You said, in your first paragraph of your first post, “I have not seen any reported conduct of Trump on or before Jan 6, which comes even close to rising to criminality.” You went on to say, in that same paragraph, that the charges against Trump in every case are “very very weak legally.” So I think your “blah blah blahs” are undeserving, as your comments certainly lead a reader to reasonably believe that tiny view Trump, who did nothing “which comes even close to rising to criminality” of the “very very weak legally” charged crimes, to be innocent of those charges. And try as I might I am finding it incredulous to match your “care for the country” against a post predicting civil war because the country seeks to hold no man above the law.
You should probably take a few moments and go back and read my postS. I actually said I wasn’t sure if there is evidence out there that may be damning. But I think I also said it makes no difference, because it’s not the evidence which is ridiculous, it’s the charges. When a current president charges a former president with a crime, such as the ones here, it makes the country look like a banana republic. It’s the nature of the crime that’s being charged which is the subject matter of the “ridiculous” comment I made. That is the distinction between what I’m saying, and what you claim I am saying. That is why I have been consistent in saying it doesn’t really matter to me whether Trump is guilty or innocent. The charges are ridiculous. They do not rise to the level of putting this country on the edge of violence.
Here is your statement: That is a claim of innocence (he didn't do it), not a claim of legally insufficient proof that he did it.
Okay, so you don't know but are making a lot of claims about what he is being charged with. You've declared charges that you can't name as "ridiculous."
Is it worse to BE a banana republic because the country is run by a criminal with no regard for the law. Or to temporarily LOOK like a banana republic because the country enforces the rule of law, even against a former president? I think that’s the real question here.
I’m not sure how I got it wrong with your words, but I concede— it is your thread so you make the rules.
Sure, the claim that his actions aren't even close to criminal isn't at all a claim that he is innocent of a claim that he committed a crime. Its funny how bad faith arguments end up knotted like a pretzel so often.
I don’t think those are the choices, and if forced to answer, I would say it’s best to act to save lives and save the Republic. Sometimes hard choices need to be made because people realize that the potential consequences of an act are not worth the politically correct decision. This is why you know the name Hiroshima.
So far, Trump's only got a letter, not an indictment. "A target letter from prosecutors means investigators have gathered substantial evidence linking the recipient to a crime — but it does not necessarily mean charges will ultimately be brought. Often such letters invite the target to appear before a grand jury to offer evidence."
