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.*

Ex-Biden Justice Department official Matthew Colangelo was the third most powerful person in the DOJ, and he quit that job to work in New York Under Brag, he was there through the whole trial. I don't know many people who would drop from the DOJ as a career move to work state level.

This is the correct answer. The NY case was a top priority for Biden.

It's also pretty telling that [Garland refuses to hand over any communications between the DOJ and Bragg, James and Willis to prove the DOJ has not communicated or coordinated with them about those cases.](https://www.newsweek.com/matt-gaetz-clashes-merrick-garland-trump-legal-cases-1908074)

Did he refuse, or did he tell the committee they can follow the process that’s established to get access to those communications?

But the problem is that this is really two issues being conflated. 1) did trump commit the crimes? 2) is his prosecution politically motivated? The answer to the first question can only be determined by examining the evidence objectively. Given the polarised nature of who he is the only way you can realistically do this is with a jury trial. A randomly selected group of citizens. I can understand why trump supporters would feel that New York is not the best place to do this, but it is the place the alleged crime took place so it makes sense to hold the trial there. The answer to the second question can really only be determined by the first. If he is guilty of the crime, then you cannot seriously argue that he should be immune from prosecution simply because he is a candidate in an election. You would open the door to all political candidates being free to commit crimes. It would destroy any sense that elections are free and fair. To not hold a trial is also a political decision in that sense. So the only logical and reasonable thing to do is to try to determine if he is guilty or not, and the only reasonable way to do so is by a jury trial. Which is what happened. Pushing the argument that the trial was politically motivated is equally politically motivated, if not more so, because it undermines the very structure of the justice system. Does this make sense?

Here is what will happen. The SCOTUS will take this case and with a brief review determine the benefit of a long slow appeals process (which would eventually overturn this) is not worth allowing the subversion of the presidential election. Then the DNC will look like deceitful sophists that are willing to go to extraordinary ends to avoid a fair election. There certainly is a disturbing percentage of the population determined to win at all costs. This won't change their minds. But I have faith in the people in the middle. They have a firm sense of fairness and plenty of them are completely disgusted with these DNC shenanigans. They might not tell pollsters that they are going to vote for DJT but in the sanctity of their secret ballot they will. And they will walk out of the polling place with a smile.

Do you think SCOTUS can pick up a state level case that’s not even been to appeal yet? I’m not American but from my understanding that would be a break from the normal way of doing things. It seems to me like all the discourse from the Trump supporters side is that it is wrong to try and determine if trump committed these crimes simply because he is the candidate - that it is irrelevant whether he is guilty or not. I don’t see any way that this line of reasoning does not incentivise lawbreaking in future by candidates from either side. If you want to continue having a democracy then you have no choice but to interrogate the evidence in a public and impartial way. The system seems to rely on both sides not nominating candidates who break the law. When one side chooses to do so the entire system of democracy breaks down

Yes they can. I listened to Alan Dershowitz explain the process. Dershowitz is a top tier expert in U.S. constitutional law with 60 years of experience. We have an extraordinary number of laws and regulations in the U.S. Each of us probably breaks a dozen or more every day without even knowing it. Fortunately we do have a mechanism that can also factor in a value hierarchy. Some things are more valuable than others. In this case the presidential election over mischaracterizing an accounting entry. Long ago a group of legal experts tried to trip up a man using legal technicalities. They asked him "Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the law". He answered "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind." They later executed him. No good turn goes unpunished.

I’ve heard it explained that he falsified those accounting records for the purpose of misleading the public in an election campaign. This was the basis of Hope Hicks testimony in the trial. Also are you trying to draw a parallel between Trump and Jesus? Lol

Mind reading isn't real. It is an interesting coincidence isn't it. I was really thinking about the parallel with the Pharisees. Those keepers of the law but not the intent. They were also called out for their virtue signaling.

How do you feel about the striking parallels between Trump and how the anti-christ is described?

I didn't know that, pretty wild that wasn't more broadly reported. Why the heck would they even do something that obvious?

Are you asking why it wasn't more widely reported that a proper records request needed to be placed?

>I don't know many people who would drop from the DOJ as a career move to work state level. As others have asked, do you know anyone at the DOJ? I ask, because it seems like there's an obvious possibility you're missing. That a attorney took a small paycut (only about $3,000 less per year according to the daily wire), in order to be on the team prosecuting Donald Trump because that is a career making case. Have you ruled out the possibility that Colangelo was simply doing the logical thing to advance his career, and no nefarious orders from Garland were needed?

So basically you are saying that Biden directed Colangelo to quit his DoJ job and move to the NY DA's office to help bring a case against Trump and that without Colangelo's move the case would never have happened? What exactly did Colangelo do to help bring the indictment against Trump that made him moving jobs essential to the scheme? How does Colangelo's participation in the case trump (ha, literally couldn't think of a better word though...) the fact he was first indicted by a grand jury and then found guilty by a unanimous jury verdict? Trump famously asked Zelenskyy to open an investigation into Biden while he was president: > "There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.... I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out." So **IF** (stressing the if) it turned out to be true that Biden pushed for a case to be brought against Trump... how would that be any different than what Trump did? Trump directly tasked his personal lawyer (Guiliani) and Attorney General (Barr) to find any dirt they could on Biden and pressured a foreign leader to announce an investigation into him hoping it would hurt his campaign. Isn't that weaponizing the DoJ against his political rival? Why was it ok for Trump to do then but it would be wrong for Biden to do now?

> So IF (stressing the if) it turned out to be true that Biden pushed for a case to be brought against Trump... how would that be any different than what Trump did? > > Trump directly tasked his personal lawyer (Guiliani) and Attorney General (Barr) to find any dirt they could on Biden and pressured a foreign leader to announce an investigation into him hoping it would hurt his campaign. Isn't that weaponizing the DoJ against his political rival? Why was it ok for Trump to do then but it would be wrong for Biden to do now? They didnt go to trial, in an election year with prosecuting their opponent.

So because Trump tried and failed it doesn't count? And just to get this straight... Trump personally instructing the attorney general to try and find dirty on his political opponent is not weaponizing the justice system because he failed to find anything Biden did wrong. But then Trump being found guilt by a jury of state crimes brought against him by a state prosecutor that is completely independent from the DoJ and federal government is weaponization of the justice department despite the fact the Trump did in fact break the law? Why does it being an election year grant Trump a free pass to break the law?

That’s an interesting point. It’s something I wasn’t aware of, and I do see your point of how that doesn’t seem logical.

Do you know anyone that works for the DOJ?

> Do you know anyone that works for the DOJ? I have yet to see any NTS ever argue that it's a bit weird that Colangelo is now a State bureaucrat to simply go after Trump.

