Liz Cheney pushes the DOJ to charge Trump, says passing on prosecution if there's enough evidence risks the US no longer being 'a nation of laws'

  
Via:  John Russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  95 comments


Liz Cheney pushes the DOJ to charge Trump, says passing on prosecution if there's enough evidence risks the US no longer being 'a nation of laws'
Trump is "guilty of the most serious dereliction of duty of any president in our nation's history", she said,

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T





Rep. Liz Cheney said the evidence is there for the DOJ to charge Donald Trump over the Capitol riot.


Cheney said Trump is guilty of "the most serious dereliction of duty of any president."







She said that prosecutors avoiding a case could threaten the US reputation for integrity.

Rep. Liz Cheney on Thursday said that DOJ prosecutors risk harming the US reputation as "a nation of laws" if they do not charge former President Donald Trump despite there being sufficient evidence. 

In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Cheney said the "facts and the evidence are there" to sustain charges against Trump over the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Cheney is part of a committee investigating the riot, which has produced evidence is says shows Trump is to blame for the attack.

Trump is "guilty of the most serious dereliction of duty of any president in our nation's history", she said, and   cited federal court judge David Carter concluding in March that   Trump and conservative attorney John Eastman had likely committed crimes in seeking to overturn the result of the 2020 election.














She said the Jan. 6 committee will "continue to follow the facts. I think Department of Justice will do that. But they have to make decisions about prosecution."





"Understanding what it means if the facts and the evidence are there, and they decide not to prosecute — how do we then call ourselves a nation of laws? I think that's a very serious, serious balancing," Cheney said.

The committee has alleged that Trump   relentlessly pushed claims that the election had been stolen from him   even though he knew, or should have known, they were false. These claims resulted in supporters attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in a bid to halt Biden's certification as president. 

Witness   Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House , has claimed that Trump knew supporters were armed, and wanted to join them in marching on the Capitol. Others have testified that people in Trump's circle played key roles in arranging the protest. 

The Jan. 6 committee, after winding up its investigation, could make a criminal referral of Trump to the Justice Department.

Such a move would not obliged the DOJ to act, but would pressure Merrick Garland, the attorney general, to make the unprecedented decision of whether to charge a former president, Trump, with a criminal offense. 

The Justice Department is pursuing a separate investigation   into the Capitol riot and bid to overturn the 2020 election,   and this week subpoenaed Pat Cipollone, the former White House counsel. That move indicated that its probe had begun to touch on former members of Trump's inner circle. This is a separate route to a possible Trump indictment. 

Trump has denied wrongdoing in relation to the riot, and says he sincerely believes his election-fraud claims. 

Some have suggested that charging Trump could galvanize his supporters and empower him as he gears up another bid for the presidency in 2024. 

However, Cheney said that political calculations should not be a factor in the decision over criminal charges. 

"I don't think that it's appropriate to think about it that way," said Cheney.

Cheney has been ostracized from the GOP for taking a stand against Trump, and faces a Trump-backed challenger for a Wyoming congressional seat in the Republican primary in mid-August. 

Read the original article on   Business Insider






Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

I think it is now imperative that Trump be indicted for his crimes related to the 2020 election, but not for quite the same reason Liz Cheney says. 

As we see on this forum, there are now many MAGA and MAGA sympathizers who use the lack of an indictment as proof Trump is innocent of wrongdoing, and nothing could be farther from the truth. Personally, I dont demand an indictment IF his supporters would acknowledge he is unfit to be a major figure in American politics and run him out of the Republican Party. But it appears they wont do that, and many of them even want him to be president again. Thus it is time for Trump to be indicted and the evidence laid out in a court of law. At worst, a trial and the evidence would only add to his disgrace whether he was convicted or not. How anyone could still vote for him after what he did is an eternal mystery, but an indictment would give the rest of us the true answer. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

If he has committed crimes, he should be indicted.  What his supporters believe or don't is immaterial.  We are a nation of laws, not a nation of "feelings".

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1    2 weeks ago

This isn't based on feelings.  It's based on his and his domestic mobs treason/terrorism/failed coup.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1    2 weeks ago
Trump is "guilty of the most serious dereliction of duty of any president in our nation's history"

If he is not indicted and/or not kicked out of the Republican Party, where is his accountability? He will think he won. 

This is about our national character. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1    2 weeks ago
If he has committed crimes, he should be indicted.

Agreed.   

Given the publicly available evidence thus far, it seems reasonable for one to hold that Trump committed crimes and that he should be indicted.

The individual holding this view cannot deem Trump guilty;  that is done by a court of law.

But surely you understand why what is currently publicly known about Trump would lead a reasonable individual to hold (thus far) that Trump should be indicted.   To me, that position seems far more reasonable than the belief that Trump did nothing wrong and that this is nothing but partisan trickery at play.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

At the same time I was seeding this article one of the NT trumpsters was on another article repeating that Trump is innocent because he has not been indicted and convicted. 

