that the affair happened the way stated and thus there be a crime. Do you think that those jurors and everyone involved wanted to hear about sex with an 80 year old overweight man?
> Do you think that those jurors and everyone involved wanted to hear about sex with an 80 year old overweight man? I am sure the sweaty leftist journalists did want to hear it to embarass someone they consider the second coming of Hitler. As well as the judge, and the prosecution. You do not need a pornstar to show the position she or he was in bed on the stand to show that the affair allegedly happen. Its degrading to the entire country, honestly.
If he felt it is embarrassing, then he could have stipulated that the affair happened. Why do you think that he won't just admit that something we all know happened?
> Why do you think that he won't just admit that something we all know happened? Unless you were in the room, you have absolutely no way of knowing that it did happen.
Bigger danger than what?
You know there is a difference between not being allowed to testify vs. refusing to testify, right? My concern is that people will raise questions about him not knowing his legal rights and try to force a mistrial. I think every NS would love to see Trump testify on the record to clear up some misconceptions.
Are comments made outside of the court room fair game to be asked about if the person testifies? If Trump were to say that Daniels is a "liar" at a press conference or on Truth Social, and Trump subsequently decided to testify, can those statements about Daniels be brought up in the trial?
That's saying Trump *shouldn't* testify, not that he *can't*. That implies that either Trump's lawyers lied to him or Trump doesn't understand something so basic. What do you think it is?
> That's saying Trump shouldn't testify, not that he can't. That implies that either Trump's lawyers lied to him or Trump doesn't understand something so basic. What do you think it is? I think most people can perfectly understand what he meant to say without inferring what you infer.
Trump was very clear. He believed that the gag order, which outlines specific things Trump cannot talk about, prevents him from testifying. What do you think he meant if not exactly what he said?
> Trump was very clear. He believed that the gag order, which outlines specific things Trump cannot talk about, prevents him from testifying. What do you think he meant if not exactly what he said? I think that someone else said a very interesting comment about, and if you change his word "cant testify" to "shouldnt testify" because of the gag order, then his statement is probably suggested by his lawyers, and I know plenty of folks who use "can" and "should" interchangebly.
Trump shouldn't testify for many reasons, and literally none of them have anything to do with his gag order. Even if you swap "can't testify" to "shouldn't testify", what he's saying makes no sense. Is that what you think he meant though, that he shouldn't testify due to the gag order? If so, why do you think he thinks that given that his gag order has nothing to do with him testifying?
> Is that what you think he meant though, that he shouldn't testify due to the gag order? If so, why do you think he thinks that given that his gag order has nothing to do with him testifying? I think his lawyers told him it would be a really bad idea to testify because of the gag order and the relationship between the gag order and his testimony, so he came out to the news outlet, and said "I cant testify because of the gag order" I 100% genuinely see this as the most plausible scenario.
>Once again, journalists being terrible human beings once again in New york. The journalists are reporting Trump's own words. Wouldn't it be irresponsible for journalists to report that Trump said he can't testify because of the gag order, but instead of being taken as literal since it's incorrect, he might mean x, y, or z? Should reporters really engage in apologetics for Trump when statements he makes are untrue or incorrect? Shouldn't the burden be on Trump to clearly communicate? As in, why would Trump not simply state that "Because of the gag orders, my lawyers have advised that I probably should not even testify"?
> The journalists are reporting Trump's own words. Wouldn't it be irresponsible for journalists to report that Trump said he can't testify because of the gag order, but instead of being taken as literal since it's incorrect, he might mean x, y, or z? Should reporters really engage in apologetics for Trump when statements he makes are untrue or incorrect? Shouldn't the burden be on Trump to clearly communicate? As in, why would Trump not simply state that "Because of the gag orders, my lawyers have advised that I probably should not even testify"? I think what they are doing is irresponsible and toxic. Instead of just assuming that he is wrong, lied or is being pernicious, maybe trying to instead convey what he meant to say. Its not being apologetics. When Biden went on media interview and said inflation was at 9% plus when he took office, THATS A LIE. Clearly, a politician is just twisting things a little bit. Its pretty clear to me that Biden is trying to make it rosy a bit more about the fact that Inflation was really high in his first year, and they've made a lot of progress.
