Trump prosecutions hitting hiccups

[GMDino]

(02-05-2024, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not sure who the "many" are you're referring to, as only Luvnit's posts could even come close to being inferred as such?  Are you referring to Bel?  I mean he is a known Trump supporter. 


You interpretations of the posts of others is always interesting, albeit not in a good way.  If you're dismayed by the fact that the GA case against Trump is now a smoldering train wreck then your anger should be directed at Willis and her blatant corruption.  Whether Trump did anything wrong in this matter, and I'm talking about that being determined in a court of law,  he will now face zero consequences because of her corruption.  But, instead of directing your anger at this towards her you lash out at someone who disagrees with you on a message board.  As I've said many times in the past, you are borderline incapable of criticizing someone on your side of the aisle.  And your thread on those criminals the other day had given me such hope.

That should have said forum...not thread.  There are more than a few people who want P01135809 not charged or tried for anything as they feel he never did anything wrong to begin with.

I think your calling the case a "smoldering train wreck" isn't accurate as the case itself remains fairly solid.  Also the use of "blatant corruption" is mere opinion on your part.  

It's probably because I have no "anger" about it all but was merely sharing an unbiased report on what could happen moving forward that I wasn't "lashing out" at anyone.  Perhaps you need a mirror instead of a computer screen for when you post?

Once again your complete and utter obsession with trying to prove me wrong and label me what you think I am has clouded your vision.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-05-2024, 12:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: That should have said forum...not thread.  There are more than a few people who want P01135809 not charged or tried for anything as they feel he never did anything wrong to begin with.

That would be more accurate, to be sure.

Quote:I think your calling the case a "smoldering train wreck" isn't accurate as the case itself remains fairly solid.  Also the use of "blatant corruption" is mere opinion on your part.  

It is for reasons already given by Bel and myself.  We differ a bit as to the why, but we don't differ as to the result.  As for her blatant corruption, she literally admitted it.  It's as open and shut a corrupt situation as you'll ever see.  Willis is dust.  The fact she's a prosecutor just compounds the degree of her wrong doing.  She is corrupt and everything she touches is tainted because of it.  I can understand why you don't want to believe this, but it's true.

Quote:It's probably because I have no "anger" about it all but was merely sharing an unbiased report on what could happen moving forward that I wasn't "lashing out" at anyone.  Perhaps you need a mirror instead of a computer screen for when you post?

If that's the case you sure have an angry way of being normal.  Also, be honest with yourself, your post was not simply sharing an article, hence the editorial comments posted by you after the body of the article.

Quote:Once again your complete and utter obsession with trying to prove me wrong and label me what you think I am has clouded your vision.  

Quite simply, get over yourself.  Am I equally obsessed with Pally in this regard, as I've responded to her exactly as many time as I've responded to you?  I'm pointing out that, A. your assertion that "many" people in this thread were defending Trump (a classic dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you btw) was completely inaccurate and, B. that your dismay at the state of the case against Trump is misdirected and should be focused on Willis.  But, again, as I said, you have a very difficult, if not impossible, time criticizing anyone on your side of the aisle.  Angry or not.

[Belsnickel]

(02-05-2024, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You interpretations of the posts of others is always interesting, albeit not in a good way.  If you're dismayed by the fact that the GA case against Trump is now a smoldering train wreck then your anger should be directed at Willis and her blatant corruption.  Whether Trump did anything wrong in this matter, and I'm talking about that being determined in a court of law,  he will now face zero consequences because of her corruption.  But, instead of directing your anger at this towards her you lash out at someone who disagrees with you on a message board.  As I've said many times in the past, you are borderline incapable of criticizing someone on your side of the aisle.  And your thread on those criminals the other day had given me such hope.

Okay, let's back up a little. I don't think that "blatant corruption" would be an accurate description of things based upon the current facts known. There is certainly an appearance of impropriety, and obviously something that simply based on good governance should have been disclosed in the process, but corruption implies an intentionality that we cannot as of yet state was there for certain.

