So saying it is "glaringly obvious" that Trump committed crimes just doesn't work when all you will do is repeat the accusations and the arguments of prosecution, while remaining wholly ignorant or at least reticent of the defense. — NOS4A2

You jump to the conclusion that I am simply parroting the prosecution. Understandable, since you simply regurgitate the unsupportable "witchhunt" claims of Trump and his propoganda machine.

I've actually considered the evidence, and I referenced some of it. Trump unequivocally lost the 2020 election, but he spread the falsehood that it was stolen.

He lied about what people said to him. Examples: Rusty Bowers and Brad Raffensberger.

He attempted to get the acting AG and deputy AG to lie: “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen". He refused, and Trump nearly replaced him with a sycophants that would do what he wanted.

He tried to pressure Pence into illegally rejecting electoral votes.

He pressured Raffensberger (among others) to overturn the election. When you previously claimed Trump was just asking for an investigation, I asked you to provide quotes of Trump's that supported your claim. You gave me nothing.

Trump was told by 2 AGs, White House Counsel, and 2 independent research organizations there wasn't sufficient fraud to overturn the election. He retold the lie about the State Farm allegation soon after Barr told him it was "bullshit", and repeated this lie on 1/6.

There can be no positive interpretation of Trump's spreading the falsehoods. Given his history of fraud (including, but not limited to,
Trump U, Trump foundation, tax fraud), and other obvious lies (e.g. denying knowledge of Cohen's payments to Stormy), the best explanation is that he knowingly lied. The alternative is that he's either irrational or exceedingly stupid. I've brought this up to you before, and you've never replied to it. So which is it? What positive explanation can you put forth?

I haven't even touched on his multiple instances of. obstruction of justice. Mueller vol ume 2 describes the evidence for his obstruction of his investigation. Barr's dropping the case doesn't mean the crimes didn't occur. Go ahead and defend the legality of what Trump did regarding Manafort - after you read the report. (Restain yourself from excusing Trump's criminality based on him being pissed off about the Russia investigation; obstruction of justice does not become acceptable on the basis of righteous indignation).

He clearly obstructed justice when he defied a lawful subpoena for classified documents. He hid documents from his lawyer. Rather than put forward a real defense, he lied to the public about the search, labelling it a "raid" and falsely claimed agents were authorized to kill him. Those two lies aren't crimes, but they are examples of his approach: commit crimes while inflating his cult members with propoganda.

You've alleged Smith's prosecution was "political" - but there's no evidence of it. Crimes were committed, crimes were investigated, and 4 grand juries agreed. Unprecedented? Sure. We've never before had a criminal as President.

What exculpatory evidence has Trump put forth? Nothing. He just says everyone else lied, and he repeays the lie about the 2020 election being stolen. Of course, he has some level of immunity - but immunity doesn't equate to innocence.

Now make your case. Point to evidence that supports your allegations. If you don't, it will be glaringly obvious which one of us is depending solely on "propoganda".

I've seen the theory that it's a loyalty check, but also a way to create cover for other appointments. The Senate can reject Gaetz and show they have "some backbone," and then bow on everything else with some credibility.

Given just how hated Gaetz is by his own party, I wouldn't be shocked if this one actually fails, although it might very well go through. If he is withdrawn, maybe Giuliani can go in!

He will have to hitch hike to work, Shaye Moss has just taken possession of his Merc.

you simply regurgitate the unsupportable "witchhunt" claims of Trump and his propoganda machine. — Relativist

Never! Who would ever do such a thing?

Trump wrote Wednesday in a post on his Truth Social platform. “Matt will end Weaponized Government, protect our Borders, dismantle Criminal Organizations and restore Americans’ badly-shattered Faith and Confidence in the Justice Department.”

Gaetz said in a post on X that it would “be an honor to serve” in the role. — CNN

How delusional are these people? Which Criminal Organizations they are talking about? Which Weaponized Government? Might not be speaking of the DoD. Repeal the Patriot Act or what? Very unlikely.

