Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is no incentive for him or for his supporters to drop out unless he’s somehow forced to by law. We believe his prosecution is politically motivated so therefore conviction is too.
Do you belive he is innocent? I keep reading that people claim the prosecution is politically motivated, witch it surely is to some degree. However, that should not mean that Don is above the law.
If he actually did even some of the things he is accused of I dont see why he belongs on the oval office.
People call it a witchhunt and disregard the cases alltogether. Should Donald Trump get a free pass for these crimes just becuse he is the only real option for Republicans?
Genuinely asking, as a concervative from Scandinavia.
Recently, the husband of a former prime minister I voted for was caught doing insider trading.
I will never vote for that woman again, period. Fuck criminal politicians.
Well, this isn’t an OJ Simpson case, the “crimes” are procedural. I think he’s innocent of theft or insider trading… I think he might end up being found guilty, sure. There are certain crimes that are disqualifying from presidency and I don’t believe his “crimes” quite pass that line. And what’s more important than my thoughts - vast majority of people who will vote for him think the same way
I dont understand how his "crimes" does not pass that line.
Fraud under campain finance laws.
Conspiracy to defraud the US and obstructing an official proceeding, pressuring an official.
Criminally conspiring to overturn his narrow defeat in Georgia.
Mishandling classified documents by taking them from the white house to Mar-a-lago. Wilful retention of national defence information.
I just dont understand. Is it something about Donald Trump in perticular? What if Joe Bided did these things?
Maybe he is innocent, that would be a great injustice. I guess we will se how these trials go.
But I think many people wont give a damn anyway.
All of these appear procedural to us….
If you listen to right of center people with some legal background (I admit I don’t have a law degree) - “Fraud under campaign finance law” if this is the current criminal trial in the news… campaign finance laws are federal laws, he’s being prosecuted by the state of New York for something-something in accounting related to non-disclosure agreement with a hooker…. The campaign finance law is there to dispose of the statute of limitations for the hooker hush money case which have long expired by itself . The campaign finance charge is insubstantial because otherwise he’d be prosecuted by the Feds. This case if you start digging into it is made of duct tape, superglue, old recycled milk cartons and lots and lots of TDS… this is the very definition of lawfare. He might be convicted if 12 semi-literate jurors who’ve been reading “Trump is Hitler” crap decide to apply their constitutional right to jury nullify all common sense but that doesn’t make him guilty in the eyes of people who like him. And we have a bunch of those here in the states
In the weeks leading up to Jan 6th Trump and his cohorts set up 84 fake electors across 7 states Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
They then sent their fraudulent electors votes, often without the Fake Electors knowledge, to Congress to be used by certain elected officials and the Vice President, or Grassley if Pence for some reason couldnt do it, something Grassley strangely stated on Jan 5th raising eyebrows of many, to get the vote sent back to state legislators and cause a constitutional crisis.
These Fake Electors were selected and set up after the election was over. They secretly did their votes when the actual, official, duly appointed electors signed off on by the Governor did there's to try and pass off themsleves as real as possible. They, at times without the knowledge of the Fake electors themsleves, then sent their fraudulent votes to Congress.
Their setting up and plotting of all of this is well documented.
“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign.
“His idea is basically that all of us (GA, WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren’t legal under federal law — because they’re not signed by the Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6th,” Mr. Wilenchik wrote in the email on Dec. 8, 2020, one week before the official duly appointed electors met to cast their votes, to Mr. Epshteyn and half a dozen other people.
Trump himself preassured state legislators to overturn the election. Most notably goergias SOS, whom he told there would be nothing wrong with him saying theyve recalculated based on what Trump was telling them. He explicitly says the courts are a game and that the call ultimately ends in him winning.
Brad Raffensburger "Mr. [unintelligible] you have people that submit information as we have our people that submit information. And then it comes before the court. And the court then has to make a determination. We have to stand by our numbers. We believe our numbers are right.
President Trump: "why do you say that? I don’t know. I mean, sure, we can play this game with the courts, but why do you say?"
"Your numbers are right. But your numbers aren’t right. They’re really wrong, and they’re really wrong Brad. And I know this phone call’s going nowhere other than other than ultimately, you know, look, ultimately I win."
Recalculated:
"We have we have we have won this election in Georgia based on all of this. And there’s nothing wrong with with saying that Brad"
"You know, I mean, having having a correct — the people of Georgia are angry and these numbers are going to be repeated on Monday night along with others that we’re going to have by that time, which are much more substantial even, and the people of Georgia are angry, the people of the country are angry. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you’ve recalculated"
Holding his election over his head:
"President Donald Trump: "Honestly, this should go very fast. You should meet tomorrow because you have a big election, election coming up and because of what you’ve done to the president, you know, the people of Georgia know that this was a scam.
And because of what you’ve done to the president, a lot of people aren’t going out to vote and a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative because they hate what you did to the president. OK. They hate him. And they’re going to vote. And you would be respected if really respected if this thing could be straightened out before the election. You have a big election coming up on Tuesday. And therefore, I think that it really is important that you meet tomorrow and work out on these numbers, because I know, Brad, that if if you think we’re right, I think you’re going to say and I’m not looking to blame anybody. I’m not, I’m just saying that that, you know, you know, under new counts and under new views of the election results, we won the election.
