Trump indicted...again

[GMDino]

Do you think it was just another grift?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump talking about the govt paying Nixon to get records back that he took: “I have the right to take stuff! Do you know they ended up paying Richard Nixon $18 million for what he had?” <a href="https://t.co/XF6iZ3hoBB">pic.twitter.com/XF6iZ3hoBB</a></p>&mdash; Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) <a href="https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1667265277246033939?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 9, 2023</a></blockquote> 

[GMDino]

(06-09-2023, 02:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you for answering.  Now a second part, what if you knew that in so doing his supporters had a 50/50 chance of actually winning.  Same answer?   



As a pro 2A advocate I literally make this argument all the time.  




No, that's not quite accurate.  There's been so much illegal activity by former POTU'S's that this will look like selective prosecution for those inclined to think that way.  The problem is they won't be entirely wrong.



Who knows?  Once that ball starts rolling where it stops becomes anyone's guess.


Being concerned for a very possible outcome that will roil this nation is not fearmongering, it's being realistic.  Whether you think the risks are worth taking is, of course, your decision.  When weighing the potential benefits of a Trump indictment/conviction versus the possible ramifications then the cost/benefit analysis is heavily skewed against this action.  Trump going to prison won't change a single thing about how POTUS's conduct themselves.  I don't see how you think this will be beneficial watershed moment for US politics.  If it is a moment, at all, it won't be in a good way.

Yes even if I TRULY believed there was a 50/50 chance they would "win".

My question is win what?  Start a new country?  Take over the army and install Trump?

I think what's happening is somehow the right is setting this up to be "the left's fault" when violence happens because they shoul dhave known the right would violent.

Which, in not so many words, its the kind of dumb thing the right would say.

[*Nately120*]

Joe Biden can just think about those boxes and declassify them though, right?

[GMDino]

Trump's lawyers quit.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump talking about the govt paying Nixon to get records back that he took: “I have the right to take stuff! Do you know they ended up paying Richard Nixon $18 million for what he had?” <a href="https://t.co/XF6iZ3hoBB">pic.twitter.com/XF6iZ3hoBB</a></p>&mdash; Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) <a href="https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1667265277246033939?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 9, 2023</a></blockquote>

Gee...I wonder why?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Gobsmacking. Trump gift-wraps every element of the crime in about a 20 second conversation. <a href="https://t.co/rOw6RIX6xK">pic.twitter.com/rOw6RIX6xK</a></p>&mdash; Radley Balko (@radleybalko) <a href="https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1667239881167216640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 9, 2023</a></blockquote>

[GMDino]

Yeah I can see why someone would think we should just let this clown off the hook.  I mean it was only military secrets!  What could go wrong with them in his hands?  

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Gobsmacking. Trump gift-wraps every element of the crime in about a 20 second conversation. <a href="https://t.co/rOw6RIX6xK">pic.twitter.com/rOw6RIX6xK</a></p>&mdash; Radley Balko (@radleybalko) <a href="https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1667239881167216640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 9, 2023</a></blockquote> 

[samhain]

(06-09-2023, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In instances like this perception is going to trump (no pun) reality every time.  If federal charges are being brought it's by the DOJ, which is currently run by Democrats under a Democratic POTUS.  This facts are all a huge number of people are going to need, or care, to know.



Actually, my thinking is that the only way out of this is for Biden to be indicted as well.  I can see a scenario where they clear both Trump and Biden out of the way for '24 and have the country move on.  Maybe that's too tinfoil hat like thinking, but it's the only way I can see this not being a huge tipping point for our country.


You have way more faith in Garland than I think he deserves.  Also, every POTUS has been above the law, if not then many of them would be in jail.  W certainly would, why isn't he?

I get your civil unrest argument and even agree to an extent.  If Trump was not running for office, I could even see letting this slide.  In most cases, a president is teflon because he's got at east some degree of popular support.  Still, if this is always the logical path when proceeding forward, a president is less of a president and more of an autocrat.  I'm not talking about Trump specifically as an autocrat, I speak in terms of generality.  

I suppose a pragmatic way to look at it is through the lens of the snaking of the SCOTUS appointment by the GOP after Scalia died.  It wasn't illegal, and the electorate had technically put the party in a position to wield the power to overrule historical precedent.  It pissed a ton of people off, but at the end of the day, it was a major win for the right.  

