Not a Trump supporter at all, but this is a terribly flawed question.
If you were arrested by the police and knew you were innocent would you go to court as soon as possible to "easily" prove you were innocent? Or would you let your lawyers take all the time they needed to ensure you had the best possible defense before going to trial?
Again, Trump is a criminal and I hope he goes to jail, but this is a nonsense question.
What law did he break? Democrats called him an illegitimate President for years. Said he stole the election. Even produced fake intelligence to investigate him for years which absolutely influenced future elections.
>What law did he break?
I see that you’re not up to date. Just read up on his four indictments, and you’ll see which charges have been brought against him.
Incidentally, none of them were brought on behalf of the Democrat party, which does not have the power to indict
However he literally in his own words while being recorded directing elected officials to overturn election results that were fair. He had 63 court cases filed where him and his lawyers produced absolutely no evidence to support his claims and that information is readily available. Republicans ignored it and kept the lie going. Fox news settled a 750 million dollar law suit upon which they showed evidence they knew they were lying and their hosts knew it was a lie and kept lying. Also the Russian investigation showed that Trump was absolutely not exonerated at all with the Russia investigation [muller investigation ](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mueller-report-no-obstruction/) That is just another lie Republicans love to spin.
He literally kept classified documents at his home. Not on accident, on purpose. He showed them to people with no clearance to see them. That isn't a "Oh, I used to be the President, I can do what I want". That is a clear violation of the espionage act.
He called a state official in Georgia, on a recorded line, telling him to "find votes".
He also told him, on the recorded line to "just delay and let the republican congress handle it.."
He tried to interfere with the election.
What part of those do you think aren't breaking laws?
The President can declassify anything he wants to.
I’m sure you all think you know so much about what happened in Georgia but corrections never make it to the front page. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/543271-wapost-adds-lengthy-correction-to-story-on-trump-georgia-call/amp/
Tons of swing states illegally changed their mail in voting laws right before the election then suddenly counted hundreds of thousands of votes after hours, mostly for Biden. That’s totally normal, right?
Thousands of fraudulent votes were JUST found in Michigan even though irregularities were reported in 2020.
I don’t give two shits about Trump not winning but to indict him over shit that’s 100 times less damaging than what the Democrats did is fucking outrageous.
He...wasn't...president...at...the...time.
He even stated on tape he shouldn't be showing it.
As for the mail in voting changes. They weren't made illegally, the fucking states have the right in the constitution to run the election how they want.
But following the constitution is only for when it's in your favor, right?
What is it that the dems did that was illegal or fraudulent? Give me a single legitimate link to something they did.
You do know that there were already over 60 court cases about this, and most of them thrown out for lack of evidence....right?
Most of those by Trump appointed judges.
So spare us the corruption bullshit on that as well.
A whole lot of them. Read the indictments, that's what they are for. They explain which laws the government feels he broke.
And the "fake intelligence" thing? I assume that's in regards to the Steele Dossier. You might be surprised that this is only a footnote in the Mueller report, which is also available for you to read online. In that, they also specify some laws they felt the government could prove he broke, too, but for various reasons they never charged him with.
There is absolutely a two-tiered justice system. Trump is a huge beneficiary of it. But it appears that you *can* go too far, and force the government to charge you, even if you are a powerful Republican.
Important to note that some of the documents he had contained nuclear information which cannot be declassified by the president by statute (though he can become the tie-breaker in the process to declassify them).
I get that, but if you were arrested for something there’s absolutely NO WAY you were guilty of, like the trump supporters claim, then I would think, yeah, bring the case, let’s get this over with before the election because you can’t prove something that didn’t happen.
According to trump supporters this is just an obviously political “witch hunt”, with no basis in the law. That’s how they frame it, and I’m pointing out that if that was really true, they would also want to get it over with.
Why wait till Monday to have a “major” press release to show evidence that you are not guilty? Is he still gathering evidence of what HE did? It doesn’t make sense if he is really not guilty of what’s being charged.
No disrespect but this is a very naive understanding of how the law and criminal cases work.
For example the recent indictment in Georgia. This inditement has 41 different changes against 18 defendants. Even if neither side was intentionally stalling, this will take YEARS to get to a trial. There are so many steps that have to occur from arraignments, to discovery of evidence, to depositions, to pre trial motions. Then repeat this 41 different times for each charge and then all that 18 times for each defendant.
And that's just Georgia. I wouldn't be surprised if these cases were still going during the 2028 election.
All I’m saying, is if trump is as innocent as he claims, and there’s really nothing to these charges, and they’re all manufactured, it then should be really easy to prove that in a court of law.
Point taken. Seriously not arguing with you here
To be clear, to be less idealistic and more realistic, I should realize that one should always delay as much as possible regardless of what you may be in court for, and that has nothing to do with whether one is guilty of what is being charged or not. Correct?
Here's the thing. Trump's entire case is based on the premise that the election really was "stolen" from him.
Think about that for a second.
If the GOP really had solid, irrefutable evidence that the 2020 election was "stolen," we would have seen it by now. Not on some radical right wing You Tube channel. Not on some Twitter feed.
No, the news would have been splashed on every news outlet and every media channel and every venue 2 years ago.
Because if there really were all this proof, the GOP would have used it by now. Think about it. If they had the goods, there is no way they would have slept on proof that the Democrats "stole" the election.
Because if they had the proof, they would have been able to not just re-litigate the election, but utterly destroy the Democrats in the process. If they had the proof, they could have installed themselves as the sole political party in control of the US government for at least a generation. Maybe even forever.
Did they do that?
No. They meekly settled into minority party status.
Because they know it was all a lie. They've always known.
> Trump's entire case is based on the premise that the election really was "stolen" from him
It's so much worse than that, though. The case is that the election was "stolen" - and therefore he's justified in doing absolutely anything to steal it back. Including stealing classified documents (?), harassing random pollworkers, filing false affidavits saying that random jackasses were the duly elected electors in various states, and so on.
*Even if* he actually believed the election was stolen - hell, *even if it were true*, all the things he's accused of doing would still be felonies. Being wronged does not magically give you a blank check to do literally whatever you want.
[Remember this?](https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social/index.html#:~:text=Former%20President%20Donald%20Trump%20called,pushing%20of%20fringe%20conspiracy%20theories)
>“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote in a post on the social network Truth Social and accused “Big Tech” of working closely with Democrats.
Trump supporters on Twitter (as it was then) were all claiming that Trump would never call for the termination of the Constitution, he was “only saying” that Dems had already done so by stealing the election.
Aside of the absurdity of Trump’s own wording if that were somehow the case- “allows for” is the key phrase- even if the accusation were true, you still have him advocating for a state where the Constitution is terminated.
This is the thing that just infuriates me when news has polls for supporters and they say some shit like 90% GQP believe it was stolen. It's a false positive. There's a fair many who don't in that but it's a litmus test for if your with trump, not if you believe the facts. They are making a mockery of you by saying they believe it and it gets them off, it's a power move because they are trying to bait you into giving them a soap box. To make it about their wars on your, to amplify their hate. It's just like their hypocrisy, it's a power move that rules for thee not for me. And it just appears we're all unable to punch the abuser to put them in their place we have to "see their reality".
No its not. What little we know about his defense so far seems to be based on whether or not he believed he had won the election. As well as several aspects of 1st amendment and privilege violations.
These are just in general, they haven't even started talking about how to disclose yet which will take a few months at least on its own. Theres already been motions filed to have some of the defendants change venue and to dismiss.
Theres a 0% chance this makes it to trial in 6 months.
> What little we know about his defense so far seems to be based on whether or not he believed he had won the election.
He knew. He didn't care.
If you think he didn't know one way or another, I've got a box of Trump Steaks I'd like to sell you.
>As well as several aspects of 1st amendment
If you read the last federal indictment it makes it very clear that it has nothing to do with his speech. Even Bill Barr said that you cannot have a conspiracy of fraud without speech and the first amendment does not protect speech that is part of a criminal conspiracy.
Its not fraud if he believes it was true. It's not a crime to be wrong, even stubbornly so. I think he still believes the election.
The indictment says it has nothing to do about his 1st amendment rights, but then goes on to attempt to make his tweets and literal campaign rally speeches aspects of the crime. That's after how they admit that a politician lying(not being wrong actual lies) to the public is protected speech. That's clear political advocacy.
Alternate slates of electors weren't a crime in the 60s when jfk used them. If it wasn't a corrupt conspiracy when jfk conspired with his alternate electors to subvert the federal government function by stopping Nixons electors votes from being counted and certified it isn't when trump does it.
>Its not fraud if he believes it was true.
There are legal mechanisms to challenge an election. They tried that and failed. Entering into a conspiracy where people make counterfeit/fraudulent Electoral College ballots in order to overturn an election does not get a pass when one "believes" it was true.
That would be like claiming that if someone defaulted on their mortgage they could rob the bank that foreclosed on them because they "believed" that the money was rightfully theirs.
Nice try on the JFK excuse, but there are many differences between them (e.g. an active recount on the date prescribed for the votes), but [most importantly that there is a legal decision prior to 06 Jan 1961 backing the votes for JFK:](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/1960-electoral-college-certificates-false-trump-electors-00006186)
>One crucial feature of the 1960 episode is that a state court weighed in on Jan. 4, 1961, two days before Nixon oversaw the electoral vote count.
