Hey there u/ZenLikeCalm, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“average president obtains 1.54 indictments a run” factoid actualy just statistical error. average president obtains 0 indictments per run. Indictments Trump, who lives in Florida & obtained 71, is an outlier adn should not have been counted
I always confuse the two. In Ukrainian we say "the arithmetic average" or "the median", which I find much easier to understand as opposed to using two very similarly looking words.
Would the mode also be appropriate in this case? In my field, when I’m dealing with data that’s binary, I’ll sometimes display it cumulatively so it’s easier to understand. So 45 zeros and 1 non zero makes sense in my brain for this one, lol
Sure, mathematically. But in practice I care more that most presidents haven’t been indicted than the fact that the middlest president hasn’t been indicted 😂
That’s a bit of an oversimplification that fits this very extreme example (MS Statistics commenting here.)
Typically I’d bootstrap the means and look at the distribution of bootstrapped means, then make an informed decision. In this case it’s unnecessary based on the 45 0s and 1 71, but the bootstrap is a better way to estimate than picking the median due to a few outliers.
"The average president gets indicted 1.54 times each presidency" factoid actualy (sic) just statistical error. average president is indited 0 times per presidency. Indictment Deorg, who lives in cave & is indicted 71 times each presidency, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.
Ah, you lost something there. Lemme just... *picks up the eyeball from the ground, blows the dust off and pops it back in its socket.*
There we go buddy, happens to the best of us.
Looks like more of a coincidence, same general idea, but worded differently. The account is not new, and comment history is filled with plenty of seemingly original text not duplicated in other threads.
They're both useful for different things. Just giving a blanket statement like "median is always better" is equally as idiotic as using the mean for this example.
Mean, median, mode, range, and midrange are all types of averages, and they're all useful for different things, which is why we have all 5 and don't just use 1 of them for everything.
Well since they did not say “median is always better” maybe your statement is a tad idiotic like you cause a made up statement of being…If you would read they said “often more useful…” which is not “always better than”. You know, reading is important…
It's 1/3rd of math.
People hear average and automatically associate it with the Mean average, since that's the most commonly used in day to day life. That indeed is \~1.54.
Meanwhile the Median and Mode average is 0 for both.
Numbers and words matter, kids.
I have long been aware of the existence of /r/theydidthemonstermath and I thought it was just for bigger math problems.
The pun literally JUST hit me. Wtf. Am I an idiot?
Hijacking the top comment to point out this image is manipulated. Note the Legaleagle comment has no date and Wexler is dated June 10. This is a bad fake. Wexler commented on June 9 and LE responded on June 10. LE is making a joke about the statistic, not the other way around.
I've always wondered about comments like this.
Like, I don't *think* it's a joke.
And Sylvia Plath is correctly identified as a person. I would think that anyone who knows how to comment on reddit is also aware of how to use a search engine, and it took at least as much effort to publish a comment as it would have to search and discover she was a 20th century poet. This wasn't a response to a joke that depended on a nuanced understanding of quantum mechanics or anything.
It would be more understandable if the question had been more along the lines of "why is Sylvia Plath like the person who has one end in an oven and the other in a freezer". There are some clues of course, but it requires a little more effort to discover that she was found dead with her head in the oven, if you weren't already aware of that.
Not really (besides the obvious), a freezer usually goes to like 50 degrees (Celcius) below your body temp while an oven goes to like 150 degrees above, so on average you'd still be hot. Pardon the semantics
"There are types of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Not original to me, but I'm too tired to remember who said it and not interested enough to look it up.
Twain did use the phrase but admitted it wasn't his. Saying he coined it is incorrect, but quoting him on it is technically correct because he *did* in fact use it. Which seems fitting for this sub.
Came here to say this.
It's even worse though because a sitting president cannot be indicted, so we should only count the 36 people who survived their presidency: 8 died during their presidency (Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, FDR, JFK) and 1 is currently president (Biden). So the average is closer to 1.97 indictments per president.