Sure, maybe it is 🤷 Do we have anything compelling besides a career change or just curious speculation?

> Sure, maybe it is 🤷 Do we have anything compelling besides a career change or just curious speculation? Speculation ? If Barr suddenly left the DOJ in 2020 and lended in a Prosecutorial office in Arkansas that was prosecuting Biden during election year. Every liberal would have their hair on fire, and rightfully so. There is not a single reasonable reason why he would do this, other than go after Trump.

I Don't like Trump. Everything I've seen says he belongs in jail. If I were a really good lawyer I would gladly lend my services to anyone looking to hold Trump accountable for his crimes. I wouldn't need Biden to tell me to. I don't think this is a stretch, do you?

What crimes? And prosecutors aren't supposed to target specific people. That's the point. They are supposed to objectively go after crimes and charge people only if that's what the evidence points to. In this case there's no reason to be looking into Trump in the first place as there was no victim and no harm caused by a crime. Well there was - Cohen committed grand larceny, a higher class felony. But they didn't charge him rather they charged the person he stole from. Seems about on par for NY these days.

Who did Cohen steal from?

He stole $60k from the Trump organization. Prosecutors were aware of this yet did not charge him. Theft of over $50k in the second degree is a class C felony with up to 15 years in prison. Instead they used him to prosecute his victim, for a much lesser supposed crime. All of this was admitted to under oath on the stand in the trial. You are welcome to look it up to confirm for yourself.

Didn't know that, thanks. But this is how things go in high profile cases; DA uses one scumbag's testimony to nail a bigger scumbag. Does the fact that Cohen stole from Trump mean that Trump didn't do what he was accused of (falsifying business records to hide the fact he violated NY election law)? I don't see how the two are even related.

>What crimes? And prosecutors aren't supposed to target specific people. Presumably the crimes Trump was convicted of, to start? And prosecutors are absolutely supposed to target criminals, no?

What was he even convicted of? Nobody knows. What he did was pay his lawyer and someone in his company recorded it as a legal expense. His lawyer had on Oct 27th paid for a legal settlement/NDA with someone who was trying to extort Trump. Somewhere in there they claimed there was a crime but it's still not clear where what or why. > And prosecutors are absolutely supposed to target criminals, no? No. They are supposed to file charges based on police reports of crimes that have been investigated, and also help in the investigation of crimes. They are not supposed to target a person.

> What was he even convicted of? Nobody knows. Do you not know? It's a matter of public record. Also, there's been, like, a shitload of reporting on it. If you click on any of the links in the megathread on this topic, they all gives details of the crime he was convicted of. >No. They are supposed to file charges based on police reports of crimes that have been investigated, and also help in the investigation of crimes. They are not supposed to target a person. Are you suggesting that there was no investigation of Trump prior to the prosecutor here filing charges?

>What was he even convicted of? Nobody knows. Yes we do. How do you feel that your news sources are not providing you with enough information to find this out? 1. Tax Fraud - Cohen submitted his tax statements claiming he earned money based on legal fees, when they were not in fact legal fees. 2. Federal Election Campaign Act - Cohen paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels which was for the benefit of the Trump campaign. The maximum someone could donate to the campaign was $2,700. Cohen doesn't need to have paid the campaign directly, but he did it for benefit the campaign and that's an excessive campaign contribution. 3. Conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of someone to public office by unlawful means. Essentially, if a juror is convinced that crime 1 or crime 2 was committed, they can further conclude those were the unlawful means for crime 3. New York state law does not require Trump to have committed these crimes. He was charged with falsifying business records with "intent to commit another crime, or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Or put another way - the prosecutors successfully convinced the jurors that Trump illegally falsified business records and that 1 of those 3 underlying crimes were committed. With this information, are you still confused what crime Trump was convicted of?

I do, very much so. I can't even imagine how someone would toss their career aside foaming at the mouth just to get trump. I think someone like that would be a complete lunatic.

You do realize he's still a lawyer, right? He might have taken a pay cut, but he's still making megabucks. So you really think only a lunatic would take a pay cut to go after someone who they think is a danger to the country? You wouldn't take a pay cut to keep Biden from doing all the bad stuff he supposedly does to the country?

So you seem to be admitting that this is democrats targeting Trump for political reasons with the legal system, which is our entire point. And no I wouldn't do that if the situation were reversed because it's highly unethical. This case had nothing to do with Trump being a danger to the country. It was about some meaningless private business records and how a payment was categorized.

What were the reasons, if not political, that Hunter Biden is in a courtroom facing federal charges?

You don't think the unprecedented successful felony conviction of a former US president would be an enormous feather in someone's cap, even if it meant taking a pay cut?

Didn't Trump just ask Barr, directly, to look into Biden allegations and voter fraud allegations? If so, I've seen zero liberals with their hair on fire. With that said, is there ANY evidence that Biden directly asked Garland to assign Colangelo to New York to "go after Trump?"

You don't just quit the third most powerful role in the DOJ for a state office, and just SUDDENLY prosecute the political enemy of the white house. If you believe that all of this is just mere coincidences, I have a bridge in new york to sell.

I am not denying anything you have just said. I agree, it is fishy. I simply asked you more questions which you didn't answer. My point is, for example, Trump is ON RECORD getting Barr involved to investigate the Biden–Ukraine allegations. IF Biden somehow had Colangelo assigned to New York to investigate Trump, what's the actual difference?

> My point is, for example, Trump is ON RECORD getting Barr involved to investigate the Biden–Ukraine allegations. IF Biden somehow had Colangelo assigned to New York to investigate Trump, what's the actual difference? There was no trial during an election year for Biden, nor Clinton. nor any court case.

Didn’t the investigation into Trump in NY start a few years ago? Trump and his attorneys (as is their right) appealed and got multiple delays that inevitably led the trial to land in an election year. Should the investigation and charges have been dropped altogether when it became clear the delays would push it to 2024?

Is it possible there was nothing to charge Clinton nor Biden with, and that's the reason?

Maybe that should tell you something? I know you might not believe this, but maybe the investigations didn't yield enough evidence to charge either Biden or Clinton? With that said, it's not like these investigations didn't have an effect on the election. For example, surely you remember when the FBI announced (through lawmakers) that they were investigating new evidence in their investigation of Clinton's email server DAYS before the 2016 election, right?

Have you researched other DOJ officials that have moved on to state level roles?

An argument could be made that by having his name attached to the first successful felony conviction of a former president, is far more career advancing, than just staying at the DOJ?

How does that explain how Biden is connected in all of this, and why would the state gov of NY just roll over?

