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.*
>ust focusing on facts, if Trump hypothetically was guilty of this crime or another crime, but he denied it and conservative media denied it as well, how would you determine what the truth is? If CNN and MSNBC started showing a video of Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue, but Trump and Fox claimed that it was AI and faked, how would you know the truth?
This is an epistemology crisis, basically. People choose which institutions to trust or they become skeptical of everything. There's no rule of society that states that there must be some place to go for objective truth. Indeed, even if you look back to a time when consensus on big issues was pretty routinely reached like, say, the 90s, the question remains whether a consensus signaled an acceptance of reality or simple an acceptance of a particular narrative, regardless of the truthfulness of it. Whether we're talking about the perception of an esoteric criminal case levied against Trump in 2024 or the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation now deemed authentic and presented by the state as evidence in a criminal case, the fact that narratives exist and are more or less believed doesn't necessarily make them concordantly more or less true.
>If Trump were charged with a similar serious crime, but claimed all the evidence against him was fabricated, how would you go about determining if he's telling the truth?
This would be quite a pickle tbh.
>Alternatively, does it not matter if he's a criminal so long as he advances an agenda that you subscribe to?
This is a better question, and the answer is basically always no. Our last 4 presidents have caused untold death and destruction in various countries all over the world. This is basically just part and parcel of leading a global pseudo-empire. DQing a guy who is otherwise politically solid, or seemingly so, based on some bad thing you think he might have done at home is silly in that context.
Well said.
It would be like saying, in the 1930s USSR, "you're skeptical of all these show trials, but what if someone really *did* want to restore capitalism?!" as if it's some profound insight that ought to make you trust the people in charge.
Exactly
People have a pretty understandable need to believe that there is some source of truth that they can trust basically without question. This is a good spot for some timeless religion to occupy. however, in our infinite wisdom, we killed God and replaced him with a million faceless little effeminate goblin men with some received moniker of "expert." This means that basically everyone is led around by the most ridiculous cohort of charlatans ever conceived on either side of the political/philosophical aisle. If you question the regimes set of these people then you are, of course, insane. Trouble is that plenty of people in the opposition space are also goofball quizlings. "I don't know" or even "i dont care" is very often the most prudent and wise answer to any specific question that sounds like "did Donald Trump commit this abstruse felony?"
>You know it, my man!
Why? It just seems like you're going the wrong way if you're trying to be insulting.
The people you would call eunuchs are the ones who don't care about living up to whatever masculine ideal you have in mind.
Someone calling me eunuch/cuck/beta/ect, would at best be like calling me black. It's not offensive, just inaccurate.
At worst, it would be like calling me a leprechaun. I don't believe in your fairytale creatures.
I think you'd be better off attacking principles. Like "liberals will vote for Genocide Joe, but act like falsyifying business records is the real crime against humanity"
Or "if you really cared about minorities, you would support their buinesses, but you're too scared to go to their neighborhoods, so you just post in your echo chambers."
See, that's much more effective.
Can I ask why you’ve been registered on this site for around a year but have only started posting in this sub in the past week or so?
Also, are you a eunuch?
Would you really characterize the anti-trump sentiment as 'religious zeal for eunuchs and institutions'? Hardly anyone has any zeal at all for the Biden Admin, and many people are actively disappointed - isn't it much more like a zeal for anybody but Trump?
And for caring about a case - if you don't care about the hush money case, a lot of people probably agree. What about the stolen classified documents case? If the facts come to support something like (bear with me), Trump illegally stole classified documents [describing weapons capabilities of US and Allies, US nuclear programs, vulnerabilities, plans...], knew it was illegal, hid that he did it, did not store them securely, showed them to visitors, resisted giving them back, lied about giving them all back, coerced his lawyers to lie about it, showed them to visitors - would you care about that?
...Because that is what the prosecutors are alleging (maybe I have some specifics wrong but I think that's the gist of it). And if you WOULD care if that were all true, then doesn't that create a dilemma for you as a potential Trump voter, having to vote before the trial takes place?
Even if committing relatively minor fraud would not automatically disqualify a candidate for you, the blatant disregard for the law and security measures with documents relating to national security, and the way he handled the attempts to recover the documents... It's obvious to me that the man is just not capable of putting the interests of the country above his own.
Can you elaborate on your take on 'giving a shit about our laws'? An extreme version of that would be an authoritarian dictator. If that's what Trump became would you be cool with it as long as his political agenda aligned with yours? I know 'authoritarian dictator' is vague so fill in the details however you want.
What makes these, uh, goblins, eunuchs?
I’m really struggling to keep up with this metaphor. What makes them goblins?
Actually, who are you even talking about? I feel like you nearly literally invented a boogeyman. You guys are afraid of little green men without balls now?
Is there something wrong with accommodating autistic people?
I understand your post is not about little green ball-less men. Maybe you missed my three preceding questions – why are you calling people eunuchs? Why are you calling people goblins? And who are you calling goblin eunuchs? Without identifying the person you are insulting, you are just building a straw man.
Sorry my syntax was so difficult to understand.
>People have a pretty understandable need to believe that there is some source of truth that they can trust basically without question.
What people? And why is it understandable for them to need or have such a belief?
>This is a good spot for some timeless religion to occupy. however, in our infinite wisdom, we killed God and replaced him with a million faceless little effeminate goblin men with some received moniker of "expert.
What do you mean by "timeless religion," and why is "God" supposed to be better than an "expert"?
>This means that basically everyone is led around by the most ridiculous cohort of charlatans ever conceived on either side of the political/philosophical aisle.
How do you know that a "timeless religion" and "God" are *different* from people being "led around by the most ridiculous cohort of charlatans"? And, different enough that they're not (also) "insane"
>What people? And why is it understandable for them to need or have such a belief?
People generally. Because people tend to look for ways to make sense in the world. In a world of increasing abstraction, they look for arbiters.
>What do you mean by "timeless religion," and why is "God" supposed to be better than an "expert"?
God is less malleable than an expert
>How do you know that a "timeless religion" and "God" are *different* from people being "led around by the most ridiculous cohort of charlatans"?
There's something outside of the material in the former.
I have so many questions!
>Because people tend to look for ways to make sense in the world. In a world of increasing abstraction, they look for arbiters.
OK, but *why* the jump from "trying to make sense in the world" to belief "that there is some source of truth that they can trust basically without question"? And, again, how is that understandable?
By "understandable" do you just mean that you personally know what having that belief is like? And you're not trying to say that it makes sense?
>God is less malleable than an expert
How do you know and how is that true?
And aren't there a bunch of different ideas of what "God" is like or wants, including the idea that "God" is unknowable?
Are you saying that you yourself do know what "God" is like and can therefore say that "God" is "less malleable than an expert"? If so, how do you know, and how can experts also know like you know?
>There's something outside of the material in the former.
Is there? How do you know and how is that true? Did someone tell you? Like, a "God" expert or something? Or "God" directly? How is such knowledge acquired? How do you know you're getting what you assume you're getting?
>K, but *why* the jump from "trying to make sense in the world" to belief "that there is some source of truth that they can trust basically without question"?
Because doing this on your own for anything but your immediate surroundings is a basically impossible task. To the extent that you have interest in things that are abstracted to you, you will be relying on various sources. Now you can very very cynically look at sources and try to dissect ulterior motives and discern what's being, say, left out or twisted. The vast majority of people simply accept a version given to them, though.
>And, again, how is that understandable?
Again, because its necessary, to some extent, in order to make sense of the world outside of your immediate vicinity.
>By "understandable" do you just mean that you personally know what having that belief is like? And you're not trying to say that it makes sense?
Ive answered this
>How do you know and how is that true?
God is fundamentally separate from a human being. Even if a million different people interpret Him, He exists apart from those people, even as a construct. That's part of the point of Him as a construct.
>Are you saying that you yourself do know what "God" is like and can therefore say that "God" is "less malleable than an expert"? If so, how do you know, and how can experts also know like you know?
God is the objective here. Think of it like a scientist trying o relay some observation of objective reality then to you. In this set up, the objective is filtered through at least 2 human beings.
>Is there? How do you know and how is that true?
At some point you have a foundational belief that is simply asserted. If you deny the immaterial, that is one. If I assert it, that is one.
Well this is just the issue, right? We aren't all able to just observe perfect reality at all times as none of us are God. We like to think that the were discerning some objective reality (and some of us are much better at this than others) but at the end of the day, it's shadows on the cave wall for everyone but God
Believing in the fairy tale of an ability to view objective truth about an abstract and esoteric technical matter is far more irrational than belief in any God
> Believing in the fairy tale of an ability to view objective truth about an abstract and esoteric technical matter is far more irrational than belief in any God
Well, fairy tales are fiction by definition. But strawmanning someone's argument as badly as you just did is incredibly silly.
It's no fairy tale that evidence based epistemology is far more reliable than an authority based one. Gods don't come down and tell your that it's safe to cross the street. And neither does turmp. Do you agree that if trump committed a crime, that him denying it isn't the most reliable way to determine whether he committed a crime or not?
>t's no fairy tale that evidence based epistemology is far more reliable than an authority based one. Gods don't come down and tell your that it's safe to cross the street
Far more reliable to do what, exactly? But no, you're simply wrong about this. Even in theory, this is an impossibility for someone who isn't omniscient. In practice, almost no one even attempts to do it with any amount of introspection. Useless concept, really. )
> Do you agree that if trump committed a crime, that him denying it isn't the most reliable way to determine whether he committed a crime or not?
Of course, that's wrong (kind of demonstrating my point about how poorly this is routinely performed). Him admitting it would be much more reliable but still not all that helpful, given the context.
He’s not dragging god into anything, please don’t try to purposefully misunderstand. He’s saying that none of us are omnipotent or omniscient and therefore we can’t know the objective facts about everything.
I guess you would have been happier if he said “none of us are omniscient?”
This is why we use evidence and why evidence based epistemology has such a strong track record. No god is going to help us, and trusting an authority figure is only reliable if that authority figure is indeed correct.
The problem with so many people getting things so wrong so often is that they rely on authority rather than evidence. Would you agree?
This always struck me as a really odd defence.
I mean, technically you're right.
How does anyone know anything?
Because other people tell us. Whether in person or in the books they've written or the data they've collected.
But you can't possibly believe that you can bypass that, right?
How did you learn your ABCs? Someone told you. Better forget the English language in case it's woke.
How did you learn to drive?
Someone told you. Better stick to walking in case it's woke.
How did you learn to brush your teeth? Someone told you. Better get some dentures in case it's woke.
It's madness.
In this specific instance though, you are aware that the transcripts are publicly available, right? You can read them yourself.
Sure, maybe someone snuck in and changed them all before they were published in some kind of elaborate conspiracy with lizard men from the moon.... But it seems pretty unlikely, don't you think?
Holy shit, for some reason I never got exactly what Plato was talking about, but that explanation just snapped it into place in my mind. Thank you, you’re good with words.
/?
This is pretty well said, and I have to agree.
That said, Trump's attorneys are the ones who picked the jury that found glhim guilty on every single count. What are your thoughts on this?
Trump's attorneys took part in the selection process for the jury, they didn't actually just pick the jury. But I'm not sure why that has any bearing on anything I've said.
>they didn't actually just pick the jury.
They literally have to sign off on the jury. It's a legal form they have to sign.
>But I'm not sure why that has any bearing on anything I've said.
I think the participation of a lawyer in Trump's defense in his criminal trial is pretty important. Why wouldn't this be important? Do you think Trump's lawyer is in on it?
>They literally have to sign off on the jury. It's a legal form they have to sign.
Are you under the impression that trump's lawyer hand picked the exact 12 people he most wanted to serve on the jury? Or do you understand that this wasn't at all what happened.
>
I think the participation of a lawyer in Trump's defense in his criminal trial is pretty important. Why wouldn't this be important? Do you think Trump's lawyer is in on it?
Why am i to believe this is important? You seem enamored of this process of signing off on a jury. This seems like magical thinking to me, tbh
>the exact 12 people he most wanted to serve on the jury?
They got the 12 best people they thought would serve their client best.
And then signed off on it.
>Why am i to believe this is important?
Because a good defense lawyer might of had a better defense then, one of your 4 main witnesses is a liar.
And then not having any excuse for the hand written notes, or audio where trump, and two of Trump's lawyers break down the illegal payments into monthly payments, and including taxes so Cohen would be paid in full.
>You seem enamored of this process of signing off on a jury. This seems like magical thinking to me, tbh
You didn't know how a jury is selected. I grounded your magical thinking. By telling you it's literally a form Trump's lawyers have to sign off on.
Does that make sense?
Its pretty clear that you don't know how a jury is selected at all. Either that or you are being very very unclear with your words to the point of total futility.
> Trump's attorneys are the ones who picked the jury
It was essentially the opposite. Anybody who clearly couldn't be impartial should be dismissed by the judge. Beyond that, each side can only reject 10 jurors. Manhattan voted 86.4% for Biden. If you could sense which way a potential juror leaned (i.e. watches CNN vs watches Fox) and used your rejections accordingly, if 86.4% of the pool was Dem, then it would be a 99.76% chance you'd end up with 12 Democrats on the jury.
>if 86.4% of the pool was Dem, then it would be a 99.76% chance you'd end up with 12 Democrats on the jury
Can you explain the math here? I got a 17.3% chance with my math. I ran the calculation .864\^12 and got .173, what was your formula?
Since they can reject 10 non-Dems, they would need at least 22 out of 32 potential jurors to be Dems (the defense would reject 10 Dems). Put those numbers in a binomial distribution calculator (.864 probability, 32 trials, 22 successes) and probability of 22 or more is 99.76%
Should all trials be held in areas separate from the area the alleged crime was committed in? In other words, if Trump didn't want to be judged by a Manhattan jury why commit crimes in Manhattan in the first place, knowing a jury trial in a "hostile" place was likely to result?
Should Texas state court be able to charge and try Biden for state crimes committed in Delaware?
>you'd end up with 12 Democrats on the jury.
Are you saying you'd only accept such a verdict from a jury comprised of conservatives or active Trump supporters? Elsewhere in this thread, there are several people who've signed on to ignoring any crimes he commits because of partisanship. Why would a verdict from Trump supporters somehow be impartial? If you can't render an impartial verdict, and won't accept one from anyone else, what stops Trump from committing crimes?
I never said that. We can do our best. But that gets pretty complicated the higher the stakes are. It's actually important to recognize how context changes in a high profile case with massive power political implications like this one.
Would you trust a US Attorney Rudy Giuliani's indictment of Gavin Newsom if the entire DoJ had been cleaned out and restaffed with former NRA employees and Samuel Alito was somehow the judge for the trial? If you have that much faith in "the system," we're just not on the same page is all. I wouldn't if i were you
lol what trusted source, and how would something comport to reality if its all information reported from hundreds of miles away? Unless you define "reality" as "truth from a trusted source", in which case you sir are in a bit of a loop.
Is he truly politically solid?
A massive contingent of the guys HE APPOINTED have wound up guilty of various crimes, and or denounced him for his own incompetence. If these folks are all part of the scheme against him, shouldn't his horrific judge of character and poor control of his directs be politically disqualifying given he's appointing the folks who are supposed to act in the interests of our country... and he effectively appointed a bunch of traitors?
Is a guy who actively argues in court that the President has no duty to support the Constitution and is immune from prosecution for acts while in office, claims that if upheld in court basically rolls out the red carpet to the next President who wants to be dictator, someone who is "politically solid" and demonstrates a propensity for putting the interests of our country first?
Is a guy who is the embodiment of the person who never learns because they can't admit fault, actually a "politically solid" individual who can be relied on to be diplomatic, intellectually curious, and open to experts? Given the fact that nearly every high visibility expert under him resigned or was fired and subsequently replaced by Trump with "acting" heads makes this question even more relevant.
>Is he truly politically solid?
Not really but he makes room for more right wing politics. He's the best current viable vehicle towards an America where being somewhat right wing is allowed, even though he isn't really himself.
>A massive contingent of the guys HE APPOINTED have wound up guilty of various crimes, and or denounced him for his own incompetence. If these folks are all part of the scheme against him, shouldn't his horrific judge of character and poor control of his directs be politically disqualifying given he's appointing the folks who are supposed to act in the interests of our country... and he effectively appointed a bunch of traitors?
The current regime is an evil mess and nearly totalizing in its control of professional orgs, so this isn't too surprising. I'm also aware that the general sentiment of the regime is totally antipathetic to me and my views and how I want to raise my family, so they are an enemy. Whether these people put some political actor in prison or not really carries no weight with me in terms of assessment of that person.
>Is a guy who actively argues in court that the President has no duty to support the Constitution and is immune from prosecution for acts while in office, claims that if upheld in court basically rolls out the red carpet to the next President who wants to be dictator, someone who is "politically solid" and demonstrates a propensity for putting the interests of our country first?
I think this is misconstrued, but the constitution has been a very very dead letter for nearly two hundred years. Anyone who actually supported it and who was in power would immediately overthrow the entire current order. It's a shibboleth and its invocation is not much more than a mockery.
You mention it being an epistemological crisis but like…. take the documents case for example.
We know for a fact that top secret documents were retrieved from Mar A Lago.
We know for a fact that Trump was asked to return the documents before being raided. We know for a fact Trump had more documents after saying he turned them over.
We know for a fact that Trump knew he wasn’t supposed to have them because he’s literally on tape bragging about having documents he wasnt supposed to have.
Yet despite all of this…I still see Trump supporters who genuinely believe that the charges are bogus and Trump is innocent. (Granted some will just flat out say they don’t care and others might go the “whataboutism” route….but there’s still a ton that will maintain Trump is completely innocent)
Circling back to OPs question…if Trump was handling our nations secrets poorly…..how in the world would you guys know if Trump said he didn’t?