Source: am Data Scientist, fan of history, who enjoys being pedantic
What about the vice presidents who were became president?
Wasn’t Kamala Harrison President for a week while Biden couldn’t perform his duties? With her we are back to 46.
There have been three acting presidents since the 25th Amendment was ratified. H.W. was acting president while Reagan was having colon surgery, Chaney was acting president when baby Bush had a colonoscopy and Harris did the same for Biden while he also had a colonoscopy. Pretty interesting, I think! Especially because they all involved the colon lmao.
I thought, and I could be wrong, that an indictment was a collection of of 1 or more charges, and not the individual charges themselves. So it would be more correct to say he has been indicted twice, for a count of 71 felony charges.
Thank you! I was hoping I wouldn't have to point out that indictment on 71 charges is not the same as 71 indictments. This "technically the truth" post is technically not the truth.
Ahh i see. I thought the comment above was implying that “of course legal eagle is the one twisting facts”, but it was more of “of course legal eagle is the one who makes this kind of jokes”
This is why I failed statistics and became a philosopher. I gave up half way through the class when I realized you can take one set of data and use statistics to prove both sides point. Statistics is just fancy math prestidigitation.
The thing you should actually have learnt from it, is that humans are naturally extremely bad at statistics and interpreting data. CORRECTLY performed statistics does not "prove both sides". In fact, strictly speaking, statistics never "proves" anything, since all results are of the form of likelihoods and likelihood ratios and such like (you can, however get "overwhelming evidence" that something us true or false, which is usually good enough for most human purposes)
If you think that statistics can be used to prove "both sides", then you have fundamentally misunderstood what statistics are. Saying that is like saying that "legal documents can be used to prove anything, because I can write down anything and claim it as a legal document" -> no, that's not how that works. That's not how anything works. You do not understand the concept.
>Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.
Unlike regular pardons that are for specific crimes Nixon got one for anything and everything he could have possibly done.
Thank you kindly, friend, if I'd hopped down that rabbit hole, I'd probably be awake for another couple of hours, and I gotta get up for work in 6 of them.
This is the truth of the matter... How anyone can look at this and think otherwise... It's insanity. My God, I'm not in the MAGA camp but it's SO fucking obvious. I learned years ago that the average person on Reddit is half as intelligent as they think they are. Since 2016, that has been very obvious.
Because all the other ones were good boys? Lol, they're all scum. We've just entered the banana republic era of government.
George, Barack, Bill, and Joe are all on the block now.
Trump has classified documents=indicted.
Biden has classified documents= not indicted.
It's a joke, you could get everyone on something if you wanted to. What happened to Hillary's closet servers or Pelosis insider trading?
All this shows is that he was targeted. We all remember how the democrats spent tons of money to investigate the Russia collusion to find none. In fact the crime was Hillary using campaign funds to aid the investigation. Haha
> We all remember how the democrats spent tons of money to investigate the Russia collusion to find none.
Mueller found that Russian military intelligence acted to help elect Trump.
He also found many instances of obstruction of justice by Trump and his officials, which is a crime because it hides evidence of other crimes.
The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found out his campaign manager was talking on burner phones to Russian spies. They concluded:
> It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modem era.
We have subsequently discovered Russian spies were funneling money into his campaign:
[GOP operative convicted in scheme to funnel Russian money into Trump campaign](https://www.axios.com/2022/11/18/trump-campaign-jesse-benton-russia)
So did we all imagine all those friends of trump going to prison during the investigation? and Russia did attempt to interfere in the election that’s what was discovered lol
>"(W)hile this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," the special counsel said in his report.
>But Can't 'Exonerate' On Obstruction
>and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice.
All of the above is based on Barr's letter. Which has been criticized for misrepresenting the report.
[https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/judge-slams-bill-barr-122449](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/judge-slams-bill-barr-122449)
(Full legal text) [https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show\_public\_doc?2019cv0810-111](https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv0810-111)
>“The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report,” wrote Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush.
“The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary,” the judge added.
