Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Lee Atwater, Mar 21, 2023.
Got anything else besides ad homs and insults?
If not, enjoy the rest of your day.
Perhaps 2 questions need to be answered here. 1.Would the Manhattan DA be going after someone who paid hush money 7 years ago if that someone wasn’t Trump? I don’t know the answer to this question. 2. Would the Republican controlled House be dragging or asking the Manhattan DA to testify before congress if the Manhattan DA was investigating someone other than Trump for hush money payments 7 years after the payments? I think not. The republican controlled house is only doing this because Trump is involved. Which leads me back to question number 1.
I've never claimed to be a "Trump Supporter". In 2016 he was my next to last choice for President. In 2020, Only Biden ranked lower. Unlike Dems I don't worship the President, any President", Trump is crude, lewd, and a social embarrassment, doesn't know when to shut up and is vindictive. BUT, choosing him over "Obama's third term" was a calculated gamble, that mostly paid off. The disaster this country has been since January 20, 2021 speaks volumes about the wisdom of my choice.
The problem I see with lefties is that they internalize their candidates; they have to love and embrace them and excuse all his faults and fubars; I don't. I'm hiring someone to work for me, not looking to introduce him to my sister.
I repeatedly said that I didn't blame anyone for voting for Trump if they found him to be the lesser of two evils. It's only after his election theft attempts that I've gotten harsher with my criticisms. My criticism isn't of people who supporter him a few years ago or held their nose and voted for him. My criticism is of people who STILL support him NOW after he attempted to steal the election.
Too bad Trump and the rest of the insurrectionists didn't know better. Cuz they largely based the legality of the failed coup on Eastman's little piece of garbage.
Manhattan DA Responds To House GOP Letter: ‘We Will Not Be Intimidated’
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office spoke out for the first time since the House GOP sent a conspiracy theory-laced letter to the DA demanding that he testify before Congress about the expected indictment of former President Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels hush money case.
In a statement Bragg emphasized that his office would not be intimidated by the Republicans’ demands.
“We will not be intimidated by attempts to undermine the justice process, nor will we let baseless accusations deter us from fairly applying the law,” a spokesperson for Bragg’s office told Fox News. “In every prosecution, we follow the law without fear or favor to uncover the truth. Our skilled, honest and dedicated lawyers remain hard at work.”
I wish Bragg had lent all the credibility to the letter it deserves by not even commenting on it and throwing it in the trash were it belongs.
When did I say he couldn't?
Bragg pledged to not apply the law to certain crimes.
I'm not going to get into who stole or tried to steal what. The short time between the election and the inauguration and the lack of any Constitutional process to reverse it makes it senseless to debate.
I appreciate your admission that you are unwilling to discuss the facts and that Trump's attempts to reverse the election were unconstitutional.
I don't appreciate the teacher that failing to teach you to understand "senseless to debate".
Almost every one not lost in the Democratic asscrack of horror.
allowing trump to get away with his crimes would be an open invitation to the kind of lawless anarcy that "conservatives" WISH filled our cities. trump MUST be prosecuted.
Yeah, this^^^^ in spades.
It's not like he hasn't been investigated for this before. Briggs currying favor with has benefactor George Soros.
Would it hurt my feelings if the grand jury declines to recommend indicting Don? Given the time he'd be facing if convicted, not really. The Smith and Willis investigation is where the real legal jeopardy lies.
No truer words, and I personally vouch for the validity of the above. I remember you saying exactly this back in 2016, and two other forums ago.
Like I said above.
Pitiful that you think most of Trump's base are lawbreakers.
Those who are still Trump supporters aren't bothered by what Trump opposers think.
Another way to look at it is would charges have been brought against anyone if that someone wasn't Trump. Who, for a large part of the 7 years, was prez.
This opportunity to hold him accountable was missed because Trump failed to appoint a full compliment of FEC board members.
FEC Drops Case Against Trump for Alleged Hush Money Payments
Where we disagreed with those colleagues was in their decision to dismiss the remaining allegations.21 Their Statement of Reasons is notably devoid of any explanation that specifically addresses their votes to dismiss the allegations against Trump, the Committee, and the Trump Organization. We voted to support OGC’s recommendations to find reason to believe that Trump and the Committee knowingly and willfully accepted an excessive contribution from Cohen and a prohibited corporate or excessive contribution from the Trump Organization, that the Committee knowingly and willfully filed false disclosure reports, and that the Trump Organization knowingly and willfully made a corporate or excessive contribution through its reimbursements to Cohen. There is ample evidence in the record to support the finding that Trump and the Committee knew of, and nonetheless accepted, the illegal contributions at issue here. Indeed, Cohen provided testimony under penalty of perjury that Trump not only knew about the payment but himself directed Cohen to orchestrate the scheme. And the Commission’s interests in seeing the law enforced with respect to Trump, the Committee, and the Trump Organization have in no way been vindicated.
The congresspeople are unassailably correct in that the DA's investigation is obviously and prima facie self evident a political purge against an individual. However, congress has no business nor the authority to do such.
In case you haven't noticed, the Constitution describes an unassailable right to to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So what? The memo isn't illegal.
If there was a single reason Clinton lost, that wasn't it. The "deplorables" comment did far more damage than that, for example.
Perceived unfair indictments will galvanize the right. Perceived fair indictments (to a moderate) will galvanize the right and heavily turn off independents to Trump. So whether it helps or not, depends on the content. You just assume he's innocent. I know he toes the line wherever he can and probably crossed the line a few times. It's more a question of the evidence available.
Separate names with a comma.