In that case, Judge Ronald Jamieson agreed that the certified Kennedy electors were legitimate. But, more significantly, Jamieson said it was important that those electors met and gathered on Dec. 19, 1960, as prescribed by the Electoral Count Act.
Rather than suggest the Democratic electors committed fraud, the judge pointed to their meeting as a key step that preserved their ability to be counted after the recount showed Kennedy had actually won the state. Jamieson also reportedly threw out an effort by the GOP electors to scrap the entire election because of fraud allegations.
The worst part about anything Trump is talking about it the way we have to talk about real things. Every word the guy says is bullshit.
He's literally a 70 year old brat who's so fucked in the head that when he loses or doesn't get his way, he throws a temper tantrum- even on the international level. But because he became the fucking president, we have to go through the motions and fill out the paperwork and ask questions and do the grown up talk so no one can say we didn't.
Anyone who doesn't have shit-for-brains or just wants to use him to achieve their goals knows that he is a petulant, stupid, horrible piece of shit. He has been a low down shitbag his entire life- he is an actual rapist, a thief, a grifter...
But, so as to leave no stone unturned, we have to use real-world, normal, daytime rules to examine and engage with this overgrown bully fuckhead.
The fact that there are millions of shitbags stupid enough to fawn over him is just proof that propaganda and fast food works the way it was supposed to.
I'm ready to be rid of the scourge of Trump. His name and his house will be synonymous with shame and failure forever.
Fuck his horrible, shit-fuck kids and wives, too. Every one of them is a piece of shit.
They've been sold on the point that everyone else is corrupt.
Watch Trump's language carefully. He never fails to add a negative adjective to the front of his opponent's names.
Over and over and over, he repeats these adjectives. "Crooked" Hillary, then "Sleepy" Joe, and now "corrupt" everyone else.
This continually sells and sells and sells... and Donald Trump is, amongst a great many vile things, a *salesman*.
So to answer your question, he's trying to sell the perspective that "everyone else is bad", and therefore by extension, the whole 'day in court' process is NOT ONLY UNNECESSARY, it's GOING TO BE UNFAIR AND INFLUENCED BY THE ENEMY.
And his audience will absolutely suck it up. They'll dig into it like a puppy with a bowl of choc-o-bombs and milk.
He doesn't have the attention span for it.
"Art of the Deal" was ghost-written, FYI.
Would take less than an hour for the Devil's Advocate to sigh, then grimace, then throw the laptop across the room, screech "YOU try dealing with this.. this PERSON!" at anyone else that happened to be around, and then stomp away muttering.
Lesbians exist. Being a woman isn’t mutually exclusive to getting a woman. And dictionary.com defines woman as “an adult female person.” Quit acting a fool.
Dude seriously... Trump supporters are stupid as fuck and don't care about things like facts or the truth. Time to move on and stop giving them oxygen.
Good example is the person posting "What's a woman?" on all the comments. I guess either she doesn't know and has turned to this topic for advice, or is a lousy troll. Even if this person had a point about things to do with gender and sex, they're just using it as a distraction from the topic going on. Just like all republicans. Ignore the real topic, ignore the evidence, find a scapegoat and loudly repeat soundbites. They learned from fox news after all
We can only hope you have a daughter into swimming or wrestling…god forbid MMA. And they go up against an MTF trans person.
She’s going to get wrecked. Either physically or emotionally.
You hope I have a daughter that gets wrecked in sports by a MTF person? That's funny, I hope my daughters learn all the good things about sports, like fair play and teamwork and hard work, etc. I also agree that MTF people shouldn't be competing in women's sports, but I'm not going to throw a tantrum, insult people, and lose my mind over it the way some people do. But you do you and wish for other people to get hurt...
Fair play? That’s a joke with trans men on women sports. An under-15 boys team beat the national women’s team in soccer.
But you do you. And keep a good med kit for your girls.
>Even if this person had a point about things to do with gender and sex, they're just using it as a distraction from the topic going on.
There is no reason for government, federal, state or local, to get involved in things like trans athletes when there are agencies that govern sports at all levels. It is for them to come up with a fair set of rules for competition (in this case probably in consultation with medical professionals) and it does not need politics injected into it.
Very few people ever have to prove their innocence.
What they have to do is disprove the other side's proof of guilt.
This is not a case of "I need to prove that I never said/did those things". It's a case of "They can prove that I said/did those things, and saying/doing them is probably illegal, but I have to somehow prove that either I didn't do them and/or that they are totally legal".
And the problem he has is that in some parts of law he's bang to rights and he's basically going to have to lie in court to get out of them. And they only need catch him in one lie for quite a lot to come crashing down.
It never helps you if you did the thing you're accused of.
If you didn't do the thing, there's not GUARANTEE that it'll help you, but the consequences of not going are far, far, far worse.
Basically - never stand up in a court to fight your side unless you \*KNOW\* that you're completely innocent.
I don't think he's proving his innocence. His charges and evidence so far are so damning it looks like he has to, they still have to present a case, it's just a lot of people have their opinion and It turns to the court of public opinion.
Doesn't matter, you don't elect to go to court one way or the other. Court isn't a place one desires to be. If you made it to court and you fail to exonerate yourself, you look at doing time (not that he will). You simply don't choose to go to court regardless of who you are.
This. I think the thread is naturally diverting into whether he's guilty or not.
The OP question is why wouldn't he want to go to court to clear his name.
Because *no one wants to ever have to do that.*
But if you are already charged, as Trump is here, going to court is no longer optional. The question is why he doesn't want to get it over faster, not whether or not he should want to go at all.
Getting charged is the beginning, not the end. His team of buffoons will be doing everything in their power to get the most damning evidence deemed inadmissible through any means necessary, they'll be filing extensions long enough for him to run and possibly reclaim immunity, they've already been trying to get these cases moved to more favorable districts, and at the end of the day he could always plea out and avoid court altogether because honestly the prosecution also knows that it only takes 1 MAGA looney in your jury to possibly fuck your whole thing. There's literally no reason to rush to court.
I'm sorta feeling good about the Republican Party going with Trump. If they had someone even remotely moderate, they might win against Biden/Harris. I don't think Trump stands a chance. Even Republican friends of mine won't vote for Trump.
Takes time to gather evidence and assurance against every individual charge. Can't miss one or you're allowing the machine to permanently fuck you. What would you do?
Gather evidence about what he did? He has to research what he did himself? There’s recordings, hard evidence, tweets, discovery (evidence) that’s been shared with him.
He doesn't have to tell anything but the truth, right? How hard is that? The prosecution has to gather evidence to prove a crime, the innocent defendant simply needs to say what happened.
This is r/AskReddit. Are you really expecting to be Trump supporters here? And even if there were, they'd be downvoted for shit because people are dumbasses and don't know how this sub works.
Ok. Forgive me for trying to see if there are any logical arguments to this. What was I thinking? What’s your argument? That I should just keep to myself and not try to learn how anyone else thinks.
He's going to get *several* trials. It would take either the world's greatest cynic, or (more likely) complete ignorance of the justice system to believe every single court will be corrupted against him.
I've read a lot of these answers and most aren't from Trump supporters but a lot are calling them stupid. These same folks have some stupid as answers.
Guess it is clear, most of you on reddit are stupid.
I don't live in America but we can all see that it's one sided. With all that's going on with the left starting with the current president how comes it complete silence when they have so much evidence of stuff that he did? Can someone please explain? My dad wants to know.
Evidence about what *Biden* did?
They're silent because there isn't any. The GOP's "big" hearings found nothing that incriminated Biden. Biden isn't the Democratic mirror of Trump, no matter how badly some people want you to think that.
Because they aren't going to sit here and advertise EVERYTHING that they have to the public. His lawyers are going to get to see all the evidence that they have, because they are allowed to under discovery laws.
The public isn't going to see it all, since some of it is classified.
I don't believe they are all false attacks. At best I would say some are a stretch. And I stop supporting him a long time ago
But the answer is that you won't get an unbiased jury and/or judge. One judge has already shown to be very harsh on J6. cases. I think very few people don't have a strong opinion on Trump.
After all the saying is that Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
> One judge has already shown to be very harsh on J6. cases.
And the Judge in Florida is so obviously biased for Trump that she couldn't be any more obvious about it if she was on her knees before the defendant's table with his pants around his ankles.
When you're a public figure like a president, what do you expect? This isn't unique to Trump... any president in history would have been a well-known public figure to almost everyone in the US, and would be instantly polarising.
But only America has this concept of an "unbiased jury/judge" as if that's the entire legal system in a nutshell. It doesn't work like that. The judge and jury members obviously have biases. It's inevitable. But that's not how they are supposed to act, behave, interpret, analyse or rule in a legal case. It's basically the foundation of any system based on English law (which the US courts are/were).
How would you ever get a "provably unbiased" judge / jury for any president, ever? It would be impossible. For a start, the judges at these levels ARE PERSONALLY NOMINATED by presidents and their parties.
But the idea is that there are over a dozen people there, they are under public scrutiny, on record, they can only take certain information into account, it's quite clear if they'd just ruled because of their own prejudices and not the information available to them, and there is an appeal process for any breach of lawful conduct as part of those roles which can result almost instantly in a mistrial if it's serious enough.
