I don't know why everyone is arguing with NOS4A2. Trump will go to jail. He'll never except that. Nobody gives a shit.

Putting things into perspective.

Personally, I'm interested in hearing a Trump supporter's perspective of the evidence. I had thought NOS4A2 might provide that. I've been disappointed so far.

Not all stories have two sides.

@NOS4A2 & other MAGAsshats ...

BELATED HAPPY 3RD INDICTMENT DAY! :party:

BELATED HAPPY 3RD ARREST & ARRAIGNMENT DAY! :clap:

Next up for Seditionist-Traitor-Rapist1 (aka the "Grifter-in-Chief" of Mar-a-Lago):
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/fulton-county/fulton-county-sheriff-says-well-have-mugshot-if-former-pres-trump-is-indicted-locally/TT5AC7DCTBGQLCHRKS2BO5NMRU/

:up:

Like almost everything American nowadays it's a show. It's been politicised, precisely as Trump wanted, in which law, evidence and facts no longer are relevant. Of course you'll be disappointed.

Are you therefore predicting the charges will be dismissed? If not, why not?

I don’t know. Unlike Benkei I don’t pretend to know the future.

I don’t know. Unlike Benkei I don’t pretend to know the future. — NOS4A2

Of course you don't "know", but most of us are trying to make an educated guess about the future. This entails trying to objectively evaluate the evidence and the laws, and (I suggest) assuming an objective judge and jury. That's what I've been hoping you would do, but you haven't really engaged directly with the evidence.

What you HAVE done is to argue that we can't "know" what's in Trump's mind, while also proclaiming what's in prosecutors' minds:

They knowingly made false accusations that Trump knowingly made false claims. — NOS4A2

[

I don’t care if God himself told him the election was legit. You, like Smith, are trying to read Trump’s mind. You in fact do not know that he knowingly made false claims. You know you don’t know because you in fact cannot read minds. You’re guessing, making it up, or being told what to believe, and I’m not sure which is worse. — NOS4A2

I’m glad you caught that. I used Smith’s proof by assertion to make the same baseless accusation. The difference is I did it in jest. Smith did it to indict a political opponent for crime. Which is worse?

but he's not using proof by assertion, is he? He made the assertion, and he's going to defend it in a trial, with evidence and arguments.

Smith undoubtedly believes Trump knew the election was not stolen, but that's moot at this point. What matters will be the jury's evaluation of the evidence. As I said, we can try to make educated guesses of the jury result by evaluating the evidence ourselves. You've displayed no interest in doing that, and instead just respond like a conspiracy theorist saying, "prove me wrong".

I’m sure he does believe it. He also believed he turned over all evidence to Trump's legal team as required by law and falsely claimed that he had. These guys believe a lot of things, I just suspect that, given the indictments, he does not know the truth of the matter. He doesn’t cite one quote or give any evidence that he does know. The evidence suggests his inferences are utterly baseless.

The evidence suggests his inferences are utterly baseless. — NOS4A2

Trump's Georgia phone call, and subsequent lies about it, suggest otherwise. I brought up specific details earlier, and you ignored them. This is what I mean: you don't engage with the details of the case, but simply make general, dismissive claims.

This entails trying to objectively evaluate the evidence and the laws, and (I suggest) assuming an objective judge and jury. — Relativist

But this is something that Trump and NOS deny is possible. Trump wants to move the trial to West Virginia not because a jury there would be more objective, or in his words 'unbiased', but because he won West Virginia in 2020 and they would more likely be biased in favor of him.

Trump made his thinking clear back in 2016 when he attempted to discredit Judge Gonzalo Curiel in the Trump University fraud case because she is Mexican.

this is something that Trump and NOS deny is possible — Fooloso4

Even if NOS believes it not possible for the judge and jury to be objective, he could, still evaluate the evidence and help assess what an objective judge/jury would decide, if it were possible. This would then be a better basis to judge whether or not the process was, or wasn't, fair - in the end.

None of us are truly objective, but it helps us be more objective when we have an honest exchange with someone with an opposing viewpoint - if they're willing to be reasonable. I'm giving him an opportunity to be reasonable.

What do you infer from the Georgia phone call and why?

Here's 3 key points from the Georgia call, which seem undeniable:

1)Trump didn't care to see the evidence that disproved his fraud claims. 2) Trump lied about what was said, the day after the call. 3) Trump threatened the governor & Secretary of State.