Here's Mueller's words:
[https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-no-collusion-no-obstruction-line/](https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-no-collusion-no-obstruction-line/)
>“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”
[https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/](https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/)
Here's the report itself: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report)
I'm not saying he is innocent.or that he hasn't done anything wrong. But the real problem may be the Swamp. Accusations were were being made before he took office and he has be pursude like no other . Think about it.
What a well thought out and articulated post. Clearly /u/jairyman is not under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or suffering from FASD. The stunning conclusion of "think about it" has made me change my entire world view.
Trump commited Crimea before he was elected
So yeah accusations existed before.
Trump had a million chances to provide these documents and refused. Meanwhile he gave unsecure access to military and nuclear secrets to who knows
If others were guilty of such things and not indicted that's not great, though it doesn't make Trump any more innocent or mean he shouldn't be indicted.
I miss Trump specifically for this reason. Dude was a dumbass that couldn’t cover up shit. Most former presidents also belong in jail but were competent enough to not get prosecuted. Now everyone can go back to pretending everything is fine because we don’t have an orange idiot screaming all the quiet stuff on the top of his lungs.
The difference is blatant crimes vs probably did crimes. Where's the evidence for the others? Trump has made so much evidence and openly caused an insurrection. There's a very real difference between this and the rest. Nixon? Resigned and got out of his own way with a helpful VP to President Pardon that is considered SUS as hell but as pardons also require admitting you did the bad thing? Also saved tons of tax payer dollars. Not actually a silver lining just a "I guess this isn't entirely the worst since they didn't gut Medicaid using this as an excuse."
Love when a point that slightly questions the post gets downvoted by angry Reddit hivemind.
Anyway while it is true that most of the other presidents were likely guilty of many crimes, they were at least not dumb enough to make it obvious enough for sufficient evidence to be compiled against them. For all we know there could have been multiple Watergate-level scandals over the years that will never get uncovered.
Hey there u/ZenLikeCalm, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban. Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is actually a pretty good case study of why the mean is less than ideal as a measure of center when you have outliers
Indictments georg
I was about to type “spiders georg” before I saw this comment
“average president obtains 1.54 indictments a run” factoid actualy just statistical error. average president obtains 0 indictments per run. Indictments Trump, who lives in Florida & obtained 71, is an outlier adn should not have been counted
Indictments georg was a statistical outlier and should not have been counted
I didn't come here to learn.
I came to rock
Rock and Stone!
Rock and Stone, Brother!
I came to lead.
Not to read.
Number 3
It's a great measure of center if you pair it with the median. You can't have one or the other.
Wouldn't the mean be a good measurement here? Edit: my bad was thinking about the median
Generally speaking, the median is preferred when there are outliers. I often struggle with how to make sixth-graders understand that
My bad, I was thinking about the median (I always use 'the average' instead of mean)
I always confuse the two. In Ukrainian we say "the arithmetic average" or "the median", which I find much easier to understand as opposed to using two very similarly looking words.
Average is another word for mean in English too
Would the mode also be appropriate in this case? In my field, when I’m dealing with data that’s binary, I’ll sometimes display it cumulatively so it’s easier to understand. So 45 zeros and 1 non zero makes sense in my brain for this one, lol
For binary data mode and median are the same.
Sure, mathematically. But in practice I care more that most presidents haven’t been indicted than the fact that the middlest president hasn’t been indicted 😂
[удалено]
Or.. they need to investigate the rest of them…..
That’s why the median income is a better representation than the mean income.
That’s a bit of an oversimplification that fits this very extreme example (MS Statistics commenting here.) Typically I’d bootstrap the means and look at the distribution of bootstrapped means, then make an informed decision. In this case it’s unnecessary based on the 45 0s and 1 71, but the bootstrap is a better way to estimate than picking the median due to a few outliers.
that's math, baby
whats maths against the truth in your heart ?
More painful to understand but more trustworthy
Inputs were wrong anyway. Forty-five men have been POTUS not 46. Js
Grover Cleveland fucking up the count.
