If Trump is found guilty...

[Autzenoise]

I have stayed out of most of this so far. I will give a quick response with no reasoning, nor any rebuttal to come.

No matter the result of the sham, I will continue to vote for the only president in years that has put the country above personal gain.

Good night, and good luck.

[pudgejeff]

I’m not sure why you keep trying, I mean, I know you knew what the responses were gonna be, but I guess that’s the point, keep forcing them to defy logic and reality, and let them have it sit on their own conscience.

[Phalanx]

I am tired of Trump as a political figure and personality. I think he is immature, lacks a moral substance, decorum, and dignity that ought to be required for the office. It seems incredible that out of all the people in the country who have a similar political belief system, a better candidate can't be found.

Having said this, I have no idea why Pez would dismiss what seems to be the material point in this case, which is that the President is the one with authority to declassify, and if he says something is declassified, it is. This indictment looks like more of the same political maneuvering that the letter agencies have been doing to Trump since before he was even elected. I seriously doubt that Pez has done even a superficial study on what our intelligence community has been up to in regards to Trump, so there really isn't any point in responding here. If this stuff had happened to his candidate, he would be up in arms all across this site about it. As for me, having followed a lot of this for a few years now, I have zero trust for any legal action brought against him, or anyone in his administration, or any of his supporters who make the mistake of crossing the border into Dar al District of Columbia. Our justice system is currently being run just like a banana republic. It actually is making people go back and wonder if this same thing wasn't also happening during Watergate. There are some very interesting comparisons.

[Duck07]

Let's be clear about what's in this federal indictment against him. The big issue with this indictment doesn't appear to be that Trump possessed classified information (which could also be said about Pence, Biden, Hillary's emails, etc) but that -- once questioned about it -- he not only refused to comply with the government but took deliberate actions to wrongfully hide/keep these docs for himself. (And he's also on tape admitting he showed them to people while admitting they were still classified and he shouldn't have them.)

So, his case stands apart from the others. This isn't a case of Trump being singled out. That is crystal clear and rational dalogue can't proceed until we acknowledge that.

That isn't an actual legal precedent, nor does it show consistency in regards to previous charges under the espionage act which is not "whataboutism" in legal cases but frankly called relevant case law. It was either a crime when it was done or it wasn't. Since we're all watching baseball, it's like a Balk. You either balked, or you didn't. There isn't some secondary process the Pitcher does that could change the decision after they balked.

If the pitcher has the right to balk, the umpire doesn't need to hear his reason, it's his right to balk.
If the pitcher doesn't have a right to balk, the umpire needs to call a balk every time it happens and not when they don't like the team on the field.

If you think this is now irrational dialogue, then yes, we cannot proceed and it's because of the restraints you've placed on the conversation from the outset.

That said...

Trump has already been indicted on these counts by a grand jury of 20 Florida residents. If he is also found guilty by a Florida jury (should be a friendlier jury pool than in NYC) in proceedings overseen by a Florida judge (one of his own appointees), then will that be enough for you and/or your peers to accept that he's a criminal who either 1) shouldn't be president or 2) should be in prison or 3) both?

I expect some people will try to respond by flipping this around and asking me whether I'd think the opposite if he's not found guilty, so I'll answer that quickly right now: I think the fact he's already been indicted twice by two seperate grand juries and also found responsible for sexual assault by another jury (in a civil matter) is enough to believe he isn't fit for public office.

I'm asking this here because I'm genuinely curious if we've finally found a "red line" that republicans won't cross, especially with so many other capable (and non-criminal) options to choose from in the upcoming election cycle.


EDIT: Another thought... how would you folks react if Trump pleads guilty in a plea deal for reduced charges? Does that change the calculus for you?

Well the answer is that when it comes to "Trump Voters," if you think this represents a red-line, you're thinking about it in the completely opposite meaning. It's absolutely not something they will ever view as being disqualifying because this is so obviously a political matter; nor will his sexual assault claims be any more valid to them when democrats obviously don't care about Tara Reade. (I forget, is that whataboutism, or is it relevant to the discussion because we're talking about the moral dignity of the highest office in the land?)

