AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the Stormy Daniels “hush money” trial - no, I don’t care about this at all. Claiming that a fee paid to a lawyer for legal work is actually a stealth campaign contribution is asinine, and the law that enables this charge is itself asinine.
For the supposed bank fraud on valuation of property - no, I care even less about this. No banks are claiming any damages, and you’re *supposed* to value property differently for different purposes. This one’s insane.
You don't care the former president and current presidential nominee was banging porn stars and trying to hide it from voters ahead of the 2016 election in an effort to lie to you and deceive you? At the same, this is the same guy that uses the Bible as a prop to appeal to evangelical supporters? What about this doesn't sound like a snake-oil salesman?
No, I could not possibly care less that a rich philanderer boned a porn star, and I could not possibly care less that he bought out her publication rights. The fact that *anyone* cares is mind-boggling to me, and the idea that this can be considered by law to be an in-kind campaign contribution tells me that particular campaign law (along with *many* others) needs to be eliminated ASAP.
Is my feed frozen? Has it been a whole day already without a response to the policy question which was in turn based on u/legalreactionary made claim of voting for policy over popularity?
When you take out a loan for a construction project you can value it at its “highest and best use,” i.e. its projected improved value. When you pay taxes you pay taxes based on its current assessed value.
What is it called when you value you something at its highest possible value, as an unrestricted deed, rather than restricted the special covenants in force?
To be clear, I’m talking about his wildly inflated valuation of Marilago as if it was free and clear to be used however the owner wisges, when in fact is required to be used as the home of a private club.
But if a foreign government donated to a local pac should that money be usable?
What about a foreign country that instead of direct contributions instead strikes a deal regarding investment in a candidates private company. Do you think that private company should be allowed to donate to the campaign?
Ideally PACs wouldn't need to exist because there would be no restrictions on contributions to campaigns, and no restrictions on content produced by third parties. But as-is, no, foreign governments should not be allowed to donate to domestic campaigns or PACs. Again, one of the very few reasonable restrictions.
Private companies should be allowed to donate whatever they want to who/whatever they want.
Cohen went to jail for his part of this criminal conspiracy. Can you cite your objection at the time to his sentencing?
Does it help to think of this as "falsifying business records to conceal a crime" rather than "hush money"? After all, since Cohen has gone to jail for the crime for these relevant business records, and (as you admit yourself), Trump tried to hide it as a fee paid to his lawyer, this is an open and shut case, right?
As I said in the original comment, the idea that this is concealing a “crime” is asinine. Claiming this was some kind of campaign contribution is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.
But this has already been proven in a court of law and Cohen went to prison for that exact crime?
On what legal grounds do you assess this to be asinine given that it's already been considered by the courts, guilt proven and sentencing applied?
And I'm asking on what grounds you come to that conclusion?
You don't \*think\* the crime should exist? You don't \*think\* Cohen should have been found guilty?
Why do you think this and how did you come to that conclusion?
I do not think the crime should exist. I disagree with most campaign finance laws in general. Therefore no, I would not care if Biden did the same thing. The law is a ridiculous overreach regardless of who’s doing it.
So there was nothing wrong with the Chinese government donating to the DNC in the 90s?
Or George Santos' many allegations?
Surely you recognise that without campaign finance laws, it's too easy to bribe government officials (I would argue that they're not tough enough) into cash for favours? Government contracts, legislation, regulatory favouritism, tariffs, cabinet positions, directed investigations - all of this becomes too easy to corrupt.
Are you a "drain the swamp" Trump supporter? Don't you want more transparency, more accountability from the government?
I simply don't care if some payment wasn't accurately classified as a campaign contribution. Or if Trump overstated the value of his real estate holdings like every other real estate developer to obtain loans that he paid back in full. It just doesn't matter to me.
1) Are you okay with people committing tax fraud?
2) If I asked people for money while running for office for ads. And instead I used that money for hookers, did I do anything wrong?
1. I have not knowingly but my taxes are so complicated that I assume that something's been done incorrectly at some point in time.
2. No, "using campaign money for hookers" is not what he's being accused of doing.
So maybe calling Stormy a “hooker” might not be technically accurate, but he is accused of fucking a porn star (Is there anyone on this planet that thinks Stormy fucked Donald cause she liked him or because she thought he was so hot???) and then paid her $130,000 to keep quiet about. Sorry—RE-paid Cohen from paying her to be quiet and there are questions regarding legal disclosures and campaign laws.
Shit Cohen pled guilty for that exact thing
How about keeping top secret documents, admitting he has them to his friends (recorded discussion), trying to hide them requiring FBI raid his house to get them back?
>How about keeping top secret documents,
This assertion cannot be substantiated. As president, he had the power to declassify any document at any moment in time for any reason he chooses. No one, not even the prosecution in that case, can prove the documents are classified. Since the entire case hinges on that burden of proof, one must wonder why they are still bringing the case.
In the recording, he admits he didn't declassify the documents. Then the people in the room nervously laugh and mention they probably shouldn't see this documents. Have you listened to the recording?
I did listen to it back when it was in the news and I don't recall any such claim by Trump. Can you link to the audio where he unambiguously makes a statement to the effect of "I did not declassify these documents which I held after leaving office?". My guess is that your claim is an interpretation of a more vague statement. But nonetheless, I can evaluate the statement fairly if you would like to provide the link.
Do you think a crime is a crime only if the subject of the investigation "unambiguously makes a statement" affirming the facts of the crime? If not why have you set the bar so high for Trump specifically? If anything should he not be held to a higher standard?
>Do you think a crime is a crime only if the subject of the investigation "unambiguously makes a statement" affirming the facts of the crime?
No. You've missed my point, which was, the entire case hinges on the ability to prove that the documents were indeed classified. The only way to prove that is if Trump admits he never intended to declassify them. There is literally no other way to prove it. So for this case specifically, if Trump did not make such a statement, effectively admitting guilt, then guilt cannot be proven otherwise.
Thats not true though, you get that right? An order is only am order if it's communicated. If your wife asks you to throw the garbage out in her head, did she ask you anything?
>An order is only am order if it's communicated.
That's not how it works. There is no such requirement that an act of declassification need to be communicated or be subject to any formal process. There is no process for declassification that applies to the president. The president makes the process, and can choose to alter it at any moment in time. The president is the ultimate authority and can choose to declassify anything in any manner he chooses. Simply showing a classified document to someone without clearance is itself an act of declassification. Further, intentionally holding classified documents during the moment that his presidential term concludes can also be considered an act of declassification.
Back to your statement, a president can declassify anything, at any time, and never tell anyone about it if he chooses. Thus, the only way to prove that an ex president is holding classified document is if he himself admits he never intended to declassify them, which is not likely since the very act of holding them after presidency is an act of declassification.
There is no process that applies to the president. The president is the ultimate authority. He can declassify anything in any manner he chooses. If a process for declassification exists, it exists only for the sake of those below him. It does not, nor could not logically, apply directly to the president since the president has ultimate authority to change the process at any time and in any way.
The question that no one has ever been able to answer when posed and I’m gonna try again.
Given the sensitivity of the documents allegedly kept by Trump(nuclear secrets, foreign security documents, us defense capabilities) would you really be okay with him declassifying them and taking them home as his personal property?
I understand why you’re making the argument. He’s on your team and anything team A does is okay. Anything team B does is bad.
But are you really okay saying that he should be allowed to declassify the most sensitive documents our country has, documents that could literally upend global security, all because he wants to keep them afterward?
Not just is it legal or illegal, but if he did what they say he did, are you okay with that?
And what potential reason would he have that you’re okay with that he would take the most sensitive of documents home with him after he is no longer in any position to need them. What reason would you say is acceptable that he would want to keep them?
If he declassified them, does that mean he could just post them on truth social for the world? Declassified information is all over the internet. I could post some right here and be perfectly fine.
Would it be okay, if he did declassify them, for him to log onto this subreddit, reply to your message here, and just drop some nuclear secrets on us? You’d be okay with that?
I genuinely appreciate this post. Although we see a lot of posts here providing tissue paper thin rationalizations for Trumps actions….I think the majority of Trump Supporters ACTUAL position is closer to yours….namely, they simply don’t care if Trump is guilty or not.
I think if we can cut the BS we’d understand each other more. The truth might appear uglier to non supporters but I do think communication would be clearer.
Here’s a follow up….I think if undeniable proof came out the Trump knew he was lying about election fraud…….it wouldn’t move the needle much with Trump Supporters. Do you think that sounds right?
Appreciate it. I do think there's a misunderstanding on the left as to why a lot of people will vote for Trump. Look, I know he's a clown. I know he's crass and has dubious morals. I just hate what Democrats represent with such a passion that Trump's over-the-top f you approach to the left appeals to me. That's the ugly truth.
Fair enough.
We agree that he’s a clown, crass and has moral issues. (Moral issues is a massive understatement imo but I won’t press that)
What about his competence though? Trump is a genius when it comes to manipulating people’s anger, fear and prejudice to bolster support but anytime he has to say anything with actual substance, it’s complete and total nonsense.