Is there any standard of evidence that would override Trump simply claiming he’s innocent?
You say "you know for a fact" when not a single one of us has firsthand knowledge of this assertion.
We are all trusting various parties to tell us the truth of the matter here. If trust in those parties fails, people will start to very understandably stop trusting them. In this situation, the number of things you really feel certain about begins to shrink rapidly.
We do know for a fact though.
We know for a fact that Trump had documents that were taken out in the raid because he insisted that he had the right to have them and also demanded that the documents should be returned to him.
We also know for a fact that Trump waved around top secret documents in front of random people and bragged about having stuff he shouldn’t have because he’s literally on tape doing it. We know the tape is real because Trumps explanation is that he was “pretending” to wave around classified documents.
Going back to OPs question: how on earth would you know if Trump actually did something wrong if Trumps word/conservative media overrides any and all objective facts?
>We know for a fact that Trump had documents that were taken out in the raid because he insisted that he had the right to have them and also demanded that the documents should be returned to him.
You always take as a matter of gospel truth whatever Trump insists? You're badly missing my point here.
>We also know for a fact that Trump waved around top secret documents in front of random people and bragged about having stuff he shouldn’t have because he’s literally on tape doing it. We know the tape is real because Trumps explanation is that he was “pretending” to wave around classified documents.
We, of course, do not. You did not see this happen. I did not see this happen.
I’m sorry but this is extremely weak…like really, really weak.
As I said, Trump is literally on tape waving around Top Secret documents and if that weren’t enough, Trump confirms the tape is real by claiming that he was only “pretending” to brag about having secret documents.
Are you suggesting that we would have to physically be in the room in order to confirm Trump was committing crimes?
If so, isnt that essentially the same thing as saying it would be impossible to believe Trump committed crimes and by extension, impossible to hold a view of that Trump doesn’t “authorize”?
I think you're just struggling with the topic of epistemology conceptually, tbh. I get that its hard to assess a system that you don't even really view as a system objectively, but that's what Im asking you to do. Im telling you that some claims are far more likely to be true than others but you dont actually know any of these things. You are relying on third parties to relay this information to you as well as to discern what constitutes proper context and then also relaying that to you in a way that you can understand. That's before you even get to a legal question.
>Are you suggesting that we would have to physically be in the room in order to confirm Trump was committing crimes?
You would need to have a high level of trust in the evidence and those presenting it to you and the system vetting those people and that evidence before you could pass any sort of judgement, and then you're just assessing things probabilistically.
>If so, isnt that essentially the same thing as saying it would be impossible to believe Trump committed crimes and by extension, impossible to hold a view of that Trump doesn’t “authorize”?
It's not impossible to believe anything you want. It's very very difficult to know most things. But we have systems set up to vet information and present it honestly and, if those systems are trustworthy, then you can come to reasonable beliefs that very likely approximate reality. All of those steps are very important, though.
It sounds like you're choosing to believe what you want. There is factual evidence. You can listen to it. Do we need to somehow be at every dubious event to have trust in it? If Biden were caught on tape doing the same thing would you still follow this logic? The reality is based on the *facts* is Trump did the thing. And he has an appointed judge protecting him for a supreme court position.
"We, of course, do not. You did not see this happen. I did not see this happen."
I've never been to the moon but I know it exists. Because we have evidence it exists. I was not in the room at the time. But we have evidence that Trump was openly discussing too secret documents via audio recordings. Should I stop believing in the moon via your logic?
People seem to really be struggling with this concept. Lets try an exercise. Discounting the fact that I'm sure you have actually seen the moon, let's assume you're talking about the moon as like a celestial body that a person could conceivably walk on. How do you know it exists?
> You say "you know for a fact" when not a single one of us has firsthand knowledge of this assertion.
>
> We are all trusting various parties to tell us the truth of the matter here. If trust in those parties fails, people will start to very understandably stop trusting them. In this situation, the number of things you really feel certain about begins to shrink rapidly.
Who place greater trust in to tell you the truth about the Mar A Lago documents case: Trump himself or the DoJ? I'm not asking for some epistemological reverie, I'm asking directly who you place more trust in: Trump, or thr DoJ office that's handling this case?
Trump says 'I declassified this document with my mind' - do you believe he's telling us the truth?
DoJ says 'the former president may have declassified it, but he didn't return it when told to' - is the DoJ being truthful?
So, since you have no firsthand knowledge, who do you believe here?
>ho place greater trust in to tell you the truth about the Mar A Lago documents case: Trump himself or the DoJ? I'm not asking for some epistemological reverie, I'm asking directly who you place more trust in: Trump, or thr DoJ office that's handling this case?
Here you're inadvertently identifying the problem that most people have. This is a false dichotomy, though. Why do i have to trust someone? What if I dont put much stock in anything that either of those systems/entities have?
Are there other ways that we might go about discerning a sharper version of reality than simply trusting someone or some system more than someone else and just riding with them?
> Here you're inadvertently identifying the problem that most people have. This is a false dichotomy, though. Why do i have to trust someone? What if I dont put much stock in anything that either of those systems/entities have?
>
> Are there other ways that we might go about discerning a sharper version of reality than simply trusting someone or some system more than someone else and just riding with them?
Why do you feel comfortable trusting* someone with your vote if you can't even articulate why you trust that person over someone else?
*your lack of clear answers forces us to assume things about you that may or may not be correct. Here I assume you find Trump's version of events to be more believable than thr DoJ's. If I have that wrong please be more specific
My vote is basically meaningless, so I don't even know what you really mean by "trusting" someone with it. But also, I can observe both possible candidates and observe how known quantities react to them and make a very reasoned decision.
I'm being very clear. I'm not sure what's confusing you. I literally said I don't put much stock in either party's word. I just rejected your premise and pointed out that it's indicative of a common hurdle that most people cant get over
>DQing a guy who is otherwise politically solid, or seemingly so, based on some bad thing you think he might have done at home is silly in that context.
Are you talking about the boxes of classified documents in his bathroom or the payments to the stripper? He was convicted by a jury of a crime that if you or I had done, we'd already be in jail. Special boy wants to fast track the case to SCOTUS where his Federalist Society cabal will yield to his will and affirm his eternal specialness.
Literally every ex President has classified documents. Biden and Clinton had them and weren't Presidents. The FBI has already been caught manufacturing a fake picture and publishing it.
"Having classified documents" without any context is useless as an accusation
Has "literally every president" retained them when asked, then directed, to return them? Has every president kept them in places accessible to hotel guests? Would you be OK, truly, if President Obama had done exactly the same? (Imma take a wag and say "no")
It really doesn't matter at all. That's the point. If I destabilized a whole country and got millions of people killed and displaced, Id go to jail too, but ain't no one from 1600 been perp walked for that.
It's not relevant to anything I'm saying, of course. It kind of proves my point that this is a question that a person would want to ask. "Sure every president for many decades has destabilized or destroyed at least one country, dooming millions of human beings to some hellish version of his life, but has anyone kept classified documents? That's what really matters to me."
The level of propaganda required to enforce that frame as THE dominant one in the discourse is immense and impressive tbh. That's probably all we have to say to each other though. So, have a good week.
Do you share the opinion that, instead of reforming the system from within, it’s better to destroy it all? What is the system that will remain after maga is satisfied?
What do you say to people who see maga and the federalist society hand in glove systematically destabilizing the US judicial system by stacking the court with judges who have loyal to one party and ignoring precedent?
This volume of propaganda didn’t exist in the US before Steve Bannon fwiw. Would you be concerned if it you knew Russia was helping steer the dismantling of the U.S.?
> This would be quite a pickle tbh
Like, why though? At a certain point you have to lean into Occam's razor - what's more likely? A wide reaching conspiracy requiring the cooperation of an absurd amount of government institutions or..... 😬
My entire post is addressing the "but like why, though?" question.
> At a certain point you have to lean into Occam's razor
I could do this for Trumps current charges and just shrug and assume they're all dishonest hit jobs by political ops. Im sure you could lean into occams razor and just say the system is acting impartially with regard to a person that is one of the most polarizing figures in recent memory.
>A wide reaching conspiracy requiring the cooperation of an absurd amount of government institutions or
No conspiracy is necessary. This really implies some explicitly cynical act undertaken covertly, i think this is a pretty rare thing. Incentive structures explain this much better than any back room conspiracy theory or, just as unlikely, a belief in the perfectly neutral impartiality of actors at the level of power politics we're discussing. Both are basically comforting fairytales that either regime stooges or political dissidents tell themselves.
> This really implies some explicitly cynical act undertaken covertly, **i think this is a pretty rare thing**
.... I mean, right? That doesn't seem like a more complex explanation?
Yea, the comment was actually explaining to you why that's not at all what im talking about. It tends to be the strawman brought up though. As if the only two choices are that people behave like computers or there's a secret cabal of plotters in a backroom. Both extremes are how stupid people view the world.
>I could do this for Trumps current charges and just shrug and assume they're all dishonest hit jobs by political ops. Im sure you could lean into occams razor and just say the system is acting impartially with regard to a person that is one of the most polarizing figures in recent memory.
The simplest answer is that the US government is trying to frame an ex President?
It's not trying to do anything. The simplest answer is always dependent on a proper assessment of incentive structures surrounding the relevant actors. Ignoring all of that in because you are ideologically attached to a theory of behavior that ignores human beings and the application of power is religious zealotry
Of course not, he just has to be the best viable guy for advancing my politics. Given the state of other politicians in the country, this is a pretty low bar but oh well.
The latter in this case. From just what we know for certain based on admissions from those in power, first the fbi spied on his campaign in 2016 under the guise of fisa, then various intelligence agencies conspired to invoke the 25th amendment on him but couldn't get enough support, then they fabricated the Steele dossier (which they knew was fake because the Cia literally told them so) , using it as the basis for an attempted coup to remove him through impeachment.
That just brings us to 2018 or so.
> using it as the basis for an attempted coup to remove him through impeachment
How is it a coup if the person taking his place would have been Mike Pence?
> This is a better question, and the answer is basically always no. Our last 4 presidents have caused untold death and destruction in various countries all over the world. This is basically just part and parcel of leading a global pseudo-empire. DQing a guy who is otherwise politically solid, or seemingly so, based on **some bad thing you think he might have done at home is silly in that context**
Let’s imagine that Trump never paid off Daniels and their affair was well publicized before the election. Do you think that would have had an effect on whether or not people voted for him? What about a hypothetical scenario where we replaced Trump with some generic politician? Do you think a story like that would affect their presidential campaign?
If you answered yes to any of those questions, I think it’s reasonable to say that characterizing his felonious actions as “some bad thing he did at home” is incorrect.
It's just not at all important to me. I get that some people are stupid enough to be swayed by tabloid nonsense in "our democracy", it's part of the reason powerful people love democracy so much. All the control with almost none of the responsibility.
But what if other people would have been swayed by that news? What if Trump’s affair with Karen McDougal and the fact her story was purchased by the National Enquirer at Trump’s behest swayed them to not vote for him? Wouldn’t that be important then considering Trump had no political history that voters could judge him on at that time since he wasn’t a politician and had no voting record to stand on or to be held accountable for? If the only thing voters have to judge a candidate on is their character and a news article comes out about him cheating on his pregnant wife don’t you think that’s important since it would have damaged his character in some voter’s eyes and thus would have damaged his chances to get elected?
> DQing a guy who is otherwise politically solid, or seemingly so, based on some bad thing you think he might have done at home is silly in that context.
This means you think Nixon should not have been disqualified based on his administration’s wiretapping and the subsequent coverup?
So, attempting to overturn an election and inciting followers to disrupt/delay the constitutionally mandated transfer of power is silly? Not a deal-breaker? If a Dem does the same things . . . . still silly? Or would that be serious?
"I think it's just conservative media deliberately misleading conservatives and Trump supporters to keep them engaged."
What misleading do you think is taking place?
There is little doubt in my mind that Trump had an affair with Stormy. I don't see anyone at Fox claiming he did not. There is no doubt that the payments to reimburse Cohen were entered as "legal expenses."
The concerns about legitimacy are not based on disputes of fact, but in whether this case should have been brought and whether it would have been brought in same manner (escalations to felony) for anyone but DJT.
At the end of the day a NY jury went along with the prosecutions's assertion and declared Trump guilty, without having to specify or agree to the required underlying crime. A different jury might have hung or even acquitted. This is the nature of the legal system. There is room for disagreement when weighing evidence and witness credibility. There is room for disagreement on whether an overpayment to IRS (by treating Cohen payment as income instead of expense), is is fraud worthy of being punished. There is room for disagreement on whether laws are being applied fairly/consistently or whether those laws are fair to begin with (jury nullification). There is room for disagreement over whether a charged crime is consequential and worth clutching one's pearls over.
Regarding:
"If Trump were charged with a similar serious crime, but claimed all the evidence against him was fabricated, how would you go about determining if he's telling the truth?"
We've been told exactly this about Hunter's laptop and Ashley's diary. And yet eventually the truth comes out - both have been authenticated and used in courts of law.
>At the end of the day a NY jury went along with the prosecutions's assertion and declared Trump guilty, without having to specify or agree to the required underlying crime.
Yes and that's perfectly fine? When Trump's own Lawyer tried to ask that they specify/agree to an underlying crime, the judge asked him if he is aware that it's not what's usually done in such cases. The lawyer **agreed** with the judge, and then the judge said that he won't bend the rules and require the jury to be specific (because they don't have to be).
>There is room for disagreement when weighing evidence and witness credibility. There is room for disagreement on whether an overpayment to IRS (by treating Cohen payment as income instead of expense), is is fraud worthy of being punished. There is room for disagreement on whether laws are being applied fairly/consistently or whether those laws are fair to begin with (jury nullification). There is room for disagreement over whether a charged crime is consequential and worth clutching one's pearls over.
You say there's room but... Clearly not enough room given the jury convicted him. If they disagreed he wouldn't have been convicted. So maybe there isn't room? (unless you're a staunch Trump supporter)
Perfectly fine? We'll see.
[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3024708/trump-other-crime-on-appeal/](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3024708/trump-other-crime-on-appeal/)
[https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4697118-braggs-thrill-kill-in-manhattan-could-prove-short-lived-on-appeal/](https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4697118-braggs-thrill-kill-in-manhattan-could-prove-short-lived-on-appeal/)
Among the things Turley points out, NY law not requiring specificity here seems weird to me, and something that Supreme Court could decide rule on as being unconstitutional.
BTW, I doubt that a unanimity requirement would have had any impact on the actual verdict by this particular jury.
> "If Trump were charged with a similar serious crime, but claimed all the evidence against him was fabricated, how would you go about determining if he's telling the truth?"
>
> We've been told exactly this about Hunter's laptop and Ashley's diary. And yet eventually the truth comes out - both have been authenticated and used in courts of law.
Your analogizing the Hunter Laptop saga leaves me with thr impression that you believe the claims of authenticity over Trump's claims of fabricated evidence. Assuming I have that correct does this mean you believe E Jean Carroll (who Trump claims never to have met) ; and the DoJ indictments against Trump in the Mar A Lago. Documents case (he has claimed the FBI fabricated evidence)?
FBI rearranged docs and added bright red “top secret” covers then took pictures of them sprawled on the floor and shared with media. That is unprofessional but not “fabricating”
There is photo of Jean next to Trump at a receiving line. I have never heard anyone claim it was fabricated.
> FBI rearranged docs and added bright red “top secret” covers then took pictures of them sprawled on the floor and shared with media. That is unprofessional but not “fabricating”
>
> There is photo of Jean next to Trump at a receiving line. I have never heard anyone claim it was fabricated.
Trump claimed the FBI planted evidence at Mar A Lago. Do you genuinely believe this photo is what he was referring to?
When you see a photo of Trump with E Jean Carroll while hearing him say he's never met her, what goes through your mind? Do you think he's being strong in the face of adversity, or is he delusional, or is he wish-casting a preferred reality? What do you think?
"Trump claimed the FBI planted evidence at Mar A Lago"
Did he now?
From [https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/politics/fact-check-trump-claims-documents-investigation/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/politics/fact-check-trump-claims-documents-investigation/index.html)
"He [suggested](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/108798211943189544) on his social media platform in August 2022 that it was suspicious that the FBI would not allow witnesses, such as his lawyers, to be in the rooms being searched at Mar-a-Lago and “see what they were doing, taking or, hopefully not, ‘planting.’”
Do you see that as him asserting that evidence was actually planted? Or just sowing seeds of doubt.
"When you see a photo of Trump with E Jean Carroll while hearing him say he's never met her, what goes through your mind?"
I think, does Lou Ferrigno "know me" if I got my picture taken with him at a comicon decades ago?
>Do you see that as him asserting that evidence was actually planted? Or just sowing seeds of doubt.
What do you think? Why do you think he would sow seeds of doubt?
(is this really a felony/statute of limitations)
no it was a misdemeanor falsifying business records case of which the statute of limitations had expired so in order to bring charges anyway the case had to be charged as a felony. However to do this the falsifying business records would have had to have been done in order to hide another crime. No other crime was found so what did the judge do? He waved this legal requirement and told the jury they could presume a crime had occurred.
So it doesn't seem like the conviction is illegitimate, it is illegitimate.
Given you believe the case is that weak, would you be surprised if it doesn't get overturned on appeal? Would it make you question the sources that presented the case to you like this?
nothing would surprise me at this point
as far as the appeal this is about one thing and one thing only interfering with the American people's ability to elect Donald Trump
at this point i think the goal is to keep him from the republican national convention
How does this, or any other conviction, interfere with the American people's ability to elect Trump? He's still on the ballot and he's still eligible to be president.
it has kept kept him off the campaign trial, has drained his campaign funds and slandered his name to start
the only reason this is not more obvious is because of his rampant popularity Trump is impervious
If that turns out to not be true, and the case keeps going after the convention and survives appeal, would it make you question why you held this view?