Enough is enough of this shit. Put him on trial. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
... one of the NT trumpsters was on another article repeating that Trump is innocent because he has not been indicted and convicted

Someone actually argued that??

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
IF there is evidence.  So just like the past 6 years, they don't have a goddamn thing.  

I think that qualifies. And it is far from the only time we see this. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

Just incredible willful ignorance.   How can anyone with even basic critical thinking skills hold that there is nothing on Trump?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
Someone actually argued that??

More than one but you have to consider that they have their heads up their 4th point of contact.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
If he is not indicted and/or not kicked out of the Republican Party, where is his accountability? He will think he won. 

As I've been saying for months, I'm hoping for an indictment, conviction, and incarceration....provided he has committed one or more crimes...which I think he surely has.  Do be prepared, though.  It's Trump, so he's going to say he won no matter what happens.

I do not believe the best chances for a conviction will have anything to do with the Jan 6 riots.  They most certainly will not hinge on a delay we're describing in minutes of an action he eventually took anyway.  Dereliction of duty is a military charge anyway, and the president is a civilian.

As frustrating as this is for fervent Trump haters like yourself (not a criticism, BTW), one of life's immutable rules is that if you want to win, you first must not suck at whatever you're doing.  So far, the attempted investigations and prosecutions of Trump have sucked.  "Obstruction of Congress"?  Oh for fuck's sake.  

Now....if we're lucky.... some junior egghead behind the scenes at the DOJ is quietly collecting evidence of witness tampering, and obstruction of justice, with hopefully some wire fraud thrown in for good measure.  If he's deposed, he'll probably perjure himself pretty quickly, so they could add that too.   I doubt we're that lucky, but I hope I'm wrong.

This is about our national character. 

No.  It's more important than that.  You're talking about feelings and opinions again.  

This is about the rule of law, which is much more important than whatever you or I may "feel" about some nebulous concept like "our national character", which is only ever a matter of opinion anyway.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.10  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
But surely you understand why what is currently publicly known about Trump would lead a reasonable individual to hold (thus far) that Trump should be indicted.

For what, exactly?

That's the issue.  Most of what he's accused of publicly isn't actually a crime.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

I think sedition is most likely.

Seems to me that a case could be made that Trump knowingly encouraged his armed supporters to march on the capitol and refused to curtail the violence that ensued.

The directive to march on the Capitol (albeit he never directly told them to be violent) knowing that some of them were armed, knowing that they were angry / agitated (given he and his cohorts were using incendiary language with serious claims e.g. stolen election and had been doing so for months), followed by arguably reckless refusal to call them off after his advisers, family and ' friends ' all pleaded with him to do so (so he clearly knew what was going on) together indicate that Trump engaged in sedition:

Sedition ( 18 U.S. Code § 2384 ): If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof , they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I am not a lawyer, but seems to me a strong case could be made for sedition.   Especially since the perp is the PotUS.

Beyond that, I would be surprised if attempting to suborn Pence to commit an unconstitutional act, attempts to coerce Raffensperger to illegally 'find votes', attempt to coerce Bowers to submit alternate electors were in no way crimes.   It would be very disappointing if our laws allowed this level of behavior.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

I think he is more likely to find Jesus than be convicted of sedition.

His defense will argue that he told them to go "peacefully and patriotically" to "make their voices heard".  

They're also going to argue that he did in fact tell them to go home.  Even liberal news outlets are describing the delay in minutes.    How many minutes of delay is reasonable and how many constitute "sedition"?  That's a rabbit hole from which there is no escape.

They're probably going to argue that he tried to go to the Capitol to intervene in person but was "held captive" by the Secret Service.  We already know he wanted to go so badly that he supposedly tried to grab the wheel and escape their custody, and they'll never be able to prove his intention was not to stop the rioting.

Beyond that, I would be surprised if attempting to suborn Pence to commit an unconstitutional act, attempts to coerce Raffensperger to illegally 'find votes', attempt to coerce Bowers to submit alternate electors were in no way crimes.   It would be very disappointing if our laws allowed this level of behavior.

I think they should start with this and work backward (chronologically).

The focus on Jan 6 itself is misguided, IMO.  The riot is getting all the attention, but the actual crimes were almost surely committed earlier...assuming...as I do...that there were indeed crimes committed.  

They really can't afford to lose here.  They're 0-3 when it comes to investigating/prosecuting Trump, and the more of those you lose the more the prosecution starts to look like persecution.  They've got to stop sucking at this. They need a win.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.12    2 weeks ago
His defense will argue that he told them to go "peacefully and patriotically" to "make their voices heard".  

No doubt, and that is probably the very best they will be able to do.   In contrast, the prosecution will argue that he spent months incensing his followers and that he asked them to march on the Capitol knowing they were incensed and knowing that some of them were armed.  His refusal to step in when the violence ensued punctuates the argument that Trump was complicit in the insurrection.   I suspect most objective thinkers can see through the 'well, he told them to be peaceful' defense and thus would likely not convince a jury either.