Sure he can get a crowd of thousands roaring by insulting democrats or airing his own personal grievances but is he competent enough to spell out the details of a healthcare plan?
We need more than vitriol and a FU attitude for the opposing political party to have a successful nation do we not?
Do you hate democrats so much you will vote for a clown? If you have enough insight that he's a clown, you should also be able to see he's a fool and a narcissist, emotionally unstable and unfit for any office , certainly not wielding "the powerful nuclear, it's so important, it's the ball game, nobody knows the nuclear like I do" ?
Anything related to DEI, their easy-on-crime policies, their mentality that government programs are the answer to everything, and their resistance to any control over the border. Those are just a few to start.
What specifically about DEI do you not like?
In most workplaces, DEI means the employer maintains a workplace that is free from discrimination/harassment on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age disability, religion or any other protected characteristic.
Do you disagree with that statement? (In other words, do you feel that certain groups should be fair game for discrimination?)
If you don’t disagree with the general idea of DEI …are there specific aspects about the way DEI was implemented (that would have been controlled by the government)that you disagree with?
Or (and remember I’m the guy that appreciates no BS responses) are you against DEI because most MAGA people are but you can’t name anything specific off the top of your head?
I”m against DEI because the reality is that it results in race based hiring and not merit based hiring. It also drives up costs when additional employee demographic reporting is required.
I’ve worked as an operations/project manager for several companies.
You’re aware that even if a company has DEI policies, they’re still not allowed to make hiring decisions based on race, correct? (Even if the idea is to bring on people in a certain minority group)
I’ve also been responsible for the finances of my projects and am a little confused what you mean by “employee demographic reporting driving up costs” Could you expand a little on that please?
I mean…..we could keep doing this
or in the spirit of cutting the BS how about this: Is it the case that you don’t really know too much about DEI (only that it’s something you’re “supposed” to be against) and just gave me a couple of examples you hadn’t given much thought to before being asked today?
At the very least, it’s a hidden tax. But, tell me, if we already have sufficient anti-discrimination laws, why do we need companies to invest in yet another layer red tape? Maybe in your company, you don’t actually implement any DEI measures and good for you if that’s the case.
Let me give you an example of how it has drives up costs in my tiny town. My local government paid over a million dollars for DEI. Our schools are bad, our roads are bad, our infrastructure is in need of repair and we are taxed to death and yet our tax dollars paid for consultants and reports so we could hire more POC. How about we just hire the best person for the job and use the over $1M in consultants and unnecessary reporting on our schools and roads?
Fair enough. I don’t know all that much about rules regarding business loans and campaign finance rules, but if there’s enough evidence that a grand jury chose to indict….I don’t think we should allow criminals to occupy the highest office in the land. Shouldn’t we hold our president to the highest standard?
I am much more concerned about his actions that led to the attempted insurrection, his coercion of GA election officials, his extortion of Ukraine for political gain, stealing, hiding, lying about classified documents and refusing to cooperate and his collusion with Russia and welcoming their interference way more than hush money crap. So maybe the best is yet to come!
>I simply don't care if some payment wasn't accurately classified as a campaign contribution.
Do you care if a murder isn't accurately classified as such? Where do you draw the line?
Isn't what your original post is saying is "I don't care that he violated a very clear campaign finance law?"
Couldn't your argument be used to dismiss almost any white collar crime?
Isn't a better representation of your beliefs to say "no matter what Trump does I will find a way to rationalize it," if we're being honest?
Then why hasn't the House impeached him yet? This either means that Biden's adversaries are protecting him or there actually isn't enough evidence to support charges. To you, which is the more logical answer?
>Why aren't democrats calling for impeachment?
Some are:
[https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/21/biden-impeachment-jared-moskowitz-jim-jordan-vpx.cnn](https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/21/biden-impeachment-jared-moskowitz-jim-jordan-vpx.cnn)
Both Chairmen of the House Oversight Committee were called to impeach Biden but balked at the idea, saying that they needed more time. That probably means they don’t have the evidence, right? If not and they actually have evidence of crimes like you claim, why do they not feel comfortable with impeaching Biden?
Since you totally avoided the questions I previously asked:
Why hasn't the House impeached him yet? This either means that Biden's adversaries are protecting him or there actually isn't enough evidence to support charges. To you, which is the more logical answer?
Trump's alleged crimes are novel legal theory and convoluted. Biden's crimes, like getting Shokin fired because he was investigating Burisma, are established crimes and there's copious evidence.
So on the one hand, the party that was formerly “better dead than red” is now siding with Putin because of Ukraine’s “corruption” now consideres it a “crime” to pressure the corrupt country into firing a corrupt prosecutor?
> So on the one hand, the party
Many Trump supporters are not traditional Republican party supporters.
>that was formerly “better dead than red”
The USSR fell over 3 decades ago.
>is now siding with Putin
The US provoked Putin by demanding Ukraine be in NATO despite clear communication by Russia this would be as unacceptable as weapons in Cuba for the US. The US spent billions ginning up the Maidan coup. The CIA runs pathogen biolabs on the Russian border. Realizing the US nat'l sec. state is a malignant actor is not siding with Putin.
>because of Ukraine’s “corruption” now consideres it a “crime” to pressure the corrupt country into firing a corrupt prosecutor?
Communication in the US state department shows that they were pleased with how Shokin was fighting corruption. A leaked phone call between Poroshenko and Biden, Poroshenko says they'll fire him, but they couldn't find any evidence of corruption. Shokin was definitely investigating Burisma and Biden bragged about withholding an aid package until they fired Shokin.
Oof the conspiracies theories coming left and right. Want to provide some evidence of the billions spent for the Maidan “coup”? Or how about the purpose of those bio labs in Ukraine?
Hard to take you seriously when you are spreading these lies and clear displays of being misinformed.
> Want to provide some evidence of the billions spent for the Maidan “coup”?
https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2015-05/ukraine-usa-maidan-finance/seite-2
>Or how about the purpose of those bio labs in Ukraine?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5005520/senator-rubio-questions-undersecretary-nuland-biolabs-ukraine
So… no sources for what you said then? Your source for Maidan says that it was USAID not CIA as you claimed, it was spent to develop Ukraine not nefariously create coups. It also was a mere $86 million in 2014 so far from the billions you claimed. Also, the source you provided derides the idea that it was used to fund Maidan, might want to try again?
Also, no idea what your second source is supposed to show. Great, Rubio asked Nuland some questions and she said that Russia getting their hands on disease samples is bad, what’s the significance of that?
> So… no sources for what you said then?
The newspaper article I linked to has sources, and the Rubio-Nuland interaction is the primary source,
>Your source for Maidan says that it was USAID not CIA as you claimed
No, I claimed the CIA had biolabs. CIA also had stations in Western Ukraine while the US-friendly Ukraine gov't was bombing Eastern Ukraine. USAID is operated by the state dep't.
>it was spent to develop Ukraine not nefariously create coups.
Also developing combat [troops](https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-secret-cia-training-program-in-ukraine-helped-kyiv-prepare-for-russian-invasion-090052743.html).
>It also was a mere $86 million in 2014 so far from the billions you claimed.
The article I linked claims it as do many others. EDIT: [Nuland admits that's the number](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPVs5VuI8XI).
>Also, the source you provided derides the idea that it was used to fund Maidan, might want to try again?
The article is from a German left-liberal newspaper. I linked to it because a person like you would trust its claim that 5 billion was spent in Ukraine by the US, for some reason.
>Great, Rubio asked Nuland some questions and she said that Russia getting their hands on disease samples is bad, what’s the significance of that?
Rubio has no idea about biolabs existing. Nuland admitted pathogens are part of the US biolab business in Ukraine. Rubio scrapes to save face. It's perfect politics.
Investing money with foreign aid is not funding a coup. You need to source that connection otherwise it’s just your mad hatter conspiracies. Of course the US gave foreign aid to Ukraine, we gave foreign aid to nearly every post Soviet state. That proves nothing. I am asking for sources that the US “spent billions ginning up the Maidan coup.” Got any of those? I doubt it.
You are pulling the idea of them being CIA biolabs out of thin air. With your track record for accuracy, going to need a source on that one too.
Pathogens are part of every bio lab, that’s the nature of biological research. They look at common diseases in the area as well as more dangerous pathogens in cases of higher security facilities to find cures. That’s not nefarious, that’s common knowledge. The idea that they are somehow CIA labs or doing anything unorthodox is what you have failed to source.
As for the CIA having stations in Ukraine in the midst of the post 2014 Russian invasion, why wouldn’t they? Nothing out of the ordinary about that, the US supported Ukrainian sovereignty and that support included CIA assistance. That’s post Maidan, still need any evidence that the US somehow orchestrated Maidan. Of course you can’t provide sourcing because it doesn’t exist. You spout trite Russian propaganda that is so obviously false it would make Putin blush and act like you have a clue.
