I don't want to live in a country where Trump could be held accountable
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Now that my favorite president, Donald Trump, is facing a 37-count indictment from the feds , I join with my brothers and sisters in MAGA, and with all sensible Republicans, in saying this: I’m not sure I want to live in a country where a former president can wave around classified documents he's not supposed to have and say , “This is secret information. Look at this,” and then be held accountable for his actions.
I mean, what kind of country have we become? One in which federal prosecutors can take “evidence” before a “grand jury,” and that grand jury can “vote to indict” a former president for 37 alleged “crimes” ? Look at all the other people out there in America, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, who HAVEN’T been indicted for crimes on the flimsy excuse that there is no “evidence” they did crimes. THAT’S TOTALLY UNFAIR!
It’s like Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin wrote in a tweet Friday : “These charges are unprecedented and it’s a sad day for our country, especially in light of what clearly appears to be a two-tiered justice system where some are selectively prosecuted, and others are not.”
What kind of country holds a president accountable for alleged crimes a grand jury charges him with?
Or as Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn tweeted : “Where are the investigations against the Clintons and the Bidens? What about fairness? Two tiers of justice at work.”
TWO TIERS! One tier in which President Trump keeps getting indicted via both state and federal justice systems and another in which the people I don’t like keep getting not indicted via all the things Fox News tells me they did wrong.
It’s like America has become a banana republic, as long as you do as I’ve done and refuse to look up the definition of “banana republic.”
Regardless of the Trump indictment, it's clear this is all Biden's fault
And of course, you know who’s behind this travesty of justice, right? It’s so-called President Biden, who is both frail and senile and also a laser-sharp master at conducting witch hunts.
Sure, they’ll tell you the indictment came via a special counsel investigation, and that the federal special counsel statute keeps such investigations walled off from political influence. But that’s complete nonsense, unless we’re talking about special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr while Trump was president and tasked with investigating the NEFARIOUS LEFT-WING CRIMES committed in the Trump-Russia probe. Durham was above reproach, and the fact that the New York Times reported he “charged no high-level F.B.I. or intelligence official with a crime and acknowledged in a footnote that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign did nothing prosecutable, either” is something I will ignore.
This is a WITCH HUNT, and I believe that because Trump said so!
Current special counsel Jack Smith , on the other hand — he’s bad news. I know this because Trump has said repeatedly that Smith’s investigation is a witch hunt, and I’ve never known Trump to lie about anything.
Keep in mind, in 2016, Trump said : “I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.”
So after he said that, you expect me to believe he didn’t protect classified information? Just because, according to the indictment , there’s a recording of him holding a classified document in his office at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and saying to two staff members and an interviewer: “See, as president I could have declassified it. … Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”
You call that “damning evidence,” I call it, “What about Hunter Biden’s laptop?”
Putting Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden in prison? Now THAT makes sense!
Now I can already hear all the libs out there whining and saying that if it was Biden or Hillary or Hunter getting indicted, I wouldn’t be saying a word about two-tiers of justice or the weaponization of the department of justice or anything like that.
Well, those whiners would be right, but the difference is I believe Biden and Hillary and Hunter are all guilty and should be locked up for life, whereas with Trump, I believe he is great and innocent and the best president America has ever known.
It’s like this: If Hillary got indicted for murder, I would say, “Yes, she is absolutely a murderer. Lock her up.”
But if in some outrageous scenario President Trump was indicted for murder just because he told a bunch of people that he did a murder, I would say: “HOW DARE YOU CHARGE THIS MAN WITH MURDER WHEN OTHERS IN THE U.S. HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER! THERE ARE CLEARLY TWO TIERS OF JUSTICE, ONE IN WHICH MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT, WHO SAID HE MURDERED SOMEONE, IS CHARGED WITH MURDER AND ONE IN WHICH PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T MURDERED ARE NOT CHARGED WITH MURDER!”
And that, my liberal friends, makes perfect sense to me and my MAGA companions. So watch out. The Trump Train’s a comin’.
Tags
Who is online
46 visitors
It’s like America has become a banana republic, as long as you do as I’ve done and refuse to look up the definition of “banana republic.”
the willful ignorance of trump supporters continues to be shocking to witness...
[deleted]
best gear up and get behind the wheel if you're going to be in miami by tuesday...
I've always wanted to get away with shooting somebody on 5th avenue.
You probably would since the DA is a far left loon that favors criminals over victims.
Been harboring a yen for committing murder a long time, eh?
I was paraphrasing Trump.