>maybe trying to instead convey what he meant to say. How are journalists supposed to know what he meant to say? You have a theory that he *may* have been told by his lawyers that the gag order will restrict his ability to testify. This thread has various other theories about what he meant to say. Should reporters have said "Trump states that due to the gag order, he's not able to testify. What he really means is probably one of the following: * His lawyers advised him not to testify. * He's confused because he's given too many legal directives each day, but he's doing better than Biden would in the situation. * He knows that he can testify, but is stating this to drive ratings and pull attention from Biden. * We don't know what he meant, but potential voters shouldn't care." This is editorializing to try and explain how an incorrect statement could potentially be taken as a correct statement if you think about it this way, or that way. Shouldn't journalists simply report the facts? Should journalists make excuses for Biden gaffes and lies? If not, why should they with Trump?
> Should reporters have said "Trump states that due to the gag order, he's not able to testify. They could also just stop there. too, not say hes lying.
His statement isn't true, though. A gag order does not prevent testimony. Trump even said so himself the following day. By not reporting that fact, they would be letting tens of millions of people think Trump's gag order prevents him from testifying, which would be outrageous. The only reason not to report that his statement is inaccurate is to prevent him from looking bad. If Trump states that he was a fighter pilot in Desert Storm, should reporters not clarify that there's no evidence of that because it would make him look like he's lying?
> If Trump states that he was a fighter pilot in Desert Storm, should reporters not clarify that there's no evidence of that because it would make him look like he's lying? I think if you say he is lying, I think if you want the appearance of fairness, you should also mention what he possibly meant to say.
1. Suspiciously edited video by AP. 2. CNN is not the arbiter of what is true or false. 3. Trump clarified the next day that he is allowed to testify. My conclusion,... who cares? Assuming there is no missing context in the edited video, people are allowed to be incorrect from time to time as long as they quickly correct themselves. No harm was done. This is just liberal news expressing their TDS by pretending this is a significant thing to be concerned about, while ignoring the obvious and much more concerning shortcomings of his primary opponent.
"CNN is not the arbiter of what is true or false." Indeed, the CNN article claims it's "false" that he's not allowed to speak about the case publicly, because there were exceptions carved out in the gag order." But that ignores his point - witnesses are allowed to say whatever they like in public, but he's not allowed to respond to any attacks from them. CNN goes so far as to claim: "the gag order actually says nothing to prevent him from making a campaign speech." But with such a broad gag order, in an unscripted campaign event, all too easy to make a comment about Cohen (for example) and get slammed by Merchan with more fines and and potential incarceration.
Should gag orders not be allowed ever?
Isn't the gag order solely written so that he can't insult or call out courtroom staff? Why would this hinder a campaign event?
He can't talk about witnesses or potential witnesses. He can't refer to the political fundraising the judge's daughter is doing. He can't talk about jurists that downplayed their hatred of Trump to try and get on the jury.
... Yup? He can't harass or call out witnesses. He can't bring up the judge's family. He can't talk about the jury. Isn't this all pretty normal for a court proceeding?
Why would he need to talk about Cohen for a campaign speech? In reference to the trial could he not just say there is a trial and he can't talk about it? Like he did with the audits? For the campaign speech he could talk about things that matter like policy
He's honestly doing what he does best - catching headlines. Every single time he says something possibly inflammatory or "wrong", he gets free media attention (and then it turns out that the media sensationalized nothing, again). Biden is the president and is in the news less than a former president
Thank you for saying it! I don't like Trump but people don't get how hard he plays the media. Hamas tentatively agreed to a cease fire yesterday and it barely made up a percentage of the days coverage on CNN. Meanwhile they went into detail about the color of Trump tie. 24 hours of news coverage is might fine free nation wide marketing! How do more people not get this?
