Treasonous Trump indicted

[Mega Hertz]

Lets just wipe the slate clean. Start all over with the president, VP, cabinet, the House, the Senate, everyone. Let's treat this shit like an iPod. Hit shuffle and see what comes up.

[bmw]

I can surmise by BMW's lack of willingness to answer the question that he believes Trump is fit for office.

You can surmise whatever you want. I haven't responded because you're clearly trolling. Can I surmise from your lack of willingness to talk about the legal case against Trump that you think it is a weak case? This thread is about the legal case against him, and that's what I'm talking about.

But since you're fixated on that point, I'll answer. Yes, I believe he is fit for office. I fully understand why others think he is not, but at the end of the day, I think he is perfectly capable of performing the duties of President.

[Matt]

I can surmise by BMW's lack of willingness to answer the question that he believes Trump is fit for office.

You can surmise whatever you want. I haven't responded because you're clearly trolling. Can I surmise from your lack of willingness to talk about the legal case against Trump that you think it is a weak case? This thread is about the legal case against him, and that's what I'm talking about.

But since you're fixated on that point, I'll answer. Yes, I believe he is fit for office. I fully understand why others think he is not, but at the end of the day, I think he is perfectly capable of performing the duties of President.

It's not a troll. Thank you for answering.

What could Trump do, or what could it be proven he did, that would make you realize he is unfit? If you nominate Trump again you are handing the Oval to the left for another 4 years.

[bmw]

What could Trump do, or what could it be proven he did, that would make you realize he is unfit?

That is the kind of question that drives me crazy that I see asked all the time. The premise of the question is that he IS unfit and that nothing he could or would do would convince others otherwise. Whether he is fit is a matter of personal opinion. My personal opinion is that the cumulative list of transgressions he has do not make him unfit for the office. Again, I am well aware that there are a significant number of people who vehemently disagree with that assessment.

In fairness to me, I have been highly critical of Trump in many regards - more so than any left-leaning poster in here has ever been of Biden. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

And I don't see a constant drum beat of people asking Democrats "what would Biden have to do or say to convince you that he has dementia?" People have made their mind up one way or the other, and people who think he has it will never convince those who don't. Yet, this is a "fitness for office" question that is just as valid as the one you're asking me.

[bmw]

On a somewhat-related matter, Mark Levin has lost all grip on reality. The tone of his twitter posts yesterday show that he is fearful of what will happen to Trump, and apparently on Hannity last night, he became completely unhinged. I am very annoyed by the fact that most conservative pundits can't just have an open and honest conversation about Trump's legal trouble. I think they are so "all-in" pot committed to Trump that they fear their credibility, and thus careers, are OVER if they ever admit they were ever wrong about anything Trump-related.

MW's take is the most reasonable one I've yet seen from anybody and I think is the closest to the reality of the situation Trump finds himself in. My only disagreement is that I don't think he can be prosecuted for divulgement without re-convening a grand jury. And at least on the surface, I think Trump has some real problems with the obstruction counts. I will be curious to see his defense of those particular allegations.

[Rate This]

On a somewhat-related matter, Mark Levin has lost all grip on reality. The tone of his twitter posts yesterday show that he is fearful of what will happen to Trump, and apparently on Hannity last night, he became completely unhinged. I am very annoyed by the fact that most conservative pundits can't just have an open and honest conversation about Trump's legal trouble. I think they are so "all-in" pot committed to Trump that they fear their credibility, and thus careers, are OVER if they ever admit they were ever wrong about anything Trump-related.

MW's take is the most reasonable one I've yet seen from anybody and I think is the closest to the reality of the situation Trump finds himself in. My only disagreement is that I don't think he can be prosecuted for divulgement without re-convening a grand jury. And at least on the surface, I think Trump has some real problems with the obstruction counts. I will be curious to see his defense of those particular allegations.

So you think Levin doesn’t believe what he’s selling but is stuck nonetheless?

I know Hannity, Tucker and Ingraham don’t believe it for a second and think he’s an idiot. But Levin May or may not be a true believer…

[Rate This]

What could Trump do, or what could it be proven he did, that would make you realize he is unfit?

That is the kind of question that drives me crazy that I see asked all the time. The premise of the question is that he IS unfit and that nothing he could or would do would convince others otherwise. Whether he is fit is a matter of personal opinion. My personal opinion is that the cumulative list of transgressions he has do not make him unfit for the office. Again, I am well aware that there are a significant number of people who vehemently disagree with that assessment.

In fairness to me, I have been highly critical of Trump in many regards - more so than any left-leaning poster in here has ever been of Biden. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

And I don't see a constant drum beat of people asking Democrats "what would Biden have to do or say to convince you that he has dementia?" People have made their mind up one way or the other, and people who think he has it will never convince those who don't. Yet, this is a "fitness for office" question that is just as valid as the one you're asking me.

Ok… let’s try another angle.. is there an action ANY president could take that is a line they do not cross? There has to be something and it’s not trolling or unreasonable to ask. There must be a line….