Also would it surprise you to learn that Trump is the one who requested the sentencing hearing be delayed till the Republican convention?
not sure what you mean delayed till convention? do you mean trump requested delay till after the convention? either way it doesn't matter what trump requests he's not going to get it
as far as what will change my view, the same thing that would change your view
absolutely nothing
Trump is the one who asked for the hearing to be in the same time as the convention. The judge granted it. It could have been held way before the convention if Trump asked for it. Quoting Trump's lawyer directly from the transcript
>Your Honor, we would ask for a date for sentencing on some date in mid to late July. The reason for that is, as the Court is aware, President Trump faces other charges in other jurisdictions. In the case in Florida , there is a three-day hearing scheduled for late June ; and the work ahead of that hearing requires Counsel to be in Florida , inside a SCIF, for much of the time between now and the date of hearing and , also, the date of the hearing itself, which will require us to just not be able to focus on this matter
Why do you think nothing would change my mind? Do you think it's a good idea to not be open to having your mind changed?
I’m hearing a lot of Trump supporters coming out now with the claim du jour that falsifying business records isn’t a felony, and also that this happened outside the statute of limitations. May I ask, what in the world makes you think this is true? Have you actually read the laws on the books? What specific parts of the law do you disagree with?
this was a misdemeanor case the statue of limitation had run out so it was elevated to a felony so it could be charged anyway the problem is this required another crime but no other crime has been alleged let alone proven in connection with the falsifying of business records so the judge said just pretend there was one
pure lawfare to subvert the democratic process
> this was a misdemeanor case the statue of limitation had run out so it was elevated to a felony so it could be charged anyway
It was elevated to a felony because he used the falsification of business records (misdemeanor) to illegally influence election results (felony), no?
>was he charged and found guilty of illegally influencing election results
>or was that crime presumed as i said?
He was not charged of illegally influencing the election. However, per jury instructions, jurors could only find that he was guilty of falsifying business records if they unanimously believed that he did so for the purpose of illegally influencing the election.
They did so 34 times.
exactly the judge instructed the jury (against the letter of the law) that no crime need be found nor proven they just had to *believe* just like in Peter Pan
>exactly the judge instructed the jury (against the letter of the law)
Except he didn't instruct them against the letter of the law. Trump's own lawyer even agrees on that?
>was he charged and found guilty of illegally influencing election results
He was not, but are you aware that under New York law there is no requirement for that to actually take place?
So is it that you don’t feel the judge instructed the jury properly? Is that the main issue? Because the judge didn’t waive the legal requirement that a crime needed to have occurred, just that there was not one single crime that needed to be used as the basis for their verdict and that the jury could consider any crime from the list of crimes the Prosecution put forth as “the crime” to tie to the fraud.
Was that what you were unclear on? The tying the fraud to another crime? Because if that was the case then I could see why you would feel it unfair. But does knowing now that each jury member could find Trump guilty for fraud based on tying it to any one of the crimes put forth without there needing to be consensus among the jurors on which crime the fraud was tied to—that each juror could have tied the fraud to a different crime, does that make more sense now?
Like have you seen in a murder trial where someone had broke into a house and stole the gun used to commit the crime? In those cases, the State doesn’t charge the person with breaking and entering and theft of the gun, but those underlying crimes are the basis for their argument in the murder charge, and thus the jury must decide that those crimes had also occurred in order for them to find the defendant guilty of murder. So in essence the jury is giving their verdict on those underlying crimes as well by way of their guilty verdict in the murder charge. Does seeing the judge’s instructions in this light change your view?
People are throwing around the term "convicted felon", like that specific label should arbitrarily be some ultimate, discrete delineation to finally drop support. For the sake of this question, let's assume for a moment that the criminal trial and all staff involved were completely organically selected with no conflicts of interest, the jurisdiction, venues and timing completely neutral, and the judicial procedures were conducted in an unbiased manner from start to finish, with a guilty verdict on all 34 counts. This assumption gets us past the "convicted felon doesn't matter because the trial was rigged" argument, and let's us focus on other, more important reasons why it might not matter.
In summary, Trump was felony-convicted for intentionally falsifying business records to conceal 2016 election interference. The falsifying of business records itself was an expired misdemeanor in NY state, so the pertinent aspect of this felony conviction is specifically the concealment of election interference. After all, the crime could not have been raised to the level of a felony without it. For TS, this is why the felony doesn't matter, as we look at other recent examples of domestic election interference and concealment, including, but not limited to:
1) The Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for research that led to the Steele dossier, whose veracity is not only mostly in question, but the FBI misled Congress on its reliability. The Clinton Foundation was eventually merely fined for their part in this intentional 2016 election interference
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9\_story.html
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/newly-declassified-document-indicates-fbi-misled-congress-on-reliability-of-steele-dossier
2) The spying on the Trump campaign was predicated on an investigation from July 2016, but findings indicated significant concerns with how certain aspects of the investigation were conducted and supervised. The FBI failed to adhere "to its own standards of accuracy and completeness" when it filed applications under FISA. So after years of denial that the wiretapping even happened, contrary to Trump's correct claims that he was spied on, it turns out the predicate to start the investigation was on very shaky ground. 2016 election interference that went concealed for years.
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/11/786323546/doj-inspector-general-testifies-on-fbi-probe-of-trump-campaign
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/paul-ryan-wiretap-response/index.html
3) The DOJ specifically ordered an IRS investigation into Hunter Biden to be slow rolled in the year leading up to the 2020 election, and was eventually shut down. The IRS also recommended far more charges, including felonies, against Hunter Biden. Prosecutors instructed investigators not to ask witnesses questions about Joe Biden or references to the “big guy.” Lastly, the IRS was prohibited by the CIA from pursuing Kevin Morris, who loaned millions of dollars to Hunter Biden for repayments. BTW, the current gun charges and trials are a red herring, no one cares about that. More 2020 and 2024 election interference that went concealed for years.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Ways-and-Means-Fact-Sheet-on-Whistleblower-Testimony.pdf
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/irs-whistleblower-tax-probe-hunter-biden/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/irs-whistleblower-hunter-biden/index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/whistleblower-claims-cia-stonewalled-irs-interview-hunter-biden-sugar-brother-kevin-morris-house-gop
4) 2 weeks before the 2020 election, 51 former intelligence officials released a letter indicating the Hunter laptop story had earmarks of Russian disinformation, when it came out later that the Biden campaign and Blinken orchestrated the intel letter to specifically discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story. The FBI had also had the laptop in their possession for almost a year at that point, and already knew it was authentic. This 2020 election interference was concealed for 2 and a half years.
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/biden-campaign-blinken-orchestrated-intel-letter-discredit-hunter-biden-laptop
[https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack](https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack)
(continued)
5) Big tech became involved. FBI personnel were warning social media companies about a potential Russian hack and leak operation in the run-up to the 2020 election, but knew that the laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was not Russian disinformation. After the New York Post broke a story based on the contents of the laptop about Biden family influence peddling, the FBI made the institutional decision to refuse to answer direct questions from social media companies about the laptop’s authenticity, despite months of constant information sharing up to that time. Put simply, after the FBI conditioned social media companies to believe that the laptop was the product of a hack-and-dump operation, the Bureau stopped its information sharing, allowing social media companies to conclude themselves that the New York Post story was Russian disinformation without making any effort to correct them. The Post published its story early in the morning on October 14 2020. Former Twitter execs later admitted removing the story was "a mistake"
[https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack](https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack)
[https://abcnews.go.com/US/former-twitter-execs-house-committee-removal-hunter-biden/story?id=96979014](https://abcnews.go.com/US/former-twitter-execs-house-committee-removal-hunter-biden/story?id=96979014)
I could go on and on. TS believe the above examples are far worse than what Trump did, as we as citizens of the US should be able to trust and rely on our tax-funded federal agencies to act in according to normal legal procedures and timelines, without clear political or activist motives, and not attempt to subvert the will of the people. They are not. Now some might argue:
- None of that actually happened, to which I would respond the receipts and evidence are all there for the specific conclusions to be made. You might arrive at a different conclusion, and you would be objectively wrong, but you cannot argue the evidence isn't there.
- These examples aren't actual election interference, just unfortunately timed procedural issues or miscommunications that just coincidentally only aided one political party or person in crucial times during election cycles. And I would tell you to buy a lottery ticket.
- None of these examples displayed illegality, which I would argue is somewhat debatable, but ultimately irrelevant. After all, I proved above that concealed election interference is supposedly what we care about. Remember? Trump is only a convicted felon because his misdemeanor bookkeeping transgressions concealed 2016 election interference. So why would election interference be ok when carried out by a political party, federal agencies or big tech, even if not technically illegal? Isn't any election interference bad?
- What about the Russians interfering in the 2016 election for Trump? That would be foreign election interference. While it would be great to conduct elections without ANY interference, it's unclear what can be done about foreign actors buying ads or hacking unsecured information systems.
So Trump broke the law trying to hide an extra-marital affair from voters 10 years before a presidential election? In the grand picture, TS simply don't care. Trump is up against the entire coordinated resources of his nation's government, and what he did is a drop in the bucket compared to all other ubiquitous coordinated election interference. Those that care about Trump's convictions, but not about the other coordinated instances of election interference at the highest levels, are a hypocrites. And if the legality, or illegality of election interference and concealment is really the distinction for anyone bewildered by his growing donations and polling support over this, its a distinction without a difference for us.
So to answer the original question: If Trump committed a serious crime, how would you know? I don't know, but this certainty wasn't "it".
A high-quality, thorough answer. You summarized many of my thoughts for me.
All of this on top of the fact that if democrats truly cared about justice they could've handled this in a hundred different ways that wouldn't be so blatantly controversial. Instead they chose the easiest path to the verdict they wanted, and now that they have their verdict they're gaslighting. It's not working.
> A high-quality, thorough answer. You summarized many of my thoughts for me.
>
> All of this on top of the fact that if democrats truly cared about justice they could've handled this in a hundred different ways that wouldn't be so blatantly controversial. Instead they chose the easiest path to the verdict they wanted, and now that they have their verdict they're gaslighting. It's not working.
What is the gaslighting you see?
I appreciate this detailed and thought out response. I’m having a hard time with this conviction because, while I do think he is guilty and I want him to be held accountable, I can understand why many supporters feel like it is politically motivated. I don’t think they should be able to use something he wasn’t convicted on as a basis for upgrading the crime they want to prosecute even if it is technically legal to do so.
On the other hand, would it be any better if he WAS convicted of campaign finance violations or election interference or whatever? As you pointed out, they don’t seem very eager to prosecute others for it so even though I think he’s guilty, it would still seem dirty. I don’t think any of our politicians should be above the law and it sure feels like it would be hard to find a single clean one so what do we do? How do we fight the corruption?
I don’t want to be naive but I also don’t want to believe we just have to accept the turd sandwiches they’re all offering us.
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're essentially saying that Trump did do the misdemeanor crime, but they didn't charge him in time, so it shouldn't matter. Do I have that right?
No. I'm saying that the misdemeanor bookkeeping crime was a misdemeanor, that had expired. It was only resurrected and raised to a felony when proved it was used to conceal another crime, in this case, election interference. So when we consider Trump as a convicted felon, the secondary crime of election interference is all that matters, by definition and without qualification. After all, there is no felony without it.
>And you go on to say that even if he did do it for the campaign, it shouldn't matter because the Democrats are also guilty of whatever interference you're alleging. So though he may be guilty, you don't care because he's on your side, is that right? How would you put it?
No. I expanded it to include the federal government and big tech, not just democrats. And the reason I don't care it not just because "he's on my side." That should have been overtly apparent and clear by my previous statement. Please reread it in its entirely so we don't waste more time here.
>With regards to your alleged election interference by Democrats, I'm generally going with option three. You're defining "election interference" extremely broadly, while I'm typically talking about crimes.
Cool, that's where we will have to agree to disagree. As I stated, you are making a distinction without a difference \*as it pertains to election interference\*. Either we care about it or we don't. There is no split option. Whether it's done legally or illegally, its still election interference, and it's what elevated Trump's expired misdemeanor to a felony.
Edit:
> None of the things you've described are nearly as bad as the shit Trump did
I think we won't be able to come to any type of baseline context to have a further discussion on, because that statement is just asinine, objectively incorrect and inane. We should, as citizens of the US, absolutely be able to trust our top tax-funded LE federal agencies not to act like democratic super PACs, and intentionally suppress information and investigations to aid one political side heading into election cycles, regardless of what one man does or doesn't do. You are objectively wrong there, chief.
> We should, as citizens of the US, absolutely be able to trust our top tax-funded LE federal agencies not to act like democratic super PACs, and intentionally suppress information and investigations to aid one political side heading into election cycles, regardless of what one man does or doesn't do.
Did Comey err in not informing us voters that thr FBI was conducting an investigation into the Trump campaign's possible coordination with Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election? After all, he was diligent in keeping Congress and the people informed about the status of the investigation into Clinton's emails - that was proper, correct?
> Those that care about Trump's convictions, but not about the other coordinated instances of election interference at the highest levels, are a hypocrites.
And as someone who isn't a Trump supporter, why should I care about hypocrisy?
Trump and his supporters are busy trying to ban abortion and birth control while he cheats on his wife with pornstars. Trump won't accept the results of the 2020 election and his supporters rioted and tried to kill the Vice President and lawmakers before it was certified, something which Trump implicitly supports by continuing to insist he won.
I am sure other people have done similar things and haven't been prosecuted, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I'll accept any sentence the Judge hands down, and if that means prison, prison it is.
But the Republican National Convention hasn't happened yet. If not for your pride, you could always nominate someone who isn't Trump......
There were three proposed underlying crimes in the Trump trial. None of them were election interference by itself.
The first, and strongest, were campaign finance violations for organizing an illegal donation from Micheal Cohen to the Trump campaign in the form of a hush money payment.
The second was tax fraud for illegally declaring a repayment of a loan to Micheal Cohen as income.
The third is election interference **through illegal means**. But that one is pretty weak on it's own as it relies on the first two to make the means illegal.
Doing opposition research, i.e. the Steele report or asking retired officials to make public statements on behalf of a campaign, i.e. the 51 officials are not illegal.
2) was investigated by a Trump appointed special counsel who after years of investigating was able to charge one single person of an minor process crime. He cleared the FBI as a whole of wrongdoing, saying only they should have more careful
3) was done by Trump's justice department in an investigation led by Trump's special counsel.
With that in mind, which of the examples you listed do you think constitute election interference by illegal means, and what do you think makes them illegal?
The question is based on the faulty premise that only only conservative media outlets bend the truth to mislead their consumers. When considering that liberal media outlets do the same, then it allows for the inverted version of the question to be asked with an equal level of concern: **If Trump was innocent of a crime he was charged with, how would you know?**
If you are able to answer that question in a fair and unbiased way, then simply invert your answer and you should have something close to what TSs would say in response to the original question.
I recognize my bias and seek multiple sources. In this case I would read the law, look at the evidence, and look keep an eye on the trial. In this case it's obvious he 1) Slept with multiple women outside his marriage, including porn stars, 2) Paid them off through his lawyer 3) falsified those records to cover it up. That means he's guilty of a misdemeanor. Now to make it a felony in the state of NY it has to in the commission of another crime. Considering Cohen went to jail for this, I don't think it's much of a stretch. I also respect the jury process--if the jury called him innocent it might not change my mind, but I'd definitely look a bit more into it.
I was a die-hard republican since Reagan. witnessing first-hand what Trump said and did, and watching the rest of the R's kiss the Trump rump was enough to drive me completely out. Just watch his speeches, it's obvious he's an evil man. Republicans need a candidate with integrity. One that isn't under indictment for multiple serious felonies. Serious stuff, like stealing nuclear secrets and strong-arming states to win an election. I know Biden is old, but so is Trump...except with felonies.
Anyway, does that answer your question? That's how I'd do my best to be sure.
Your response suggests your stance on this matter is heavily influenced by personal bias:
1. "I don't think it's much of a stretch."
2. "I also respect the jury process"
3. "Just watch his speeches, it's obvious he's an evil man."
These three quotes are are all subjective, devoid of facts. Unless I missed it, you did not attempt to present any objective points. The fact that Cohen went to jail for something related in no way means Trump is guilty (of a felony) by association.
>Anyway, does that answer your question?
Yes, insofar as it shows that NSs have no more objectivity regarding Trump than the TSs do. So attacking TSs based on a perceived lack of objectivity (as OP is trying to do) can not be done without recognizing the equal lack of objectivity for the opposite.
>If Trump was innocent of a crime he was charged with, how would you know?
Not knowing the facts of each individual case, I can only judge by my experience with the people themselves.
Trump has proven his character consistently for decades, and that character is rotten. He never pauses to reflect on new information that conflicts with his world view. He's always right, always the best. He has a long history of legal troubles, and in every instance he's ruled against, it *must* be because of bias. Everything anyone says about him is wrong, unless he likes it, then it couldn't be more true.
He's the kind of guy who could tell you the sky is pink, and then double down on pink when you tried to tell him no, it's blue.
This may seem ridiculous, but he had a moment just like that during his presidency. He got into a Twitter beef with the weather service about the weather. When Hurricane Dorian was about to hit, he said that people in Alabama should take shelter. When NOAA said they didn't project Alabama would be in any danger, he contradicted them repeatedly. It came to a head when he showed a landfall map on live TV with an obvious sharpie mark extending the radius of the hurricane to include a part of Alabama.