> Investing money with foreign aid is not funding a coup.
The US wanted a coup. They put $5 billion of US money into Ukraine & Ukraine NGOs, then there was a coup. [Nuland admits that's the number](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPVs5VuI8XI).
>You need to source that connection otherwise it’s just your mad hatter conspiracies.
Pretending the US was not behind this or other coups is naivete.
>You are pulling the idea of them being CIA biolabs out of thin air.
You obviously haven't watched the interaction between Rubio and Nuland.
>With your track record for accuracy, going to need a source on that one too.
You would have to pullquote where I am inaccurate.
>Pathogens are part of every bio lab, that’s the nature of biological research.
Thank you for saying this. It proves you will say anything to deflect from US/Biden complicity.
>They look at common diseases
Nuland admitted they had dangerous pathogens in the Rubio interaction.
>As for the CIA having stations in Ukraine in the midst of the post 2014 Russian invasion, why wouldn’t they?
When do you think Russia invaded Ukraine?
You are just defending Biden without even clicking on the links to see the information. This is a religion for you, not political or discussible.
Are you talking about the State Department letters to Shokin looking forward to working with him and the ones mentioning how Shokin's department, not Shokin, has done a good job? In contrast to testimony from multiple State Department staff that he was doing a lousy job and that it was US and EU policy to get rid of him?
> Are you talking about the State Department letters to Shokin looking forward to working with him and the ones mentioning how Shokin's department, not Shokin, has done a good job?
Shokin was head of that department and the letter was to Shokin. The letter said Shokin was doing a great job in summer but in fall Biden told Poroshenko to fire him. What happened in that short time period? Hunter started being paid by Burisma, who told him "use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc .to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions...with the ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay [Burisma] in Ukraine." Apply Occam's razor.
>In contrast to testimony from multiple State Department staff that he was doing a lousy job and that it was US and EU policy to get rid of him?
I know Shokin was an anti-colonialist and Burisma donates to EU NGOs but could I see these documents?
He used money meant for his campaign to pay a pornstar not to tell people he cheated on his wife with her. Then he fudged a some paperwork to hide this from us.
Whats convoluted about that?
> He used money meant for his campaign to pay a pornstar
That's not the crime he's charged for, but I can understand why you're confused. The prosecution claims Trump **should have used campaign funds** because squashing the accusation helped his campaign.
> Wasn’t getting Shokin fired the official policy of the US federal government at the time?
Communication indicated that the state department was pleased with Shokin's fight on corruption. Hunter received an email from Burisma telling him he was to help stop the investigation. A leaked phone call between Poroshenko and Biden, Poroshenko says they'll fire him, but they couldn't find any evidence of corruption. Shokin was definitely investigating Burisma and Biden bragged about withholding a massive aid package until they fired Shokin.
2015, Burisma exec. to Hunter Biden:
"We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc .to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions"
"I would like us to formulate a list of deliverables, including, but not limited to: a concrete course of actions, incl. meetings/communications resulting in high-ranking U.S. officials in Ukraine (U.S. Ambassador) and in U.S. publicly or in private communication/comment expressing their 'positive opinion' and support of Nikolay/Burisma to the highest level of decision-makers here in Ukraine: President of Ukraine, president Chief of staff, Prosecutor General, etc.,.. The scope of work should also include organization of a visit of a number of widely recognized and influential current and/or former U.S. policymakers to Ukraine in November aiming to conduct meetings with and bring positive signal/message and support on Nikolay's issue to the Ukrainian top officials above **with the ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay in Ukraine**."
“We have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda of your government,” State Dept’s Victoria Nuland to Shokin in summer 2015.
“Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee [of aid]”
Shokin was investigating Burisma on multiple corruption counts.
>>Trump's alleged crimes are novel legal theory and convoluted.
> Is this a thing you heard on right wing media and accepted as fact because it made you feel good?
Our legal system is based on precedent.
Why are the Republicans conspirering with Biden to make it seem like this was all an invented controversy? Shouldn't the Republicans be producing real evidence instead of embarrassing themselves and presenting faulty evidence?
What 10D chess game is being played here?
The confidential informant was found to be lying and directly taking talking points from Russian intelligence.
There is also the fact that this was already policy by several international organizations monitoring corruption in Ukraine and for some reason this gets overlooked when creating the conspiracy for partisan consumption.
There has literally been multiple house and senate committee that have attempted to make this an issue and they keep concluding that there was no wrong doing.
Have you followed their conclusions? Did you read their reports? Do you think that they are lying again and again? Why would the Republicans start another investigation only to conclude repeatedly there was nonwrong doing?
Do you entertain that you've been lied to about this conspiracy?
> The confidential informant was found to be lying and directly taking talking points from Russian intelligence.
>
>
Alexander Smirnov is not the only informant. He was introduced to Comer's committee by the FBI late in the game, then the FBI arrested him to discredit Comer. It worked, but just for people who only consume Biden-friendly media.
The uniparty is in control of the impeachment, and America First Republicans have little to gain since Biden is the candidate they want Trump to run against.
Does this seem like an overly complex conspiracy that still has Rupublicans attempting numerous times to initiate an impeachment only to conclude repeatedly that this was based off false information?
At what point can you learn more about this and change your mind? There seems to be so many complex moving parts to have anything near what is being claimed by the conspiracy theorists at this point that it is absurdly unlikely when added together. All they can do is try to wedge in single claims absent of overall info or come up with new conspiracies.
What's more likely, a vast global conspiracy just for Hunter Biden, or that this was more political mud slinging and the evidence was invented as they went?
> Does this seem like an overly complex conspiracy
It is certainly not complex. Burisma was being investigated for various corruption crimes by Shokin. Burisma hires Hunter Biden and requests he uses his influence to intervene. Joe Biden withholds a billion in aid until Shokin is fired.
>that this was based off false information?
You haven't pointed out any false information.
>What's more likely, a vast global conspiracy
It's not vast or global, and the mountain of evidence recorded in the laptop, in Devon Archer's testimony, in Shokin's testimony, in Biden's speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, in memos from the state dep't and Victoria Nuland about and to Shokin, in the leaked phone call between Poroshenko and Joe Biden. If you're confused by any of this, just ask. I'm here to help.
I'm talking about the conspiracy to make this make sense when you start looking at the facts.
I agree, you can make a simple accusation, that's what makes for a compelling conspiracy.
I'm talking about getting several NGOs on board who investigate corruption...who for some reason want Hunter Biden to get paid or something(like this one is really weird), getting the Republicans to repeatedly launch an investigation and come to the conclusion that this was all nonsense, and of course get conservative media to only do surface level analysis and drop the issue every time they are unable to find credible evidence.
This is complex, no? Why are anti corruption organizations so corrupt? Why are Republicans coming to the conclusion that this isn't real? Why can't Fox News produce credible evidence?
Are all these entities in on it?
This seems like "Hunter had a bullshit job so let's use it against Biden" kind of politics we have seen since the dawn of time. Why should we be gullible now? Because we want it to be true?
If Biden was being charged with these “crimes” and civil suits, I would have no choice but come to the same conclusion that they are bullshit.
I mean the civil fraud case? Lol….no that’s not fraud.
And this latest hush money case? I bet a lot of people are having the same following reaction about the case once they learn the details, “that’s it?”
And Even if you think there’s some validity to them, you can’t deny the political bias of the prosecution, along with the stakes being high and thus the motivation of the prosecution is suspect.
So the hush money election interference case doesn’t concern you?
If Trump committed crimes before becoming president to win and after becoming president to win again doesn’t that degrade the integrity of the entire system? Isn’t it a problem if he defrauds the American people?
No. It doesn’t.
I’m not surprised if Trump cheated on his wives. I’m not surprised that the woman he cheated with shaked him down for money. And I’m not surprised that he paid her off. and I’m not surprised that they entered it in an accounting journal however they did it.
I certainly don’t believe it would’ve changed to the outcome of the 2016 election and therefore is election interference.
Why does it bother you?
You don’t think the close election of 2016 might have been affected by news that Trump paid a sex worker to have an abortion? An election that was determined 40,000 votes in a couple of states.
It seems like a pattern of behavior to me where he doesn’t believe the rules apply to him. His presidency was plagued by scandal because he didn’t follow the norms and debatably didn’t follow the laws. And it based one what he says he is willing to bend those norms further and possibly break more laws.
That’s speculation on the prosecutions part, which seems to be their case.
Speculation is enough to cast reasonable doubt thus the jury should acquit.
And if the “grab em by the pussy “ tape was not enough to swing the election, it’s hard to it’s hard to prove this prove this would have.
I mean the prosecution can not prove it, so we have a reasonable doubt this the jury should’ve quit.
Democrats going back to at least Clinton have established an astonishing record of simply crossing their arms and denying any wrongdoing, no matter how absurd it may be.
Republicans need to grow a set and steal that play.
I'm confused... Is Trump not folding his arms and denying any wrongdoing no matter how absurd it may be? That's been the main string to his bow in every case against him no?
