scourge165

No. Wrong. The President, despite what Republicans argued for 4 years, cannot bring charges or instruct the AG to do so. Merrick Garland didn't do so for the EXACT same reason HE was the Judge the Republicans have specifically cited as the moderate that Obama should nominate, "but he won't nominate someone like Garland," said Lindsay 'theys just my 'lil butterflies- Graham. They didn't do it because they were spineless. They didn't want it to look like they were going after political enemies and...in the end, that's what they were accused of anyway. And then Trump literally came out and said that's what he planned to do(again) and we'll see if he does it this time. But saying it was because of Biden? No, he stayed out of it as he should have.

Ok...well, too bad more people didn't have this take. I think you make a good point though. I think Trump should have been charged...here's why he wasn't; Legal and Evidentiary Challenges: Narrow Legal Definition: The statute for insurrection has a specific and narrow definition, historically applied to cases involving external rebellion against the government. Applying this statute to a sitting president's actions presented unprecedented legal challenges. The Atlantic First Amendment Concerns: Much of the evidence against Trump involved public statements and speeches. Prosecutors were cautious about pursuing charges that could be perceived as infringing upon First Amendment rights, which protect freedom of speech. Lack of Direct Evidence: While there was evidence suggesting Trump's indirect encouragement of the Capitol attack, establishing direct involvement or intent to incite violence is a higher legal threshold that prosecutors may have found challenging to meet. The Atlantic Strategic Prosecutorial Decisions: Focus on Other Charges: Special Counsel Jack Smith opted to pursue charges that were more straightforward to prove, such as conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding. These charges were deemed to have a higher likelihood of success in court. The Atlantic Risk of Legal Precedent: Charging a former president with insurrection would have been unprecedented and carried significant legal and political implications. Prosecutors may have been concerned about setting a challenging precedent and the potential for protracted legal battles.

Nonsense. Just..more nonsense. And people were already under the risk of perjury and caught lying. By the way, I got mine in a large envelope...so I never folded it AND I returned it to a drop box near my polling center. So mine had no creases. Keep grasping at straws to justify Trump trying to circumvent the will of the people. But, lets fact check this claim(yet again). The claim that mail-in ballots from the 2020 U.S. presidential election were received without creases, suggesting they were never folded for mailing, has been investigated and found to lack credible evidence. Mail-in ballots are typically folded to fit into envelopes for mailing; therefore, a ballot without creases would be unusual. However, multiple audits and reviews of the 2020 election, including those conducted in key states, have consistently upheld the integrity of the mail-in voting process and found no evidence of widespread fraud. For instance, an Associated Press investigation into allegations of counterfeit ballots in Georgia found no evidence to support such claims. Similarly, other fact-checking organizations have debunked various allegations of mail-in ballot fraud. These findings indicate that claims about mail-in ballots without creases being evidence of fraud are unfounded.

Yeah...that part in bold just gives away how you claim people would have been SO outraged if the plan that Trump came up with happened. There was no rigging. I don't know what article you're referring to and I don't care. The DOJ under BILL BARR...he's the guy who chose to let everyone under Reagan off the hook. You remember, the guns, the cocaine...all to fund the Contras? "Georgia is a big deal." I mean...sure. It's a big state. It was a big deal when Trump lost(though he still loses with or without it). And then when both Democrats won the Senate seats... But yeah, I saw way more of your a$$ than I wanted to when you talked about how people wouldn't have Stood for the very thing that Trump tried to do and then just...defended the idea of doing EXACTLY that with nonsense. You're a little behind brother. Georgia was worse than claimed. Trump asked the MAGA Secretary of State and the MAGA Governor, both of whom supported him, he asked very publicly if they would rig the election for him. That case SHOULD have been heard. Yeah. Again, gotta agree here. When Trump kept stalling and the courts let it happen, that IS better than him being the first person to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Trump was a traitor who put self interests above the United States. That's it. That's the bottom line. And there are people demented enough that they'll argue in the same thread that nobody would have stood by and watched him pull off his plan that ONLY Mike Pence ws there to stop, even Republicans...while then advocating for that plan.

LOL...that's it? I assumed you made the mistake of sharing something more personal than that like I did, but just your Fiancé makes a good income? That's some insecurity to bring that up.