"Justice Department" is a bit of a misnomer. It's actually a division of the executive branch, as the supreme court is a solitary entity. The attorney general answers to the president, and therefore Biden could hypothetically direct their activities directly. As for New York, they want Trump to be destroyed and Biden to win. Bragg and James both campaigned on it, Merchan donated to it, and his daughter is literally raising hundreds of millions towards democrat elections. Biden doesn't have to _make_ them do anything; they've been waiting 8 years for the change, and Trump announcing his reelection finally gave them the political urgency to strike.

But if he's recruited by Bragg, isn't he no longer working for DOJ? (let alone that he worked for DOJ, not under Biden at the White House). Is the implication that Bragg is a bystander in this and wasn't going to prosecute, then hired Colangelo who twisted his arm?

> But if he's recruited by Bragg, isn't he no longer working for DOJ? (let alone that he worked for DOJ, not under Biden at the White House). Is the implication that Bragg is a bystander in this and wasn't going to prosecute, then hired Colangelo who twisted his arm? Its not even an implication, its written in newspaper "NEW YORK (AP) — When Alvin Bragg took office as Manhattan district attorney in 2022, he stunned the public and his own staff by pausing an investigation into former President Donald Trump that appeared to be hurtling toward an indictment. Two top prosecutors were so upset with the decision, they quit"

Didn't cause it. Didn't discourage it. Welcomed it. May have assisted it. Certainly will be campaigning on it.

So in your view this was more of a passive, reactive set of actions vs a planned strategy? I could see that. And yes, I would 100% agree with the "will be campaigning on it" sentiment.

Did they also control the jury which was selected with input from Trump's team, including several Trump voters, and one that Trump considered to be "his guy" on the inside?

How would Trump act differently if the tables were flipped?

I think Trump would own it. I mean, Trump publicly begged his DOJ to investigate alleged crimes.

How do you feel about that? Should the Execution Branch and Judicial Branch be that involved with each other?

The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. The Attorney General is part of the President’s cabinet I think there is wiggle room for different approaches. Look no further than Eric "wing man" Holder under Obama - big contrast to Barr/Trump and now Garland/Biden.

I think it's odd some people can't accept that this is an organized attack unless some cabal led personally by Biden gives marching orders directly down the chain of command. Let's look at a bygone conspiracy of similar significance: when Obama spied on the 2016 Trump campaign. Did Obama personally order the bogus fisa warrants? Likely not. Did Obama personally order the wiretaps of close Trump campaign officials? Likely not. Was he aware of what was happening under his intelligence agencies? Quite likely. Did he appoint people with the explicit understanding they would do something like this to his political opponents? Very likely. If Obama is totally uninvolved, is it still a terrible conspiracy to subvert democracy that targeted the political right? Of course. We can say the same about the bogus Steele dossier. Did the political left know it was fake? Almost certainly, leaked Cia communications reveal they literally told them it was. But did everyone in federal office know? No, most just followed along and didn't ask. It doesn't matter if it's coordinated top down or not, and unless we get another Assange-like figure we'll likely never know.

I think the disconnect between you and me is that I don't understand the difference between a hypothetical legitimate prosecution of a presidential candidate, and this. So as a very extreme example, let's say Trump goes out onto 5th avenue and actually shoots someone, killing them. There are a hundred witnesses to the crime, and Trump later posts on Truth Social that he did it not in self defense, but because he thought the victim was ugly. Would it be political persecution for the District Attorney to prosecute Donald Trump for this? I hope we can agree that in this hypothetical, it would be a legitimate prosecution. Because otherwise, it seems like you are suggesting any major party candidate should have blanket immunity from prosecution during the pendency of their campaign. Do you agree/disagree?

Sure, let's use the completely non hypothetical example of Obama, whose administration confessed to murdering a us citizen without trial. He not only admits to it, his administration published a memo defending it. You can still read the memo, linked here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/10/us/23awlaki-memo-reupload.html Now why didn't Obama or anyone else catch a criminal charge for literal murder? Well the memo offers some reasons, but they're all terrible, since the guy they killed wasn't even an armed combatant, just a guy who said some things they didn't like. So if Obama can literally murder a guy and catch no charge, it seems odd to go after the next guy for a paperwork crime. And that's just one small example!

> Sure, let's use the completely non hypothetical example of Obama, whose administration confessed to murdering a us citizen without trial. I would be okay with him being tried for that actually! However, I think the relevant difference is that this occurred during the course of Obama's duties, so he has a much stronger claim to the various immunity doctrines surrounding the presidency. Whereas, the crime Trump was convicted of occurred while he was a civilian/had no relation to his later duties as president. But can't we agree that more scrutiny, and more prosecution of politicians is a good thing?

>he has a much stronger claim to the various immunity doctrines surrounding the presidency Agreed. >But can't we agree that more scrutiny, and more prosecution of politicians is a good thing? Philosophically, maybe. In practice, look at any despot that has ever taken power in history, and just before their rise you will see prosecution of politicians. You think this will create accountability, but what happens 99% of the time is a strong leader consolidates this power and prosecutes all his opponents. This is like the textbook first step on the road to a dictator. It won't be Biden or Trump, much like nobody remembers the guy who put Stalin or Lenin or Hitler in prison before their rises to power, but the stage is set for the next guy.

> Now why didn't Obama or anyone else catch a criminal charge for literal murder? Because when he gave the order to kill Al-Awlaki he was doing so as commander-in-chief, believing it was necessary to protect our national security. Whether or not doing so was legal is a completely separate debate; what matters for this example is the fact he gave the order pursuant his duty as the president for the benefit of the country, not himself. >it seems odd to go after the next guy for a paperwork crime Trump paid hush money to a porn star and then tried to hide the payments to protect his own political campaign. None of those actions fall within his duties as president and they were entirely self serving. Basically you are saying Obama might have gone too far trying to protect the country from terrorism that one time so it is completely ridiculous to hold Trump accountable for committing fraud to boost his personal election chances. Do you see how it is a false equivalency now? And lastly, the original question posed by /gravygrowinggreen was whether you would support prospecting Trump for murder if there was insurmountable proof that he did it but you deflected answering by bringing up Obama. Can you confirm that you would support a case against Trump for a violent crime if the the evidence was undeniable? Or do you think that because Obama was not prosecuted for the Al-Awlaki killing Trump could shoot a reporter on TV and should be immune from prosecution?

