Also the fact that he embezzled ~$250 million based on the stop the steal, could/should be class action lawsuit.
c_hawkbob wrote:I'm sorry but campaign finance fraud is criminal. Phoo phoo sedition all you want but the $250M he solicited from his minions for a non existent campaign war chest is criminal.
c_hawkbob wrote:I'm sorry but campaign finance fraud is criminal. Phoo phoo sedition all you want but the $250M he solicited from his minions for a non existent campaign war chest is criminal.
NorthHawk wrote:Won't the defendants drag it out until the next election whereby the new Republican regime will kill the prosecution?
Or does that not happen in the American Justice system?
RiverDog wrote:Ford and Carter were both pretty clean. Ford's pardon of Nixon was rumored to be an agreement with Nixon before he left office, but the truth of it was that he did so to keep from having to deal with the constant distractions. Although Democrats would have loved to have kept it in the news, but in was best for the nation as it would have been a circus had he not pardoned him. Besides, the R's got clobbered in the midterms in '74 and Ford lost to Carter in '76, one of the major reasons being his pardoning of Nixon, so it's not like he and his party didn't pay a price.
Carter had his "Billygate", but it really wasn't any of his doing and was more of a pain in the arse than anything else. His brother Billy, of which to say about him that he was a flake would be a huge understatement, was trying to peddle influence with the Libyans. Outside of that, I can't think of anything that would come close to equating scandals like Watergate, Iran Contra, and the numerous Clinton scandals (You could add Filegate, Whitewater, and Travelgate to the pallet).
I'll stop there so as not to divert the thread too much. I have been paying attention to the hearings, and what I've heard is shocking. I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind about Trump, but it's probably a good thing to get it out in the open. God, I wish the R's would rid themselves of that POS.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Quite a few of my friends are still willing to vote for Trump. I'm amazed myself given how he treated Pence and just the overall chaos he caused. But they hate Joe Biden, hate the Democrats, and still believe Trump would be a stronger leader than Biden that doesn't as they put it "take crap off the Democrats." I think it's insane myself. I would never vote for The Narcissist. A man who never admits he's wrong or apologizes is not what I consider strong. You have to be a very insecure person to be unable to admit when you're wrong and give others credit. A very weak person with a massive ego of glass. But I guess if you can make it appear like you're strong, some people will buy into it.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I wish the Dems could stick something to him that will absolutely ensure he does not run for office again. I don't care if they get him on something and then negotiate a deal to ensure he doesn't run again, just make sure this guy is defanged and sent packing. I even wish the Republicans would do this behind the scenes. Tell Trump we don't want you to run again and if you do we're going to torpedo you hard. But there doesn't seem to be the will for that either.
If the Dems can't stick anything on him and he runs again in 2024, that is going to suck. Mainly because I think he can beat Biden without COVID and this insane inflation, then we'll have to deal with the looney in the White House again. Then I have to try to avoid the 24 hour news cycle of constant attacks and counterattacks and total chaotic environment he invites into politics. That was the most annoying part of Trump in the White House: the crazy he spawned on both sides.
curmudgeon wrote:Why is everyone worried about Trump when things are cruising along just fine?…..
curmudgeon wrote:Why is everyone worried about Trump when things are cruising along just fine?…..
Aseahawkfan wrote:If things we're going fine, no one would worry about Trump. It's a testament to how bad things are that Trump even has a chance to win the White House again. America can't produce a good leader at the moment. Just lots of crazy and stupid.
RiverDog wrote:I detect a bit of sarcasm in curmudgeon's comment.
The fact that 'things' are going so badly is exactly why 'everyone' is worried about Trump. Biden is proving to be hugely ineffective, posting job approval numbers that are as bad or worse than Trump's, currently below 40%. Anytime an incumbent president's job approval sinks below 50%, it usually spells trouble for both him and his party. Biden's been under 50% for nearly a year, about 2/3's of his Presidency. He's over promised and under delivered. He's old, makes confusing and contradictory statements, and people get this sense that he's not up to the job. If his numbers are this bad in late 2023, he'd be well advised not to run again.
Even if Biden does run again, I wouldn't be surprised to see several serious challengers for the nomination, or worse, a viable independent, like Ross Perot in '92, that could steal votes from a Dem nominee and give the Presidency back to Trump with a popular vote in the low 40's. That would be a nightmare scenario.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I know you never seem to like to bring up the truly insane social issues like the puberty blockers Democrats apparently feel it is ok to give young children to prepare them for transition because of course someone that age should be making permanent life changing decisions, but it's pretty damn insane to me. I don't see why Democrats are blindly supporting something like this any more than I see why Republicans are blindingly supporting Trump.
curmudgeon wrote:Why is everyone worried about Trump when things are cruising along just fine?…..