Even if NOS believes it not possible for the judge and jury to be objective, he could, still evaluate the evidence and help assess what an objective judge/jury would decide, if it were possible. This would then be a better basis to judge whether or not the process was, or wasn't, fair - in the end. — Relativist

I am not sure he could. There is a peculiar disjunction is conservative circles, especially among the MAGA faithful. On the one hand a profound distrust of Democrats, American institutions, and the people who run them, but on the other hand, a blind acceptance of whatever Trump says and does. Evidence is suspect and disregarded when it contradicts Trump.

Trump said some things. I want to know what crime he committed, and what evidence there is that he did so corruptly. What act, which thought, and what combination of words was the crime? Who is the victim of said crimes?

I'll get there, but first- please respond to the 3 points I made (refer to paragraphs 31& 32 in the indictment). Do you agree with my points? If not, then explain why.

All the facts concerning his crimes are in the past. Unlike you I've got a good grasp of criminal law.

All the facts concerning his crimes are in the past. Unlike you I've got a good grasp of criminal law. — Benkei

But like you, he's not in the USA.

It’s appropriate that Trump is being indicted and very likely he will be convicted. But it’s also likely that he will continue to dominate the political discourse in the US, and will have a huge impact on the 2024 Presidential election, even if he doesn’t win. But the fact that he might win, which is suggested by a lot of polling data, is deeply troubling. It seems that a significant proportion of the electorate, amounting to many tens of millions of people, actually believe Trump’s lies. Polling has his support close to Biden’s and streets ahead of the (admittedly very weak) Republican alternatives.

It also seems obvious that were Trump to win, he would be able to finish the job of overturning American democracy, persecuting his opponents and gutting the bureaucracy. It is clear that the reason he admires Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin is because they are the kinds of leaders he wants to be. He wants to be able to jail or execute those who oppose him. But what’s really scary is that, in all this, he is getting millions of Americans to help him overthrow the Constitution, all the while believing that they’re actually protecting it. So the Trump nightmare is still not over, and might not be over even when he’s a convicted felon. It’s deeply disappointing, and deeply troubling.

Cenat's prize: PS5s

Trump's prize: Authoritarian rule of US

No one can incite a riot. It’s just words. How can words be crimes?

Hitler didn't personally kill anyone. He only used words too.

Not that those people in question are comparable to Hitler, just showing by example that words can be sufficient.

What I find odd about the different groups packed into the Trump tent is where they are incompatible in terms of theri stated interests. The MAGA zens I have encountered in my family and in society appear in three different displays:

The culture warriors who want to reverse changes in institutions.
The groups who wish to restore privileges their parents enjoyed.
Business-people who profit from corporate welfare in its many forms.

These interests can overlap but they are not the same and there is friction between them. The outbreaks of violence, for instance, caused some of my family to separate themselves from the movement.

What does not fit with any of these is the absolute form of 'libertarianism' expressed by Nos4a2. The three groups floating the boat all want state power to secure their ends.

I could mix more metaphors but it is time for walkies.

Trump said some things. I want to know what crime he committed, and what evidence there is that he did so corruptly. What act, which thought, and what combination of words was the crime? Who is the victim of said crimes? — NOS4A2

People should read the indictments where the charges are laid out clearly. My questions go in the opposite direction. If you are a Trump supporter, and are outraged by all of the indictments, why is that? Even if you think the motivations for going after him are "all political" how do you know he's innocent? I've never seen so many people insist that a man deserves to be pardoned if convicted of felonies. The trials haven't even happened yet. Why not let the judicial process play out, and then reach your conclusions?

I wish you fucking foreigners would leave the US politics to we Americans. — T Clark

Wrong.

The sons of bitches should leave the US politics to us Americans. — BC

Right.

"Americans" is an appositive, identifying "us." In a sense this means "Americans" and "us" are 'co-objects' of the verb, or you can you think of the appositive as elliptical for a relative clause, whatever. It's a very compressed form. Under no circumstances can "we" function as an adjective, even if "Americans" were the sole object of the preposition.*

Another rhetorical option in a case like this is repeating the preposition:

You should leave US politics to us, to Americans.

And it's obvious now that you can reverse the order, to change the emphasis.

Or you could elaborate the appositive to be another clause, going either way:

You should leave US politics to us, because we're actually Americans.

You should leave US politics to Americans, and that means us.

Etc.

@BC you were right the first time.

* Almost no circumstances, because English.

according to COCA using 'we' in that way is more frequent in American English, so it could be descriptively correct...(?)

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/126566/it-is-us-it-is-we