This is similar to me, as the electorate has put this administration in a place to pursue Trump.  If the vast majority wanted his protection above all, he'd still be president, and the GOP would have pounded the dems in midterms.  Would I do it if I were in this administration's position?  Idk.  Depends on the severity of the charges.  Then again, I wouldn't have stripped Obama of the chance to appoint a SCOTUS replacement, either.  

As for going after presidents, we're kind of accustomed to seeing these people on trial.  Clinton faced legal consequences and his wife got grilled while running for office.  Hell, Hillary got nailed right before the election with accusations.  This is the new way of things in politics, and I assume the right will take the same path if given the chance.

The only thing that will save an executive from legal problems in the foreseeable future is an electorate giving them the ability.  If the other party gains control, it's gonna be game on.  I also see pardons coming down the pipe if a republican president inhabits the White House next year.  

As for the potential of violence, I assume it's coming and don't much care anymore.  We already live with that possibility as well, be it random or political.  I doubt there will be a nationally organized faction avenging Trump and slaughtering us libs in concentration camps, but you never know.  I think many on the right would sleep just fine at night if that unlikely possibility came to be.  I see an uptick in terrorism more than anything, and rest assured, any violence committed in the name of a besmirched and convicted Trump will be exactly that.  The left has enjoyed the consequences of violence and the terrorist characterization, and so has the right to a degree.  It's just a matter of who scares the shit out of the average voter more at a given time.  Let some MAGA dispshits start blowing up buildings and shooting into crowds and see how fast anyone tied to him loses viability in a general election.  

[*pally*]

All he ever had to do was to say "oops...so sorry, here they are" and he wouldn't be facing charges

[kalibengal]

(06-09-2023, 04:35 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Read the 38-count espionage indictment of Donald J. Trump here.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000188-a12f-db74-ab98-b3ff4de50000

The right will try to spin this as a political hit job, but read the indictment and realize how serious this is in regards to our National security.  What strikes me as damning is that this indictment lists Trump's attorneys as Attorney 1, Attorney 2, and Attorney 3 he instructed them to conceal and to lie to the FBI that he did not have said documents.  Also, there is another who conspired with Donald Trump who will most likely flip.  

Remember a federal judge ruled b/c Trump instructed his lawyers 1, 2, and 3 to commit federal crimes by misleading federal investigators that he forfeited his 6th Amendment protection.  This ruling removed the attorney-client privilege aka 6th Amendment protections, and they testified under oath to the special DOJ council against Defendant Trump.

These are very serious charges that include documents that detail our troop movements and capabilities in foreign countries.  Also, documents regarding our nation's nuclear capabilities.  If this is proven, this is an assault on our military by giving away their positions and capabilities.  If it proven Trump was trying to use this as leverage to line his pockets by offering them to foreign countries (E.g., Putin or the Saudis) it will rise to the level of treason.

What I'm wondering is why would Trump want to have these and then want to hide these documents, claim that he didn't have them, and then instruct his lawyers to help him hide them.

and makes you wonder why and how Kushner got that 2 B from Saudis? This could get real ugly 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2023, 05:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes even if I TRULY believed there was a 50/50 chance they would "win".

Wow, to be willing to risk so many deaths simply to get Trump.  

Quote:My question is win what?  Start a new country?  Take over the army and install Trump?

I mean win.  If 01/06 was one of the most dangerous moments in our nations history what would you call incidents that where far more pervasive, ongoing and serious?

Quote:I think what's happening is somehow the right is setting this up to be "the left's fault" when violence happens because they shoul dhave known the right would violent.

No, that's not happening.  I am asking you about a hypothetical that could conceivably occur.  No one is excusing anything.  You speak about getting people out of their bubble yet seem completely incapable of understanding that not everyone thinks the same way you do.  If what I'm describing occurs it will be because those people feel fully justified in doing so, not because the left should have known they were violent.

Quote:Which, in not so many words, its the kind of dumb thing the right would say.

Your utter lack of ability to understand others is honestly impressive.  You have disdain for these people, therefore they are dumb and the only way they could believe what they believe is they're idiots.  While I disagree with the people I would describe as being involved in my scenario I absolutely understand how they get to their position.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2023, 05:41 PM)samhain Wrote: I get your civil unrest argument and even agree to an extent.  If Trump was not running for office, I could even see letting this slide.  In most cases, a president is teflon because he's got at east some degree of popular support.  Still, if this is always the logical path when proceeding forward, a president is less of a president and more of an autocrat.  I'm not talking about Trump specifically as an autocrat, I speak in terms of generality.  