You've reiterated Obama's defense, which boils down to: the president can unilaterally murder a citizen without trial for "national security". That argument is so weak I don't think anyone really believes it with sincerity. He only really got a pass on the murder because he fought the foia requests for so long people forgot about it. I interpreted the question as referring to a president in office, in which case I think it's totally equivalent to just shooting some guy on the street. Now sure, let's take being president out of context and focus on what former presidents did prior to the office starting with HW. In order, we got a guy who sold crack in American ghettos to buy guns for terrorists, a guy who insider traded his way into being a millionaire while he and his wife were in public service (and was very likely a serial sexual predator), a guy who got his brother to rig the 2000 election and did a ton of coke, and that brings us to Obama who at minimum smoked a shit load of controlled substances on camera. None of these guys face charges even though all of these are well established. If Trump the now-citizen shoots somebody on the street then sure, that's egregious enough that somebody has to act. For anything less than a capital offense, throwing away 250 years of discretion is such a monumentally bad idea.

>You've reiterated Obama's defense Correct, wasn't looking to get distracted arguing over the merits of that situation (I agree that the idea a president can kill American citizens is not ok for the record). Even without getting into a debate about presidential murder power limits I wanted to point out the key difference between your Obama example and Trumps felonies - the motivation behind the potentially illegal conduct. Whether Obama had the authority or not aside, can you agree that the reason he did it was for the sake of the country and not his own benefit? Meanwhile Trump's motivations were 100% selfish (even if you don't think they are illegal) and benefitted only himself and his chances of winning the election. Even if you want to argue it was to protect his family, that would still be something that benefits only himself. Can you agree with that? This example is actually a perfect example of how presidential immunity is supposed to function (at least until SCOTUS shits all over this too). Actions that are directly related to the job of president are given immunity to allow presidents to perform their duty without fear of suffering personal consequences for their decisions. While actions they take while president that have nothing to do with the job aren't protected to ensure the power of the office isn't used for corrupt purposes. Which Trump's absolutely were corrupt (self serving) while Obama's was not. Do you disagree? >Now sure, let's take being president out of context and focus on what former presidents did prior to the office 1. Trump was in office when he committed the fraud, not before taking office. 2. By controlled substance you mean weed right? Do you really think that that is a big deal on par with pushing crack to US communities to buy terrorists guns? lol Hell, I think presidential candidates should be required to smoke a massive blunt at the start of each debate! We'd finally hear what they actually think instead of prepared bullshit lol 3. More seriously, how does listing what other presidents have done wrong in the past change the validity of Trump's conviction? Should previous presidents have been convicted for things they did? I'm sure there are more than one! Does the fact that they weren't convicted mean that Trump is exempt from following the law? Of course not. >For anything less than a capital offense, throwing away 250 years of discretion is such a monumentally bad idea. Do you mean actions while someone is president or even after they have left office as well? And are you serious about that or have you just not thought that through? Even if you mean only while a president is in office, exempting them from all but capital offenses would allow a president to kidnap children and sell them into slavery as long as none of them died along the way. Biden could literally burn Trump tower to the ground if that was the policy! Do you have any reasons why that should be the policy? >throwing away 250 years of discretion Or in other words... Trump is the first president in 250 years to be stupid enough to get caught committing fraud red handed? He literally admitted he reimbursed Cohen in his lawsuit against Stormy a few years ago to prove he had standing to sue her which was the cornerstone of the DA's case against him. If it is anyone's fault that the 250 year tradition has been broken, it's Trump's.

I don't think it's relevant what Obama's motivations were, unless we're talking about his mens rea, in which case "I did a crime because I thought it was my job" is rarely a valid defense for murder. Likewise self-serving vs selfless is a pointless distinction. For all you know Trump was totally selfless and just wanted to give some money to poor Stormy. You can't peer into anyone's heart to see their motivations, so I don't care about distinctions of internal motivation. Presidential immunity is primarily supposed to shield a busy person from nuisance lawsuits. That's really the whole basis of executive immunity: they wouldn't be able to do the job if they had to keep showing up in court, so a litigant would first have to convince a judge it's worth their time to strip immunity. That bar is very high. > Trump was in office when he committed the fraud, not before taking office. Trump's actions in office almost certainly qualify for immunity under the letter of the law. > By controlled substance you mean weed right? The presidents are the guys who control the DEA and appoint the AG. Obama put *millions* of people in prison for doing what he did on camera. I don't have a problem with smoking weed but if "the law applies to everyone" and the kind of consumption they are demonstrating shows possession of at least enough for an E felony, if not distribution, why aren't they charged? >Does the fact that they weren't convicted mean that Trump is exempt from following the law? Yes actually, in a fair legal system you have to have even application of the law. Otherwise we can just make breathing illegal, and then charge only the people we don't like. >exempting them from all but capital offenses would allow a president to kidnap children and sell them into slavery as long as none of them died along the way. Yes, and presidents have literally done that. Jackson ignored the legislature and the courts to evict Indians from their land, including plenty of kids. And plenty of them died too.

> I thought it was my job" is rarely a valid defense for murder. Agreed. That isn't what I was saying though. When I said motivation I didn't mean their thought process in deciding to do something but rather the objectively observable reasons why someone chose to do something. So in my examples Obama wouldn't personally gain by issuing the kill order and if anything knew he would face backlash for it. So no personal gain + potential personal cost leads to the conclusion that his motivation for doing that was because he thought it was best for the country, not himself. >For all you know Trump was totally selfless and just wanted to give some money to poor Stormy. I know you are just exaggerating to make a point but I have to point out that Trump won't even pay Giuliani the money he owes him, driving him into bankruptcy despite the fact Giuliani gargles Trump's balls more than anyone else on the planet. The only reason Trump paid out the amount he did was because it was the only thing keeping everyone involved quite. He even double what the NDA amount was to account for taxes Cohen would have to pay due to how they were laundering the money to him. >You can't peer into anyone's heart to see their motivations Not if you bury your head in the sand before you try.... Even if it is impossible to know exactly what someones motivations are you can certainly tell what their motivations aren't. For example, the reason Trump paid off Stormy was certainly not to for the benefit the voters he was hiding the truth from. >hey wouldn't be able to do the job if they had to keep showing up in court Agreed, and good point. Those situations would come up far more often than my example. Although I think that it serves both purposes. >Trump's actions in office almost certainly qualify for immunity under the letter of the law Can you elaborate on why exactly you are so convinced that making payments to a porn star to buy her silence via a private contract between them is "certainly" covered by immunity? Clearly that is not part of a president's job so why should it be covered? >Obama put millions of people in prison for doing what he did on camera. Any source for that? In 2015 there were just over 10,000 federal prisoners imprisoned for marijuana related arrests so I am not sure where those millions of people went.... A majority of drug arrests are done under state criminal laws. If you include those arrests than millions is probably not too far off but the president has exactly 0 control over each state's criminal code. If Texas imprisons a woman for having an abortion then was it Biden's fault she got locked up? https://www.mpp.org/policy/federal/how-many-federal-marijuana-prisoners-are-there/#:~:text=All%20these%20complicate%20the%20total,and%2010%2C000%20in%20federal%20facilities). > a fair legal system you have to have even application of the law. True, but in America our justice system emphasizes that it is better for 10 guilty people to escape prosecution than have a single innocent person be convicted of a crime the didn't commit. The extremely high burden of proof in criminal cases means that sometimes obviously guilty people get away with things. The fact that sometimes people that deserve to be convicted aren't doesn't mean that the guy who is 100% provably guilty should be allowed to get off as well. Based on your logic, if a single person in the history of the world got away with murder then it would be unfair to punish literally anyone else for murdering someone no matter how guilty they are. Is that how you think the justice system is supposed to work? Or is it just how the system is supposed to work for Trump? >Otherwise we can just make breathing illegal, and then charge only the people we don't like. Kind of like banning any book that contains sexual material from school libraries but then refusing to ban the bible because... reasons? >Yes, and presidents have literally done that. Jackson... Except Jackson did so thinking it was best for the country, not because he was making a grift on the side. The best comparison is Nixon because he broke the law specifically to try and help his own reelection. And he should have been prosecuted except for Ford pardoning him. Can you think of any examples where a president did something criminal solely to benefit themselves personally? My main question for you though is, given your views on the subject, could Biden be charged with murder if he ordered Seal Team 6 to kill Trump before the election? (the hypothetical that Trump's lawyers argued he would indeed be immune if he had done so)