RiverDog wrote:A couple of things here:
My opinion of Donald Trump hasn't changed as a result of these hearings. Although they make for good television drama, beat the hell out of daytime TV's game shows and soap operas, and I have learned something in that there were more people than I thought that were close to Trump that tried to tell him that he lost the election, all it has done is reaffirm my opinion that he is a delusional narcissist that can't accept rejection or defeat and engaged in highly illegal and unethical behavior during the aftermath of the election, including inciting the Capitol riot. However, I suspect that, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, very many people who supported DJT have changed their opinion of him due to what they may have learned in these hearings.
They are never going to get DJT on any criminal charges no matter how convincing those charges are. Even if they were able to bring him to trial and get a conviction, he'll never serve a day in jail, and it won't prevent him from running for the White House in 2024. I would rather see them go after people that enabled Trump, guys like Rudy Guiliani, and force them to testify and bring charges against them.
I don't see the purpose of these hearings other than to keep the issue and the members of the committee in the news cycle. If someone can explain to me, beyond what I just said, what the objective of these hearings are, I'd be delighted to hear them.
Hawktawk wrote:https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/10-americans-trump-charged-jan-riot-poll/story?id=85482369
Quite surprising poll results here. It seems this hearing is having an impact on public opinion. Its the best those who favor stable rational governance can hope for is to disqualify this man from ever holding power again.
Hawktawk wrote:Its the best those who favor stable rational governance can hope for is to disqualify this man from ever holding power again.
RiverDog wrote:I've never heard of these "puberty blockers" that you speak of. Why don't you start a thread about it? I'd like to learn more.
RiverDog wrote:The committee doesn't have that kind of power. Nobody does, no court of law, including SCOTUS. The only way to have disqualified Trump or anyone else from holding office would have been for Congress to convict him in an impeachment trial, and even then, it's not clear that he couldn't still serve another term.
That's one of the reasons why I was against the hearings (although I've changed my opinion somewhat), because it doesn't do a damn thing to Trump and could have the effect of making him a martyr to his followers and incite his base. One strategy to keep him from the nomination would be to keep his ass out of the news cycle, and this does the exact opposite.
And BTW, the thread title is wrong. It is not a trial. It's a hearing.
RiverDog wrote:The committee doesn't have that kind of power. Nobody does, no court of law, including SCOTUS. The only way to have disqualified Trump or anyone else from holding office would have been for Congress to convict him in an impeachment trial, and even then, it's not clear that he couldn't still serve another term.
That's one of the reasons why I was against the hearings (although I've changed my opinion somewhat), because it doesn't do a damn thing to Trump and could have the effect of making him a martyr to his followers and incite his base. One strategy to keep him from the nomination would be to keep his ass out of the news cycle, and this does the exact opposite.
And BTW, the thread title is wrong. It is not a trial. It's a hearing.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm quite fine with a smoke-filled dark room deal myself if it stops Trump from running again. Trump can make a deal not to run again to avoid criminal prosecution. Takes away the martyr card he can play while running for office from a jail cell. If he somehow won re-election from a jail cell, we don't need to find out if he can pardon himself.
RiverDog wrote:That won't work. This isn't Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters presidency we're talking about, you're dealing with the US Constitution. There is no agreement that anyone could offer that would prevent Trump from running should he accept it. It would be unenforceable because no one has the legal authority to prevent anyone that meets the Constitutional requirements from running for office.
The best hope to keep him from gaining the R nomination would be to put him in jail as it would make it almost impossible to win the nomination, but that's simply not a viable option. Through the endless appeals process, Trump's legal team could go into a 4 corner offense and run out the clock. That's why I'd rather isolate him, keep him out of the news cycle.
RiverDog wrote:That won't work. This isn't Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters presidency we're talking about, you're dealing with the US Constitution. There is no agreement that anyone could offer that would prevent Trump from running should he accept it. It would be unenforceable because no one has the legal authority to prevent anyone that meets the Constitutional requirements from running for office.
The best hope to keep him from gaining the R nomination would be to put him in jail as it would make it almost impossible to win the nomination, but that's simply not a viable option. Through the endless appeals process, Trump's legal team could go into a 4 corner offense and run out the clock. That's why I'd rather isolate him, keep him out of the news cycle.
Aseahawkfan wrote:You and I both know smoke-filled rooms don't worry about signed papers. They rely on both sides holding leverage over the other side and being willing to use it should the other side violate the terms of the verbal agreement.