So now after years of dividing the country we're on the verge of trying to jail a former POTUS over some benign documents. Not a serious crime such as murdering children in a foreign country or using the office for financial gain (we talkin' bout practice.)

I hope a red-line doesn't get crossed but I'm sure the FBI Chad's are drooling at the opportunity to create some new terrorists from this in the coming months too and I don't like that direction.

[pezsez1]

Phalanx, so many issues with things you said, but I really don't see the point in going there because it simply won't matter.

One thing, though, that I would like to correct you on:

I have no idea why Pez would dismiss what seems to be the material point in this case, which is that the President is the one with authority to declassify, and if he says something is declassified, it is.

That is not true. There is a process that even the president must go through to declassify documents. Trump knows this, and he admitted as much in the recording noted in the indictment. He admits that he has secret documents that were not declassified simply because he took them out of the WH.

To believe the POTUS can simply declassify documents simply by saying it or thinking it... that's like in The Office, when Michael Scott tries to declare bankruptcy simply by yelling that he's declaring bankruptcy. That's just not how it works.

Not going to engage on anything else, but this fact is too important right now to let slide.

And one more thing (not an argument):

It's absolutely not something they will ever view as being disqualifying because this is so obviously a political matter

Although I disagree that this is a political matter, I do understand why Trump voters might feel like it is. (It's their guy being "attacked.") However, if a jury of Floridians eventually delivers a guilty verdict, then don't you think some people may start seeing this as something more than just political? If this were simply political, then there would be no way for a guilty verdict to be reached, especially in the state of Florida in a courtroom presided over by a Trump-appointed judge. Don't you think people might see that, or are people going to stick to their guns no matter what?

[dd10snoop28]

That is not true. There is a process that even the president must go through to declassify documents. Trump knows this, and he admitted as much in the recording noted in the indictment. He admits that he has secret documents that were not declassified simply because he took them out of the WH.

Please point to the statute, constitutional requirement, and/or case law that says that a president must go through a formal process to declassify documents (executive orders are generally not binding on subsequent administrations).

[dd10snoop28]

To believe the POTUS can simply declassify documents simply by saying it or thinking it... that's like in The Office, when Michael Scott tries to declare bankruptcy simply by yelling that he's declaring bankruptcy. That's just not how it works.

Yes, the president can declassify something by saying so. He can also delegate those powers to someone below him by.....wait for it.... verbally communicating it. Just because you think it shouldn't be so, doesn't mean it is.

[Duck07]

It's absolutely not something they will ever view as being disqualifying because this is so obviously a political matter

Although I disagree that this is a political matter, I do understand why Trump voters might feel like it is. (It's their guy being "attacked.") However, if a jury of Floridians eventually delivers a guilty verdict, then don't you think some people may start seeing this as something more than just political? If this were simply political, then there would be no way for a guilty verdict to be reached, especially in the state of Florida in a courtroom presided over by a Trump-appointed judge. Don't you think people might see that, or are people going to stick to their guns no matter what?

Especially in light of the recent Durham report findings it would seem even more political in fact.

Obviously the Jared Kushner/Saudi Wealth Fund is a big no-no for you, but Hunter on the board of Burisma is perfectly acceptable. The double-standard is why your average "trump voter" doesn't care.

Don't you ever think that you might see that, or are you going to stick to your guns no matter what?

[Phalanx]

Phalanx, so many issues with things you said, but I really don't see the point in going there because it simply won't matter.

One thing, though, that I would like to correct you on:

I have no idea why Pez would dismiss what seems to be the material point in this case, which is that the President is the one with authority to declassify, and if he says something is declassified, it is.

That is not true. There is a process that even the president must go through to declassify documents. Trump knows this, and he admitted as much in the recording noted in the indictment. He admits that he has secret documents that were not declassified simply because he took them out of the WH.