They're also going to argue that he did in fact tell them to go home.  Even liberal news outlets are describing the delay in minutes.    How many minutes of delay is reasonable and how many constitute "sedition"?  That's a rabbit hole from which there is no escape.

He told them to go home after 3 hours.   If he had told them to go home after 20 minutes I personally would find that to be a reasonable delay.   But given the number of hours coupled with the testimony that establishes he was informed repeatedly of what was taking place and was pleaded to act by advisors, family and 'friends', he clearly took inaction in order to allow the insurrection to continue.   Further, do not forget the tweet he sent trashing Pence as the insurrection was in progress.   That would be the opposite of trying to calm the crowd.

They're probably going to argue that he tried to go to the Capitol to intervene in person but was "held captive" by the Secret Service.  We already know he wanted to go so badly that he supposedly tried to grab the wheel and escape their custody, and they'll never be able to prove his intention was not to stop the rioting.

Well that would be easily shown to be false by the timeline.   When Trump was trying to go to the Capitol, his people were in transit to the Capitol and nothing out of the ordinary had taken place.   

Further, when Trump was back at the White House and was informed of the violence, he could have been on live TV within a few minutes by walking to the media room.  He could have tweeted.   He could have had his voice projected by loud speaker on the Capitol campus.    There are many things Trump could have done as PotUS to tell his supporters in clear terms to cease and desist.   He did none of those until three hours after the insurrection.

I think they should start with this and work backward (chronologically). The focus on Jan 6 itself is misguided, IMO.  The riot is getting all the attention, but the actual crimes were almost surely committed earlier...assuming...as I do...that there were indeed crimes committed.  

I doubt that the DoJ is simply looking at Jan 6th.

They really can't afford to lose here.  They're 0-3 when it comes to investigating/prosecuting Trump, and the more of those you lose the more the prosecution starts to look like persecution.  They've got to stop sucking at this. They need a win.

Indeed.   The political calculation is certainly part of this process (unfortunately).   Thus Garland might pass and justice will not be served.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

'A matter of minutes'

Over three hours worth of 'minutes'

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

No 'liberal media outlets' reported it that way, faux news and those types of "news' outlets maybe

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

Yes.  CONSTANTLY

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

And also because 'they didn't get away with it', no big deal.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.11    2 weeks ago
"If two or more persons..."

Who would be named besides Trump?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.17    2 weeks ago

John Eastman for starters.   Rudy Giuliani might be next.   Jeffrey Clark after that.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

I still don't think we're anywhere near a conviction on sedition.   It just requires too many long stretches.  You'd need an entire jury that was predisposed against him and willing to believe everything you believe about him.  It's just not gonna happen.

He told them to be peaceful, and when they weren't he told them to go home.  The fact that he waited a while before he told them to go home is not enough to prove sedition or treason or anything like that.

The accusations you're listing are the very same we could cast at anybody who organized a BLM protest that went south.  The only difference is location.  You're not going to be able to convict with that level of double standard.

I just think there are higher probability charges.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.19    2 weeks ago
You'd need an entire jury that was predisposed against him and willing to believe everything you believe about him.  It's just not gonna happen.

What I believe is based on what seems to be very good evidence.   I do not think a jury needs to be predisposed to conclude that Trump is complicit in the insurrection or that he abused his authority in attempts to coerce officials to do his bidding.   The evidence against him is strong and I have yet to hear even a speculative defense for Trump that is persuasive.

He told them to be peaceful, and when they weren't he told them to go home.  The fact that he waited a while before he told them to go home is not enough to prove sedition or treason or anything like that.

As we know, there is quite a bit more to the scenario than that.   If the scenario were as you describe above then Trump did nothing wrong and in fact behaved as we would expect any PotUS to behave.   The scenario is simply NOT as you describe;  the specifics I articulated matter.

The accusations you're listing are the very same we could cast at anybody who organized a BLM protest that went south.  The only difference is location.  You're not going to be able to convict with that level of double standard.

What I stated is a rather detailed scenario so comparing that in the abstract to any arbitrary BLM protest organizer makes little sense to me.


Bottom line, if Trump is not indicted and we do not hear a good reason for it (cannot even imagine what that might be other than some vague declaration that they could not make a case), my conclusion will be that we have a travesty of justice.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.21  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.20    2 weeks ago
my conclusion will be that we have a travesty of justice.

I'm inclined to agree.  I just don't think the sedition charge is going to get us there.

I'm leaning toward obstruction of justice and witness tampering. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.22  cjcold  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1    2 weeks ago

Trump has spent his whole life committing crimes. He is a serial criminal.

I don't understand why his supporters can't understand this.

He should have been in prison many years ago.