Actually, yes, I have. I have a seriously lengthy better dead list.
Thankfully, haven't been forced to kill anybody in many years now.
Thankfully, nature, karma and time tend to keep me out of prison.
Own a T-shirt that says "Don't piss off old people. The older we get the less life in prison is a deterrent."
It was a gift from an old enemy I didn't kill who became a semi-friend.
Have never worn it because who knows what that asshole impregnated it with.
I'll look forward to reading your manifesto in the future.
Unfortunately, SF 312 won't let me publish it.
you're a hoot
Oooh, secret stuff!
After you're gone perhaps then.
After I'm gone everything gets erased.
Right back at ya babe. Have always liked your style.
You'll never know!
you won't either...
once again you seemingly don't have a clue.
well enough informed to refute any fact free rhetoric that you can produce.
Do you have any idea what the hell we were even talking about?
Doesn't seem like it.
sorry, on the list of texans I pay any attention to, you didn't make the cut...
One republican wrote that we were in a Banana Republic..
People roasted him for shopping.... I need to find that, it was hilarious.
Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas once said that about Arkansas. Ironic, since he was the head Banana
just curious, does mike's wife look like sasquatch?
weellll....they could pass for cousins....
I'm afraid to google what sarah's brother looks like...
maga republicans have completely surrendered and abandoned the moral high ground they thought they held on the constitution, national security, and law and order with their blind loyalty to an autocrat without a conscience.
The problem with these rightwing false equivalences is that they are FALSE!
It appears that Trump is guilty by the preponderance of evidence. He should be tried and go to jail if convicted. But even the worst among us are entitled to due process and a fair trial. But to be fair, even Comey said that Hillary was guilty of extreme indifference and recklessness in her handling of classified materials and her subsequent attempts to destroy evidence....and yet recommended that she not be prosecuted.
And then there is the matter of Biden having all kinds of unsecured classified documents lying about in various locations while serving in Congress and as vice president. Where's the outrage? We do have a two-tiered justice system in place in this country right now, and the electorate is well aware of it. After all, no one is above the law.
Careful, someone may come around asking you to explain because they cannot see similarities. That's a rabbit hole to avoid.
No, it is not a failure to see similarities; that is obvious. The failure is the blindness to the profound differences.
Oh, and we mustn't forget the growing evidence of the Biden crime family's involvement in influence peddling, money laundering, and bribery. Is an impeachment in Joe's future?
Hey, wait a minute.
Isn't that precisely what liberals don't want folks to do---remember or even talk about that?
And now we know why Biden picked Harris as a running mate. What thinking person would prefer cackling Kamala over inept Joe?
When do we get to see the evidence? Or should we just trust that it exists and move forward with his execution?
Ask Adam Schiff for it, I hear tell he always has a mountain of evidence just waiting to be shared with America!
No stopping the parsing of words here.
Or want you to explain why you are defending Trump...in which...obviously, you are not.
Some just want to argue just to give themselves something to do.
An attempt to equate Trump's classified document actions with those of Pence and/or Biden is a (feeble) attempt to defend Trump.
As I noted to Greg, if the charges against Trump can be legally and logically applied to Biden (and/or Pence) then make that case. Merely noting that all three cases involve possession of classified documents is simplistic and has no legal teeth.
While none of the three should have had those documents, I suspect strongly that Trump will be distinguished by his lack of cooperation, lying and then his own words which illustrate that he knew the documents were not classified and that he disclosed their existence privately.
So let's see how this unfolds. If you can apply the charges and details of same (when they are made available) to Biden and Pence then do so. Maybe then you will have an actual legit argument to make instead of endlessly whining about being called out for defending Trump.
thanks for the demonstration...
what evidence is that
Yes, what Hillary did was far, far worse.
She is still walking free; and now selling merch bragging about it.
Good grief now Hillary is thrown in the mix. Partisan nonsense. If Trump were a D you would be all over this and if Hillary an R you would be defending her. (And, by the way, Hillary was clearly wrong; the legal determination of crime and the degree of harm to national security is not known ... so how you know is quite impressive.)
The details of the indictment are forthcoming. A trial is likely. How about we evaluate this case based on the charges, the law and the facts and then see if due process and objective judgment is at play?
Yes, what Hillary did was far, far worse.
From your lips to Putin’s ears, comrade.
they can't admit their hero broke the law...
I think it is more of defending the GOP; since Trump is intimately attached to the GOP, many feel compelled to defend Trump. What is sad (and amusing) is how utterly foolish they will go with their 'arguments' and claims.
