Trump Investigations Thread

[evilchumlee]

I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here @evilchumlee , but this proves to me that you are anything but open minded. You are not open to ANY evidence but what you have already swallowed.

I hope that whatever finally, truly, opens your mind and eyes doesn't break you.

There hasn't been much evidence presented, just alot of "ugh liberal propaganda" thrown around.

I'm actually open-minded to evidence. I'm happy to review whatever you have.

You're assuming they aren't just here to troll, how commendable.

"Disagreeing with people" isn't trolling... i'm trying to have an actual conversation, but it's hard when the responses are mostly "omg you just believe propaganda"...

But that's fine. You guys clearly aren't interested any perspective outside of your own. That's fine. I'll let you guys take the thread back and do whatever is you're doing.

 

[StormEagle]

Because the Trump years were so bad you guys!

Having a functioning economy, a relatively peaceful world stage, gas under $3/gallon, sanely priced groceries, a border that wasn’t getting swarmed, decent morgatge rates, inflation under some level of control…

Truly terrible. I’d hate to go back to that. Obviously, the Pudding Brains in Chief is the better option./s

 

[Skallagrim]

"Disagreeing with people" isn't trolling... i'm trying to have an actual conversation, but it's hard when the responses are mostly "omg you just believe propaganda"...

But that's fine. You guys clearly aren't interested any perspective outside of your own. That's fine. I'll let you guys take the thread back and do whatever is you're doing.

You're not trying to have a conversation. You're bent on repeating unsubstantiated claims again and again, while accusing all others -- regardless of what they believe -- of being a "cultist". You consistently make bad faith assumptions about what others believe; if anyone disagrees with you on anything, you automatically assume they're "Trump cultists".

You're demonstrably capable of accusing @Bacle of believing that--

Obviously, Trump is pure and perfect and has never done anything wrong ever as well as the rest of any Republicans but especially Trump, but the Democrats are literally all pedophile murderers who are actively trying to destroy the country, and only Trump can stop them.

--in one post, and then when called out on it, having the fucking gall to claim that you totally understand moderates, and you're completely reasonable... as if you didn't just make him out to be an insane cultist in your last post before that.

And you pull this shit again and again. With everyone who disagrees with you. This is just the most recent time you did it.

Speaking of which: I notice that you dropped out of the conversation for a few days, after I asked you to actually provide any kind of evidence for your false claims. You stayed quiet a bit, and now you're back, repeating the same bullshit. My conclusion is that of all the people in this thread, the one least inclined to entertain any perspective than his own is still very much you. Every supposed character defect that you project onto the "Trump cult" that mostly exists in your head is -- as far as I can observe -- in actual fact on display in your own persistent patterns of behaviour.

As they say: to a lunatic, normal people appear insane. You might consider the possibility that you are the delusional cultist who believes in a false reality.

 

[Abhorsen]

There hasn't been much evidence presented, just alot of "ugh liberal propaganda" thrown around.

I'm actually open-minded to evidence. I'm happy to review whatever you have.

The key reason Sowell isn't corrupt is understanding what corruption is.

Corruption is, in short: using a position of power power to gain wealth (of some sort, whether that be a paid vacation or gold bars).

Now there's two ways to do this, usually, either your power directly gives you wealth (this is normal in congress on both aisles with advanced info on votes allows for better stock trades), or an outside person changes your normal vote on X in exchange for wealth.

Now very little of what the Supreme Court does hits the first. He'd have to be ruling on a company he owned stock in, for example, and I don't know of accusations in reference to that.

No, much of the accusations on Thomas are that he has a wealthy friend, who has given him gifts (accusations of the second kind). Yes, gifts that Thomas may not have been great at disclosing. But given Thomas' position on the court as always voting in basically the same direction, there's not corruption here: the votes are the same as they would have been without the gifts.

 

[Vyor]

No, much of the accusations on Thomas are that he has a wealthy friend, who has given him gifts (accusations of the second kind). Yes, gifts that Thomas may not have been great at disclosing. But given Thomas' position on the court as always voting in basically the same direction, there's not corruption here: the votes are the same as they would have been without the gifts.

Notably, it wasn't gifts.

It was... fucking vacation trips.

With the friend.

That he'd been doing since before he became a SC justice.