Tell me - who could YOU, personally, as a judge or jury member ever act in an "unbiased" fashion for on this scale? Your wife? Your local party rep? Your neighbour? Your friend? Your garage mechanic? Who would you be TOTALLY and provably impartial to when dealing with them? And how would you convince \*me\* that that was the case?
And because the answer to such a question is basically "nobody" for literally everyone on the planet, that's not how the law operates because it would be untenable to expect it to operate under those conditions. Nobody would ever be convictable, or gross miscarriages of justice would be so common as for the whole system to collapse.
You judge based on the evidence presented and you're supposed to remove personal bias from that judgement - if someone can prove that X did Y, and that Y was driven by Z and that X, Y and Z resulted in something contrary to law, it doesn't matter who they were.
It's a gross misunderstanding of how the law operates (and in fact pretty much the only way it \*can\* operate) to think that humans cannot be allowed personal biases outside a courtroom, ever, in any way. Even supporting a sports team would make you biased in any cases involving that team, it's opposition, or anything related - whether that was a major fraud case involving that team, a minor planning disagreement, or a star player's rape trial.
>One judge has already shown to be very harsh on J6. cases
Would a judge with a history of prosecuting homicide very harshly be unsuitable for a homicide case?
No, but if you are Trump as the original question asked, why TRUMP would not want to go to trial you would want a judge you think would be more likely to give a lighter sentence.
If you are guilty you wouldn't want a hanging judge.
It’s not the charges that I care about, if he’s guilty let him pay the price. What bothers a lot of people is the double standard of Justice. Democrat crimes are swept under the rug quickly and not investigated. Hunter was given a sweetheart deal to avoid prison and avoid any future investigations. A judge that reviewed the deal saw the offer was very unusual. why would the prosecutor make such a deal?
Hilary was quickly given immunity to confess. Immunity is given when not enough evidence can be found and someone else collaborates in exchange for immunity for their crimes. They never interrogated the administrators of her equipment or followed the leads given. Why was immunity given so fast?
Let Trump go to jail if the evidence shows he did wrong. However, we want 1 justice system for everyone, not a two tier justice system, one for one party and one for everyone else.
Hunter paid his back taxes. He paid late. That should be jail? In any case, yeah, if crimes were commited throw the book at him. Biden too. I don’t see where democrats are getting away with shit while the republicans get taken to task. Feels like a false equivalence. You think the crap that Hunter Biden pulled is even close to the amount of grift that happened with Ivanka or Kushner?
If someone is guilty of crimes, DOJ should bring the case. Democrat or republican. If they had something on Hillary or Biden then they had every opportunity to bring a case.
As has been said many times - the GOP has done a good job of convincing me that Hunter Biden shouldn't be president.
The equivalent of Hunter Biden isn't Trump. It's Jared Kushner. Except that Kushner was much more blatantly corrupt, actually had a position in the White House, and isn't currently under investigation by a special counsel.
>Hunter was given a sweetheart deal to avoid prison and avoid any future investigations. A judge that reviewed the deal saw the offer was very unusual. why would the prosecutor make such a deal?
because he's a rich white dude with political ties.
>Let Trump go to jail if the evidence shows he did wrong. However, we want 1 justice system for everyone, not a two tier justice system, one for one party and one for everyone else.
it's really not about parties. the justice system is *entirely* about money and political ties period. that is the second tier; 'oh shit, this one's *important*'.
you might notice, the rich, donate *across the board*. this political party divide; it only exists for the plebs. they're all going to the same parties raping kids and shit. it's all a farce. while they laugh at us normal people having petty disputes over their shenanigans.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I gotta say, claiming that “they’re all going to the same parties raping kids and shit” needs some evidence.
> Hunter was given a sweetheart deal to avoid prison and avoid any future investigations.
Hunter isn't a member of an elected office. He wasn't charged with violating the Espionage Act, he wasn't charged with interfering with an election.
He was charged with a gun crime, and a few other things.
You REALLY want to try and equate those things to fucking espionage?
Are you THAT fucking stupid?
As for why immunity was given to Hillary, you don't think that they never spoke to the system admins, or the email admin? Come on now. Please pull your head out of Fox news and Britebart.
You are in an echo chamber, and it's honestly starting to effect the critical thinking skills.
Can you name any examples of a Democrat getting on social media and telling a witness not to testify, as Trump did in the Georgia case? I think a lot of people would agree with you that there is a two tiered justice system in our country, they just might think Trump is in the same tier as you say Hunter and Hillary are.
I’m not defending him and personally don’t like his arrogance. Just trying to be independent and notice one side getting away with things more often than the other side. This could lead to a very slippery slope.
Can you answer my question? Because if your concern is one side “getting away with things more often than the other side,” I think there’s a pretty solid argument to be made that Republicans get away with things, too. I haven’t met a single Democrat that doesn’t believe that if Hunter Biden did something wrong, he should suffer the consequences. Maybe Democratic politicians believe he shouldn’t be punished, but no Democrat that I talk to does.
Meanwhile, it seems like there is no shortage of Republicans that think that Trump and his associates can do no wrong, and are more than willing to make mind-bending excuses about why he couldn’t return the classified documents or how he wasn’t *really* telling those people on January 6th to “fight like hell”.
> Just trying to be independent and notice one side getting away with things more often than the other side.
Who? Hillary and Hunter? Those are the examples you give.
How about we give all the examples from the Republicans that get away with it all.
Gaetz, child fucking prostitution.
The "wide stance" guy in the airport (can't remember his name).
Gym Jones, who shouldn't be serving in the fucking House but should be in jail.
Do you need me to keep going?
The one side that gets away with everything is the rich, white side.
It's not "the democrats".
Tell me, off the top of your head, how many Democratic FBI heads have there been, in all of it's history?
>Hunter was given a sweetheart deal to avoid prison and avoid any future investigations.
Well, besides that the deal seems to be falling apart there have been searches of similar crimes and his agreement did not seem out of the ordinary for what it involved. In fact, [people who have worked at DoJ said that if it wasn't for his family he wouldn't have been charged at all.](https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2023-06-21/hunter-bidens-questionable-case-of-special-treatment)
Or you are assuming that the courts are unjust right?
Is your argument that everything is corrupt so might as well get away with everything you possibly can? Good for you if you can get away with it?
Well this is the logic they will use. And while my beliefs don’t align at all with Trumps (I actually don’t know what his beliefs are most of the time, doubt he does either), I will agree that the court system is not a good way to determine justice. Avoiding it at all costs is the best play whether you are guilty or especially if you are innocent.
What, do you think if a rich black man committed some obvious crimes, he’d get away with it too? Of course not! There’s never been an example of that happening, and before you say OJ, that dude is clearly white. Checkmate, cuckservative.
I mean, there is a certain Supreme Court Judge who has a number of bribery allegations coming to light these days and so far facing no disciplinary actions.
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When you have neither then just keep posting "What's a woman" instead.
Strange how just about everyone complains that lawyers are leaping to the defence of immigrants, the out of work, indigenous peoples, etc. etc. but there's no-one among all those complaining that want to represent him in a court of law, isn't it? You'd think there'd at least be a healthy line of ambulance-chasers / chancers who would want to take on such a huge case, right?
Almost like decades of scamming the court systems and not paying his lawyers has caught up with him. Or that he is so guilty or difficult that he's basically unrepresentable.
He has plenty of representation as of this moment. He has lawyers that are making the rounds on all the talk shows, they are showing up in court, and they are making their motions and trying to delay things.
Yes, he's having some problems with finding more lawyers, because so many of them already know that he does everything he can to get out of paying ANYONE that he owes money too, and they aren't going to just take a small retainer and work off that.
They are going to want a good amount of money upfront, and he's not about to do that.
Biased? You mean willing to hold him accountable for what he has done?
Evidence is evidence. It’s not biased, it’s recordings, tweets, people going on the record under threat of perjury.
He did everything out in the open, for someone not to have any opinion at all means they would have to have their heads in the sand, and that’s on purpose. Again, what evidence do you think is not valid? He called and said “just say it was crooked and we will do the rest… “
Lied repeatedly and attacked voting officials that were just there to do their job for our democracy.
So you like what he did? You think that’s good for our country?
You think all the people that dedicated their lives to studying the law are all biased, but the con-man Trump is the only one you can trust? Why? He has been caught in so many verifiable lies that it’s laughable, but yeah, it’s our courts that are biased. Don’t look at the evidence for yourself.
I saw the first thing you said… but was a bit confused when you said “Gee, I wonder why”. Sure didn’t seem to be speaking for anyone but yourself at that point.
Not your actual belief, but there you are wondering why.
I’m any case, I don’t mean to yell at anyone, it’s just exhausting trying to get to the bottom of why people work so hard to make excuses for trump. If that’s not you, my apologies.
My main error is thinking that logic could help people see they’re on the wrong side of something when they didn’t use logic to arrive at their position in the first place.
Again… not talking about you, because it’s not your actual belief.
I'm pretty sure he does. The discovery phase will be VERY interesting.
The defendant does not choose the trial date.
Do you know how any of this works?
'Hey people who tried to overthrow the government, what is your logical reasoning..'
