Election and Jan 6 charges

[WrestlingRasta]

3 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I'm sure there were people that didn't like him  prior to his election. Actually a lot of democrats liked Donald prior to him running for president. Then he did the unthinkable and ran for president. Then he got elected and got 70 million new haters. Does he know how to throw a punch.?Yes.If you attack him will he fight back ? Yes. Does he send mean tweets? Yes. Does he act like a jerk? Yes. Does the liberal Media hate him  with a passion? Yes. Has Biden been treated with kid gloves by the media compared to Trump? You bet your a--.  

I was referring to the people who went on the attack at the idea of him as president because they knew of his history of: bankruptcies, sexual abuse, detachment from truth, and the fact that so many associated with his business would end up being convicted felons, and basic reputation for getting what he wants by any means necessary. These are the characteristics and traits of his, that he had exhibited over decades,  that had people believing we would be in a nightmare if trump would become President. Did the level of hate for him grow as this persona amplified throughout his Presidency….absolutely.

 

But none of that answers the question: if they are proven to be right in multiple courts of law in multiple venues…..does that still hold water that the attacks against him justify his actions?  

[Paul158]

3 minutes ago, DJT said:

You guys really think Biden is/was attacked as much as Trump? Really?

Setting the personal attacks aside, yes, Trump is a crass asshole and, yes, Biden is a bumbling senile geriatric. Trump began his presidency with the loser, corporate media and the democrats crying he stole the election and was an illegitimate president. This followed with a yearslong investigation by the FBI and special counsel into the false allegations, and even when they were proven to be unfounded, the media and democrats continued with the lies. In no way does the corporate media take every chance they can to twist facts just to smear Biden like they did/do with Trump.

The media doesn't have to try to twist facts on Joe . He gives them more than enough material in speech , falling upstairs, falling on flat surfaces and on his bike.

[WrestlingRasta]

9 minutes ago, DJT said:

You guys really think Biden is/was attacked as much as Trump? Really? I didn’t figure for you two to be exclusively FoxNews watchers… that’d be the only explanation for that viewpoint.

Setting the personal attacks aside, yes, Trump is a crass asshole and, yes, Biden is a bumbling senile geriatric. Trump began his presidency with the loser, corporate media and the democrats crying he stole the election and was an illegitimate president. This followed with a yearslong investigation by the FBI and special counsel into the false allegations, and even when they were proven to be unfounded, the media and democrats continued with the lies. In no way does the corporate media take every chance they can to twist facts just to smear Biden like they did/do with Trump.

Uuggggh…..here we go again. I never said Trump gets attacked more or less than Biden, I didn’t compare attacks on trump to anyone other individual. 
 

I said presidents and candidates being attacked heavily has been going on since the 90’s.  I’ll add…..it’s a cry baby excuse for the actions he has taken (allegedly).  The same people who are joking about ‘mean tweets’ are letting attempts to overthrow the election slide because ‘they were just so mean to him’

Entertaining. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by WrestlingRasta

[DJT]

3 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I was referring to the people who went on the attack at the idea of him as president because they knew of his history of: bankruptcies, sexual abuse, detachment from truth, and the fact that so many associated with his business would end up being convicted felons, and basic reputation for getting what he wants by any means necessary. These are the characteristics and traits of his, that he had exhibited over decades,  that had people believing we would be in a nightmare if trump would become President. Did the level of hate for him grow as this persona amplified throughout his Presidency….absolutely.

 

But none of that answers the question: if they are proven to be right in multiple courts of law in multiple venues…..does that still hold water that the attacks against him justify his actions?  

Honestly, I think many of his actions have been grossly exaggerated. Should he have accepted defeat graciously? Yes, but pretty much every politician explores every legal avenue in a close race. Do I think he actually attempted a coup? No, and it would not even be remotely possible in our country. This isn’t Niger.

[WrestlingRasta]

Just now, DJT said:

Honestly, I think many of his actions have been grossly exaggerated. Should he have accepted defeat graciously? Yes, but pretty much every politician explores every legal avenue in a close race. Do I think he actually attempted a coup? No, and it would not even be remotely possible in our country. This isn’t Niger.

I’ll ask you the same question. Have you read the full indictment?

[DJT]

5 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Uuggggh…..here we go again. I never said Trump gets attacked more or less than Biden, I didn’t compare attacks on trump to anyone other individual. 
 

I said presidents and candidates being attacked heavily has been going on since the 90’s.  I’ll add…..it’s a cry baby excuse for the actions he has taken (allegedly).  The same people who are joking about ‘mean tweets’ are letting attempts to overthrow the election slide because ‘they were just so mean to him’

Entertaining. 

