Judge rules Trump's efforts to overturn election likely criminal

"More likely than not"?
Nothing to see here... move along...

 

Seems you deliberately leave out the facts that 2 republican senate committees found that trump's campaign did work with Russia.

 

I'm absolutely certain that people don't use the phone for 7 hours straight. But timing is everything, and I find it implausible that Trump didn't use the phone for THOSE 7 hours. I don't have access to the records, but especially if there is a lot of activity before and after, and we all know he was back at the White House after about 1:00 pm.
Think of this: are you suggesting that Trump was watching the "protest" unfold for hours, and didn't pick up the phone? What is that saying?
I am a teacher, dealing with high school students. When they are caught skipping class, they have all kinds of excuses, all bs. This reminds me of a freshman caught skipping class. To be convicted of something, it needs to be proven. I'm not convicting Trump of anything, I'm accusing him of it. I can guarantee you that if I were privy to the data, I could make a good case of obstruction. As I said before, I'm a nobody in this situation. But I do vote. And I wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't vote to put someone in a position of power who is so dishonest.
You'll have to make your own mind up. I have already.
Thanks for the civil discussion, btw. It's not just refreshing, it gives me hope for a better future.

 

Giving Trump the benefit of the doubt given his private and public track record with credibility & self 'promoting actions' is simply foolish. If you are unable to see that, one needs to look again.

 

I think people can make an argument for obstruction(heck, they wish to do so.) I think it's circumstantial and can swing either way. If a show trial is really needed to show "no one's above the law" then so be it. But we both agreed it's not a slam dunk(the same problems in the NY case, which one of the prosecuting lawyers strongly protested.) If we hold trials not to determine innocence or guilt, but simply to hold them then again that's a damage to the system and we were told ad nauseam that all of this is to protect the system.

More important than whatever discussions Trump had, is what kind of discussions were they. If nothing of the 7-hour gap is incriminating, then all of this amounts to nothing. As for why Trump would hide non-incriminating information, we've been here before(Russiagate, etc) this is a person who does not like disclosing information. Even information that is harmless. I'm actually the same way, and it's not a criminal mindset. It's a hobbit one(which is strange for Trump to have, but I think he's a different person than the bombastic crass individual he plays for TV/adoration. The proof is in how private he is in non-publicity style events.) I think he's someone who likes to keep a lot to himself. It could be criminal, but I think a lot of it is personal(Stormy Daniels)

 

Because some politicians will put the safety of the world and USA over the ego of wanting to win an election at all costs.

That's why the 2x impeached lost as an incumbent. Only care about 1 thing. Himself.

 

Rubio and colins on that panel? LOL .. DC Elite.. we've said over and again.. we don't necessarily support yhr Repubs.. we oppose the DC Elite.

 

LMAO, Trump is an elitist. !!

 

I don't think Trump has any hobbit traits. Look where he resides: an office building in downtown NY and Mar-A-Lago, where he resides in a country club surrounded by members. I don't detect a reclusive bone in his body. I think he loves to be around people who praise him. He needs the constant adoration of his worshipers.
He held a rally some 2 months after he was elected! And continues to do so. Probably for money, maybe for a campaign, but I think it's for the adulation, he wants people to validate his existence. He NEEDS someone to idolize him, maybe it goes back to "daddy didn't pay enough attention to me". I don't know, but shyness and being reclusive I don't see, even privately.

 

Show me where that happened. Im all ears

 

More unsupported partisan hatred for Trump.

A failure to provide longer range weapons systems to the Ukrainian fighters will not make the world safer - it will increase the likelihood of World War. Think it through.

 

The fact he's a 1st class narcissist is not unsupported. I just am not one to fall into a cult.
For the record, I am not partisan. So you fail on that one.

Sure, escalating a war with a pissed of dictator with Nukes is what you want to do. So far, the rest of the western world has refrained from escalation.

 

He is a criminal, but he is also an elitist, which is why he has not been arrested yet.