The issue with the case is now because we all know this process is not only taking place in the court of law, but also the court of public opinion. Already there were issues with that angle because of the way in which so many will swallow the narratives of whatever side they favor, but when there is a question of integrity facing the prosecuting DA it is more likely to sway people not as blinded by partisanship to see the situation as unfairly slanted regardless of the truth of that. As a result, the political processes that can be undertaken to undermine the legal processes will become more acceptable to a higher percentage of the population.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-05-2024, 12:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Okay, let's back up a little. I don't think that "blatant corruption" would be an accurate description of things based upon the current facts known. There is certainly an appearance of impropriety, and obviously something that simply based on good governance should have been disclosed in the process, but corruption implies an intentionality that we cannot as of yet state was there for certain.

You're being far too kind in this regard.  The known facts show that she hired a guy she was sleeping with, who was wildly unqualified, to assist in one of the biggest court cases in US history.  We had a very high up person on our department get fired because they were in an undisclosed relationship with the person who approved his monthly expenses.  There wasn't even evidence of excessive or illegal expenses on his part, but, as I've repeated often, the appearance of impropriety is as bad as actual impropriety.  If Willis was not a prosecutor this would still be very bad, but not nearly as bad.  In her position you are held to a much higher standard, and she absolutely failed in this regard.  So, I think blatant corruption is a very accurate way to describe her actions.

Quote:The issue with the case is now because we all know this process is not only taking place in the court of law, but also the court of public opinion. Already there were issues with that angle because of the way in which so many will swallow the narratives of whatever side they favor, but when there is a question of integrity facing the prosecuting DA it is more likely to sway people not as blinded by partisanship to see the situation as unfairly slanted regardless of the truth of that. As a result, the political processes that can be undertaken to undermine the legal processes will become more acceptable to a higher percentage of the population.

You're actually agreeing with me here.  Her corrupt actions taint everything she touched, or will touch.  We don't differ in our opinion here at all.  This would be an issue with any prosecutor in this country, but it's especially true of one involved in one of the biggest court cases in US history.  If this case weren't as high profile it would likely have been dismissed with prejudice already.  Prosecutorial misconduct is a case killer every time, for the exact reason we've both stated.

[Belsnickel]

(02-05-2024, 12:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're being far too kind in this regard.  The known facts show that she hired a guy she was sleeping with, who was wildly unqualified, to assist in one of the biggest court cases in US history.  We had a very high up person on our department get fired because they were in an undisclosed relationship with the person who approved his monthly expenses.  There wasn't even evidence of excessive or illegal expenses on his part, but, as I've repeated often, the appearance of impropriety is as bad as actual impropriety.  If Willis was not a prosecutor this would still be very bad, but not nearly as bad.  In her position you are held to a much higher standard, and she absolutely failed in this regard.  So, I think blatant corruption is a very accurate way to describe her actions.

I'm just someone willing to give people, everyone, the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intentionality with these sorts of things. I tend to view actions as incompetent/ill-advised rather than nefarious until given enough evidence to show otherwise.

(02-05-2024, 12:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're actually agreeing with me here.  Her corrupt actions taint everything she touched, or will touch.  We don't differ in our opinion here at all.  This would be an issue with any prosecutor in this country, but it's especially true of one involved in one of the biggest court cases in US history.  If this case weren't as high profile it would likely have been dismissed with prejudice already.  Prosecutorial misconduct is a case killer every time, for the exact reason we've both stated.

Oh, I wasn't saying all of that with the impression we saw it differently. I was more trying to lay it out for some of the folks that aren't necessarily seeing it from our point of view.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-05-2024, 01:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm just someone willing to give people, everyone, the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intentionality with these sorts of things. I tend to view actions as incompetent/ill-advised rather than nefarious until given enough evidence to show otherwise.