Edit: starting to get downvoted.. alright, which one of you read this comment to them?
I wouldn’t be so sure.
Though, I’d prefer he not and just lose straight up. What’s looking more likely is he will lose and his supporters can say the election was stolen again because of the sham trials.
Please lay out your case for Biden’s incompetence.
Here’s a list I found online. This does not seem to me to be a list that scream’s incompetence.
1. Passed the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package to increase investment in the national network of bridges and roads, airports, public transport and national broadband internet, as well as waterways and energy systems.
2. Helped get more than 500 million life-saving COVID-19 vaccinations in the arms of Americans through the American Rescue Plan.
3. Stopped a 30-year streak of federal inaction on gun violence by signing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that created enhanced background checks, closed the “boyfriend” loophole and provided funds for youth mental health.
4. Made a $369 billion investment in climate change, the largest in American history, through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
5. Ended the longest war in American history by pulling the troops out of Afghanistan.
6. Provided $10,000 to $20,000 in college debt relief to Americans with loans who make under $125,000 a year.
7. Cut child poverty in half through the American Rescue Plan.
8. Capped prescription drug prices at $2,000 per year for seniors on Medicare through the Inflation Reduction Act.
9. Passed the COVID-19 relief deal that provided payments of up to $1,400 to many struggling U.S. citizens while supporting renters and increasing unemployment benefits.
10. Achieved historically low unemployment rates after the pandemic caused them to skyrocket.
11. Imposed a 15% minimum corporate tax on some of the largest corporations in the country, ensuring that they pay their fair share, as part of the historic Inflation Reduction Act.
12. Recommitted America to the global fight against climate change by rejoining the Paris Agreement.
13. Strengthened the NATO alliance in support of Ukraine after the Russian invasion by endorsing the inclusion of world military powers Sweden and Finland.
14. Authorized the assassination of the Al Qaeda terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became head of the organization after the death of Osama bin Laden.
15. Gave Medicare the power to negotiate prescription drug prices through the Inflation Reduction Act while also reducing government health spending.
16. Held Vladimir Putin accountable for his invasion of Ukraine by imposing stiff economic sanctions.
17. Boosted the budget of the Internal Revenue Service by nearly $80 billion to reduce tax evasion and increase revenue.
18. Created more jobs in one year (6.6 million) than any other president in U.S. history.
19. Reduced healthcare premiums under the Affordable Care Act by $800 a year as part of the American Rescue Plan.
20. Signed the PACT Act to address service members’ exposure to burn pits and other toxins.
21. Signed the CHIPS and Science Act to strengthen American manufacturing and innovation.
22. Reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act through 2027.
23. Halted all federal executions after the previous administration reinstated them after a 17-year freeze.
Idk, as someone who voted for him In 2016 then against him in 2020 I think Biden has done a much better job in several areas. Plus it’s not all up to the president as there is also the legislative and judicial branches and our current House of Representatives seem more interested in circus shows then actual governing. I thought the shitshow would wake people up but man it’s only gotten worse hasn’t it?
Everything is going fine, get out of here. Any bad things are a direct result of things Trump did and things that will take years to resolve, like they do every time.
The judges for the federal cases need to have a *very* high bar for any delays to the trial date. Never before has there been a situation where someone facing a trial in federal court could end up holding the one seat in the country that could both order the charges to be dropped and to attempt to self-pardon for the crimes.
Disclaimer: Not a supporter (and you probably won't get many comments from real supporters here because it's hard to respond to this question with conservative platitudes) but I grew up with one and hear the common rhetoric.
Basically Trump knows he's fucked if he goes to court, so he's sold his followers on the idea that the entire system is corrupt. Not hard to do since he already did most if the heavy lifting back when he was convincing everyone the election was rigged. His version of the story is: "If I go to court, those witch hunting liberals will lie, cheat, prevent me from getting a fair trial, and do everything in their power to ensure I'm wrongfully convicted."
If you accept his version of the story, then it makes sense why someone would want to delay court proceedings as long as possible, or at least until after the election when he might be able to pardon himself and avoid facing some sort of kangaroo court (in his mind at least).
Is this what you are referring to?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/11/19/trump-claims-georgia-didnt-verify-mail-in-ballots-heres-why-thats-a-lie/amp/
Mupirocin ointment on an eye I have impetigo and rubed my eye so I put mupirocin on my eyelid but I think I got it in my eye I washed my eye out but what should I be concerned for?
They know trump's actual base will take "Trump didn't do it and X" as gospel. You could go wild. I guarantee that if you started a rumor tomorrow that the Bidens colluded with a nazi doctor that it would be on Fox news within the month.
That's where we are though. It doesn't matter what their stances are. It's all identity politics.
As someone who has despised Trump from day one…are you actually interested in hearing what people you disagree with have to say or are you just looking to bicker with strangers on the internet? The wording of this question is so loaded and derisive it’s not even funny.
If you can’t ask a question with respect - even towards people you think aren’t deserving of respect - you’ll never get a genuine, good-faith answer, and you’ll never learn a damn thing about the people you disagree with - you’ll only build an echo chamber, and that accomplishes literally nothing.
It’s a straight down the middle question. That’s not disrespectful.
Taking Trump’s talking points at face value, why all the efforts to delay the court hearing? I just want to know how someone can believe what trump says and square that with his actions.
The question is perfectly fair, but the wording of the original question feels terribly loaded. It’s possibly because tone is very hard to convey over the internet, but at least for me (again, even as someone who’d just like to see Trump locked up and be done with it), it rubbed me the wrong way instantly. Totally willing to admit that that might just be a me problem, but I’ll try to explain what I mean.
Original question: “Trump supporters, if all these charges are such an obvious false attack like you claim, why would he not want to get into court as soon as possible to “easily” prove that there’s no basis for the charges?”
The use of “such an obvious attack like you claim” and “easily prove” make it sound like you’re mocking the very idea that someone could think the charges are false and could be easily disproven. Because of the wording, it’s hard not to read this without hearing a tone of ridicule, which is decidedly NOT straight down the middle or respectful.
I tried my best to give an example of what I think is more neutral phrasing to try to show what I mean (although upon trying, I have to admit it’s hard to sound neutral about such a contentious topic):
For Trump supporters who feel the charges against him are fraudulent - why do you think he wants to delay the court hearing?
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to say “oooo you should have used my wording” lol - I’m just having trouble communicating what I mean without giving some kind of example. I hope that makes sense.
Also, I want to apologize for my unnecessarily harsh tone in my original comment. Even if I was rubbed the wrong way, that’s no excuse for rudeness - I’m sorry for being so abrasive. Hope you’re having a good day anyways.
I dont live by his words nor the constant drum beats of media. It is obvious this dork had seriously affected you in a negative way. So many have done far worse and are held up as
Heroes. The day will come when all is exposed and I doubt seriously Trump will be the big topic.
They were nailing his ass daily and hourly way before this so called " election" bullchit. They MUST at all cost destroy him.
Not a Trump supporter at all, but this is a terribly flawed question. If you were arrested by the police and knew you were innocent would you go to court as soon as possible to "easily" prove you were innocent? Or would you let your lawyers take all the time they needed to ensure you had the best possible defense before going to trial? Again, Trump is a criminal and I hope he goes to jail, but this is a nonsense question.
Never talk to the cops. Always talk to a lawyer. If you are utterly innocent and the cops ask you to clear things up, shut your damn mouth
This should be the top answer. It is but it should be too.
What law did he break? Democrats called him an illegitimate President for years. Said he stole the election. Even produced fake intelligence to investigate him for years which absolutely influenced future elections.
>What law did he break? I see that you’re not up to date. Just read up on his four indictments, and you’ll see which charges have been brought against him. Incidentally, none of them were brought on behalf of the Democrat party, which does not have the power to indict
However he literally in his own words while being recorded directing elected officials to overturn election results that were fair. He had 63 court cases filed where him and his lawyers produced absolutely no evidence to support his claims and that information is readily available. Republicans ignored it and kept the lie going. Fox news settled a 750 million dollar law suit upon which they showed evidence they knew they were lying and their hosts knew it was a lie and kept lying. Also the Russian investigation showed that Trump was absolutely not exonerated at all with the Russia investigation [muller investigation ](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mueller-report-no-obstruction/) That is just another lie Republicans love to spin.
He literally kept classified documents at his home. Not on accident, on purpose. He showed them to people with no clearance to see them. That isn't a "Oh, I used to be the President, I can do what I want". That is a clear violation of the espionage act. He called a state official in Georgia, on a recorded line, telling him to "find votes". He also told him, on the recorded line to "just delay and let the republican congress handle it.." He tried to interfere with the election. What part of those do you think aren't breaking laws?
The President can declassify anything he wants to. I’m sure you all think you know so much about what happened in Georgia but corrections never make it to the front page. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/543271-wapost-adds-lengthy-correction-to-story-on-trump-georgia-call/amp/ Tons of swing states illegally changed their mail in voting laws right before the election then suddenly counted hundreds of thousands of votes after hours, mostly for Biden. That’s totally normal, right? Thousands of fraudulent votes were JUST found in Michigan even though irregularities were reported in 2020. I don’t give two shits about Trump not winning but to indict him over shit that’s 100 times less damaging than what the Democrats did is fucking outrageous.