How nobody has convicted him yet is a wonder.

.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.23  Jack_TX  replied to  cjcold @1.1.22    2 weeks ago
Trump has spent his whole life committing crimes. He is a serial criminal.

He's certainly not an honest person.

I don't understand why his supporters can't understand this.

His supporters do understand this.  They don't care.   The real disconnect is that his opponents don't understand that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.23    2 weeks ago

I have, for years, offered that the reason Trump was elected is because he was seen as the anti-establishment, anti-career-politician scrapper who will give D.C. hell and drain the swamp.

And I have, for years, offered that the reason Trump was popular as PotUS is because the economy was growing (key) and Trump strategically (and shamelessly) told his supporters what they wanted to hear and embellished his perceived presidency with daily lies.   Trump played his supporters like a ringmaster in a circus.    He of course made decisions that he believed his supporters wanted him to make but mostly his presidency was red meat rhetoric.

In short, his supporters liked his 'policies' so they downplayed his behavior.

Anecdotally, the many conservative friends and family surrounding me were largely unconcerned with Trump's behavior.    They noticed his abrasiveness and wished he would not be so petty and childish, but for the most part shrugged it off.    My small sampling correlated with what seemed to be taking place in the large.

I 'understood' (in disagreement) that ... until the Big Lie campaign.


The Big Lie campaign was so blatant, intense, in-the-news and long (two months) that it was impossible to miss.   The entire planet saw Trump, the uber-sore-loser desperately clinging to the presidency using every trick (legal/illegal, ethical/unethical) he could devise.   It was embarrassing for the nation and pathetic to watch.   Surreal in a sense since no candidate —much less a sitting PotUS— had ever engaged in anything so extreme / so dishonest after losing an election.

The damage he inflicted with his Big Lie using the authority of the PotUS remains.   People still actually believe the US election system is so corrupt that a presidential election can be stolen;  and that the current PotUS is not legitimate.   The divisiveness from Trump is so profound that he has managed to split the GoP into MAGA and conventional where the MAGA crowd are those who publicly (at least) support Trump and will not deny his Big Lie.

With that said, I could understand and explain why his supporters downplayed his personal flaws (even though they were extreme) prior to the Big Lie.   I understand that stubborn ignorance will keep many ordinary voters supporting him no matter what.   I understand that slimy candidates will do and say whatever they think will get them elected ... ergo the 'Trump did not lose; election was rigged' politicians.  And I understand that political operatives who believe the power of the GoP lies with Trump will carry his water until that changes.

The real disconnect with reality is not with his opponents, but with his supporters.   It is rational for people to shake their heads in amazement that anyone would support Trump after all we know of him and especially after his Big Lie campaign and the degree to which his abysmal character was exposed.   Trump support can be explained but it cannot be justified.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.25  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.24    2 weeks ago
And I have, for years, offered that the reason Trump was popular as PotUS

Never in his life has Trump hit 50% popularity among the general population. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.25    2 weeks ago

Out of all that I wrote, you want to challenge the fact that I stated he was popular as PotUS?    That language is equivalent to 'why he was popular with his supporters as PotUS'.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.27  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.24    2 weeks ago
They noticed his abrasiveness and wished he would not be so petty and childish, but for the most part shrugged it off.    My small sampling correlated with what seemed to be taking place in the large. I 'understood' (in disagreement) that ... until the Big Lie campaign.

abrasiveness and wished he would not be so petty and childish

Euphemisms for lying his ass off. 

Trump was lying constantly the entire time since he entered politics. People who shrugged it off for years did this country no favor. They are the cause of Trumpism which is plaguing this country to this day.  I dont cut them any slack at all. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.27    2 weeks ago
Trump was lying constantly the entire time since he entered politics.

Indeed.

TiG @1.1.24 ☞ And I have, for years, offered that the reason Trump was popular as PotUS is because the economy was growing (key) and Trump strategically (and shamelessly) told his supporters what they wanted to hear and embellished his perceived presidency with daily lies.   Trump played his supporters like a ringmaster in a circus.    He of course made decisions that he believed his supporters wanted him to make but mostly his presidency was red meat rhetoric.

People who shrugged it off for years did this country no favor. They are the cause of Trumpism which is plaguing this country to this day.  I dont cut them any slack at all. 

People who supported Trump are the cause of Trumpism.   Support = defending him and especially voting for him.   

The general electorate shrugs off extremes daily.   If you are going to blame shruggers for Trump then blame them for every political wrong because the apathy and ignorance of the electorate is the reason politicians are slimy opportunists rather than statespersons.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.29  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.26    2 weeks ago

You cling to the idea that Trump had something to offer UNTIL he began the Big Lie.  His BIG LYING began in 2011 when he started lying about Barack Obamas birth. In and of itself his birtherism should have disqualified him from high office forever. Without doubt, in an earlier era his birther lies would have ended ANYONE'S political career.  Then he picked up with the constant lying in 2015. And it continues to this day. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.29    2 weeks ago
You cling to the idea that Trump had something to offer UNTIL he began the Big Lie.  