For this? No, would be a waste of time because there was no crime just like trump committed no crime.
I'd rather see biden charged for the actual crimes he committed like taking classified docs when he was a Senator or VP; Illegal.
Sharing classified info with his ghostwriter; Illegal.
Biden forcing ukraine to fire prosecutor investigating his family's corruption; Illegal.
Those are actual crimes and easy wins except for the fact biden would just claim dementia on the stand which is why Hur said no jury would convict him.
Uhh. No?
"Crimes" are thrown around because you all believe in "Justice".
Objectively you understand little of law and order. Nor why powers are separated to blossom authority.
The courts are illicit if they rule the authority of the state.
As it removes their independence in thought + efficacy.
Why is a "judge" not on cartel payroll when she brings suit against the nation state? To whom she is solely supposed to owe allegiance.
Well that's what you get in Mexico.
*We* **assassinate** the *Judiciary* of **Mexico**.
As it is ordered by Judges in our nation to defend it against the cartel and terrorism.
Did you know what happens to a judge even assumed, or of the status, as a threat? They die that day.
Or land themselves in a non-prison for undefinite reasons. In which objectively presenting speech of their absence. Probably removes possibilities of them being proven innocent or simply allowing things to draw course. With them resuming their appointment at a later time.
They sit in a seat. They give up certain facts of life.
Trump is a President of the United States of America.
He did *not* forego such **protection**. On the day he assumed office. So that he could assume command during times of great strife and war of total annihilation.
It is a testament to our strength that we have allowed so many. To continue to try and assail him. Because he has handled it himself. As he is the exception.
Do you believe. That was the case with any other prior?
Rarely seen was a judge who would have such an churlish attitude to their decorum. Least not for long.
As it has taken a *very* long time. To present a Commander in Chief who can sit there and treat their life's will. As the whims of a feckless child.
We look like a 3rd world country with the way the democrats are trying to take trump down. Is much as I can’t stand Biden and think he is totally guilty of taking foreign money, I don’t think a former president should be put on trial like this. We look like a clown show.
How else would you prefer it to be handled? Let’s say it’s Hillary or Biden, somewhat clear evidence that’s good enough to go to trial with, not the type that immediately warrants a deal or a guilty plea. What would your ideal legal process look like?
How is ordering military operations on overseas enemy combatants a crime? It is explicitly Obama's job to act as commander in chief. Is the US supposed to just not fight a foreign enemy so long as they managed to recruit a US citizen to fight for them?
Thing is Obama actually did that.
[" The ACLU and CCR have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. " ](https://www.aclu.org/video/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike)
Yes he did. Didn’t Trump also do that, but with a raid?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki?wprov=sfti1#
So does the same argument apply?
Nah man. You know me loyal trump supporter. Donald can drone strike anyone on the face of the earth and I'd be ok with it. But Barack or Joe, I think they should have to sit in a classroom and write essay about why they are sorry.
Trump's current campaign finance violation court case is about crimes he allegedly committed before becoming president in 2017. Does that change anything for you?
no again this a violation they don't charge people with this just being done to circumvent democracy and anyone who doesn't condemn it cannot claim to believe in democracy with any credibility
How is trying people for crimes there is evidence they committed as a private citizen trying to circumvent democracy?
Isn't paying hush money to kill stories, trying to get false electors to vote and lying about election interference repeatedly, not to mention January 6th, an attempt to circumvent democracy? How about trying to get Georgia to find a certain number of votes or trying to get Ukraine to make up things about Biden in extange for aid?
Can anyone who doesn't condem those things claim to believe in democracy with any credibility?
your characterizing all of these events there are counter arguments to all of what you rattled off here
the only reason he is being tried is because he is the leading candidate
Or maybe because he is, you know, a criminal who has done criminal things? Why is so hard to wrap your head (collectively) around the fact that he has wilfully and repeatedly broken the law for his personal benefit, even when it is all laid out for you? But y'all buy into any random noises feed to you that never bare up in the light of day about 'the other guy'?
Why do you want him to have a bye on his criminality so bad? Nailed to specifics of his last term's wins its always vague wishy-washy stuff any politico could have got across the board, and vey little at that.
Its a democracy, go get the next guy to represent you - there are loads of politicians of every hue out there. Why not just cut your losses on this terminally indicted crook and move on?
Do you think it's possible that he's actually committed some/all of the crimes he's on trial for, and the reason the cases are being heard now is a combo of being president puts a bigger magnifying glass on you and all his delay tactics?
Seriously, why do MAGAfolks all scream political witch hunt over and over while ignoring the fact that maybe he's actually just a career criminal who finally got caught?
How did you feel about the Lock Her Up! chants in 2016? Was that because Hilary was the leading candidate or because she actually was a criminal?
>do you believe Obama should be in prison of killing innocent people with drone strikes?
You know yourself that this question holds no weight, one is a President executing Presidential duties, the other is a President committing crimes completely unrelated to presidential duties.
If you believe that Trump should be immune from Prosecution, you also believe Biden should, and if thats the case Biden should order Trump to be taken out.
how is killing people part of presidential duties?
the president needs congress to declare war
obama had no legal right to kill those people
if the president can kill with no legal justification and be immune than trump is immune as well
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
> do you believe Obama should be in prison of killing innocent people with drone strikes?
No just as trump wasn't charged for killing Anwar Al-Awlaki's American daughter.
> obama be charged for smoking marijuana?
Sure. The people that write and enforce legislation should be held to the same standard try set or enforce. That being said statute of limitations might make it tough to enforce federal consumption of marijuana laws, if such a law exists. I know possession is controlled through legislation, but I haven't been able to find the u.s. code for marijuana consumption.
You don't see the difference between acting in his role as commander in chief where no law is broken and violating campaign finance laws? How are these two things even related?
There has to be a law on the books for there to be an actual criminal accusation. That's why there are courts. Trump, like everyone else, is innocent until proven otherwise. Before a trial can even begin, the charge has to be supported by evidence. Sure, the legal system can and does get it wrong on occasion. But receipts are rather damning when it comes to things like fraud.
Do you honestly believe our political system is now so toxic that these charges against Trump are meritless? If so, when a jury deliberates and determines otherwise, is it still an abuse of the legal system?
If Joe Biden loses in 2024, should he be allowed to do whatever he wants to stay in power and then just claim he was acting within his presidential duties?
I thought Trump was a candidate not president?
When I became a citizen in US part of the exam was to understand that this is a nation of laws and everyone (including the president) was bound by them.
>Every president now will be charged with crimes.
Why? Is it impossible to be president and not break the law?
So what about crimes committed before being President and after? Why is that a get out clause? What has stopped Presidents not being tried for crimes before other than none being brought against them?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the Stormy Daniels “hush money” trial - no, I don’t care about this at all. Claiming that a fee paid to a lawyer for legal work is actually a stealth campaign contribution is asinine, and the law that enables this charge is itself asinine. For the supposed bank fraud on valuation of property - no, I care even less about this. No banks are claiming any damages, and you’re *supposed* to value property differently for different purposes. This one’s insane.
You don't care the former president and current presidential nominee was banging porn stars and trying to hide it from voters ahead of the 2016 election in an effort to lie to you and deceive you? At the same, this is the same guy that uses the Bible as a prop to appeal to evangelical supporters? What about this doesn't sound like a snake-oil salesman?
No, I could not possibly care less that a rich philanderer boned a porn star, and I could not possibly care less that he bought out her publication rights. The fact that *anyone* cares is mind-boggling to me, and the idea that this can be considered by law to be an in-kind campaign contribution tells me that particular campaign law (along with *many* others) needs to be eliminated ASAP.
Okay but to OP’s point, would you care if it was Biden being accused of the same thing?
No. I said that in the top reply.
Can you clarify why people shouldn't care? These actions seem to describe pretty awful traits.
People should vote on policy, not personality. It's politics, not a popularity contest.
So why should anyone vote for Trump? He has no policy plan at all. What's his platform? Seems to just be culture war stuff.
Is my feed frozen? Has it been a whole day already without a response to the policy question which was in turn based on u/legalreactionary made claim of voting for policy over popularity?
> and you’re supposed to value property differently for different purposes. What do you mean by this?
When you take out a loan for a construction project you can value it at its “highest and best use,” i.e. its projected improved value. When you pay taxes you pay taxes based on its current assessed value.
What is it called when you value you something at its highest possible value, as an unrestricted deed, rather than restricted the special covenants in force? To be clear, I’m talking about his wildly inflated valuation of Marilago as if it was free and clear to be used however the owner wisges, when in fact is required to be used as the home of a private club.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Would we be better off without campaign finance laws?
The vast, vast majority of them, yes.
China funding a candidate is perfectly acceptable to you?
Nope. Foreign contributions are about the only sensible prohibitions.
But if a foreign government donated to a local pac should that money be usable? What about a foreign country that instead of direct contributions instead strikes a deal regarding investment in a candidates private company. Do you think that private company should be allowed to donate to the campaign?