[Turkeytop]

This is none of my business, so I won't join the debate. But, as an outsider, it puzzles me how anyone can defend this guy or try to minimize the seriousness of the allegations set out in the indictment.

If they are true, he placed the security of your nation and the entire free world in danger. That should be enough to scare anyone.

Had he done it for some kind of monetary gain, it wouldn't have surprised me. That's just the kind of person he is. But he did it solely to boost his fragile ego. Bragging rights.

[bmw]

This is none of my business, so I won't join the debate. But, as an outsider, it puzzles me how anyone can defend this guy or try to minimize the seriousness of the allegations set out in the indictment.

If they are true, he placed the security of your nation and the entire free world in danger. That should be enough to scare anyone.

Most of the defense I see of Trump is less about defending what he did and more about suggesting there is a double standard. Hillary Clinton stores top secret documents on a private email server stored in a bathroom closet, destroys over 30,000 emails after they had been requested by the State Department, and she gets a pass. Biden stores classified documents in at least 4 different private locations, including a garage which Hunter Biden had access to, and he gets a pass. Mike Pence stores classified documents in a private location, and he gets a pass. Donald Trump stores classified (including top secret) documents in boxes at his private residence, and he gets his residence surprise-raided by the FBI and then gets the book thrown at him with a 37-count indictment.

And despite RT's objection over pain and suffering and being tired of hearing about Hillary, I'm going to specifically address the Hillary situation again. In 2014, the State Department asked her to turn over to them any and all work-related emails that she had on her private email server. Altogether, she had over 60,000 emails on that server. Her lawyers went through those 60,000 emails and identified roughly half of them as work-related. She then turned over those emails to the State Department and then instructed her lawyers to delete the other 30,000 emails. When you're the subject of a document request such as that, you don't delete such documents until the entity making the lawful document request says they're satisfied with what you turned over. Have you seen the photos of Trump's rooms full of boxes of documents? It's the same thing. The vast majority of those documents are not classified. It would be like if when he first turned over some documents to the National Archives when they requested them, he ordered his lawyers to burn all the other documents. This would quite literally be an exact parallel to what Hillary did. And just as Trump still had classified documents that he didn't initially turn over in response to the first request, so did Hillary. And the FBI painstakingly, over the course of a year-long investigation, "recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary ... d=42389308

Then fast-forward to Comey's now infamous statement just before the 2016 election, and we find out that not only had Hillary deleted work-related emails, but also that she had deleted emails which contained classified documents - documents which the FBI assessed may now be in the hands of our adversaries due to a possible breech of security by hostile actors while she was in hostile territories sending such emails through a server which, as Comey noted, wasn't even as secure as Gmail, let alone a .gov address.

And I stand by my argument that what Hillary did was worse because in her case, she not only withheld documents that had been lawfully requested by a federal agency (just as how Trump's case started with a simple request from the National Archives to turn over work-related documents and him turning over some but not all of what they had asked for), but she then DESTROYED many documents they had requested. In Trump's case, nobody is suggesting he destroyed anything (outside of documents which he allegedly shredded while still President, but that's another story for another day).

[TC Talks]

In fairness to me, I have been highly critical of Trump in many regards - more so than any left-leaning poster in here has ever been of Biden. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Biden is far from perfect but he certainly has been able to keep the nation moving forward. I'm not happy with the McCarthy deal, But that is politics as our founding fathers designed it.

Trump is only about Trump and he ropes suckers like you in all day long. And what dumbass keeps the paper files? At least Hillary made things disappear.

[bmw]

And what dumbass keeps the paper files? At least Hillary made things disappear.

And that is precisely what makes Hillary's situation more sinister than Trump's.

And btw - I thought you were thrilled with the McCarthy debt ceiling deal. You raved about how our governing is moderating to the middle and how great that is for the country.

[MWmetalhead]

I agree that Hillary should've been prosecuted. Any attorney who advised or helped her in destroying documents that were subject to discovery should also be prosecuted and at the very least be disbarred.

[Ben Zonia]

I want a President that loves this country, believes in the WHOLE Constitution and doesn't constantly try to abrogate it or amend it, and strikes fear in our real enemies, here and abroad. If another candidate would be like that, we wouldn't have to have Trump.

[bmw]

I agree that Hillary should've been prosecuted. Any attorney who advised or helped her in destroying documents that were subject to discovery should also be prosecuted and at the very least be disbarred.

So I'm curious - do you think the Trump case is similar enough to the Hillary case for Trump's lawyers to make a 14th Amendment selective prosecution defense? This would be a procedural defense and resolved before trial. This type of defense is rarely successful, but this is an unprecedented prosecution. Trump would have to prove that his actions were significantly similar to Hillary's and that the reason he was prosecuted and she wasn't was prosecutorial bias.

[MWmetalhead]

I think his lawyers will try everything possible. Whether any of those motions prove successful is a question I am unqualified to answer.