At this point in the game, it seems clear that any Republican will be able to beat Biden in 2024 — except Trump. Trump is so toxic that even ultra-lame Joe Biden will be able to beat him. I think a sick dog could beat Joe Biden. But not Trump.
Therefore the Democrats want Trump to be the Republican nominee.
So … are the indictments an attempt to stir up sympathy for Trump to ensure he is the nominee?
QUOTE: So … are the indictments an attempt to stir up sympathy for Trump to ensure he is the nominee?
No, I think it’s an attempt to adhere to the rule of law.
I am not a Trump supporter and I think he deserves everything he gets.
But if you think this is driven by a righteous concern for “the rule of law,” I eagerly await learning about your future bridge purchases. It’s more than possible (in fact it’s the case) both that Trump is crooked and a lawbreaker, and that the efforts to prosecute him are politically motivated and legally dubious.
If “the rule of law” were the driving factor here, there would be some other well-known figures under serious legal scrutiny. It’s more like “the rule of convenient law.”
Who, like Hillary Clinton???…is she well-known enough? Let’s see…she was subjected to three such investigations…in which one was conducted by the Trump Administration and they concluded, “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information”.
I am hard put to think of a single case where of someone “well known” in high office blatantly being engaged in criminal activity and showing sheer contempt for the law as Trump did. There are, to be sure, plenty of cases where people have been faced justice much more swiftly and (so far) much more severely for remotely comparable crimes, but I have yet to see a case in which someone displayed such a level of criminality and malice towards the law, the Constitution, and the country as we see in the case of Trump. Nixon of course did some nasty stuff and got away scott free because Ford (not only a Republican, but chosen by Nixon himself to be his successor) pardoned him. But Trump is much worse, holding up his middle finger to law enforcement and saying, while surrounded by his thugs, “If you try to get me, I’m afraid that the boys here won’t take kindly to that.”
I’d say if we’re talking only about carelessness with documents…yeah, a bunch are guilty of that. No one has ever faced the consequences like you or I would. I had a TOP SECRET clearance at one time. Worked in a place where my direct supervisor was not briefed into what I was working on…only that I was working on something he wasn’t cleared to know about. I’d tell him, “I’m going nowhere to do nothing with nobody.” If I was as careless, yeah, out of a job, out of a clearance, out of a career in DoD.
But, it’s not about carelessness. It’s about PURPOSEFULLY concealing classified documents. Then when subpoenaed for documents, moving them and making false statements to the government saying the documents don’t exist. … and more than once.
I know there’s a cliche about indicting a “ham sandwich,” but a grand jury of citizens did hear the evidence and voted to indict.
I’m always surprised (well not really) to hear Calvinists talking about this not being fair–based on the views about predestination and that God is perfectly just in bbqing for eternity any one of us…he just picked a few not to bbq…but that’s just they say. Now if orange bozo has really committed the crimes, why would it be unjust to prosecute him?
I’m not saying it’s unjust to prosecute him. You must have been responding to the version of my comment that was in your head, not what I wrote.
I said it’s foolish to believe that this is only or primarily *about* the rule of law. There are other things going on here. I don’t care which side you’re on, or which side you think is more guilty, or is suffering the greater injustice, no reasonable person can really believe that the “rule of law” is now the dominant driving factor in high-level prosecutions.
I can accept that the rule of law properly leads to prosecuting Trump in this situation. I can’t accept that the pure, sweet fragrance of the rule of law is what’s actually motivating it.
Merely subjective, without a single shred of evidence.
QUOTE: I said it’s foolish to believe that this is only or primarily *about* the rule of law. There are other things going on here….I can’t accept that the pure, sweet fragrance of the rule of law is what’s actually motivating it.
For grins and giggles, what evidence do you have that verifies your assertion?
You’re exactly right.
Is she right or is it that you agree with her opinion? If right, what substantiates her assertions?
Holding one’s breath until the request for verification of this asertion is fulfilled will surely be hazardous to one’s health.
Who said anything about ‘righteous concern’? Few, if ANY, efforts from government are without some political motivations…just ask Kevin McCarthy, Trey Gowdy and John Durham…to name a few.
Yet, that doesn’t mean that the “rule of law” has not been appropriately applied in this case. If you haven’t done so, I invite you to read the unsealed indictment, the Mar-a-largo search warrant and all other documents relative to this case. It’s interesting that judges and legal pundits on both sides of the aisle find merit in this case….even former AG Bill Barr–once a Trump supporter (check out the link below)
BTW, I’ve not made any bridge purchases and have no plans to do so. Therefore, y0ur wait might be rather long. Maybe you could use that time reading. Just sayin’.
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/bill-barr-says-no-excuse-190236705.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA3urcAkY4jzRdpbGCzK_EbAP2en3-8dvuVQVDjEb7Tgx4mtwxotVk80OKCcNGJkzdZOLJqD_zNE9jnZhowWQBzChQsrDLD2yJ_Svy0mn2nWS4iWblkpzw8bYjL7E1idMuFldMukc_HPG4wxmpn825AOYH9vcXk42WI1r64y4Opq
QUOTE: So … are the indictments an attempt to stir up sympathy for Trump to ensure he is the nominee?
I’m not sure that’s accurate, but let’s just say that it is. Wouldn’t it ultimately be “Republican voters” that decide their nominee? It’s THEIR choice…no one can *force* them. If they select Trump, it would be apparent they wanted a twice impeached, twice indicted, sexual abuse liable, toxic, habitual liar (with potential to be a convicted criminal) as their candidate. That says much more about them than anyone else.
That said, according to voter polls…before the indictment, Trump was a significant frontrunner. Most political pundits didn’t see that changing (barring some catastrophic event) So, it seems Republican voters didn’t need much influencing to select a potential loser. It’s their choice…they own the outcomes…no need to scapegoat anyone else.