Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[DaveXA]

Who are the conservatives left here who aren't anti-Trump? It's perfectly fine to be anti-Trump, but don't act like people who support Trump here aren't constantly insulted.

If you're a Trump supporter, you better have a thick skin if you're gonna post here. Maybe that's not fair, but most here can't stand Trump. That's why I've said more than a few times to focus on the issues and leave your personal attacks at the door. People attacking your posts will feel like personal attacks, but they're not. You can attack the source of a post if you find the source not credible, but personally attacking another poster is a no go.

Most of the Trump supporters who have been banned were for valid reasons. Several Democrat posters have been banned as well for the same reasons.

The whining is old though. You've been here long enough to know what to expect.

 

[DaveXA]

Thanks for the insult. I see the message board hall monitor is still here. I'm sure you have been busy telling Snark how he should post so it's to your liking.

How exactly did he insult you?

 

[Saintamaniac]

It absolutely boggles my mind how the two trumpers in this thread expect to be taken seriously in debate about trump. Hell, this is a discussion about the trump indictments and @Snarky Sack can't even talk about the indictments without mentioning Hillary Clinton. Last time I checked, whataboutism wasn't a debate tactic. I directly challenge him to talk about the trump indictments without mentioning Clinton. He can't and he won't because whataboutism is the ONLY thing he has to stand on.

A true conservative could not bring themselves to support or defend trump anymore than a true Christian could. You are not conservative. You are a trumper. Trump is a walking violation of conservative values as well as damn near ever tenant of Christianity. The man actually said he has never asked God for forgiveness because he's never done anything wrong. He's lied about things so easily proven false and yet there are two people here trying to defend those lies. The only way to defend a liar is by lying. People don't like being lied to when they know they are being lied to and THAT is why trumpers feel they are being attacked.

The assertion that any trumper is being personally attacked for being a trumper is a false one. The enemy of a lie is the truth and what you perceive as being attacked personally because you are trumper is people presenting facts to refute everything that you have allowed yourself to believe about trump. It's the same thing that made people drink poisoned punch and give it to their children at Guyana. It's the same thing that has made people throw away their career and reputation in support of trump.

So if you feel attacked because I or anyone else am refuting your assertions with facts that run counter to your belief in trump then that is a you problem because I am going to point out lies every time they are posted. If you present a stupid idea, I'm going to call that idea stupid because calling your idea stupid is not the same as personally attacking you by calling you stupid.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Whats the name and url of that site? This is the only board I know of, so I'd like to check out the other board.

I believe that it is against the rules to try to bring posters to a different message board. That's why I deleted most of my glowing description of that board.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Honestly, it's how overly and unnecessarily antagonistic you tend to be when you disagree with someone.

It's not because you support Trump. It's because of the way you talk to people when you're supporting Trump.

The issue is much more your style, than it is your beliefs.

I disagree. Maybe it is because of my style combined with the fact that I support Trump. I was met with immediate antagonism after my very first post, as I showed another poster. My first post did not seem antagonistic at all to me. Here's a link to what I showed another poster whose name I have gotten wrong in the past and am afraid of doing it again:

Trump Indictment ( An ongoing discussion )

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process. Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads...

madaboutpolitics.com

Most of the people here, like most of the people in this country, have had enough of Trump and the people who keep trying to justify or excuse every dickish thing that Trump does.

If you decide you're going to butt heads with that in an antagonistic way, then you're going to get a lot of head butting back and you're equally at fault for the head butting you get back.

I was never antagonistic until antagonism was directed at me, which was immediately upon starting to post as the above link will show you.

I'd like to see those quotes. Please quote them using the board's quoting system which shows the poster's name as a link to the post that you're quoting.

Please quote when someone said this to you:

I'm not finding the old quotes. If I run across them, I'll post them. You are free to disbelieve me, of course.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It absolutely boggles my mind how the two trumpers in this thread expect to be taken seriously in debate about trump. Hell, this is a discussion about the trump indictments and @Snarky Sack can't even talk about the indictments without mentioning Hillary Clinton. Last time I checked, whataboutism wasn't a debate tactic. I directly challenge him to talk about the trump indictments without mentioning Clinton. He can't and he won't because whataboutism is the ONLY thing he has to stand on.

Are you saying that the justice system isn't supposed to go by precedents?

Snipped the rest for obvious reasons.

 

[DaveXA]

Are you saying that the justice system isn't supposed to go by precedents?

Snipped the rest for obvious reasons.

They do ordinarily, but thinking that the Hillary case is some sort of precedent for Trump's case is intellectually lazy. They're apples and peanuts. You're just continuing to conflate two completely different cases and the whataboutism isn't warranted here.

Instead of getting sidetracked by the Hillary thing, let's focus on what's relevant now in the Trump case.