Good grief man can you be more offensive?   I have never been a Trump supporter.  The fact that I can explain why people supported him does not mean that I supported him or agree with them.   

You have been pulling this crap with me for years.   Years ago, I made my first Trump comment (a criticism) on this site and you got all bent out of shape because my criticism was not sufficiently harsh per your standards.   And your bizarre comments continue today where in response to a critical comment by me, it is you, not Trump supporters, who leaps in with challenges.

His BIG LYING began in 2011 when he started lying about Barack Obamas birth. In and of itself his birtherism should have disqualified him from high office forever. Without doubt, in an earlier era his birther lies would have ended ANYONE'S political career.  Then he picked up with the constant lying in 2015. And it continues to this day.

Yeah, well keep the goalposts where I put them.   You know damn well what I meant by the Big Lie.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.31  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.30    2 weeks ago
The fact that I can explain why people supported him does not mean that I supported him or agree with them.

You didn't confuse me, I think you observation is accurate and to observe doesn't mean to agree. 

Others here react sometimes without thinking and their biases run away with them.  They will rarely own up to the mistake as self reflection isn't their strong suit. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.32  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.30    2 weeks ago

I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm telling you that Trump's big lies began long before 2020.

There are no excuses for Trump supporters. Economy, shaking up the establishment, red hats and rallies, none of it. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.33  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.32    2 weeks ago
I'm telling you that Trump's big lies began long before 2020.

Yes, probably as a child, shrewd observation.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.34  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.30    2 weeks ago

In your opinion, was there anything that disqualified Trump from being fit for office prior to the 2020 election ? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.35  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.34    2 weeks ago

I didn't think that there was anything that qualified him for the position, so I didn't vote for him in either election.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
1.1.36  Snuffy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.31    2 weeks ago
Others here react sometimes without thinking and their biases run away with them.  They will rarely own up to the mistake as self reflection isn't their strong suit. 

This is why this board gets so very tiresome and unworthy of much time.  There are those who refuse to accept that he did anything that was good for the country, as far as they are concerned anything connected to Trump is 100% wrong ALL THE TIME.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.34    2 weeks ago

The key reason I did not vote for Trump was because he, in my opinion, was not even remotely close to being presidential (makes our nation look bad to the world), did not seem to want the job but rather ran for celebrity / ego purposes, and he was a bullshit artist that I could never take seriously.

He was elected because he told the GoP base what they wanted to hear, portrayed himself as the successful anti-career-politician, etc. and he ran against a very unpopular D opponent.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.32    2 weeks ago
I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm telling you that Trump's big lies began long before 2020.

He has been a con-man his entire life.   Water is wet.   Snow is cold.   And the Big Lie I referred to was the campaign that started immediately after he lost.

There are no excuses for Trump supporters. Economy, shaking up the establishment, red hats and rallies, none of it. 

Do you have some wild idea that I am making excuses for Trump supporters?    Do you understand the difference between an analytical explanation and an excuse?   

Your propensity to argue against those who agree with you about Trump is truly fucking bizarre John.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.39  bugsy  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.36    2 weeks ago
This is why this board gets so very tiresome and unworthy of much time.  There are those who refuse to accept that he did anything that was good for the country, as far as they are concerned anything connected to Trump is 100% wrong ALL THE TIME.  

[deleted (trolling)]

Donald Trump did many great things with this country. If COVID did not rear its ugly Chinese head, Trump would still be president today because those that voted for Biden only because he is not [Trump.[deleted (trolling)]

And....we would not be living with the dementia riddled piece of shit in the White House today.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.40  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @1.1.39    2 weeks ago

John...just a bit of advice...If you are going to mod your own articles, remember that not everything that does not conform to your way of thinking is considered trolling.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.39    2 weeks ago
Donald Trump did many great things with this country. If COVID did not rear its ugly Chinese head, Trump would still be president today because those that voted for Biden only because he is not [Trump.

Trump lost primarily because the economy took a dive and because of his misguided attempts to talk the economy up by talking the pandemic down.

It was soon obvious to many that Trump should have dealt with the pandemic truthfully (regardless of the stock market and then the economy) but he went for show instead of substance as he   a l w a y s   does.

So, I agree, if COVID-19 had not struck, the economy would have likely continued strong and Trump very likely would have been reelected.   But if he had been a true leader instead of a focusing entirely on short-term optics he might have successfully encouraged people to take precautions (instead of not) and the effects of the pandemic here in the USA might have been very different ... to the point he might have still been reelected.

Regardless, we are rid of him as PotUS and that is how it should stay.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.42  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.41    2 weeks ago

I agree to a point. During the Trump admin, COVID was new and unknown, and unfortunately, he took the advice of some that are now known to by shysters at worst, liars at the least, Fauci and Birx, who now, of course in a book, she admitted they knew the vaccines were nowhere near as effective as advertised. If they did not tell Trump this, then that is no fault of his.