 

[Skallagrim]

Notably, it wasn't gifts.

It was... fucking vacation trips.

With the friend.

That he'd been doing since before he became a SC justice.

As everybody knows, you (R) aren't allowed to have friends when you're in a position of responsibility because that's nepotism. You (R) must be a self-flagellating hermit, and then they'll still call you (R) a nazi bigot. But maybe they'll say some moderately nice things about you at your funeral, when you (R) have stopped being a threat forever.

You (D) are, however, totally allowed to put your friends (D) and your family members (D) in positions of power when you are about to do so, because that's not nepotism and just good politics. You can totally get your son (D) a job that has all sorts of foreign entanglements, because that's absolutely not a conflict of interest for you (D).

And anyone who disagrees is a nazi (R).

 

[evilchumlee]

You're not trying to have a conversation. You're bent on repeating unsubstantiated claims again and again, while accusing all others -- regardless of what they believe -- of being a "cultist". You consistently make bad faith assumptions about what others believe; if anyone disagrees with you on anything, you automatically assume they're "Trump cultists".

Fair enough. That's a poor term that I really intended to be more in jest, but it doesn't translate well over the internet. Got me there, I concede on that.

--in one post, and then when called out on it, having the fucking gall to claim that you totally understand moderates, and you're completely reasonable... as if you didn't just make him out to be an insane cultist in your last post before that.

I *AM* a moderate. That's why I understand moderates. That is... what I am. I despise extremes on both sides. I'm a left leaning moderate. I can't stand AOC and those types almost just as much as a I despise the Trumps and DeSantis' wing of the Republicans. I know, I know "Trump is a 90's Democrat, he's actually left!" or something. That's great. I disagree.

There's PLENTY of Republicans I would consider the less bad option. I just really don't like the Trump and DeSantis types. I'm open to several other people.

Speaking of which: I notice that you dropped out of the conversation for a few days, after I asked you to actually provide any kind of evidence for your false claims. You stayed quiet a bit, and now you're back, repeating the same bullshit. My conclusion is that of all the people in this thread, the one least inclined to entertain any perspective than his own is still very much you. Every supposed character defect that you project onto the "Trump cult" that mostly exists in your head is -- as far as I can observe -- in actual fact on display in your own persistent patterns of behaviour.

Most of my issues with the "Trump Cult" (that's the last time i'll use the phrase) lies in being a fanatical supporter, wearing clothes with his name on it, flying flags with his name on it, etc. that's weird. I would put on Biden gear and drive my truck waving a Biden flag and yell at people get on the Biden Train and shit like that. I even had an in real life death threat because a guy in a Trump hat found out I voted for Clinton (the exact words you "you're lucky I don't kill you right here you dirty fucking traitor piece of shit." Fun times.)

I apologize though I was out for a bit, I missed what you asked for. What did claims did you believe were false? I'll be happy to look into that.

I'm happy to have a conversation... I got put off immediately by attacks of being a troll, or brainwashed by propaganda, or some such. Make it hard to take a conversation seriously when that's how it starts out.

 

[Abhorsen]

Notably, it wasn't gifts.

It was... fucking vacation trips.

With the friend.

That he'd been doing since before he became a SC justice.

Those are gifts. Let's not underestimate vacation trips here. Vacations used to be one of the primary tax dodges before the income tax was lowered, in fact.

There's nothing really wrong with the gifts IMO, because they didn't change votes. It's the same with an interest group funding someone who's very pro whatever they are interested in: not a huge issue. It's like pretending the gun lobby or anti-gun lobby owns some of congress. No, there are people who ran their campaign because they believed in gun rights, or gun control, and so groups that believed in that gave money.

This is different, than, to grab the latest example from the headlines, Bob Menedez. No chance in hell he ran on "doing what Egypt wants." That's then corruption, as there's a change in voting. Even if that had been vacations instead of gold bars, the issue is the viewpoint change, not the amount.

 

[Vyor]

Those are gifts. Let's not underestimate vacation trips here. Vacations used to be one of the primary tax dodges before the income tax was lowered, in fact.

I don't think most of them involved leaving the country?

 

[Abhorsen]

I don't think most of them involved leaving the country?