The best part is that as detailed and copious as the indictment is, it’s likely only about 1/3 of the evidence that the prosecution has. They save the best stuff for later.
what's really funny is that trump signed into law more severe penalties for the laws he's accused of breaking...
I agree. the public hasn't even heard the more egregious evidence, and some of it we'll never hear. my source tells me it's been assholes and elbows in the NIA community since they found out trump left with those documents. they're all operating under the assumption of the worst case scenario.
Maybe. But prosecutors probably cannot reveal the most damning proof because it's still actively dangerous for US intelligence services if they do so.
Remember when Biden refused to give back those documents, claimed they belonged to him, lied about having them, and tried to hide them next to his toilet? Me neither.
the US house of representatives -
democrat side - dominated by career prosecutors
republican side - dominated by enablers of career criminals
The gubmint was aware of those allegedly classified documents for months. Why didn't they make the raid much earlier if national security was at stake?
They were obviously following a protocol for dealing with former presidents and documents possession. They wrongly assumed he would act accordingly.
The government tried repeatedly for more than a year and a half to get the former president to return documents from his time in office. Finally, it resorted to a search of his property and, eventually, criminal charges.
As Barr stated in the clip below, the “gubmint” gave Trump every opportunity to return the documents, they acted with restraint, they were deferential, and they were patient. Leave it to people like yourself to use these tactics against the opposition when they are utilized, and also use them against the opposition if they are not utilized. As always, you guys have knee jerk reflexive arguments to any situation that involves the guy you are so fawningly subservient to.
This post is false, of course.
Well, since he has had many of them for possibly close to 50 ears, that equates to refusing to give them back, made the decision that they belong to him and hid them all over the northeast in non secure closets and next to his corvette in an non secure garage, then yes....we do remember.
Hopefully that helps you.
Bizarro 'logic'. Refusal is substantially different than neglect (or being unaware). As soon as the documents were discovered (by Biden's attorney) they were immediately disclosed to authorities and Biden's team immediately looked for other violations. Labeling that 'refusal' is living in a partisan fantasyland.
Let me get this straight - you remember when Joe Biden lied about having documents, refused an order to return them, claimed that requested government documents were his property, and deliberately hid incredibly sensitive documents related to national security in a bathroom next to his toilet? Lol. That is just a cringeworthy comment of ultimate stupidity.
Bullshit..
They ONLY way he could have had those documents is if he smuggled them out of a secure facility, ESPECIALLY when he was a Senator. .
He knew he had them. More than likely his son knew they were there...and God knows who else.
Trump may have fucked up, but at lease he did not have classified papers scattered all over the northeast and next to his corvette, all non secure spaces.
His team disclosed them because they knew Biden fucked up and did not want to be in the same light as Trump. Too bad they failed.
That, if true, would then be neglect. As noted, neglect is different than refusal. And by your presumption, the Pence situation is also a result of neglect.
If is the refusal that got Trump in trouble. He refused through delay tactics, denial and lying.
I don't remember but Biden did. He took the documents illegally, just like Trump...knew he had them because he had to have stolen them from a secure site, especially when he was a senator. By keeping him for between 4 and almost 50 years, he certainly though they were his. A deliberate move.
He did not hide them next to a toilet, but he hid them in closets in the Biden center in Pennsylvania, in his office in his house,and next to his corvette. Who knows where else that we don't know about.
Now, you can continue to defend Biden like most other leftists on here, but that defense will be a failure. Biden is a corrupt POS.
Nice spin and defense of Biden, but a failure.
He knew he had the documents and refused to return them over the course of up to 50 years.
Get a grip.
You deflect (clumsily) to Biden rather than deal directly with Hal's question.
I criticize Biden for what he actually did based on the evidence. He was wrong to have those documents and at the very least this is neglect. If he knew about them then it is irresponsible too. But there is no evidence that he refused to return the documents.
Same holds true for Pence.
So you have evidence that Biden was asked to return these documents and he refused to do so?
If not, you are simply delivering bullshit. Continuing to attempt to equate the wrongdoings of Trump with those of Biden and Pence.
No I don't and neither does anyone else.
Let me help you a little with this so you can understand.
Biden...classified docs as Senator...stole from a secure location. Kept for up to 50 years. Knew he had them because HE stole them. By not returning them, he refused to do so. He should not, like Trump, have to have been asked to return them.
At least Trump may have had authority to have them in the first place.
Corrupt Biden did not.
Capiche?