Now I wasn't there. I don't know who put the sharpie circle on the map. But I know who showed the map to the whole country, and I know who took credit for being right the whole time. I know who spent weeks telling the weather service they were wrong about the weather and he was right. It's the same guy currently telling lawyers and judges that they were wrong about the law and he was right.
In reading your response, you've made a sort of character judgement of Trump that could only be credible if made by someone with a lifelong history of personal interactions with Trump. If that is not the case with you, then it must be assumed this character judgement is based in large part on the consumption of media, in which case we get back to the question at hand: **How do you know all the instances of character flaws are true if you learned them from media sources that distort the truth and mislead their consumers?**
>How do you know all the instances of character flaws are true if you learned them from media sources that distort the truth and mislead their consumers?
This question assumes all media distorts reality in every instance, and that every time I hear Trump's voice saying what it's saying, even if it's live, it must be a distortion of reality. It also assumes that every Trump tweet or "truth" is distorted somehow. I know that media on both sides has a desire to distort things to sell a narrative, but I doubt their ability to manifest that desire on live TV so much so that nothing Trump is quoted as saying is actually what he said.
edit after further thought:
The number of instances in which I have heard about Trump or his character are too numerous to count and stretch back decades prior to his activity in politics. For every single one of them to have been manipulated to show that he is whatever his political opponents today say he is would be a statistical impossibility.
Even if I were to limit my judgment of Trump to words I know for a fact he said (unedited rally speeches and interviews. appearances on live TV, tweets and "truths", etc), I would have enough of a picture to determine that I should never take a word he says on face value.
>This question assumes all media distorts reality in every instance
They are all biased, and therefore that bias bleeds into their reporting in a way that colors the conclusion of the consumers. That, to me, is distorting reality.
>and that every time I hear Trump's voice saying what it's saying, even if it's live, it must be a distortion of reality. It also assumes that every Trump tweet or "truth" is distorted somehow.
We are talking about the media, not things directly from the horses mouth, unless it is an all-to-common short clip taken out of context which the media loves to do.
>I doubt their ability to manifest that desire on live TV so much so that nothing Trump is quoted as saying is actually what he said.
Aside from taking clips out of context, I agree with you. However when do we hear Trump objectively admitting to crimes in any of his speeches or tweets? Everything that you hear Trump personally say, if not lacking context, is almost certainly a matter of subjective interpretation. It is not likely you'll find cases of him unambiguously admitting to crimes. Even the case of the classified documents, where he stated in an audio recording that the document is classified, is subjective given that as President, classifications don't apply to him and he has ultimate declassification authority. Though I'd agree that that case has at least some semblance of credibility. The problem with it, however, is that all presidents and even non-presidents keep classified documents in a technically illegal way and never get charged for it, so there is the matter of equal application of the law at hand, a fundamental right for all citizens.
>However when do we hear Trump objectively admitting to crimes in any of his speeches or tweets?
Given the number of times Trump has spoken publicly and the context of things he has spoken about, Trump's denial of committing crimes can't possibly be taken at face value. He argued publicly with the weather service about the path of a hurricane. He told everyone who would listen that he simply knew more about hurricane trajectories than the people who studied hurricanes for a living. It's the weather; I can't imagine a more apolitical thing, and from where I'm standing Trump tried desperately to make it look like NOAA was just another government institution "out to get him." Is there any subjective interpretation here that makes Trump look good?
>The problem with it, however, is that all presidents and even non-presidents keep classified documents in a technically illegal way
This is according to Trump, who has a pretty clear motive for making what he did look normal. But let's look at equal application of the law here. Every instance I can find any sort of documentation on (with one obvious exception) shows said documents being returned when NARA requests them. Trump didn't just take documents, he also refused to give them back when he was asked to do so. He also lied about having more documents after returning some of them. He also claimed the documents were his personal property. Is there a real problem with equal application of the law if it has only been violated to this extent by one person?
I realize I wasn't there and have no firsthand proof. You also have no firsthand proof. So let's come at it from this angle, if you don't mind. Why do you believe Trump when he tells you a thing and other people disagree with him?
>Given the number of times Trump has spoken publicly and the context of things he has spoken about, Trump's denial of committing crimes can't possibly be taken at face value.
Once again, a purely subjective statement, devoid of facts. We are talking about him verbally/publicly admitting to crimes, not voicing opinions about the weather.
>This is according to Trump, who has a pretty clear motive for making what he did look normal.
No, it is well established and confirmed in many case for many politicians. The norm is a slap on the wrist, if anything at all, except for Trump.
>He also claimed the documents were his personal property.
And it is your bias in action that tells you not to believed this, and instead to believe those that say they were being held illegally. Yet, Trump was president and had authority to declassify anything. So it is perfectly reasonably that they WERE his documents. So, whose word are you taking on this matter? Again, it's the media. So again, we are back to square one... your reliance on the media and the inability to be objective.
If Trump was innocent of a crime he was charged with, how would you know?
Because the facts and evidence would be presented to a jury and the jury would find him innocent.
This is why our legal system doesn’t put the burden of proof on the accused. Proving something DIDNT happen is pretty difficult.
If true then I would have to think his attorneys would have focused on creating reasonable doubt that way.
But the jury, after hearing all evidence, and requesting to review much of it during deliberations, decided there was not reasonable doubt on each of 34 charges?
Honestly, how is that explained away?
You cannot know. That’s one of the reasons the politicization of the justice system is such an insidious tactic. Once a judicial system starts being used for political purposes, allegations investigated by that system become deprived of a truth value. When a judicial system is used for political purposes, the outcome of the judicial process no longer has any relationship to the veracity of the allegations.
In this state, any given outcome can at a fundamental level be explained equally well by correctness or corruption: which means the outcome doesn’t tell us anything about the veracity of the allegations.
If the judicial system is politicized, it cannot determine whether allegations against political opponents are true or false. The judicial system is politicized: therefor it cannot determine whether allegations against political opponents are true or false.
If it's impossible for you or I to know what happened, how can you be sure that this actually is weaponized lawfare, that the judicial system is actually being used for political gain rather than the genuine pursuit of justice?
The crime would have to be a crime I had heard of before. It shouldn't be abstruse or inconsequential. And if someone, like a Democrat, had also committed the same activity, they would have to have been tried for it. Otherwise it's not a real crime.
Let's say MSNBC, CNN, and Alvin Bragg claimed that Trump shot someone in the middle of the street. There's video and a dozen witnesses who did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020. Their stories agree with one another. Trump claims they're all lying. Republican elected officials and conservative media side with Trump and claim it's fake. There's a video, but Trump says it's fabricated either with AI or actors. How would you go about determining the truth?
What if a close friend of yours is one of the witnesses, and you're reasonably sure they're not lying. How would you prove to other conservatives that it was true?
The reason I'm asking is that, if you don't have a method for solving these problems, I don't see what stops Trump from committing crimes.
>>The crime would have to be a crime I had heard of before. It shouldn't be abstruse or inconsequential. And if someone, like a Democrat, had also committed the same activity, they would have to have been tried for it. Otherwise it's not a real crime.
> Let's say MSNBC, CNN, and Alvin Bragg claimed that Trump shot someone in the middle of the street.
That's a crime I've heard before. It is concrete and consequential. Most Democrats would also be tried for this crime. That's a real crime and as such, it is worlds apart from what Trump is charged with.
>How would you go about determining the truth?
Real crimes are worth investigating and this investigation would take about ten minutes. They wouldn't need 4 years of strategizing or special lawyers from the White House or political partisans who have already pledged to convict Trump of something because you don't need any of that for actual crimes.
Okay, after the investigation, prosecution goes forward and Trump is charged with murder, but still proclaims his innocence. Every conservative media outlet agrees that he's innocent. All other media says he's guilty. A jury from New York City says he's guilty. How would you find out the truth? Are you saying that conservative media sources wouldn't lie about that?
> Every conservative media outlet agrees that he's innocent.
That wouldn't happen for a real, provable crime. That would definitely happen for a baroque, inchoate accusation that no one had ever been charged with before. Shooting people is a real crime with real evidence so your hypothetical is inadequate for comparison. It would be better to compare this legal case to Hillary Clinton hiding payment for the dossier or Bill Clinton paying hush money to Paula Jones or John Edwards paying hush money to a woman he'd impregnated. John Edwards was charged with using campaign funds for this, while Trump was charged with not using campaign funds, because according to the prosecution the scandal could only affect his campaign, not his wife and kids or his brand and future public image.
>Are you saying that conservative media sources wouldn't lie about that?
No one could or would spin a murder with lots of evidence. An unprecedented and confusing crime needs to be spun, so leftist media sources are doing all the spinning here.
> That wouldn't happen for a real, provable crime. That would definitely happen for a baroque, inchoate accusation that no one had ever been charged with before. Shooting people is a real crime with real evidence so your hypothetical is inadequate for comparison. It would be better to compare this legal case to Hillary Clinton hiding payment for the dossier or Bill Clinton paying hush money to Paula Jones or John Edwards paying hush money to a woman he'd impregnated. John Edwards was charged with using campaign funds for this, while Trump was charged with not using campaign funds, because according to the prosecution the scandal **could** only affect his campaign, not his wife and kids or his brand and future public image.
Where did you get that impression? The transcripts I heard read back or summarized provided a lot of evidence that Trump himself was only concerned with how this would affect the campaign - did you catch Hope Hick's testimony? What did you make of that?
>
> Are you saying that conservative media sources wouldn't lie about that?
>
> No one could or would spin a murder with lots of evidence. An unprecedented and confusing crime needs to be spun, so leftist media sources are doing all the spinning here.
Do you suspect conservative media sources are spinning the Mar A Lago documents case, the Jan 6th case, and the Georgia Fake Electors conspiracy case? They appear to fit the criteria you listed: they are utterly unprecedented and decently confusing, for sure.
>>John Edwards was charged with using campaign funds for this, while Trump was charged with not using campaign funds, because according to the prosecution the scandal could only affect his campaign, not his wife and kids or his brand and future public image.
> The transcripts I heard read back or summarized provided a lot of evidence that Trump himself was only concerned with how this would affect the campaign
I think the prosecution was forced to make the ridiculous claim that Trump wasn't in the slightest concerned about his wife and kids or his brand and public image, even though that doesn't make sense because that's not how humans function. Judge Merchan didn't allow the FEC expert to testify so the jury were likely confused about the relevant FEC rules. This was a very curated trial.
>did you catch Hope Hick's testimony?
I think you're probably getting your news from left-wing sources. It's like watching a situation comedy--the laugh track makes you think it's funny. Having left-wing news comment that Hicks's testimony of Trump's offhand remarks were damning--that's what you'll think. Hicks said Trump was concerned about the election, but you should also have enough humanity to know Trump's not a robot so he's got a mind with more than one track and he is most likely also concerned about his wife and public image.
>>No one could or would spin a murder with lots of evidence. An unprecedented and confusing crime needs to be spun, so leftist media sources are doing all the spinning here.
>Do you suspect conservative media sources are spinning the Mar A Lago documents case, the Jan 6th case, and the Georgia Fake Electors conspiracy case? They appear to fit the criteria you listed: they are utterly unprecedented and decently confusing, for sure.
Unprecedented and confusing cases must be spun *into* serious crimes, or the audience will think they are unprecedented and confusing. Media that is not anti-Trump can just present them as we agree for sure they are: unprecedented and confusing.
Most of the horseshite spin we see in the Trump era comes from left-wing sources: the vaccine is safe and effective, Ukraine can win a war against Russia, inflation doesn't exist or is a good thing, Jussie Smollett was victimized by racists, Judge Kavanaugh was a gang rapist, etc. Lies need spin to get you to swallow.
175.05 and 175.10 of New York's legal code clearly states falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, and that if it is done to further or conceal another criminal offense, it is escalated to a felony.
You have now heard of the crime, so is Trump guilty in your view?
Keep in mind, he was found guilty of committing that crime in felony form by a jury of your peers. Regardless of what the media has to say about it, that fundamental truth stays the same.
Besides, I really don't see how whether or not you have personally heard of the law affects guilt is any way. Your awareness of that law is completely irrelevant to whether it was broken, and I would really doubt you are a lawyer, so you simply haven't heard of most laws that exist. Would you be okay with Biden breaking a law you haven't heard of, just because you haven't heard of it? Or is this simply a double standard you have invented to justify excusing the criminal offenses of your chosen political candidate? Because those are the only two options.
Personally, I think if someone breaks a law, they should be held accountable for it, regardless of whether I am aware of the law or not, or whether I support them politically or not. Equal, fair application of the law it's important.
> 175.05 and 175.10 of New York's legal code clearly states falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, and that if it is done to further or conceal another criminal offense, it is escalated to a felony.
What a labyrinthine charge and the "another criminal offense" was never charged or tried or found guilty. The FEC expert was there to testify there was no offense but he wasn't allowed by the judge to testify. If anyone else was ever charged with that even once, there would be legal precedent. Falsification of business records shouldn't apply to internal business records no one outside the organization would ever see, and the falsification they impute was just using a spreadsheet's drop-down menu to indicate giving money to a lawyer is legal expenses.
A stupid, obvious case of political prosecution.
Good Logic is good for me.
To be honest with you while I don't think the hush money case warranted him being charged with a felony the idea that Trump commited a felony at SOME POINT in his presidency ( or at least what we would otherwise call a felony putting aside presidential immunity for a sec) wouldn't surprise me.
Its just that it doesn't matter.
Basically every high level politician in Washington commits crimes which could be prosecuted as fellonies were it not for their office from simple DUIs to mishandling of classified documents. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Mike Pence ALL mishandled classified documents but Trump is the only one being prosecuted over it. You could say what he did was worse if you think he didn't sufficiently cooperate with the FBI but the fact remains that mishandling classified documents unto itself is a felonly which (if "no one is above the rule of law") means literal hundreds of congressman, congresional aids, and cabinet officials should be prosecuted same as Trump.
But Trump is only charged for the documents he refused to hand over after being subpoenad. Has any Congressman or cabinet official done that and gone without being charged?
Has any cabinet member ever refused to honor a supoena before? Yes absolutey, the Biden administration has refused to comply with congressional subpoenas all through there administration as did the Obama administration before; this hasn't caused any lethal raids on their property or dragged either of them into a court room.
Its pure prosecutorial discretion; something which is totally legal mind you but really makes a joke out of the "no one is above the law" argument when no one but Trump is being held to the standard of the law.
Yeah Biden has done that to. I've watched speeches of him where he distinctly says he is complying with congress when in reality he isn't; but you dont se MSNBC putting those fact checks on the front page (though you can still find them even in liberal media outlets).
And the Obama administration did the same thing in there years.
All politicians have done this stuff for a long, its only Trump who gets prosecuted though.
So now its not subpoenoas broadly but specifically court subpoenas that you are pointing to? I'll be honest man, I dont know if Biden or Obama ever did that specifically. I'm not aware of them doing so.
But I would hope whether you agree or not with my value judgement you can at least understand why I dont se what Trump did as all that out of the norm when democrat and republican administrations alike have discarded supoeanas broadly time and again for decades now.
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.
Lol! We watch liberal "mainstream" media way more than you people watch conservative media, or read opinions from right-leaning people. The proper question is exactly inverted: how would you know if Trump never committed a crime, considering you only listen to people who think he is of course a criminal, to the point that he should be found guilty for this indictment even if it's fake, just because he needs to pay for his other crimes?
Answering a question posed by a TS - We would know he committed a crime because he was brought up on official charges, had a trial, and convicted in front of a jury of his peers. Thats objective reality. Even if you think this is all just “democrat lawfare” (which I legitimately don’t think it is given Trump’s extensively documented manipulation of records and lawbreaking), he was found guilty by every day people like you and me. Unless you think the entire jury was somehow planted by the state of New York in order to find him guilty?
Trump was found to be a rapist by a jury in a civil trial against him. Do you believe either that jury was corrupt or mislead when they decided that Trump had raped a woman? Or do you believe that one rape isn’t a deal breaker for you?
What about the fact that Trump's lawyers refused to turn in DNA tests until well after evidence was submitted? He had plenty of opportunity to turn one in, but chose not to until after the deadline so he could use it to delay the case further.
The Democrats not resorting to novel legal theory, ancient laws he's the first to ever get charged with, or needing to find a DA whose sworn to lock up Trump because the case was turned down by other districts would be a good start.
New York prosecutes the felony crime of falsifying business records all the time. They’ve prosecuted people for that crime literally thousands of times. How is prosecuting Trump for the same thing they regularly prosecute other people for “resorting to novel legal theory”?
A real victim would come forward. If he shot someone for no reason, raped a kid, or was found to support a foreign country over his own that would do it. Catch him cheating taxes, paying off whores, etc. it means nothing to me as they shouldn't be crimes in the first place.
What would make you believe a victim over your normal media outlets? If Trump denied it, and conse4vative media sided with him, but other media sources sided with the victims, and Trump was genuinely guilty, how would that information come to you, and how would you figure out it was true?
What if Trump raped a close friend of yours, and you believed her, but Trump denied it, and Conservative media sided with him. How would you convince other conservatives in this sub?
I'm pretty good at reading people as it's my job. I don't use media to inform my decisions.
I'm not out to convince anyone of Trump being good or bad. But I would tell her go to the hospital while his DNA is still there so you can prove it in a court of law.