Oh, it had nothing to do with leaving the country. Back before tax reform by JFK, the tax code was really high (90% on any income over $1M, for one), but there were loop holes. So instead of paying you, your company would instead pay for your cruises, your flights in first class, etc, so there were no taxes on it, instead of increasing your salary, because both the company and you knew you wouldn't get much of that cash. Then the tax reform happened, and both the amount of loopholes and tax rates went down.

Vacations were the tax dodging, not a method.

 

[Vyor]

Oh, it had nothing to do with leaving the country. Back before tax reform by JFK, the tax code was really high (90% on any income over $1M, for one), but there were loop holes. So instead of paying you, your company would instead pay for your cruises, your flights in first class, etc, so there were no taxes on it, instead of increasing your salary, because both the company and you knew you wouldn't get much of that cash. Then the tax reform happened, and both the amount of loopholes and tax rates went down.

Vacations were the tax dodging, not a method.

Huh, kinda neat.

Not super relevant to a fishing trip tho.

 

[Abhorsen]

Huh, kinda neat.

Not super relevant to a fishing trip tho.

Well, it sorta is. That's a gift, a gift that in other circumstances could have been compensation for stuff. Sure, it was a gift between friends which I don't care about because no amount of money could make Thomas vote any different than straight conservative constitutionalist (apologies), but it was a gift.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Huh, kinda neat.

Not super relevant to a fishing trip tho.

It is when you consider the grievances brought against him are fueled by 70 year old boomers still mad that dad went on a business cruise rather than spend a weekend with them and their hippy friends.

Remember this gifts shit comes from the mentality of motherfuckers born three quarters of a century ago seething at dead dudes born a century to a century and a quarter ago.

 

[S'task]

Colin Powell did before Clinton.

OK. So this isn't a fair comparison because the rules were different when Colin Powell was Sec State compared to when Clinton was. Heck, the IT rules are different NOW from when Clinton was in office.

And I'm not just speaking out my ass, my actual professional job involves State Department IT security and ensuring that the systems of part of the State Department conform to the related Federal standards.

When Colin Powell was in office, much of these things were in their infancy and the rules were run much looser and were still getting established. Remember, he was Sex State from 2001 to 2005. Clinton on the other hand was Sec State from 2009 to 2013 and those intervening years make a big difference in what rules and regulations applied.

Further, the issues wasn't having a private server, it was passing classified information through that private server and how that server was unqualified for it. That kind of mishandling of classified information would get anyone else in the State Department not named Clinton at a MINUMUM fired, but more likely prosecuted and imprisoned for decades. Heck, the present Administration is pursuing a legal case against Trump for similar mishandling of classified information, except that from a security perspective Trump's mishandling of classified information is LESS egregious than Clintons, as Clinton's server could have easily been breeched by international actors via hacking (and we had no way of knowing if it was or what type of security measures were taken with it to ensure it was secure because Clinton's agents actively destroyed the server and its hard drives) whereas Trump's were actually in a fairly secure location.

 

[evilchumlee]

OK. So this isn't a fair comparison because the rules were different when Colin Powell was Sec State compared to when Clinton was. Heck, the IT rules are different NOW from when Clinton was in office.

I'm going to snip it to avoid just have a huge comment bloc but I will say, fair points and I appreciate the insight.

I don't even entirely disagree with you. I can't really look at anything you said and say you're wrong, because you aren't.

The point I was trying to make is that the rage is selective. Clinton using a private email server was such an incredible, furious issue for Republicans. Trump using a private email server is... largely ignored. No big deal.

I think things should be applied equally, while also being a realist. If we're going to be outraged over email security, we should be outraged about email security. The name behind it shouldn't matter. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me. Not every single political thing that ever happens needs to be black and white, my tribe vs. your tribe. It just doesn't need to be that way.

I'm also a realist in that... yes, Clinton, Trump, Biden, Bush, etc. are not going to face the same penalties as Random Joe. Is that right? No. Is that going to change? No.

More to the point of this thread, if Trump is found guilty of everything he's being accused of... do you think he'd actually go to jail? Absolutely not. Not gonna happen.

 

[Skallagrim]

Fair enough. That's a poor term that I really intended to be more in jest, but it doesn't translate well over the internet. Got me there, I concede on that.