Then you are just emitting bullshit.
The rest of this thread removed for no value
So do you have that evidence you are seeking?
If you do, let it out and let everyone here see it.
You made the claim that Biden refused to return classified documents, thus you have the burden of evidence.
I certainly have never seen evidence that Biden refused to return classified documents. Evidence of improper handling, yes. Evidence of refusal, well that is up to you to provide.
So show me where Biden was asked to return documents and refused to do so.
We do have evidence where Biden found documents and voluntarily turned them over to authorities and then conducted a further search looking for other PRA violations.
Why did trump take them in the first place?
... to make copies and sell them to the highest bidders.
That's actually a good question. What advantage for him? I see none.
I mean... all he could do is impress his lackeys with a mountain of top secret. We know he has a monstrous ego, but still.......
I have come to think he intended to sift through them all at some point and pick out ones that were worth money to someone. I say that for two or three reasons. One he said that Nixon got 18 million dollars for his papers, and two, part of the testimony will be that Trump wanted to personally go through the dozens of boxes of classified documents. He even told one of his lawyers that he didnt want anyone touching his boxes.
I think he kept them with the expectation that they were worth millions of dollars to someone, either the government or someone else.
I think he may have actually thought he could sell them back to the government at some point.
Exactly.. The Saudis didn't give Kushner 2 billion out of charity.
And the Chinese and Ukranians didn't give the Biden family millions for nothing, either, right?
There is one distinct difference between the two, Trump was out of office so the Saudi's couldn't be buying influence, Hunter gets his payoffs while Pedo Joe is in office selling influence.
let's see your proof of that claim.
Well, yeah, but some won't be looking.
They must protect Biden at all costs.
Those energy companies were just so damn enthralled at Hunter Biden's coke-fueled 'expertise' in the energy sector they rained money on him to do nothing.
Which proof are you looking for? Joe's pedophilia is documented in his daughters diary, Jareds 2 billion came after trump left office, anybody with a Calendar can verify that. And Biden has been in office selling influence threw his son since the early 1800's so i'm not sure what is confusing for you.
Will any of this go to trial in the 21st century?
Yes, all of this started because Hillary Clinton was under investigation for mishandling classified information. People inside government were even confirming how Clinton deliberately circumvented safeguards and placed secure information at risk. That's why Hillary Clinton needed an investigation of Trump to hide her own actions. And the investigation of Trump sought by Clinton was not to defend herself but to create a narrative that Trump was worse. This whole thing was about convincing the public that Hillary Clinton was the lesser of two evils.
Now that the unprecedented has become the new normal, threats of indictment are acceptable political maneuvers to influence public opinion and influence elections. Clinton's maneuvering did avoid the threat of indictment but Clinton botched the game for everyone else. Biden being indicted for mishandling government information (not just secure information) is now within the realm of acceptable politics.
Nope! Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with it and nothing to gain. Mrs Clinton retired from public office for over ten years...
Do you think Trump will NOT get due process and a fair trial?
You do not understand the difference between the Trump and the Biden cases?
Tell you what, Greg, spend some time reading the details of the indictment on Tuesday and then follow the legal argument against Trump. If it applies to Biden as well then you will have an argument about a two-tiered system. Until then, you really should already understand the differences between these two scenarios (and, in fact, the similarity of the Pence and Biden situations and the harsh contrast between their actions and Trump's actions).
Far more fair since the trial would be in Florida and not DC.
So what does the wishy-washy response translate into?
You think it will be more fair than DC but that does not translate into you thinking Trump will get due process and a fair trial.
The process can be more fair and still fail to be due process and a fair trial.
So, do you think Trump will get due process and a fair trial?
Yes, I do, now that the trial will be held in Florida.
More evenly split between D and R here than in DC where it is 95+ to 1.
Now, copy this response and remember to not ask me incessantly the same question over and over again.
The one in DC could happen well before the one in Florida.
Maybe it should be held in Moscow.
More whining.
I will ask you that question again if you write a post that suggests you think Trump is not being treated fairly.
The rest of this thread was removed for no value and trolling. Knock it off. Only warning.
Explain, specifically, how you see that unfolding.
Answer his question the first time and you won't have to leave a snarky response at the end of your comment
yeah, that'll happen...
Do you actually think the Trump case is equivalent to the Hillary case?
The only way your ridiculous argument would work is if two nearly identical cases were handled differently. Irresponsibly using a private server for SoS business and deleting emails is entirely different from knowingly taking and holding classified (including TS/SCI) documents, refusing to return them when asked to do so, and lying about the existence of other classified documents.