As I estimate, Trump and the Trump yes-men will create a huge clusterfuck of government inability. Yes, the Trump voters just like that, but in the end nothing will happen. Trump will just have a temper tantrum because nothing has happened. He will fire people as long as there is loyal Trumpists willing to take the position.

Universally the only department that can successfully make for example large cuts is the military as the organization is trained to take orders from above. No other government service or department actually works that way. Typically, and I'll use my country Finland here as an example (as this really is an universal response), if the government wants to cut the budgets of municipalities or provincial government, the first response is always to shut down public libraries. Why? Because Finns just love libraries even to day! In short, government bureaucracy will fight any administration by simply making it hell for the ordinary citizens in order for the citizens in response to get angry at the administration.

Heck, it's just four years.

You say that what he wanted Pence to do was illegal, but don’t mention that they change the electoral count law after the fact to “clarify” that the vice-presidents role is strictly ceremonial. You won’t mention Dems doing trying the same thing in 2016.

He “clearly” obstructed justice but he was never tried nor convicted for such a crime.

Jack Smith was a private citizen unlawfully appointed to prosecute a former president. How’d that work out? Smith himself stated he wanted the prosecutions to influence the election, and that’s all it turned out to be. The prosecutions failed and the election interference failed. No crimes were committed. You have nothing.

Exculpatory evidence was refused or otherwise not reviewed by the corrupt prosecution. Why would they do that? Why won’t you mention this?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernard-kerik-donald-trump-records-may-not-have-been-reviewed-by-special-counsel/

As for the Raffensperger call, just read the transcript instead of the one-sided mischaracterization and out-of-context quotes.

All you’re doing is repeating the claims of prosecutors, all of whom have either failed in their prosecution or have been found to be corrupt. Still, the one-sided story prevails.

As I estimate, Trump and the Trump yes-men will create a huge clusterfuck of government inability. Yes, the Trump voters just like that, but in the end nothing will happen. Trump will just have a temper tantrum because nothing has happened. He will fire people as long as there is loyal Trumpists willing to take the position. — ssu

I think the case can be made, not that anyone will listen to it, that Trump's major motivation is hatred and vengeance of those that prosecuted him - which is, basically, the Government! Trump hates the Government, he hates an independent judiciary and departmental secretaries who (as he sees it) ignore his wishes. So his major focus is on destroying the Government. Trump is 'the enemy within' that he kept ranting about pre-election. And he's been given a mandate to do it.

So saying it is "glaringly obvious" that Trump committed crimes just doesn't work.... — NOS4A2

So. nos4, Trump did not and has not committed any crimes?

In short, government bureaucracy will fight any administration by simply making it hell for the ordinary citizens in order for the citizens in response to get angry at the administration. — ssu

"The bureaucracy will fight back." Yep. So what? The bureaucracy needs to be trimmed. Of course it will fight back. The national debt is not even a partisan issue, it's an economic issue.

Serial killer John Wayne Gacy did not transition for "non-criminal" to "criminal" when he was convicted. He became a criminal when he committed his first murder. Similarly with Trump - it's his crimes that make him a criminal, not convictions. Constraints on prosecution (or immunity from prosecution) don't erase that.

You say that what he wanted Pence to do was illegal, but don’t mention that they change the electoral count law after the fact to “clarify” that the vice-presidents role is strictly ceremonial. You won’t mention Dems doing trying the same thing in 2016. — NOS4A2

It was unquestionably illegal, and even John Eastman (who was pushing for it) acknowledged that the Supreme Court would rule it illegal if it came to them. The changes to the electoral count act simply added language to make it explicit, thus preventing a future lawyer like Eastman from pushing it. (Eastman was disbarred for his role, and is under indictment. Trump is likely to pardon him from the federal crimes, but that won't erase the fact that he committed crimes).