I *AM* a moderate. That's why I understand moderates. That is... what I am. I despise extremes on both sides. I'm a left leaning moderate. I can't stand AOC and those types almost just as much as a I despise the Trumps and DeSantis' wing of the Republicans. I know, I know "Trump is a 90's Democrat, he's actually left!" or something. That's great. I disagree.

There's PLENTY of Republicans I would consider the less bad option. I just really don't like the Trump and DeSantis types. I'm open to several other people.



Most of my issues with the "Trump Cult" (that's the last time i'll use the phrase) lies in being a fanatical supporter, wearing clothes with his name on it, flying flags with his name on it, etc. that's weird. I would put on Biden gear and drive my truck waving a Biden flag and yell at people get on the Biden Train and shit like that. I even had an in real life death threat because a guy in a Trump hat found out I voted for Clinton (the exact words you "you're lucky I don't kill you right here you dirty fucking traitor piece of shit." Fun times.)

I apologize though I was out for a bit, I missed what you asked for. What did claims did you believe were false? I'll be happy to look into that.

I'm happy to have a conversation... I got put off immediately by attacks of being a troll, or brainwashed by propaganda, or some such. Make it hard to take a conversation seriously when that's how it starts out.

I'll be very happy to find out whether you actually mean it; since I must regrettably observe at this juncture that you've repeatedly pulled back in discussions, claiming to just be a nice fellow who wants to talk politely... and then a few days later, it's back to the previous tactics of "you're all blind cultists!"

I'm happy to have a conversation... I got put off immediately by attacks of being a troll, or brainwashed by propaganda, or some such. Make it hard to take a conversation seriously when that's how it starts out.

Most accusations of such behaviour, as far as I've seen, followed you calling all or most people in any given conversation brainwashed/cultist/blinded/foolish/etc. -- I think it's mostly a case of "you get what you give".

Anyway, my last post concerning evidence was right here. One of your random claims was that "most people dislike Trump". I gave you some direct evidence that for several months now, all major opinion polls have concluded otherwise. Then you proceeded to dodge the actual topic and tried to shift the goalposts in all sorts of novel directions. Remember?

My point here isn't so much that you must provide evidence -- in this case, your claim is literally impossible to prove -- but rather that you should learn to make a distinction between your opinions and actual facts. Because most of the posts in response to you here don't contain any "attacks", but consist of attempts to outline what you got wrong because you mistook your opinion for a fact...



------

I'm also a realist in that... yes, Clinton, Trump, Biden, Bush, etc. are not going to face the same penalties as Random Joe. Is that right? No. Is that going to change? No.

I'll take this as an error in good faith, but I must say": apparently you have no clue how far from reality you are.


Let me change the statement to get the facts right:

Clinton, Biden, Bush, etc. are not going to face the same penalties as Random Joe, and even Random Joe isn't as avidly prosecuted (to the point that prosecution becomes persecution) as Trump is.


You happily line Trump up there with the people who faced zero legal consequences for all sorts of dodgy shit. And that's the issue. That's your absurd bizarro reality. What you say could only be valid if Clinton, Biden, Bush and a whole host of others are also prosecuted. Because the people you called cultists? They mostly just want everyone to be treated equally. Trump in jail? That's actually not a fundamental issue to the vast majority of people here-- as long as Clinton is in the cell next to him, and Biden's in the one on the other side (and Bush is two cells over).

That's what this whole issue has been about, and you refuse to get that, because you've constucted a false reality where Trump and the other aforementioned parties are already being treated equally. But they're not.

 

[Abhorsen]

I think things should be applied equally, while also being a realist. If we're going to be outraged over email security, we should be outraged about email security. The name behind it shouldn't matter. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me. Not every single political thing that ever happens needs to be black and white, my tribe vs. your tribe. It just doesn't need to be that way.

I'm also a realist in that... yes, Clinton, Trump, Biden, Bush, etc. are not going to face the same penalties as Random Joe. Is that right? No. Is that going to change? No.

That's not the issue right now though. The issue conservatives are having is that, yes, obviously there has always been two tiers of justice, but this two tiered system has applied to both sides. Suddenly excluding Trump from this raises issues, and implies this is highly politically motivated.

We have a process for a bad person not taking the presidency: it's called an election.