That’s my bad. I lumped you in on that response. I agree every politician gets attacked now to an extent, especially the more successful… maybe that’s why Joe doesn’t get attacked much.

Edited August 2, 2023 by DJT

[ionel]

30 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

He wasn't attacked any more than Biden.  These public grievances are his schtick.  He tilts as many windmills as he possibly can.    

He certainly was attacked more.  Now you could argue much of it was his own doing, he could've behaved better and reduced the level of attacks.  However, this is who he is, I dont like him never did but everyone knew who he was when running in the primary.  The left argues much more than the right that we should accept diversity, he is a very diverse character out there on the edge so accept him for who he is and if you are the other side argue about his policy.  I will always maintain that CNN got him elected.  There were something like 12 candidates in the primary and early debates, prob 5 that would've made good candidates for the GOP.  CNN wouldn't stop talking about Trump thats all they wanted too talk about, he got so much free PR.

[DJT]

3 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I’ll ask you the same question. Have you read the full indictment?

I’ve skimmed it. I’ll take a deep dive tonight, but the nature of indictments/PC statements is to be extremely biased and make the accused look as bad as possible, leaving out most anything that could possibly be looked at as favorable to the defense. From what I’ve heard this indictment reads as if it was an MSNBC article co-authored by Rachel Maddow and Morning Joe.

[Paul158]

4 minutes ago, DJT said:

I’ve skimmed it. I’ll take a deep dive tonight, but the nature of indictments/PC statements is to be extremely biased and make the accused look as bad as possible, leaving out most anything that could possibly be looked at as favorable to the defense. From what I’ve heard this indictment reads as if it was an MSNBC article co-authored by Rachel Maddow and Morning Joe.

It looks like the January 6 th hearings on steroids.

[WrestlingRasta]

4 minutes ago, DJT said:

I’ve skimmed it. I’ll take a deep dive tonight, but the nature of indictments/PC statements is to be extremely biased and make the accused look as bad as possible, leaving out most anything that could possibly be looked at as favorable to the defense. From what I’ve heard this indictment reads as if it was an MSNBC article co-authored by Rachel Maddow and Morning Joe.

In all seriousness, urge you to read it fully, and objectively. I believe the most important part of the indictment again is where the evidence and testimony is drawn from. I agree with you totally that a grand jury does not have the benefit of cross examination, which is why I’m trying to stick with words like allegedly, seemingly, etc. BUT again I think where this evidence comes from is a huge piece, relative to how legitimate these charges are or are not. 

[WrestlingRasta]

4 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

It looks like the January 6 th hearings on steroids.

That would follow along with the fact that the DOJ had more subpeona power than the committee, and therefore was able to get more evidence from more directly involved individuals.
 

So…that would make perfect sense. 

[Paul158]

19 minutes ago, ionel said:

He certainly was attacked more.  Now you could argue much of it was his own doing, he could've behaved better and reduced the level of attacks.  However, this is who he is, I dont like him never did but everyone knew who he was when running in the primary.  The left argues much more than the right that we should accept diversity, he is a very diverse character out there on the edge so accept him for who he is and if you are the other side argue about his policy.  I will always maintain that CNN got him elected.  There were something like 12 candidates in the primary and early debates, prob 5 that would've made good candidates for the GOP.  CNN wouldn't stop talking about Trump thats all they wanted too talk about, he got so much free PR.

I would say Hillary got Trump elected. Women weren't very excited about her as a President.

[Paul158]

5 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

That would follow along with the fact that the DOJ had more subpeona power than the committee, and therefore was able to get more evidence from more directly involved individuals.
 

So…that would make perfect sense. 

I'm talking about the absurdity of the Jan. 6th hearings. There were no witnesses for the defense. There was no cross examination. 

[ionel]

Just now, Paul158 said:

I would say Hillary got Trump elected. Women weren't very excited about her as a President.

CNN got Trump to the point of being able to run against Hillary.  Trump ran on cleaning up the swamp so what did the Dems do?  They pulled some shenanigans to put in an old swamp creature, prob the most corrupt candidate to run for Pres in a long time.  

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I'm talking about the absurdity of the Jan. 6th hearings. There were no witnesses for the defense. There was no cross examination. 

That’s why it is a committee hearing and not a trial. The purposes are not the same. Likewise an indictment is not a trial, the burden is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden is reasonable evidence to go to trial. 
 