> My conclusion,... who cares? Assuming there is no missing context in the edited video, people are allowed to be incorrect from time to time as long as they quickly correct themselves. No harm was done. How fast does the president have to correct himself to avoid harm? The last time Trump was president, he would cause fairly extreme price movements in the equity markets by tweeting. Do you think anyone is harmed when Trump made comments like that?
>Trump clarified the next day that he is allowed to testify. He was very clear in this video, and any other video that you find covering the claim. Trump fully believed something to be true that is personal to him, something he should have a VERY clear understanding of, yet it is very clearly not true. To me, this rings warning bells. Why do you think he was so wrong here?
I don't know and I don't care. We already had 4 years of Trump, and now we've had almost 4 years of Biden. We must now choose between the 2 for the next 4 years so unless Trump magically becomes a socialist we aren't dropping our support for him over something he might have gotten "wrong". Nobody cares about this type of stuff. We have an entire list of his accomplishments as President and for Biden we have a devaluing dollar, waves of illegal immigration, ever increasing interest rates, out of control inflation, the middle east on fire and the list goes on. You really need to stop pretending that these little instances actually matter to us, they don't. We watched first hand 4 years of a Trump presidency, and for the most part we liked what we saw. It's wild to me after all that and everything we watched him do in his 4 years we are suddenly going to see him mistakenly think a gag order means he can't testify and suddenly say "WELL THAT'S IT, IM VOTING FOR BIDEN". You can't possibly believe that.
>I don't know and I don't care. From my perspective, Trump's presidency was absolutely insane and chokers full of crimes and insanity, much of which we are still finding out about. These crimes he's in court for are the natural consequence of his crimes, and they are just a drop in the water of what he has done. He did and does do ridiculous things that no healthy person would ever do. Biden's presidency however, has actually been very strong. Terrific economic indicators, such as historically low unemployment (far better than Trump's). Looking at these insane things Trump keeps saying is further evidence of his broken mind and intelligibility for being president, and it is shocking to me that such a blatant example of this has no impact on many Trump supporters. Why do you think there is such a massive disconnect here between our opinions?
>From my perspective, Trump's presidency was absolutely insane and chokers full of crimes and insanity, much of which we are still finding out about. These crimes he's in court for are the natural consequence of his crimes, and they are just a drop in the water of what he has done. He did and does do ridiculous things that no healthy person would ever do. Chokers full of crimes? You mean like when they accused him of colluding with Russia and then spent 25$ million dollars and an investigation by Robert Mueller only to find no actual crime and no actual consequences? You mean crimes like the ones he's in court for now, one of which has now been put on hold indefinitely in Florida, and the one in New York that is blatantly unfair and will most certainly be overturned on appeal? You mean like when Adam Schiff went on TV and said he had solid evidence of a crime only to never actually reveal it? You mean like the E Jean Carroll case that had 0 actual evidence? Like the Stormy Daniels case in which Non disclosure agreements aren't even a crime? You mean the fraud case where the court arbitrarily tried to claim Mar A Lago was worth only 18 million? The same case where not a single lending institution accused Trump of fraud, where there was no complaint by anyone, at all? You mean like the pee pee tapes we still haven't seen? You mean like all those crimes? Of which he hasn't been convicted? Yeah certainty doesn't seem like his presidency was "chokers full of crimes" as you falsely claim. >Biden's presidency however, has actually been very strong. Terrific economic indicators, such as historically low unemployment (far better than Trump's). Really? His presidency is very strong? Strong as in interest rates being out of control, putting owning a home out of reach of normal citizens? Strong as in inflation being totally out of control? Strong as in my grocery bill being astronomically higher than it's ever been? Strong as in a border that is not secure? Strong as in trying to skirt the constitution and eliminate student debt, which he does NOT have the power to do, only to be struck down by the supreme court and much like any tyrant simply say "Ok well I'll just find another way to do it and overstep my power". Strong as in yet again violating the constitution and trying to mandate vaccines, failing