More to the point of this thread, if Trump is found guilty of everything he's being accused of... do you think he'd actually go to jail? Absolutely not. Not gonna happen.

He absolutely will. That's the thing. He's not taking a plea deal, that's almost certainly jail time.

 

[Cherico]

I'll be very happy to find out whether you actually mean it; since I must regrettably observe at this juncture that you've repeatedly pulled back in discussions, claiming to just be a nice fellow who wants to talk politely... and then a few days later, it's back to the previous tactics of "you're all blind cultists!"




Most accusations of such behaviour, as far as I've seen, followed you calling all or most people in any given conversation brainwashed/cultist/blinded/foolish/etc. -- I think it's mostly a case of "you get what you give".

Anyway, my last post concerning evidence was right here. One of your random claims was that "most people dislike Trump". I gave you some direct evidence that for several months now, all major opinion polls have concluded otherwise. Then you proceeded to dodge the actual topic and tried to shift the goalposts in all sorts of novel directions. Remember?

My point here isn't so much that you must provide evidence -- in this case, your claim is literally impossible to prove -- but rather that you should learn to make a distinction between your opinions and actual facts. Because most of the posts in response to you here don't contain any "attacks", but consist of attempts to outline what you got wrong because you mistook your opinion for a fact...



------





I'll take this as an error in good faith, but I must say": apparently you have no clue how far from reality you are.


Let me change the statement to get the facts right:

Clinton, Biden, Bush, etc. are not going to face the same penalties as Random Joe, and even Random Joe isn't as avidly prosecuted (to the point that prosecution becomes persecution) as Trump is.


You happily line Trump up there with the people who faced zero legal consequences for all sorts of dodgy shit. And that's the issue. That's your absurd bizarro reality. What you say could only be valid if Clinton, Biden, Bush and a whole host of others are also prosecuted. Because the people you called cultists? They mostly just want everyone to be treated equally. Trump in jail? That's actually not a fundamental issue to the vast majority of people here-- as long as Clinton is in the cell next to him, and Biden's in the one on the other side (and Bush is two cells over).

That's what this whole issue has been about, and you refuse to get that, because you've constucted a false reality where Trump and the other aforementioned parties are already being treated equally. But they're not.

If the left got a tenth of the bad treatment the right currently gets we all know he would get histerically angry and enraged. When the worm turns though it will be far more then a tenth.

 

[S'task]

Trump using a private email server is... largely ignored.

Because there's no accusations, that I am aware of, of it being used to pass Classified information. This is the core issue with the Clinton servers, there IS evidence that it was used to pass Classified information AND in order to prevent proper investigation of how much, Clinton had the servers and more importantly the hard drives of them wiped and destroyed. Normally when people destroy evidence that is subject to an ongoing investigation (and these were destroyed while they were under investigation) it is assumed that the evidence would have been damning (the destruction of evidence is itself a crime on top of it all).

Using a private email account that goes through a private server while working for the Federal government isn't a crime, and won't ever be. Even arranging some official business on private accounts isn't, so long as those emails are later entered into the record (oh, and FYI this is ANOTHER failing of Clinton's, we know she used her private emails for doing official business BUT never entered them into public records*). The only thing that you can't use private email for is the transmission of classified information, to transmit that you MUST use a properly cleared government email service (which, FYI, isn't even the regular government email, basic government emails are only cleared for Sensitive But Unclassified date, Classified Data MUST go through special email on a special secured network).

The media completely mishandled how they reported on the Clinton email server scandal. They made it about having a private server, but it wasn't really about that, it was about the mishandling of classified information. And they can't even say that can't report well on that issue, because they've managed to make it clear about those issues when it comes to Trump even though what Trump did is considerably less of a security risk than what Clinton did.

------------------
* FYI this isn't an onerous processes. Simply including your government email on the CC line of an email you're sending from your private account as official business is enough to fulfil this requirement. She didn't even do that, which is pretty much prima facta evidence that she was attempting to CONCEAL what she was doing from public view and information requests.

 

[evilchumlee]

I'll be very happy to find out whether you actually mean it; since I must regrettably observe at this juncture that you've repeatedly pulled back in discussions, claiming to just be a nice fellow who wants to talk politely... and then a few days later, it's back to the previous tactics of "you're all blind cultists!"