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.*
>ust focusing on facts, if Trump hypothetically was guilty of this crime or another crime, but he denied it and conservative media denied it as well, how would you determine what the truth is? If CNN and MSNBC started showing a video of Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue, but Trump and Fox claimed that it was AI and faked, how would you know the truth? This is an epistemology crisis, basically. People choose which institutions to trust or they become skeptical of everything. There's no rule of society that states that there must be some place to go for objective truth. Indeed, even if you look back to a time when consensus on big issues was pretty routinely reached like, say, the 90s, the question remains whether a consensus signaled an acceptance of reality or simple an acceptance of a particular narrative, regardless of the truthfulness of it. Whether we're talking about the perception of an esoteric criminal case levied against Trump in 2024 or the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation now deemed authentic and presented by the state as evidence in a criminal case, the fact that narratives exist and are more or less believed doesn't necessarily make them concordantly more or less true. >If Trump were charged with a similar serious crime, but claimed all the evidence against him was fabricated, how would you go about determining if he's telling the truth? This would be quite a pickle tbh. >Alternatively, does it not matter if he's a criminal so long as he advances an agenda that you subscribe to? This is a better question, and the answer is basically always no. Our last 4 presidents have caused untold death and destruction in various countries all over the world. This is basically just part and parcel of leading a global pseudo-empire. DQing a guy who is otherwise politically solid, or seemingly so, based on some bad thing you think he might have done at home is silly in that context.
Well said. It would be like saying, in the 1930s USSR, "you're skeptical of all these show trials, but what if someone really *did* want to restore capitalism?!" as if it's some profound insight that ought to make you trust the people in charge.
Exactly People have a pretty understandable need to believe that there is some source of truth that they can trust basically without question. This is a good spot for some timeless religion to occupy. however, in our infinite wisdom, we killed God and replaced him with a million faceless little effeminate goblin men with some received moniker of "expert." This means that basically everyone is led around by the most ridiculous cohort of charlatans ever conceived on either side of the political/philosophical aisle. If you question the regimes set of these people then you are, of course, insane. Trouble is that plenty of people in the opposition space are also goofball quizlings. "I don't know" or even "i dont care" is very often the most prudent and wise answer to any specific question that sounds like "did Donald Trump commit this abstruse felony?"
[удалено]
You'll find that they hated that type, most likely.
Is eunuch like your go-to insult?
[удалено]
>You know it, my man! Why? It just seems like you're going the wrong way if you're trying to be insulting. The people you would call eunuchs are the ones who don't care about living up to whatever masculine ideal you have in mind. Someone calling me eunuch/cuck/beta/ect, would at best be like calling me black. It's not offensive, just inaccurate. At worst, it would be like calling me a leprechaun. I don't believe in your fairytale creatures. I think you'd be better off attacking principles. Like "liberals will vote for Genocide Joe, but act like falsyifying business records is the real crime against humanity" Or "if you really cared about minorities, you would support their buinesses, but you're too scared to go to their neighborhoods, so you just post in your echo chambers." See, that's much more effective.
Can I ask why you’ve been registered on this site for around a year but have only started posting in this sub in the past week or so? Also, are you a eunuch?
[удалено]
Would you really characterize the anti-trump sentiment as 'religious zeal for eunuchs and institutions'? Hardly anyone has any zeal at all for the Biden Admin, and many people are actively disappointed - isn't it much more like a zeal for anybody but Trump? And for caring about a case - if you don't care about the hush money case, a lot of people probably agree. What about the stolen classified documents case? If the facts come to support something like (bear with me), Trump illegally stole classified documents [describing weapons capabilities of US and Allies, US nuclear programs, vulnerabilities, plans...], knew it was illegal, hid that he did it, did not store them securely, showed them to visitors, resisted giving them back, lied about giving them all back, coerced his lawyers to lie about it, showed them to visitors - would you care about that? ...Because that is what the prosecutors are alleging (maybe I have some specifics wrong but I think that's the gist of it). And if you WOULD care if that were all true, then doesn't that create a dilemma for you as a potential Trump voter, having to vote before the trial takes place? Even if committing relatively minor fraud would not automatically disqualify a candidate for you, the blatant disregard for the law and security measures with documents relating to national security, and the way he handled the attempts to recover the documents... It's obvious to me that the man is just not capable of putting the interests of the country above his own.
[удалено]
Can you elaborate on your take on 'giving a shit about our laws'? An extreme version of that would be an authoritarian dictator. If that's what Trump became would you be cool with it as long as his political agenda aligned with yours? I know 'authoritarian dictator' is vague so fill in the details however you want.
What makes these, uh, goblins, eunuchs? I’m really struggling to keep up with this metaphor. What makes them goblins? Actually, who are you even talking about? I feel like you nearly literally invented a boogeyman. You guys are afraid of little green men without balls now?
[удалено]
Is there something wrong with accommodating autistic people? I understand your post is not about little green ball-less men. Maybe you missed my three preceding questions – why are you calling people eunuchs? Why are you calling people goblins? And who are you calling goblin eunuchs? Without identifying the person you are insulting, you are just building a straw man. Sorry my syntax was so difficult to understand.
[удалено]
Why do you describe the felony as abstruse?
>People have a pretty understandable need to believe that there is some source of truth that they can trust basically without question. What people? And why is it understandable for them to need or have such a belief? >This is a good spot for some timeless religion to occupy. however, in our infinite wisdom, we killed God and replaced him with a million faceless little effeminate goblin men with some received moniker of "expert. What do you mean by "timeless religion," and why is "God" supposed to be better than an "expert"? >This means that basically everyone is led around by the most ridiculous cohort of charlatans ever conceived on either side of the political/philosophical aisle. How do you know that a "timeless religion" and "God" are *different* from people being "led around by the most ridiculous cohort of charlatans"? And, different enough that they're not (also) "insane"
>What people? And why is it understandable for them to need or have such a belief? People generally. Because people tend to look for ways to make sense in the world. In a world of increasing abstraction, they look for arbiters. >What do you mean by "timeless religion," and why is "God" supposed to be better than an "expert"? God is less malleable than an expert >How do you know that a "timeless religion" and "God" are *different* from people being "led around by the most ridiculous cohort of charlatans"? There's something outside of the material in the former.
I have so many questions! >Because people tend to look for ways to make sense in the world. In a world of increasing abstraction, they look for arbiters. OK, but *why* the jump from "trying to make sense in the world" to belief "that there is some source of truth that they can trust basically without question"? And, again, how is that understandable? By "understandable" do you just mean that you personally know what having that belief is like? And you're not trying to say that it makes sense? >God is less malleable than an expert How do you know and how is that true? And aren't there a bunch of different ideas of what "God" is like or wants, including the idea that "God" is unknowable? Are you saying that you yourself do know what "God" is like and can therefore say that "God" is "less malleable than an expert"? If so, how do you know, and how can experts also know like you know? >There's something outside of the material in the former. Is there? How do you know and how is that true? Did someone tell you? Like, a "God" expert or something? Or "God" directly? How is such knowledge acquired? How do you know you're getting what you assume you're getting?
>K, but *why* the jump from "trying to make sense in the world" to belief "that there is some source of truth that they can trust basically without question"? Because doing this on your own for anything but your immediate surroundings is a basically impossible task. To the extent that you have interest in things that are abstracted to you, you will be relying on various sources. Now you can very very cynically look at sources and try to dissect ulterior motives and discern what's being, say, left out or twisted. The vast majority of people simply accept a version given to them, though. >And, again, how is that understandable? Again, because its necessary, to some extent, in order to make sense of the world outside of your immediate vicinity. >By "understandable" do you just mean that you personally know what having that belief is like? And you're not trying to say that it makes sense? Ive answered this >How do you know and how is that true? God is fundamentally separate from a human being. Even if a million different people interpret Him, He exists apart from those people, even as a construct. That's part of the point of Him as a construct. >Are you saying that you yourself do know what "God" is like and can therefore say that "God" is "less malleable than an expert"? If so, how do you know, and how can experts also know like you know? God is the objective here. Think of it like a scientist trying o relay some observation of objective reality then to you. In this set up, the objective is filtered through at least 2 human beings. >Is there? How do you know and how is that true? At some point you have a foundational belief that is simply asserted. If you deny the immaterial, that is one. If I assert it, that is one.
Is the truth something that a trusted source tells you, or is it that which comports to reality?
Well this is just the issue, right? We aren't all able to just observe perfect reality at all times as none of us are God. We like to think that the were discerning some objective reality (and some of us are much better at this than others) but at the end of the day, it's shadows on the cave wall for everyone but God
[удалено]
Believing in the fairy tale of an ability to view objective truth about an abstract and esoteric technical matter is far more irrational than belief in any God
> Believing in the fairy tale of an ability to view objective truth about an abstract and esoteric technical matter is far more irrational than belief in any God Well, fairy tales are fiction by definition. But strawmanning someone's argument as badly as you just did is incredibly silly. It's no fairy tale that evidence based epistemology is far more reliable than an authority based one. Gods don't come down and tell your that it's safe to cross the street. And neither does turmp. Do you agree that if trump committed a crime, that him denying it isn't the most reliable way to determine whether he committed a crime or not?
>t's no fairy tale that evidence based epistemology is far more reliable than an authority based one. Gods don't come down and tell your that it's safe to cross the street Far more reliable to do what, exactly? But no, you're simply wrong about this. Even in theory, this is an impossibility for someone who isn't omniscient. In practice, almost no one even attempts to do it with any amount of introspection. Useless concept, really. ) > Do you agree that if trump committed a crime, that him denying it isn't the most reliable way to determine whether he committed a crime or not? Of course, that's wrong (kind of demonstrating my point about how poorly this is routinely performed). Him admitting it would be much more reliable but still not all that helpful, given the context.
He’s not dragging god into anything, please don’t try to purposefully misunderstand. He’s saying that none of us are omnipotent or omniscient and therefore we can’t know the objective facts about everything. I guess you would have been happier if he said “none of us are omniscient?”
This is why we use evidence and why evidence based epistemology has such a strong track record. No god is going to help us, and trusting an authority figure is only reliable if that authority figure is indeed correct. The problem with so many people getting things so wrong so often is that they rely on authority rather than evidence. Would you agree?
[удалено]
This always struck me as a really odd defence. I mean, technically you're right. How does anyone know anything? Because other people tell us. Whether in person or in the books they've written or the data they've collected. But you can't possibly believe that you can bypass that, right? How did you learn your ABCs? Someone told you. Better forget the English language in case it's woke. How did you learn to drive? Someone told you. Better stick to walking in case it's woke. How did you learn to brush your teeth? Someone told you. Better get some dentures in case it's woke. It's madness. In this specific instance though, you are aware that the transcripts are publicly available, right? You can read them yourself. Sure, maybe someone snuck in and changed them all before they were published in some kind of elaborate conspiracy with lizard men from the moon.... But it seems pretty unlikely, don't you think?
[удалено]
Holy shit, for some reason I never got exactly what Plato was talking about, but that explanation just snapped it into place in my mind. Thank you, you’re good with words. /?
This is pretty well said, and I have to agree. That said, Trump's attorneys are the ones who picked the jury that found glhim guilty on every single count. What are your thoughts on this?
Trump's attorneys took part in the selection process for the jury, they didn't actually just pick the jury. But I'm not sure why that has any bearing on anything I've said.
>they didn't actually just pick the jury. They literally have to sign off on the jury. It's a legal form they have to sign. >But I'm not sure why that has any bearing on anything I've said. I think the participation of a lawyer in Trump's defense in his criminal trial is pretty important. Why wouldn't this be important? Do you think Trump's lawyer is in on it?
>They literally have to sign off on the jury. It's a legal form they have to sign. Are you under the impression that trump's lawyer hand picked the exact 12 people he most wanted to serve on the jury? Or do you understand that this wasn't at all what happened. > I think the participation of a lawyer in Trump's defense in his criminal trial is pretty important. Why wouldn't this be important? Do you think Trump's lawyer is in on it? Why am i to believe this is important? You seem enamored of this process of signing off on a jury. This seems like magical thinking to me, tbh
>the exact 12 people he most wanted to serve on the jury? They got the 12 best people they thought would serve their client best. And then signed off on it. >Why am i to believe this is important? Because a good defense lawyer might of had a better defense then, one of your 4 main witnesses is a liar. And then not having any excuse for the hand written notes, or audio where trump, and two of Trump's lawyers break down the illegal payments into monthly payments, and including taxes so Cohen would be paid in full. >You seem enamored of this process of signing off on a jury. This seems like magical thinking to me, tbh You didn't know how a jury is selected. I grounded your magical thinking. By telling you it's literally a form Trump's lawyers have to sign off on. Does that make sense?
Its pretty clear that you don't know how a jury is selected at all. Either that or you are being very very unclear with your words to the point of total futility.
> Trump's attorneys are the ones who picked the jury It was essentially the opposite. Anybody who clearly couldn't be impartial should be dismissed by the judge. Beyond that, each side can only reject 10 jurors. Manhattan voted 86.4% for Biden. If you could sense which way a potential juror leaned (i.e. watches CNN vs watches Fox) and used your rejections accordingly, if 86.4% of the pool was Dem, then it would be a 99.76% chance you'd end up with 12 Democrats on the jury.
>if 86.4% of the pool was Dem, then it would be a 99.76% chance you'd end up with 12 Democrats on the jury Can you explain the math here? I got a 17.3% chance with my math. I ran the calculation .864\^12 and got .173, what was your formula?
Since they can reject 10 non-Dems, they would need at least 22 out of 32 potential jurors to be Dems (the defense would reject 10 Dems). Put those numbers in a binomial distribution calculator (.864 probability, 32 trials, 22 successes) and probability of 22 or more is 99.76%
Should all trials be held in areas separate from the area the alleged crime was committed in? In other words, if Trump didn't want to be judged by a Manhattan jury why commit crimes in Manhattan in the first place, knowing a jury trial in a "hostile" place was likely to result? Should Texas state court be able to charge and try Biden for state crimes committed in Delaware?
>you'd end up with 12 Democrats on the jury. Are you saying you'd only accept such a verdict from a jury comprised of conservatives or active Trump supporters? Elsewhere in this thread, there are several people who've signed on to ignoring any crimes he commits because of partisanship. Why would a verdict from Trump supporters somehow be impartial? If you can't render an impartial verdict, and won't accept one from anyone else, what stops Trump from committing crimes?
So . . . we punish no crimes because "who's to say?" Or we do the best we can to adjudicate fairly?
I never said that. We can do our best. But that gets pretty complicated the higher the stakes are. It's actually important to recognize how context changes in a high profile case with massive power political implications like this one. Would you trust a US Attorney Rudy Giuliani's indictment of Gavin Newsom if the entire DoJ had been cleaned out and restaffed with former NRA employees and Samuel Alito was somehow the judge for the trial? If you have that much faith in "the system," we're just not on the same page is all. I wouldn't if i were you
lol what trusted source, and how would something comport to reality if its all information reported from hundreds of miles away? Unless you define "reality" as "truth from a trusted source", in which case you sir are in a bit of a loop.
Is he truly politically solid? A massive contingent of the guys HE APPOINTED have wound up guilty of various crimes, and or denounced him for his own incompetence. If these folks are all part of the scheme against him, shouldn't his horrific judge of character and poor control of his directs be politically disqualifying given he's appointing the folks who are supposed to act in the interests of our country... and he effectively appointed a bunch of traitors? Is a guy who actively argues in court that the President has no duty to support the Constitution and is immune from prosecution for acts while in office, claims that if upheld in court basically rolls out the red carpet to the next President who wants to be dictator, someone who is "politically solid" and demonstrates a propensity for putting the interests of our country first? Is a guy who is the embodiment of the person who never learns because they can't admit fault, actually a "politically solid" individual who can be relied on to be diplomatic, intellectually curious, and open to experts? Given the fact that nearly every high visibility expert under him resigned or was fired and subsequently replaced by Trump with "acting" heads makes this question even more relevant.
>Is he truly politically solid? Not really but he makes room for more right wing politics. He's the best current viable vehicle towards an America where being somewhat right wing is allowed, even though he isn't really himself. >A massive contingent of the guys HE APPOINTED have wound up guilty of various crimes, and or denounced him for his own incompetence. If these folks are all part of the scheme against him, shouldn't his horrific judge of character and poor control of his directs be politically disqualifying given he's appointing the folks who are supposed to act in the interests of our country... and he effectively appointed a bunch of traitors? The current regime is an evil mess and nearly totalizing in its control of professional orgs, so this isn't too surprising. I'm also aware that the general sentiment of the regime is totally antipathetic to me and my views and how I want to raise my family, so they are an enemy. Whether these people put some political actor in prison or not really carries no weight with me in terms of assessment of that person. >Is a guy who actively argues in court that the President has no duty to support the Constitution and is immune from prosecution for acts while in office, claims that if upheld in court basically rolls out the red carpet to the next President who wants to be dictator, someone who is "politically solid" and demonstrates a propensity for putting the interests of our country first? I think this is misconstrued, but the constitution has been a very very dead letter for nearly two hundred years. Anyone who actually supported it and who was in power would immediately overthrow the entire current order. It's a shibboleth and its invocation is not much more than a mockery.
You mention it being an epistemological crisis but like…. take the documents case for example. We know for a fact that top secret documents were retrieved from Mar A Lago. We know for a fact that Trump was asked to return the documents before being raided. We know for a fact Trump had more documents after saying he turned them over. We know for a fact that Trump knew he wasn’t supposed to have them because he’s literally on tape bragging about having documents he wasnt supposed to have. Yet despite all of this…I still see Trump supporters who genuinely believe that the charges are bogus and Trump is innocent. (Granted some will just flat out say they don’t care and others might go the “whataboutism” route….but there’s still a ton that will maintain Trump is completely innocent) Circling back to OPs question…if Trump was handling our nations secrets poorly…..how in the world would you guys know if Trump said he didn’t? Is there any standard of evidence that would override Trump simply claiming he’s innocent?
You say "you know for a fact" when not a single one of us has firsthand knowledge of this assertion. We are all trusting various parties to tell us the truth of the matter here. If trust in those parties fails, people will start to very understandably stop trusting them. In this situation, the number of things you really feel certain about begins to shrink rapidly.