It is absurd to equate these two cases.
Not to mention showing them to people who did not have the security clearance to see them.
that goes hand in hand with being a braggart, show and tell...
Most would have the intelligence to stop themselves, but not Trump, it seems. His ego overpowers his IQ.
strength of character...
[deleted]
Gee, false equivalence. Hooda thunkit?
And let's not forget the "Lock Her Up" chant. Holy double standards.
But Trump has perfect phone calls and can magically declassify documents with brainwaves alone. And, of course, any document Trump 'declassified' (by magic) would not contain anything that might compromise national security because Trump's declassification decisions would have been perfect too.
Let's not forget Comey letting Hillary completely off the hook for doing things far worse than they have on Trump.
Hillary doesn't even have the defense she was president and could declassify anything. Destroying evidence, which Hillary did. Garland and crew only wish they could nail Trump for that.
Also, Hillary's lawyers weren't forced to testify against her. One did volunteer; in return for protection from prosecution- and admitted he deleted the emails. Of course no charges for him either.
Democrats do love their criminals. They also love violating the Constitution whenever it suits them. Executive Privilege- sorry that only applies to Democrat Presidents; Attorney Client Privilege- same damn thing- only Democrats get that.
Two tier justice system- which they love to brag about. "No one is above the law" Unless they are a Democrat.
That's funny. Also, let's not forget that Comey decided to do the investigation in the middle of an election cycle. Feel familiar?
But you can't after your President. Trump seems to have forgotten that.
Apparently, so do Maga Republicans. Btw, if you think you are bothering me with these comments, try again. I didn't vote for either of them. I voted for Gary Johnson.
Don't worry about that two-tier system, because it will work out in Trump's favor, too. Even if Trump is found guilty, he will never spend a day in prison.
Let them cry about the two tier justice system. It is the same justice system that has protected Democrats as well. Take a look at the classified documents train wreck. Every administration since the 1980's has mishandled them. They've all gotten away with it because of these two tier system.
None were prosecuted. Now, going after one specific person, changes that standard and opens them all up for prosecution. They won't let that happen.
While I agree with much of what you said, I don't have a lot of faith in our leadership in Washington being able to see potential future ramifications well enough.
The information on that laptop was found in the middle of an election cycle, Comey sat on it and brought it out towards the end of the election cycle to do the least amount of damage to Hillary's chances and then exonerated her again before the election, he did all this, not to hurt her, but to help President Hillary from getting caught up in impeachment hearings over the contents of that laptop and to save the FBI the embarrassment if he had held onto that information until after Hillary was elected when the FBI knew about it months earlier. So, yes that is what a two-tiered justice system looks like.
All the threats of violence, which will only get worse as this case progresses , will cause the sentencing authorities to show the practicality of lenience toward Trump. I agree he will never spend a day in prison. Even if he is acquitted due to a jury nullification the point will still have been made that you cant defy the law with impunity just because you are America's biggest political cult leader asshole.
D.C. are the last ones to "police themselves". We see right now how that works. The problem is finding that investigator / prosecutor that is free of the politics and conduct an objective investigation / prosecution.
Yep!!
The Hillary deflections here are so over-the-top. You do realize that Trump was PotUS after Hillary lost and was quite capable of encouraging Hillary's email scandal be investigated. Especially given he introduced the mantra of "lock her up" during the campaign.
Nothing happened under Trump.
Do you think that this is a bogus indictment and that Trump has likely done nothing seriously wrong?
I hope you can also realize that just maybe Trump kept his hands off of the DOJ rather then attack a past political opponent... I think it was wrong what Comey did, but I'm not him.
But another comparison that could be made is to compare the Trump investigation to the Hunter Biden investigation. Biden has been under investigation by the DOJ for two misdemeanor tax filing charges, a felony tax evasion charge and a false statement charge over a gun purchase. That investigation was started back in 2018. How long did it take the DOJ to investigate Trump for this? A matter of months? Why is the DOJ slow-walking the Biden investigation for issues that are much less serious?
Does this give Trump a pass?
What are you talking about? Comey did it late in the cycle to put doubt in everyone’s mind about Hillary I know it put doubt in my mind about Hillary and hence why I didn’t vote for her.
If Hillary's actions rose to the level of serious criminality do you think it is responsible to NOT hold her accountable?
Not interested in these (predictable) deflections (and I am not just singling you out).