To believe the POTUS can simply declassify documents simply by saying it or thinking it... that's like in The Office, when Michael Scott tries to declare bankruptcy simply by yelling that he's declaring bankruptcy. That's just not how it works.

Not going to engage on anything else, but this fact is too important right now to let slide.

And one more thing (not an argument):

It's absolutely not something they will ever view as being disqualifying because this is so obviously a political matter

Although I disagree that this is a political matter, I do understand why Trump voters might feel like it is. (It's their guy being "attacked.") However, if a jury of Floridians eventually delivers a guilty verdict, then don't you think some people may start seeing this as something more than just political? If this were simply political, then there would be no way for a guilty verdict to be reached, especially in the state of Florida in a courtroom presided over by a Trump-appointed judge. Don't you think people might see that, or are people going to stick to their guns no matter what?

Pez, you are so far out in left field on this, one doesn't know where to begin. The funny thing is, it's not going to make any difference if Trump called the documents classified or not. The 'classified document' issue isn't even part of the indictment, other than as a pretense to raid his home. They knew they didn't have a case in that vein, even while you were here ignorantly spouting confidence in his guilt. The DOJ has shifted the case to try to get him on some arcane US Code designed to keep defense contractors from stealing documents. As usual, they comb through the code looking for something/anything to charge him with to keep the headlines rolling, and I have no doubt that you will happily follow suit by posting your revised indignation regarding the importance of defense documents to our democracy, the contents of Biden's garage notwithstanding.

My question to you is, do you get tired of getting all excited that they're going to get Trump on something, only to find after years of investigation that nothing happens because they actually didn't have a case? This case is designed not to convict Trump, but to throw crap on the wall to see if it sticks and keep him under the same legal pressure they had on him since well before he was elected. There is no more substance to it than there was with the impeachments, or russia-gate, or any of the other sham proceedings the intelligence community has manufactured. It's all just political theatre, and you are immersing yourself in it because you are too lazy to do any actual research.

[dd10snoop28]

Since we are talking about Russiagate, here is a trip down memory lane:
https://ducksattack.com/forum/viewtopic ... &start=420

Interesting quote from one of the board members:
"It's nonsensical to say we shouldn't have investigated what was confirmed to have happened." (in reality, the Durham Report concluded there was no basis for opening an investigation into Trump since the allegations that started the investigation had no bearing in truth)

The interesting thing about that 2-year old thread is that I was saying everything that Durham concluded (the point isn't that I am some smart guy, but rather that the information was available for the media/public to arrive at the correction conclusion 2 years ago, but of course the truth is not as interesting as fiction).

[pezsez1]

My question to you is, do you get tired of getting all excited that they're going to get Trump on something, only to find after years of investigation that nothing happens because they actually didn't have a case?

You're really missing the mark here.

No, I can't really say I've ever been "excited" over the numerous investigations into Trump during his presidency. It seemed pretty clear during those years that the GOP would cover for him and that he'd use his justice department to make sure he'd never face consequences. I also expect very little in the way of republican voters to discern truth from right-wing fan fiction, as seen numerous times even in this forum. They're whipped AF. (The way repubs are completely dismissive of the Mueller report illustrates this perfectly.)

But am I ingtruiged by these indictments? Yes I am. Things get a lot more real in front of a judge and jury. I mean, we just saw one jury find him liable for sexual assault. This federal indictment over his stolen classified documents seems far more concrete and with greater potential for severe consequences.

That said, we all know the wealthy elite (especially Trump) usually find ways to buy their ways out of trouble, so I don't think anyone really believes he'll spend a day in prison. Probably more like fines and house arrest. Additionally, he is old, borderline senile, and not in great physical health, and outside of Bernie Madoff I can't think of the feds generally sending elderly criminals off to rot in prison.

[dd10snoop28]

My question to you is, do you get tired of getting all excited that they're going to get Trump on something, only to find after years of investigation that nothing happens because they actually didn't have a case?

You're really missing the mark here.