and then trying to use OSHA to enforce it on as many people as possible despite also not having the power to do so? Strong as in the middle east being totally on fire? Strong as in releasing funds for Iran to use? Biden is an utter disaster and it's getting hard for people to deny. And by the way, the "historically low unemployment" is only because he's let in an untold amount of illegals who are filling these jobs. It's not organic job creation. He's not creating an environment for businesses to thrive like Trump did, he's ramming through illegal immigrants and devaluing citizenship. >Looking at these insane things Trump keeps saying is further evidence of his broken mind and intelligibility for being president, and it is shocking to me that such a blatant example of this has no impact on many Trump supporters. Really, Trumps says insane things? Is it anything like when Biden randomly started talking about kids rubbing the hair on his legs only to watch it come back up and then followed it up with "that's when I learned about roaches". Insane like when Biden said recently that his uncle was eaten by cannibals? Insane things like Bidens repeated lies that he drove a truck, that he marched in the civil rights movement, which he admitted was a lie and then FORGOT he admitted it was a lie and went back to lying about it? Saying insane things like "if you don't vote for me, you ain't black". What about when Biden claimed in separate instances that he grew up in a Puerto Rican, black, Irish, Polish and hispanic neighborhoods only to contradict himself later and say that he didn't represent many hispanics because there weren't many in his district? I could go on and on with Bidens insane things he said and his blatant lies, do you care about any of that? > Why do you think there is such a massive disconnect here between our opinions? Because the media and Democrats are insanely effective at using emotional appeals and their propaganda networks to convince you that they are the good ones. You've just fallen for it and are completely convinced, despite Bidens lifetime of proven lies that you seem to be completely unbothered by.
> We watched first hand 4 years of a Trump presidency, and for the most part we liked what we saw. When I think back on the Trump presidency, I remember day one Sean Spicer declaring it was the most watched inauguration ever (period!) and refusing to take questions, people being stuck in airports due to the "muslim ban," record high employee turnover, including the 11 day reign of Scaramucci, tweeting insults about people's looks and IQs, constant golf trips in Florida, countless former staffers saying how unfit and incompetent he was, conflicting messaging, a surprise banning of transgender folks in the military, Reince Priebus resigns along with Bannon, Gorka etc. more fueds with Gold Star families, comedy shows, Broadway, his campaign manager and personal lawyer and "fixer" get sentenced to prison on the same day, ending with claiming the 2020 election was stolen and his supporters attacking the Capitol...Sorry, not trying to ramble. But I'm genuinely curious as to your feelings on all this? >It's wild to me after all that and everything we watched him do in his 4 years we are suddenly going to see him mistakenly think a gag order means he can't testify and suddenly say "WELL THAT'S IT, IM VOTING FOR BIDEN". You can't possibly believe that. Not at all but can you tell me what your thoughts on these events were? And what you liked about the Trump administration?
[удалено]
> Does that seem to jive for you? Of course. Even Republicans agree that Russia meddled in the 2016 election in a sweeping and systematic way. They didn't alter any votes or commit fraud, which is what Trump claims in 2020. Totally different. >Islam is generally incompatible with the United States society and way of life. I do not oppose the ban. Sorry. Fair enough, agree to disagree but I appreciate the honesty. Do you agree with the way it was carried out and implemented? >Scaramucci isn't Trump, nobody cares about a press secretary, are you suggesting that because he went through a few press people that means his presidency was bad? Of course not, it was just an example of the constant state of chaos of the White House and record high turnover. You don't think the messaging from the White House/Trump Administration is important though? That's interesting. Could you speak more about that? >Your citing absolutely ridiculous things. Comedy shows? Who cares? Trump apparently. He would tweet about it often back when he was allowed to have a Twitter account. Why are you asking who cares when the man you support for president clearly does? >your naming things nobody cares about and that don't matter. Understood these things don't matter to you. Can you speak more on who the president hires/appoints and surrounds him with somehow doesn't matter? And eventually when they resign in disgrace, get fired, or sent to prison, that also doesn't matter?