Did you see the backlash? You think Trump wants to lose more seats in the midterm than they're already going to? Risk the Senate? They're not going back to the blanket tariffs. Even Trump isn't that dumb. He just saw it nearly decimate the economy in less than a week. You had small businesses actually already go out of business(if Ron Johnson is to be believed). That's why I'm confident about that. Even the tariffs he has in place now, I'm going to guess they get resolved(there are some really dumb ones in place).

Oh...ok...so you think it was rigged, but you ALSO don't think people would have objected to Trump having stayed in power on Jan6th had Pence accepted the illegal electorates? That's some...impressive mental gymnastics. Is there really anything more you believe we can get out of this conversation?

Awesome. They said the Ballots were too neatly folded. It suggests nonsense. Remember when that 79 year old women wasn't allowed to vote...and that was their big evidence and they held a whole press conference? Oh and the signature didn't match. That was a smoking gun! And then...turns...she was legally blind, the vote was for Trump and she'd just forgotten. Remember when they were bringing in "suitcases" of ballots...into the BALLOT room?

It's a bit amusing to me...yet again, when people talk about personal attacks on here...and yet, I've heard this one multiple times. What relevance is it to you how much his partner makes?

I don't think it's going to tank(though Trump does view business as a zero sum game and there are some...truly horrifying and despicable claims about him not paying small businesses money for small projects on his behalf, but large projects for them). But no, I don't think it's going to continue to tank. It overreacted to the news yesterday, it's correcting today. Trump HAS caused damage, but America's trade partners need us and it's not the EU vs Trump(speaking of which, the EU also paused tariffs). China and the US likely come to an agreement...and as long as Trump is diabused of this notion that a trade deficit means you're "losing" or "being screwed," then we'll be fine. And moreover, the GOP won't allow him to reimpose those tariffs. I would bet(in fact...I mostly have...putting most of my money back in yesterday and today) that we're around the bottom. The ONE thing that'd lead me to possibly side with you is the CPI. It bottomed out today. 2.4%(proof that Biden's policies REALLY were working extremely well...and also proof the damage he did by not honoring his word to be one term President). But I don't agree with this take by in large.

Ok. I didn't think you'd be among those who'd be passing off this election denialism but...here we go. You'd have taken to the streets in protest? But then when those people actually did, I mean...there was so much propaganda and it really wasn't that bad. There weren't even guns...when they arrested people later... Proof Trump KNEW he lost. Yes, several of former President Donald Trump's attorneys have acknowledged that they were aware he lost the 2020 election. For instance, during a press conference on August 3, 2023, Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, stated, "I think that everybody was made aware that he lost the election." UPROXX+1indy100+1 Additionally, Jenna Ellis, another attorney who represented Trump in his post-election challenges, admitted in March 2023 to misrepresenting evidence of election fraud. She acknowledged making false public statements, including claims that Trump had won the election and that it was "stolen" from him. The Hill+1Politico+1Wikipedia+1indy100+1 Furthermore, a federal judge noted that Trump signed legal documents challenging the 2020 election results that included voter fraud claims he knew to be false. AP News These admissions indicate that key members of Trump's legal team were aware that the election fraud claims lacked merit.

Yup. I have looked into it. That's less than half the cases and I JUST addressed that. You can't just pick the court you want...but he went to Court 60+ times. As for why is Fulton County not turning over 147,000 ballots to a 3rd party? I don't know, do you think we should make it public how everyone votes? Just turn over all that information to further undermine the uncertainty that Trump started in '20 and you continue to do so here?

And as I've found on this thread...that seems to be the majority of his party. Also, explain the second part. You're saying they'd never actually go mainstream, right? Not that they have? Because...there are...well, as you said, 'nutjobs,' who think that "MAPs" have actually become mainstream.

1-Cool. So did Bush and so did FDR. They were wrong. The Constitution isn't there for convenance. 2-Sure Sheryl Crow. If it makes you happy...to believe that, I don't care. As long as you 'understand' why he asked GA to just "find me 11,800 votes." What is the point of this? What is your end goal here beyond justifying him attempting to circumvent the constitution in an attempt to stay in power(while people on this board just dismiss the notion that he may try and run again in '28)?

