Trump Investigations Thread

[49ersfootball]

I will mention that Trump is most likely going to lose the general because the dems know that if he wins primaries they are good to stay in power.
Because the US general population, nit the ones in spheres like ours, hate him AND Biden, and would most likely vote Third Party, winning it for Biden, if they don't vote Biden.

Biden & Co., are obviously scared of facing DeSantis because it'll be the reverse of 1992 when Clinton knocked off Bush, Sr. , due to GOP fatigue after 12 years.

 

[Airedale260]

Umm...you weren't paying attention then at all were you?

I actually got that from reading the indictment itself. So, yes, I know just what’s being discussed here since, even though I am not a lawyer, I do have enough experience with reading legal documents and understand exactly what’s being said and the basis for it so…yeah, I’ve been paying very close attention.

Talk about buying the D-Party line. Stop watching MSM for your info.

Actually most of the commentary coverage I get is from National Review, which, uh, is not any sort of mouthpiece for the Democrats. Nor is it “mainstream media” unless that definition covers literally any professional press organization. Andrew McCarthy especially is a good source for a lot of stuff (in addition to being a Fox News contributor and a former federal prosecutor -actually the chief prosecutor who brought the cases against the terrorists behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, plus a ton of other cases. So we aren’t talking about just “some guy.”

As far as Trump’s bounce in the polls…he got that after Bragg indicted him too, but this is actually a much more solid case, plus I think as time goes on and the campaigning for the primaries actually starts (especially once debates kick off) I think the numbers will shift.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

I wonder why they indicted Trump...I wonder why..


ooohh right, they're calling for a constitutional convention to nullify the 2A with the inaction of the 28th.

Yeah, we're headed in a wonderful direction.

Actually most of the commentary coverage I get is from National Review, which, uh, is not any sort of mouthpiece for the Democrats.

National Review lmao...

 

[Bigking321]

Wasn't national review a major never- Trumper establishment news thing?

 

[strunkenwhite]

This would be an utter shitshow but really, it needs to happen. Can you imagine? It'll be some extreme turmoil for a bit. But the country that comes out the other side will be one that holds its politicians accountable to the law.

I am not convinced that Walsh's post envisions an endgame where Republicans are held accountable for misbehavior in equality with Democratic miscreants, but if so then I agree MAD would be an applicable comparison. And that it would be a good thing.

Honestly, if he is the nominee, Biden is screwed because being a generation younger, not being senile, and actually having a very good track record as an executive would likely generate as close to a landslide victory as possible.

It's relatively easy for Team Biden to deflect attacks based on Biden's age with the fact that Trump is right behind him. The same attacks would not have such an easy answer when the opponent is hardly more than half his age.

Despite that, it's currently looking pretty bad for DeSantis (or anyone else in that age bracket) to defeat Trump in the primary. On the other hand, if any of Trump's trials end in conviction before the nomination then that could plausibly be enough to overcome even a firm grip on the nomination. And, of course, we still have a year to go before the primary actually ends.

If he wins the nomination and then something happens that makes the GOP willing to dump him, I am not sure what would happen. Can they rescind it? or is it legally binding? Would being in prison be a legitimate reason to invoke the 25th amendment if he was elected?

What I'm saying is voters of today and tomorrow aren't voting for a democracy because we never had one. Our Republic got killed and overthrown by the CIA in the 1960s and the next 30 years of election cycles need to be about making the descendents people responsible for that lose as much personal power as humanly possible.

Brother, you are a cautionary tale.

Example #2, no one should fear the outcome of an amendatory convention regarding a proposal that can't get 38/50 states on board (except perhaps to fear the political blowback). Maybe an amendment to outlaw civil asset forfeiture could pass. Nullifying the 2nd amendment? lol, lmao

Wasn't national review a major never- Trumper establishment news thing?

Sure[correction: no], but I believe the point was that no one can reasonably accuse the National Review of towing the Dem party line, or of being MSM for that matter.

 

[Bigking321]

Sure, but I believe the point was that no one can reasonably accuse the National Review of towing the Dem party line, or of being MSM for that matter.

Why does that matter?

We have elected Republicans spouting democrat narratives all the time when it suits them. Especially when they target someone they hate like Trump. Just look at the Jan 6th stuff and all the Republicans that happily went along.

 

[S'task]

Wasn't national review a major never- Trumper establishment news thing?

No.