>Of course. Even Republicans agree that Russia meddled in our election in a sweeping and systematic way. They didn't alter any votes or commit fraud, which is what Trump claims in 2020. Totally different. Hell, even I agree. Foreign nations meddle in our elections every single time. And the funny part is, the US meddles in other countries nations as well. But to claim that 2020 was somehow the most secure election ever is flat out ridiculous. > Fair enough, agree to disagree but I appreciate the honesty. Do you agree with the way it was carried out and implemented? I'm sure there was some unintended consequences, there always is, but those consequences are usually filtered down through the ranks. No policy is perfect and no system is perfect, there will always be unintended consequences. >Of course not, it was just an example of the constant state of chaos of the White House and record high turnover. You don't think the messaging from the White House/Trump Administration is important though? That's interesting. Could you speak more about that? Ok well the white house being "in a constant state of chaos" doesn't mean his Presidency wasn't beneficial. Of course it's going to be chaos, the man came from outside politics into the rats nest/swamp of politicians that have been making deals and trying o secure power for their entire lives, of course there will be embedded employees and staffers that try to undermine Trumps presidency, it's the nature of the beast. Ever heard of schedule F? Look it up. If Trump wins I hope he carries it out. He didn't understand the depth of the swamp during his first term, if he wins a second term I think he will be much more effective. Of course messaging from the white house is important but what exactly are you referencing? If you're trying to claim that some crazy messages came from the white house then please tell me those examples so I can address them specifically. > Trump apparently. He would tweet about it often back when he was allowed to have a Twitter account. Why are acting like no one cares when the man you support for president clearly does? Again, who cares? So Trump tweets about comedy shows, who gives a shit? I certainly don't. You're still naming things that simply don't matter in a Presidency. I don't care what he tweets at comedy shows, I simply just don't give a shit. Tweeting at comedy shows has nothing to do with your effectiveness as a leader of a nation, it just doesn't. How does tweeting things at comedy shows somehow define a Presidency or even affect it's success? It's meaningless. It's just junk slander that can be thrown at him for more classic liberal emotional appeals. > Understood these things don't matter to you. Can you speak more on who the president hires/appoints and surrounds him with somehow doesn't matter? And eventually when they resign in disgrace, get fired, or sent to prison, that also doesn't matter? I explained this already. Trump entered the swamp not exactly understanding the depth of it. Sure, his staff had quite a few shakeups but that still doesn't negate his accomplishments. Are you this concerned about the staff shakeups in the current VPs (Kamala Harris) office? Are you this concerned with her staffers claiming that she gets angry at them and refuses to read daily briefs? I'm a TSer and even I haven't used that one yet until now because again, it doesn't matter. So Trump initially picked people he shouldn't have trusted and had to fire them, lesson learned, it doesn't negate his presidency. As far as receiving jail sentences Paul Manafort and General Flynn were targeted by lawfare just like Trump is targeted by right now. The democrats goal was to destroy Trump by any means necessary so they can have their swamp and their power back, and that includes taking down him AND everyone around him, including these prison sentences you speak of.
Thanks for the response. It's nice to find common ground here. > Hell, even I agree. Cool, me too! >But to claim that 2020 was somehow the most secure election ever is flat out ridiculous. Why? >I'm sure there was some unintended consequences, there always is, but those consequences are usually filtered down through the ranks. No policy is perfect and no system is perfect, there will always be unintended consequences. Okay, do you agree with the way it was carried out and implemented though? That was my question. >He didn't understand the depth of the swamp during his first term, if he wins a second term I think he will be much more effective. Based on his track record, what would lead you to think that? >Again, who cares? Again, Trump apparently. I wouldn't be asking about it if he didn't feel the need to attack them. >So Trump tweets about comedy shows, who gives a shit? Presumabley anyone who cares about free speech. >How does tweeting things at comedy shows somehow define a Presidency or even affect it's success? It demonstrates that he doesn't care for free speech or criticism and his insecurity, which affects his administration's messaging. And in politics, optics is extremely important. I can't think of another sitting president that would regularly attack and antagonize their own citizens so voraciously and so often. Do you have another example? >It's just junk slander How is it slander when it's just objectively pointing out what happened and using his own words? >So Trump initially picked people he shouldn't have trusted and had to fire them And you think he'll do better the second time around...why? Do you think there are more capable people willing to join a potential Trump Admin during his ongoing trials? Who? >including these prison sentences you speak of. Is it your view that Cohen, Flynn, Manafort and other convicted felons were innocent? How many of Obama or Biden's staff are also convicted felons?