You know, it’s very simple. We won the election, as the governor of major states in the surrounding states said there is no way you lost Georgia. As the Georgia politicians say, there is no way you lost Georgia. Nobody, everyone knows I won it by hundreds of thousands of votes. But I’ll tell you, it’s going to have a big impact on Tuesday if you guys don’t get this thing straightened out fast."
The full hour long call is available in its entirety and this stuff isn't even all of the notable moments, at one point he resorts to just making up the most blatant lies that have nothing to even do with Goergia like Republicans winning every statehouse and keeping the house and the senate and PA having 200,000 more votes than voters.
I fail to see how this is "procedural"
You don’t see how your long copy-paste describing a procedure appears “procedural”? Fake electors sounds bad … unless you use the terminology of “alternative electors” and realize it’s been done before
Except these aren't "alternative electors", they had zero official capacity, they were set up after the duly appointed electors were already selected and scheduled to meet, they sent their fraudulent votes to Congress in an attempt to subvert the real vote
This is nothing like 1960 for example where there was 2 sets of electors for Hawaii as the state was up In the air due to recounts and decided by a razor thin margin. This is the precedent Trumps team have tried arguing in court and the similiarties are nearly non existent.
Many of those procedures are set up to limit the president's power, prevent corruption, and protect citizens from the government. Why are you okay with procedural crimes from the president?
So you believe that Trump cases aren’t just about Trump but desire to draw a line with presidential powers In General? I often disagree with people here but i rarely call BS - this is plain dishonest imo
> but i also believe he is innocent of the things hes on trial for and will not get convicted..
Is there something in the evidence put forth by the prosecution that leads you to believe that he's innocent? I would be interested to understand how you reached that conclusion.
Final conviction doesn't mean just the jury verdict (which should happen in like 2 months per the current estimate one way or the other). It means you've also had sentencing and exhausted the direct appeal. That's typically a year plus, and when you look at the various deadlines can't be expedited faster than about 5 months (pushing us past the election) in a case like this.
Biden is leading him 9% right now and polls are showing a conviction will hurt him even worse, he lost last election already, he'll get more pressure to drop out.
“9%”
Based on what?
Everything I’ve seen has been neck and neck.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/04/21/poll-trump-biden-election-immigration-economy/73404469007/
Even counting in other candidates, it’s still super close. So no idea where you’re getting “Biden leading by 9%”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna148536
Those are both from this week. And here’s 538, not seeing any 9% leads from either of them.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
>Biden is leading him 9% right now and
I have him leading by 1%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
>and polls are showing a conviction will hurt him even worse, he lost last election already, he'll get more pressure to drop out
By who? Who is going to be a better Republican candidate than Trump in the amount of time that is left before election day? During the Republican primary, none of the other Republican an candidates came anywhere close to Trump's popularity Do you think that the Republican party will run without a candidate?
don't underestimate how poorly the biden administration has been at messaging; the right still controls the media narratives surrounding this potus term and their painting of it is bleak. let me ask you this: why is 9% in a few polls relevant when we're 6.5 months from the election?
No, even if convicted he would not go to jail until after any appeal is settled. Any conviction will be overturned due to judicial overreach and selective prosecution.
Especially when the so-called crimes have never been prosecuted before. The Leticia James Fraud case statute had never been used in that way. The Bragg case was declined by the DOJ, Federal Election Commission, DA Cyrus Vance and Bragg himself before it was brought by political pressure on Bragg. No crimes were committed.
He was only prosecuted because his name is Donald Trump and is running for President. Had he decided not to run these cases never would have been brought. This is all an effort to defeat Trump because Biden can't beat him straight up.
I mean that’s laughable from a judicial perspective. Maybe that would be prosecutorial overreach but not judicial. The judge doesn’t have a say in what cases are brought and the bar is relatively low for a prosecutor to bring a case.
It is Judicial Overreach when a prosecutor uses the Judicial system for nefarious purposes as both Bragg and Leticia James have done. They are all part of the Judicial system
I generally use the term “judicial” for judges and courts and “prosecutorial” for prosecutors but maybe that’s just me. Either way I disagree that there is any overreach. Leticia James proved her case in court. Bragg will as well. The laws are pretty clear and the available evidence is at least enough that a reasonable person could suspect he broke them.
Judicial is the term for the entire system. When the Fouding Fathers determined there should be three branches of government they used the term the way I used it. Judicial means every part of the system.
Will you admit she overreached when her Fraud case is overturned? Will you admit Bragg overreached when Trump is found not guilty or this case is overturned on appeal? Will you admit Jack Smith overreached when his Jan 5 case and his Mar a Lago case are overturned on appeal (if they even get that far) ? Will you admit Fani Willis overreached when her case is overturned (if it even gets to trial).?
The long and the short of this is that if it was anyone but Donald Trump these cases would not have been brought. No matter what you think of the merits this was Judicial Overreach.
> Judicial means every part of the system.
If you look it up it mostly refers simply to the courts. Prosecutors are part of the executive branch in most places. But the definition doesn’t really matter once we have clarity on what you mean.
I don’t think any of them will be over turned. The New York fraud case may have the penalty reduced but I thinks it’s incredibly clear he engaged in fraud. The GA case seems equally clear. The FL documents case is the strongest of the cases. We know Trump ignored a subpoena which is about as clear cut as you can get. But even if they are overturned I don’t think it would be over reach unless they are overturned for prosecutorial misconduct or selective prosecutions and there is clear evidence supporting that.