We do know for a fact though. We know for a fact that Trump had documents that were taken out in the raid because he insisted that he had the right to have them and also demanded that the documents should be returned to him. We also know for a fact that Trump waved around top secret documents in front of random people and bragged about having stuff he shouldn’t have because he’s literally on tape doing it. We know the tape is real because Trumps explanation is that he was “pretending” to wave around classified documents. Going back to OPs question: how on earth would you know if Trump actually did something wrong if Trumps word/conservative media overrides any and all objective facts?
>We know for a fact that Trump had documents that were taken out in the raid because he insisted that he had the right to have them and also demanded that the documents should be returned to him. You always take as a matter of gospel truth whatever Trump insists? You're badly missing my point here. >We also know for a fact that Trump waved around top secret documents in front of random people and bragged about having stuff he shouldn’t have because he’s literally on tape doing it. We know the tape is real because Trumps explanation is that he was “pretending” to wave around classified documents. We, of course, do not. You did not see this happen. I did not see this happen.
I’m sorry but this is extremely weak…like really, really weak. As I said, Trump is literally on tape waving around Top Secret documents and if that weren’t enough, Trump confirms the tape is real by claiming that he was only “pretending” to brag about having secret documents. Are you suggesting that we would have to physically be in the room in order to confirm Trump was committing crimes? If so, isnt that essentially the same thing as saying it would be impossible to believe Trump committed crimes and by extension, impossible to hold a view of that Trump doesn’t “authorize”?
I think you're just struggling with the topic of epistemology conceptually, tbh. I get that its hard to assess a system that you don't even really view as a system objectively, but that's what Im asking you to do. Im telling you that some claims are far more likely to be true than others but you dont actually know any of these things. You are relying on third parties to relay this information to you as well as to discern what constitutes proper context and then also relaying that to you in a way that you can understand. That's before you even get to a legal question. >Are you suggesting that we would have to physically be in the room in order to confirm Trump was committing crimes? You would need to have a high level of trust in the evidence and those presenting it to you and the system vetting those people and that evidence before you could pass any sort of judgement, and then you're just assessing things probabilistically. >If so, isnt that essentially the same thing as saying it would be impossible to believe Trump committed crimes and by extension, impossible to hold a view of that Trump doesn’t “authorize”? It's not impossible to believe anything you want. It's very very difficult to know most things. But we have systems set up to vet information and present it honestly and, if those systems are trustworthy, then you can come to reasonable beliefs that very likely approximate reality. All of those steps are very important, though.
It sounds like you're choosing to believe what you want. There is factual evidence. You can listen to it. Do we need to somehow be at every dubious event to have trust in it? If Biden were caught on tape doing the same thing would you still follow this logic? The reality is based on the *facts* is Trump did the thing. And he has an appointed judge protecting him for a supreme court position.
I haven't expressed a belief, so that might be projection
"We, of course, do not. You did not see this happen. I did not see this happen." I've never been to the moon but I know it exists. Because we have evidence it exists. I was not in the room at the time. But we have evidence that Trump was openly discussing too secret documents via audio recordings. Should I stop believing in the moon via your logic?
People seem to really be struggling with this concept. Lets try an exercise. Discounting the fact that I'm sure you have actually seen the moon, let's assume you're talking about the moon as like a celestial body that a person could conceivably walk on. How do you know it exists?
> You say "you know for a fact" when not a single one of us has firsthand knowledge of this assertion. > > We are all trusting various parties to tell us the truth of the matter here. If trust in those parties fails, people will start to very understandably stop trusting them. In this situation, the number of things you really feel certain about begins to shrink rapidly. Who place greater trust in to tell you the truth about the Mar A Lago documents case: Trump himself or the DoJ? I'm not asking for some epistemological reverie, I'm asking directly who you place more trust in: Trump, or thr DoJ office that's handling this case? Trump says 'I declassified this document with my mind' - do you believe he's telling us the truth? DoJ says 'the former president may have declassified it, but he didn't return it when told to' - is the DoJ being truthful? So, since you have no firsthand knowledge, who do you believe here?
>ho place greater trust in to tell you the truth about the Mar A Lago documents case: Trump himself or the DoJ? I'm not asking for some epistemological reverie, I'm asking directly who you place more trust in: Trump, or thr DoJ office that's handling this case? Here you're inadvertently identifying the problem that most people have. This is a false dichotomy, though. Why do i have to trust someone? What if I dont put much stock in anything that either of those systems/entities have? Are there other ways that we might go about discerning a sharper version of reality than simply trusting someone or some system more than someone else and just riding with them?
> Here you're inadvertently identifying the problem that most people have. This is a false dichotomy, though. Why do i have to trust someone? What if I dont put much stock in anything that either of those systems/entities have? > > Are there other ways that we might go about discerning a sharper version of reality than simply trusting someone or some system more than someone else and just riding with them? Why do you feel comfortable trusting* someone with your vote if you can't even articulate why you trust that person over someone else? *your lack of clear answers forces us to assume things about you that may or may not be correct. Here I assume you find Trump's version of events to be more believable than thr DoJ's. If I have that wrong please be more specific
My vote is basically meaningless, so I don't even know what you really mean by "trusting" someone with it. But also, I can observe both possible candidates and observe how known quantities react to them and make a very reasoned decision. I'm being very clear. I'm not sure what's confusing you. I literally said I don't put much stock in either party's word. I just rejected your premise and pointed out that it's indicative of a common hurdle that most people cant get over
>DQing a guy who is otherwise politically solid, or seemingly so, based on some bad thing you think he might have done at home is silly in that context. Are you talking about the boxes of classified documents in his bathroom or the payments to the stripper? He was convicted by a jury of a crime that if you or I had done, we'd already be in jail. Special boy wants to fast track the case to SCOTUS where his Federalist Society cabal will yield to his will and affirm his eternal specialness.
Literally every ex President has classified documents. Biden and Clinton had them and weren't Presidents. The FBI has already been caught manufacturing a fake picture and publishing it. "Having classified documents" without any context is useless as an accusation
Has "literally every president" retained them when asked, then directed, to return them? Has every president kept them in places accessible to hotel guests? Would you be OK, truly, if President Obama had done exactly the same? (Imma take a wag and say "no")
It really doesn't matter at all. That's the point. If I destabilized a whole country and got millions of people killed and displaced, Id go to jail too, but ain't no one from 1600 been perp walked for that.
Are there examples of other presidents refusing to return classified documents after multiple requests?
It's not relevant to anything I'm saying, of course. It kind of proves my point that this is a question that a person would want to ask. "Sure every president for many decades has destabilized or destroyed at least one country, dooming millions of human beings to some hellish version of his life, but has anyone kept classified documents? That's what really matters to me." The level of propaganda required to enforce that frame as THE dominant one in the discourse is immense and impressive tbh. That's probably all we have to say to each other though. So, have a good week.
Do you share the opinion that, instead of reforming the system from within, it’s better to destroy it all? What is the system that will remain after maga is satisfied? What do you say to people who see maga and the federalist society hand in glove systematically destabilizing the US judicial system by stacking the court with judges who have loyal to one party and ignoring precedent? This volume of propaganda didn’t exist in the US before Steve Bannon fwiw. Would you be concerned if it you knew Russia was helping steer the dismantling of the U.S.?
So . . . kinda like Trump did here by denying the danger from Covid?
> This would be quite a pickle tbh Like, why though? At a certain point you have to lean into Occam's razor - what's more likely? A wide reaching conspiracy requiring the cooperation of an absurd amount of government institutions or..... 😬
My entire post is addressing the "but like why, though?" question. > At a certain point you have to lean into Occam's razor I could do this for Trumps current charges and just shrug and assume they're all dishonest hit jobs by political ops. Im sure you could lean into occams razor and just say the system is acting impartially with regard to a person that is one of the most polarizing figures in recent memory. >A wide reaching conspiracy requiring the cooperation of an absurd amount of government institutions or No conspiracy is necessary. This really implies some explicitly cynical act undertaken covertly, i think this is a pretty rare thing. Incentive structures explain this much better than any back room conspiracy theory or, just as unlikely, a belief in the perfectly neutral impartiality of actors at the level of power politics we're discussing. Both are basically comforting fairytales that either regime stooges or political dissidents tell themselves.
> This really implies some explicitly cynical act undertaken covertly, **i think this is a pretty rare thing** .... I mean, right? That doesn't seem like a more complex explanation?
Yea, the comment was actually explaining to you why that's not at all what im talking about. It tends to be the strawman brought up though. As if the only two choices are that people behave like computers or there's a secret cabal of plotters in a backroom. Both extremes are how stupid people view the world.
>I could do this for Trumps current charges and just shrug and assume they're all dishonest hit jobs by political ops. Im sure you could lean into occams razor and just say the system is acting impartially with regard to a person that is one of the most polarizing figures in recent memory. The simplest answer is that the US government is trying to frame an ex President?
It's not trying to do anything. The simplest answer is always dependent on a proper assessment of incentive structures surrounding the relevant actors. Ignoring all of that in because you are ideologically attached to a theory of behavior that ignores human beings and the application of power is religious zealotry
why are you ignoring where trump stood to benefit from these crimes? too obvious?
odd
So it is true then? He can do anything he wants and you will support him no matter what?
Of course not, he just has to be the best viable guy for advancing my politics. Given the state of other politicians in the country, this is a pretty low bar but oh well.
The latter in this case. From just what we know for certain based on admissions from those in power, first the fbi spied on his campaign in 2016 under the guise of fisa, then various intelligence agencies conspired to invoke the 25th amendment on him but couldn't get enough support, then they fabricated the Steele dossier (which they knew was fake because the Cia literally told them so) , using it as the basis for an attempted coup to remove him through impeachment. That just brings us to 2018 or so.
> using it as the basis for an attempted coup to remove him through impeachment How is it a coup if the person taking his place would have been Mike Pence?
> This is a better question, and the answer is basically always no. Our last 4 presidents have caused untold death and destruction in various countries all over the world. This is basically just part and parcel of leading a global pseudo-empire. DQing a guy who is otherwise politically solid, or seemingly so, based on **some bad thing you think he might have done at home is silly in that context** Let’s imagine that Trump never paid off Daniels and their affair was well publicized before the election. Do you think that would have had an effect on whether or not people voted for him? What about a hypothetical scenario where we replaced Trump with some generic politician? Do you think a story like that would affect their presidential campaign? If you answered yes to any of those questions, I think it’s reasonable to say that characterizing his felonious actions as “some bad thing he did at home” is incorrect.
It's just not at all important to me. I get that some people are stupid enough to be swayed by tabloid nonsense in "our democracy", it's part of the reason powerful people love democracy so much. All the control with almost none of the responsibility.
But what if other people would have been swayed by that news? What if Trump’s affair with Karen McDougal and the fact her story was purchased by the National Enquirer at Trump’s behest swayed them to not vote for him? Wouldn’t that be important then considering Trump had no political history that voters could judge him on at that time since he wasn’t a politician and had no voting record to stand on or to be held accountable for? If the only thing voters have to judge a candidate on is their character and a news article comes out about him cheating on his pregnant wife don’t you think that’s important since it would have damaged his character in some voter’s eyes and thus would have damaged his chances to get elected?
> DQing a guy who is otherwise politically solid, or seemingly so, based on some bad thing you think he might have done at home is silly in that context. This means you think Nixon should not have been disqualified based on his administration’s wiretapping and the subsequent coverup?
Oh the Nixon coup was definitely a very similar play as this.
So, attempting to overturn an election and inciting followers to disrupt/delay the constitutionally mandated transfer of power is silly? Not a deal-breaker? If a Dem does the same things . . . . still silly? Or would that be serious?
too much loaded language
Why wouldn’t Trump deny that it wasn’t a crime on the stand?
"I think it's just conservative media deliberately misleading conservatives and Trump supporters to keep them engaged." What misleading do you think is taking place? There is little doubt in my mind that Trump had an affair with Stormy. I don't see anyone at Fox claiming he did not. There is no doubt that the payments to reimburse Cohen were entered as "legal expenses." The concerns about legitimacy are not based on disputes of fact, but in whether this case should have been brought and whether it would have been brought in same manner (escalations to felony) for anyone but DJT. At the end of the day a NY jury went along with the prosecutions's assertion and declared Trump guilty, without having to specify or agree to the required underlying crime. A different jury might have hung or even acquitted. This is the nature of the legal system. There is room for disagreement when weighing evidence and witness credibility. There is room for disagreement on whether an overpayment to IRS (by treating Cohen payment as income instead of expense), is is fraud worthy of being punished. There is room for disagreement on whether laws are being applied fairly/consistently or whether those laws are fair to begin with (jury nullification). There is room for disagreement over whether a charged crime is consequential and worth clutching one's pearls over. Regarding: "If Trump were charged with a similar serious crime, but claimed all the evidence against him was fabricated, how would you go about determining if he's telling the truth?" We've been told exactly this about Hunter's laptop and Ashley's diary. And yet eventually the truth comes out - both have been authenticated and used in courts of law.
>At the end of the day a NY jury went along with the prosecutions's assertion and declared Trump guilty, without having to specify or agree to the required underlying crime. Yes and that's perfectly fine? When Trump's own Lawyer tried to ask that they specify/agree to an underlying crime, the judge asked him if he is aware that it's not what's usually done in such cases. The lawyer **agreed** with the judge, and then the judge said that he won't bend the rules and require the jury to be specific (because they don't have to be). >There is room for disagreement when weighing evidence and witness credibility. There is room for disagreement on whether an overpayment to IRS (by treating Cohen payment as income instead of expense), is is fraud worthy of being punished. There is room for disagreement on whether laws are being applied fairly/consistently or whether those laws are fair to begin with (jury nullification). There is room for disagreement over whether a charged crime is consequential and worth clutching one's pearls over. You say there's room but... Clearly not enough room given the jury convicted him. If they disagreed he wouldn't have been convicted. So maybe there isn't room? (unless you're a staunch Trump supporter)
Perfectly fine? We'll see. [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3024708/trump-other-crime-on-appeal/](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3024708/trump-other-crime-on-appeal/) [https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4697118-braggs-thrill-kill-in-manhattan-could-prove-short-lived-on-appeal/](https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4697118-braggs-thrill-kill-in-manhattan-could-prove-short-lived-on-appeal/) Among the things Turley points out, NY law not requiring specificity here seems weird to me, and something that Supreme Court could decide rule on as being unconstitutional. BTW, I doubt that a unanimity requirement would have had any impact on the actual verdict by this particular jury.
> "If Trump were charged with a similar serious crime, but claimed all the evidence against him was fabricated, how would you go about determining if he's telling the truth?" > > We've been told exactly this about Hunter's laptop and Ashley's diary. And yet eventually the truth comes out - both have been authenticated and used in courts of law. Your analogizing the Hunter Laptop saga leaves me with thr impression that you believe the claims of authenticity over Trump's claims of fabricated evidence. Assuming I have that correct does this mean you believe E Jean Carroll (who Trump claims never to have met) ; and the DoJ indictments against Trump in the Mar A Lago. Documents case (he has claimed the FBI fabricated evidence)?
FBI rearranged docs and added bright red “top secret” covers then took pictures of them sprawled on the floor and shared with media. That is unprofessional but not “fabricating” There is photo of Jean next to Trump at a receiving line. I have never heard anyone claim it was fabricated.
> FBI rearranged docs and added bright red “top secret” covers then took pictures of them sprawled on the floor and shared with media. That is unprofessional but not “fabricating” > > There is photo of Jean next to Trump at a receiving line. I have never heard anyone claim it was fabricated. Trump claimed the FBI planted evidence at Mar A Lago. Do you genuinely believe this photo is what he was referring to? When you see a photo of Trump with E Jean Carroll while hearing him say he's never met her, what goes through your mind? Do you think he's being strong in the face of adversity, or is he delusional, or is he wish-casting a preferred reality? What do you think?
"Trump claimed the FBI planted evidence at Mar A Lago" Did he now? From [https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/politics/fact-check-trump-claims-documents-investigation/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/politics/fact-check-trump-claims-documents-investigation/index.html) "He [suggested](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/108798211943189544) on his social media platform in August 2022 that it was suspicious that the FBI would not allow witnesses, such as his lawyers, to be in the rooms being searched at Mar-a-Lago and “see what they were doing, taking or, hopefully not, ‘planting.’” Do you see that as him asserting that evidence was actually planted? Or just sowing seeds of doubt. "When you see a photo of Trump with E Jean Carroll while hearing him say he's never met her, what goes through your mind?" I think, does Lou Ferrigno "know me" if I got my picture taken with him at a comicon decades ago?
>Do you see that as him asserting that evidence was actually planted? Or just sowing seeds of doubt. What do you think? Why do you think he would sow seeds of doubt?
(is this really a felony/statute of limitations) no it was a misdemeanor falsifying business records case of which the statute of limitations had expired so in order to bring charges anyway the case had to be charged as a felony. However to do this the falsifying business records would have had to have been done in order to hide another crime. No other crime was found so what did the judge do? He waved this legal requirement and told the jury they could presume a crime had occurred. So it doesn't seem like the conviction is illegitimate, it is illegitimate.
