Lock him up! CNN reports Trump to be indicted

In fairness, you called him a joke and said he couldn't be taken seriously (if he didn't see things your way) first.

 

Watch Live: Outside Miami Courthouse Where Donald Trump Will Be Arraigned (breitbart.com)

LIVE: Outside Miami Courthouse Where Donald Trump Will Be Arraigned... | LIVE: Outside Miami Courthouse Where Donald Trump Will Be Arraigned... | By Breitbart | Facebook

 

Can't remember who it was, but one prominent Republican was trashing Jack Smith and specifically mentioned his prosecution of John Edwards. I'm not sure if she didn't know that John Edwards was a Democrat or didn't care. It might go to show that Smith is over-zealous, but it actually undermines the argument that he's driven by partisanship and going after Republicans. It seems like many are just throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks and are making entirely incoherent arguments.

 

Well, the indictment seems very damning, Trump hasn't given much to hang one's hat on vis a vis the indictment, hasn't even got an attorney to speak for him, so there's not much to address in terms of the case from the.... *non-lefty lynch mob* side.

...and the indictment, for all its stank, doesn't make the years' long unilateral application of the criminal justice system stank, go away or stink less.

If anything, it makes it sting--all the more, bc it looks like they might finally log a kill, and thus thrusting the issue into the foreftont (and consequently with it, China Joe's skating).

 

bless their hearts

 

Welcome to Trumpism. The consistency and logic of the argument is unimportant. It is the feeling behind it that is all that matters. Started with the calls to take Trump "seriously but not literally" and has continued to this point, where everything is about dealing with their cognitive dissonance of both seeing themselves as not the type of people who would support somebody like Trump while being compelled to support him.

 

It’s not BS.

 

Actually a fair showing. I wasn't expecting more than a smattering of like 15 ppl.

 

Over-zealousness may be proper motive for Garland to appoint a guy like that. Gives him everything he wants. The knowledge that he’s going to come down on Trump hard, and the cover in washing his hands from all of it, without clear personal motive on the part of the special counsel.

Not saying that’s what happened here. But a possibility.

I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories. But I am a fan of looking at actions and events that raise eyebrows, asking what every party has to gain or lose by the course of action, and which side the outcome happens to benefit.

If policy and law enforcement just happens to be continuously and consistently favoring one side over another, I would say that qualifies as worthy of raising eyebrows.

And there comes a point where a pattern of sketchy actions and behavior leads to distrust in the perpetrators. Now in the span of seven years, a Democratic DOJ chose to try not to tip the scales with a Democratic frontrunner potentially violating the Espionage Act. Seven years later, a Democratic DOJ chose to do something that would happen to tip the scales to their benefit for a Republican frontrunner potentially violating the Espionage Act.

It doesn't pass the smell test for me and most Republicans.

 

There’d be no United States without the likes of “out-and out crooks” to country trying to run things. Lol.

John Hancock? Sons of Liberty? Reading up on them makes for some fun and entertaining reading.

 

Yet others are criticizing Garland for referring it out to a special counsel in the first place. I doubt they would be praising Garland if he maintained operational control over the investigation.

Notably, the Feds didn't go after Trump for the Stormy payments. I'm not sure that Manhattan should have either and said that at the time. Here, we're talking about much more serious allegations than Bill Clinton or John Edwards faced - even involving national security secrets. Various Republicans and Democrats have been indicted over less serious allegations, particularly given the lies, stonewalling, and alleged obstruction here.

When you reference a pattern of sketchy actions and behavior of the perpetrators, are you referring to Trump or to the DOJ?

 

These arguments would have made a lot more sense before the indictment was unsealed and we saw how damaging the evidence truly is.

 

We've pointed out time and time and time again, there is a lot more different between what Hillary, Pence, and Biden did, and what Trump was indicted for. You refuse to see it because you don't want to. If Pence had refused to return the documents and those documents were a serious threat to national security, he too would eventually be facing charges. But neither of that were true, so consistent with what the DOJ has done for decades, no charges will be filed.

Hillary had over 30,000 emails and about 100 were questionable. But did deeper, and many of those questionable emails were about a leak that appeared on the front page of the NY Times. No new information could have been garnered from her emails. And the overwhelming majority of her emails that mentioned state secrets were replies stating she could not respond from the email, but the conversation had to be moved. This would have resulted in both the original email and Hillary's response to be marked classified, but was and never could be in any way a danger to national security. Again, you wouldn't expect the police to treat someone going 10 mph over the speed limit perfectly sober the same way as a driver going 110 mph and 3X the BAL. The second person would be hauled off to jail immediately.

The fact that Trump hasn't been is proof of preferential treatment. Anybody else had nuclear secrets plus state vulnerability secrets stored in their bathroom shower, they would be hauled off to jail immediately.

Just because you think it isn't fair Hillary wasn't charge doesn't make it true. Truth is, the evidence against Hillary didn't warrant an indictment. Just like the evidence against Pence doesn't warrant one either. But have you read the indictment against Trump? How can you not prosecute?

 

Correct. Fair point.

But his 2016 rival for President wasn't. It's not just the offense they're charging him with, though I'm sure many Trump supporters would be calling this politically motivated regardless, it's the timing. It's just before an election where he is running for President, just when information regarding potential bribes regarding Joe Biden was released. The timing couldn't be better. And when all of these things are sequenced in such a perfect way that aligns with Democratic Party interests in two Presidential elections in 8 years (probably a third if Trump could have been indicted as a sitting President), it doesn't look random, it looks coordinated.

And even in regards to the 2020 election... this isn't DOJ, but anybody remember when the availability of the vaccines was disclosed to the public? It's just astounding how the timing of all of these things seem to benefit Democrats at the expense of Trump.

Add in the Manhattan indictment and threats to prosecute DeSantis over kidnapping and those are just more data points that reinforce that conclusion.

Both, but I think Trump has been under such a microscope, we know him enough that the simplest explanation isn't that he was going to sell the secrets to the Russians or the Chinese, but that he was going to brag about it to his golfing buddies. Shows incredibly poor judgment, but I think that's an election issue more than a law enforcement issue, especially in light of the Clinton treatment in 2016. But he needs to turn over those documents.

It's no secret that Trump is temperamental and often-times exercises poor judgment. The real conservative "heroes" (for lack of a better word) were the folks around him in his Administration who influenced him and reigned him in.

 

Well he was arrested today as part of the process, so that’s fun.

 

It's become apparent that this person is just seeking attention, akin to Q on the covid issue.

 

I think it takes a notable amount of brain power and deliberation to go through the mental gymnastics that he sometimes does.

One can be intelligent while also being disingenuous and wrong. We could all do with remembering that.