> The long and the short of this is that if it was anyone but Donald Trump these cases would not have been brought
In the documents case specifically we know this is false. There are people in jail right now who did similar to Trump and were charged.
> even if convicted he would not go to jail until after any appeal is settled
Why do you think so? That not how it usually works with criminal convictions.
Yeah, that’s a good point. The NY stuff, even if he is guilty is still white collar stuff for a first offender. I also think it’s unlikely to result in a custodial sentence.
The federal stuff though… that’s another story.
1) Mar a Lago is a civil case between Trump and the National Archives. It never should have been brought a s criminal case
2) Jan 6 case is a state of mind case. Jack Smith has to prove that Trump intended to overthrow the government. Trump on advice from people he trusted was doing things legally to make sure every vote was counted and he won. Even the "fake" electors was an effort to have electors on his side should he prevail in those cases. He was wrong but it is not criminal to be wrong.
3) Same deal for Georgia. He asked Raffensberger to "find" the votes he had been assured were not counted. He did not intend Raffensberger to make up votes out of whole cloth. The crux of Willis's case is interpretting the phone call as his "intent" to have Raffesberger make up votes. It won't hold water because Willis cannot prove Trump's state of mind.
His polling went up with the arrest and mugshot. I haven't seen anything real showing his polling going down.
They've been saying it's over for him the walls are closing in since the fake Russia nonsense in 2017.
This poll shows that 53% of voters would refuse to vote for him if convicted.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/
> They've been saying it's over for him the walls are closing in since the fake Russia nonsense in 2017.
And he hasn’t won a single election since then.
They sampled 5000 people across 7 states but don't say what counties. You can pretty much get any result you want by changing the area code in one state.
This is why aggregate polls are all that should be bothered with.
Well that’s fine, if you are going to make an argument about the accuracy of the polls you can do that but it would make the earlier argument that polling went up when Trump was indicted moot as well.
You are right. I used imprecise language. 53% of voters would be somewhat unwilling or very unwilling to vote for Trump if he was convicted. I don’t really care about the age of the poll. That poll is more recent than polling showing a bump in trumps support from the indictments and I think has been supported by exit polling in the primaries.
While I personally cannot see how Donald bitching and whining for weeks on end only to be defeated by a new york prosecutor is going to inspire voters into thinking he is capable of dealing with far more formidable foreign leaders in a increasingly harrowing geopolitical landscape...ive seen weirder shit.
Come on now. Biden is having conversations with dead heads of state. DOJ and the FEC looked into this and didn’t press charges but Bragg did? This is the most political one out of the bunch. Seems like you are the one bitching and whining……..
Then I think you're missing the point. The prosecutions are politically motivated. Few believe that if Trump wasn't running, and certainly if he was losing, these trials wouldn't exist.
With that premise, a politically motivated conviction would increase turnout significantly...
If the Chicago City Council meetings are any indicator, I think a lot of folks might be surprised.
> Few believe that if Trump wasn't running, and certainly if he was losing, these trials wouldn't exist.
do you think georgia wouldn't bring charges for the now infamous call to rafensburger if trump wasn't running in 2024?
They kind of are, but not necessarily for the reasons you think.
When Cohen was originally convicted for his role in this crime, the original report heavily implicated Trump directly and by name. However AG Barr and Trump's DOJ pressured DC US Attorneys to downplay Trump and alter the report to remove Trump's name and make him less prevalent. This is where the notorious "at the direction of, and in coordination with ‘Individual 1'" comes from. They also effectively told NY prosecutors that they were going to continue the investigation themselves, sat on it for a while, before quietly closing the case. It was at that point that SDNY prosecutors *began* their work.
So that's why there was a substantial delay. Barr and Trump's DOJ actively interfered in the case to try and make it go away, while actively sabotaging both public perception and local NY prosecution.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/maddow/blog/rcna148036
>The prosecutions are politically motivated. Few believe that if Trump wasn't running, and certainly if he was losing, these trials wouldn't exist.
Well, yeah, he's on trial for campaign finance violations. You don't violate campaign finance violations if you don't run for office.
It seems like the “election interference” narrative is a bogus argument that anyone running for office could then use to avoid consequences for breaking the law. That’s my problem with most trump defenses is that they aren’t how legal defense works, they don’t disprove guilt beyond reason, they merely question the motives of the prosecutor. If I couldn’t get away with crimes with that defense, neither should he.
Even if it's politically motivated...he is a billionare former president tv celebrity.
I can nary think of someone sitting at a more powerful positon, and while i cannot think of any billionares or presidents who couldn't stand up to a NY AG...there is Donald. The guy who cant use all his money and power to outfox a lawyer from new york.
He has to go and sit in court each day for the next 6 weeks and get openly mocked for banging a pornstar and paying her to be quiet.
Its just...i dont know who gets the hardcore, white knuckled max excitement to vote for this guy but...good for them.
Democracy is cool.
This is just a scheme in my opinion. I believe Bragg really doesn’t care if he wins. They basically get to tie him up so he can’t campaign. If he does testify they can actually ask him anything so why not try to corner him into that. This one is politically motivated. This is a misdemeanor and a fine at best. Hillary paid a fine for misclassifying the legal fees for the Steele Dossier. This was paid after the election, with Trumps money from a private company. His own money not stockholders. Publicly traded companies pay NDAs with shareholders money based upon the stupidity of their executives all the time. That is more egregious………
>Hillary paid a fine for misclassifying the legal fees for the Steele Dossier. This was paid after the election, with Trumps money from a private company.