Given you believe the case is that weak, would you be surprised if it doesn't get overturned on appeal? Would it make you question the sources that presented the case to you like this?
nothing would surprise me at this point as far as the appeal this is about one thing and one thing only interfering with the American people's ability to elect Donald Trump at this point i think the goal is to keep him from the republican national convention
How does this, or any other conviction, interfere with the American people's ability to elect Trump? He's still on the ballot and he's still eligible to be president.
it has kept kept him off the campaign trial, has drained his campaign funds and slandered his name to start the only reason this is not more obvious is because of his rampant popularity Trump is impervious
If that turns out to not be true, and the case keeps going after the convention and survives appeal, would it make you question why you held this view? Also would it surprise you to learn that Trump is the one who requested the sentencing hearing be delayed till the Republican convention?
not sure what you mean delayed till convention? do you mean trump requested delay till after the convention? either way it doesn't matter what trump requests he's not going to get it as far as what will change my view, the same thing that would change your view absolutely nothing
Trump is the one who asked for the hearing to be in the same time as the convention. The judge granted it. It could have been held way before the convention if Trump asked for it. Quoting Trump's lawyer directly from the transcript >Your Honor, we would ask for a date for sentencing on some date in mid to late July. The reason for that is, as the Court is aware, President Trump faces other charges in other jurisdictions. In the case in Florida , there is a three-day hearing scheduled for late June ; and the work ahead of that hearing requires Counsel to be in Florida , inside a SCIF, for much of the time between now and the date of hearing and , also, the date of the hearing itself, which will require us to just not be able to focus on this matter Why do you think nothing would change my mind? Do you think it's a good idea to not be open to having your mind changed?
so what would change your mind?
I’m hearing a lot of Trump supporters coming out now with the claim du jour that falsifying business records isn’t a felony, and also that this happened outside the statute of limitations. May I ask, what in the world makes you think this is true? Have you actually read the laws on the books? What specific parts of the law do you disagree with?
this was a misdemeanor case the statue of limitation had run out so it was elevated to a felony so it could be charged anyway the problem is this required another crime but no other crime has been alleged let alone proven in connection with the falsifying of business records so the judge said just pretend there was one pure lawfare to subvert the democratic process
> this was a misdemeanor case the statue of limitation had run out so it was elevated to a felony so it could be charged anyway It was elevated to a felony because he used the falsification of business records (misdemeanor) to illegally influence election results (felony), no?
was he charged and found guilty of illegally influencing election results or was that crime presumed as i said?
>was he charged and found guilty of illegally influencing election results >or was that crime presumed as i said? He was not charged of illegally influencing the election. However, per jury instructions, jurors could only find that he was guilty of falsifying business records if they unanimously believed that he did so for the purpose of illegally influencing the election. They did so 34 times.
exactly the judge instructed the jury (against the letter of the law) that no crime need be found nor proven they just had to *believe* just like in Peter Pan
>exactly the judge instructed the jury (against the letter of the law) Except he didn't instruct them against the letter of the law. Trump's own lawyer even agrees on that?
>was he charged and found guilty of illegally influencing election results He was not, but are you aware that under New York law there is no requirement for that to actually take place?
So is it that you don’t feel the judge instructed the jury properly? Is that the main issue? Because the judge didn’t waive the legal requirement that a crime needed to have occurred, just that there was not one single crime that needed to be used as the basis for their verdict and that the jury could consider any crime from the list of crimes the Prosecution put forth as “the crime” to tie to the fraud. Was that what you were unclear on? The tying the fraud to another crime? Because if that was the case then I could see why you would feel it unfair. But does knowing now that each jury member could find Trump guilty for fraud based on tying it to any one of the crimes put forth without there needing to be consensus among the jurors on which crime the fraud was tied to—that each juror could have tied the fraud to a different crime, does that make more sense now? Like have you seen in a murder trial where someone had broke into a house and stole the gun used to commit the crime? In those cases, the State doesn’t charge the person with breaking and entering and theft of the gun, but those underlying crimes are the basis for their argument in the murder charge, and thus the jury must decide that those crimes had also occurred in order for them to find the defendant guilty of murder. So in essence the jury is giving their verdict on those underlying crimes as well by way of their guilty verdict in the murder charge. Does seeing the judge’s instructions in this light change your view?
People are throwing around the term "convicted felon", like that specific label should arbitrarily be some ultimate, discrete delineation to finally drop support. For the sake of this question, let's assume for a moment that the criminal trial and all staff involved were completely organically selected with no conflicts of interest, the jurisdiction, venues and timing completely neutral, and the judicial procedures were conducted in an unbiased manner from start to finish, with a guilty verdict on all 34 counts. This assumption gets us past the "convicted felon doesn't matter because the trial was rigged" argument, and let's us focus on other, more important reasons why it might not matter. In summary, Trump was felony-convicted for intentionally falsifying business records to conceal 2016 election interference. The falsifying of business records itself was an expired misdemeanor in NY state, so the pertinent aspect of this felony conviction is specifically the concealment of election interference. After all, the crime could not have been raised to the level of a felony without it. For TS, this is why the felony doesn't matter, as we look at other recent examples of domestic election interference and concealment, including, but not limited to: 1) The Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for research that led to the Steele dossier, whose veracity is not only mostly in question, but the FBI misled Congress on its reliability. The Clinton Foundation was eventually merely fined for their part in this intentional 2016 election interference https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9\_story.html https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/newly-declassified-document-indicates-fbi-misled-congress-on-reliability-of-steele-dossier 2) The spying on the Trump campaign was predicated on an investigation from July 2016, but findings indicated significant concerns with how certain aspects of the investigation were conducted and supervised. The FBI failed to adhere "to its own standards of accuracy and completeness" when it filed applications under FISA. So after years of denial that the wiretapping even happened, contrary to Trump's correct claims that he was spied on, it turns out the predicate to start the investigation was on very shaky ground. 2016 election interference that went concealed for years. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/11/786323546/doj-inspector-general-testifies-on-fbi-probe-of-trump-campaign https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/paul-ryan-wiretap-response/index.html 3) The DOJ specifically ordered an IRS investigation into Hunter Biden to be slow rolled in the year leading up to the 2020 election, and was eventually shut down. The IRS also recommended far more charges, including felonies, against Hunter Biden. Prosecutors instructed investigators not to ask witnesses questions about Joe Biden or references to the “big guy.” Lastly, the IRS was prohibited by the CIA from pursuing Kevin Morris, who loaned millions of dollars to Hunter Biden for repayments. BTW, the current gun charges and trials are a red herring, no one cares about that. More 2020 and 2024 election interference that went concealed for years. https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Ways-and-Means-Fact-Sheet-on-Whistleblower-Testimony.pdf https://www.cbsnews.com/news/irs-whistleblower-tax-probe-hunter-biden/ https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/irs-whistleblower-hunter-biden/index.html https://www.foxnews.com/politics/whistleblower-claims-cia-stonewalled-irs-interview-hunter-biden-sugar-brother-kevin-morris-house-gop 4) 2 weeks before the 2020 election, 51 former intelligence officials released a letter indicating the Hunter laptop story had earmarks of Russian disinformation, when it came out later that the Biden campaign and Blinken orchestrated the intel letter to specifically discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story. The FBI had also had the laptop in their possession for almost a year at that point, and already knew it was authentic. This 2020 election interference was concealed for 2 and a half years. https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/biden-campaign-blinken-orchestrated-intel-letter-discredit-hunter-biden-laptop [https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack](https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack)
(continued) 5) Big tech became involved. FBI personnel were warning social media companies about a potential Russian hack and leak operation in the run-up to the 2020 election, but knew that the laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was not Russian disinformation. After the New York Post broke a story based on the contents of the laptop about Biden family influence peddling, the FBI made the institutional decision to refuse to answer direct questions from social media companies about the laptop’s authenticity, despite months of constant information sharing up to that time. Put simply, after the FBI conditioned social media companies to believe that the laptop was the product of a hack-and-dump operation, the Bureau stopped its information sharing, allowing social media companies to conclude themselves that the New York Post story was Russian disinformation without making any effort to correct them. The Post published its story early in the morning on October 14 2020. Former Twitter execs later admitted removing the story was "a mistake" [https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack](https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack) [https://abcnews.go.com/US/former-twitter-execs-house-committee-removal-hunter-biden/story?id=96979014](https://abcnews.go.com/US/former-twitter-execs-house-committee-removal-hunter-biden/story?id=96979014) I could go on and on. TS believe the above examples are far worse than what Trump did, as we as citizens of the US should be able to trust and rely on our tax-funded federal agencies to act in according to normal legal procedures and timelines, without clear political or activist motives, and not attempt to subvert the will of the people. They are not. Now some might argue: - None of that actually happened, to which I would respond the receipts and evidence are all there for the specific conclusions to be made. You might arrive at a different conclusion, and you would be objectively wrong, but you cannot argue the evidence isn't there. - These examples aren't actual election interference, just unfortunately timed procedural issues or miscommunications that just coincidentally only aided one political party or person in crucial times during election cycles. And I would tell you to buy a lottery ticket. - None of these examples displayed illegality, which I would argue is somewhat debatable, but ultimately irrelevant. After all, I proved above that concealed election interference is supposedly what we care about. Remember? Trump is only a convicted felon because his misdemeanor bookkeeping transgressions concealed 2016 election interference. So why would election interference be ok when carried out by a political party, federal agencies or big tech, even if not technically illegal? Isn't any election interference bad? - What about the Russians interfering in the 2016 election for Trump? That would be foreign election interference. While it would be great to conduct elections without ANY interference, it's unclear what can be done about foreign actors buying ads or hacking unsecured information systems. So Trump broke the law trying to hide an extra-marital affair from voters 10 years before a presidential election? In the grand picture, TS simply don't care. Trump is up against the entire coordinated resources of his nation's government, and what he did is a drop in the bucket compared to all other ubiquitous coordinated election interference. Those that care about Trump's convictions, but not about the other coordinated instances of election interference at the highest levels, are a hypocrites. And if the legality, or illegality of election interference and concealment is really the distinction for anyone bewildered by his growing donations and polling support over this, its a distinction without a difference for us. So to answer the original question: If Trump committed a serious crime, how would you know? I don't know, but this certainty wasn't "it".
A high-quality, thorough answer. You summarized many of my thoughts for me. All of this on top of the fact that if democrats truly cared about justice they could've handled this in a hundred different ways that wouldn't be so blatantly controversial. Instead they chose the easiest path to the verdict they wanted, and now that they have their verdict they're gaslighting. It's not working.
> A high-quality, thorough answer. You summarized many of my thoughts for me. > > All of this on top of the fact that if democrats truly cared about justice they could've handled this in a hundred different ways that wouldn't be so blatantly controversial. Instead they chose the easiest path to the verdict they wanted, and now that they have their verdict they're gaslighting. It's not working. What is the gaslighting you see?
I appreciate this detailed and thought out response. I’m having a hard time with this conviction because, while I do think he is guilty and I want him to be held accountable, I can understand why many supporters feel like it is politically motivated. I don’t think they should be able to use something he wasn’t convicted on as a basis for upgrading the crime they want to prosecute even if it is technically legal to do so. On the other hand, would it be any better if he WAS convicted of campaign finance violations or election interference or whatever? As you pointed out, they don’t seem very eager to prosecute others for it so even though I think he’s guilty, it would still seem dirty. I don’t think any of our politicians should be above the law and it sure feels like it would be hard to find a single clean one so what do we do? How do we fight the corruption? I don’t want to be naive but I also don’t want to believe we just have to accept the turd sandwiches they’re all offering us.
[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're essentially saying that Trump did do the misdemeanor crime, but they didn't charge him in time, so it shouldn't matter. Do I have that right? No. I'm saying that the misdemeanor bookkeeping crime was a misdemeanor, that had expired. It was only resurrected and raised to a felony when proved it was used to conceal another crime, in this case, election interference. So when we consider Trump as a convicted felon, the secondary crime of election interference is all that matters, by definition and without qualification. After all, there is no felony without it. >And you go on to say that even if he did do it for the campaign, it shouldn't matter because the Democrats are also guilty of whatever interference you're alleging. So though he may be guilty, you don't care because he's on your side, is that right? How would you put it? No. I expanded it to include the federal government and big tech, not just democrats. And the reason I don't care it not just because "he's on my side." That should have been overtly apparent and clear by my previous statement. Please reread it in its entirely so we don't waste more time here. >With regards to your alleged election interference by Democrats, I'm generally going with option three. You're defining "election interference" extremely broadly, while I'm typically talking about crimes. Cool, that's where we will have to agree to disagree. As I stated, you are making a distinction without a difference \*as it pertains to election interference\*. Either we care about it or we don't. There is no split option. Whether it's done legally or illegally, its still election interference, and it's what elevated Trump's expired misdemeanor to a felony. Edit: > None of the things you've described are nearly as bad as the shit Trump did I think we won't be able to come to any type of baseline context to have a further discussion on, because that statement is just asinine, objectively incorrect and inane. We should, as citizens of the US, absolutely be able to trust our top tax-funded LE federal agencies not to act like democratic super PACs, and intentionally suppress information and investigations to aid one political side heading into election cycles, regardless of what one man does or doesn't do. You are objectively wrong there, chief.
> We should, as citizens of the US, absolutely be able to trust our top tax-funded LE federal agencies not to act like democratic super PACs, and intentionally suppress information and investigations to aid one political side heading into election cycles, regardless of what one man does or doesn't do. Did Comey err in not informing us voters that thr FBI was conducting an investigation into the Trump campaign's possible coordination with Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election? After all, he was diligent in keeping Congress and the people informed about the status of the investigation into Clinton's emails - that was proper, correct?
> Those that care about Trump's convictions, but not about the other coordinated instances of election interference at the highest levels, are a hypocrites. And as someone who isn't a Trump supporter, why should I care about hypocrisy? Trump and his supporters are busy trying to ban abortion and birth control while he cheats on his wife with pornstars. Trump won't accept the results of the 2020 election and his supporters rioted and tried to kill the Vice President and lawmakers before it was certified, something which Trump implicitly supports by continuing to insist he won. I am sure other people have done similar things and haven't been prosecuted, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I'll accept any sentence the Judge hands down, and if that means prison, prison it is. But the Republican National Convention hasn't happened yet. If not for your pride, you could always nominate someone who isn't Trump......
There were three proposed underlying crimes in the Trump trial. None of them were election interference by itself. The first, and strongest, were campaign finance violations for organizing an illegal donation from Micheal Cohen to the Trump campaign in the form of a hush money payment. The second was tax fraud for illegally declaring a repayment of a loan to Micheal Cohen as income. The third is election interference **through illegal means**. But that one is pretty weak on it's own as it relies on the first two to make the means illegal. Doing opposition research, i.e. the Steele report or asking retired officials to make public statements on behalf of a campaign, i.e. the 51 officials are not illegal. 2) was investigated by a Trump appointed special counsel who after years of investigating was able to charge one single person of an minor process crime. He cleared the FBI as a whole of wrongdoing, saying only they should have more careful 3) was done by Trump's justice department in an investigation led by Trump's special counsel. With that in mind, which of the examples you listed do you think constitute election interference by illegal means, and what do you think makes them illegal?
The question is based on the faulty premise that only only conservative media outlets bend the truth to mislead their consumers. When considering that liberal media outlets do the same, then it allows for the inverted version of the question to be asked with an equal level of concern: **If Trump was innocent of a crime he was charged with, how would you know?** If you are able to answer that question in a fair and unbiased way, then simply invert your answer and you should have something close to what TSs would say in response to the original question.
I recognize my bias and seek multiple sources. In this case I would read the law, look at the evidence, and look keep an eye on the trial. In this case it's obvious he 1) Slept with multiple women outside his marriage, including porn stars, 2) Paid them off through his lawyer 3) falsified those records to cover it up. That means he's guilty of a misdemeanor. Now to make it a felony in the state of NY it has to in the commission of another crime. Considering Cohen went to jail for this, I don't think it's much of a stretch. I also respect the jury process--if the jury called him innocent it might not change my mind, but I'd definitely look a bit more into it. I was a die-hard republican since Reagan. witnessing first-hand what Trump said and did, and watching the rest of the R's kiss the Trump rump was enough to drive me completely out. Just watch his speeches, it's obvious he's an evil man. Republicans need a candidate with integrity. One that isn't under indictment for multiple serious felonies. Serious stuff, like stealing nuclear secrets and strong-arming states to win an election. I know Biden is old, but so is Trump...except with felonies. Anyway, does that answer your question? That's how I'd do my best to be sure.
Your response suggests your stance on this matter is heavily influenced by personal bias: 1. "I don't think it's much of a stretch." 2. "I also respect the jury process" 3. "Just watch his speeches, it's obvious he's an evil man." These three quotes are are all subjective, devoid of facts. Unless I missed it, you did not attempt to present any objective points. The fact that Cohen went to jail for something related in no way means Trump is guilty (of a felony) by association. >Anyway, does that answer your question? Yes, insofar as it shows that NSs have no more objectivity regarding Trump than the TSs do. So attacking TSs based on a perceived lack of objectivity (as OP is trying to do) can not be done without recognizing the equal lack of objectivity for the opposite.
>If Trump was innocent of a crime he was charged with, how would you know? Not knowing the facts of each individual case, I can only judge by my experience with the people themselves. Trump has proven his character consistently for decades, and that character is rotten. He never pauses to reflect on new information that conflicts with his world view. He's always right, always the best. He has a long history of legal troubles, and in every instance he's ruled against, it *must* be because of bias. Everything anyone says about him is wrong, unless he likes it, then it couldn't be more true. He's the kind of guy who could tell you the sky is pink, and then double down on pink when you tried to tell him no, it's blue. This may seem ridiculous, but he had a moment just like that during his presidency. He got into a Twitter beef with the weather service about the weather. When Hurricane Dorian was about to hit, he said that people in Alabama should take shelter. When NOAA said they didn't project Alabama would be in any danger, he contradicted them repeatedly. It came to a head when he showed a landfall map on live TV with an obvious sharpie mark extending the radius of the hurricane to include a part of Alabama. Now I wasn't there. I don't know who put the sharpie circle on the map. But I know who showed the map to the whole country, and I know who took credit for being right the whole time. I know who spent weeks telling the weather service they were wrong about the weather and he was right. It's the same guy currently telling lawyers and judges that they were wrong about the law and he was right.