I suppose a pragmatic way to look at it is through the lens of the snaking of the SCOTUS appointment by the GOP after Scalia died.  It wasn't illegal, and the electorate had technically put the party in a position to wield the power to overrule historical precedent.  It pissed a ton of people off, but at the end of the day, it was a major win for the right.  

This is similar to me, as the electorate has put this administration in a place to pursue Trump.  If the vast majority wanted his protection above all, he'd still be president, and the GOP would have pounded the dems in midterms.  Would I do it if I were in this administration's position?  Idk.  Depends on the severity of the charges.  Then again, I wouldn't have stripped Obama of the chance to appoint a SCOTUS replacement, either.  

As for going after presidents, we're kind of accustomed to seeing these people on trial.  Clinton faced legal consequences and his wife got grilled while running for office.  Hell, Hillary got nailed right before the election with accusations.  This is the new way of things in politics, and I assume the right will take the same path if given the chance.

The only thing that will save an executive from legal problems in the foreseeable future is an electorate giving them the ability.  If the other party gains control, it's gonna be game on.  I also see pardons coming down the pipe if a republican president inhabits the White House next year.  

As for the potential of violence, I assume it's coming and don't much care anymore.  We already live with that possibility as well, be it random or political.  I doubt there will be a nationally organized faction avenging Trump and slaughtering us libs in concentration camps, but you never know.  I think many on the right would sleep just fine at night if that unlikely possibility came to be.  I see an uptick in terrorism more than anything, and rest assured, any violence committed in the name of a besmirched and convicted Trump will be exactly that.  The left has enjoyed the consequences of violence and the terrorist characterization, and so has the right to a degree.  It's just a matter of who scares the shit out of the average voter more at a given time.  Let some MAGA dispshits start blowing up buildings and shooting into crowds and see how fast anyone tied to him loses viability in a general election.  

This is a good post and I agree with most of it.  Most especially I appreciate that you understand the real risks involved here rather than discounting them.  But as to your last paragraph, when is it terrorism and when is it rebellion?  If the Framers had lost the Revolutionary War they would have all been hung as "terrorists".  Where they terrorists?  I suppose that would depend on which side of the conflict you sat on.  Now, am I equating these possible fighters with the Framers?  No, not in the quality or righteousness of their cause.  But in terms of their perception of the quality and righteousness of their cause, absolutely.

[*Nately120*]

If we're so sure Trump's fanbase are going to start a war, will the government and the military call for a pre-emptive strike upon them?

[GMDino]

(06-09-2023, 05:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wow, to be willing to risk so many deaths simply to get Trump.  



I mean win.  If 01/06 was one of the most dangerous moments in our nations history what would you call incidents that where far more pervasive, ongoing and serious?



No, that's not happening.  I am asking you about a hypothetical that could conceivably occur.  No one is excusing anything.  You speak about getting people out of their bubble yet seem completely incapable of understanding that not everyone thinks the same way you do.  If what I'm describing occurs it will be because those people feel fully justified in doing so, not because the left should have known they were violent.


Your utter lack of ability to understand others is honestly impressive.  You have disdain for these people, therefore they are dumb and the only way they could believe what they believe is they're idiots.  While I disagree with the people I would describe as being involved in my scenario I absolutely understand how they get to their position.  

If Trump's cult members decided to attack...someone...and "win" (with  no definition) I can't stop them if they choose to do so because Trump broke the law.

Just like I can't stop people from rioting in the streets if they feel a person was killed while being arrested for breaking the law.  No matter how "justified" they would feel.

That his followers are that dumb is something no one can control.

But if you think we should just NOT do anything to upset them "just in case" you are for mob rule.  And frankly I can't believe that.  

Again if Trump shot and killed someone I think his followers would still be mad if he got arrested and you would be saying we shouldn't upset them, lest they get violent.

It's mind boggling that you are making this argument.

And it's equally mind boggling you are making it for a candidate you claim you didn't like or vote for.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-09-2023, 06:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: If Trump's cult members decided to attack...someone...and "win" (with  no definition) I can't stop them if they choose to do so because Trump broke the law.

Just like I can't stop people from rioting in the streets if they feel a person was killed while being arrested for breaking the law.  No matter how "justified" they would feel.

That his followers are that dumb is something no one can control.

But if you think we should just NOT do anything to upset them "just in case" you are for mob rule.  And frankly I can't believe that.  

Again if Trump shot and killed someone I think his followers would still be mad if he got arrested and you would be saying we shouldn't upset them, lest they get violent.