He “clearly” obstructed justice but he was never tried nor convicted for such a crime. — NOS4A2

Barr chose to protect Trump from prosecution. That doesn't imply Trump didn't commit the acts. As I said, read Mueller volume 2 - the evidence is strong. Over 1000 former federal prosecutors agreed the evidence was more than enough for an indictment. Would he be convicted if there were a trial? We can only judge based on the available evidence, and there is zero exculpatory evidence - so there is no basis to assume otherwise. But criminal prosecution is off the table, so it's moot. That doesn't make his acts moot. They reflect on his low character, and flouting the law ; it demonstrates he's unfit to serve as President..

Jack Smith was a private citizen unlawfully appointed to prosecute a former president. How’d that work out? Smith himself stated he wanted the prosecutions to influence the election, and that’s all it turned out to be. The prosecutions failed and the election interference failed. No crimes were committed. You have nothing. — NOS4A2

The Supreme Court, in US v Nixon accepted the appointment of special counsels, and such appointments have been made for decades. Canon's novel ruling treating SCOTUS language on this as dicta (non-binding). It's likely her ruling would be overturned by SCOTUS if it were to get to them. It's not disputed that an AG can hire staff and delegate investigative and prosecutorial authority. Had Garland hired Smith at 10:00AM, and then at 10:01AM appointed him to his investigative/prosecutorial role, there would have been no basis to claim it unconstitutional. It's absurd to think such a sequence is necessary. But this is all beside the point, because it has zero bearing on the merits of the case (from a legal standpoint) and certainly no bearing on the criminality of the acts Trump committed - again, it shows his character and tendency to flout the law.

Exculpatory evidence was refused or otherwise not reviewed by the corrupt prosecution....https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernard-kerik-donald-trump-records-may-not-have-been-reviewed-by-special-counsel/ — NOS4A2

The article says,

"Special counsel Jack Smith's office may not have fully reviewed thousands of pages of records turned over by former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik before seeking an indictment of former President Donald Trump Tuesday, says Kerik's attorney, Tim Parlatore....A source close to Kerik's legal team said at the time that they believed the records, which include sworn affidavits from people raising concerns about the integrity of the 2020 presidential contest, show there was a genuine effort to investigate claims of voter fraud in the last election."

This is an allegation, not exculpatory evidence. The "evidence" (such as it is) was received, not refused, and it is merely alleged (by someone who has no way to know) that it was not reviewed. Given that it contains affidavits, why should we think it relevant? Numerous affidavits were submitted in swing states by people making allegations that were rooted in bias an prejudice, not facts (per court rulings). It's undisputed that there was an to investigate claims of voter fraud, but Trump clearly was looking only for an affirmative answer. DOJ didn't give him the answer he wanted, nor did the various state election officials. So he hired two independent companies to look for fraud (see this) but neither of them gave him the answer he wanted. If he was simply after the truth, he would have made this public. We didn't learn about this until the Jan 6 committee discovered and revealed it.

As for the Raffensperger call, just read the transcript instead of the one-sided mischaracterization and out-of-context quotes. — NOS4A2

I did. I have never claimed the one statement ("I want you to find 1170 votes...") necessarily implied a crime. Rather, I'm refuting the claim you made that Trump was merely calling to encourage them to investigate. Nowhere in the transcript does Trump say this. He was pressuring them to change the result, and ignoring the fact that Georgia officials had already conducted investigations, and DOJ staff had also reviewed it. So your claim suggests you are the one who didn't read it, and you also seem ignorant of the broader context.

All you’re doing is repeating the claims of prosecutors, — NOS4A2

You read my posts as carelessly as you read the Raffensberger transcript. I've repeatedly challenged you to read Mueller volume 2 and make a case for Trump being innocent of obstruction with regard to Manafort. You refuse.

You've provided no positive spin on Trump's hiding documents from his lawyer who was charged with returning documents demanded in the subpoena. You provided no positive spin on Trump lying about the specific allegations against Dominion and the Fulton County.

You've avoided commenting on the fact that Trump repeatedly, and aggressively spread the falsehood that the election was stolen. You've evaded my question about whether you account for this effort as lies, irrationality, or stupidity.

