Republicans, why do you want a criminal president?

[Anonymous]

I'm @goaded; I'm asking "anonymously" to allow the people who have blocked me to see the question. I doubt any will respond...

Really, shouldn't a candidate even accused of criminality be beyond the pale?

Now Republicans have a candidate convicted of 34 felonies, where even the most rabid defences don't say he didn't falsify business records (a crime), they just claim (incorrectly) it should only have been a misdemeanour, or it was outside the statute of limitations. It's not the only case!

Why would an innocent person spend millions of dollars to delay their trials, if they know they are innocent? Because you know you are innocent, there can be no evidence, right? Someone accuses me of something I didn't do, I'd laugh in their faces and tell them to do their best to prove it. (Actually, innocent people say they're innocent, guilty people say "prove it!".)

Five grand juries of citizens have found Trump probably committed crimes, and one jury concluded he did; how can you ignore that?

Updates

1 y

To the idiot who seems to think "beyond the pale" is racist, it means, roughly, out of bounds; it was the name of a fence showing the limits of the king's reach in Ireland centuries ago. Look it up.

[exitseven]

The democrats invented all these crime as a way to keep President Trump from campaigning or maybe to get him to drop out of the race altogether. All these indictments were done in predominantly Democrat districts by Democrat DAs and with Democrat judges. Many of the players in these show trials were visitors to the White House and the trials all were orchestrated so they would occur just before important primaries. Nobody believes any ot these charges and nobody takes any of it seriously. If anything, Trump surged in the polls after each indictment and when the Democrat jury picked by Fat Alvin convicted Trump he raised 150 million dollars in the week that followed. Most came from millions of small donors. And donors always vote

[Asker]

"... after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it."
Hur report, page 11.

Nobody made Trump do any of those things.

[ProbablyClueless]

It's amazing how these people genuinely don't see/understand how their lawsuits have only proven the pro-Trump peoples' points. Why do the republicans want a convicted felon to be their president? Because the evidence has objectively proven that he isn't a criminal.

[Asker]

@ProbablyClueless His conviction proves he isn't a criminal? People can't all be that stupid, surely?

[ProbablyClueless]

Think whatever you want. But it's the evidence his conviction rests on. The entire basis of the argument is that he committed fraud to cover up another crime. But they can't point to what other crime he was allegedly covering up, and the weight of the evidence clearly shows that he had no intention to deceive, which eliminates the possibility of fraud.

All of this was shown in an intensely hypocritical lawsuit that was filed after democrats screamed and cried about election interference over an investigation into a *presumed* political candidate's family member (not even the candidate themselves)/

[Asker]

@ProbablyClueless You didn't see the evidence, the jury did; it proved to them beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump was guilty. That's far from "he had no intention to deceive". That's how the justice system works.

[ProbablyClueless]

Actually... everyone saw the evidence. That's what happens when the media covers a trial like this.

[Asker]

@ProbablyClueless Really, we all saw the evidence? You heard the witnesses' testimony? Watched the lawyers question them? Heard the summing up by the defence and prosecution? Neat trick, considering there were no recording devices allowed.

[ProbablyClueless]

Spare me your mental gymnastics.

[Asker]

@ProbablyClueless They're called facts. It's bullshit to claim you know more than the jury in a trial.

[ProbablyClueless]

I'm not claiming to know more than the jury. I'm claiming to know what the jury knows.

[Asker]

@ProbablyClueless The jury knows Trump was guilty on all 34 counts.

[exitseven]

@ProbablyClueless The jury knew at the start of the trial that Trump would be found guilty of all charges. One of the jurors told his cousin before the verdict that he was going to be found guilty.

[Asker]

No, they didn't. They generally knew very little about the subject, the ones who got past the screening process (being asked if they could be impartial, about half said no, a 42-question questionaire, and questioning by lawyers). One of the chosen jurors even got their "news" from Truth Social.