RiverDog wrote:And you and I both know that Trump would never abide by any agreement, written, verbal, or subliminal, that comes out of a smoke filled room, or any other room. The smoke filled room would have no leverage over him whatsoever. Trump doesn't give a rip about anyone besides himself, and he'd burn the Republican party to the ground if it meant that he could become POTUS again. He wouldn't care if they lost every Senate and House seat.
Besides, ever since the two parties went to selecting delegates to their conventions via primaries rather than caucuses, the power of the party bosses has been greatly diminished and there aren't anymore smoke filled rooms, at least not as it applies to selecting a nominee. It's a term that has been relegated to the history books. If Trump runs in a primary and wins, the party has to recognize his delegates. If he has enough delegates, he wins the nomination.
Aseahawkfan wrote:We will disagree on this one. I think Trump is innately a coward. If his options are jail or not running, he'll choose not to run. Trump is no war leader and is not really brave. He talks tough when it's all words and threats, but if it's real jail time he'll make a deal if he can. Trump is a fake tough guy who will continue to act tough as long as he can hide behind his money and lawyers. If that gets taken away from him, he'll come to the table in a smoke-filled room.
But they gotta stick something real and actionable on him he can't squirm out of, so far the Democrats haven't been able to do it.
Stream Hawk wrote:From what I’ve heard there’s a lot of indictable evidence against him. It may come out. I mean, he likely will not do jail time but he should not be allowed to run for president again. Because if he did it’s very likely he will win. America is that freaking stupid. I could not believe what he was pulling after the election.
RiverDog wrote:That's the problem. There is nothing preventing a convicted criminal from running for POTUS. The only requirements are what is laid out in the Constitution, ie minimum age, country of birth, and residency. Trump could run his campaign from his jail cell.
And as you noted, the odds that Trump would get convicted of a crime, let alone serve time, are virtually zero. It would be impossible to select an impartial jury.
Aseahawkfan wrote:How easy would it be for a lawyer to get a mistrial due to jury selection? That is interesting. How would you prove the person didn't love or hate Trump? He seems to inspire either loathing or absolute loyalty. It would be nearly impossible to obtain an impartial jury. Any decent lawyer would have a field day with it. It would give Trump massive media exposure to try him to ramp his followers up. It's like having an almost no win situation.
RiverDog wrote:Exactly! Do you see now why I originally was against these hearings?
Having heard some of the very emotional and gripping testimony, I feel that the hearings has done some good, that it might have influenced some voters, so in that sense, I've changed my mind about them. But as a matter of practicality, there is nothing to be gained except to grease the wheels of some Democratic pols and to run Liz Cheney's political future into the ground. Too bad, because she's one Republican that I'd crawl on my hands and knees to the voting booth to vote for.
RiverDog wrote:Exactly! Do you see now why I originally was against these hearings?
Having heard some of the very emotional and gripping testimony, I feel that the hearings has done some good, that it might have influenced some voters, so in that sense, I've changed my mind about them. But as a matter of practicality, there is nothing to be gained except to grease the wheels of some Democratic pols and to run Liz Cheney's political future into the ground. Too bad, because she's one Republican that I'd crawl on my hands and knees to the voting booth to vote for.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I really wonder how many people it has swayed. I have seen no changes in people I know voted for Trump. They consider these hearings a sham and consider the Democrats obsessed with Trump. While at the same time hating Joe Biden even worse for all that is going wrong on right now.
Do you know some people who have changed their minds? Hopefully you're seeing the changed minds.
RiverDog wrote:The answer to your question is no, I do not know anyone that has changed their mind regarding Trump due to the hearings. But I don't have regular contact with a lot of MAGA types. Most of what I gather from my friends, mostly classmates and former co-workers, is through social media, and the political talk has been pretty quiet. If they did change their minds, they aren't likely to go onto social media and announce it.
However, there is some evidence to suggest that it has swayed some voters. I don't believe its to the extent that the polling data that HT posted and I don't think that there's enough in its own right to justify the hearings, but I do think there are at least a few, perhaps 5%.
RiverDog wrote:The answer to your question is no, I do not know anyone that has changed their mind regarding Trump due to the hearings. But I don't have regular contact with a lot of MAGA types. Most of what I gather from my friends, mostly classmates and former co-workers, is through social media, and the political talk has been pretty quiet. If they did change their minds, they aren't likely to go onto social media and announce it.
However, there is some evidence to suggest that it has swayed some voters. I don't believe its to the extent that the polling data that HT posted and I don't think that there's enough in its own right to justify the hearings, but I do think there are at least a few, perhaps 5%.
Aseahawkfan wrote:If it is a real 5%, it would stop Trump from winning more than likely. These elections have been so tight lately, 5% is pretty substantial depending on the state.
We'll have more of a feel for how things are later this year.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest