Tell that to the 81% of Republicans who apparently agree with me. Trump indictment: Reuters/Ipsos poll shows most Republicans think charges are politically motivated The polling, which began on Friday, a day after Trump was indicted, found that 81% of self-identified Republicans said politics was driving the case, reflecting the deep polarization of the U.S. electorate.
Back on the ignore list. If somebody is so averse to facts and the obvious I can’t learn anything from them, so no need wasting my time consuming their content.
He is having a hard time just because they want to avoid the shit show. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...-new-lawyers-for-arraignment-reports-say/amp/
That's just an indictment of Republican voters, not the judicial process at play here. Anyone who actually reads the facts of the indictment and thinks this is politically motivated, and without merit, is just being disingenuous.
That just means that 81% of you are in denial about the totally corrupt, lying scumbag leading the lemmings in your sorry excuse for a political party.
Most Americans think the charges are serious enough to charge Trump. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/abc-news-ipsos-trump-federal-indictment
A former FBI analyst just plead guilty to illegally retaining classified docs under the Espionage Act. Sentencing is later, and the DOJ is asking for 57 months plus 3 years supervised probation. Though similar to Trump, this case has some important differences. One, there is no obstruction charges. And two, the documents in question aren't likely to be as Top Secret as the docs Trump held on to. If 87% of Rs still support Trump after reading the indictment, then the R Party has truly lost its mind. It would also be a nightmare for the Rs, in my opinion, to have Trump as the R Candidate in 2024. No way the 13% of Rs who don't support Trump hold their nose and vote for him anyway. And no way independents and moderates vote Trump too. And having Trump at the top of the ballot would likely hurt Rs down the ballot as well.
It's also an indictment of Republican representatives and news outlets, who have played up that angle and beaten their constituents across the face with it since the indictment was announced.
“Trump made this claim: “As a former president, we were negotiating with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), just as every other president has done” “These claims, too, are false in one way and highly misleading in another. It’s not true that Trump was negotiating “just as every other president has done”; no other ex-president since the Presidential Records Act took effect with President Ronald Reagan’s records in the 1980s has engaged in anything like Trump’s protracted post-presidency refusal to return official documents sought by NARA – which the Presidential Records Act requires to be in NARA’s custody and control the moment a president leaves office.” “Trump claimed in North Carolina that he had abided by the Presidential Records Act: “And we had a great – we had a wonderful operation, everything by the Presidential Records Act.” This is false. The Presidential Records Act says that all presidential records belong to the federal government the moment the president leaves office. By having official records at Mar-a-Lago after his presidency, Trump was in clear contravention of the law.” Fact check: Debunking Trump's blizzard of dishonesty about his federal indictment | CNN Politics
Criticized Republicans for Whataboutism. Argues vehemently about how if Trump broke the law, he should be prosecuted, regardless of other cases. Breaks forum rules. Engages in "Whataboutism" under his own standard, and plays the victim despite violating forum rules. Demonstrates an absolute lack of self-awareness. Now he takes his ball and goes home.
If this forum is accurately representative of the extent of division in this country, then there really is no hope for us to reconcile. It's only a matter of time before we have a national divorce. Fortunately, I don't think it is.
I don't know what the answer is to repair the division in the country, but I'm sure the answer isn't to just let people choose to believe a crime wasn't committed when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The sooner we can put Trump in the rear view mirror, the better.
Yes, it's weird. But I'm not sure that the timing would ever be agreeable to everyone. Presidents are arguably immune from prosecution while in the White House. If they can't be indicted during campaign cycles, while they're in office, or even when they leave office, that sounds a lot like a grant of lifetime immunity. I'm sure many politicians seeking or holding Federal office would want that sort of blanket protection. Of course, it's unique by itself for a presidential incumbent to lose the White House and run again after losing. Cleveland is the only U.S. President to serve non consecutive terms, and notably, he won the popular vote all three times. In contrast, Trump lost the popular vote both times and is still lying about losing in 2020. It's a unique situation. I think it's possible that Trump wouldn't have even run again if he didn't intend to use his campaign to argue that he is being politically targeted. If running for office is a get out of jail free card, then we're inviting more people under investigation to run for office or keep running for public office to make such arguments. Also, everything with this case happened over the last year or two. Trump allegedly stalled, lied, got the special master appointed, went through that appeal to the 11th Circuit etc. If anything, I think this has moved pretty fast and Trump's team has had the incentive to stall. I think that will continue at this point, too. It's Smith who's saying he prefers a speedy trial. I think Trump will try to run out the clock. If he wins, he will try to pardon himself if that's a thing. If he loses, the next president will be under tremendous pressure to do what Ford did for Nixon so the country can "move on." Given that Bill Clinton reached a plea deal and Edwards and other Democrats have been indicted, it seems we're down to Hillary. I didn't study those issues in detail back then. Bill Barr has noted clear differences in the situations to include that her communications were at least partially personal while Trump's are very clearly not because he had no role in creating them. Also, I'm not sure of the severity of information involved. Did Hillary's emails include records where she sent military plans and nuclear secrets? Let's also not forget that Comey went out just days before the general election and announced they were re-opening the investigation against Hillary. That reportedly violated protocol and could have made the difference in 2016. Many have argued that he wouldn't have done that except for the fact that they thought Hillary was going to win. Here, the DOJ/Smith would be even more heavily criticized if they waited until the general election to pursue charges. Trump may already be the nominee by then. Here, Republicans still have lots of choices if they want to avoid that and nominate somebody else for the general election.
As much as I’d love to see Trump in prison stripes I don’t think he should do jail time. I’d say his punishment should be a year’s house arrest, and a ten year ban on any and all political activities to include running for office, campaign appearances, banning political op Ed pieces, and lobbying in this country and other countries.
As they learn more about the case, most will come around to realize they are wrong. His hard core base won't, but it is impossible to educate those people.