Relativist, I am sure I am not alone in applauding your efforts to bring truth to light, but NOS is a true Trump believer for whom facts and truth only matter to the extent that they can be used selectively in an attempt to defend him. To this end lies and falsehoods serve him just as well and usually even better. Like Trump he relies on the childish argumentative strategy of "I know you are but what am I?" accusing others of what he is accused of.

:100:

Out of respect I read all you’ve wrote but for future reference don’t bother. I already understand your characterization of the events, not only because you’ve told me, but because many people believe the same thing. It is a one-sided story. Everyone is already aware of it.

However it’s main flaw is that it leaves a lot out, purposefully. Anyone can find it. I’ve read the Mueller report, for example. It has become a sort of bible for truthers, even if they didn’t not find the coordination that everyone lied about for so long. But what I never read about is the subsequent reports concluding that they should not have started the investigation in the first place, or the details of how poorly the investigation was predicated and conducted, the significant errors and omissions, lies to the FISA courts, the unmasking, the Clinton plan, the anti-Trump bias, the suppressing of exculpatory evidence, and the odd reliance on investigative leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents.

Every time this info is added to the one-sided story it paints a clearer picture, and all of it looks absolutely evil and corrupt.

So don’t waste your energies on old news that no one is buying. We’ve got four more years and there will be lots to talk about!

First Trump was Hitler, now they’re kissing the rings. Ratings must be in the tank.

Is it a mental health crisis? Anyone feeling these symptoms?

My Rage Against Trump Supporters Is Killing Me

I worry, though, that before some disaster wipes us out, my rage will kill me first. At 68, I’m not sure my body can withstand another four years of the anxiety, stress, and sleep deprivation like I experienced during Trump’s first term. Just hearing his voice makes my head pound, reminding me that my mother and grandmother were both felled by strokes. Wishing his supporters a slow painful death will have no effect on them and will only raise my blood pressure. Besides, this kind of useless outrage only breeds despair and apathy — and that’s what our enemies are counting on.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/11/18/my-rage-against-trump-supporters-is-killing-me/

God, it's a bizarre spectacle to see adults get played like this. Propaganda has got them firmly by the emotions.

Said the frog in the water slowly coming to a boil: "Come on in the water is warm".

What pot do you suppose I'm boiling in?

What pot do you suppose I'm boiling in? — Tzeentch

You don't seem to understand the metaphor. The pot is not yet boiling. At this point it may seem welcomingly warm.

The pot is the USA. It is not about you, its about us.

Of course I understand the metaphor. I was just wondering why you aimed it at me. But ok, apparently it was about the US.

Whatever the case, grannies cramping themselves into an aneurysm is just sad on multiple levels. How many years on Earth does one need to understand the politicians' trick?

Whatever the case, grannies cramping themselves into an aneurysm is just sad on multiple levels. — Tzeentch

Tzeentch, you are clueless.

the politicians' trick? — Tzeentch

What trick? Are Trump's choices to head government agencies with incompetent sycophants a politician's trick? Are his threats to gut and eliminate government agencies a politician's trick? Are his threats against the media that does not show proper deference to him a politician's trick? Are his threats of retribution against his political enemies a politician's trick? Are his environmental policies a politician's trick?

If there is a politician's trick that Trump is using it is to say outrageous things that get attention and steer attention away from the real threads.

It's noteworthy that NY Times reports many Trump voters are thrilled with Trump's radical choice of nominees. Why? Because, they'll 'drain the swamp' and 'shake things up'. And this, from a purportedly conservative political party! Trump is a radical - not a political radical, because his motives aren't inspired by any political vision whatever, but all in service of his ego. And the masses are falling for it in droves, up until the time that Government really does fall apart and all their benefits stop.

Tzeentch, you are clueless. — Fooloso4

How come? :chin:

What trick? Are Trump's choices to head government agencies with incompetent sycophants a politician's trick? Are his threats to gut and eliminate government agencies a politician's trick? Are his threats against the media that does not show proper deference to him a politician's trick? Are his threats of retribution against his political enemies a politician's trick? Are his environmental policies a politician's trick?