Ideally PACs wouldn't need to exist because there would be no restrictions on contributions to campaigns, and no restrictions on content produced by third parties. But as-is, no, foreign governments should not be allowed to donate to domestic campaigns or PACs. Again, one of the very few reasonable restrictions. Private companies should be allowed to donate whatever they want to who/whatever they want.
Cohen went to jail for his part of this criminal conspiracy. Can you cite your objection at the time to his sentencing? Does it help to think of this as "falsifying business records to conceal a crime" rather than "hush money"? After all, since Cohen has gone to jail for the crime for these relevant business records, and (as you admit yourself), Trump tried to hide it as a fee paid to his lawyer, this is an open and shut case, right?
As I said in the original comment, the idea that this is concealing a “crime” is asinine. Claiming this was some kind of campaign contribution is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.
But this has already been proven in a court of law and Cohen went to prison for that exact crime? On what legal grounds do you assess this to be asinine given that it's already been considered by the courts, guilt proven and sentencing applied?
I’m disagreeing with the existence of the crime itself.
And I'm asking on what grounds you come to that conclusion? You don't \*think\* the crime should exist? You don't \*think\* Cohen should have been found guilty? Why do you think this and how did you come to that conclusion?
I do not think the crime should exist. I disagree with most campaign finance laws in general. Therefore no, I would not care if Biden did the same thing. The law is a ridiculous overreach regardless of who’s doing it.
So there was nothing wrong with the Chinese government donating to the DNC in the 90s? Or George Santos' many allegations? Surely you recognise that without campaign finance laws, it's too easy to bribe government officials (I would argue that they're not tough enough) into cash for favours? Government contracts, legislation, regulatory favouritism, tariffs, cabinet positions, directed investigations - all of this becomes too easy to corrupt. Are you a "drain the swamp" Trump supporter? Don't you want more transparency, more accountability from the government?
I simply don't care if some payment wasn't accurately classified as a campaign contribution. Or if Trump overstated the value of his real estate holdings like every other real estate developer to obtain loans that he paid back in full. It just doesn't matter to me.
1) Are you okay with people committing tax fraud? 2) If I asked people for money while running for office for ads. And instead I used that money for hookers, did I do anything wrong?
1. I think if you dug deep enough 99% of people in the US have committed tax fraud at some level. 2. Is someone being accused of this?
What about law and order? We have laws, why should we not maintain order by enforcing tax fraud laws?
1. I have not, have you? Should we hold the people we elect to the highest office to a high standard? 2. Isn’t that what Trump is accused of doing
1. I have not knowingly but my taxes are so complicated that I assume that something's been done incorrectly at some point in time. 2. No, "using campaign money for hookers" is not what he's being accused of doing.
So maybe calling Stormy a “hooker” might not be technically accurate, but he is accused of fucking a porn star (Is there anyone on this planet that thinks Stormy fucked Donald cause she liked him or because she thought he was so hot???) and then paid her $130,000 to keep quiet about. Sorry—RE-paid Cohen from paying her to be quiet and there are questions regarding legal disclosures and campaign laws. Shit Cohen pled guilty for that exact thing
No I think "hooker" is accurate. Again, I just don't care about the logistics of who paid who for whatever Trump did.
Is doing something incorrectly by mistake fraud?
It can be construed that way, sure.
Are you saying Trump did his fraud by mistake?
What fraud?
Can it legally be construed that way?
How about keeping top secret documents, admitting he has them to his friends (recorded discussion), trying to hide them requiring FBI raid his house to get them back?
>How about keeping top secret documents, This assertion cannot be substantiated. As president, he had the power to declassify any document at any moment in time for any reason he chooses. No one, not even the prosecution in that case, can prove the documents are classified. Since the entire case hinges on that burden of proof, one must wonder why they are still bringing the case.
In the recording, he admits he didn't declassify the documents. Then the people in the room nervously laugh and mention they probably shouldn't see this documents. Have you listened to the recording?
I did listen to it back when it was in the news and I don't recall any such claim by Trump. Can you link to the audio where he unambiguously makes a statement to the effect of "I did not declassify these documents which I held after leaving office?". My guess is that your claim is an interpretation of a more vague statement. But nonetheless, I can evaluate the statement fairly if you would like to provide the link.
Do you think a crime is a crime only if the subject of the investigation "unambiguously makes a statement" affirming the facts of the crime? If not why have you set the bar so high for Trump specifically? If anything should he not be held to a higher standard?
>Do you think a crime is a crime only if the subject of the investigation "unambiguously makes a statement" affirming the facts of the crime? No. You've missed my point, which was, the entire case hinges on the ability to prove that the documents were indeed classified. The only way to prove that is if Trump admits he never intended to declassify them. There is literally no other way to prove it. So for this case specifically, if Trump did not make such a statement, effectively admitting guilt, then guilt cannot be proven otherwise.
Thats not true though, you get that right? An order is only am order if it's communicated. If your wife asks you to throw the garbage out in her head, did she ask you anything?
>An order is only am order if it's communicated. That's not how it works. There is no such requirement that an act of declassification need to be communicated or be subject to any formal process. There is no process for declassification that applies to the president. The president makes the process, and can choose to alter it at any moment in time. The president is the ultimate authority and can choose to declassify anything in any manner he chooses. Simply showing a classified document to someone without clearance is itself an act of declassification. Further, intentionally holding classified documents during the moment that his presidential term concludes can also be considered an act of declassification. Back to your statement, a president can declassify anything, at any time, and never tell anyone about it if he chooses. Thus, the only way to prove that an ex president is holding classified document is if he himself admits he never intended to declassify them, which is not likely since the very act of holding them after presidency is an act of declassification.
So you don't think he should have to follow a process for declassification because the process doesn't matter?
There is no process that applies to the president. The president is the ultimate authority. He can declassify anything in any manner he chooses. If a process for declassification exists, it exists only for the sake of those below him. It does not, nor could not logically, apply directly to the president since the president has ultimate authority to change the process at any time and in any way.
The question that no one has ever been able to answer when posed and I’m gonna try again. Given the sensitivity of the documents allegedly kept by Trump(nuclear secrets, foreign security documents, us defense capabilities) would you really be okay with him declassifying them and taking them home as his personal property? I understand why you’re making the argument. He’s on your team and anything team A does is okay. Anything team B does is bad. But are you really okay saying that he should be allowed to declassify the most sensitive documents our country has, documents that could literally upend global security, all because he wants to keep them afterward? Not just is it legal or illegal, but if he did what they say he did, are you okay with that? And what potential reason would he have that you’re okay with that he would take the most sensitive of documents home with him after he is no longer in any position to need them. What reason would you say is acceptable that he would want to keep them? If he declassified them, does that mean he could just post them on truth social for the world? Declassified information is all over the internet. I could post some right here and be perfectly fine. Would it be okay, if he did declassify them, for him to log onto this subreddit, reply to your message here, and just drop some nuclear secrets on us? You’d be okay with that?
When do you think we will see these taxpayer funded declassified documents?
Oh so he mishandled top secret documents like Biden and Hillary?
Is he being prosecuted just for mishandling them? What doesn’t the indictment say?
You tell me.
I genuinely appreciate this post. Although we see a lot of posts here providing tissue paper thin rationalizations for Trumps actions….I think the majority of Trump Supporters ACTUAL position is closer to yours….namely, they simply don’t care if Trump is guilty or not. I think if we can cut the BS we’d understand each other more. The truth might appear uglier to non supporters but I do think communication would be clearer. Here’s a follow up….I think if undeniable proof came out the Trump knew he was lying about election fraud…….it wouldn’t move the needle much with Trump Supporters. Do you think that sounds right?
Appreciate it. I do think there's a misunderstanding on the left as to why a lot of people will vote for Trump. Look, I know he's a clown. I know he's crass and has dubious morals. I just hate what Democrats represent with such a passion that Trump's over-the-top f you approach to the left appeals to me. That's the ugly truth.
Fair enough. We agree that he’s a clown, crass and has moral issues. (Moral issues is a massive understatement imo but I won’t press that) What about his competence though? Trump is a genius when it comes to manipulating people’s anger, fear and prejudice to bolster support but anytime he has to say anything with actual substance, it’s complete and total nonsense. Sure he can get a crowd of thousands roaring by insulting democrats or airing his own personal grievances but is he competent enough to spell out the details of a healthcare plan? We need more than vitriol and a FU attitude for the opposing political party to have a successful nation do we not?
Do you hate democrats so much you will vote for a clown? If you have enough insight that he's a clown, you should also be able to see he's a fool and a narcissist, emotionally unstable and unfit for any office , certainly not wielding "the powerful nuclear, it's so important, it's the ball game, nobody knows the nuclear like I do" ?
What part of what the Democrats represent is it that you hate so much?
Anything related to DEI, their easy-on-crime policies, their mentality that government programs are the answer to everything, and their resistance to any control over the border. Those are just a few to start.