I don't know if Trump downplayed the pandemic because he, as president, is supposed to lead the country by being calm, or because he truly thought it was no big deal.

Yes, we are rid of him, but if voters decide they want another shot at being successful, and vote him back again, expect another 4 years of TDS, crying at the sky and insults towards those who may have voted for him.

Regardless, he will be our president.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.42    2 weeks ago
... and unfortunately, he took the advice of some that are now known to by shysters at worst, liars at the least, Fauci and Birx, who now, of course in a book, she admitted they knew the vaccines were nowhere near as effective as advertised. If they did not tell Trump this, then that is no fault of his.

That is nonsense, Bugsy.   People, as usual, cherry-picked her book and spun her words.   She was describing how she was forced to manage Trump and was noting that she was trying to do the best good for the people in spite of Trump.   

Now here you are defending Trump, blaming it all on his advisors with emotive labels like 'shyster' and 'liar' while totally ignoring that Trump is the one who more than deserves such labels and it was those very characteristics of Trump that forced Birx to take awkward steps to keep making progress in spite of Trump.

Amazing how the trend is to blindly blame everyone and defend Trump.   What is this phenomena?

I don't know if Trump downplayed the pandemic because he, as president, is supposed to lead the country by being calm, or because he truly thought it was no big deal.

If he thought it was no big deal then he is a fool.   As for the calm, the PotUS should indeed help people stay calm.   But you do that by telling them how to protect themselves, telling them what steps are being taken now to fight the pandemic and assuring them that if we all cooperate we will get through this thing.   You do not do what Trump did and portray it as nothing more than the flu, something that will just go away, etc.   That is irresponsible.

Yes, we are rid of him, but if voters decide they want another shot at being successful, and vote him back again, expect another 4 years of TDS, crying at the sky and insults towards those who may have voted for him.

Anyone who votes for Trump given all we now know deserves to be condemned for their irresponsibility.

Regardless, he will be our president.

Anyone who is elected PotUS is by definition our president.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.44  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.43    2 weeks ago
That is nonsense, Bugsy.

And there it is. Right out of the gate snark and narcissism, all because of an opinion.

Do not respond to me again as it is obvious you want compliance to your thoughts, and have been told this several times before.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.44    2 weeks ago

The word 'nonsense' is too much for you?   Too over the top?   Get a grip.

If you cannot deal with disagreement and criticism of what you write, then I suggest you not engage on social media forums.    I note that your nonsense allegation was 'nonsense' (and explained why) and you freak out crying 'snark' and 'narcissism'  (why stop there, there are all sorts of insulting personal words you could pull from a dictionary).

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.46  bugsy  impassed  TᵢG @1.1.45    one week ago
 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
2  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

Still waiting.  Will someone, anyone. please, please, please, prosecute Trump for Liz Cheney?  There's absolutely nothing Cheney can do.  And don't mention Democrats at all -- this is Liz Cheney's show.  Democrats have fallen and can't get up.

Trump is a clown.  But Democrats are a complete circus.  Have we not been entertained?  Vote early, vote often, get more of the same.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2    2 weeks ago
Still waiting. 

We are all still waiting.   Continue to do so.   The lack of an indictment thus far does not mean Trump is innocent or that no indictment will ensue.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
2.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    2 weeks ago
We are all still waiting.   Continue to do so.   The lack of an indictment thus far does not mean Trump is innocent or that no indictment will ensue.

Yes, Trump is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  That's how the American system of jurisprudence works.  The court of public opinion doesn't matter.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Nerm, why do you play these pointless, petty semantic games?

'Innocent until proven guilty' is a legal principle;  the lack of a legal proceeding does not mean that an individual is innocent in reality.   When a murderer gets away with his crime he will, by definition, not be proven guilty (not caught, no possible way to have a trial).   That does not mean the murderer is innocent in reality of murder.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

I dont think he should be put in prison without a trial and a conviction, but run out of politics? Certainly. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
2.1.4  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
'Innocent until proven guilty' is a legal principle;  the lack of a legal proceeding does not mean that an individual is innocent in reality

That argument only makes sense to the reality-fluid.  Legal principles really are important in a 'nation of laws'.

'Guilty in reality' is how inquisitions and witch trials work.  We are all born sinners, after all.  There isn't any need to prove guilt in that reality.  And reality, it seems, has become a matter of opinion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

And here you go again with a strawman trying to imply that I was suggesting we do away with rule of law.

To what end do you engage in this nonsense?   Do you think readers are this stupid?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
2.1.6  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    2 weeks ago
I dont think he should be put in prison without a trial and a conviction, but run out of politics? Certainly. 