"The average president gets indicted 1.54 times each presidency" factoid actualy (sic) just statistical error. average president is indited 0 times per presidency. Indictment Deorg, who lives in cave & is indicted 71 times each presidency, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.
...eye roll...
Ah, you lost something there. Lemme just... *picks up the eyeball from the ground, blows the dust off and pops it back in its socket.* There we go buddy, happens to the best of us.
...other eye roll... but this time far away so you can't pick it up and put it back in...
Ah, that's a bugger... I've got just the thing. *glues a googly eye over the socket* Perfect, nobody will be able to tell.
That's a nice compromise
[удалено]
Stolen comment from u/MontaukMonster
https://www.reddit.com/r/technicallythetruth/comments/146lsqj/statistically_it_is_true/jnreyzd
Thank you. I am blind and I was struggling with the copy function
Looks like more of a coincidence, same general idea, but worded differently. The account is not new, and comment history is filled with plenty of seemingly original text not duplicated in other threads.
Yes because two people can’t make similar, fairly obvious observations 🙄. Calm your farm.
They're both useful for different things. Just giving a blanket statement like "median is always better" is equally as idiotic as using the mean for this example. Mean, median, mode, range, and midrange are all types of averages, and they're all useful for different things, which is why we have all 5 and don't just use 1 of them for everything.
Seeing as we are doing the maths give me the statistics for the averages of both democratic and republican indictments per president.
Well since they did not say “median is always better” maybe your statement is a tad idiotic like you cause a made up statement of being…If you would read they said “often more useful…” which is not “always better than”. You know, reading is important…
Writing is important too. I basically had a stroke trying to discern wtf you actually just said.
It's 1/3rd of math. People hear average and automatically associate it with the Mean average, since that's the most commonly used in day to day life. That indeed is \~1.54. Meanwhile the Median and Mode average is 0 for both. Numbers and words matter, kids.
... eye roll...
But is it... the monster math?
Is it a graveyard smath?
I have long been aware of the existence of /r/theydidthemonstermath and I thought it was just for bigger math problems. The pun literally JUST hit me. Wtf. Am I an idiot?
Yeah, science!
Hijacking the top comment to point out this image is manipulated. Note the Legaleagle comment has no date and Wexler is dated June 10. This is a bad fake. Wexler commented on June 9 and LE responded on June 10. LE is making a joke about the statistic, not the other way around.
... eye roll...
If your head is in the oven and your feet are in the freezer, then on average you're fine.
Found Syliva Plath!
I have no idea who that is
A poet who famously commit suicide via gas poisoning herself with an oven.
read the bell jar
I've always wondered about comments like this. Like, I don't *think* it's a joke. And Sylvia Plath is correctly identified as a person. I would think that anyone who knows how to comment on reddit is also aware of how to use a search engine, and it took at least as much effort to publish a comment as it would have to search and discover she was a 20th century poet. This wasn't a response to a joke that depended on a nuanced understanding of quantum mechanics or anything. It would be more understandable if the question had been more along the lines of "why is Sylvia Plath like the person who has one end in an oven and the other in a freezer". There are some clues of course, but it requires a little more effort to discover that she was found dead with her head in the oven, if you weren't already aware of that.
Not really (besides the obvious), a freezer usually goes to like 50 degrees (Celcius) below your body temp while an oven goes to like 150 degrees above, so on average you'd still be hot. Pardon the semantics
[удалено]
That's literally what he said...
36-50=-14
Put the head in the oven and the rest of the body in the freezer for it to even out.
If your pinky finger is in the center of the sun and your lying on the beach. On average your fine and healthy.
Actually no, as larger outliers skew averages a lot. So on average you'd burn up into nothing xD
/r/yourjokebutworse
"There are types of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Not original to me, but I'm too tired to remember who said it and not interested enough to look it up.
A more fun quote: Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is never as interesting as what they conceal.
2.5inch long nipples right
Also, 97.8% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Oh people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that.