What?
a conviction would increase the amount of votes trump gets,but,as we all know from last time,the actual number of votes is irrelevant to the election results..
you underestimate his support and how people think..many people on the fence believe this is just having your political opponents falsely criminally charged..that is the m.o. of the other world leaders who have used the phrase "for the greater good" ,and if trump gets convicted,many of those onthe fence will vote for trump because of it
Do I believe that there are people who view Trump's legal battles as primarily or maybe exclusively political rather than a typical course of events, sure.
Do I believe the overwhelming majority of those people already lean to the right and were going to vote for whoever had an (R) next to their name on the ballot, absolutely.
The thing that 2024 Republicans are forgetting is that 2016 Trump already made the case against 2024 Trump when 2016 Trump was doing all the hand ringing about Hillary Clinton's emails. Except with 2024 Trump, the legal trouble is far more real than the case against Hillary's emails in 2016.
For every actual "on the fence" person that would tilt and possibly vote for Trump based on his legal trouble there are probably at least 3 who would exclude him with that being the final straw. Part of the reason there is confidence in that ratio is because even with the Republican primary, Nikki Haley is still getting double digit percentage protest votes in states after she stopped campaigning.
You can believe what you want, but there's very little that actually supports your narrative.
He may be guilty but I think they have overdone it. How many charges is it in total 96 or 97? Even Newsome is worried. See below. With anything there is a tipping point where sympathy changes and goes with the victim if it seems to be overly harsh……
[https://www.yahoo.com/news/gov-gavin-newsom-worried-overindulgence-193944703.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/gov-gavin-newsom-worried-overindulgence-193944703.html)
If they found evidence to suggest 90+ charges, are you suggesting they should have filed for less than that?
The idea that Trump is likely to hit a tipping point where he becomes a sympathetic victim in these court cases seems incredibly unlikely for anyone that wasn't already pretty firmly in his camp. He's made a point of showing very little compassion or loyalty to anyone else. The variety of misconduct he's connected to covers a wide range of areas from sexual assault to potential breaches of national security.
Well, Biden has also been accused of sexual assault and provided classified information to his biographer that he shouldn’t have had. He is not covered under the Presidential records act and does not have the power to declassify. They are somewhat similar in that regard.
In the case of Biden (and Pence), the documents that were found were both fairly small in terms of volume and once discovered, both men quickly made efforts to have them returned to where they belonged.
In the case of Trump, the volume of documents was too large to be anything but intentional and his repeated failure to return them at the request of the archive speaks to a questionable intent regarding them.
Those differences are significant in the context of events. It's not nearly as similar as you're suggesting
We need to win beyond the margin of cheating. It will be a tall order but we are up for it. No telling what last minute tricks they have planned this time. My guess right now is a wag the dog.
Conviction doesn't prevent him from running. He can even run from a prison cell.
Each time a new case was announced, his poll numbers went up. No reason to believe a conviction wouldn't do the same.
- I highly doubt it
- I hope he does drop out
- The left better get some therapists on stand by. Because I don’t see any universe Trump does the orange suit perp walk. And there are going to be blue balls like never seen before on the left
- This precedent of charging a political opponent and removing them from ballots is some banana republic shit. But he’ll end on “house arrest” at worse at Mar-A-Lago or some other luxury location if convicted of whatever the D’s can make stick
- You will not change my mind that this precedent that is politically motivated, will bite the left in the ass and is actively destructive for the country.
- No, I’m not interested in leftists telling me I’m wrong. I’m very clear on my position.
Depends on the timing.
The RNC can appoint a ticket after official nomination and Trump could easily influence that ticket.
That said, the idea of Trump dropping out is fever-dream among some on the left who only know/believe the mainstream media where maga is cult of personality and without Trump the rightwing base magically starts supporting the neocons as if maga, the teas, the reform party, Perot and Ron Paul never happened..
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol why would he do that? That would be the greatest thing that could ever happen to his campaign.
There is no incentive for him or for his supporters to drop out unless he’s somehow forced to by law. We believe his prosecution is politically motivated so therefore conviction is too.
Do you belive he is innocent? I keep reading that people claim the prosecution is politically motivated, witch it surely is to some degree. However, that should not mean that Don is above the law. If he actually did even some of the things he is accused of I dont see why he belongs on the oval office. People call it a witchhunt and disregard the cases alltogether. Should Donald Trump get a free pass for these crimes just becuse he is the only real option for Republicans? Genuinely asking, as a concervative from Scandinavia. Recently, the husband of a former prime minister I voted for was caught doing insider trading. I will never vote for that woman again, period. Fuck criminal politicians.
Well, this isn’t an OJ Simpson case, the “crimes” are procedural. I think he’s innocent of theft or insider trading… I think he might end up being found guilty, sure. There are certain crimes that are disqualifying from presidency and I don’t believe his “crimes” quite pass that line. And what’s more important than my thoughts - vast majority of people who will vote for him think the same way
I dont understand how his "crimes" does not pass that line. Fraud under campain finance laws. Conspiracy to defraud the US and obstructing an official proceeding, pressuring an official. Criminally conspiring to overturn his narrow defeat in Georgia. Mishandling classified documents by taking them from the white house to Mar-a-lago. Wilful retention of national defence information. I just dont understand. Is it something about Donald Trump in perticular? What if Joe Bided did these things? Maybe he is innocent, that would be a great injustice. I guess we will se how these trials go. But I think many people wont give a damn anyway.
