How pathetic would it be if it's Trump vs. Biden again?

I don't think it will be. I think Biden will have a senior moment ala Mitch McConnell and Trump will be in jail or under house arrest. Maybe Harris vs DeSantis? DeSantis wins in that case. This country is a long way away from electing a black woman to be president.

I thought he was snarkily saying the opposite lol.

Is there only one Trump supporter on this whole forum? — RogueAI

It's an ancient tradition, that kings, even philosopher kings, allow one motley fool to entertain and deflate, lest they cease to question their own wisdom, and become as the emperor with no clothes.

Still reckon Trump will never get the Republcan nomination, polling data notwithstanding. — Quixodian

Don't assume the logical with current US politics. And never underestimate how bizarre populist politics and polarization can be.

Trump might not get the Republican nomination, but then go as an independent, which will be absolute poison for the actual Republican nominee. Just like Ross Perot was for Bush.

In any case, Trump running for President will be a bigger red flag and incentive to go to vote for Democrats than Hillary Clinton's run was for Republicans.

Trump might not get the Republican nomination, but then go as an independent, which will be absolute poison for the actual Republican nominee. — ssu

:pray:


Let’s not forget Trump’s clinching of the Republican nomination was nearly derailed at the 2016 Republican Convention. I’m certain there would be enough never- and anti-Trumpists to shoot him down in 2024 - even if he does make it as far as the Convention.

I think DeSantis is going to fizzle. Like someone said, he’s the kinda guy who’d confiscate the neighbors’ kid’s soccer ball if it landed on his lawn

It's quite early to say what happens. As history gives reference, a lot can happen in the election in more than a years time.

I yet think that, unfortunately, this thread will be active even then.

The wheels of justice turn slow but sure :cool:

The optimist view is Trump hasn’t had enough time to COMPLETELY destroy the Republican Party, But, you know, give him enough rope….

I have responded to your three points.

As for Russian active measures, the activities and impacts were largely overstated. The Mueller case against Concord and the Internet Research Agency, for instance, was dismissed with prejudice, with the Federal judge in that case rebuking Mueller for his insinuation in that report that they worked at the behest of the Russian government. They couldn’t support that claim in a federal court because they could not produce any evidence.

First, I want to direct the parties to abide moving forward by Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b), and I want to make clear that any willful failure to do so will result in the initiation of contempt proceedings.

I am also going to direct the government to refrain from making or authorizing any future public statement that links the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government or its agencies.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.144.0_1.pdf

In a later congressional hearing, Mueller probably lied to congress when he was asked if the judge’s threat to hold his prosecutors in criminal contempt was the reason for coming out in a press conference and fixing the record. He said “no”.

McCLINTOCK: Your report famously links Russian Internet troll farms with the Russian government. Yet at a hearing on May 28 in the Concord Management-IRA prosecution that you initiated, the judge excoriated you and Barr for producing no evidence to support this claim. Why did you suggest Russia was responsible for the troll farms, when in court you've been unable to produce any evidence to support it?

MUELLER: Well, I am not going to get into that any further than I -- than I already have.

McCLINTOCK: But -- but you -- you have left the clear impression throughout the country, through your report, that it -- it was the Russian government behind the troll farms. And yet, when you're called upon to provide actual evidence in court, you fail to do so.

MUELLER: Well, I would again dispute your characterization of what occurred in that -- in that proceeding.

McCLINTOCK: In -- in -- in fact, the judge considering -- considered holding prosecutors in criminal contempt. She backed off, only after your hastily called press conference the next day in which you retroactively made the distinction between the Russian government and the Russia troll farms. Did your press conference on May 29th have anything to do with the threat to hold your prosecutors in contempt the previous day for publicly misrepresenting the evidence?

MUELLER: What was the question?

McCLINTOCK: The -- the question is, did your May 29th press conference have anything to do with the fact that the previous day the judge threatened to hold your prosecutors in contempt for misrepresenting evidence?

MUELLER: No.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/full-transcript-robert-mueller-house-committee-testimony-n1033216

Do you only speak in questions? Is this an interview?

I have responded to your three points. — NOS4A2

Your "response" was to evade the points.You had asked:

What do you infer from the Georgia phone call and why? — NOS4A2

I answered:

1)Trump didn't care to see the evidence that disproved his fraud claims. 2) Trump lied about what was said, the day after the call. 3) Trump threatened the governor & Secretary of State. — Relativist

You responded:

Trump said some things. — NOS4A2

This is the only "response" you made to my points, and it said nothing - it was neither an agreement nor dispute of the inferences I made. So I tried to prompt a real answer:

Do you agree with my points? If not, then explain why. — Relativist

And you never replied. If you won't answer, I am left with the impression you have no interest (and perhaps no ability) in having an honest discussion.