Yeah, you think you're making it better and you're just describing mens rea. I don't care. You want to say you "understand" why a pedophile is a pedophile because they are inherently attracted to underage kids? Sure. You can be the most understanding of criminals as you'd like. But what do you want here? 1-AS I've said, from testimony from both legal and Civil Trials, Trump KNEW he'd lost and there wasn't widespread voting. He didn't believe it. 2-Understanding WHY someone murders someone or attempts treason...is that really an argument you're trying to make like it's some really nuanced thinking? There aren't many ways to make money in urban areas. People don't see a way out. I understand WHY they turn to drugs and how that leads to turf wars and kids getting shot in the crossfire. I mean, Christ, how far do you want to go with this, "I understand" nonsense?

Yes. And you can say it was about stalling, they'd stalled. The clock had run out. Also, the Court DID hear cases. Not all just as you're not going to have a criminal trial if you the judge doesn't find probable cause at a hearing. That's largely what people are complaining about. There was no evidence but they They heard cases at the time, they heard cases afterward, that's just nonsense. They had nothing. You think all these Trump supporters, Bowers, Reffensperger, etc... And then they went by a person by person audit in a couple counties and...it wasn't there. They just did not find it. Finally, Trump and his team, we now know, they KNEW how this was going to play out broadly speaking. That in States like Florida, they'd have the Democrats up early. In States they wait(because of the GOP's laws) and count the day of vote first, he'd be up early. Back to the first question, yes, unequivocally, yes. There were people who wanted him reinstalled.

Yeah, that's...cute and reductive, but no, starting a trade war with the rest of the world is not just "doesn't do what we think is right." As for the insider trading...that could have been anyone, but the market action before it was announced speaks for itself.

I wouldn't put it past the CCP wanting to do this, but...it kinda sounds like something that starts on X or whatever. People learning this that quickly and thinking the US wouldn't be tracking that stuff?

Ok. I'd seen he bought it at auction, but if he didn't...my mistake.

Elon? LOL...what have I even said about Elon? I actually love how Elon has spent on Nvidia GPUs and...don't particularly care about him. I sold Tesla and I'm glad after the last earnings because...he didn't sound well(and yes, I do listen to the earnings reports of most of the companies I invest in or companies that impact them). He was kinda rambling and incoherent. Trump? No, not everything. I LOVED that he saw how terrible his policy was and he was able to reverse course. Again, are you missing how this started? A stupid question that obviously jross posed in an intellectually dishonest manner as he phrased as though he wanted feedback on what the liberals on this board thought of it and I said what? Was I in favor of EVER using violence in politics? No. I said I didn't believe that just as I didn't believe the % of Republicans that I've seen in polls talk about Civil War or justify Jan6 or other extremist views. So yeah, I don't like Trump but don't have everything he does. Musk is...I'm indifferent beyond his role as a CEO. I don't think he's super relevant. If he can ACTUALLY find waste, that's great. I think we need to cut the deficit. I think you and others of your ilk like to just kinda lump anyone who is NOT MAGA in the same group, don't you?

Ok. Well, for the 47th time, I don't think it's "understandable," no matter how you justify his beliefs. Lets go back to your original question here. I BELIEVE Trump is very bad for this Country and I believe he has authoritarian leanings and...actually admires them. So with that belief, what would I be justified in doing? If you start just dismissing the law, ESPECIALLY how the things that Govern our Nation, the things that have made us....the United States, you're going to see this Country fall apart pretty quickly.

LOL...three branches? Pretty sure we sawed one of those off Jimmy.

Because I'm responding to false equivalencies? Or because you don't know if Trump is going to keep doing things like...tanking the Economy and then trying to walk it back?

LOL...yeah. Sure. He legally bought it. Just a BIT weird he buys his old friends plane after he kills himself in the most famous sex trafficking case in US History under the overview of HIS DOJ. Not to mention, people DO understand that the ONLY reason Epstein was not in prison is because ACOSTA stepped in at the last minute, when Epstein was facing a life in prison and he gave him an unprecedented deal. -1 year, home confinement -Blanket immunity for all known AND UNKNOWN co-conspirators. It made Acosta a black sheep. But then Trump tries to nominate him as Labor Secretary? It's almost as if he owed him something, no?

Where? Who is reporting this?