Not at all. I'm on the side that I think the indictment is correct and it looks bad for him. I also think that there was some political motivation behind the scenes also.
None of us have all the information around this. But I do not think not holding her accountable was not the responsible or correct action.
I didn't use Hunter Biden as a deflection but as an example of why it seems that some of Trump's investigation had some political motivation behind it.
If there was proof Hillary committed even one crime Trump had four years to charge her. He did not because there was not...
This comment either illustrates how ignorant the poster is on how our government works, or how they believe the presidency should be used to target political opponents, I'm not sure which is worse. the ignorance or the 3rd world methodology of government.
Again, we do not have all the information around it so there is no way for any of us to determine the correct action here.
maga ...
Do you think the indictment coming tomorrow is based predominantly on political motivation or proper execution of justice?
Read 6.1.15 for the answer. Also a clear parsing of "some political motivation" should provide an answer.
You could have directly answered my question in fewer words than it took to direct me elsewhere.
You could have taken the time to understand my post rather than play the question game.
Many of us ask questions to get information. We do not always read every post written to other people in a thread and even so, what you might think is an unambiguous, clear post may not actually be so.
Thus, we ask questions.
And it was also right there in the post you replied to where I posted "some political motivation".
My question was:
Instead of playing your childish game, you could have simply answered my question with "yes".
Comey had no choice but to bring it out before the election, information he knew about in late August to early September. The timing had to be done so as to make sure it didn't become a debate topic, the last debate was on Oct. 19th, he didn't release the information until Oct. 28th which was too late to force another debate, then he again exonerated her just before the election making it difficult for a hostile congress and senate to bring impeachment charges. And as I pointed out, if he had waited until after the election, President Hillary would be facing impeachment and the FBI would've been facing a huge embarrassment. BTW, didn't Comey come out and say that Hillary should've been elected by a margin of 100 million to none, so he was pretty sure she was going to win, so what he did to help President Hillary was a pretty safe bet in his mind.
No, I choose not to play your little question game where you take a comment and ask a question that is in reality a got-cha question.
Your question really had nothing to do with the copy/paste you put in.
The answer to your question was there in the copy/paste you took from my post, not my problem that you couldn't understand.
If you want to have a conversation I'll join with that conversation but if you want to play your question game then look elsewhere.
We were having a conversation until you started playing games instead of answering a very straightforward question with 'yes' (which I am assuming is indeed your answer).
When you engage me honestly you can see from earlier posts that I will show you the same courtesy. If instead of engaging me honestly as an individual you choose to play games for your 'team', I will go back to treating you as a hostile.
So you can have what you want but not if you play games.
Laughable, you started your game in 6.1.21 when all I did in 6.1.20 was honestly reply to your post. But you can have the last word, I'm done.
Fine, Snuffy, I will go back to assuming hostile intent from you.
Do you think the indictment is based solely on justice and has no political motivation?
Politics is always a factor in government. Did you notice that I uses the word 'predominantly' in my question? That was intentional.
I was asking how much would be proper jurisprudence vs. partisan politics. Which one would dominate?
Now, let's talk about political motivation. To me it is to the Ds advantage to have Trump be the nominee. So they may see this as making Trump a martyr within the GOP (at least within MAGA) and that would help him win the nomination but the tarnishing of all these indictments will harm him in the general.
Then again, indicting a former PotUS is a very big deal. I find it hard to imagine a prosecutor deciding to put forth anything less than an iron-clad case in such a circumstance.
Ok, so what's your opinion as to which is dominate in this case?
See the rest of my post. Jurisprudence is dominant IMO.
Your opinion?
My opinion is that the perception of political motivation taints the idea that jurisprudence is the prime motivation.
I agree that many of the GOP partisans will deem this to be mostly politics. There is no reasoning with them ... they will insist it is a politically-driven process no matter what facts emerge.
Or cite. Ya know... the actual words. Then explain.
That's if improved understanding is the objective. Which is often not the case.
Shocking!
And now for the next fella to meet a bus's undercarriage.
another feckless rube spending his retirement attempting to repair his career legacy...
Couldn't happen to a better guy.
Lol …. Now Barr is your hero.
Funny!
You must be so torn. Why can’t Barr just follow the script like your fellow lemmings!
Why so personal? Why so angry?
That said I’m not torn by this at all. Unlike many hypocrites here who have spent years bad mouthing Barr and now support what he is saying, I’ve always thought Barr was a good man.
So nice to see that you are on Bart’s side with this then. Interesting that you still can’t stop yourself from bashing anyone else who agrees with what Barr is saying. But you’re not torn though, lol.