I've acknowledged that. I won't be doing that going forward.

Anyway, my last post concerning evidence was right here. One of your random claims was that "most people dislike Trump". I gave you some direct evidence that for several months now, all major opinion polls have concluded otherwise. Then you proceeded to dodge the actual topic and tried to shift the goalposts in all sorts of novel directions. Remember?

My point here isn't so much that you must provide evidence -- in this case, your claim is literally impossible to prove -- but rather that you should learn to make a distinction between your opinions and actual facts. Because most of the posts in response to you here don't contain any "attacks", but consist of attempts to outline what you got wrong because you mistook your opinion for a fact...

Ah, that one. Fair enough.

For starters, I don't think I phrased it as a cold hard fact, but as an opinion. Yes, you provided some polls. I retorted that polls are unreliable, as we know from 2016. If polls are the cold, hard fact, then it is fact that Hillary Clinton is massively more popular than Trump? That's what the polls said...

My basis for "most people don't like Trump" is, well, using the polls from his Presidency. Yes, polls are unreliable. But... that's what we're going with. He was an unpopular President, followed up by being a single term President who lost to Biden, who got more votes than anyone ever. We can argue with the polls, but the outcome of the election is fact. The American people spoke loudly. That wasn't what we wanted.

But, here we go.

Little change in Americans’ views of Trump over the past year

As of July '23

Pew Research has 63% of Americans viewing Trump unfavorably. This has worsened slightly from last year, when 60% had an unfavorable view.

Republicans largely approve of Trump, at 66%, also that dropped significantly from a year prior when 75% of Republicans had a favorable view of Trump.

‘MAGA movement’ widely unpopular, new poll finds

As for MAGA, a poll as of April shows only 24% percent of Americans see the MAGA movement favorably. 52% of Republicans.

MAGA fared much worse with Independents, 12% with a positive view, 45% responding negative views.

Now... don't take this a defense of Biden... most people don't like Biden either. I think we've already shared a bit of that data.

You happily line Trump up there with the people who faced zero legal consequences for all sorts of dodgy shit. And that's the issue. That's your absurd bizarro reality. What you say could only be valid if Clinton, Biden, Bush and a whole host of others are also prosecuted. Because the people you called cultists? They mostly just want everyone to be treated equally. Trump in jail? That's actually not a fundamental issue to the vast majority of people here-- as long as Clinton is in the cell next to him, and Biden's in the one on the other side (and Bush is two cells over).

This is actually the fundamental issue... Trump has done enough and there is enough on him to prosecute. No, Clinton, Biden and Bush should be in the cells next to him... because they committed no crimes. There's a false equivalency here that since Clinton, Biden and Bush were not prosecuted and Trump was, there must be some grave injustice.

Or... possibly... Trump committed crimes, and they did not. Or at the VERY least, they were better at crime than Trump.

Most of the "crimes" we talk about Clinton and Biden doing are conspiracy theory bullshit. Some may have level of validity, like the Clinton email thing. It happened. No, it absolutely did not warrant jailtime, just as Trump's use of a private server did not. The email thing is a sensationalized political smear campaign. The result of that should have been an inter-organizational memo saying "Don't do that". For both of them.

If the left got a tenth of the bad treatment the right currently gets we all know he would get histerically angry and enraged. When the worm turns though it will be far more then a tenth.

If they have something on Biden, go get him.

Clinton was getting slammed by Republicans for years. My reaction was... skeptical but wanted to see how it played out. Because... I don't really have a side. Democrats just tend to be "least bad" overall. I'm hoping once we can move past Trump and all the MAGA bullshit, the Republicans can actually get a decent human being up there who I could actually consider voting for.

I don't hate Chris Christie. I'm sure he has no shot, but I don't hate him.
I like Dan Crenshaw alot. I disagree with alot of his actual politics, but he's somebody I can respect as a person and that goes a long way. In '24 if it were Crenshaw vs. Biden... i'm almost certain my vote would be going Red this time.

Going back in time, I REALLY liked McCain and early on I had really considered voting for him. Then he brought in Palin, and that dumpster fire made the decision easy. I never hated Romney, but after the first term I actively liked Obama, so there it was.

Give me somebody other than Trump and Desantis. They are both hard no's.