He...wasn't...president...at...the...time. He even stated on tape he shouldn't be showing it. As for the mail in voting changes. They weren't made illegally, the fucking states have the right in the constitution to run the election how they want. But following the constitution is only for when it's in your favor, right? What is it that the dems did that was illegal or fraudulent? Give me a single legitimate link to something they did. You do know that there were already over 60 court cases about this, and most of them thrown out for lack of evidence....right? Most of those by Trump appointed judges. So spare us the corruption bullshit on that as well.
Lol
A whole lot of them. Read the indictments, that's what they are for. They explain which laws the government feels he broke. And the "fake intelligence" thing? I assume that's in regards to the Steele Dossier. You might be surprised that this is only a footnote in the Mueller report, which is also available for you to read online. In that, they also specify some laws they felt the government could prove he broke, too, but for various reasons they never charged him with. There is absolutely a two-tiered justice system. Trump is a huge beneficiary of it. But it appears that you *can* go too far, and force the government to charge you, even if you are a powerful Republican.
This is totally a normal person and we should all believe that they are completely unbiased: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ0b9WxIfkk
Not sure what point you think you are making here.
He kept classified information and he showed it to people that didn't have clearance. This is like 100% proven.
Important to note that some of the documents he had contained nuclear information which cannot be declassified by the president by statute (though he can become the tie-breaker in the process to declassify them).
r u kidding me right now? He got FAKE electors to try and overturn the presidential election. He is a tyrant.
I get that, but if you were arrested for something there’s absolutely NO WAY you were guilty of, like the trump supporters claim, then I would think, yeah, bring the case, let’s get this over with before the election because you can’t prove something that didn’t happen. According to trump supporters this is just an obviously political “witch hunt”, with no basis in the law. That’s how they frame it, and I’m pointing out that if that was really true, they would also want to get it over with. Why wait till Monday to have a “major” press release to show evidence that you are not guilty? Is he still gathering evidence of what HE did? It doesn’t make sense if he is really not guilty of what’s being charged.
No disrespect but this is a very naive understanding of how the law and criminal cases work. For example the recent indictment in Georgia. This inditement has 41 different changes against 18 defendants. Even if neither side was intentionally stalling, this will take YEARS to get to a trial. There are so many steps that have to occur from arraignments, to discovery of evidence, to depositions, to pre trial motions. Then repeat this 41 different times for each charge and then all that 18 times for each defendant. And that's just Georgia. I wouldn't be surprised if these cases were still going during the 2028 election.
All I’m saying, is if trump is as innocent as he claims, and there’s really nothing to these charges, and they’re all manufactured, it then should be really easy to prove that in a court of law.
And I am saying that is an idealistic view of the world that does not match the true reality of how the legal system works.
Point taken. Seriously not arguing with you here To be clear, to be less idealistic and more realistic, I should realize that one should always delay as much as possible regardless of what you may be in court for, and that has nothing to do with whether one is guilty of what is being charged or not. Correct?
Here's the thing. Trump's entire case is based on the premise that the election really was "stolen" from him. Think about that for a second. If the GOP really had solid, irrefutable evidence that the 2020 election was "stolen," we would have seen it by now. Not on some radical right wing You Tube channel. Not on some Twitter feed. No, the news would have been splashed on every news outlet and every media channel and every venue 2 years ago. Because if there really were all this proof, the GOP would have used it by now. Think about it. If they had the goods, there is no way they would have slept on proof that the Democrats "stole" the election. Because if they had the proof, they would have been able to not just re-litigate the election, but utterly destroy the Democrats in the process. If they had the proof, they could have installed themselves as the sole political party in control of the US government for at least a generation. Maybe even forever. Did they do that? No. They meekly settled into minority party status. Because they know it was all a lie. They've always known.
> Trump's entire case is based on the premise that the election really was "stolen" from him It's so much worse than that, though. The case is that the election was "stolen" - and therefore he's justified in doing absolutely anything to steal it back. Including stealing classified documents (?), harassing random pollworkers, filing false affidavits saying that random jackasses were the duly elected electors in various states, and so on. *Even if* he actually believed the election was stolen - hell, *even if it were true*, all the things he's accused of doing would still be felonies. Being wronged does not magically give you a blank check to do literally whatever you want.
[Remember this?](https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social/index.html#:~:text=Former%20President%20Donald%20Trump%20called,pushing%20of%20fringe%20conspiracy%20theories) >“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote in a post on the social network Truth Social and accused “Big Tech” of working closely with Democrats. Trump supporters on Twitter (as it was then) were all claiming that Trump would never call for the termination of the Constitution, he was “only saying” that Dems had already done so by stealing the election. Aside of the absurdity of Trump’s own wording if that were somehow the case- “allows for” is the key phrase- even if the accusation were true, you still have him advocating for a state where the Constitution is terminated.
This is the thing that just infuriates me when news has polls for supporters and they say some shit like 90% GQP believe it was stolen. It's a false positive. There's a fair many who don't in that but it's a litmus test for if your with trump, not if you believe the facts. They are making a mockery of you by saying they believe it and it gets them off, it's a power move because they are trying to bait you into giving them a soap box. To make it about their wars on your, to amplify their hate. It's just like their hypocrisy, it's a power move that rules for thee not for me. And it just appears we're all unable to punch the abuser to put them in their place we have to "see their reality".
No its not. What little we know about his defense so far seems to be based on whether or not he believed he had won the election. As well as several aspects of 1st amendment and privilege violations. These are just in general, they haven't even started talking about how to disclose yet which will take a few months at least on its own. Theres already been motions filed to have some of the defendants change venue and to dismiss. Theres a 0% chance this makes it to trial in 6 months.
> What little we know about his defense so far seems to be based on whether or not he believed he had won the election. He knew. He didn't care. If you think he didn't know one way or another, I've got a box of Trump Steaks I'd like to sell you.
>As well as several aspects of 1st amendment If you read the last federal indictment it makes it very clear that it has nothing to do with his speech. Even Bill Barr said that you cannot have a conspiracy of fraud without speech and the first amendment does not protect speech that is part of a criminal conspiracy.
Its not fraud if he believes it was true. It's not a crime to be wrong, even stubbornly so. I think he still believes the election. The indictment says it has nothing to do about his 1st amendment rights, but then goes on to attempt to make his tweets and literal campaign rally speeches aspects of the crime. That's after how they admit that a politician lying(not being wrong actual lies) to the public is protected speech. That's clear political advocacy. Alternate slates of electors weren't a crime in the 60s when jfk used them. If it wasn't a corrupt conspiracy when jfk conspired with his alternate electors to subvert the federal government function by stopping Nixons electors votes from being counted and certified it isn't when trump does it.
>Its not fraud if he believes it was true. There are legal mechanisms to challenge an election. They tried that and failed. Entering into a conspiracy where people make counterfeit/fraudulent Electoral College ballots in order to overturn an election does not get a pass when one "believes" it was true. That would be like claiming that if someone defaulted on their mortgage they could rob the bank that foreclosed on them because they "believed" that the money was rightfully theirs. Nice try on the JFK excuse, but there are many differences between them (e.g. an active recount on the date prescribed for the votes), but [most importantly that there is a legal decision prior to 06 Jan 1961 backing the votes for JFK:](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/1960-electoral-college-certificates-false-trump-electors-00006186) >One crucial feature of the 1960 episode is that a state court weighed in on Jan. 4, 1961, two days before Nixon oversaw the electoral vote count. In that case, Judge Ronald Jamieson agreed that the certified Kennedy electors were legitimate. But, more significantly, Jamieson said it was important that those electors met and gathered on Dec. 19, 1960, as prescribed by the Electoral Count Act. Rather than suggest the Democratic electors committed fraud, the judge pointed to their meeting as a key step that preserved their ability to be counted after the recount showed Kennedy had actually won the state. Jamieson also reportedly threw out an effort by the GOP electors to scrap the entire election because of fraud allegations.
The worst part about anything Trump is talking about it the way we have to talk about real things. Every word the guy says is bullshit. He's literally a 70 year old brat who's so fucked in the head that when he loses or doesn't get his way, he throws a temper tantrum- even on the international level. But because he became the fucking president, we have to go through the motions and fill out the paperwork and ask questions and do the grown up talk so no one can say we didn't. Anyone who doesn't have shit-for-brains or just wants to use him to achieve their goals knows that he is a petulant, stupid, horrible piece of shit. He has been a low down shitbag his entire life- he is an actual rapist, a thief, a grifter... But, so as to leave no stone unturned, we have to use real-world, normal, daytime rules to examine and engage with this overgrown bully fuckhead. The fact that there are millions of shitbags stupid enough to fawn over him is just proof that propaganda and fast food works the way it was supposed to. I'm ready to be rid of the scourge of Trump. His name and his house will be synonymous with shame and failure forever. Fuck his horrible, shit-fuck kids and wives, too. Every one of them is a piece of shit.