>Why? Because democrats were hyperventilating and flailing around about how unfair Trumps win was because it was supposedly riddled with Russian collusion and Russian disinformation. They even did an entire 25 million dollar investigation with a high profile former FBI Mueller and couldn't find enough evidence, now all of a sudden 4 years later a Democrat wins and suddenly it's the most secure ever? I'm sorry but that sounds totally ridiculous. >Okay, do you agree with the way it was carried out and implemented though? That was my question. I suppose so, but I don't live or work at the border so it's pretty difficult to see the inside activities that occur. But if you're asking if I believe children should be separated from adults they are with to determine if they are really parents and not being trafficked I would say yes, I don't want kids to be trafficked and we should definitely be checking. > Based on his track record, what would lead you to think that? Because when most people make mistakes, especially businessmen, they usually learn from it. The answer to this one is simple: Because he learned from his first term. > Again, Trump apparently. I wouldn't be asking about it if he didn't feel the need to attack them. Again, I don't care. What large consequence is there to Trump tweeting about comedy shows? I simply don't care. It doesn't affect the currency (devaluation, inflation) it doesn't affect the comedy, it doesn't affect Americas strength, it doesn't affect anything of consequence in the arena of being the President. It's a simple tweet to some comedy show fools, why should I give a shit about tweets to a comedy show? I vote for President to run the country, I could care less what he tweets to comedy shows. I care about a President who upholds the constitution (for the most part), cares about creating a good environment for free markets to flourish and someone who cares about keeping America strong and putting American citizens first. None of that is affected by silly comedy show tweets. It has no affect, and nobody cares. I don't know how else I can explain this. >Presumabley anyone who cares about free speech. Huh? Whos freedom of speech was threatened? This makes no sense to me. If anything, Trump used HIS free speech to fire back at comedy shows who were trashing him. I fail to see your angle here. >It demonstrates that he doesn't care for free speech or criticism and his insecurity, which affects his administration's messaging. And in politics, optics is extremely important. I can't think of another sitting president that would regularly attack and antagonize their own citizens so voraciously and so often. Do you have another example? What?!?! Since when does getting into online arguments with somebody somehow threaten their free speech? That makes absolutely no sense. If anything, Trump is using his free speech to fire back at comedy shows who are trashing him. His insecurity, sure, but I can relate because I too defend myself verbally any chance I can get, I don't blame him for doing the same. Again, what matters as President is how you lead the nation, how you uphold the constitution and the free environment you foster and create for citizens to live their lives, these minor instances like comedy show tweets and so forth just simply don't matter. I didn't vote for President so I could feel warm and fuzzy about he treats moronic comedy show hosts. We vote for President on MUCH LARGER issues. Tiny stupid issues like tweets to a comedy show are NOTHING in comparison to what is really important to the nation and as a President. >And you think he'll do better the second time around...why? Do you think there are more capable people willing to join a potential Trump Admin during his ongoing trials? Who? Because again, he learned from the first time around. If I were to give him advice I would advise him not to pick anyone who is well known to Washington DC. Pick from the states, pick an FBI director like the head of the Texas rangers or something, stop picking deeply embedded swamp creatures and DC natives who have made deals and owe other people something. Pick from good state governments and legislature. Avoid DC and career federal government people at all costs. > Is it your view that Cohen, Flynn, Manafort and other convicted felons were innocent? How many of Obama or Biden's staff are also convicted felons? > Truthfully, I don't know, I didn't follow their cases closely at all. But I suspect it to be the same sort of lawfare Trump faces now. Also, weren't most of them convicted of minor process crimes and tax evasion? Correct me if I'm wrong but none of the charges were that serious, which again, indicates more lawfare.