 

Baloney, most of the attacks on Trump are pure partisan hate for a political outsider.
But the attacks are very bipartisan. Does that go down easier?

 

Trump has always been despised by the corrupt bipartisan political class. He was tolerated because he was a rich donor. As soon as he became a candidate the elites went after him with an unprecedented fury.

Trump is the only anti-establishment political outsider to ever win a presidential election.
He will never be forgiven.

And, IMO, he should not run again.

 

Or maybe it is Trump's own actions that cause him to not be trusted, laughed at, etc. I have followed Trump for years. In 2000, when he was briefly a member of the Reform Party, he tried, but failed to take hold that McCain was not a war hero. In 1989, in an interview with Oprah about Japan, the hot topic at that time, he basically said Japan was not fair to US and that we can sell big cars in the narrow streets of Japan with half the quality that Japanese cars have. He trade argument then is the same today, just with a different country. And his business empire is not what I call specatacular. He has tried for years, since 2010, to get a casino in Macau, China's version of Las Vegas, and they said no. His own golf companies never followed immigrationo laws despite what Trump has said. And he does the pump and dump on hotels. All of this is not a good, long term business model.

Finally, bear in mind, his persona was that he was the great deal maker. Yet the USMCA was 95% NAFTA with generally minor improvements to other areas. Yet, none dealt witht he single issue hurting both countries. His Duma Agreement with the Taliban would make most progressives proud; yet Trump loyalists have no problems turning over a country to the Taliban which Trump set in play while blaming everyone else but himself. Trump is flawed and never admits it, which makes it worse.

I would rather have a flawed person and admit they are flawed than someone who is flawed and pretends not to be.

 

That is a very biased assessment of Trump, but it does support my point that Trump has always been despised by the very bipartisan American political class, and has never been accepted by them, and never will be.

He was tolerated until he announced his run for the WH.

 

[QUOTE="AmericanNationalist, post: 1073348986, member: 63456"]Which is not his role, because if public pressure is all it takes to indict someone then the judicial system is ****ed. Put it this way, if Trump were still president and a Republican judge 'urged' the prosecution of FMR. Secretary Clinton, how would that have gone for you back then? The judge's role, is not to opine on anything that is not on his docket. His role doesn't get to 'expand' with the societal cues of the time. His role is a very narrow one, that is why it is supposed to be the last interview of their lives(for SCOTUS nominees).

So, are you telling me that our judicial system is beyond repair, with public intrigue replacing the integrity and indifference of the court system?[/QUOTE]


"Which is not his role"

In normal times, you'd have a point. But Trump is not a normal president and these are normal times. He's gotten away with crimes and corruption on a level unsurpassed by any president in history, nor has a president ever been subject to real prosecution ( at least one where the president didn't resign ). Trump stated that if he is indicted, he told his flock to 'take to the streets', and unprecedented call to violence on citizens by citizens fomenting the highest degree of civil unrest in decades. Under Trump, the KKK took their hoods off, racist police felt encourage by committing acts of murder on unarmed blacks, which, in turn, fomented rage by blacks resultilng in the riots, 99% of whom wouldn't even know who the local mayor was ( disabusing the myth that it was 'democrats who caused it', no, all hell broke loose when Trump became president ).

You can't compare to other presidents, because Trump's criminality and corruption and despicable acts, acts which threaten national security, destroying institutions and conventional norms, his continued damage to Democracy by destroying confidence in elections to some 65 million people, is above and beyond all other presidents.

No, Trump is the exception and extraordinary times demand extraordinary courage, I'm totally okay with the judge doing what he did. It makes sense and republicans can whine and moan and bitch all they want, I could give a damn because they don't give a damn about, law, order, and the constitution.

 

What was biased? That Trump is flawed and does not admit it? Or that he has on more than one occassion used the same arguments in the past as he does today?