It's mind boggling that you are making this argument.

And it's equally mind boggling you are making it for a candidate you claim you didn't like or vote for.

You say that now, but I wonder how you posted in relation to the riots themselves, when they were current news?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2023, 06:45 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You say that now, but I wonder how you posted in relation to the riots themselves, when they were current news?  

Oh, we both know the answer to that.  It's fine, he literally cannot comprehend the point being made or why it's being made.  I legitimately tried, but I don't see any point in continuing.

[samhain]

(06-09-2023, 05:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a good post and I agree with most of it.  Most especially I appreciate that you understand the real risks involved here rather than discounting them.  But as to your last paragraph, when is it terrorism and when is it rebellion?  If the Framers had lost the Revolutionary War they would have all been hung as "terrorists".  Where they terrorists?  I suppose that would depend on which side of the conflict you sat on.  Now, am I equating these possible fighters with the Framers?  No, not in the quality or righteousness of their cause.  But in terms of their perception of the quality and righteousness of their cause, absolutely.

Eh, I'm sure just about everyone that takes it upon themselves to participate in political violence sees it as justified.  Unless someone is a complete socio/psychopath, killing requires some thing significant for motivation.  

If I'm honest, the only time it becomes truly justified is when there are enough participants in the "rebellion" to actually win whatever conflict they are choosing.If that happens, they can write all the books they want about how they defeated tyranny and took their nation back.  it's not moral justification, but in a generation or two nobody will be alive to remember what actually happened.

it's an extremely slippery slope to use violence as a chief motivator (not saying you are, just generally) or deterrent vs something that the other half of the country sees as justifiable.  It's one thing to talk about it, but much like the aftermath of the BLM unrest in 2020, it becomes very different when the entire country sees it on their phones and in their living rooms for weeks and months on end.  The left took a huge hit in terms of perception after the violence in Portland, Minneapolis, Kenosha, etc.  Protestors were getting shot, and it was being determined to be legal in court and applauded.  That kid is a hero on the far right to this very day.  In the beginning, however, public sentiment was very much on the side of the protestors after the Floyd killing.  It didn't wane until shit got really violent and senseless, and people got scared.

If the MAGA crowd actually employs widespread violence around the country, or even in a few cities, public sentiment will turn on them very quickly.  Not everyone lives and dies for political discourse.  Some just want to pay their bills, raise their kids, and maybe have fun five or six times before they die.  Political violence on a large scale makes that really difficult, and difficult to moderately inconvenient are not conditions that the American public tolerates for very long.

I also see the MAGA violence as much more likely to be gun-heavy than the Antifa and riot tourist variety we saw not long ago.  That will not play well much of anywhere other than the farthest right strongholds, and it will absolutely get people a lot more eager to vote for candidates that want to restrict access to firearms.

I've gone on too long, but to put it more concisely, violence is bad.  This legal proceeding has the potential to inspire it.  The threats will no doubt increase.  At the end of the day, it's a thing to consider, but on the other end, once the MAGA crowd goes down that road, there will be massive consequences for everyone, but mostly for them.  It will be the literal death of the GOP and the birth of a Democratic Party that's all the things the right accuses them of being now, but much more powerful and emboldened by a terrified populace.

[Luvnit2]

It is highly likely the trial will not happen until 2025. I can see a scenario where Trump wins the election, pardons himself and then unravels the BS at the FBI and The DOJ.

Trump is now guaranteed the nominee and the majority of the country in polling have already said prior to the indictment, it is a political hit job as they have watched the Biden Justice department do nothing to the Biden crime family.

Trump's base just expanded because people are not stupid and see the libs plan to stop Trump with one more witch hunt.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(06-09-2023, 07:10 PM)samhain Wrote: Eh, I'm sure just about everyone that takes it upon themselves to participate in political violence sees it as justified.  Unless someone is a complete socio/psychopath, killing requires some thing significant for motivation.  

If I'm honest, the only time it becomes truly justified is when there are enough participants in the "rebellion" to actually win whatever conflict they are choosing.If that happens, they can write all the books they want about how they defeated tyranny and took their nation back.  it's not moral justification, but in a generation or two nobody will be alive to remember what actually happened.

it's an extremely slippery slope to use violence as a chief motivator (not saying you are, just generally) or deterrent vs something that the other half of the country sees as justifiable.  It's one thing to talk about it, but much like the aftermath of the BLM unrest in 2020, it becomes very different when the entire country sees it on their phones and in their living rooms for weeks and months on end.  The left took a huge hit in terms of perception after the violence in Portland, Minneapolis, Kenosha, etc.  Protestors were getting shot, and it was being determined to be legal in court and applauded.  That kid is a hero on the far right to this very day.  In the beginning, however, public sentiment was very much on the side of the protestors after the Floyd killing.  It didn't wane until shit got really violent and senseless, and people got scared.

If the MAGA crowd actually employs widespread violence around the country, or even in a few cities, public sentiment will turn on them very quickly.  Not everyone lives and dies for political discourse.  Some just want to pay their bills, raise their kids, and maybe have fun five or six times before they die.  Political violence on a large scale makes that really difficult, and difficult to moderately inconvenient are not conditions that the American public tolerates for very long.

I also see the MAGA violence as much more likely to be gun-heavy that the Antifa and riot tourist variety we saw not long ago.  That will not play well much of anywhere other than the farthest right strongholds, and it will absolutely get people a lot more eager to vote for candidates that want to restrict access to firearms.

I've gone on too long, but to put it more concisely, violence is bad.  This legal proceeding has the potential to inspire it.  The threats will no doubt increase.  At the end of the day, it's a thing to consider, but on the other end, once the MAGA crowd goes down that road, there will be massive consequences for everyone, but mostly for them.  It will be the literal death of the GOP and the birth of a Democratic Party that's all the things the right accuses them of being now, but much more powerful and emboldened by a terrified populace.

This has to be prosecuted b/c you just cannot allow people to commit espionage, pose a threat to our national security,  and possibly treason for that matter and just say, "Well it may upset 30% of the nation to the point of violence if we decide to prosecute."  

The threat to our democracy that Donald Trump and the MAGA base poses is much more concerning than people throwing a temper tantrum.   This time our law enforcement and military will be very prepared to handle these domestic terrorists. Remember the members of our military are loyal to the US Constitution and will defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic. 

[Shake n Blake]

(06-09-2023, 11:11 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't understand how anyone could see this as anything but a horrible negative.  A sitting POTUS's DOJ indicts his main political opponent just before campaign season.  The optics on this are abysmal and are only going to solidly reinforce for tens of millions of Americans that the system is truly corrupt.  There's a reason no one really went after Nixon.  Nixon's crimes were almost certainly worse than Trump's, if for no other reason than Nixon was light years more intelligent.  This will not end well.

This is all that really needs said and is how any objective and rational person should view this. Charges could be trumped up against just about any politician. 

I'm more concerned about the weaponization of the DOJ by a sitting President against his rival. It feels personal and he's not even pretending to have any integrity. 

Probably because no one with a voice that matters will call him on the shenanigans, and the populace is either too busy staring at TikTok or too blinded by hatred for Trump to care.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2023, 07:22 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: This has to be prosecuted b/c you just cannot allow people to commit espionage, pose a threat to our national security,  and possibly treason for that matter and just say, "Well it may upset 30% of the nation to the point of violence if we decide to prosecute."  

The threat to our democracy that Donald Trump and the MAGA base poses is much more concerning than people throwing a temper tantrum.   This time our law enforcement and military will be very prepared to handle these domestic terrorists. Remember the members of our military are loyal to the US Constitution and will defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic. 

Dear lord, the mental disconnect.  On one hand the January 6th riot was, and I quote;

“The January 6th insurrection shook our Republic to its core – and left behind physical scars and emotional trauma on members of our Congressional community and our Country that endure to this day. 


But 30% of our nation rising up against perceived tyranny would be a "temper tantrum?"  The inconsistency is mind boggling.  Also, why do you assume the majority of law enforcement and the military would be on the side you prefer?  If this kind of thing actually happens there will be a large percentage of those personnel who will think the current regime is the one violating the Constitution.  One side won't have a monopoly on the claim.  Also, the Democratic party has spent the last three years totally shitting on law enforcement.  If this happened it would be the worst thing in our nation's history, by far.

I'm sure you'll spin this post in some vulgar way, but your post reads like an adolescent fantasy of what you hope will happen.

[Belsnickel]

JFC. Trump is on tape admitting to his crimes. He is caught red handed and is being prosecuted by a special counsel that is not taking orders from Biden or his administration. But all we hear from supporters is denial and whataboutism, pointing to unverified claims and issues currently under investigation by another special counsel.

SSF is right that the perception is the issue because some of these people have their own reality that is far from the facts of the matter.

Whatever happened to the party/president of "law and order?"