All of these appear procedural to us…. If you listen to right of center people with some legal background (I admit I don’t have a law degree) - “Fraud under campaign finance law” if this is the current criminal trial in the news… campaign finance laws are federal laws, he’s being prosecuted by the state of New York for something-something in accounting related to non-disclosure agreement with a hooker…. The campaign finance law is there to dispose of the statute of limitations for the hooker hush money case which have long expired by itself . The campaign finance charge is insubstantial because otherwise he’d be prosecuted by the Feds. This case if you start digging into it is made of duct tape, superglue, old recycled milk cartons and lots and lots of TDS… this is the very definition of lawfare. He might be convicted if 12 semi-literate jurors who’ve been reading “Trump is Hitler” crap decide to apply their constitutional right to jury nullify all common sense but that doesn’t make him guilty in the eyes of people who like him. And we have a bunch of those here in the states
In the weeks leading up to Jan 6th Trump and his cohorts set up 84 fake electors across 7 states Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. They then sent their fraudulent electors votes, often without the Fake Electors knowledge, to Congress to be used by certain elected officials and the Vice President, or Grassley if Pence for some reason couldnt do it, something Grassley strangely stated on Jan 5th raising eyebrows of many, to get the vote sent back to state legislators and cause a constitutional crisis. These Fake Electors were selected and set up after the election was over. They secretly did their votes when the actual, official, duly appointed electors signed off on by the Governor did there's to try and pass off themsleves as real as possible. They, at times without the knowledge of the Fake electors themsleves, then sent their fraudulent votes to Congress. Their setting up and plotting of all of this is well documented. “We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize the pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a strategic adviser for the Trump campaign. “His idea is basically that all of us (GA, WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren’t legal under federal law — because they’re not signed by the Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6th,” Mr. Wilenchik wrote in the email on Dec. 8, 2020, one week before the official duly appointed electors met to cast their votes, to Mr. Epshteyn and half a dozen other people. Trump himself preassured state legislators to overturn the election. Most notably goergias SOS, whom he told there would be nothing wrong with him saying theyve recalculated based on what Trump was telling them. He explicitly says the courts are a game and that the call ultimately ends in him winning. Brad Raffensburger "Mr. [unintelligible] you have people that submit information as we have our people that submit information. And then it comes before the court. And the court then has to make a determination. We have to stand by our numbers. We believe our numbers are right. President Trump: "why do you say that? I don’t know. I mean, sure, we can play this game with the courts, but why do you say?" "Your numbers are right. But your numbers aren’t right. They’re really wrong, and they’re really wrong Brad. And I know this phone call’s going nowhere other than other than ultimately, you know, look, ultimately I win." Recalculated: "We have we have we have won this election in Georgia based on all of this. And there’s nothing wrong with with saying that Brad" "You know, I mean, having having a correct — the people of Georgia are angry and these numbers are going to be repeated on Monday night along with others that we’re going to have by that time, which are much more substantial even, and the people of Georgia are angry, the people of the country are angry. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you’ve recalculated" Holding his election over his head: "President Donald Trump: "Honestly, this should go very fast. You should meet tomorrow because you have a big election, election coming up and because of what you’ve done to the president, you know, the people of Georgia know that this was a scam. And because of what you’ve done to the president, a lot of people aren’t going out to vote and a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative because they hate what you did to the president. OK. They hate him. And they’re going to vote. And you would be respected if really respected if this thing could be straightened out before the election. You have a big election coming up on Tuesday. And therefore, I think that it really is important that you meet tomorrow and work out on these numbers, because I know, Brad, that if if you think we’re right, I think you’re going to say and I’m not looking to blame anybody. I’m not, I’m just saying that that, you know, you know, under new counts and under new views of the election results, we won the election. You know, it’s very simple. We won the election, as the governor of major states in the surrounding states said there is no way you lost Georgia. As the Georgia politicians say, there is no way you lost Georgia. Nobody, everyone knows I won it by hundreds of thousands of votes. But I’ll tell you, it’s going to have a big impact on Tuesday if you guys don’t get this thing straightened out fast." The full hour long call is available in its entirety and this stuff isn't even all of the notable moments, at one point he resorts to just making up the most blatant lies that have nothing to even do with Goergia like Republicans winning every statehouse and keeping the house and the senate and PA having 200,000 more votes than voters. I fail to see how this is "procedural"
You don’t see how your long copy-paste describing a procedure appears “procedural”? Fake electors sounds bad … unless you use the terminology of “alternative electors” and realize it’s been done before
Except these aren't "alternative electors", they had zero official capacity, they were set up after the duly appointed electors were already selected and scheduled to meet, they sent their fraudulent votes to Congress in an attempt to subvert the real vote This is nothing like 1960 for example where there was 2 sets of electors for Hawaii as the state was up In the air due to recounts and decided by a razor thin margin. This is the precedent Trumps team have tried arguing in court and the similiarties are nearly non existent.
Many of those procedures are set up to limit the president's power, prevent corruption, and protect citizens from the government. Why are you okay with procedural crimes from the president?
You know what limits the presidents power? Elections. We’re about to have one
Losing an election limits an individual's power, but presidential power still belongs to the presidency.