The troll who posted the lie about a cousin admitted lying, maybe someone pointed out that it's illegal to interfere in ongoing court cases. "“Take it easy… I’m a professional s***poster,” Anderson wrote with a laughing emoji." www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../ (A right wing source, by the way.)

I wouldn't be surprised if your news sources neglected to inform you of that fact.

"... there are other posts going as far back as May 20 in which the account said the same thing about Trump being convicted, which was before the jury even began deliberating, and said in a follow-up post that he and his cousin were married."
www.rawstory.com/.../

[msc545]

Your unspoken assumption is that Republicans are rational. That assumption is unfounded.

[Asker]

You're telling me. Their extreme supporters (if there are still any others), at least. The leadership is rational, but they don't give a damn about anything but power and money. They want permanent minority rule, which is to say a fascist state.

[msc545]

Thanks for MHO.

[WindAtMyBack]

The answer to this is simple. It's been said over and over again since the 2016 election. The answer is because the alternative is worse. I hate Trump with a passion. But I voted for him twice. Because the alternative was worse.

In 2016 I didn't plan on voting for president at all. But when the time came, I just couldn't bring myself to NOT vote against Hillary. OK, I lied and said I voted for Trump twice. I have never voted FOR Trump, I have only voted against the alternative.

Having said all that, there are a limited number of things I actually like about Trump's policies. But I can't stand HIM. I feel the same about HIM now as I did when he started making the news 40 or so years ago. I felt the same way when he was a Democrat, when he was an independent, when he was in the Reform Party, and now that he claims to be a Republican.

I couldn't care less what the witch hunters came up with. And to be honest, I think that witch hunt against Trump has hurt the Democrats more than helped them. It's too blatantly obvious and I know Democrats who changed sides because of it.

I really don't care what he was convicted of. I WILL NOT vote for a Democrat. And their actions in recent years have made me feel ten times more strongly about that.

[Asker]

So you don't believe he committed the crimes he's accused of? ("I couldn't care less what the witch hunters came up with.")

You were clearly never going to vote for anyone else but Trump, so you becoming more likely to makes no difference.

[WindAtMyBack]

I quit paying attention to the witch hunt several years ago. I couldn't care less. It's irrelevant.

"You were clearly never going to vote for anyone else but Trump"
Wanna bet? Trump was in no way whatsoever an automatic vote.

[Asker]

"I quit paying attention to the witch hunt" Trump's mission accomplished, then. Delay the trials as long as possible, lie about them, repeatedly call them fake, or a hoax, or a witch hunt, and eventually people will get bored and ignore the fact that they'll be voting for a convited criminal.

Bonus points if they don't notice that the delays are being assisted by judges and justices that Trump appointed (and should probably have recused themselves for no other reason than that).

[exitseven]

Maybe Trump is not the most likeable person but you cannot argue with his policies or the results

[Asker]

@exitseven Yes, you can.

[WindAtMyBack]

This had NOTHING to do with him delaying. This shit started almost immediately when he came into office. Heck, it started even before he came into office. It was never a problem when Trump was a Democrat himself and financially supporting Democrats. But when he flipped sides, suddenly things that were not a problem before suddenly became a problem.

Same thing with his policies. The same policies that were perfectly fine with a Democrat in office, suddenly were a major ordeal when Trump came into office.

Nobody talked about a "Muslim ban" when the Democrats were giving Muslim countries extra scrutiny when entering the country. But suddenly Trump was a racist for using EXACTLY the same list of countries that Obama and other presidents used.

Same with the wall. Suddenly when Trump came into office he was a "racist" for wanting to build the wall - this is the wall that two terms of Obama built, two terms of Bush 2 built, two terms Clinton built (who was the one pushing the hardest for it), and one term of Bush 1 built. Trump hardly even touched the wall. But he's a "racist" because he wanted to do that same that had been done for the previous almost 30 years - and to a lesser degree the last 100+ years.

Same with "starting trade wars". Suddenly Trump was "starting trade wars" for doing exactly what Democrats wanted and had been pushing for for decades.