I guess this is a category in which I am the more cynical one.  The real tipping point for me is this guy taking her on vacations (I would use the term extravagant here, but don't want to have a disagreement about adjectives), and his claiming he used his own separate money from what he was making for this position.  The problem with that is, it's all your money, dude.  There are no separate categories for money.  That excuse is so flimsy it honestly would have been better off unvoiced.  It really boils down to the fact that, in the absolute best light you could view her actions she was unethical.  As a prosecutor, in charge of as high profile a case as can exist, if evidence of you being unethical comes to light you are toast, and your case is in jeopardy.  And that's the best case scenario.  

Quote:Oh, I wasn't saying all of that with the impression we saw it differently. I was more trying to lay it out for some of the folks that aren't necessarily seeing it from our point of view.

Understood.  I thank you for saying this as it's important for those reading who want to dismiss the points made as being a "defense of Trump".   

[Belsnickel]

(02-05-2024, 01:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I guess this is a category in which I am the more cynical one.  The real tipping point for me is this guy taking her on vacations (I would use the term extravagant here, but don't want to have a disagreement about adjectives), and his claiming he used his own separate money from what he was making for this position.  The problem with that is, it's all your money, dude.  There are no separate categories for money.  That excuse is so flimsy it honestly would have been better off unvoiced.  It really boils down to the fact that, in the absolute best light you could view her actions she was unethical.  As a prosecutor, in charge of as high profile a case as can exist, if evidence of you being unethical comes to light you are toast, and your case is in jeopardy.  And that's the best case scenario.  

It is funny how that seems to be the difference maker in so many of our disagreements. It's all about the ways in which we are more or less cynical than the other.

[GMDino]

(02-05-2024, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That would be more accurate, to be sure.



It is for reasons already given by Bel and myself.  We differ a bit as to the why, but we don't differ as to the result.  As for her blatant corruption, she literally admitted it.  It's as open and shut a corrupt situation as you'll ever see.  Willis is dust.  The fact she's a prosecutor just compounds the degree of her wrong doing.  She is corrupt and everything she touches is tainted because of it.  I can understand why you don't want to believe this, but it's true.



If that's the case you sure have an angry way of being normal.  Also, be honest with yourself, your post was not simply sharing an article, hence the editorial comments posted by you after the body of the article.


Quite simply, get over yourself.  Am I equally obsessed with Pally in this regard, as I've responded to her exactly as many time as I've responded to you?  I'm pointing out that, A. your assertion that "many" people in this thread were defending Trump (a classic dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you btw) was completely inaccurate and, B. that your dismay at the state of the case against Trump is misdirected and should be focused on Willis.  But, again, as I said, you have a very difficult, if not impossible, time criticizing anyone on your side of the aisle.  Angry or not.

To the bold: Yes.

And Dill.

And anyone who you think disagrees with you.

My post was an AP news story breaking down the possibilities of what could happen to Willis and what the results of that might be,

You think I was "angry" and "lashing out" at people.

I wasn't criticizing anyone as I did not mention anyone. Not you , or Luvnit of Bels.  My comment that many people want Po1135809 not prosecuted at all, for anything, is factual.  You even agreed.  My own cynicism believes that politics will play more a part than the law.  

But now we have another post where you know what I am thinking or mean better than I do I guess.  You'll never see it.

As to the topic: Read the article I shared.  It seems fairly balanced.  Willis may or may not be in trouble, it's not set in stone who would punish her or what that would be.  The case could move forward but maybe no in its current form.  Lots of moving parts that just saying "it definitely will go forward" or "it is a train wreck and over" don't necessarily cover.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-05-2024, 02:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: To the bold: Yes.

And Dill.

And anyone who you think disagrees with you.

An odd statement.  Bel and I disagree on things frequently.  Am I "obsessed" with him?  How about Hollo, he's definitely way to the left of me.  Or NATI?  Regardless, your statement is absurd on its face seeing as how I probably respond to less that 20% of the posts the three of you make.

Quote:My post was an AP news story breaking down the possibilities of what could happen to Willis and what the results of that might be,

You think I was "angry" and "lashing out" at people.