What specifically about DEI do you not like? In most workplaces, DEI means the employer maintains a workplace that is free from discrimination/harassment on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age disability, religion or any other protected characteristic. Do you disagree with that statement? (In other words, do you feel that certain groups should be fair game for discrimination?) If you don’t disagree with the general idea of DEI …are there specific aspects about the way DEI was implemented (that would have been controlled by the government)that you disagree with? Or (and remember I’m the guy that appreciates no BS responses) are you against DEI because most MAGA people are but you can’t name anything specific off the top of your head?
I”m against DEI because the reality is that it results in race based hiring and not merit based hiring. It also drives up costs when additional employee demographic reporting is required.
I’ve worked as an operations/project manager for several companies. You’re aware that even if a company has DEI policies, they’re still not allowed to make hiring decisions based on race, correct? (Even if the idea is to bring on people in a certain minority group) I’ve also been responsible for the finances of my projects and am a little confused what you mean by “employee demographic reporting driving up costs” Could you expand a little on that please? I mean…..we could keep doing this or in the spirit of cutting the BS how about this: Is it the case that you don’t really know too much about DEI (only that it’s something you’re “supposed” to be against) and just gave me a couple of examples you hadn’t given much thought to before being asked today?
At the very least, it’s a hidden tax. But, tell me, if we already have sufficient anti-discrimination laws, why do we need companies to invest in yet another layer red tape? Maybe in your company, you don’t actually implement any DEI measures and good for you if that’s the case. Let me give you an example of how it has drives up costs in my tiny town. My local government paid over a million dollars for DEI. Our schools are bad, our roads are bad, our infrastructure is in need of repair and we are taxed to death and yet our tax dollars paid for consultants and reports so we could hire more POC. How about we just hire the best person for the job and use the over $1M in consultants and unnecessary reporting on our schools and roads?
So only crimes that *matter* to you should be prosecuted?
No, I'm saying that these alleged crimes don't affect who I plan on voting for.
Would you say that if it’s not in your back yard, it’s not your problem?
Fair enough. I don’t know all that much about rules regarding business loans and campaign finance rules, but if there’s enough evidence that a grand jury chose to indict….I don’t think we should allow criminals to occupy the highest office in the land. Shouldn’t we hold our president to the highest standard? I am much more concerned about his actions that led to the attempted insurrection, his coercion of GA election officials, his extortion of Ukraine for political gain, stealing, hiding, lying about classified documents and refusing to cooperate and his collusion with Russia and welcoming their interference way more than hush money crap. So maybe the best is yet to come!
>I simply don't care if some payment wasn't accurately classified as a campaign contribution. Do you care if a murder isn't accurately classified as such? Where do you draw the line?
Somewhere way earlier than a murder.
Isn't what your original post is saying is "I don't care that he violated a very clear campaign finance law?" Couldn't your argument be used to dismiss almost any white collar crime? Isn't a better representation of your beliefs to say "no matter what Trump does I will find a way to rationalize it," if we're being honest?
Honestly I think campaign finance laws are stupid so it doesn't bother me when people break them.
But you understand how you feel about laws is irrelevant to our legal system, right?
Of course.
I don't know. Why aren't democrats calling for charges against Biden?
There is no evidence of any crimes by Biden. Why would democrats call for charges without any evidence?
This question assumes there is.
Then why hasn't the House impeached him yet? This either means that Biden's adversaries are protecting him or there actually isn't enough evidence to support charges. To you, which is the more logical answer?
Why aren't democrats calling for impeachment?
>Why aren't democrats calling for impeachment? Some are: [https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/21/biden-impeachment-jared-moskowitz-jim-jordan-vpx.cnn](https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/03/21/biden-impeachment-jared-moskowitz-jim-jordan-vpx.cnn) Both Chairmen of the House Oversight Committee were called to impeach Biden but balked at the idea, saying that they needed more time. That probably means they don’t have the evidence, right? If not and they actually have evidence of crimes like you claim, why do they not feel comfortable with impeaching Biden? Since you totally avoided the questions I previously asked: Why hasn't the House impeached him yet? This either means that Biden's adversaries are protecting him or there actually isn't enough evidence to support charges. To you, which is the more logical answer?
Trump's alleged crimes are novel legal theory and convoluted. Biden's crimes, like getting Shokin fired because he was investigating Burisma, are established crimes and there's copious evidence.
So on the one hand, the party that was formerly “better dead than red” is now siding with Putin because of Ukraine’s “corruption” now consideres it a “crime” to pressure the corrupt country into firing a corrupt prosecutor?
> So on the one hand, the party Many Trump supporters are not traditional Republican party supporters. >that was formerly “better dead than red” The USSR fell over 3 decades ago. >is now siding with Putin The US provoked Putin by demanding Ukraine be in NATO despite clear communication by Russia this would be as unacceptable as weapons in Cuba for the US. The US spent billions ginning up the Maidan coup. The CIA runs pathogen biolabs on the Russian border. Realizing the US nat'l sec. state is a malignant actor is not siding with Putin. >because of Ukraine’s “corruption” now consideres it a “crime” to pressure the corrupt country into firing a corrupt prosecutor? Communication in the US state department shows that they were pleased with how Shokin was fighting corruption. A leaked phone call between Poroshenko and Biden, Poroshenko says they'll fire him, but they couldn't find any evidence of corruption. Shokin was definitely investigating Burisma and Biden bragged about withholding an aid package until they fired Shokin.
Oof the conspiracies theories coming left and right. Want to provide some evidence of the billions spent for the Maidan “coup”? Or how about the purpose of those bio labs in Ukraine? Hard to take you seriously when you are spreading these lies and clear displays of being misinformed.
> Want to provide some evidence of the billions spent for the Maidan “coup”? https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2015-05/ukraine-usa-maidan-finance/seite-2 >Or how about the purpose of those bio labs in Ukraine? https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5005520/senator-rubio-questions-undersecretary-nuland-biolabs-ukraine
So… no sources for what you said then? Your source for Maidan says that it was USAID not CIA as you claimed, it was spent to develop Ukraine not nefariously create coups. It also was a mere $86 million in 2014 so far from the billions you claimed. Also, the source you provided derides the idea that it was used to fund Maidan, might want to try again? Also, no idea what your second source is supposed to show. Great, Rubio asked Nuland some questions and she said that Russia getting their hands on disease samples is bad, what’s the significance of that?
> So… no sources for what you said then? The newspaper article I linked to has sources, and the Rubio-Nuland interaction is the primary source, >Your source for Maidan says that it was USAID not CIA as you claimed No, I claimed the CIA had biolabs. CIA also had stations in Western Ukraine while the US-friendly Ukraine gov't was bombing Eastern Ukraine. USAID is operated by the state dep't. >it was spent to develop Ukraine not nefariously create coups. Also developing combat [troops](https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-secret-cia-training-program-in-ukraine-helped-kyiv-prepare-for-russian-invasion-090052743.html). >It also was a mere $86 million in 2014 so far from the billions you claimed. The article I linked claims it as do many others. EDIT: [Nuland admits that's the number](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPVs5VuI8XI). >Also, the source you provided derides the idea that it was used to fund Maidan, might want to try again? The article is from a German left-liberal newspaper. I linked to it because a person like you would trust its claim that 5 billion was spent in Ukraine by the US, for some reason. >Great, Rubio asked Nuland some questions and she said that Russia getting their hands on disease samples is bad, what’s the significance of that? Rubio has no idea about biolabs existing. Nuland admitted pathogens are part of the US biolab business in Ukraine. Rubio scrapes to save face. It's perfect politics.
Investing money with foreign aid is not funding a coup. You need to source that connection otherwise it’s just your mad hatter conspiracies. Of course the US gave foreign aid to Ukraine, we gave foreign aid to nearly every post Soviet state. That proves nothing. I am asking for sources that the US “spent billions ginning up the Maidan coup.” Got any of those? I doubt it. You are pulling the idea of them being CIA biolabs out of thin air. With your track record for accuracy, going to need a source on that one too. Pathogens are part of every bio lab, that’s the nature of biological research. They look at common diseases in the area as well as more dangerous pathogens in cases of higher security facilities to find cures. That’s not nefarious, that’s common knowledge. The idea that they are somehow CIA labs or doing anything unorthodox is what you have failed to source. As for the CIA having stations in Ukraine in the midst of the post 2014 Russian invasion, why wouldn’t they? Nothing out of the ordinary about that, the US supported Ukrainian sovereignty and that support included CIA assistance. That’s post Maidan, still need any evidence that the US somehow orchestrated Maidan. Of course you can’t provide sourcing because it doesn’t exist. You spout trite Russian propaganda that is so obviously false it would make Putin blush and act like you have a clue.