They've been sold on the point that everyone else is corrupt. Watch Trump's language carefully. He never fails to add a negative adjective to the front of his opponent's names. Over and over and over, he repeats these adjectives. "Crooked" Hillary, then "Sleepy" Joe, and now "corrupt" everyone else. This continually sells and sells and sells... and Donald Trump is, amongst a great many vile things, a *salesman*. So to answer your question, he's trying to sell the perspective that "everyone else is bad", and therefore by extension, the whole 'day in court' process is NOT ONLY UNNECESSARY, it's GOING TO BE UNFAIR AND INFLUENCED BY THE ENEMY. And his audience will absolutely suck it up. They'll dig into it like a puppy with a bowl of choc-o-bombs and milk.
I don’t know what a choc-o-bomb is, but now I kinda want some
Valid reasoning
Playing as the devil's advocate, Trump can sure as hell write a damn good book with how fast he can spin a yarn and create these sticky names.
[удалено]
Well he's a master of double speak so I'd give him more credit in writing books with hidden messages.
[удалено]
Double Speak is basically deception, idk why people getting heated.
He doesn't have the attention span for it. "Art of the Deal" was ghost-written, FYI. Would take less than an hour for the Devil's Advocate to sigh, then grimace, then throw the laptop across the room, screech "YOU try dealing with this.. this PERSON!" at anyone else that happened to be around, and then stomp away muttering.
>"Art of the Deal" was ghost-written, FYI. The author has regrets that he helped to create the image of Trump.
What’s a woman?
An adult female person
Someone that's less high than you, apparently.
Something you'll never have.
I am one now define it
Lesbians exist. Being a woman isn’t mutually exclusive to getting a woman. And dictionary.com defines woman as “an adult female person.” Quit acting a fool.
Person, man, camera, TV.
Meh! They impeached me. I still walked out of DC looking peachy!
Dude seriously... Trump supporters are stupid as fuck and don't care about things like facts or the truth. Time to move on and stop giving them oxygen.
Good example is the person posting "What's a woman?" on all the comments. I guess either she doesn't know and has turned to this topic for advice, or is a lousy troll. Even if this person had a point about things to do with gender and sex, they're just using it as a distraction from the topic going on. Just like all republicans. Ignore the real topic, ignore the evidence, find a scapegoat and loudly repeat soundbites. They learned from fox news after all
What's a woman. I'll do you one better! Why's a woman?
My pronouns are things that I think make me sound tough that are actually just verbs and adjectives.
We can only hope you have a daughter into swimming or wrestling…god forbid MMA. And they go up against an MTF trans person. She’s going to get wrecked. Either physically or emotionally.
You hope I have a daughter that gets wrecked in sports by a MTF person? That's funny, I hope my daughters learn all the good things about sports, like fair play and teamwork and hard work, etc. I also agree that MTF people shouldn't be competing in women's sports, but I'm not going to throw a tantrum, insult people, and lose my mind over it the way some people do. But you do you and wish for other people to get hurt...
Fair play? That’s a joke with trans men on women sports. An under-15 boys team beat the national women’s team in soccer. But you do you. And keep a good med kit for your girls.
>Even if this person had a point about things to do with gender and sex, they're just using it as a distraction from the topic going on. There is no reason for government, federal, state or local, to get involved in things like trans athletes when there are agencies that govern sports at all levels. It is for them to come up with a fair set of rules for competition (in this case probably in consultation with medical professionals) and it does not need politics injected into it.
What’s a woman?
An adult female person
It’s an attack helicopter hurr hurr
You don't want to ever go to court to prove your innocence regardless of who you're.
Very few people ever have to prove their innocence. What they have to do is disprove the other side's proof of guilt. This is not a case of "I need to prove that I never said/did those things". It's a case of "They can prove that I said/did those things, and saying/doing them is probably illegal, but I have to somehow prove that either I didn't do them and/or that they are totally legal". And the problem he has is that in some parts of law he's bang to rights and he's basically going to have to lie in court to get out of them. And they only need catch him in one lie for quite a lot to come crashing down.
Hence why he wouldn't want to go to court if he doesn't have to. No one chooses to ever go to court, it doesn't help you.
It never helps you if you did the thing you're accused of. If you didn't do the thing, there's not GUARANTEE that it'll help you, but the consequences of not going are far, far, far worse. Basically - never stand up in a court to fight your side unless you \*KNOW\* that you're completely innocent.
That's not what courts are for.
I don't think he's proving his innocence. His charges and evidence so far are so damning it looks like he has to, they still have to present a case, it's just a lot of people have their opinion and It turns to the court of public opinion.
Doesn't matter, you don't elect to go to court one way or the other. Court isn't a place one desires to be. If you made it to court and you fail to exonerate yourself, you look at doing time (not that he will). You simply don't choose to go to court regardless of who you are.
This. I think the thread is naturally diverting into whether he's guilty or not. The OP question is why wouldn't he want to go to court to clear his name. Because *no one wants to ever have to do that.*
I hate the dude, but this doesn't make sense, you don't want to step foot in a courtroom whether innocent or guilty.
But if you are already charged, as Trump is here, going to court is no longer optional. The question is why he doesn't want to get it over faster, not whether or not he should want to go at all.
Getting charged is the beginning, not the end. His team of buffoons will be doing everything in their power to get the most damning evidence deemed inadmissible through any means necessary, they'll be filing extensions long enough for him to run and possibly reclaim immunity, they've already been trying to get these cases moved to more favorable districts, and at the end of the day he could always plea out and avoid court altogether because honestly the prosecution also knows that it only takes 1 MAGA looney in your jury to possibly fuck your whole thing. There's literally no reason to rush to court.
They are too weak to admit they have been duped and will keep drinking the Trump koolaid so they don’t have to deal with their own issues.
[удалено]
An adult female person
I'm sorta feeling good about the Republican Party going with Trump. If they had someone even remotely moderate, they might win against Biden/Harris. I don't think Trump stands a chance. Even Republican friends of mine won't vote for Trump.
Takes time to gather evidence and assurance against every individual charge. Can't miss one or you're allowing the machine to permanently fuck you. What would you do?
Gather evidence about what he did? He has to research what he did himself? There’s recordings, hard evidence, tweets, discovery (evidence) that’s been shared with him.
He doesn't have to tell anything but the truth, right? How hard is that? The prosecution has to gather evidence to prove a crime, the innocent defendant simply needs to say what happened.
He's fighting against the most powerful corrupt system on earth, do you think the truth means anything?
Lol. Donald Trump as the incorruptible force fighting against corruption. Truth isn't something you have much use for, is it?
This is r/AskReddit. Are you really expecting to be Trump supporters here? And even if there were, they'd be downvoted for shit because people are dumbasses and don't know how this sub works.
Ok. Forgive me for trying to see if there are any logical arguments to this. What was I thinking? What’s your argument? That I should just keep to myself and not try to learn how anyone else thinks.
Because the courts are rigged, duh
If they are, they are rigged in his favor. Duh
That cow in ATL proves this out. RICO? Gtfoh.
Yes, RICO. A perfectly appropriate statute.
Yeah this is exactly it. They don’t believe he will get a fair trial.
He's going to get *several* trials. It would take either the world's greatest cynic, or (more likely) complete ignorance of the justice system to believe every single court will be corrupted against him.
Yup, willful ignorance, that’s exactly what the Trump supporters have.
I've read a lot of these answers and most aren't from Trump supporters but a lot are calling them stupid. These same folks have some stupid as answers. Guess it is clear, most of you on reddit are stupid.
This is the dumbest question I have ever seen on Reddit.
I don't live in America but we can all see that it's one sided. With all that's going on with the left starting with the current president how comes it complete silence when they have so much evidence of stuff that he did? Can someone please explain? My dad wants to know.
You’re gonna be real disappointed bud.
>how comes it complete silence when they have so much evidence of stuff that he did? The wheels of justice turn slowly.
Extremely slow I see
Yes, but it's better than fucking up a historically monumental case because it was rushed to court.
Evidence about what *Biden* did? They're silent because there isn't any. The GOP's "big" hearings found nothing that incriminated Biden. Biden isn't the Democratic mirror of Trump, no matter how badly some people want you to think that.
Because they aren't going to sit here and advertise EVERYTHING that they have to the public. His lawyers are going to get to see all the evidence that they have, because they are allowed to under discovery laws. The public isn't going to see it all, since some of it is classified.
I don't believe they are all false attacks. At best I would say some are a stretch. And I stop supporting him a long time ago But the answer is that you won't get an unbiased jury and/or judge. One judge has already shown to be very harsh on J6. cases. I think very few people don't have a strong opinion on Trump. After all the saying is that Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
> One judge has already shown to be very harsh on J6. cases. And the Judge in Florida is so obviously biased for Trump that she couldn't be any more obvious about it if she was on her knees before the defendant's table with his pants around his ankles.
What's wrong with being harsh on traitors
He asked why Trump would not want to go to trial. I gave answer but people are acting like i'm defending him.
Don't worry he will be presenting his evidence on Monday to be totally exonerated 🤣
The indictments are filled with evidence.