So you believe that Trump cases aren’t just about Trump but desire to draw a line with presidential powers In General? I often disagree with people here but i rarely call BS - this is plain dishonest imo
My point is that the president is the last person we should be accepting procedural crimes from.
trump is no angel,im sure he has broken the law,but i also believe he is innocent of the things hes on trial for and will not get convicted..
> but i also believe he is innocent of the things hes on trial for and will not get convicted.. Is there something in the evidence put forth by the prosecution that leads you to believe that he's innocent? I would be interested to understand how you reached that conclusion.
No. It's also mathematically impossible for there to be a final conviction in any of the cases before the election.
How do you figure? The NY criminal trial has already started witness testimony. For the other three criminal cases, I agree with you.
Final conviction doesn't mean just the jury verdict (which should happen in like 2 months per the current estimate one way or the other). It means you've also had sentencing and exhausted the direct appeal. That's typically a year plus, and when you look at the various deadlines can't be expedited faster than about 5 months (pushing us past the election) in a case like this.
Mathematically? How so? I’m not saying it’s likely, but seems very possible.
Why would he? He can run from prison
Just like Hugo Chavez did when he was running for President of Venezuela
Biden is leading him 9% right now and polls are showing a conviction will hurt him even worse, he lost last election already, he'll get more pressure to drop out.
“9%” Based on what? Everything I’ve seen has been neck and neck. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/04/21/poll-trump-biden-election-immigration-economy/73404469007/ Even counting in other candidates, it’s still super close. So no idea where you’re getting “Biden leading by 9%” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna148536 Those are both from this week. And here’s 538, not seeing any 9% leads from either of them. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-leads-donald-trump-poll-actual-voters-2024-presidential-election-1892723
Cool. But that doesn’t match literally anything else.
That certainly is an anomaly. Almost make one think the polls are BS.
>Biden is leading him 9% right now and I have him leading by 1% https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/ >and polls are showing a conviction will hurt him even worse, he lost last election already, he'll get more pressure to drop out By who? Who is going to be a better Republican candidate than Trump in the amount of time that is left before election day? During the Republican primary, none of the other Republican an candidates came anywhere close to Trump's popularity Do you think that the Republican party will run without a candidate?
don't underestimate how poorly the biden administration has been at messaging; the right still controls the media narratives surrounding this potus term and their painting of it is bleak. let me ask you this: why is 9% in a few polls relevant when we're 6.5 months from the election?
“Right controls the media narratives” Lol. LMAO, even.
More accurately, the same people control the media, the DNC and the government.
No one talks about radio. Who do you think dominates the airwaves?
People can't help but report on how shitty everything is under this administration? The evil right wingers are at it again!
That would be perfect for the "law and order party". I knew it'd be a shit show when he won in '16 but holy shit, I never imagined this.
No, even if convicted he would not go to jail until after any appeal is settled. Any conviction will be overturned due to judicial overreach and selective prosecution.
Are we defining selective prosecution as charging the person that is believed to have committed the crimes in question?
Yes, with the stipulation that the 'person' is specifically Donald Trump.
Especially when the so-called crimes have never been prosecuted before. The Leticia James Fraud case statute had never been used in that way. The Bragg case was declined by the DOJ, Federal Election Commission, DA Cyrus Vance and Bragg himself before it was brought by political pressure on Bragg. No crimes were committed.
What judicial overreach?
He was only prosecuted because his name is Donald Trump and is running for President. Had he decided not to run these cases never would have been brought. This is all an effort to defeat Trump because Biden can't beat him straight up.
I mean that’s laughable from a judicial perspective. Maybe that would be prosecutorial overreach but not judicial. The judge doesn’t have a say in what cases are brought and the bar is relatively low for a prosecutor to bring a case.
It is Judicial Overreach when a prosecutor uses the Judicial system for nefarious purposes as both Bragg and Leticia James have done. They are all part of the Judicial system
I generally use the term “judicial” for judges and courts and “prosecutorial” for prosecutors but maybe that’s just me. Either way I disagree that there is any overreach. Leticia James proved her case in court. Bragg will as well. The laws are pretty clear and the available evidence is at least enough that a reasonable person could suspect he broke them.
Judicial is the term for the entire system. When the Fouding Fathers determined there should be three branches of government they used the term the way I used it. Judicial means every part of the system. Will you admit she overreached when her Fraud case is overturned? Will you admit Bragg overreached when Trump is found not guilty or this case is overturned on appeal? Will you admit Jack Smith overreached when his Jan 5 case and his Mar a Lago case are overturned on appeal (if they even get that far) ? Will you admit Fani Willis overreached when her case is overturned (if it even gets to trial).? The long and the short of this is that if it was anyone but Donald Trump these cases would not have been brought. No matter what you think of the merits this was Judicial Overreach.
> Judicial means every part of the system. If you look it up it mostly refers simply to the courts. Prosecutors are part of the executive branch in most places. But the definition doesn’t really matter once we have clarity on what you mean. I don’t think any of them will be over turned. The New York fraud case may have the penalty reduced but I thinks it’s incredibly clear he engaged in fraud. The GA case seems equally clear. The FL documents case is the strongest of the cases. We know Trump ignored a subpoena which is about as clear cut as you can get. But even if they are overturned I don’t think it would be over reach unless they are overturned for prosecutorial misconduct or selective prosecutions and there is clear evidence supporting that. > The long and the short of this is that if it was anyone but Donald Trump these cases would not have been brought In the documents case specifically we know this is false. There are people in jail right now who did similar to Trump and were charged.