This shit was going on non-stop during Trump's administration. Don't go throwing around bullshit about Trump delaying things so people would forget. That is total nonsense. People quit listening to the boy who cried wolf also, and for exactly the same reason. After a while the boy who cried wolf had ZERO credibility.

[Asker]

@windatmyback All you're telling me is that Democrats are good judges of character.

How is "extra scrutiny" like a "ban"?

And it wasn't just Democrats calling it that: www.washingtonpost.com/.../ "Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’"

The wall? You know Trump pardoned Bannon for defrauding people by pretending he was going to build one?

Trump claimed to want a complete and continuous one, and get Mexico to pay for it because they were supposedly sending nothing but rapists and murderers. That last part was the racist part!

"Trump hardly even touched the wall."
LMAO! That's because he was incompetent and didn't really care about it, he just wanted racist votes!

[Avicenna]

That's like saying someone convicted and sentenced by Roland Freisler should not be allowed to become Bundeskanzler. Convicted of a political crime due to judicial and prosecutorial misconduct is to the shame of the Democrats involved in it.

I've pointed out more than once that you're a Stalinist propagandist. Joe Biden is a criminal who just hasn't been convicted because his loyalists in the DOJ and friendly DA offices obviously aren't going to go after him. Yet you would have some foreign country's electorate put up with him and the criminal gang behind him because their ideology fits yours like a glove.

[Asker]

You're not pointing anything out, you're making up lies about me, and repeating lies about Biden.

You don't get taken to criminal court in the US without a grand jury of citizens agreeing, specifically to avoid political persecution. Trump's had five grand juries decide he probably committed crimes. And one trial jury that unanimously decided that he was guilty of all 34 counts.

[Avicenna]

Goaded, you are a foreign propagandist who knows nothing about the US justice system. or its political system. And you're a perfect example of how political and ideological bias regarding Trump leads to political persecution of the sort that led to Nelson Mandela to be jailed for 27 years.

Grand juries only hear the prosecution's side of things, leading to the saying "you can indict a ham sandwich". But surely an expert on the US legal system like yourself knows that, right? So it's a lie on your part to suggested that grand juries are some sort of bulwark against political persecution, especially when you consider that Fulton County, Georgia, the District of Columbia (where Trump won 4% of the vote), Manhattan, and even the Miami area are all heavily populated by far-left Democrats who hate Trump, so far from the legal system avoiding political persecution, certain heavily leftist jurisdictions have been used because so many of their residents are hostile to Trump or any Republican.

As for the jury verdict in Manhattan, it's a far-left jurisdiction, Trump's constitutional rights were violated during the trial, the judge didn't sequester the jury, didn't allow the defense to counter the prosecution case and allowed the prosecution to engage in irrelevant lines of questioning that should not have been permitted. A reasonable person (which you are not) would not be trumpeting that verdict and it's yet another lie on your part.

No one needs to make up lies about you and your corrupt demented hero- the truth shows how evil and dishonest you both are when you constantly lie and propagandize.

[Asker]

Keep on making up lies about me, if you like, but Trump got more than his share of due process and was found guilty, as he would be in the other cases if his minions on the supreme court and overseeing his documents case weren't working to delay them.

Should a president have full immunity for crimes committed while president? It's not a question that requires any thought. Should Biden be allowed to have Trump shot as an insurrectionist? Same question.

The fact that Republican states and jurisdictions didn't indict Trump should shame them.

[noohair]

I am voting for Trump. Why? Because Biden and his son and brother are a gangster crime family. If Justice spent the same energy looking into Biden, He would be brought up on Treason charges. Trump had 34 fake felonies. I grew up in NY and it has become a crap hole.

[Asker]

Nothing fake about the convictions, indeed nobody's arguing that he didn't falsify documents, just that he should get away with it.