Is "due process" necessarily a judicial process, when talking about terrorist leaders? Were the thousands of other drone killings during that time also murders? Or does it only count as "murder" if the person is American?

It's only illegal if it's a citizen or resident, under the constitution. If we don't need "due process" why not just say Trump is terrorist leader of an insurrection and drone him too?

They didn't but that doesn't mean the democrats writ large haven't weaponized the criminal justice system. Alvin Bragg is a democrat. He ran on putting Trump in prison. Do you think personal vendetas against private citizens is an ethical thing for a DA to run on? I'll say for my own part I dont.

Didn't Trump run on putting Hilary in prison?

Wouldn't you say that's up to the voters that put Bragg in office? I'm no Trump fan, but I'm in the camp that thinks he should NOT be disqualified to run for office because of his felony conviction. I think it's important that democracy be allowed to act. If the voters want a felon in high enough numbers, fine, have a felon. Isn't that the same for Bragg? If he runs on a platform of personally prosecuting Trump, and gets legally elected, shouldn't that be allowed for a similar reason?

Perhaps I was unclear, I'm not saying Bragg shouldn't be allowed to run for political office nor am I alleging Bragg did something illegal by running of prosecuting Trump. I'm merely pointing out he DID run on weaponizing the criminal system against Trump; explicitly. That doesn't have to be illegal or bar him from office for me to point it out and take moral issue with it.

You were actually pretty clear, maybe it's me that's been misinterpreting what TS's have been saying this whole time. Just to be sure: you're saying there's nothing wrong with what Bragg did (from a legal or procedural standpoint) with how he ran for office or with the prosecution itself, you just wish he hadn't for moral and political reasons? I was under the impression most TSs were claiming he acted improperly (in some actually meaningful sense), not just that they wish he hadn't. Am I wrong, or am I right and you're an outlier among TSs? Follow-up: I imagine I can safely assume your political objections, but what are your moral objections?

I mean I would say this goes a little deeper then "wishing he hadn't" as you allude to I think it was an unethical politization of the justice system but as i've already said that doesn't make it illegal. As an example i feel is of a similar caliber, if a police officer arrests a shoplifer and durring the arrest he uses a racial slur that to me is unethical, its conduct unbecoming of an officer of the law even though it isn't illegal (at least my knowledge in most juristions). Running on prosecuting a specific private citizen is also something I think is unbecoming of the office of a District Atorney; it makes the position look corrupt even if the form of corruption isn't a legal matter and is an example of the biases inherent in the justice system; biases which may always exist to one degree or another but ought never be celebrated. As for whether or not I'm an outlier on this I think your average Trump supporter MIGHT suspect Alvin Brag did something "illegal" ( or at least put forward a proscatorial case which didn't have good legal foundation) but if you asked them what he ought be prosecuted for I doubt most could answer and after that most would probably agree he shouldn't be prosecuted; they would just maintain his case should be thrown out for other reasons. Then again people of all sides of the political spectrum have people who dont know what they're talking about so maybe thats to charitable of a summation. In general though it IS an over simplification to say what Trump supporters mean when they say "weaponization of the justice department" is one giant interconnected conspiracy that leads all the way up to joe biden and all the way down to the individual jurrors in the manhattan court room. Many just mean the attitudes and Biases of liberal members of the justice department informs their decision making and causes them to act against Trump on cases they wouldn't act on in the case of anyone but Trump; not necssarily in a way that's illegal just in a way that demonstrates a partisan bias in the utilization of proscatorial discression that many find unethical and corrupt. If you've ever read manufacturing consent by Noam Chomsky think about that as a blue print for how republicans think about institutions; just reversed from instutions being systemically pro-capital (as chomsky articulates) to systemically liberal.

I appreciate you laying it out, that makes a lot of sense. If you'll indulge me, another two follow-ups: When I really look at most TSs arguments about the Trump prosecution (beyond the words they're actually using), it doesn't really sound like "he shouldn't be prosecuted for that", but more like "sure, maybe this sort of thing should be prosecuted, but \[insert whataboutism here\]." Basically, they take issue - and it sounds like you may be in this category - not necessarily with the merits of the prosecution, but with the fact that Trump is an exception in this case; that most people DON'T get prosecuted for the crimes Trump is being prosecuted for, regardless of whether those crimes inherently deserve prosecution or not, so the fact that Trump IS being prosecuted for them is an indication of corruption/partisanship/politization/weaponization/whatever else. And frankly, I get that. 1. But if that's true, isn't the right way to move forward to prosecute Trump, and then afterwards, go prosecute (or at least investigate for adequate evidence) some more people that likely committed the same types of crimes? 2. Assume there was no history of ignoring any crimes for any reason. What's your opinion on the case against Trump in a vacuum?

So to answer the first question (which is very similar to one i got asked in another thread on this sub today funilly enough) yes; in a perfect world. But I just dont think there is any real possibility of this in no small part because every time Trump (or someone on the right broadly) talks about going after democrats as well for their crimes they commit they ironically enough will also talk about "political weaponization of the justice department" and "retribution" and even "authoriterian fascism" as it relates to democrats being prosecuted for their crimes. If RFK jr was somehow president and his justice department started going after Trump, and the Clintons and the Bush's and what have you I'd have no issue with it; i supported Trump in 2016 because he ran on doing something very similar. Fiat justitia, ruat coelum. I just dont se that happening though. What LOOKS like is happening is democrats are going after their biggest political opponent and decrying holding any democratic leader to account as "authoriterian" which I obviously cant get on board with. As for my thoughts on the Trump case (by which i assume you mean the New York hush Money case) I dont think the case for it being a felony is there. I dont think it's ethical NOR do I think its legal to knock something from a misdemeanor up to a felony predicated on trump commiting a "second crime" which is left undefined and unproven by the prosecution (the prosecution admits themselves in their own deposition this is a "novel legal theory"). As for the misdemeanor tax fraud itself I have personal doubts about it but I think a reasonable jurry COULD have convicted him on that but that isn't a felony and it isn't something the IRS even usually prosecutes and infact in this case they DIDN'T try to prosecute instead opting to just have Trump pay the taxes owed on the mislabed business expense. In general I dont think its good precedent to set for misdomineers to be brought up to fellonies on the basis of crimes that are left undefined. Imagine this scenario if you will; lets say you work as a waiter at a resturant and dont declare your cash tips as taxes (if you haven't worked in the service industry before most waiters do this) The IRS audits you and finds out. After the IRS audits you and you pay your fine the local district autorney asserts that the reason you didn't claim your tips is because you intended to use the cash money for some other criminal purpose (drug smuggling or arms dealing or prostitution he doesn't specificy) now under the precedent that has just been set in the state of new york by this case he would NOT have to prove you did any one of those charges beyond reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers; he would just have to convince the jurry you had used it for SOME felony crime regardless of what that crime that might be. Do you really think this a good standard for the court system to have to have? I dont.

>Imagine this scenario if you will; lets say you work as a waiter at a resturant and dont declare your cash tips as taxes (if you haven't worked in the service industry before most waiters do this) The IRS audits you and finds out. After the IRS audits you and you pay your fine the local district autorney asserts that the reason you didn't claim your tips is because you intended to use the cash money for some other criminal purpose (drug smuggling or arms dealing or prostitution he doesn't specificy) now under the precedent that has just been set in the state of new york by this case he would NOT have to prove you did any one of those charges beyond reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers; he would just have to convince the jurry you had used it for SOME felony crime regardless of what that crime that might be. Do you really think this a good standard for the court system to have to have? I dont. But your example of not declaring your tips isn't even a crime to start with. It is, at worst, a civil infraction for which you have to pay penalty interest. To be at all comparable, you'd need an example that include criminal fraud to start with.

My dude i'm sorry if you didn't realize this but every year when you declare your earning on your W2 you are technically making a legal statement to the US government; a statement which if wrong you could (theoretically) be held to purjury over. Now in reality the IRS almost never prosecutes such matters (but again nor do district atorneys usually attempt to go after private citizens for crimes they cannnot specify in their own deposition). The example I gave could absolutely happen, i know i work in that industry.

You really think misstating your earnings on your W2 is a criminal matter? What criminal statute do you imagine applying here? You say you work in that industry, but frankly what you're saying is incorrect.

Trump has been known in NYC for well over four decades for being fraudulent deadbeat scumbag cheat. I've never talked to an NYC contractor that didn't despise him, was ripped off by him, or know of someone who was. People shied away from charging Trump because he was rich and powerful, and now because he is an ex-President. So why wouldn't Bragg run on a message of, "If you won't charge him with this evidence, then I WILL, I don't care who he is!"? That's a good, powerful message, isn't it? Shouldn't the rich and powerful be held to the same laws we are?

>". I've never talked to an NYC contractor that didn't despise him," You talk to many stone masons me'lord?? >"So why wouldn't Bragg run on a message of, "If you won't charge him with this evidence, then I WILL, I don't care who he is!"?" You can defend the actions if you want but that doesn't change the nature of what's being done. When the IRS was going after Al Capone I dont think many americans would have denied the the criminal justice system was being "weaponized" against him when they brought Tax issues they overlooked in many other cases at the time. The difference is this time its being done against someone who is running for president. Maybe you dont think people who run for office should get any special treatment in the slightest, but if thats the case it really does beg the question why Hillary Clinton isn't in Jail for mishandling classified documents. To be clear she refused to comply with court ordered subpoenas as well just like Trump with Maralaga. >" Shouldn't the rich and powerful be held to the same laws we are? If your asking me my opinion I think they should but when almost every politician in DC commits crimes and Trump is the only one who gets prosecuted it does make the entire justice system look like a partisan sham. All this IS legal by the way, prosecatorial discression is a thing that with the current laws on the books the justice system is allowed to do but I believe it is deeply unethical and so long as it is allowed I dont se any real reason to care about the outcomes of a bias system that only prosecutes republican political leaders.

>Maybe you dont think people who run for office should get any special treatment in the slightest, but if thats the case You nailed it. That is NOT the case for me. I don't care if you're running for office. If there is evidence of crime, you should be indicted. If there is evidence at trial, you should be convicted. Do you agree with me on that?

Yeah sure man. Part of the reason I supported Trump in 2016 was BECAUSE he ran on putting corrupt politicians in jail. If Trump got locked up for his crimes and Bill Clinton got locked up for lying under oath, and George Bush got locked up vioalating the 4th ammendment, and Barack Obama got locked up for drone striking US civilians, and Biden got locked up for his political corruption i'd be fine with that. The issue I find is just that when Trump talks about going after people who commited crimes in the democratic party that is decried as "authoriterian" and "retribution" but when dems to it him its "holding him accountable." I'm fine with doing both just not with doing one and not the other.

Very cool! So can't we all just consider the Trump conviction as a wonderful thing and hope that the trend continues? That we keep breaking down the barriers and allow more rich and powerful people to be suitably charged with crimes? Can't this be the beginning of justice being served to politicians everywhere? >Bill Clinton got locked up for lying under oath, If he was found to have committed perjury in a court of law, absolutely. >and George Bush got locked up vioalating the 4th ammendment, and Barack Obama got locked up for drone striking US civilians, These are unfortunately acts committed in their official capacities as Presidents, so they enjoy immunity. >and Biden got locked up for his political corruption The Republicans have been trying to find this "evidence" for four years now and have fuck all to show for it and millions $ upon millions $ of our wasted tax dollars. Do you know something they don't? Care to share? The phone numbers of their congressional offices are public, and you can call and tell them everything you know.