If there is a politician's trick that Trump is using it is to say outrageous things that get attention and steer attention away from the real threads. — Fooloso4

The politician's trick is to get people emotionally invested and riled up, so they turn off their brains.

In case you didn't catch it, I'm responding to what posted about adults malding on social media about the election.

I think it's a sign of the unhealthy amounts of rage that were fostered by the Democratic Party, but obviously the Republicans have their own versions of it.

You accused Jack Smith of being corrupt- politically motivated. I asked for evidence, and you deflect. I've pointed to evidence of Trump's crimes, and you ignore that. Your deflect by rehashing a distorted view of issues with the 2016 Crossfire Hurricane investigation - which we've previously discussed, and I showed you your mistakes. You always drop out as soon as you run out of the Trumpian talking points - while never acknowledging the facts about your guy. So here we go again- I'll respond. Again. But I'll keep reminding you of what you're ignoring

However it’s main flaw is that it leaves a lot out, purposefully. Anyone can find it. I’ve read the Mueller report, for example. It has become a sort of bible for truthers, even if they didn’t not find the coordination that everyone lied about for so long. — NOS4A2

You evaded the point I made: volume 2 unequivocally shows that Trump obstructed the Mueller investigation. No refutation is possible. You claim "everyone lied", which is false. The Mueller investigation was impeccable. You change the subject because you aren't willing to deal with the fact of Trump's crimes.

There were errors made in Crossfire Hurricane (not in the Mueller investigation). The biggest errors were the 2 Carter Page FISA warrants. The net result: Page (and only Page) was treated unjustly. But it had no material effect on the investigation, and didn't reflect on the merits. The FBI never got any information through their surveilance of him that influenced the course of the investigation. Obviously, you use the FISA errors as an excuse to ignore the crimes by the Trump team.

It's established fact that Russia worked to get Trump elected, and that one or more people in the campaign knew Russia was helping (and failed to report this contact as required by law) that Manafort gave polling data to Russia, and Russia told him what they wanted Trump to do. This means the law was broken by one or more people in the campaign. You ignore this.

Durham alleged there was "confirmation bias", but never suggested an investigation was unwarranted.

But what I never read about is the subsequent reports concluding that they should not have started the investigation in the first place

You're making a desperate attempt to rationalize ignoring Trump's crimes. You're wrong: Durham agreed that an investigation was warranted. He merely opined that it should have been opened as a preliminary investigation.It's a minor difference. FBI would still have uncovered the same set of facts, and a full investigation would have been opened eventually - because crimes had definitely been committed.

...or the details of how poorly the investigation was predicated and conducted, the significant errors and omissions, lies to the FISA courts, the unmasking, the Clinton plan, the anti-Trump bias, the suppressing of exculpatory evidence, and the odd reliance on investigative leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents.

Errors were made, but only one process crime was identified in Crossfire Hurricane. The "Clinton plan" was an invention of the Russians (I detailed this the last time you and I discussed it. As usual, you stop replying to an issue when backed into a corner).

It's actually pretty hilarious that a guy who so frequently complains of the influence of propoganda is so strongly influenced by the Trump propoganda. Truth doesn't really seem to matter to you.

Mueller was appointed specifically because he fired Comey- absolutely giving the appearance that Trump was obstructing the investigation. Durham had only praise for Mueller.

It is curious why an innocent man would impede a lawful investigation. We'll never know why, but it's unequivocally established that Trump engaged in multiple instances of obstruction. You choose to hide from this truth; you refuse to face the harsh facts that Trump obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation, and did so again in the classified documents case - another of his crimes you choose to ignore.

You alleged Smith's investigations were corrupt. You provided no evidence to support that claim. Trump was indicted for fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud, to overturn the 2020 election. The evidence is strong, so of course you ignore it.

I've asked you repeatedly to how you account for Trump pushing the falsehood that the 2020 election was stolen. As I've said, it seems the only possible explanations are that 1) he knew he lost, but lied; 2) he's irrational; 3) he's stupid.
Pick one, or come up with another explanation.