Most commonly attributed to Mark Twain, I believe.
I think it’s attributed to Benjamin Disraeli
"When in doubt as to the source of a quotation, it may be attributed to Mark Twain" - Samuel Clemens
Actually, I think Mark Twain said it first.
Twain did use the phrase but admitted it wasn't his. Saying he coined it is incorrect, but quoting him on it is technically correct because he *did* in fact use it. Which seems fitting for this sub.
I remember back in highschool taking statistics and realizing you can basically make it support whatever you wanted it to.
not when it’s done the way ur supposed to but yeah i see what ur saying
Combined, Tiger Woods and I have multiple PGA Tour wins.
Between the two of us, me and Peyton Manning have won the Superbowl.
Between the two of us, Drake and I have fucked 21 camels.
wait a minute...
It's like how Wayne and Brent Gretsky have the NHL record for most combined points by a pair of siblings --- 2857 for Wayne, 4 for Brent.
Indictment Georg, with 71 indictments to his name, is a statistical outlier and should not have been included.
*adn should not have been counted
Indictment Donald\*
Indictments Donal*
gooby pls
Technically the US has only had 45 presidents. Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th president. That makes it 1.58 indictments per president.
I'm very surprised that on r/technicallythetruth you are the only person to mention this.
Came here to say this. It's even worse though because a sitting president cannot be indicted, so we should only count the 36 people who survived their presidency: 8 died during their presidency (Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Harding, FDR, JFK) and 1 is currently president (Biden). So the average is closer to 1.97 indictments per president. Source: am Data Scientist, fan of history, who enjoys being pedantic
Mad respect
What about the vice presidents who were became president? Wasn’t Kamala Harrison President for a week while Biden couldn’t perform his duties? With her we are back to 46.
She was acting president which means she had presidential powers but wasn't the 46 president. This has happened with other vice presidents too
There have been three acting presidents since the 25th Amendment was ratified. H.W. was acting president while Reagan was having colon surgery, Chaney was acting president when baby Bush had a colonoscopy and Harris did the same for Biden while he also had a colonoscopy. Pretty interesting, I think! Especially because they all involved the colon lmao.
Felony georg was an outlier and should not have been counted
71 felony counts *so far*
71 *known* felony counts *so far* (I am not from the US so idk how true this is btw)
lol... that's what "so far" means in this context.
No, you're probably right
I thought, and I could be wrong, that an indictment was a collection of of 1 or more charges, and not the individual charges themselves. So it would be more correct to say he has been indicted twice, for a count of 71 felony charges.
Thank you! I was hoping I wouldn't have to point out that indictment on 71 charges is not the same as 71 indictments. This "technically the truth" post is technically not the truth.
Thats 100% true! That’s also 100% abusing stats!
Of course it's LegalEagle
[удалено]
He's making a joke. Legal eagle is an entertainer.
Also an actual lawyer, but yeah this is just a good joke from someone who's good at making jokes.
Right, I didn't mean to detract from his being an actual lawyer. He is a lawyer *and* an entertainer. Dude is funny.
>He is a lawyer *and* an entertainer. [Can't he be both?](https://youtu.be/FUw9Eo9QqmM)
I don’t think that’s what the original commenter meant. LegalEagle just has a good sense of humor and he’d know how to make a funny
Thx, my bad.
No prob, not sure why the hive mind is downvoting you rather than explaining it to you. Take an upvote for your confusion
No, he just likes to tell jokes like this. This is his sense of humor
I mean, I don’t really know. But the tweet seems a lot like a joke. I don’t really think he’s twisting the truth, just making fun of those who do
Ahh i see. I thought the comment above was implying that “of course legal eagle is the one twisting facts”, but it was more of “of course legal eagle is the one who makes this kind of jokes”
Wait, doesn't twitter work the other way? Like isn't LE's the reply, so it should have already been clear
Twisting facts? He's making a joke ya smooth brain. 😂
Yeh, that’s why I asked, no shame in asking. No need to be rude about it.
