Trump allegedly indicted in a Georgia 2020 subversion probe

[KingVamp]

I like how "politically motivated" became an excuse for him to just break all the laws.

 

[Foxi4]

I like how "politically motivated" became an excuse for him to just break all the laws.

I wouldn’t call that an excuse, there’s simply strong disagreement as to whether he broke the law at all. That’s where the disconnect actually is, and painting it as anything else is muddying the waters.

 

[Xzi]

I don’t know why the liberally-minded people here are pretending that the indictments are not politically motivated - they obviously are.

Come the fuck on dude, anybody who makes that phone call would rightfully be indicted. And the moron went even further by submitting the request in writing, then trying to break into their voting system in January. Assuming he's convicted, the Georgia case belongs among the world record-holders for dumbest attempt at a crime.

In addition to the eighteen others being charged, there are thirty-three unindicted co-conspirators. I'd count on at least a handful of them showing up to testify against Trump.

 

[Foxi4]

Come the fuck on dude, anybody who makes that phone call would rightfully be indicted. And the moron went even further by submitting the request in writing, then trying to break into their voting system in January. Assuming he's convicted, the Georgia case belongs among the world record-holders for dumbest attempt at a crime.

In addition to the eighteen others being charged, there are thirty-three unindicted co-conspirators. I'd count on at least a handful of them showing up to testify against Trump.

I’m sorry, we’re discussing the same phone call we did 2 years ago. Everybody and their dog had heard it already. It didn’t faze me then and it doesn’t particularly faze me now. I don’t think Trump leveraged any executive privilege to pressure anyone into doing anything - Georgia was free to reject his whinging, and has rejected it. Trump had specific concerns about the election based on the faulty information that was in circulation at the time and that was available to him. Those concerns turned out to be for the most part innocuous later on, but they weren’t innocuous to him at the time, hence the call. Raffensperger informed Trump that the data he had was wrong and ended up doing exactly what he was going to do regardless of the contents of the conversation. If you want to try Trump on the grounds of being misinformed and concerned then go right ahead, from where I’m sitting, he was operating under the (honest or dishonest, I’m not inside his head) impression that there were fake ballots being dropped off and that ballots were counted multiple times. That did not turn out to be quite right, but seemed urgent enough for Trump to personally raise an objection. This entire conversation is as cold as Thanksgiving leftovers, there’s only so much I could care about a call that was discussed to death 2 years ago.

 

[KingVamp]

I wouldn’t call that an excuse, there’s simply strong disagreement as to whether he broke the law at all. That’s where the disconnect actually is, and painting it as anything else is muddying the waters.

What's muddying the waters, is all the lies and excuses being made for and from Trump.

Come the fuck on dude, anybody who makes that phone call would rightfully be indicted. And the moron went even further by submitting the request in writing, then trying to break into their voting system in January. Assuming he's convicted, the Georgia case belongs among the world record-holders for dumbest attempt at a crime.

In addition to the eighteen others being charged, there are thirty-three unindicted co-conspirators. I'd count on at least a handful of them showing up to testify against Trump.

It is sad how many people have gotten charged or jailed because of him.

 

[Foxi4]

It is sad how many people have gotten charged or jailed because of him.

A politician or a political orbiter getting charged or jailed is always a reason for celebration, we don’t get nearly enough of those kinds of treats. Jails should be bursting at the seams with those crooks, I will happily observe the spectacle from a safe distance.

 

[Xzi]

I’m sorry, we’re discussing the same phone call we did 2 years ago. Everybody and their dog had heard it already. It didn’t faze me then and it doesn’t particularly faze me now.

It was a crime then and it's a crime now. The only difference is the time necessary to gather all the facts and supporting evidence.

Trump had specific concerns about the election based on the faulty information that was in circulation at the time and that was available to him. Those concerns turned out to be for the most part innocuous, but they weren’t innocuous to him at the time, hence the call. Raffenspberger informed Trump that the data he had was wrong and ended up doing exactly what he was going to do regardless of the contents of the conversation. If you want to try Trump on the grounds of being misinformed and concerned then go right ahead, from where I’m sitting, he was operating under the (honest or dishonest, I’m not in head) impression that there were fake ballots being dropped off and that ballots were counted multiple times.

Fake electors were gathered. Meetings were held. Voting systems were infiltrated. If the phone call was all there was, maybe you'd have a straw to grasp at here, but there was clear intent to overturn the results of the election, and actions taken in pursuit of that goal. Feigning ignorance would be a terrible courtroom strategy in this instance, but for that reason I hope it's the one he goes with.