You voted to put a morally bankrupt criminal into the White House and to let him escape accountability. Own it.

Depending on what happens, I think the US is approaching the point where it simply has to acknowledge that Donald Trump is above the law.

If he succeeds in getting his hush-money conviction overturned by presidential fiat, and also makes good on his promise to pardon most or all of those convicted for January 6th crimes, then he will establish this as a fact. And now he's also armed with the Supreme Court decision that any official acts (or 'whatever Trump wants') will be immune from prosecution.

The mueller investigation took over crossfire hurricane. They took jurisdiction over the investigation. They employed people who were involved in crossfire hurricane. The report doesn’t mention any of the failures, omissions, the disparate treatment of the two campaigns, and the bias the subsequent investigations uncovered. That might have been pertinent info, you’d think.

I’m glad Trump fired comey. It was a made up story, an incompetent investigation, and Comey lied to the president, his boss, that he wasn’t under investigation. Both subsequent investigators rebuked him.

The only victims are those they targeted and the millions of Americans they defrauded with your conspiracy theory for years on end. You don’t care about nor mention any of this, but we all know why.

Anyways, lying by omission doesn’t service your argument well. You can’t just keep sweeping this stuff under the carpet, especially when we all know what’s under there. You let yourself be duped by a corrupt political investigation because it affected people you didn’t like. Worse, President Trump is the most investigated person in human history and you still have nothing on him.

Linda McMahon for Secretary of Education and Dr Oz for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. :chin:

Anyways, lying by omission doesn’t service your argument well. — NOS4A2

I'm not aware that I omitted any relevant facts that I haven't dealt with in prior discussions with you. On the other hand, you're repeating claims I've previously refuted, and have failed to address the crimes by Trump that I brought up: obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation (I specifically pointed to Manafort) obstruction of justice regarding the lawful search warrant for classified docs, and election fraud. I've asked you at least 4 times to Trump's falsehoods about the 2020 election: liar, irrational, stupid, or ...what? Make the case for your choice. I also asked you to back up your claim, that in his call to Raffensberger, Trump was simply asking for fraud claims to be investigated. Find quotes of Trump that show this.

After (finally) responding to those crimes, go ahead and bring up some facts you are accusing me of lying about "by omission". My guess is that I've previously addressed everything you might bring up (I'm skeptical you actually read my responses).

What I don't understand is why Trump voters are so eager to have more inflation.

Talk about the obsession of having more sales taxes and making things more costly to the consumer. I thought Americans didn't like inflation.

Feels like with Trump, assuming he can deliver, the US is up for something as wonderful as the British experienced with their Brexit. I remember how excited the Trumpist were about Brexit. Oh how they made their Island nation independent and great again, with having all the freedom in the World to make prosperous deals in the World without the bureaucratic evil EU.

But perhaps this is in the realm of things like the obsession to pay the most for health care anywhere for a mediocre health care system, something I cannot wrap my mind around.

But perhaps this is in the realm of things like the obsession to pay the most for health care anywhere for a mediocre health care system, something I cannot wrap my mind around. — ssu

Let's not insult health care workers. The care is fine just not accessible because too many people are uninsured.

Let's not insult health care workers. The care is fine just not accessible because too many people are uninsured. — Benkei

AND the insurance companies make a profit in everything. That also puts the price up.

Now some might argue that Trumps 10% tariffs on everybody else and 60% tariffs on China is just the negotiating tactic for the start as to wake up other states to notice that Trump is back in town.

But I don't get it how this would work for China. It's a totalitarian state. If Trump poses these difficulties, it's not a difficulty for the Chinese communists, because they're not elected out if the economy hits hard times. And they just can blame it as the imperialist aggression of the US. They (the Chinese) have to have noticed that Trump is a hostile partner when it comes to trade issues. Hence they just have a perfect culprit for all the economies problems with Trump. And then likely there emerges just huge trade around by third countries. Likely Trump's crownies will get exceptions, perhaps Elon can say something about stuff that hurts Tesla to Trump while he's rearranging everything better for himself and his companies in DOGE.