Whether or not Trump should be allowed to continue in politics is a matter of public opinion.  So, the entire point of the Jan. 6th committee was to influence public opinion.  An indictment isn't needed to do that - and - that was never the intent or purpose of the committee.

The fear is that the committee's efforts have not influenced public opinion to run Trump out of politics.  The committee cannot indict and the committee's influence on public opinion is doubtful.  Liz Cheney may be run out of politics before Trump is run out of politics.

The DCCC supporting Trump's MAGA candidates have thrown the committee under the bus.  Democrats are hedging on their ability to run Trump out of politics.  A conviction may prevent Trump from running for office but doesn't run Trump out of politics.  But even that is not a guarantee since candidates with criminal records have been running for public office and winning elections.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
2.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
And here you go again with a strawman trying to imply that I was suggesting we do away with rule of law. To what end do you engage in this nonsense?   Do you think readers are this stupid?

Refuting your reality-fluid argument is not a strawman.  You've discounted the rule of law in your argument that failure to indict is unrelated to innocence.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.6    2 weeks ago

The inability so far to run Trump out of politics does not reflect on the evidence against him, it reflects on the unwillingness of the right to face reality. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.7    2 weeks ago

Having explained this to you once, it is clear that your intent is to simply play games.    

 
 
 
Nerm_L
PhD Principal
2.1.10  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.8    2 weeks ago
The inability so far to run Trump out of politics does not reflect on the evidence against him, it reflects on the unwillingness of the right to face reality. 

It's not just the right who are unwilling to face reality.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.11  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.10    2 weeks ago

There are not two sides to the story of Trump's election shenanigans, there is only one side. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    2 weeks ago

So impatient

We're still waiting on those Durham indictments on the entire Obama administration and Hunter Biden!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.13  cjcold  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Pretty sure that there is no reasonable doubt as to Trump's crimes.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.14  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

It's called trolling.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.1.15  bugsy  replied to  cjcold @2.1.14    2 weeks ago
It's called trolling.

If that is what it is, why do you do it so often?

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
3  Revillug    2 weeks ago

The Democrats, on the other hand, don’t want to do anything rash. The reason is they think Trump is just about the only Republican Biden can beat.

Me? 

I actually like Biden.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1  cjcold  replied to  Revillug @3    2 weeks ago

Seems to be an honorable man.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  TᵢG    2 weeks ago
"The Most Serious Dereliction Of Duty Of Any President."

I completely agree based on the evidence I have seen thus far.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

I wonder why a member of Congress must urge the Biden Justice Department to prosecute the man they say is the greatest threat to democracy ever?

Seems like that would be something they would be chomping at the bit to do, after all, Congress has already impeached Trump over this matter.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5    2 weeks ago
I wonder why a member of Congress must urge the Biden Justice Department to prosecute the man they say is the greatest threat to democracy ever?

So what do you think this means?   Do you simply wonder with no idea or do you have a position?    Your comment suggests that you think the DoJ has a weak case on Trump (weaker than the impeachments).   Is that your position:  that the DoJ has a weak case on Trump?   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    2 weeks ago
So what do you think this means?   Do you simply wonder with no idea or do you have a position?   

I think it means a member of Congress has to beg the Biden Justice Dept. to do its job. I consider it shameful.

Your comment suggests that you think the DoJ has a weak case on Trump (weaker than the impeachments). 

How you interpret my comment is up to you.

Is that your position:  that the DoJ has a weak case on Trump?   

Usually prosecutors with strong cases jump at chances to indict, try, and convict who they consider to be such dire threats to democracy!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
How you interpret my comment is up to you.

I intentionally phrased my comment to not presume and rather to encourage you to be clear.   

In the end you offer no clarity;  just paraphrased what you already wrote.

Why not stand up and take a position?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

I am only responsible for what I say, not for what you understand.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

artworks-000274488359-x2zsbm-t500x500.jpg

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    2 weeks ago
I think it means a member of Congress has to beg the Biden Justice Dept. to do its job. I consider it shameful.

I apologize that the obviousness of this comment eludes you still.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
I intentionally phrased my comment to not presume and rather to encourage you to be clear

Perhaps instead of being so intentional, you could simply read my comment and attempt to understand it.

I was pretty clear, and really see no reason why you can't see that beyond being obtuse.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    2 weeks ago

There are reasons why the DOJ might be reluctant to indict Trump that have nothing to do with whether or not they think he is guilty or innocent. A lot of these trumpsters and right wingers dont understand that.

In the history of our country an ex president has never been indicted. An institutionalist like Merrick Garland may not want to be the first Attorney General to do so. There is also a question of civil unrest and domestic terrorism possibilities if Trump is indicted. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.7    2 weeks ago

Agreed.

Also, the DoJ might not be ready to indict ... it is quite plausible it is building its case.