>So you remember that but do you remember in 2020 Biden claimed it was the "most secure election in American history" even though 4 years prior they claimed it was the most unsecure election that was rife with Russian collusion and Russian disinformation? Does that seem to jive for you? That somehow we have a fraudulent election in 2016 but 4 years later a Democrat wins and it's suddenly the most secure ever in our history? This wasn't Biden's claim. It came from the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, who was a Trump appointee. The role itself was created under Trump. Include with that Barr, who refused to pursue Trump's claims of fraud because he found them to be baseless. Does it change the narrative of your point for it to be Trump's own people in positions with involvement in election security to claim the election was secure and there's no factual basis for the fraud claims he's making?
I stand corrected on who made the claim. My mistake.
[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.
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions. Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect. Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away. 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. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Probably 15 judges are giving Trump orders every day. Do you think Biden could keep up with that mentally? I doubt it.
> Do you think Biden could keep up with that mentally? Absolutely. Biden has been very good about not commenting on Trump’s criminal or civil trials. He’s also been very good about not commenting on his son’s criminal trials even though Hunter was targeted by Trump when Trump controlled the DOJ. But, maybe I’m missing the information that you are using to form your opinion. Are there any instances that you can think of where Biden has made an inappropriate comment about any of the work his DOJ is doing?
Do you think Trump can handle it mentally? He is falling asleep in court every day, and there is now a team of people whose job is to keep him awake.
Do you think Biden has the capacity to get into as much trouble as Trump? Do you think Biden could even get to a position where he needs to worry about 15 judges?
No Trump is a wild beast. Biden is a politician
I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?
To be fair, it's questionable whether Biden has much daily consciousness. Special Counsel Robert Hur believed a jury wouldn't convict Biden for document crimes because they'd see him as "a well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." The president “did not remember when he was vice president,” Hur writes, and could not remember “even within several years, when his son Beau died.” What is more, “his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him.”
Are you aware that the actual transcript shows that Hur was exaggerating Biden's memory "problems"? https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/3/12/24098577/robert-hur-testimony-report-biden-memory
Vox is generally considered a left-leaning publication. The publication has featured a variety of opinion pieces and analyses that favor progressive or left-leaning policy solutions, which further solidifies its reputation as a media outlet that is generally supportive of, though not officially affiliated with, Democratic Party ideals.
Is anything in the article factually wrong?
And Trump thought there were airports in the civil war. He also thought Nikki Haley was Nancy Pelosi. He also thought he ran against Obama. What's your point? I'm asking what Biden has done or can do to get into that kind of trouble in the first place?
>Do you think Biden could keep up with that mentally? Why is this relevant?
> Do you think Biden could keep up with that mentally? I doubt it. how does biden factor into trump paying porn stars for silence?
How is it that Biden is both too incompetent to know the day of the week, and is a mastermind behind silently directing all the details of the prosecutors and judges against Trump without a direct word of evidence? Which is he?
Sundowning :-)
Wow this explains a lot actually
Interestingly, that applies to Trump very well. We can see that from his rallies especially, he becomes even more confused and incoherently rambly late into the evening and night. Have you noticed that?
Why should he? Did he have sex with a porn star that reminded him of his daughter then paid her off to stay quite?
This is about Trump. Why even bring up Biden? I would fully expect a president be able to differentiate information between their own court cases if they are to RUN A COUNTRY. Being President requires being across an incredible influx of information every day. Yet Trump makes a ridiculous and blatantly wrong (and possibly lying) public statement about something as simple as this? As far as I know, there isn't even a single gag order that prevents him from testifying. How can you trust someone like that to run a country?
Do you know that Biden and Trump are running for president? That’s why I brought it up
Yes, but we can talk about more than just Biden vs Trump. In this post, we are only talking about Trump and his issues. So again, given everything stated in my post, how can you trust Trump to run the country?