He will have every opportunity to produce witnesses. It will be interesting, and very challenging, because the testimony and evidence against him comes predominantly from his inner circle. So the interesting thing will be…..who’s going to have evidence that disproves his own words and the words of the people he was in direct communications with?  That’s going to be very interesting. 

[Paul158]

12 minutes ago, ionel said:

CNN got Trump to the point of being able to run against Hillary.  Trump ran on cleaning up the swamp so what did the Dems do?  They pulled some shenanigans to put in an old swamp creature, prob the most corrupt candidate to run for Pres in a long time.  

agreed. Actually the Democrats wanted to run against Donald Trump. They thought Hillary would easily beat Donald Trump.

[WrestlingRasta]

4 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

agreed. Actually the Democrats wanted to run against Donald Trump. They thought Hillary would easily beat Donald Trump.

Agree on both these. CNN wanted Trump on the Republican ticket thinking that would bold very well for Clinton (which at the time I thought that would too and it scared the shit out of me). 

[DJT]

5 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

That’s why it is a committee hearing and not a trial. The purposes are not the same. Likewise an indictment is not a trial, the burden is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden is reasonable evidence to go to trial. 
 

He will have every opportunity to produce witnesses. It will be interesting, and very challenging, because the testimony and evidence against him comes predominantly from his inner circle. So the interesting thing will be…..who’s going to have evidence that disproves his own words and the words of the people he was in direct communications with?  That’s going to be very interesting. 

All of the statements from his inner circle you’re talking about… those witnesses will have to be called by the prosecution, and the defense will have a chance to cross them to clarify and expand on their statements used by the prosecution as the facts of the indictment. The prosecution can cherry pick from their depositions to form the basis of the probable cause by asking only certain questions in certain ways during the grand jury. Trying to “judge” the case based on the indictment is a fool-hearted errand. And to think that his inner circle turned on him based on what’s in the indictment is ill advised at best. 

[WrestlingRasta]

9 minutes ago, DJT said:

All of the statements from his inner circle you’re talking about… those witnesses will have to be called by the prosecution, and the defense will have a chance to cross them to clarify and expand on their statements used by the prosecution as the facts of the indictment. The prosecution can cherry pick from their depositions to form the basis of the probable cause by asking only certain questions in certain ways during the grand jury. Trying to “judge” the case based on the indictment is a fool-hearted errand. And to think that his inner circle turned on him based on what’s in the indictment is ill advised at best. 

Like I said, I’m making an effort to use words like allegedly and seemingly, I agree with you. But just like you can have your opinion of the indictment before reading it, I can have an opinion of the indictment after reading it. Doesn’t make it a fool hearted errand. 

[Paul158]

8 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Like I said, I’m making an effort to use words like allegedly and seemingly, I agree with you. But just like you can have your opinion of the indictment before reading it, I can have an opinion of the indictment after reading it. Doesn’t make it a fool hearted errand. 

Choosing your words carefully. You are a good lawyer/athletic sports guy.

[Bigbrog]

IF....and that is a big IF, this thing goes to trial how in the heck would you be able to pick a jury for it??

 

[Paul158]

10 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

IF....and that is a big IF, this thing goes to trial how in the heck would you be able to pick a jury for it??

 

Maybe they could get some of those aliens that have been seen flying around our pilots.

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, Paul158 said:

Maybe they could get some of those aliens that have been seen flying around our pilots.

My favorite alien of all time...hope he/she/it is on the jury

[WrestlingRasta]

14 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

IF....and that is a big IF, this thing goes to trial how in the heck would you be able to pick a jury for it??

 

Whether it’s DC, South Florida, Manhattan, or Georgia, it’s obviously going to be impossible to seat a jury that didn’t already have some thought on Trump one way or another. It’s going to have to be 12 people who can judge the case solely on what is presented in the courtroom. 
 

The two federal trials absolutely have to be televised. Just this conversation here is good proof why. So many varying opinions on what the case and evidence is or isn’t. We need to have the opportunity to watch with our own eyes and not rely on commentary for what is going on inside the courtroom.  

[Bigbrog]

2 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Whether it’s DC, South Florida, Manhattan, or Georgia, it’s obviously going to be impossible to seat a jury that didn’t already have some thought on Trump one way or another. It’s going to have to be 12 people who can judge the case solely on what is presented in the courtroom. 
 

The two federal trials absolutely have to be televised. Just this conversation here is good proof why. So many varying opinions on what the case and evidence is or isn’t. We need to have the opportunity to watch with our own eyes and not rely on commentary for what is going on inside the courtroom.  

Agreed Rasta!