They were against Trump in the 2016 Primary for a wide variety of reasons from ideological (look, Trump was a GAMBLE with no real Conservative bonafides in 2016, National Review much would have preferred Rubio or Cruz someone with a much longer solid history of being an actual Conservative) to temperamental; however, in the 2016 election they posted articles justifying both voting for Trump and against him from a Conservative perspective, and once he won and during his administration though they judged him based on his actions, often supporting his policies and even cheering Trump on when he did things they actively approved of (IE, National Review loved that he continued to support Kauvenaugh rather than withdrawing the nomination because NatReview has a long institutional memory and still hasn't forgiven the Dems for what they did to Bork, and never will.) and even were a major organization involved in opposing the Russiagate nonsense, to the point where National Review was one of the only places really defending some of the people persecuted under that before it all fell apart and everyone knew it was bogus.

Most of the actual Never!Trump commentators at National Review left the publication in the early Trump admin because National Review refused to be never!Trump and instead gave him a chance.

Further National Review was one of the many publications that literally tore apart the Bragg inditement of Trump to the point that it was made a joke. Nobody at National Review would even give marginal credence to the idea the Bragg inditement had a legitimate case, and defended Trump very explicitly. They've also consistently been calling out the obvious double standards of the Justice Department regarding Trump and have overall rejected the idea that Trump represents some special threat to the Republic that demands throwing out the norms (in point of fact, they hold the exact opposite, that Trump is actually a fairly normal populist swing in Republican politics and that while Trump himself isn't a good man, the Democrats and never!Trump types are doing way more damage to the Republic than Trump did or could).

Now, that said, they did not like Jan 6th and to a degree blame Trump, and they've not been as suspicious of the 2020 election as many people would like. However, calling them Never!Trump is an exaggeration, they are not Trump supporters, but rather are principled ideological Conservatives whom find Trump a flawed and not ideal candidate, but also whom refused to let their dislike of Trump drive them insane, and instead have tried to maintain their same ideological stance without letting Trump and their relation to him define them.

 

[Bigking321]

Most of the actual Never!Trump commentators at National Review left the publication in the early Trump admin because National Review refused to be never!Trump and instead gave him a chance.

Ah, maybe that's what I heard of. I knew I heard something about them and never Trump so that might have been it.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Why does that matter?

We have elected Republicans spouting democrat narratives all the time when it suits them. Especially when they target someone they hate like Trump. Just look at the Jan 6th stuff and all the Republicans that happily went along.

Sharing a bottom-line conclusion doesn't always mean you share the narrative that got the other guy there. And I don't know what of the things you said specifically apply to NR.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Example #2, no one should fear the outcome of an amendatory convention regarding a proposal that can't get 38/50 states on board (except perhaps to fear the political blowback). Maybe an amendment to outlaw civil asset forfeiture could pass. Nullifying the 2nd amendment? lol, lmao

No, I think Jack and shit is gonna come out of that proposal by Newsome except maybe he tries to use that to chase clout.

I was more laughing at the amount of nonsense they'll be trying to shove into the spotlight and or under the rug during this fiasco.

Also cautionary tale? Lol people need to start waking up and taking vengeance into their heart when it comes to politics.

Why does that matter?

Uniparty ain't real!

 

[strunkenwhite]

Also cautionary tale? Lol people need to start waking up and taking vengeance into their heart when it comes to politics.

I guess everyone has their own idea about what the political process ought to provide. Revenge ain't even on my list.

 

[Bigking321]

Justice would be nice.

I'm happy to throw the corrupt scum on both sides in jail.

 

[Airedale260]

It's relatively easy for Team Biden to deflect attacks based on Biden's age with the fact that Trump is right behind him. The same attacks would not have such an easy answer when the opponent is hardly more than half his age.

Despite that, it's currently looking pretty bad for DeSantis (or anyone else in that age bracket) to defeat Trump in the primary. On the other hand, if any of Trump's trials end in conviction before the nomination then that could plausibly be enough to overcome even a firm grip on the nomination. And, of course, we still have a year to go before the primary actually ends.

If he wins the nomination and then something happens that makes the GOP willing to dump him, I am not sure what would happen. Can they rescind it? or is it legally binding? Would being in prison be a legitimate reason to invoke the 25th amendment if he was

Again, I’m still waiting to see what happens, since it’s hard to predict just what is going to happen in the next 12-15 months.

As far if he actually wins? It’s never been considered, but in theory as chief executive he could order his own release since the Bureau of Prisons ultimately works for him. Pardoning himself is out, though.