Not sure why you are so concerned about all my comings and goings here but I must say.
I do so enjoy speaking truth to my friends on the left here.
Well, this is my seed and you came here to continue your relentless and obnoxious bashing of the left. Is it really so strange for me to respond? Getting back to your triggered yet contradictory comments though, if you think Barr is a good man then how do you feel about him not buying into your “two-tiered” talking point?
Nah, unfortunately it’s not all that strange here. Folks taking things personal, when other folks have the temerity to simply hold a different opinion.
And I wasn’t aware that seeding an article gave the seeder special dispensation on making personal attacks. Must be only for left leaners because that usually gets me a coupon.
Attacks? ROFL - I insinuated that you must be torn. Do you need a safe space? Or is that another attack?
[Deleted]
Is Barr wrong?
I'm not sure how you arrive at that. Hallux said that Barr will be thrown under the bus by Trump. How is that making Barr out to be a hero? Please, do explain your logic here.
Lol
I don’t know but I trust the man. More than most of you can say based on your past comments about him.
Do you know if he’s wrong?
The logic is, not long ago Barr was persona non grata with the left. Now that he says something negative about Trump, suddenly the left accepts and believes him?
It’s incredibly hypocritical is the logic.
The same could be said of the right since Barr was held as a standard and now he's being ignored at best - vilified at worst. It doesn't really matter what you, I, or Barr think at this point though.
Is that what I’m doing here?
“It’s incredibly hypocritical is the logic”
Leaving only an obvious question or three. Are you defending Barr, are you defending trump, or are you simply engaged in pissing into the wind?
You were pointing to the hypocrisy of liberals while I used your logic to point out the hypocrisy of conservatives as well. Good luck trying to make that mean anything else cause I just don't give a fuck. Barr is either correct in his analysis or he's not.
Nothing said here has indicated that Bill Barr is no longer persona non grata, let alone a hero. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. The left recognizes that he's been enabling Trump by way of his sorry sycophancy for years.
What, in your fantasy imagination, do you think I have stated about Barr in the past? Cite any negative comment I have made about him. You, yet again, do not know what you are blabbing about.
From what I have seen and read regarding Trump's handling of classified documents, I expect Barr will be found to be spot on.
How naive. When Liz Cheney said negative things about Trump that were demonstrably true, did you expect 'the left' (whatever you think that means) would disagree simply because she is 'the other side'?
Of course when someone makes a comment that a particular political / ideological group agrees with they will not change their position and disagree simply because an opponent stated it.
I believe that some are so hyperpartisan themselves that they expect it in everyone else.
I agree. Some, it would appear, cannot even conceive of a political position being independent of political parties.
I don't know if it's a defect in the logic or a defiense to dismiss anything they don't agree with. Often this comes with something about not accepting opposing view points, but the opposing view doesn't come with anything other than a metaphorical poke in the eye.
Honestly, I think it's a desire to think the worst of those with whom they disagree. They're so very wrapped up in their own partisan opinions that they feel the need to vilify those with other opinions. They recognize that this is unreasonable, and justify it by telling themselves "Well, they'd do the same", even when those others are demonstrably not doing the same. It's classic projection. Psych 101 stuff.
Exactly, some even call them deplorable.
I was neither vilifying him or ignoring him so I guess you weren’t talking to me but since you don’t give a fuck, we’ll let that slide….
Or:
Fascists, homophobes, misogynists, xenophobes, anti-Americans, and traitors.
Hillary was wrong. Imo they are not deplorables, just incredibly stupid.
Wow, shocking.
I’ll correct that for you.
The TDS ridden accuse him of enabling Trump by way of his sorry sycophancy for years.
Barr has been very honest and forthcoming in the past and if you think not, how can you believe him today? Thus we have the observation of hypocrisy.
And it is spot on for many of you.
Some do.
And some, like here, give credit where it's due (when it's finally due), and are made fun of for doing so, by way of straw men, which is too pathetically evident to even rise to the level of "deplorable".
They certainly deserve your disdain.
The only fantasy here is yours. Assuming I was talking about you. And unless you’re a completely partisan driven idiot. You know exactly the people here I’m “babbling” about.
More empirical evidence of a question gone unanswered. I didn’t ask if you expect him to be right. I asked if you know he is wrong. Big difference and classic word game deployment we have become accustom to from you.
Since this has devolved into your predictable sophomoric insult game, I’ll give you the last word.
Enjoy.