As for the "gangster crime family" nonsense, there's nothing to investigate. Every supposed lead the House committee followed up on turned out to be planted by criminals associated with Trump or utterly normal behaviour by a private citizen (interest-free loans to family members).

"Trump's campaign manager: felon. Trump's deputy campaign manger: felon. Trump's foreign policy adviser: felon. Trump's lawyer: felon. Trump's political adviser: felon. Trump's fundraiser: felon."

Person who "reported" bribery to the FBI: under indictment for lying to the FBI.

Trump's son-in-law just happened to get $2bn to "invest" for Saudi Arabia after leaving office he should never have had held in the first place.

[noohair]

Nothing you say matters to me. All the Trump family business is public. How does Biden have all this property and issue checks between family members for $200,000, and the notation is loan repayment.

[Asker]

I know the truth doesn't matter to you, but it might to someone else. Biden wrote a book, iirc., he was never rich until after he was VP.

"The former vice president earned $11.1 million in 2017, $4.6 million in 2018, $1 million in 2019 and $630,000 in 2020, the year he was elected commander in chief."
www.forbes.com/.../

I think Trump's CEO is still in Rikers for fraud or perjury on Trump's behalf.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps they just don’t want Joe the creep who creeps on kids as a president

https://www.youtube.com/embed/V4PLSPvJ9BY

[OddBeMe]

Personally I must hate all the migrants and illegal voting. Thus I’ll be casting my vote for a convicted felon.

[Sasahara]

@OddBeMe Okay, so thats who you personaly is voting for, and why you are voting for that person Odd. Got it.

[OddBeMe]

@Sasahara I is actually is just kidding. I is voting Biden, the non-criminal and progressive. Happy coinky dink.

[NamerOfStars]

Wow, guilt by accusation AND racism in the same sentence- impressive!

[gorydetails]

Because we see the blatant lawfare being committed by the Democrat party. lol, you went anonymous.

[Asker]

Yes, so your friends that blocked me can see the question. They're great fans of free speech, right, so they'll answer the question. They're not afraid of hearing the truth.

Trump's been convicted of 34 state felonies, despite the millions of sucker's money donated to him. He's managed, with the help of his judge Cannon and his Supreme Court to avoid trial in all the other crimes he committed. Now, that's "lawfare".

[gorydetails]

lmao. Again. The people who donated to him aren't suckers. They realize these charges are bullshit. This shit will backfire on you assholes and you'll be crying like stuck pigs when it does.

[Asker]

If he's innocent, why didn't he want a speedy trial?

[gorydetails]

That's as stupid of a question as "if someone's innocent why do they settle out of court?". If you were accused of a crime you'd want it drug out as long as possible also. As Trump's trial showed, juries can be full of idiots.

[Asker]

No, I wouldn't, I'd want it over with because I would know I was innocent.

[gorydetails]

I love how you dorks are now pretending no one is ever wrongly convicted of a crime. If one thing leftists are consistent on, it's a lack of principles.

[Asker]

Do you think that happens to people who can spend millions on their defence?

[gorydetails]

Of course it does. Especially when its a political hit job.

[Asker]

Name a multi-millionaire that was unjustly convicted, then. (And don't lie and say Trump.)

[gorydetails]

Martha Stewart

[Asker]

For obstruction of justice? Why was that unjust?

[gorydetails]

It was a bullshit charge, and as we see congress commits insider trading crimes on the regular.

[Asker]

It was 20 years ago and she was found guilty by a jury in a court of law. You just mean you don't like the charges. People should be allowed to obstruct agency proceedings, and make false statements to federal investigators, in your mind.

[gorydetails]

lmao. So what if it was 20 years ago. Her charges were bullshit.

[Asker]

Clearly not. They convinced a jury.

20 years matters because that's how far you have to go back to find anything you can even claim is an example of a multi-millionaire being unjustly convicted. She didn't even appeal the verdict.

[gorydetails]

Again, juries aren't perfect. It's impossible that 100% of all wealthy people are convicted justly. You're trying so hard.