In terms of nomination and then being locked up, I’m not sure if there’s a mechanism for removal other than him withdrawing voluntarily. The theory goes that the public wouldn’t nominate a felon or someone under investigation for a serious crime (yes, I know, I know…it really says something about the sad state of affairs that the two likely contenders at this point both fit that description). Anyway, felony conviction isn’t a bad. An impeachment would be possible and would bar him from office, but doing so to remove an elected president because the politicians don’t like the voters’ choice? Congress has to be re-elected too, and their constituents won’t be happy if they try that.
Justice would be nice.

I'm happy to throw the corrupt scum on both sides in jail.

Oh, I completely agree. And that is something I would want to see done; the problem is, Trump thinks anyone who criticized him is scum, so he’d be hitting a bunch of political opponents simply because they disagree in addition to actual crooks (thereby delegitimizing any prosecution of Joe, Hunter, Blinken, or Garland in the process).

 

[Emperor Tippy]

As far if he actually wins? It’s never been considered, but in theory as chief executive he could order his own release since the Bureau of Prisons ultimately works for him. Pardoning himself is out, though.

No, it's not. The Constitution gives the President absolute, unlimited, plenary, unquestionable, authority to pardon ANYONE of any and all federal crimes. The only thing that a pardon can't wipe away is an Impeachment and the ban of holding future office that can come with a conviction.

It would probably look bad but a President absolutely can pardon themselves.

 

[Skallagrim]

No, it's not. The Constitution gives the President absolute, unlimited, plenary, unquestionable, authority to pardon ANYONE of any and all federal crimes. The only thing that a pardon can't wipe away is an Impeachment and the ban of holding future office that can come with a conviction.

It would probably look bad but a President absolutely can pardon themselves.

I gather that the legal debate on the matter surrounds the word "grant" in the relevant article. The argument being that you can only grant something to someone else. Granting is the act of giving unto a recepient. You can't grant something you don't have, and you can't receive something you already have, therefore "the state of being pardoned" can only be granted by the President to another, not to himself.

This debate is unresolved, but the above is the argument as to why a President supposedly can't pardon himself. Yes, this is a ridiculous word-game. Yes, it's very much argued by actual Constitutional scholars, because ridiculous word-games are their stock in trade.

Regardless, this can easily be circumvented if the President in question has a VP he can trust. He can then invoke section 3 of the 25th Amendment, at which point the VP acts as President because the President is temporaily unable to perform his duties. The VP-as-acting-President then pardons the President, after which the President resumes his duties. Problem solved.

A potential issue is that Congress may consider this kind of stunt to be, in itself, an abuse of power. Which would be grounds for impeachment. And if that actually passes... that's the one thing that cannot be pardoned.

 

[KingNaruto_31]

My mother and brother strongly support Trump, but I personally consider him to be a complete joke both as a man and as a president. When I learned that he was running for office back in 2016, my initial impression was that it was merely a public relations strategy. I believed he would last only a few weeks, demonstrate that he had no business being a candidate, and then go right back to whatever he usually does when he's not failing at his business or being a sexist pig.

Is he the worst president...maybe not but there is no way in hell he could be anywhere near the top. Of the 46 presidents we have had so far the best I would place him is maybe the 40th and most of those are people nobody really knows anything about.

 

[Blasterbot]

Counter point he is the best we have had since the turn of the century.

 

[49ersfootball]

Counter point he is the best we have had since the turn of the century.

Indictment Fatigue is real folks!

 

[Zachowon]

My mother and brother strongly support Trump, but I personally consider him to be a complete joke both as a man and as a president. When I learned that he was running for office back in 2016, my initial impression was that it was merely a public relations strategy. I believed he would last only a few weeks, demonstrate that he had no business being a candidate, and then go right back to whatever he usually does when he's not failing at his business or being a sexist pig.

Is he the worst president...maybe not but there is no way in hell he could be anywhere near the top. Of the 46 presidents we have had so far the best I would place him is maybe the 40th and most of those are people nobody really knows anything about.

He has had a better economy then all the past in the last 3 decades.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

My mother and brother strongly support Trump, but I personally consider him to be a complete joke both as a man and as a president. When I learned that he was running for office back in 2016, my initial impression was that it was merely a public relations strategy. I believed he would last only a few weeks, demonstrate that he had no business being a candidate, and then go right back to whatever he usually does when he's not failing at his business or being a sexist pig.

Is he the worst president...maybe not but there is no way in hell he could be anywhere near the top. Of the 46 presidents we have had so far the best I would place him is maybe the 40th and most of those are people nobody really knows anything about.

Low effort bait tbh