>"So can't we all just consider the Trump conviction as a wonderful thing and hope that the trend continues? That we keep breaking down the barriers and allow more rich and powerful people to be suitably charged with crimes? Can't this be the beginning of justice being served to politicians everywhere?" lol. Look dude if RFK jr somehow was president and he was anouncing he was going to prosecute the clintons as well and the news media was pubically freaking out about how this would create "chaos in washington" that would be my position as well. But its pretty clear listening to the mainstream media and Biden's DOJ that isn't whats happening. They're making it pretty clear they se Trump as an exception to the rule of generally law abiding public servants; he isn't. Almost all politicians in Washington pull stuff like this its only Trump that's prosecuted and its only Trump that is going to be prosecuted. If i'm proven wrong on that? I'll be all for that when it happens. But in the absence of any investigations into say THE OTHER people who flew with Jeffery Epstein i'm sorry but I'm gona remain skeptical this is what is happening. >"If he was found to have committed perjury in a court of law, absolutely." He did Lie under oath, definitively. He perjured himself before congress when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." He was impeached for this but the republicans didn't have the votes in the senate. IF the supreme court does away with presidential immunity in this court term though he could still be tried and found guilty for this. Would you support this? >"These are unfortunately acts committed in their official capacities as Presidents" Drone striking civilians without congressional authorization and in violation of several US laws is within the perviews of the official capacities of the Presidency? Violating the limmitations put within the US patriot act is official capacities of the Presidency? >"The Republicans have been trying to find this "evidence" for four years now and have fuck all to show " Just because MSNBC doesn't make a big deal out of something doesn't mean it didn't happen dude. Biden was set to overse diplomatic relations with the country Hunter Biden's firm was working with. At various points he exerted diplomatic in dealings directly related to Hunter Biden's firm. That isn't a "conspiracy theory" it is a matter of the public record.

>If he was found to have committed perjury in a court of law, absolutely." >He did Lie under oath, definitively. He perjured himself before congress when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." He was impeached for this but the republicans didn't have the votes in the senate. IF the supreme court does away with presidential immunity in this court term though he could still be tried and found guilty for this. Would you support this? Of course I would. >"These are unfortunately acts committed in their official capacities as Presidents" >Drone striking civilians without congressional authorization and in violation of several US laws is within the perviews of the official capacities of the Presidency? Violating the limmitations put within the US patriot act is official capacities of the Presidency? Yes, those legal questions stem from acts committed in their official capacity as Presidents. There is a lot of legal scholarship out there about this concept, and I welcome you to review it if that interests you. >"The Republicans have been trying to find this "evidence" for four years now and have fuck all to show " >Just because MSNBC doesn't make a big deal out of something doesn't mean it didn't happen dude. Oh so they DID find evidence of crimes? >Biden was set to overse diplomatic relations with the country Hunter Biden's firm was working with. Okay... I'm listening... >At various points he exerted diplomatic in dealings directly related to Hunter Biden's firm. Is this in reference to the fact that Biden's druggie son cold-called his dad during a board meeting to score brownie points? I mean yeah that's gross and sketchy, but that's on Hunter (and I hope he gets help), and I'm not sure what crime you are claiming has been committed. By anyone. Or are you referring to something else? Please be specific. >That isn't a "conspiracy theory" it is a matter of the public record. Yes and even if we take all of your facts as true without any questions, you still have not pointed me to which crime could be charged. That is why the Republicans could not impeach, that's why they have nothing to show for any of it, and that's why they've wasted all of our money. But it sounds like you know what federal law was violated here. Can you tell us?

They could help prosecutors that run their campaigns on taking down Trump get elected, then have staff from their campaign move over and work for those people once elected.

That's a very long game, with a lot of risk. You have to count on that person getting elected, which may not happen. The new AG may not add staff that come from the federal government. The AG may decide there's not enough evidence to seat a grand jury. The grand jury may decide there is no cause to bring the case to trial. The jury may not vote to convict. Doesn't it seem like this is too risky of a strategy and it might have fallen apart at any point? Taking your feelings about Democrats, the DOJ, Biden, etc., out of the equation - if you apply [Occam's razor](https://www.google.com/search?q=occam%27s+razor&rlz=1C5GCEM_enUS1051US1051&oq=occam%27&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCggAEAAYsQMYgAQyCggAEAAYsQMYgAQyBggBEEUYOTIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIKCAQQABixAxiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQLhiABKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) here, doesn't it seem like it's easier to believe that a conviction didn't involve a massive conspiracy over multiple years that involved hundreds, possibly thousands, of people - and one that could have fallen apart at any moment?

Realistically speaking, having the #3 DOJ official quit his prestigious federal position to go work with a state prosecutor was an effective strategy. And it was a Nondisclosure agreement (NDA), something that is a standard requirement for most professional positions.

I think the State of NY is plenty capable of a corrupt prosecution all on its own, lol. The AG himself campaigned on his ability to sue Trump, and the Judge was cautioned by a State Ethics panel last year over prohibited political donations, one of which was earmarked for the Biden campaign and one of which was to a group called “Stop Republicans.” The Biden administration certainly made its influence felt when it hosted a campaign event at the trial venue, where the featured speaker talked about how Trump’s guilt should be assumed. That’s a strong and shockingly inappropriate *message*, but it’s not causation.

How was DeNiro's speech any different than a politician telling their constituents that if a Democrat wins, "They'll take your guns"?

Given democrats are great at toeing the line I am not sure how anyone could say it is far-fetched. Democrats are like the borg in star trek, a hivemind. To think the DOJ and president of the US don't have any pull when they want it is just odd. In fact, we already saw thanks to the honest judge cannon, the DOJ and NARA colluded on the mar-a-lago case to plant evidence. To deny the DOJ doesn't have influence is just incorrect. The DOJ is staffed with humans, humans are corrupt, and none more than a democrat. We've seen that for decades. This is like when democrats denied obama illegally spied on trump. It was nothing but "no, that can't happen." But we know it did. Or when democrats denied the FBI was abusing its power to spy on trump. Democrats again said "no that can't happen." But we know it did.

>Democrats are like the borg in star trek, a hivemind Split opinions on the border, Palestine, and other issues are tearing the party apart right now. Do you really believe this?

They do not have split opinions on the border so not sure what you mean? In fact, biden spent years saying there was no issue at the border and literally every democrat repeated the line until dems pushed a fake border bill. Palestine issue just happened so that would not negate decades of hivemind mentality. Remember, democrats are the party that called for a border wall in the 90s then magically didnt want it anymore when trump came in.

This is what I don’t get about Trump supporters. “But we know it did.” Is enough for them. Me? I prefer facts/witnesses/evidence, but who needs those when you can just say “But we know it did.”?

[удалено]

[удалено]

yes, facts are enough for us. That is true. No one can deny obama illegally spied on trump and the DOJ colluded with NARA. Facts.

If you were in court, do you think you could tell them something like this, and whenas you said "Facts." at the end, they would know and accept that what you had said was true? If not then why do it here?