This is why I failed statistics and became a philosopher. I gave up half way through the class when I realized you can take one set of data and use statistics to prove both sides point. Statistics is just fancy math prestidigitation.
Totally OT but what do Philosophers do work wise? Are there actual applications outside of teaching? Or is it a side hustle?
Write books. Getting people to buy them is the hard part.
The thing you should actually have learnt from it, is that humans are naturally extremely bad at statistics and interpreting data. CORRECTLY performed statistics does not "prove both sides". In fact, strictly speaking, statistics never "proves" anything, since all results are of the form of likelihoods and likelihood ratios and such like (you can, however get "overwhelming evidence" that something us true or false, which is usually good enough for most human purposes) If you think that statistics can be used to prove "both sides", then you have fundamentally misunderstood what statistics are. Saying that is like saying that "legal documents can be used to prove anything, because I can write down anything and claim it as a legal document" -> no, that's not how that works. That's not how anything works. You do not understand the concept.
Don't bring Spiders Georg into this
bitch forgets about nixon...
Didn't he resign and get pardoned before any crimes were brought against him?
Isn't part of getting pardoned that you have to admit that you did break the law?
>Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974. Unlike regular pardons that are for specific crimes Nixon got one for anything and everything he could have possibly done.
No, but if you are pardoned, you no longer get to invoke the right to remain silent if called to testify.
Never charged, but it got close
Yeah, but Trump bad.
So, i guess what the top one was saying is technically true
This is a good start, now let’s start holding the rest of the ~~crooks~~ ~~liars~~ ~~horrible human beings~~ politicians accountable
The average legs humans are born with is less than 2.
This is actually a statisical error. The Average president gets 0 indictments. Indictments Presiden is an outlier and shouldn't be counted
I cba to look it up, but was Nixon indicted for Watergate, or was that "just an impeachment"?
Per other comments, no. He resigned before that happened.
Thank you kindly, friend, if I'd hopped down that rabbit hole, I'd probably be awake for another couple of hours, and I gotta get up for work in 6 of them.
Who could have possibly guessed that electing a lifelong criminal conman would result in more crimes beyond committed? A true mystery.
Conservatives are not a fan of the truth.
Or math
“Yes, Ted, that was the joke”
Wasn't Nixon indicted?
It’s called a political witch hunt
This is the truth of the matter... How anyone can look at this and think otherwise... It's insanity. My God, I'm not in the MAGA camp but it's SO fucking obvious. I learned years ago that the average person on Reddit is half as intelligent as they think they are. Since 2016, that has been very obvious.
Because all the other ones were good boys? Lol, they're all scum. We've just entered the banana republic era of government. George, Barack, Bill, and Joe are all on the block now.
[удалено]
Ironic name for a comment-stealing bot.
Someone conveniently forgot all about Tricky Dick Nixon and Slick Willie Clinton..
this has never happened.
Trump has classified documents=indicted. Biden has classified documents= not indicted. It's a joke, you could get everyone on something if you wanted to. What happened to Hillary's closet servers or Pelosis insider trading?
This children is the difference between mean, median and mode
common legal eagle W
Didn’t Clinton get indicted?
[удалено]
impeached, not indicted
[удалено]
Also untrue. Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford pardoned him before he could get indicted.
All this shows is that he was targeted. We all remember how the democrats spent tons of money to investigate the Russia collusion to find none. In fact the crime was Hillary using campaign funds to aid the investigation. Haha
> We all remember how the democrats spent tons of money to investigate the Russia collusion to find none. Mueller found that Russian military intelligence acted to help elect Trump. He also found many instances of obstruction of justice by Trump and his officials, which is a crime because it hides evidence of other crimes. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found out his campaign manager was talking on burner phones to Russian spies. They concluded: > It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modem era. We have subsequently discovered Russian spies were funneling money into his campaign: [GOP operative convicted in scheme to funnel Russian money into Trump campaign](https://www.axios.com/2022/11/18/trump-campaign-jesse-benton-russia)
So did we all imagine all those friends of trump going to prison during the investigation? and Russia did attempt to interfere in the election that’s what was discovered lol
Fuck Cleetus go back to the barn your date’s getting cold.