 

[Snarky Sack]

They do ordinarily, but thinking that the Hillary case is some sort of precedent for Trump's case is intellectually lazy. They're apples and peanuts. You're just continuing to conflate two completely different cases and the whataboutism isn't warranted here.

Instead of getting sidetracked by the Hillary thing, let's focus on what's relevant now in the Trump case.

No one case is ever exactly, precisely the same as any other case. But the courts still go by precedents. Precedents are relevant to any case.

But if it bothers you to see that, what do you want to talk about in the Trump case?

 

[bdb13]

Look I've hated how Trump conducts himself from the jump, no secret there. But it's quite different post 2020 election. Quite different. No further explanation necessary as to why that's the case.

If his actions there didn't cross a personal red line and you're still a supporter after his rejection of the peaceful transfer of power.. then yeah, I think it's the patriotic position to take to be hostile towards the people willing to place him back into power.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Look I've hated how Trump conducts himself from the jump, no secret there. But it's quite different post 2020 election. Quite different. No further explanation necessary as to why that's the case.

If his actions there didn't cross a personal red line and you're still a supporter after his rejection of the peaceful transfer of power.. then yeah, I think it's the patriotic position to take to be hostile towards the people willing to place him back into power.

I appreciate your honesty about that.

 

[DaveXA]

No one case is ever exactly, precisely the same as any other case. But the courts still go by precedents. Precedents are relevant to any case.

But if it bothers you to see that, what do you want to talk about in the Trump case?

It doesn't bother me, I'd just rather see a good faith discussion of what Trump did. But at this point I feel like I've seen enough that I want to see what else develops before going further.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It doesn't bother me, I'd just rather see a good faith discussion of what Trump did. But at this point I feel like I've seen enough that I want to see what else develops before going further.

What he did was, he kept documents after leaving the white house, like every other president since Washington.

If anyone wants to make a federal case out of that, they will have to bring the receipts to the jury.

They don't seem ready to do that quite yet, even thought they indicted him.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

What he did was, he kept documents after leaving the white house, like every other president since Washington.

If anyone wants to make a federal case out of that, they will have to bring the receipts to the jury.

They don't seem ready to do that quite yet, even thought they indicted him.

And this is why Dave said your argument is intellectually lazy. You are completely ignoring the clear difference that has been pointed out to you many times.

 

[bdb13]

I appreciate your honesty about that.

I'm pretty much in the center, probably lean a little bit to the left but can see both sides of most issues and just call this shirt like I see it. Hell, you can look back and see my posts heavily criticizing Biden for the way the Afghanistan exit went down and like I said in the other thread, if it's shown that Joe Biden and/or the DOJ interfered in the Hunter Biden investigation then I am all for impeachments.

Trump crossed the glaring red line that prevents us from being like the bullshirt countries in the Middle East and elsewhere.. and I just feel very, very strongly about it and am confident given the egregiousness of the offense that my hostility towards another Trump presidency is firmly on the correct side of history.

 

[DaveXA]

What he did was, he kept documents after leaving the white house, like every other president since Washington.

We've covered this multiple times. The case about a lot more than that. Moving on.

If anyone wants to make a federal case out of that, they will have to bring the receipts to the jury.

They don't seem ready to do that quite yet, even thought they indicted him.

Well, that's been done. It's all in the indictment. Now it's a matter of presenting it to the jury when the case commences.

 

[Saintamaniac]

What he did was, he kept documents after leaving the white house, like every other president since Washington.

No, that's not what he did. He kept classified documents that he was not permitted to keep after he left the White House. When he was asked to return them, he refused. When he was told he had to return them, he lied saying he had returned them and enlisted his lawyer to lie as well as having someone move them so they could not be found. He has the same clearance to view those documents as I do. Actually, having served in the Navy, I might actually have more clearance to view those documents that he currently does.

Your statement is simply not true. If something is said that is not true gets repeated after being informed that the statement is not true, it is then known as a lie.

 

[Snarky Sack]

And this is why Dave said your argument is intellectually lazy. You are completely ignoring the clear difference that has been pointed out to you many times.

Answering @DaveXA and @Saintamaniac as well.

I have read about those differences many times, and I get it. I just disagree with your conclusions.

My point is that hatred for Trump on a message board is not enough to convict him of a crime. The DOJ will have to bring the receipts and they aren't ready to do that yet.

This thread actually should be crickets until they are.

 

[Saintamaniac]

My point is that hatred for Trump on a message board is not enough to convict him of a crime.

I agree but you are arguing that trump shouldn't even be accused of doing what he has admitted to doing. He's publicly admitted he took documents multiple times. He's publicly stated that he has the right to them when the laws of our country clearly state that he does not. He has stated publicly that he could declassify documents by thinking about it and he cannot.

You can support trump all you want. You can even deny his guilt. What you can't do is deny his own words and expect to be taken seriously.