Not for posting the article, for the predictable lie about the thread being full of people defending Trump.  You do this frequently, when you can't address the actual topic you accuse the other side of engaging in unpalatable activity, such as defending Trump, instead of actually addressing the points made.

Quote:I wasn't criticizing anyone as I did not mention anyone. Not you , or Luvnit of Bels.  My comment that many people want Po1135809 not prosecuted at all, for anything, is factual.  You even agreed.  My own cynicism believes that politics will play more a part than the law. 

 
Not in this thread, which is what you stated.  Of course there are Trump defenders on this board, just as there are in real life.  Only an idiot would argue otherwise.  I took issue with your false accusation, one you quickly retracted and then fell back on my being "obsessed" with you as your deflection of choice.

Quote:But now we have another post where you know what I am thinking or mean better than I do I guess.  You'll never see it.

An even odder statement, considering your obvious distaste for me telling you how you "feel".  Yet you're perfectly comfortable as labeling me as obsessed with you and "anyone who disagrees with me".  A rather contradictory set of positions.

Quote:As to the topic: Read the article I shared.  It seems fairly balanced.  Willis may or may not be in trouble, it's not set in stone who would punish her or what that would be.  The case could move forward but maybe no in its current form.  Lots of moving parts that just saying "it definitely will go forward" or "it is a train wreck and over" don't necessarily cover.

Whether she faces legal or professional repercussions is not the issue (she absolutely should, as explained).  The issue is that her unethical conduct has tainted her ability to try this case, for reasons already explained by both myself and Bel.  Maybe try addressing Bel's points?  Since he isn't obsessed with you I'm sure you can do a better job addressing them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-05-2024, 01:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is funny how that seems to be the difference maker in so many of our disagreements. It's all about the ways in which we are more or less cynical than the other.

Sadly true.  At some point we're going to create a cynicism black hole from which not even hope can escape.

[*pally*]

In a 3-0 vote the DC Federal Appeals Court has ruled that Donald Trump is NOT immune from charges stemming from the 2020 failed attempt to overturn the election.  Trump can ask for an en banc hearing in front of the entire Court of Appeals or appeal directly to the Supreme Court.  Since delaying the trial is one of his objectives, I am assuming he will choose the en banc option first

Quote:“The interest in criminal accountability, held by both the public and the Executive Branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation.”

[jmccracky]

And that was the right decision!

[Luvnit2]

(02-06-2024, 12:38 PM)pally Wrote: In a 3-0 vote the DC Federal Appeals Court has ruled that Donald Trump is NOT immune from charges stemming from the 2020 failed attempt to overturn the election.  Trump can ask for an en banc hearing in front of the entire Court of Appeals or appeal directly to the Supreme Court.  Since delaying the trial is one of his objectives, I am assuming he will choose the en banc option first

 This was expected, but they moved quicker than normal to render this decision.

He has 90 days to ask for the Supreme Court to hear the case. It will be interesting to see how the DC judge reacts, will she put the case back on the schedule or wait. 

Good news for those who favor political persecution of the GOP nominee for 2024 POTUS and hate democracy.

[*pally*]

(02-06-2024, 01:54 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote:  This was expected, but they moved quicker than normal to render this decision.

He has 90 days to ask for the Supreme Court to hear the case. It will be interesting to see how the DC judge reacts, will she put the case back on the schedule or wait. 

Good news for those who favor political persecution of the GOP nominee for 2024 POTUS and hate democracy.

The court gave him until Monday the 12th to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.  SCOTUS will then need to order a continuation of the stay otherwise the case goes active again.  It is a pretty straightforward order from the Court of Appeals.  Don't be surprised if the Supreme Court wants nothing to do with overturning it.

It is good news for those who believe corrupt government officials should be held accountable for their illegal actions regardless of who they are.  That is why we have a Constitution...to insure NO ONE is above the law.  