[Asker]

You and Trump are both rightly scared of his trials because you both know how guilty he is.

[gorydetails]

lmao. No, we both understand these bullshit charges are politically motivated to keep him out of the election. you shitlibs can't win fairly under Biden's record.

[Asker]

So, who forced Trump to take home documents that didn't belong to him, mishandle them, refuse to return them when asked, hid them, lied to the FBI about having them, show them to people with no security clearance, etc?

[gorydetails]

woah, woah, woah... we're talking about classified documents, now? like the ones Biden took where the justice department says he's too senile to think he did anything wrong? The ones that the FBI mishandled and mislabeled just so they could get a photo op with TOP SECRET printed on cover pages to show everyone how super serial they are?

[Asker]

We're talking about all his trials, none of them are bogus.

Like all right-wing "defences" of Trump, you don't say he did nothing wrong, you just attempt to say other people did or he shouldn't be prosecuted even though he's clearly guilty as sin.

Page 6 of the Hur report explains they had little evidence of Biden doing anything improper and that there were innocent explanations that they couldn't refute. Then, on page 11, he explains the difference between Biden and Trump:

"... several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.

Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation."

[gorydetails]

Yes, it's always (d) ifferent

[gorydetails]

Just like hilary interfered in the 2016 election by paying for the bogus Steele dossier and then hiding the payment and got a whopping $700 fine.

[Asker]

Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout... (Not to mention wrong.)

ProTip: pointing to someone else committing a lesser crime does not make you innocent of your greater crimes.

[gorydetails]

100% correct. And I tell you what. Even if Trump is convicted on 100% of these bullshit charges, he's still a better candidate than Biden.

[Anonymous]

I don't, I hope all three candidates don't make it to November, my host a debate the someone slips in then a gun and takes out Joey, Kenny and Donnie

[Theodoricus]

Better than sleepy Joe.

[Asker]

How, exactly. What policies or laws made him better than Biden?

Isn't "sleepy Joe" also a criminal mastermind?

[shortster]

Aren't all politicians criminals?

[Asker]

No. They're not.

[shortster]

Are you sure about that?

https://youtu.be/jn5wHOlVxJo?feature=shared

[Asker]

Yes. Bernie Sanders, for one. There are many more.

[Pterodon]

Because he’s better than biden

[Asker]

How, exactly. What policies or laws made him better than Biden?

[Pterodon]

The border, foreign, energy

[Asker]

Didn't Biden undermine OPEC and make half a trillion for the country by tactical sales of fuel?

[Pterodon]

Nope

[Pterodon]

Don’t forget his disastrous economic policies

[Asker]

I think he did. He released reserve at a high price and replenished it at a low price.

"The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, has had massive influence over American politics for six decades. President Biden’s "incredible" oil market trading has broken this influence."

[Pterodon]

He never did replenish it stupid. It’s at a forty year low. I will not vote for Biden understand?

[Asker]

"WASHINGTON, D. C. — Today, the U. S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Petroleum Reserves announced that contracts have been awarded for the acquisition of 3.0 million barrels of U. S.-produced crude oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The contracts awarded today represent a fully subscribed solicitation for November delivery following the Request for Proposal (RFP) that was announced on May 17, 2024. The 3 million barrels are being purchased for an average price of $77.69, well below the average of about $95 per barrel that SPR crude was sold for in 2022,"
www.energy.gov/.../biden-harris-administration-continues-secure-good-deal-taxpayers-replenishment-7

[Pterodon]

I’m not voting for the fuckup now fuck off

[Asker]

You mean the one who can't remember the name of his doctor? Good.

[Asker]

Correction: Biden's oil policies only made $582m, half a billion, not half a trillion for the country.
www.economist.com/.../joe-biden-master-oil-trader

[Pterodon]

But you have nothing to say about foreign policy, crime, economy, the border. Once again I’m not voting for your fuckup president that you voted for now fuck off

[Pterodon]

I don’t believe you or your sources