As I said, I have been following Trump for many years, more as a curiosity than anything else. However, what gets Trump into trouble is Trump himself. He never admists he is wrong when it matters, he can definitely give flak but cannot take it. And yes, he has an ego problem galore. That is not being biased. That is being factual.

 

"Which is not his role"

In normal times, you'd have a point. But Trump is not a normal president. He's gotten away with crimes and corruption on a level unsurpassed by any president in history, nor has a president ever been subject to real prosecution ( at least one where the president didn't resign ). Trump stated that if he is indicted, he told his flock to 'take to the streets', and unprecedented call to violence on citizens by citizens fomenting the highest degree of civil unrest in decades. Under Trump, the KKK took their hoods off, racist police felt encourage by committing acts of murder on unarmed blacks, which, in turn, fomented rage by blacks resultilng in the riots, 99% of whom wouldn't even know who the local mayor was ( disabusing the myth that it was 'democrats who caused it', no, all hell broke loose when Trump became president ).

You can't compare to other presidents, because Trump's criminality and corruption and despicable acts, acts which threaten national security, destroying institutions and conventional norms, his continued damage to Democracy by destroying confidence in elections to some 65 million people, is above and beyond all other presidents.

No, Trump is the exception and extraordinary times demand extraordinary courage, I'm totally okay with the judge doing what he did. It makes sense and republicans can whine and moan and bitch all they want, I could give a damn because they don't give a damn about, law, order, and the constitution.[/QUOTE]

The judge made a fool of himself with his 44 page partisan rant. It was especially foolish since it predictably has worked to expand support for Trump.

When will they ever learn? The DP needs to hire better strategists.

 

Of course Trump is flawed, but your bill pf particulars is just another typical biased election cycle smear. It never puts a dent in Trump.
Again, Trump's opposition need to hire better strategists.

 

This isn't a popularity contest. It is about the law. The immoral, irrational, and feverish cult worship of trump won't matter for a change.

 

"The immoral, irrational, and feverish cult worship" of the corrupt bipartisan ruling political class is the real problem.

 

It wasn't biased. It was all factual. Look at the Oprah inverview in the 1980s. Trump's trade argument was the same then as it is today. The only difference, the country which the trade argument was against. He has always stated that the United States should never had trade imbalances with countries like Japan, China, etc. He has maintained that throughout his life. Fine, he is consistent. However, in economics, have a trade surplus or deficit is not the main argument as most economists have noted. And they have explained this plenty of times throughout the years.

In 1999, Trump called McCain a loser when the Reform Party was just getting started. I think he was seriouisly thinking about running for President at that time, but most of the Veterans of the Reform Party, and Ross Perot himself, never took hold of that line. 16 years later. He used the same argument again, and now he had a foothold on a political party with that line. Nothing biased about that, just facts here. Now that McCain has passed away, I think most in the GOP are regretful that they did not say more to counter that argument and from now on, will not hear much on what Trump has to say. Even look at his rallies, not has demanding as in the past like 4 years ago. And the Texas rally he had recently had about half of what was expected. He was at the Montgomery County Fairgrounds, not exactly a place where you would expect tens of thousands of people to attend, more like 5000. In 2016, it would have been in Houston Convention Center and there would have been around 20k of people inside and another 2k, except for protesters, outside.

Personally, a majority of the GOP has moved on from Trump per se and are looking forward to see a new candidate. Who that candidate is, I don't know. Trump's base, although loud, is getting smaller and smaller, more extreme in politics than ever. You even see this with Trump trying to dissuade DeSantis from running, much more with Pence.

 

I'm pretty sure the only entry in that category was in 2004

https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote.1718/

- It was only a single state and was never intended to overturn that state
- there were WELL documented voting issues in Ohio, not Mike Lindell level BS
- the losing candidate didn't support the effort
- nobody put pressure on the VP to break the law
- no fake Ohio electors submitted illegal documents
- nobody held a rally to direct supporters to fight like hell at the capitol

Let's take a guess as to which EC count process objection will be remembered in 50 years.....