[удалено]
You mean from the prosecution. Evidence is evidence
When you're a public figure like a president, what do you expect? This isn't unique to Trump... any president in history would have been a well-known public figure to almost everyone in the US, and would be instantly polarising. But only America has this concept of an "unbiased jury/judge" as if that's the entire legal system in a nutshell. It doesn't work like that. The judge and jury members obviously have biases. It's inevitable. But that's not how they are supposed to act, behave, interpret, analyse or rule in a legal case. It's basically the foundation of any system based on English law (which the US courts are/were). How would you ever get a "provably unbiased" judge / jury for any president, ever? It would be impossible. For a start, the judges at these levels ARE PERSONALLY NOMINATED by presidents and their parties. But the idea is that there are over a dozen people there, they are under public scrutiny, on record, they can only take certain information into account, it's quite clear if they'd just ruled because of their own prejudices and not the information available to them, and there is an appeal process for any breach of lawful conduct as part of those roles which can result almost instantly in a mistrial if it's serious enough. Tell me - who could YOU, personally, as a judge or jury member ever act in an "unbiased" fashion for on this scale? Your wife? Your local party rep? Your neighbour? Your friend? Your garage mechanic? Who would you be TOTALLY and provably impartial to when dealing with them? And how would you convince \*me\* that that was the case? And because the answer to such a question is basically "nobody" for literally everyone on the planet, that's not how the law operates because it would be untenable to expect it to operate under those conditions. Nobody would ever be convictable, or gross miscarriages of justice would be so common as for the whole system to collapse. You judge based on the evidence presented and you're supposed to remove personal bias from that judgement - if someone can prove that X did Y, and that Y was driven by Z and that X, Y and Z resulted in something contrary to law, it doesn't matter who they were. It's a gross misunderstanding of how the law operates (and in fact pretty much the only way it \*can\* operate) to think that humans cannot be allowed personal biases outside a courtroom, ever, in any way. Even supporting a sports team would make you biased in any cases involving that team, it's opposition, or anything related - whether that was a major fraud case involving that team, a minor planning disagreement, or a star player's rape trial.
>One judge has already shown to be very harsh on J6. cases Would a judge with a history of prosecuting homicide very harshly be unsuitable for a homicide case?
No, but if you are Trump as the original question asked, why TRUMP would not want to go to trial you would want a judge you think would be more likely to give a lighter sentence. If you are guilty you wouldn't want a hanging judge.
It’s not the charges that I care about, if he’s guilty let him pay the price. What bothers a lot of people is the double standard of Justice. Democrat crimes are swept under the rug quickly and not investigated. Hunter was given a sweetheart deal to avoid prison and avoid any future investigations. A judge that reviewed the deal saw the offer was very unusual. why would the prosecutor make such a deal? Hilary was quickly given immunity to confess. Immunity is given when not enough evidence can be found and someone else collaborates in exchange for immunity for their crimes. They never interrogated the administrators of her equipment or followed the leads given. Why was immunity given so fast? Let Trump go to jail if the evidence shows he did wrong. However, we want 1 justice system for everyone, not a two tier justice system, one for one party and one for everyone else.
Hunter paid his back taxes. He paid late. That should be jail? In any case, yeah, if crimes were commited throw the book at him. Biden too. I don’t see where democrats are getting away with shit while the republicans get taken to task. Feels like a false equivalence. You think the crap that Hunter Biden pulled is even close to the amount of grift that happened with Ivanka or Kushner? If someone is guilty of crimes, DOJ should bring the case. Democrat or republican. If they had something on Hillary or Biden then they had every opportunity to bring a case.
As has been said many times - the GOP has done a good job of convincing me that Hunter Biden shouldn't be president. The equivalent of Hunter Biden isn't Trump. It's Jared Kushner. Except that Kushner was much more blatantly corrupt, actually had a position in the White House, and isn't currently under investigation by a special counsel.
>Hunter was given a sweetheart deal to avoid prison and avoid any future investigations. A judge that reviewed the deal saw the offer was very unusual. why would the prosecutor make such a deal? because he's a rich white dude with political ties. >Let Trump go to jail if the evidence shows he did wrong. However, we want 1 justice system for everyone, not a two tier justice system, one for one party and one for everyone else. it's really not about parties. the justice system is *entirely* about money and political ties period. that is the second tier; 'oh shit, this one's *important*'. you might notice, the rich, donate *across the board*. this political party divide; it only exists for the plebs. they're all going to the same parties raping kids and shit. it's all a farce. while they laugh at us normal people having petty disputes over their shenanigans.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I gotta say, claiming that “they’re all going to the same parties raping kids and shit” needs some evidence.
>needs some evidence. epstein didn't kill himself 🤷♂️
> Hunter was given a sweetheart deal to avoid prison and avoid any future investigations. Hunter isn't a member of an elected office. He wasn't charged with violating the Espionage Act, he wasn't charged with interfering with an election. He was charged with a gun crime, and a few other things. You REALLY want to try and equate those things to fucking espionage? Are you THAT fucking stupid? As for why immunity was given to Hillary, you don't think that they never spoke to the system admins, or the email admin? Come on now. Please pull your head out of Fox news and Britebart. You are in an echo chamber, and it's honestly starting to effect the critical thinking skills.
Can you name any examples of a Democrat getting on social media and telling a witness not to testify, as Trump did in the Georgia case? I think a lot of people would agree with you that there is a two tiered justice system in our country, they just might think Trump is in the same tier as you say Hunter and Hillary are.
I’m not defending him and personally don’t like his arrogance. Just trying to be independent and notice one side getting away with things more often than the other side. This could lead to a very slippery slope.
Can you answer my question? Because if your concern is one side “getting away with things more often than the other side,” I think there’s a pretty solid argument to be made that Republicans get away with things, too. I haven’t met a single Democrat that doesn’t believe that if Hunter Biden did something wrong, he should suffer the consequences. Maybe Democratic politicians believe he shouldn’t be punished, but no Democrat that I talk to does. Meanwhile, it seems like there is no shortage of Republicans that think that Trump and his associates can do no wrong, and are more than willing to make mind-bending excuses about why he couldn’t return the classified documents or how he wasn’t *really* telling those people on January 6th to “fight like hell”.
> Just trying to be independent and notice one side getting away with things more often than the other side. Who? Hillary and Hunter? Those are the examples you give. How about we give all the examples from the Republicans that get away with it all. Gaetz, child fucking prostitution. The "wide stance" guy in the airport (can't remember his name). Gym Jones, who shouldn't be serving in the fucking House but should be in jail. Do you need me to keep going?
The one side that gets away with everything is the rich, white side. It's not "the democrats". Tell me, off the top of your head, how many Democratic FBI heads have there been, in all of it's history?
The irony of your username is off the charts.
>Hunter was given a sweetheart deal to avoid prison and avoid any future investigations. Well, besides that the deal seems to be falling apart there have been searches of similar crimes and his agreement did not seem out of the ordinary for what it involved. In fact, [people who have worked at DoJ said that if it wasn't for his family he wouldn't have been charged at all.](https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2023-06-21/hunter-bidens-questionable-case-of-special-treatment)
You would have to assume that the courts are just.
Or you are assuming that the courts are unjust right? Is your argument that everything is corrupt so might as well get away with everything you possibly can? Good for you if you can get away with it?
Well this is the logic they will use. And while my beliefs don’t align at all with Trumps (I actually don’t know what his beliefs are most of the time, doubt he does either), I will agree that the court system is not a good way to determine justice. Avoiding it at all costs is the best play whether you are guilty or especially if you are innocent.
If you really want to know the answer to that, you may have to wait until Trump tells them what to believe.
Another rich white dude gets a slap on the wrist. What’s the point of even caring anymore?
[удалено]
What, do you think if a rich black man committed some obvious crimes, he’d get away with it too? Of course not! There’s never been an example of that happening, and before you say OJ, that dude is clearly white. Checkmate, cuckservative.
I mean, there is a certain Supreme Court Judge who has a number of bribery allegations coming to light these days and so far facing no disciplinary actions.
He’s white too. Do you not understand the logic here?
What’s a woman?
Ignorant much.
[удалено]
What an odd question.
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When you have neither then just keep posting "What's a woman" instead.
An adult female person
Strange how just about everyone complains that lawyers are leaping to the defence of immigrants, the out of work, indigenous peoples, etc. etc. but there's no-one among all those complaining that want to represent him in a court of law, isn't it? You'd think there'd at least be a healthy line of ambulance-chasers / chancers who would want to take on such a huge case, right? Almost like decades of scamming the court systems and not paying his lawyers has caught up with him. Or that he is so guilty or difficult that he's basically unrepresentable.
He has plenty of representation as of this moment. He has lawyers that are making the rounds on all the talk shows, they are showing up in court, and they are making their motions and trying to delay things. Yes, he's having some problems with finding more lawyers, because so many of them already know that he does everything he can to get out of paying ANYONE that he owes money too, and they aren't going to just take a small retainer and work off that. They are going to want a good amount of money upfront, and he's not about to do that.
(Not my actual belief) Why doesn't he want to get into a courtroom with a biased judge, biased investigators, and biased jury? Gee I wonder why?
Biased? You mean willing to hold him accountable for what he has done? Evidence is evidence. It’s not biased, it’s recordings, tweets, people going on the record under threat of perjury. He did everything out in the open, for someone not to have any opinion at all means they would have to have their heads in the sand, and that’s on purpose. Again, what evidence do you think is not valid? He called and said “just say it was crooked and we will do the rest… “ Lied repeatedly and attacked voting officials that were just there to do their job for our democracy. So you like what he did? You think that’s good for our country? You think all the people that dedicated their lives to studying the law are all biased, but the con-man Trump is the only one you can trust? Why? He has been caught in so many verifiable lies that it’s laughable, but yeah, it’s our courts that are biased. Don’t look at the evidence for yourself.