Beyond that, we know that politics plays a role in justice and indicting a former PotUS is indeed a big deal.   If there were no political calculations involved I would be shocked.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.7    2 weeks ago
There are reasons why the DOJ might be reluctant to indict Trump that have nothing to do with whether or not they think he is guilty or innocent. A lot of these trumpsters and right wingers dont understand that.

If Trump is the biggest threat to democracy we have ever seen, why would you not want to see him indicted, tried, and convicted of same?

Calling him the biggest threat and then not advocating for prosecution no matter the excuse is silly.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.1.10  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.7    2 weeks ago
In the history of our country an ex president has never been indicted.

Nor was one ever impeached twice.

An institutionalist like Merrick Garland may not want to be the first Attorney General to do so. There is also a question of civil unrest and domestic terrorism possibilities if Trump is indicted. 

Cowardice is not a reason to abandon the rule of law.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.10    2 weeks ago
Cowardice is not a reason to abandon the rule of law.  

Indeed.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
5.1.12  Snuffy  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.10    2 weeks ago
Cowardice is not a reason to abandon the rule of law.  

No it's not a good reason but I suspect it's still in the mix for consideration.  I suspect Merrick Garland also doesn't want to be the one who takes an ex president to court and loses.  To lose a case like that would be a dagger to the career.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.12    2 weeks ago
No it's not a good reason but I suspect it's still in the mix for consideration.  I suspect Merrick Garland also doesn't want to be the one who takes an ex president to court and loses.  To lose a case like that would be a dagger to the career.

He's a one-term attorney general.  He's 69 years old.  This is the apex of his career, and it's not going to last beyond January of 2025.   The future of his career is book tours and huge honorariums for lectures and commencement addresses....which are significantly more exciting if he's unique in American history. 

There is at least some possibility that he absolutely knows he can prosecute and win, and he's been instructed to wait until the presidential primaries begin in 2024, so as to torpedo the entire Republican nomination process.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.13    2 weeks ago

I think it is also possible that they are simply in the process of building their case.   As you have noted, this is a very big deal and there is no reason for Garland to try to expedite the process.   If he is going to indict Trump, he would be well-advised to ensure he has as iron-clad a case as possible.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.8    2 weeks ago

There is still more damning evidence out there regarding and between Alex Jones and Roger Stone regarding all this and some i'ntimate' communications, whatever that might mean . . . .

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
5.1.16  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.7    2 weeks ago
"An institutionalist like Merrick Garland may not want to be the first Attorney General to do so. There is also a question of civil unrest and domestic terrorism possibilities if Trump is indicted."

But Trump is so adept at denial, think of the fact that he still maintains that he never lost the election so that he is still the POTUS, so from behind bars he will tell his supporters he was absolutely innocent of what he was convicted of and is not incarcerated but is free as a bird, and being good sheep they will believe him. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.14    2 weeks ago
I think it is also possible that they are simply in the process of building their case.   As you have noted, this is a very big deal and there is no reason for Garland to try to expedite the process.   If he is going to indict Trump, he would be well-advised to ensure he has as iron-clad a case as possible.

That may well be the case.  But it's been 18 months. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.17    2 weeks ago

At least we will eventually know if they are going to indict.    If the DoJ has decided to not indict Trump then it is not clear to me why they do not disclose this unless the mystery is seen as a political advantage.   I am inclined to think that they have not yet made up their mind or are waiting for the most opportune time to push forward.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
5.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.18    2 weeks ago
At least we will eventually know if they are going to indict. 

Will we?  I'm not sure ten years from now we won't still be listening to John talk about how Trump's about to be sent to prison.

   If the DoJ has decided to not indict Trump then it is not clear to me why they do not disclose this unless the mystery is seen as a political advantage.   I am inclined to think that they have not yet made up their mind or are waiting for the most opportune time to push forward.

You may be right.  It's possible they're still working on it.  It's possible they're not working on it and just not saying anything, or that they've decided there really isn't anything they can prove but they don't want to announce that.  It's also possible they're waiting for that opportune time...which could conveniently be during 2024.  

I'm inclined to think that the odds of a prosecution decay a little with every day that goes by.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.19    2 weeks ago
Will we? 

Yes.  

It's possible ...

Yes, I can offer nothing further in terms of speculation. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.2  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @5    2 weeks ago

This independent seems to think that many democrats might be wussies.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @5.2    one week ago
This independent seems to think that many democrats might be wussies.

I suppose that is as good of an excuse as any.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

Everyone knows the purpose of the Jan 6 commission...and it's not about prosecution..

It's doubtful it will influence the midterms

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
6.1  Snuffy  replied to  Greg Jones @6    2 weeks ago

Agreed.  I think the states where the Jan 6th commission and the abortion question will have the biggest impact are already solidly blue states.  The majority of lower and middle income people will still vote based on kitchen table issues like the economy and crime.  

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.2  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @6    2 weeks ago

Everything tends to affect everything.

 
 

Who is online


Ender
Vic Eldred


40 visitors