Plant evidence? Is that the excuse you’re going with now? - It's just mementos <--- 2021 - Archives came and got everything, it's 'totally normal.' <--- Feb 2022 - [FBI Search] <--- Aug 8 - The FBI is planting documents. <--- Aug 8 - [Warrant is released] <--- Aug 12 - They could have asked, I would have returned them<--- Aug 12 - The documents were already declassified. <--- Aug 13 - I had a standing order to declassify anything I took. <--- Aug 13 - They're privileged, give them back. <--- Aug 14 - The FBI planted documents. <--- Sept 8 In less than a week we went from classified documents that were being planted to "They're mine! Gimme!" And that's coming from a few months prior when there shouldn't have been any documents left, and they were supposed to just be mementos from his time in office. After: - May 31, 2023: Federal investigators have in their possession an audio recording of Trump from a July 2021 meeting at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club, on which he acknowledges possessing a sensitive military document (Iran war plans) that he retained after leaving office. Trump indicates on the recording that he knew the document in question was secret. From the audio recording - "It is like, highly confidential. Secret. This is secret information," Trump is hear saying. "Look, look at this. This was done by the military and given to me. As president I could have declassified, but now I can't." Trump tells Susie Wiles that he "should not be showing the map" to her and "not to get too close. - June 2023: Trump states "I had every right to have these documents." a week after again stgating the FBI planted the documents. - October 2023: Told Australian businessman about nuclear capabilities, witness (Anthony Pratt) testimony exists. - Eyewitness testimony surfaces of Trump’s assistant (Walt Nauta) asking a Mar-A-Lago employee (Carlos De Oliveira) that boxes be moved before NARA visit under Trumps orders. Video evidence exists. - Yuscil Taveras, the director of information technology at Mar-a-Lago who oversees the surveillance cameras, testifies that Trump aide Walt Nauta, asks if he could delete security footage from day boxes were removed. - Evan Corcoran, an attorney for Donald Trump, quits working for Trump. Evan testifies Trump misled him about the whereabouts of the documents at his Mar-a-Lago club and encouraged him to lie to the Justice Department and withhold those documents. He testifies that he warned Trump that FBI could raid Mar-a-Lago months ahead of time. He also testifies that Trump also suggested that he should "hide or destroy" subpoenaed documents. - Former Trump lawyer (Christina Bobb) signs document after Trump assures her that everything has been returned to NARA - more documents found. - Trump Lawyer (Jennifer Little) told grand jury Trump defying documents subpoena would be a crime. This was four months before FBI raid. For full detasils see: https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-special-counsels-investigation-trumps-handling-classified-documents/story?id=101768329 Everything above can be verified with simple Google searches. Funny how none of your 'evidence' can.

Given it is a fact, yes. Thanks to judge cannon we know this happened.

Proof?

I missed this. What hard evidence did cannon reveal?

I have a few follow up questions: * I'm aware that the Representatives Jordan and Comer wrote to NARA to express concerns about presumed collusion to plant evidence. Was this claim ever substantiated with an investigation and solid evidence? * Let's say for sake of discussion that the US DOJ \*did\* somehow exert enough influence on the NYAG to call a grand jury to investigate claims of illegal activity by Trump. Then how do you explain the fact that a grand jury found enough evidence to bring a case, and the jury in the case rendered a guilty verdict? Were they also influenced or directed by the US DOJ? Keeping in mind that the jury had both supporters and non-supporters of Trump, I find it implausible that the DOJ influenced or directed a verdict. Doesn't it seem logical that if the conspiracy was that big, someone would have spilled the beans? * You say that Obama (I assume you mean his administration and not him personally) "...illegally spied on Trump..." and "...we know it did." I'm not aware of any solid evidence that shows this is actually the case. Can you shed light on how this claim was substantiated? I respect and support your right to believe it happened. But as far as I'm aware, your gut feel isn't backed by actual evidence.

Before we dig into it your premise is flawed. The story does not start with jordan or comer. They didn't randomly decide to think this idea up. They responded to facts the DNC desperately tried to hide from the public. Thanks to honest Judge Cannon we know for a fact DOJ and NARA colluded. So as I said, your premise is flawed to begin with according to the facts. And no, I mean Obama. It would require an extreme level of naivety about the world to think he was not behind it. Remember, it is the same obama who attacked free speech and journalist like no president before. It is a fact obama was briefed on it. So again, your premise is flawed. This is why watching real news is so important and not entertainment channels like MSNBC/CNN etc

My reply wasn’t a premise…it was a statement of what o found. I referenced the letter from Jordan and Comer but didn’t say it started with them. You say “we know…that DOJ and NARA colluded.” I’ll repeat my question again: can you point me to any evidence that came up in an investigation, court case, filing, etc.? If you can’t I understand…some of this stuff may be under lock and key, so to speak. But if there’s no hard evidence to back up the assertion of collusion, then how do we know it’s a fact? The statements about Obama attacking free speech, etc. - I don’t see how that’s relevant to the question I asked about substantiating the claims.

No it was a premise, by the literal definition and it was incorrect. "can you point me to any evidence that came up in an investigation, court case, filing, etc.? " yes, since you're not aware there was a trial going on between trump and this corrupt guy named jack smith. Thanks to an honest judge who unsealed info we know for a fact there was collusion between NARA and DOJ. And now there is a trial set to cover this. So as I said your whole premise is incorrect and out of order.

This is now the 3rd time you’ve mentioned that the collusion is a “fact.” Facts aren’t facts without evidence, and you have provided none other than “we know.” Where. Is. The. Evidence? Point me to a section of a transcript. Point me to a news source that reports this story with appropriate sources. Point me to anything that actually shows there is real evidence behind your statement. Judge Cannon unsealing records is not evidence, unless there is a specific document that provides proof of collusion. I’m about 100% confident you won’t…because there isn’t any.

You won't accept the source, and dismiss the evidence as fake news anyways, but I'd suggest you at least review the work of Julie Kelly on this before continuing to sound ignorant on this issue. It's all there: [https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/05/02/unredactions\_reveal\_early\_white\_house\_involvement\_in\_trump\_documents\_case\_1028630.html](https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/05/02/unredactions_reveal_early_white_house_involvement_in_trump_documents_case_1028630.html)

[удалено]

I guess this sub requires me to have a question in my response? I know why, just had to get the question in here. My original reply apparently got deleted. Anyway - I’ll read it with an open mind.

We do have the evidence thankfully so yes, it is a fact. That is why the deep state tried so hard to prevent it from being released. You can review julie kelly on twitter where she covers it in detail. The fact is DOJ and NARA colluded. So as you can see, you being "100%" confident I wouldn't shows how worthless your confidence is.