Nah, you can try to spin this all you want but that’s all it is. Spin.
I love all the self professed “independents” here and enjoy watching many of them here lean heavily left, again and again and again. Not sure who they think they are fooling but it isn’t me.
And I don’t “expect” anything from anyone but I do observe what they do here. No amount of spin changes that. No matter how many lies and half truths they fire off.
They get my pity.
Hillary was projecting.
Bigly!
You hide it well.
Pity and compassion, two different things...
N ot so much:
Barr was a sycophant. It's sad that you're not able to see that he was a sycophant until he wasn't. He joins a long line of enablers who have at some point or other, and some only recently, become alarmed at what they've enabled. Barr, Turley, Jeff Sessions, Scaramucci, Murdoch, Cohen, McConnell (on occasions when he's actually honest), John Kelly, Rex Tillerson. Hell, his own favorite "piece of ass" daughter has been distancing herself. Of course none of them want to own up to their own roles in enabling his bad behavior.
Barr won't ever really say "Well, I said that he could basically do whatever he wants as POTUS, even if it's illegal, and that's why he appointed me, and now look where that's got us", but it's true.
Tillerson was at least honest enough eventually to call him the moron (or was it "fucking moron"?) that he is.
Jeff Sessions was actually honest (or wished to appear so) enough to recuse himself in the Russia investigation, and was canned for it.
Mitch McConnell called him out over January 6th, but would stick his nose right straight up Trump's ass tomorrow, if Trump were the nominee, but he knows he can't actually say both things at the same time, when Trump supporters will remember the first part and hold him accountable for it.
Same with Kevin McCarthy.
John Kelly supported removing him from office over January 6th, but had worked to advance his policies.
How many Trump attorneys have thrown their hands up and walked away?
It's kinda funny you think Barr has been honest and forthcoming, when Mueller publicly called him out for lying in his summation of the Mueller report. Funny, but not especially surprising.
Was Tillerson "TDS-ridden", Sparty? How about Kelly? Are McConnell and McCarthy alternately "TDS-ridden" and not, depending on which way the political wind blows at any given moment?
Or are you just engaging in name-calling because the left is actually willing to agree with a conservative when he's correct, and your hyperpartisanship causes you to see giving credit where it's due as weakness?
You bend over backwards to find something to complain about. You asked if I knew Barr was wrong and I responded with:
Answering your question in quite clear language yet you still find a way to whine.
Nobody can possibly know if Barr is right or wrong until the trial concludes. Your question was stupid at the onset.
giving credit where it's due as weakness?
When the subject is defending Donald Trump the MAGA crowd would claim anything but blind obedience to him is weakness.
At least we got that settled. Totally deflected from my point but...
Very true.
I disagree. Barr is a partisan in the style of Gingrich. They will do what they feel must be done to keep Republican control. If that's covering for Trump then so be it, but once they feel it's in the party's best interest to toss the bastard under the bus they won't lose any sleep over it.
good analysis
... make that a real bus.
MAGA darling Johnathan Turley too speaks on Fox News about how well the Special Council lays out the indictment...(emphasis mine)
all trumpsters can do is engage in whataboutisms, instead of addressing trump's willful criminal activities that threaten all americans...
Funny that Barr's assessment sounds quite familiar to another "high profile" case of yesteryear...........
And he turned that one into a nothing burger. Go figure.........................................
Is Barr wrong?
I'll never eat toast again without that picture in my mind!
Thanks for ruining it for me.
Just spread some DeSantis Chocolate Pudding on it with your fingers.
As appetizing as toe jam.
All the evidence against Trump is really piling up!
Now this is true satire. The Babylon Bee should be taking notes
I wonder if President DeSantis will pardon Trump?
he hasn't been convicted of anything yet
Could you imagine the freak out from the left. It would be hilarious to watch.
Wannabe President DeSantis? He’d be too busy vilifying cartoon characters, banning history, re-re-naming military bases, polishing his go-go boots, etc. etc.
trump can't find a lawyer with national security experience. luckily, he won't need that to get processed and plead not guilty at his arraignment tuesday...
interesting reading
glad to see you back
Y
Trump has a pretty hot looking younger looking spokeswoman babbling out his lies on the courthouse steps right now. She stared into the camera and said the people who run this country dont love America, they hate Donald Trump. As if one is exclusive of the other. These Trump fools and lackeys wont be happy until they destroy this country - for one man. It is sickeningly amazing.
alina habba, that trumpster bimbo has her own federal court date coming up...