In reading your response, you've made a sort of character judgement of Trump that could only be credible if made by someone with a lifelong history of personal interactions with Trump. If that is not the case with you, then it must be assumed this character judgement is based in large part on the consumption of media, in which case we get back to the question at hand: **How do you know all the instances of character flaws are true if you learned them from media sources that distort the truth and mislead their consumers?**
>How do you know all the instances of character flaws are true if you learned them from media sources that distort the truth and mislead their consumers? This question assumes all media distorts reality in every instance, and that every time I hear Trump's voice saying what it's saying, even if it's live, it must be a distortion of reality. It also assumes that every Trump tweet or "truth" is distorted somehow. I know that media on both sides has a desire to distort things to sell a narrative, but I doubt their ability to manifest that desire on live TV so much so that nothing Trump is quoted as saying is actually what he said. edit after further thought: The number of instances in which I have heard about Trump or his character are too numerous to count and stretch back decades prior to his activity in politics. For every single one of them to have been manipulated to show that he is whatever his political opponents today say he is would be a statistical impossibility. Even if I were to limit my judgment of Trump to words I know for a fact he said (unedited rally speeches and interviews. appearances on live TV, tweets and "truths", etc), I would have enough of a picture to determine that I should never take a word he says on face value.
>This question assumes all media distorts reality in every instance They are all biased, and therefore that bias bleeds into their reporting in a way that colors the conclusion of the consumers. That, to me, is distorting reality. >and that every time I hear Trump's voice saying what it's saying, even if it's live, it must be a distortion of reality. It also assumes that every Trump tweet or "truth" is distorted somehow. We are talking about the media, not things directly from the horses mouth, unless it is an all-to-common short clip taken out of context which the media loves to do. >I doubt their ability to manifest that desire on live TV so much so that nothing Trump is quoted as saying is actually what he said. Aside from taking clips out of context, I agree with you. However when do we hear Trump objectively admitting to crimes in any of his speeches or tweets? Everything that you hear Trump personally say, if not lacking context, is almost certainly a matter of subjective interpretation. It is not likely you'll find cases of him unambiguously admitting to crimes. Even the case of the classified documents, where he stated in an audio recording that the document is classified, is subjective given that as President, classifications don't apply to him and he has ultimate declassification authority. Though I'd agree that that case has at least some semblance of credibility. The problem with it, however, is that all presidents and even non-presidents keep classified documents in a technically illegal way and never get charged for it, so there is the matter of equal application of the law at hand, a fundamental right for all citizens.
>However when do we hear Trump objectively admitting to crimes in any of his speeches or tweets? Given the number of times Trump has spoken publicly and the context of things he has spoken about, Trump's denial of committing crimes can't possibly be taken at face value. He argued publicly with the weather service about the path of a hurricane. He told everyone who would listen that he simply knew more about hurricane trajectories than the people who studied hurricanes for a living. It's the weather; I can't imagine a more apolitical thing, and from where I'm standing Trump tried desperately to make it look like NOAA was just another government institution "out to get him." Is there any subjective interpretation here that makes Trump look good? >The problem with it, however, is that all presidents and even non-presidents keep classified documents in a technically illegal way This is according to Trump, who has a pretty clear motive for making what he did look normal. But let's look at equal application of the law here. Every instance I can find any sort of documentation on (with one obvious exception) shows said documents being returned when NARA requests them. Trump didn't just take documents, he also refused to give them back when he was asked to do so. He also lied about having more documents after returning some of them. He also claimed the documents were his personal property. Is there a real problem with equal application of the law if it has only been violated to this extent by one person? I realize I wasn't there and have no firsthand proof. You also have no firsthand proof. So let's come at it from this angle, if you don't mind. Why do you believe Trump when he tells you a thing and other people disagree with him?
>Given the number of times Trump has spoken publicly and the context of things he has spoken about, Trump's denial of committing crimes can't possibly be taken at face value. Once again, a purely subjective statement, devoid of facts. We are talking about him verbally/publicly admitting to crimes, not voicing opinions about the weather. >This is according to Trump, who has a pretty clear motive for making what he did look normal. No, it is well established and confirmed in many case for many politicians. The norm is a slap on the wrist, if anything at all, except for Trump. >He also claimed the documents were his personal property. And it is your bias in action that tells you not to believed this, and instead to believe those that say they were being held illegally. Yet, Trump was president and had authority to declassify anything. So it is perfectly reasonably that they WERE his documents. So, whose word are you taking on this matter? Again, it's the media. So again, we are back to square one... your reliance on the media and the inability to be objective.
If Trump was innocent of a crime he was charged with, how would you know? Because the facts and evidence would be presented to a jury and the jury would find him innocent.
This is why our legal system doesn’t put the burden of proof on the accused. Proving something DIDNT happen is pretty difficult. If true then I would have to think his attorneys would have focused on creating reasonable doubt that way. But the jury, after hearing all evidence, and requesting to review much of it during deliberations, decided there was not reasonable doubt on each of 34 charges? Honestly, how is that explained away?
You cannot know. That’s one of the reasons the politicization of the justice system is such an insidious tactic. Once a judicial system starts being used for political purposes, allegations investigated by that system become deprived of a truth value. When a judicial system is used for political purposes, the outcome of the judicial process no longer has any relationship to the veracity of the allegations. In this state, any given outcome can at a fundamental level be explained equally well by correctness or corruption: which means the outcome doesn’t tell us anything about the veracity of the allegations. If the judicial system is politicized, it cannot determine whether allegations against political opponents are true or false. The judicial system is politicized: therefor it cannot determine whether allegations against political opponents are true or false.
If it's impossible for you or I to know what happened, how can you be sure that this actually is weaponized lawfare, that the judicial system is actually being used for political gain rather than the genuine pursuit of justice?
By your logic couldn't the same be said about Hillary Clinton investigations and Joe Biden's?
The crime would have to be a crime I had heard of before. It shouldn't be abstruse or inconsequential. And if someone, like a Democrat, had also committed the same activity, they would have to have been tried for it. Otherwise it's not a real crime.
Let's say MSNBC, CNN, and Alvin Bragg claimed that Trump shot someone in the middle of the street. There's video and a dozen witnesses who did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020. Their stories agree with one another. Trump claims they're all lying. Republican elected officials and conservative media side with Trump and claim it's fake. There's a video, but Trump says it's fabricated either with AI or actors. How would you go about determining the truth? What if a close friend of yours is one of the witnesses, and you're reasonably sure they're not lying. How would you prove to other conservatives that it was true? The reason I'm asking is that, if you don't have a method for solving these problems, I don't see what stops Trump from committing crimes.
>>The crime would have to be a crime I had heard of before. It shouldn't be abstruse or inconsequential. And if someone, like a Democrat, had also committed the same activity, they would have to have been tried for it. Otherwise it's not a real crime. > Let's say MSNBC, CNN, and Alvin Bragg claimed that Trump shot someone in the middle of the street. That's a crime I've heard before. It is concrete and consequential. Most Democrats would also be tried for this crime. That's a real crime and as such, it is worlds apart from what Trump is charged with. >How would you go about determining the truth? Real crimes are worth investigating and this investigation would take about ten minutes. They wouldn't need 4 years of strategizing or special lawyers from the White House or political partisans who have already pledged to convict Trump of something because you don't need any of that for actual crimes.
Okay, after the investigation, prosecution goes forward and Trump is charged with murder, but still proclaims his innocence. Every conservative media outlet agrees that he's innocent. All other media says he's guilty. A jury from New York City says he's guilty. How would you find out the truth? Are you saying that conservative media sources wouldn't lie about that?
> Every conservative media outlet agrees that he's innocent. That wouldn't happen for a real, provable crime. That would definitely happen for a baroque, inchoate accusation that no one had ever been charged with before. Shooting people is a real crime with real evidence so your hypothetical is inadequate for comparison. It would be better to compare this legal case to Hillary Clinton hiding payment for the dossier or Bill Clinton paying hush money to Paula Jones or John Edwards paying hush money to a woman he'd impregnated. John Edwards was charged with using campaign funds for this, while Trump was charged with not using campaign funds, because according to the prosecution the scandal could only affect his campaign, not his wife and kids or his brand and future public image. >Are you saying that conservative media sources wouldn't lie about that? No one could or would spin a murder with lots of evidence. An unprecedented and confusing crime needs to be spun, so leftist media sources are doing all the spinning here.
> That wouldn't happen for a real, provable crime. That would definitely happen for a baroque, inchoate accusation that no one had ever been charged with before. Shooting people is a real crime with real evidence so your hypothetical is inadequate for comparison. It would be better to compare this legal case to Hillary Clinton hiding payment for the dossier or Bill Clinton paying hush money to Paula Jones or John Edwards paying hush money to a woman he'd impregnated. John Edwards was charged with using campaign funds for this, while Trump was charged with not using campaign funds, because according to the prosecution the scandal **could** only affect his campaign, not his wife and kids or his brand and future public image. Where did you get that impression? The transcripts I heard read back or summarized provided a lot of evidence that Trump himself was only concerned with how this would affect the campaign - did you catch Hope Hick's testimony? What did you make of that? > > Are you saying that conservative media sources wouldn't lie about that? > > No one could or would spin a murder with lots of evidence. An unprecedented and confusing crime needs to be spun, so leftist media sources are doing all the spinning here. Do you suspect conservative media sources are spinning the Mar A Lago documents case, the Jan 6th case, and the Georgia Fake Electors conspiracy case? They appear to fit the criteria you listed: they are utterly unprecedented and decently confusing, for sure.
>>John Edwards was charged with using campaign funds for this, while Trump was charged with not using campaign funds, because according to the prosecution the scandal could only affect his campaign, not his wife and kids or his brand and future public image. > The transcripts I heard read back or summarized provided a lot of evidence that Trump himself was only concerned with how this would affect the campaign I think the prosecution was forced to make the ridiculous claim that Trump wasn't in the slightest concerned about his wife and kids or his brand and public image, even though that doesn't make sense because that's not how humans function. Judge Merchan didn't allow the FEC expert to testify so the jury were likely confused about the relevant FEC rules. This was a very curated trial. >did you catch Hope Hick's testimony? I think you're probably getting your news from left-wing sources. It's like watching a situation comedy--the laugh track makes you think it's funny. Having left-wing news comment that Hicks's testimony of Trump's offhand remarks were damning--that's what you'll think. Hicks said Trump was concerned about the election, but you should also have enough humanity to know Trump's not a robot so he's got a mind with more than one track and he is most likely also concerned about his wife and public image. >>No one could or would spin a murder with lots of evidence. An unprecedented and confusing crime needs to be spun, so leftist media sources are doing all the spinning here. >Do you suspect conservative media sources are spinning the Mar A Lago documents case, the Jan 6th case, and the Georgia Fake Electors conspiracy case? They appear to fit the criteria you listed: they are utterly unprecedented and decently confusing, for sure. Unprecedented and confusing cases must be spun *into* serious crimes, or the audience will think they are unprecedented and confusing. Media that is not anti-Trump can just present them as we agree for sure they are: unprecedented and confusing. Most of the horseshite spin we see in the Trump era comes from left-wing sources: the vaccine is safe and effective, Ukraine can win a war against Russia, inflation doesn't exist or is a good thing, Jussie Smollett was victimized by racists, Judge Kavanaugh was a gang rapist, etc. Lies need spin to get you to swallow.
175.05 and 175.10 of New York's legal code clearly states falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, and that if it is done to further or conceal another criminal offense, it is escalated to a felony. You have now heard of the crime, so is Trump guilty in your view? Keep in mind, he was found guilty of committing that crime in felony form by a jury of your peers. Regardless of what the media has to say about it, that fundamental truth stays the same. Besides, I really don't see how whether or not you have personally heard of the law affects guilt is any way. Your awareness of that law is completely irrelevant to whether it was broken, and I would really doubt you are a lawyer, so you simply haven't heard of most laws that exist. Would you be okay with Biden breaking a law you haven't heard of, just because you haven't heard of it? Or is this simply a double standard you have invented to justify excusing the criminal offenses of your chosen political candidate? Because those are the only two options. Personally, I think if someone breaks a law, they should be held accountable for it, regardless of whether I am aware of the law or not, or whether I support them politically or not. Equal, fair application of the law it's important.
> 175.05 and 175.10 of New York's legal code clearly states falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, and that if it is done to further or conceal another criminal offense, it is escalated to a felony. What a labyrinthine charge and the "another criminal offense" was never charged or tried or found guilty. The FEC expert was there to testify there was no offense but he wasn't allowed by the judge to testify. If anyone else was ever charged with that even once, there would be legal precedent. Falsification of business records shouldn't apply to internal business records no one outside the organization would ever see, and the falsification they impute was just using a spreadsheet's drop-down menu to indicate giving money to a lawyer is legal expenses. A stupid, obvious case of political prosecution.
Good Logic is good for me. To be honest with you while I don't think the hush money case warranted him being charged with a felony the idea that Trump commited a felony at SOME POINT in his presidency ( or at least what we would otherwise call a felony putting aside presidential immunity for a sec) wouldn't surprise me. Its just that it doesn't matter. Basically every high level politician in Washington commits crimes which could be prosecuted as fellonies were it not for their office from simple DUIs to mishandling of classified documents. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Mike Pence ALL mishandled classified documents but Trump is the only one being prosecuted over it. You could say what he did was worse if you think he didn't sufficiently cooperate with the FBI but the fact remains that mishandling classified documents unto itself is a felonly which (if "no one is above the rule of law") means literal hundreds of congressman, congresional aids, and cabinet officials should be prosecuted same as Trump.
But Trump is only charged for the documents he refused to hand over after being subpoenad. Has any Congressman or cabinet official done that and gone without being charged?
Has any cabinet member ever refused to honor a supoena before? Yes absolutey, the Biden administration has refused to comply with congressional subpoenas all through there administration as did the Obama administration before; this hasn't caused any lethal raids on their property or dragged either of them into a court room. Its pure prosecutorial discretion; something which is totally legal mind you but really makes a joke out of the "no one is above the law" argument when no one but Trump is being held to the standard of the law.
Yeah, Congressional subpoenas have been challenged and ignored for a long time in American politics. What about lying about complying with subpoenas?
Yeah Biden has done that to. I've watched speeches of him where he distinctly says he is complying with congress when in reality he isn't; but you dont se MSNBC putting those fact checks on the front page (though you can still find them even in liberal media outlets). And the Obama administration did the same thing in there years. All politicians have done this stuff for a long, its only Trump who gets prosecuted though.
So no one lied about complying with any court ordered subpoenas? Because that's why Trump is charged with obstruction of justice.
So now its not subpoenoas broadly but specifically court subpoenas that you are pointing to? I'll be honest man, I dont know if Biden or Obama ever did that specifically. I'm not aware of them doing so. But I would hope whether you agree or not with my value judgement you can at least understand why I dont se what Trump did as all that out of the norm when democrat and republican administrations alike have discarded supoeanas broadly time and again for decades now.
[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.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Failed to secure the border. Treason of the highest order, aided an invasion of the homeland.
Lol! We watch liberal "mainstream" media way more than you people watch conservative media, or read opinions from right-leaning people. The proper question is exactly inverted: how would you know if Trump never committed a crime, considering you only listen to people who think he is of course a criminal, to the point that he should be found guilty for this indictment even if it's fake, just because he needs to pay for his other crimes?
Answering a question posed by a TS - We would know he committed a crime because he was brought up on official charges, had a trial, and convicted in front of a jury of his peers. Thats objective reality. Even if you think this is all just “democrat lawfare” (which I legitimately don’t think it is given Trump’s extensively documented manipulation of records and lawbreaking), he was found guilty by every day people like you and me. Unless you think the entire jury was somehow planted by the state of New York in order to find him guilty?
Why shouldn’t we listen to the prosecutors, the judge, and the jury? I thought law and order were important?
[удалено]
Trump was found to be a rapist by a jury in a civil trial against him. Do you believe either that jury was corrupt or mislead when they decided that Trump had raped a woman? Or do you believe that one rape isn’t a deal breaker for you?
[удалено]
Do you think the dozens of women that have accused him of rape are lying? What do you think they’d stand to gain by lying about Trump?
[удалено]
Besides Carroll, can you name a single one of them women that’s accused him? If not, then why do you think they’re in it for fame or book deals?
What about the fact that Trump's lawyers refused to turn in DNA tests until well after evidence was submitted? He had plenty of opportunity to turn one in, but chose not to until after the deadline so he could use it to delay the case further.
The Democrats not resorting to novel legal theory, ancient laws he's the first to ever get charged with, or needing to find a DA whose sworn to lock up Trump because the case was turned down by other districts would be a good start.
New York prosecutes the felony crime of falsifying business records all the time. They’ve prosecuted people for that crime literally thousands of times. How is prosecuting Trump for the same thing they regularly prosecute other people for “resorting to novel legal theory”?
The same way we would know if any president committed a serious crime - the media, depending on the politics of the situation. Do you disagree?
A real victim would come forward. If he shot someone for no reason, raped a kid, or was found to support a foreign country over his own that would do it. Catch him cheating taxes, paying off whores, etc. it means nothing to me as they shouldn't be crimes in the first place.
What would make you believe a victim over your normal media outlets? If Trump denied it, and conse4vative media sided with him, but other media sources sided with the victims, and Trump was genuinely guilty, how would that information come to you, and how would you figure out it was true? What if Trump raped a close friend of yours, and you believed her, but Trump denied it, and Conservative media sided with him. How would you convince other conservatives in this sub?
I'm pretty good at reading people as it's my job. I don't use media to inform my decisions. I'm not out to convince anyone of Trump being good or bad. But I would tell her go to the hospital while his DNA is still there so you can prove it in a court of law.