 

[RedColoredStars]

I’m sorry, we’re discussing the same phone call we did 2 years ago. Everybody and their dog had heard it already. It didn’t faze me then and it doesn’t particularly faze me now. I don’t think Trump leveraged any executive privilege to pressure anyone into doing anything - Georgia was free to reject his whinging, and has rejected it. Trump had specific concerns about the election based on the faulty information that was in circulation at the time and that was available to him. Those concerns turned out to be for the most part innocuous later on, but they weren’t innocuous to him at the time, hence the call. Raffensperger informed Trump that the data he had was wrong and ended up doing exactly what he was going to do regardless of the contents of the conversation. If you want to try Trump on the grounds of being misinformed and concerned then go right ahead, from where I’m sitting, he was operating under the (honest or dishonest, I’m not inside his head) impression that there were fake ballots being dropped off and that ballots were counted multiple times. That did not turn out to be quite right, but seemed urgent enough for Trump to personally raise an objection. This entire conversation is as cold as Thanksgiving leftovers, there’s only so much I could care about a call that was discussed to death 2 years ago.

You lack of understanding simple concepts continues to amaze me because it sounds an awful lot like you're saying in a whole lot of words, that he's innocent due to ignorance.

 

[Foxi4]

It was a crime then and it's a crime now. The only difference is the time necessary to gather all the facts and supporting evidence.

Conspiracy requires intent.

Fake electors were gathered. Meetings were held. Voting systems were infiltrated. If the phone call was all there was, maybe you'd have a straw to grasp at here, but there was clear intent to overturn the results of the election, and actions taken in pursuit of that goal. Feigning ignorance would be a terrible courtroom strategy in this instance, but for that reason I hope it's the one he goes with.

Sure, if you can prove that it was Trump who organised all that, or that it was organised at his direct order. Moreover, Trump was not empowered to overthrow anything without Georgia playing along, so you’re dealing with a breakfast club with no real power behind it. In any case I am unwilling to draw any conclusions until the legal process plays out fully, particularly since I don’t care about the outcome. I’m simply stating that the timing suggests the prosecution is politically motivated, and it does.

You lack of understanding simple concepts continues to amaze me because it sounds an awful lot like you're saying in a whole lot of words, that he's innocent due to ignorance.

If that’s the tack you’re going with, I didn’t establish that standard, James Comey did. That’s besides the point though.

Also, side note.

They know the words and they know what those words mean, but once they’re put together into sentences, they turn into gobbledygook and whatever the person *wanted* to read rather than what was actually said. You’ll see an example of just that happening in real time in about 5 minutes.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[KingVamp]

A politician or a political orbiter getting charged or jailed is always a reason for celebration, we don’t get nearly enough of those kinds of treats. Jails should be bursting at the seams with those crooks, I will happily observe the spectacle from a safe distance.

Sad, in the sense that it didn't even need to happen, if they just stopped following behind him. Not sad that they, including Trump, is finally getting consequences for their actions.

Fake electors were gathered. Meetings were held. Voting systems were infiltrated. If the phone call was all there was, maybe you'd have a straw to grasp at here, but there was clear intent to overturn the results of the election, and actions taken in pursuit of that goal. Feigning ignorance would be a terrible courtroom strategy in this instance, but for that reason I hope it's the one he goes with.

Then still kept going, even after Fox "News" got sued.

 

[Xzi]

I’m simply stating that the timing suggests the prosecution is politically motivated, and it does.

Trump's modus operandi his entire life has been to delay all criminal and civil proceedings against him, indefinitely if possible. Thus his sudden reversal in complaining about the charges "not coming fast enough" rings entirely hollow. Same goes for crying "politics" in cases where 99% of the witnesses testifying against Trump are Republicans, roughly half the jurors will be Republicans, and at least one out of three judges is a clearly-biased Trump fangirl.

If anything, the system is being far too lenient on a fascist intent on gaming it until it falls. Trump is threatening and attempting to intimidate witnesses and judges daily on social media. Any other law-abiding citizen would already be in jail pending trial.

 

[Foxi4]

Trump's modus operandi his entire life has been to delay all criminal and civil proceedings against him, indefinitely if possible. His sudden reversal in complaining about the charges "not coming fast enough" this time rings entirely hollow. Same goes for crying "politics" in cases where 99% of the witnesses testifying against Trump are Republicans, roughly half the jurors will be Republicans, and at least one out of three judges is a clearly-biased Trump fangirl.

If anything, the system is being far too lenient on a fascist intent on gaming it until it falls. Trump is threatening and attempting to intimidate witnesses and judges daily on social media. Any other law-abiding citizen would already be in jail pending trial.

You’re under the impression that establishment republicans are in love with Trump. If they could put Trump on a rocket aimed directly at the sun, they would. Their alliance was both reluctant and temporary. I’m not a huge fan of the GOP though, so I may be an unreliable commentator in this regard.