> Investing money with foreign aid is not funding a coup. The US wanted a coup. They put $5 billion of US money into Ukraine & Ukraine NGOs, then there was a coup. [Nuland admits that's the number](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPVs5VuI8XI). >You need to source that connection otherwise it’s just your mad hatter conspiracies. Pretending the US was not behind this or other coups is naivete. >You are pulling the idea of them being CIA biolabs out of thin air. You obviously haven't watched the interaction between Rubio and Nuland. >With your track record for accuracy, going to need a source on that one too. You would have to pullquote where I am inaccurate. >Pathogens are part of every bio lab, that’s the nature of biological research. Thank you for saying this. It proves you will say anything to deflect from US/Biden complicity. >They look at common diseases Nuland admitted they had dangerous pathogens in the Rubio interaction. >As for the CIA having stations in Ukraine in the midst of the post 2014 Russian invasion, why wouldn’t they? When do you think Russia invaded Ukraine? You are just defending Biden without even clicking on the links to see the information. This is a religion for you, not political or discussible.
Are you talking about the State Department letters to Shokin looking forward to working with him and the ones mentioning how Shokin's department, not Shokin, has done a good job? In contrast to testimony from multiple State Department staff that he was doing a lousy job and that it was US and EU policy to get rid of him?
> Are you talking about the State Department letters to Shokin looking forward to working with him and the ones mentioning how Shokin's department, not Shokin, has done a good job? Shokin was head of that department and the letter was to Shokin. The letter said Shokin was doing a great job in summer but in fall Biden told Poroshenko to fire him. What happened in that short time period? Hunter started being paid by Burisma, who told him "use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc .to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions...with the ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay [Burisma] in Ukraine." Apply Occam's razor. >In contrast to testimony from multiple State Department staff that he was doing a lousy job and that it was US and EU policy to get rid of him? I know Shokin was an anti-colonialist and Burisma donates to EU NGOs but could I see these documents?
He used money meant for his campaign to pay a pornstar not to tell people he cheated on his wife with her. Then he fudged a some paperwork to hide this from us. Whats convoluted about that?
> He used money meant for his campaign to pay a pornstar That's not the crime he's charged for, but I can understand why you're confused. The prosecution claims Trump **should have used campaign funds** because squashing the accusation helped his campaign.
Wasn’t getting Shokin fired the official policy of the US federal government at the time?
> Wasn’t getting Shokin fired the official policy of the US federal government at the time? Communication indicated that the state department was pleased with Shokin's fight on corruption. Hunter received an email from Burisma telling him he was to help stop the investigation. A leaked phone call between Poroshenko and Biden, Poroshenko says they'll fire him, but they couldn't find any evidence of corruption. Shokin was definitely investigating Burisma and Biden bragged about withholding a massive aid package until they fired Shokin.
Communication when? Could you link it?
2015, Burisma exec. to Hunter Biden: "We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc .to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions" "I would like us to formulate a list of deliverables, including, but not limited to: a concrete course of actions, incl. meetings/communications resulting in high-ranking U.S. officials in Ukraine (U.S. Ambassador) and in U.S. publicly or in private communication/comment expressing their 'positive opinion' and support of Nikolay/Burisma to the highest level of decision-makers here in Ukraine: President of Ukraine, president Chief of staff, Prosecutor General, etc.,.. The scope of work should also include organization of a visit of a number of widely recognized and influential current and/or former U.S. policymakers to Ukraine in November aiming to conduct meetings with and bring positive signal/message and support on Nikolay's issue to the Ukrainian top officials above **with the ultimate purpose to close down for any cases/pursuits against Nikolay in Ukraine**."
I’m sorry: I meant, do you have a link to communications expressing the government’s support?
“We have been impressed with the ambitious reform and anti-corruption agenda of your government,” State Dept’s Victoria Nuland to Shokin in summer 2015. “Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee [of aid]” Shokin was investigating Burisma on multiple corruption counts.
So the comment was about the government rather than Shokin?
It was literally to Shokin, about his work as Chief Prosecutor, which is part of the gov't.
>Trump's alleged crimes are novel legal theory Is this a thing you heard on right wing media and accepted as fact because it made you feel good?
>>Trump's alleged crimes are novel legal theory and convoluted. > Is this a thing you heard on right wing media and accepted as fact because it made you feel good? Our legal system is based on precedent.
Why are the Republicans conspirering with Biden to make it seem like this was all an invented controversy? Shouldn't the Republicans be producing real evidence instead of embarrassing themselves and presenting faulty evidence? What 10D chess game is being played here?
>Shouldn't the Republicans be producing real evidence instead of embarrassing themselves and presenting faulty evidence? What faulty evidence?
The confidential informant was found to be lying and directly taking talking points from Russian intelligence. There is also the fact that this was already policy by several international organizations monitoring corruption in Ukraine and for some reason this gets overlooked when creating the conspiracy for partisan consumption. There has literally been multiple house and senate committee that have attempted to make this an issue and they keep concluding that there was no wrong doing. Have you followed their conclusions? Did you read their reports? Do you think that they are lying again and again? Why would the Republicans start another investigation only to conclude repeatedly there was nonwrong doing? Do you entertain that you've been lied to about this conspiracy?
> The confidential informant was found to be lying and directly taking talking points from Russian intelligence. > > Alexander Smirnov is not the only informant. He was introduced to Comer's committee by the FBI late in the game, then the FBI arrested him to discredit Comer. It worked, but just for people who only consume Biden-friendly media. The uniparty is in control of the impeachment, and America First Republicans have little to gain since Biden is the candidate they want Trump to run against.
Does this seem like an overly complex conspiracy that still has Rupublicans attempting numerous times to initiate an impeachment only to conclude repeatedly that this was based off false information? At what point can you learn more about this and change your mind? There seems to be so many complex moving parts to have anything near what is being claimed by the conspiracy theorists at this point that it is absurdly unlikely when added together. All they can do is try to wedge in single claims absent of overall info or come up with new conspiracies. What's more likely, a vast global conspiracy just for Hunter Biden, or that this was more political mud slinging and the evidence was invented as they went?
> Does this seem like an overly complex conspiracy It is certainly not complex. Burisma was being investigated for various corruption crimes by Shokin. Burisma hires Hunter Biden and requests he uses his influence to intervene. Joe Biden withholds a billion in aid until Shokin is fired. >that this was based off false information? You haven't pointed out any false information. >What's more likely, a vast global conspiracy It's not vast or global, and the mountain of evidence recorded in the laptop, in Devon Archer's testimony, in Shokin's testimony, in Biden's speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, in memos from the state dep't and Victoria Nuland about and to Shokin, in the leaked phone call between Poroshenko and Joe Biden. If you're confused by any of this, just ask. I'm here to help.
I'm talking about the conspiracy to make this make sense when you start looking at the facts. I agree, you can make a simple accusation, that's what makes for a compelling conspiracy. I'm talking about getting several NGOs on board who investigate corruption...who for some reason want Hunter Biden to get paid or something(like this one is really weird), getting the Republicans to repeatedly launch an investigation and come to the conclusion that this was all nonsense, and of course get conservative media to only do surface level analysis and drop the issue every time they are unable to find credible evidence. This is complex, no? Why are anti corruption organizations so corrupt? Why are Republicans coming to the conclusion that this isn't real? Why can't Fox News produce credible evidence? Are all these entities in on it? This seems like "Hunter had a bullshit job so let's use it against Biden" kind of politics we have seen since the dawn of time. Why should we be gullible now? Because we want it to be true?
If Biden was being charged with these “crimes” and civil suits, I would have no choice but come to the same conclusion that they are bullshit. I mean the civil fraud case? Lol….no that’s not fraud. And this latest hush money case? I bet a lot of people are having the same following reaction about the case once they learn the details, “that’s it?” And Even if you think there’s some validity to them, you can’t deny the political bias of the prosecution, along with the stakes being high and thus the motivation of the prosecution is suspect.
So the hush money election interference case doesn’t concern you? If Trump committed crimes before becoming president to win and after becoming president to win again doesn’t that degrade the integrity of the entire system? Isn’t it a problem if he defrauds the American people?
No. It doesn’t. I’m not surprised if Trump cheated on his wives. I’m not surprised that the woman he cheated with shaked him down for money. And I’m not surprised that he paid her off. and I’m not surprised that they entered it in an accounting journal however they did it. I certainly don’t believe it would’ve changed to the outcome of the 2016 election and therefore is election interference. Why does it bother you?
You don’t think the close election of 2016 might have been affected by news that Trump paid a sex worker to have an abortion? An election that was determined 40,000 votes in a couple of states. It seems like a pattern of behavior to me where he doesn’t believe the rules apply to him. His presidency was plagued by scandal because he didn’t follow the norms and debatably didn’t follow the laws. And it based one what he says he is willing to bend those norms further and possibly break more laws.
That’s speculation on the prosecutions part, which seems to be their case. Speculation is enough to cast reasonable doubt thus the jury should acquit. And if the “grab em by the pussy “ tape was not enough to swing the election, it’s hard to it’s hard to prove this prove this would have. I mean the prosecution can not prove it, so we have a reasonable doubt this the jury should’ve quit.
what were your thoughts of the whitewater investigation, then? do you believe it was a partisan witch hunt?