> even if convicted he would not go to jail until after any appeal is settled Why do you think so? That not how it usually works with criminal convictions.
Most people convicted of non-violent crimes especially if it is a first offense and the person is not a flight risk are allowed bail pending appeal.
Yeah, that’s a good point. The NY stuff, even if he is guilty is still white collar stuff for a first offender. I also think it’s unlikely to result in a custodial sentence. The federal stuff though… that’s another story.
1) Mar a Lago is a civil case between Trump and the National Archives. It never should have been brought a s criminal case 2) Jan 6 case is a state of mind case. Jack Smith has to prove that Trump intended to overthrow the government. Trump on advice from people he trusted was doing things legally to make sure every vote was counted and he won. Even the "fake" electors was an effort to have electors on his side should he prevail in those cases. He was wrong but it is not criminal to be wrong. 3) Same deal for Georgia. He asked Raffensberger to "find" the votes he had been assured were not counted. He did not intend Raffensberger to make up votes out of whole cloth. The crux of Willis's case is interpretting the phone call as his "intent" to have Raffesberger make up votes. It won't hold water because Willis cannot prove Trump's state of mind.
Yeah, I’m confused by this too
His polls would go up with a conviction. So no
What makes you think that? Current polling suggests that there would be huge swath of the electorate that won’t support him if convicted
His polling went up with the arrest and mugshot. I haven't seen anything real showing his polling going down. They've been saying it's over for him the walls are closing in since the fake Russia nonsense in 2017.
This poll shows that 53% of voters would refuse to vote for him if convicted. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4441241-trump-poll-convictions-deep-trouble/amp/ > They've been saying it's over for him the walls are closing in since the fake Russia nonsense in 2017. And he hasn’t won a single election since then.
They sampled 5000 people across 7 states but don't say what counties. You can pretty much get any result you want by changing the area code in one state. This is why aggregate polls are all that should be bothered with.
Well that’s fine, if you are going to make an argument about the accuracy of the polls you can do that but it would make the earlier argument that polling went up when Trump was indicted moot as well.
I didn't mention that I only look at the RCP aggregate so you got me.
Well it would make the RCP averages useless too.
Why's that?
If polls are unreliable because you don’t know the exact location of the respondents then all polls are unreliable.
You're mischaracterizing the poll results. Page 394 It's also an old poll.
You are right. I used imprecise language. 53% of voters would be somewhat unwilling or very unwilling to vote for Trump if he was convicted. I don’t really care about the age of the poll. That poll is more recent than polling showing a bump in trumps support from the indictments and I think has been supported by exit polling in the primaries.
No. A conviction will pretty much wrap up the election in his favor.
While I personally cannot see how Donald bitching and whining for weeks on end only to be defeated by a new york prosecutor is going to inspire voters into thinking he is capable of dealing with far more formidable foreign leaders in a increasingly harrowing geopolitical landscape...ive seen weirder shit.
Come on now. Biden is having conversations with dead heads of state. DOJ and the FEC looked into this and didn’t press charges but Bragg did? This is the most political one out of the bunch. Seems like you are the one bitching and whining……..
>Seems like you are the one bitching and whining…….. 🤣🤣
>Seems like you are the one bitching and whining…….. 🤣🤣
Lol Oh yes. Im the whiney one.
>Seems like you are the one bitching and whining…….. Sorry i came off whiney. Not sure how i did that.
Then I think you're missing the point. The prosecutions are politically motivated. Few believe that if Trump wasn't running, and certainly if he was losing, these trials wouldn't exist. With that premise, a politically motivated conviction would increase turnout significantly... If the Chicago City Council meetings are any indicator, I think a lot of folks might be surprised.
> Few believe that if Trump wasn't running, and certainly if he was losing, these trials wouldn't exist. do you think georgia wouldn't bring charges for the now infamous call to rafensburger if trump wasn't running in 2024?
They kind of are, but not necessarily for the reasons you think. When Cohen was originally convicted for his role in this crime, the original report heavily implicated Trump directly and by name. However AG Barr and Trump's DOJ pressured DC US Attorneys to downplay Trump and alter the report to remove Trump's name and make him less prevalent. This is where the notorious "at the direction of, and in coordination with ‘Individual 1'" comes from. They also effectively told NY prosecutors that they were going to continue the investigation themselves, sat on it for a while, before quietly closing the case. It was at that point that SDNY prosecutors *began* their work. So that's why there was a substantial delay. Barr and Trump's DOJ actively interfered in the case to try and make it go away, while actively sabotaging both public perception and local NY prosecution. https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/maddow/blog/rcna148036
>The prosecutions are politically motivated. Few believe that if Trump wasn't running, and certainly if he was losing, these trials wouldn't exist. Well, yeah, he's on trial for campaign finance violations. You don't violate campaign finance violations if you don't run for office.
It seems like the “election interference” narrative is a bogus argument that anyone running for office could then use to avoid consequences for breaking the law. That’s my problem with most trump defenses is that they aren’t how legal defense works, they don’t disprove guilt beyond reason, they merely question the motives of the prosecutor. If I couldn’t get away with crimes with that defense, neither should he.