 

[Xzi]

You’re under the impression that establishment republicans are in love with Trump. If they could put Trump on a rocket aimed directly at the sun, they would. Their alliance was both reluctant and temporary. I’m not a huge fan of the GOP though, so I may be an unreliable commentator here.

These aren't "establishment Republicans," though, they WERE some of Trump's closest allies. Nobody hates the man more than people who have had to work closely with him, and that says something. He requires absolute loyalty (read: fealty) and reciprocates none.

 

[Foxi4]

These aren't "establishment Republicans," though, they WERE some of Trump's closest allies. Nobody hates the man more than people who have had to work closely with him, and that says something. He requires absolute loyalty (read: fealty) and reciprocates none.

I don’t see how “closest ally” and “establishment republican” are mutually exclusive categories. It’s as if you don’t know who Lindsey Graham is. The saying goes that everyone has skeletons in their closet - these kinds of people store skins they’ve shed over the years instead.

Like snakes.

I’m calling them snakes @Xzi, in case I’m not being obvious. This is not to be confused with reptilians, that’s the other side of the aisle, let’s keep it fair. You have to be super duper obvious in POLtemp, lest someone misunderstands what you’re saying for, say, a recipe for a peach cobbler, or something else that you haven’t actually said.

 

[Xzi]

I don’t see how “closest ally” and “establishment republican” are mutually exclusive categories. It’s as if you don’t know who Lindsey Graham is. The saying goes that everyone has skeletons in their closet - these kinds of people store skins they’ve shed over the years.

These are the same individuals Trump called "the best people" when he brought them into his administration, but we both knew that was bullshit from the get-go, didn't we. "The best people" have never been in contact with Donald Trump, and his administration had a higher turnover rate than a Wal-Mart on the bad side of town. It all circles back to him being utterly repellent. Hell, even Kushner and Ivanka gave him the metaphorical middle finger after they got the bag from the Saudis.

 

[Foxi4]

These are the same individuals Trump called "the best people" when he brought them into his administration, but we both knew that was bullshit from the get-go, didn't we. "The best people" have never been in contact with Donald Trump, and his administration had a higher turnover rate than a Wal-Mart on the bad side of town. It all circles back to him being utterly repellent. Hell, even Kushner and Ivanka gave him the metaphorical middle finger after they got the bag from the Saudis.

Everything that is in support of Trump is the best, the biggest (yuge), amazing and terrific, everything that is against Trump is fake, fat, droopy and sleepy. That’s why we (the deplorable MAGAts and Trumpeteers) love him - we like this spectacle, for our own selfish reasons. I don’t think this has ever been a secret, he is a WWE Hall of Famer after all. He’s a heel, but he’s our heel. I’m pretty sure we had this chat before.

 

[Xzi]

Everything that is in support of Trump is the best, the biggest (yuge), amazing and terrific, everything that is against Trump is fake, fat, droopy and sleepy. That’s why we (the deplorable MAGAts and Trumpeteers) love him - we like this spectacle, for our own selfish reasons. I don’t think this has ever been a secret, he is a WWE Hall of Famer after all. He’s a heel, but he’s our heel. I’m pretty sure we had this chat before.

As cute/pathetic as the fantasy world concocted in Trump supporters' heads may be, in reality the morbidly obese old dotard still has to reap what he's sown. Wrestlers aren't above the law and neither is he.

 

[Foxi4]

As cute/pathetic as the fantasy world concocted in Trump supporters' heads may be, in reality the morbidly obese old dotard still has to reap what he's sown. Wrestlers aren't above the law and neither is he.

…and as such, we’re waiting for the legal process to play out. That doesn’t stop anyone from making observations based on what is plainly obvious and readily available. One thing’s for certain - the end result of all of these proceedings will set a new standard in American politics and in ethics, and everyone is watching, some more intently than others.

 

[Xzi]

One thing’s for certain - the end result of all of these proceedings will set a new standard in American politics and in ethics, and everyone is watching, some more intently than others.

Let's hope, because the standard set by declining to prosecute Nixon for his crimes was a bad one, and you can draw a line straight from Watergate to Trump's indictments. Reagan was a criminal and GWB was a war criminal, so it's no surprise Trump viewed the oval office as a safe haven for that activity.

 

[Foxi4]

Let's hope, because the standard set by declining to prosecute Nixon for his crimes was a bad one, and you can draw a line straight from Watergate to Trump's indictments. Reagan was a criminal and GWB was a war criminal, so it's no surprise Trump viewed the oval office as a safe haven for that activity.

You don’t have to go that far back to see inconsistency in prosecution of politicians. This is particularly pertinent in regards to the classified documents indictment. I distinctly recall a couple other politicians who negligently mishandled classified (including “top secret”) information, but at the time they were deemed too old, too stupid or too incompetent to press any charges (I would love to say that I’m joking, but that’s what it boils down to). Who’s keeping score though?