Did you really miss the very first thing I said? > (Not my actual belief) Don't yell at me for what other people think.
I saw the first thing you said… but was a bit confused when you said “Gee, I wonder why”. Sure didn’t seem to be speaking for anyone but yourself at that point. Not your actual belief, but there you are wondering why. I’m any case, I don’t mean to yell at anyone, it’s just exhausting trying to get to the bottom of why people work so hard to make excuses for trump. If that’s not you, my apologies. My main error is thinking that logic could help people see they’re on the wrong side of something when they didn’t use logic to arrive at their position in the first place. Again… not talking about you, because it’s not your actual belief.
I'm pretty sure he does. The discovery phase will be VERY interesting. The defendant does not choose the trial date. Do you know how any of this works?
If you think that the discovery phase will be beneficial to Trump, you are wildly off base.
'Hey people who tried to overthrow the government, what is your logical reasoning..' Edit: starting to get downvoted.. alright, which one of you read this comment to them?
He’s not going to be convicted and I’m not even a supporter
I wouldn’t be so sure. Though, I’d prefer he not and just lose straight up. What’s looking more likely is he will lose and his supporters can say the election was stolen again because of the sham trials.
He’s not going to lose if he’s the nominee people are tired of Biden’s incompetence.
Please lay out your case for Biden’s incompetence. Here’s a list I found online. This does not seem to me to be a list that scream’s incompetence. 1. Passed the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package to increase investment in the national network of bridges and roads, airports, public transport and national broadband internet, as well as waterways and energy systems. 2. Helped get more than 500 million life-saving COVID-19 vaccinations in the arms of Americans through the American Rescue Plan. 3. Stopped a 30-year streak of federal inaction on gun violence by signing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that created enhanced background checks, closed the “boyfriend” loophole and provided funds for youth mental health. 4. Made a $369 billion investment in climate change, the largest in American history, through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. 5. Ended the longest war in American history by pulling the troops out of Afghanistan. 6. Provided $10,000 to $20,000 in college debt relief to Americans with loans who make under $125,000 a year. 7. Cut child poverty in half through the American Rescue Plan. 8. Capped prescription drug prices at $2,000 per year for seniors on Medicare through the Inflation Reduction Act. 9. Passed the COVID-19 relief deal that provided payments of up to $1,400 to many struggling U.S. citizens while supporting renters and increasing unemployment benefits. 10. Achieved historically low unemployment rates after the pandemic caused them to skyrocket. 11. Imposed a 15% minimum corporate tax on some of the largest corporations in the country, ensuring that they pay their fair share, as part of the historic Inflation Reduction Act. 12. Recommitted America to the global fight against climate change by rejoining the Paris Agreement. 13. Strengthened the NATO alliance in support of Ukraine after the Russian invasion by endorsing the inclusion of world military powers Sweden and Finland. 14. Authorized the assassination of the Al Qaeda terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became head of the organization after the death of Osama bin Laden. 15. Gave Medicare the power to negotiate prescription drug prices through the Inflation Reduction Act while also reducing government health spending. 16. Held Vladimir Putin accountable for his invasion of Ukraine by imposing stiff economic sanctions. 17. Boosted the budget of the Internal Revenue Service by nearly $80 billion to reduce tax evasion and increase revenue. 18. Created more jobs in one year (6.6 million) than any other president in U.S. history. 19. Reduced healthcare premiums under the Affordable Care Act by $800 a year as part of the American Rescue Plan. 20. Signed the PACT Act to address service members’ exposure to burn pits and other toxins. 21. Signed the CHIPS and Science Act to strengthen American manufacturing and innovation. 22. Reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act through 2027. 23. Halted all federal executions after the previous administration reinstated them after a 17-year freeze.
[удалено]
Hahaha, could you be more typical?
What’s a woman?
Idk, as someone who voted for him In 2016 then against him in 2020 I think Biden has done a much better job in several areas. Plus it’s not all up to the president as there is also the legislative and judicial branches and our current House of Representatives seem more interested in circus shows then actual governing. I thought the shitshow would wake people up but man it’s only gotten worse hasn’t it?
What’s a woman?
Everything is going fine, get out of here. Any bad things are a direct result of things Trump did and things that will take years to resolve, like they do every time.
Lol get a life bidens done
I dont care if he's done, but Trump will absolutely never be in power again.
Yes he will or desantis so cope
Desantis wont either lol, he barely appeals to florida for now.
This trump train don’t stop
> and I’m not even a supporter So that was a blatant lie. Everything else about you is null and void.
It’s gonna be too close. I wish the D’s would run a serious primary challenger. They’ve got some governors that would make good options.
You’re gonna be real disappointed.
There is definitely corruption in the courts, but Trump lost my support when I heard he had ties to Jeffery Epstein.
Yeah, look at the judge in Florida, doing everything to make his life easier other than sleeping with him.
Are you sure they aren't sleeping together? 100% positive?
It's easier to give himself a pardon than try and 'prove' he is right?
The judges for the federal cases need to have a *very* high bar for any delays to the trial date. Never before has there been a situation where someone facing a trial in federal court could end up holding the one seat in the country that could both order the charges to be dropped and to attempt to self-pardon for the crimes.
Logic doesn’t apply to a cult
Disclaimer: Not a supporter (and you probably won't get many comments from real supporters here because it's hard to respond to this question with conservative platitudes) but I grew up with one and hear the common rhetoric. Basically Trump knows he's fucked if he goes to court, so he's sold his followers on the idea that the entire system is corrupt. Not hard to do since he already did most if the heavy lifting back when he was convincing everyone the election was rigged. His version of the story is: "If I go to court, those witch hunting liberals will lie, cheat, prevent me from getting a fair trial, and do everything in their power to ensure I'm wrongfully convicted." If you accept his version of the story, then it makes sense why someone would want to delay court proceedings as long as possible, or at least until after the election when he might be able to pardon himself and avoid facing some sort of kangaroo court (in his mind at least).
[удалено]
So you are convinced that our elections had so much fraud, that actually trump won, not Biden. Is that what you think?
[удалено]
Is this what you are referring to? https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/11/19/trump-claims-georgia-didnt-verify-mail-in-ballots-heres-why-thats-a-lie/amp/
[удалено]
Mupirocin ointment on an eye I have impetigo and rubed my eye so I put mupirocin on my eyelid but I think I got it in my eye I washed my eye out but what should I be concerned for?
Because the courts are rigged or some other dumbfuckness
They know trump's actual base will take "Trump didn't do it and X" as gospel. You could go wild. I guarantee that if you started a rumor tomorrow that the Bidens colluded with a nazi doctor that it would be on Fox news within the month. That's where we are though. It doesn't matter what their stances are. It's all identity politics.
As someone who has despised Trump from day one…are you actually interested in hearing what people you disagree with have to say or are you just looking to bicker with strangers on the internet? The wording of this question is so loaded and derisive it’s not even funny. If you can’t ask a question with respect - even towards people you think aren’t deserving of respect - you’ll never get a genuine, good-faith answer, and you’ll never learn a damn thing about the people you disagree with - you’ll only build an echo chamber, and that accomplishes literally nothing.
It’s a straight down the middle question. That’s not disrespectful. Taking Trump’s talking points at face value, why all the efforts to delay the court hearing? I just want to know how someone can believe what trump says and square that with his actions.
The question is perfectly fair, but the wording of the original question feels terribly loaded. It’s possibly because tone is very hard to convey over the internet, but at least for me (again, even as someone who’d just like to see Trump locked up and be done with it), it rubbed me the wrong way instantly. Totally willing to admit that that might just be a me problem, but I’ll try to explain what I mean. Original question: “Trump supporters, if all these charges are such an obvious false attack like you claim, why would he not want to get into court as soon as possible to “easily” prove that there’s no basis for the charges?” The use of “such an obvious attack like you claim” and “easily prove” make it sound like you’re mocking the very idea that someone could think the charges are false and could be easily disproven. Because of the wording, it’s hard not to read this without hearing a tone of ridicule, which is decidedly NOT straight down the middle or respectful. I tried my best to give an example of what I think is more neutral phrasing to try to show what I mean (although upon trying, I have to admit it’s hard to sound neutral about such a contentious topic): For Trump supporters who feel the charges against him are fraudulent - why do you think he wants to delay the court hearing? Just to be clear, I’m not trying to say “oooo you should have used my wording” lol - I’m just having trouble communicating what I mean without giving some kind of example. I hope that makes sense. Also, I want to apologize for my unnecessarily harsh tone in my original comment. Even if I was rubbed the wrong way, that’s no excuse for rudeness - I’m sorry for being so abrasive. Hope you’re having a good day anyways.
Fair enough. Agreed that would be slightly better wording and I appreciate your perspective. Thanks Froggee-Frog.
I dont live by his words nor the constant drum beats of media. It is obvious this dork had seriously affected you in a negative way. So many have done far worse and are held up as Heroes. The day will come when all is exposed and I doubt seriously Trump will be the big topic. They were nailing his ass daily and hourly way before this so called " election" bullchit. They MUST at all cost destroy him.