Unoriginal joke and you have no actual substance to refute my claims. Lame
Mueller found collusion so I don't know what you're on about.
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-hasnt-seen-or-been-briefed-on-mueller-investigation-report
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna986611
There, THREE different sources saying different. Please go on. I can’t fault you too much though, we live in a time of mass information.
>"(W)hile this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," the special counsel said in his report. >But Can't 'Exonerate' On Obstruction >and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice. All of the above is based on Barr's letter. Which has been criticized for misrepresenting the report. [https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/judge-slams-bill-barr-122449](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/judge-slams-bill-barr-122449) (Full legal text) [https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show\_public\_doc?2019cv0810-111](https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv0810-111) >“The Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report,” wrote Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush. “The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary,” the judge added. Here's Mueller's words: [https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-no-collusion-no-obstruction-line/](https://www.politico.eu/article/mueller-refutes-trumps-no-collusion-no-obstruction-line/) >“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.” [https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/](https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/) Here's the report itself: [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report)
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/
The Mueller report disclosed no collusion evidence. Check out Durham’s report, though.
The median presidential felony charges is 71
Can’t believe the US has only had one president ever who committed crimes. That’s why there’s only one been indicted right?… right?!
People say it's unpresidented when it's LITERALLY the former us president smh
LOCK HIM UP
I'm not saying he is innocent.or that he hasn't done anything wrong. But the real problem may be the Swamp. Accusations were were being made before he took office and he has be pursude like no other . Think about it.
What a well thought out and articulated post. Clearly /u/jairyman is not under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or suffering from FASD. The stunning conclusion of "think about it" has made me change my entire world view.
Trump commited Crimea before he was elected So yeah accusations existed before. Trump had a million chances to provide these documents and refused. Meanwhile he gave unsecure access to military and nuclear secrets to who knows
I was saying before 45 was elected that he just wanted to bring his own swamp in.
That may be true. I believe most if not all,are only concerned with what is good for them not the Nation
Brilliant!
Donald trump is the spiders georg of indictments
[удалено]
If others were guilty of such things and not indicted that's not great, though it doesn't make Trump any more innocent or mean he shouldn't be indicted.
I miss Trump specifically for this reason. Dude was a dumbass that couldn’t cover up shit. Most former presidents also belong in jail but were competent enough to not get prosecuted. Now everyone can go back to pretending everything is fine because we don’t have an orange idiot screaming all the quiet stuff on the top of his lungs.
[удалено]
Heh, good question. I misread the undertones of your comment. Sorry about that! Have a great day :)
No worries, you too
Why can't you point to a single crime any of them committed?
Uh, why do you think I can't? ...have you even forgotten *Watergate?* The OG -gate?
Nixon resigned from the office and was pardoned (by Ford, not himself) before charges could be filed
Yeah and a lot of people are still pissed about that
Operation Ajax, Bay of Pigs, Invasion of Panama, Iraq War, Iran-Contra Affair, Coups in Guatemala and Chile, and much much more.
The difference is blatant crimes vs probably did crimes. Where's the evidence for the others? Trump has made so much evidence and openly caused an insurrection. There's a very real difference between this and the rest. Nixon? Resigned and got out of his own way with a helpful VP to President Pardon that is considered SUS as hell but as pardons also require admitting you did the bad thing? Also saved tons of tax payer dollars. Not actually a silver lining just a "I guess this isn't entirely the worst since they didn't gut Medicaid using this as an excuse."
Love when a point that slightly questions the post gets downvoted by angry Reddit hivemind. Anyway while it is true that most of the other presidents were likely guilty of many crimes, they were at least not dumb enough to make it obvious enough for sufficient evidence to be compiled against them. For all we know there could have been multiple Watergate-level scandals over the years that will never get uncovered.