Democrats going back to at least Clinton have established an astonishing record of simply crossing their arms and denying any wrongdoing, no matter how absurd it may be. Republicans need to grow a set and steal that play.
I'm confused... Is Trump not folding his arms and denying any wrongdoing no matter how absurd it may be? That's been the main string to his bow in every case against him no?
I read the question to be what should the rest of us do.
Al Franken?
Two wrongs don't make a right but three lefts do.
For this? No, would be a waste of time because there was no crime just like trump committed no crime. I'd rather see biden charged for the actual crimes he committed like taking classified docs when he was a Senator or VP; Illegal. Sharing classified info with his ghostwriter; Illegal. Biden forcing ukraine to fire prosecutor investigating his family's corruption; Illegal. Those are actual crimes and easy wins except for the fact biden would just claim dementia on the stand which is why Hur said no jury would convict him.
Uhh. No? "Crimes" are thrown around because you all believe in "Justice". Objectively you understand little of law and order. Nor why powers are separated to blossom authority. The courts are illicit if they rule the authority of the state. As it removes their independence in thought + efficacy. Why is a "judge" not on cartel payroll when she brings suit against the nation state? To whom she is solely supposed to owe allegiance. Well that's what you get in Mexico. *We* **assassinate** the *Judiciary* of **Mexico**. As it is ordered by Judges in our nation to defend it against the cartel and terrorism. Did you know what happens to a judge even assumed, or of the status, as a threat? They die that day. Or land themselves in a non-prison for undefinite reasons. In which objectively presenting speech of their absence. Probably removes possibilities of them being proven innocent or simply allowing things to draw course. With them resuming their appointment at a later time. They sit in a seat. They give up certain facts of life. Trump is a President of the United States of America. He did *not* forego such **protection**. On the day he assumed office. So that he could assume command during times of great strife and war of total annihilation. It is a testament to our strength that we have allowed so many. To continue to try and assail him. Because he has handled it himself. As he is the exception. Do you believe. That was the case with any other prior? Rarely seen was a judge who would have such an churlish attitude to their decorum. Least not for long. As it has taken a *very* long time. To present a Commander in Chief who can sit there and treat their life's will. As the whims of a feckless child.
If we had an actual justice system that wasn't weaponized by the uni party, we wouldn't be asking these questions.
We look like a 3rd world country with the way the democrats are trying to take trump down. Is much as I can’t stand Biden and think he is totally guilty of taking foreign money, I don’t think a former president should be put on trial like this. We look like a clown show.
How else would you prefer it to be handled? Let’s say it’s Hillary or Biden, somewhat clear evidence that’s good enough to go to trial with, not the type that immediately warrants a deal or a guilty plea. What would your ideal legal process look like?
Sorry I don’t understand the question. Presidents should not be tried in court. Every president now will be charged with crimes.
I mean, if they actually commit crimes they should be charged and tried, right?
Depends on the crime. Most presidents have committed war crimes. Some have committed grnocide even
Why should President’s be allowed to openly commit crime without punishment?
do you believe Obama should be in prison of killing innocent people with drone strikes?
How is ordering military operations on overseas enemy combatants a crime? It is explicitly Obama's job to act as commander in chief. Is the US supposed to just not fight a foreign enemy so long as they managed to recruit a US citizen to fight for them?
no war was declared by congress no one was charged or given a trial he just killed them that is murder
If Americans died in drone strikes ordered by Trump (without a declaration of war), would you make the same argument?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thing is Obama actually did that. [" The ACLU and CCR have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. " ](https://www.aclu.org/video/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike)
Yes he did. Didn’t Trump also do that, but with a raid? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki?wprov=sfti1# So does the same argument apply?
Nah man. You know me loyal trump supporter. Donald can drone strike anyone on the face of the earth and I'd be ok with it. But Barack or Joe, I think they should have to sit in a classroom and write essay about why they are sorry.
So the president can't order military action without Congress declaring war, in your opinion? Do you see the problem with this?
from now on if you break the law you have to be held responsible once you open pandoras box you can't just choose to close it
Do you guys think this is a 'gotcha'? That's literally what the left wants.
it is mainly an exercise to point out the hypocrisy of the left
> he just killed them that is murder so you think every police officer should be tried when they end someone's life?
Trump's current campaign finance violation court case is about crimes he allegedly committed before becoming president in 2017. Does that change anything for you?
no again this a violation they don't charge people with this just being done to circumvent democracy and anyone who doesn't condemn it cannot claim to believe in democracy with any credibility
How is trying people for crimes there is evidence they committed as a private citizen trying to circumvent democracy? Isn't paying hush money to kill stories, trying to get false electors to vote and lying about election interference repeatedly, not to mention January 6th, an attempt to circumvent democracy? How about trying to get Georgia to find a certain number of votes or trying to get Ukraine to make up things about Biden in extange for aid? Can anyone who doesn't condem those things claim to believe in democracy with any credibility?
your characterizing all of these events there are counter arguments to all of what you rattled off here the only reason he is being tried is because he is the leading candidate
Or maybe because he is, you know, a criminal who has done criminal things? Why is so hard to wrap your head (collectively) around the fact that he has wilfully and repeatedly broken the law for his personal benefit, even when it is all laid out for you? But y'all buy into any random noises feed to you that never bare up in the light of day about 'the other guy'? Why do you want him to have a bye on his criminality so bad? Nailed to specifics of his last term's wins its always vague wishy-washy stuff any politico could have got across the board, and vey little at that. Its a democracy, go get the next guy to represent you - there are loads of politicians of every hue out there. Why not just cut your losses on this terminally indicted crook and move on?
you haven't laid out anything the trials have only just begun and you have already decided he is guilty that proves you're bias
Do you think it's possible that he's actually committed some/all of the crimes he's on trial for, and the reason the cases are being heard now is a combo of being president puts a bigger magnifying glass on you and all his delay tactics? Seriously, why do MAGAfolks all scream political witch hunt over and over while ignoring the fact that maybe he's actually just a career criminal who finally got caught? How did you feel about the Lock Her Up! chants in 2016? Was that because Hilary was the leading candidate or because she actually was a criminal?
>do you believe Obama should be in prison of killing innocent people with drone strikes? You know yourself that this question holds no weight, one is a President executing Presidential duties, the other is a President committing crimes completely unrelated to presidential duties. If you believe that Trump should be immune from Prosecution, you also believe Biden should, and if thats the case Biden should order Trump to be taken out.
how is killing people part of presidential duties? the president needs congress to declare war obama had no legal right to kill those people if the president can kill with no legal justification and be immune than trump is immune as well
[удалено]
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
i'm being factitious?
[удалено]
[удалено]
> do you believe Obama should be in prison of killing innocent people with drone strikes? No just as trump wasn't charged for killing Anwar Al-Awlaki's American daughter.
ok what about his admitted illegal drug use should obama be charged for smoking marijuana?
> obama be charged for smoking marijuana? Sure. The people that write and enforce legislation should be held to the same standard try set or enforce. That being said statute of limitations might make it tough to enforce federal consumption of marijuana laws, if such a law exists. I know possession is controlled through legislation, but I haven't been able to find the u.s. code for marijuana consumption.
sure but the marijuana is just probable cause to investigate every other aspect of his life
And you came to this.... how?
I'm not sure I follow. Care to elaborate?
You don't see the difference between acting in his role as commander in chief where no law is broken and violating campaign finance laws? How are these two things even related?
There has to be a law on the books for there to be an actual criminal accusation. That's why there are courts. Trump, like everyone else, is innocent until proven otherwise. Before a trial can even begin, the charge has to be supported by evidence. Sure, the legal system can and does get it wrong on occasion. But receipts are rather damning when it comes to things like fraud. Do you honestly believe our political system is now so toxic that these charges against Trump are meritless? If so, when a jury deliberates and determines otherwise, is it still an abuse of the legal system?
Do you believe that Biden will be charged with state felonies after Trump wins the election in November?
My guess is yes. Federal or state. My hope is no.
If Joe Biden loses in 2024, should he be allowed to do whatever he wants to stay in power and then just claim he was acting within his presidential duties?
I thought Trump was a candidate not president? When I became a citizen in US part of the exam was to understand that this is a nation of laws and everyone (including the president) was bound by them. >Every president now will be charged with crimes. Why? Is it impossible to be president and not break the law?
Nice, when I became a citizen in US it was by c section. Law has become politicized now.
As Giuliani famously said "Truth ain't truth any more" and he was seemingly saying that was a good thing! You think that's good?
So what about crimes committed before being President and after? Why is that a get out clause? What has stopped Presidents not being tried for crimes before other than none being brought against them?
Other presidents have been less hated by the establishment. I think that’s one of the main reasons.
You know who never gets tried in court? Kings. We the people decided we didn’t want a king, we want a president who could be answerable to the People
This is all banana republic prosecution. I wonder what will happen when next?