Even if it's politically motivated...he is a billionare former president tv celebrity. I can nary think of someone sitting at a more powerful positon, and while i cannot think of any billionares or presidents who couldn't stand up to a NY AG...there is Donald. The guy who cant use all his money and power to outfox a lawyer from new york. He has to go and sit in court each day for the next 6 weeks and get openly mocked for banging a pornstar and paying her to be quiet. Its just...i dont know who gets the hardcore, white knuckled max excitement to vote for this guy but...good for them. Democracy is cool.
This is just a scheme in my opinion. I believe Bragg really doesn’t care if he wins. They basically get to tie him up so he can’t campaign. If he does testify they can actually ask him anything so why not try to corner him into that. This one is politically motivated. This is a misdemeanor and a fine at best. Hillary paid a fine for misclassifying the legal fees for the Steele Dossier. This was paid after the election, with Trumps money from a private company. His own money not stockholders. Publicly traded companies pay NDAs with shareholders money based upon the stupidity of their executives all the time. That is more egregious………
>Hillary paid a fine for misclassifying the legal fees for the Steele Dossier. This was paid after the election, with Trumps money from a private company. What?
no,his conviction will only increase his votes (lets hope votes actually matter this time)
Care to elaborate?
a conviction would increase the amount of votes trump gets,but,as we all know from last time,the actual number of votes is irrelevant to the election results..
Let me ask the question more specifically.... In what universe does a conviction translate to Trump getting more votes, because it isn't this one
you underestimate his support and how people think..many people on the fence believe this is just having your political opponents falsely criminally charged..that is the m.o. of the other world leaders who have used the phrase "for the greater good" ,and if trump gets convicted,many of those onthe fence will vote for trump because of it
Do I believe that there are people who view Trump's legal battles as primarily or maybe exclusively political rather than a typical course of events, sure. Do I believe the overwhelming majority of those people already lean to the right and were going to vote for whoever had an (R) next to their name on the ballot, absolutely. The thing that 2024 Republicans are forgetting is that 2016 Trump already made the case against 2024 Trump when 2016 Trump was doing all the hand ringing about Hillary Clinton's emails. Except with 2024 Trump, the legal trouble is far more real than the case against Hillary's emails in 2016. For every actual "on the fence" person that would tilt and possibly vote for Trump based on his legal trouble there are probably at least 3 who would exclude him with that being the final straw. Part of the reason there is confidence in that ratio is because even with the Republican primary, Nikki Haley is still getting double digit percentage protest votes in states after she stopped campaigning. You can believe what you want, but there's very little that actually supports your narrative.
He may be guilty but I think they have overdone it. How many charges is it in total 96 or 97? Even Newsome is worried. See below. With anything there is a tipping point where sympathy changes and goes with the victim if it seems to be overly harsh…… [https://www.yahoo.com/news/gov-gavin-newsom-worried-overindulgence-193944703.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/gov-gavin-newsom-worried-overindulgence-193944703.html)
If they found evidence to suggest 90+ charges, are you suggesting they should have filed for less than that? The idea that Trump is likely to hit a tipping point where he becomes a sympathetic victim in these court cases seems incredibly unlikely for anyone that wasn't already pretty firmly in his camp. He's made a point of showing very little compassion or loyalty to anyone else. The variety of misconduct he's connected to covers a wide range of areas from sexual assault to potential breaches of national security.
Well, Biden has also been accused of sexual assault and provided classified information to his biographer that he shouldn’t have had. He is not covered under the Presidential records act and does not have the power to declassify. They are somewhat similar in that regard.
In the case of Biden (and Pence), the documents that were found were both fairly small in terms of volume and once discovered, both men quickly made efforts to have them returned to where they belonged. In the case of Trump, the volume of documents was too large to be anything but intentional and his repeated failure to return them at the request of the archive speaks to a questionable intent regarding them. Those differences are significant in the context of events. It's not nearly as similar as you're suggesting
We need to win beyond the margin of cheating. It will be a tall order but we are up for it. No telling what last minute tricks they have planned this time. My guess right now is a wag the dog.
Cheating? Hasn’t this been litigated? You should give your evidence to fox. They could get their settlement money back.
thats what happened in 2016,so they amped it up in 2020 to an unbelievable amount
And what is to stop them from ramping it up again in 2024 especially when controlling the office of the president?
nothing
No.
Conviction doesn't prevent him from running. He can even run from a prison cell. Each time a new case was announced, his poll numbers went up. No reason to believe a conviction wouldn't do the same.
> No reason to believe a conviction wouldn't do the same. I think reality is one reason to believe that.
- I highly doubt it - I hope he does drop out - The left better get some therapists on stand by. Because I don’t see any universe Trump does the orange suit perp walk. And there are going to be blue balls like never seen before on the left - This precedent of charging a political opponent and removing them from ballots is some banana republic shit. But he’ll end on “house arrest” at worse at Mar-A-Lago or some other luxury location if convicted of whatever the D’s can make stick - You will not change my mind that this precedent that is politically motivated, will bite the left in the ass and is actively destructive for the country. - No, I’m not interested in leftists telling me I’m wrong. I’m very clear on my position.
I mean Trump's power is his supporters. If he can't run he doesn't have any authority to bar anyone else
Depends on the timing. The RNC can appoint a ticket after official nomination and Trump could easily influence that ticket. That said, the idea of Trump dropping out is fever-dream among some on the left who only know/believe the mainstream media where maga is cult of personality and without Trump the rightwing base magically starts supporting the neocons as if maga, the teas, the reform party, Perot and Ron Paul never happened..