No, I can't really say I've ever been "excited" over the numerous investigations into Trump during his presidency. It seemed pretty clear during those years that the GOP would cover for him and that he'd use his justice department to make sure he'd never face consequences. I also expect very little in the way of republican voters to discern truth from right-wing fan fiction, as seen numerous times even in this forum. They're whipped AF. (The way repubs are completely dismissive of the Mueller report illustrates this perfectly.)

But am I ingtruiged by these indictments? Yes I am. Things get a lot more real in front of a judge and jury. I mean, we just saw one jury find him liable for sexual assault. This federal indictment over his stolen classified documents seems far more concrete and with greater potential for severe consequences.

That said, we all know the wealthy elite (especially Trump) usually find ways to buy their ways out of trouble, so I don't think anyone really believes he'll spend a day in prison. Probably more like fines and house arrest. Additionally, he is old, borderline senile, and not in great physical health, and outside of Bernie Madoff I can't think of the feds generally sending elderly criminals off to rot in prison.

You ignored 4 posts refuting your claims and/or pointing out the folly in your reasoning, and then select one sentence to quote and go on another media-fueled talking-point rant. Simply amazing. Do you ever self-reflect?

[Phalanx]

My question to you is, do you get tired of getting all excited that they're going to get Trump on something, only to find after years of investigation that nothing happens because they actually didn't have a case?

You're really missing the mark here.

No, I can't really say I've ever been "excited" over the numerous investigations into Trump during his presidency. It seemed pretty clear during those years that the GOP would cover for him and that he'd use his justice department to make sure he'd never face consequences. I also expect very little in the way of republican voters to discern truth from right-wing fan fiction, as seen numerous times even in this forum. They're whipped AF. (The way repubs are completely dismissive of the Mueller report illustrates this perfectly.)

But am I ingtruiged by these indictments? Yes I am. Things get a lot more real in front of a judge and jury. I mean, we just saw one jury find him liable for sexual assault. This federal indictment over his stolen classified documents seems far more concrete and with greater potential for severe consequences.

That said, we all know the wealthy elite (especially Trump) usually find ways to buy their ways out of trouble, so I don't think anyone really believes he'll spend a day in prison. Probably more like fines and house arrest. Additionally, he is old, borderline senile, and not in great physical health, and outside of Bernie Madoff I can't think of the feds generally sending elderly criminals off to rot in prison.

Your entire post is spoken exactly as someone who has done no research and views everything along partisan, media-driven lines. Wake me up when you have something thoughtful to say on this topic.

[jBeavertonduck]

My question to you is, do you get tired of getting all excited that they're going to get Trump on something, only to find after years of investigation that nothing happens because they actually didn't have a case?

You're really missing the mark here.

No, I can't really say I've ever been "excited" over the numerous investigations into Trump during his presidency. It seemed pretty clear during those years that the GOP would cover for him and that he'd use his justice department to make sure he'd never face consequences. I also expect very little in the way of republican voters to discern truth from right-wing fan fiction, as seen numerous times even in this forum. They're whipped AF. (The way repubs are completely dismissive of the Mueller report illustrates this perfectly.)

But am I ingtruiged by these indictments? Yes I am. Things get a lot more real in front of a judge and jury. I mean, we just saw one jury find him liable for sexual assault. This federal indictment over his stolen classified documents seems far more concrete and with greater potential for severe consequences.

That said, we all know the wealthy elite (especially Trump) usually find ways to buy their ways out of trouble, so I don't think anyone really believes he'll spend a day in prison. Probably more like fines and house arrest. Additionally, he is old, borderline senile, and not in great physical health, and outside of Bernie Madoff I can't think of the feds generally sending elderly criminals off to rot in prison.

Your entire post is spoken exactly as someone who has done no research and views everything along partisan, media-driven lines. Wake me up when you have something thoughtful to say on this topic.

+1

[pezsez1]

Your entire post is spoken exactly as someone who has done no research and views everything along partisan, media-driven lines.

This actually made me laugh. Bless your heart.