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2024, 05:04 PM)pally Wrote: The court gave him until Monday the 12th to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.  SCOTUS will then need to order a continuation of the stay otherwise the case goes active again.  It is a pretty straightforward order from the Court of Appeals.  Don't be surprised if the Supreme Court wants nothing to do with overturning it.

It is good news for those who believe corrupt government officials should be held accountable for their illegal actions regardless of who they are.  That is why we have a Constitution...to insure NO ONE is above the law.  

Trump: *tries to subvert democracy*

Judicial System: *indicts him for trying to subvert democracy*

Brainwashed rubes: "It's an affront to democracy that they would hold him accountable for his actions!"

***** morons.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-06-2024, 06:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Trump: *tries to subvert democracy*

Judicial System: *indicts him for trying to subvert democracy*

Brainwashed rubes: "It's an affront to democracy that they would hold him accountable for his actions!"

***** morons.

I think you'd have far less people in this camp if the Dems didn't try and "big it up" regarding 01/06.  There's plenty of odd details that don't jive with their version.  Did Nancy Pelosi refuse Trump's offer of National Guard assistance for security?  Why did officers let the rioters in the Capital in some instances, actually escorting them around in others?  If it was the insurrection it is claimed, why were literally no shots fired by the insurrectionists?  We have plenty of guns in this country, and I am constantly reminded by Biden that white people are the biggest threat to our nation.  Why did none of these dangerous white people actually use a firearm in what has been labeled the biggest threat to our democracy in history?

For those inclined to interpret my statement above incorrectly, I am not minimizing what happened on 01/06, nor am I downplaying his efforts in GA.  What I am pointing out is that both, especially the former, have been heavily used for political purposes, thus making them susceptible to being viewed solely through a political lens.  The Dems tried to make so much political hay out of the 01/06 riot that they turned it into political theatre  Much like their continued efforts to keep Trump as the face of the GOP, it has backfired on them.  Many people, not far right MAGA types either, now view these events with far more suspicion than they otherwise would have.

[XenoMorph]

(02-07-2024, 12:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you'd have far less people in this camp if the Dems didn't try and "big it up" regarding 01/06.  There's plenty of odd details that don't jive with their version.  Did Nancy Pelosi refuse Trump's offer of National Guard assistance for security?  Why did officers let the rioters in the Capital in some instances, actually escorting them around in others?  If it was the insurrection it is claimed, why were literally no shots fired by the insurrectionists?  We have plenty of guns in this country, and I am constantly reminded by Biden that white people are the biggest threat to our nation.  Why did none of these dangerous white people actually use a firearm in what has been labeled the biggest threat to our democracy in history?

For those inclined to interpret my statement above incorrectly, I am not minimizing what happened on 01/06, nor am I downplaying his efforts in GA.  What I am pointing out is that both, especially the former, have been heavily used for political purposes, thus making them susceptible to being viewed solely through a political lens.  The Dems tried to make so much political hay out of the 01/06 riot that they turned it into political theatre  Much like their continued efforts to keep Trump as the face of the GOP, it has backfired on them.  Many people, not far right MAGA types either, now view these events with far more suspicion than they otherwise would have.

all a setup for 1 thing to try and keep Trump out of office forever they fear this man cause they dont own his bank account

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2024, 01:00 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: all a setup for 1 thing to try and keep Trump out of office forever they fear this man cause they dont own his bank account

See, I have problems with this conclusion as well.  I do think there's legitimate resistance to Trump based on his not playing by the rules, for both good an ill.  But I also think it's indisputable that the man tried to find a way to win despite losing in 2020.  It's very much in his nature, he's a poor loser.  Hence he cannot be seen as having lost.  I think the Dems found a lot of political capital in keeping Trump as the face of the GOP, and it, along with abortion, certainly helped them in the mid terms.  What they failed to account for, completely, is that he could gaining popularity, if only because Biden is doing such a shitty job.  Now that he has a very real chance of winning, and I think it's likely to happen if Biden remains the Dem nominee, they are very much regretting their choices and leaning heavily on the court cases against him.  Something that Willis blew up in their faces.