I did respond and you ignored it, or missed it, one or the other. Do you need me to quote it for you?

Yes.

None of the supposed corrupts acts you stated, even if true, rise to the level of corruption, or fraud, or any other criminal or corrupt activity. The best you've shown is that he didn't believe the people he was talking to, that he didn't repeat their claims, and the effect such behavior could have. There is no crime. There is no victim of any crime.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/827679

You didn't answer my questions: do you agree with the 3 points I made, and if not- why not?

I don't, because the best you've shown is that he didn't believe the people he was talking to, that he didn't repeat their claims, and the effect such behavior could have.

Do you only speak in questions? Is this an interview? — NOS4A2

Obviously, my point is there are a whole lot of people Trump has hired over the years who say terrible things about him now and/or implicate him in crimes. Are they ALL deep state operatives? Of course not. I also don't think you think Trump got more votes than Biden, which leads me to my next question: why do you support Trump over DeSantis? DeSanit's former employees don't hate him. He says the election wasn't stolen. He hasn't been indicted. Etc. Doesn't Trump's stolen election bullshit bug you?

I said they were all incompetent, deep-state bureaucrats.

DeSantis was a JAG lawyer. For one, I don't like lawyers and think that profession is overrated and overrepresented in politics, to a ruinous degree. Two, his employment in the military industrial complex indicates that he will support all of their moves.

My first point was: 1)Trump didn't care to see the evidence that disproved his fraud claims

From the indictment:
The Defendant raised allegations regarding the State Farm Arena video…In response, the Georgia Secretary of State refuted this: “You’re talking about the State Farm video. And I think it’s extremely unfortunate that [Giuliani]…sliced and diced that video and took it out of context.” When the Georgia Secretary of State then offered a link to a video that would disprove [Giuliani’s] claims, the Defendant responded, “I don’t care about a link, I don’t need it. I have a …much better link.

Clearly, Trump declined to see the refuting evidence. How can you disagree with what I said?

My second point: 2) Trump lied about what was said, the day after the call.
From the indictment:
The next day, on January 3, the Defendant falsely claimed that the Georgia Secretary of State had not addressed the Defendant’s allegations, publicly stating that the Georgia Secretary of State was “unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’ scam…He has no clue

How was Trump's Jan 3 statement NOT a lie, when the Secretary of State had actually responded to every claim Trump made?

My third point:3) Trump threatened the governor & Secretary of State.

From the indictment:
The Defendant said that he needed to “find” 11,780 votes, and insinuated that the Georgia Secretary of State and his Counsel could be subject to criminal prosecution if they failed to find election fraud as he demanded, stating, “And you are going to find that they are-which is totally illegal-it’s,…more illegal for you that it is for them because you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a …criminal offense…That’s a big risk to you and to your lawyer.

How is that NOT a threat?

1) The president of the united states refused to look at a link to a video, and you surmise this as Trump declining to view "refuting evidence". What about the video refuted Trump's claim?

2) It is not a lie because you do not know whether Trump believed otherwise. Did he or did he not believe that the secretary of state was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’ scam?

3) He either insinuated such or you are surmising, without evidence, that he did make such threats. Criminal offenses are in fact big risks.

) The president of the united states refused to look at a link to a video, and you surmise this as Trump declining to view "refuting evidence". — NOS4A2

Absolutely. Read the context. The purpose of the link was explicit - that it showed this fraud claim was false, and Trump clearly declined to see it.

What about the video refuted Trump's claim?

It showed the ballots were packed into the boxes by the election workers when they were told to end their day, and then they were told to stay and continue- so they opened them back up.

It is not a lie because you do not know whether Trump believed otherwise. — NOS4A2

Trump specifically mentioned the "ballots under the table scam" - which is the State Farm ballot boxes I discussed in #1. The fraud claim was disputed and the evidence offered, and yet Trump claimed the Secretary of state was unwilling or unable to answer questions about it. How could Trump have not remembered that exchange from the day before?

3) He either insinuated such or you are surmising, without evidence, that he did make such threats. Criminal offenses are in fact big risks. — NOS4A2

Yes, criminality carries obvious risks, and Trump explicitly said they'd broken the law:

Trump: "Well, under the law you're not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You're not allowed to do that. And that's what you done."

I've gone ahead and read the context as you've suggested.

Absolutely. Read the context. The purpose of the link was explicit - that it showed this fraud claim was false, and Trump clearly declined to see it.

In context the surmising is even worse. Trump and his lawyers made too many claims to mention them all, for one, so the idea that one statement about a link proved all his claims were false is itself false. All Raffersperger could do is tell them that they were wrong, without providing any of the evidence that Trump’s team was in fact requesting from the secretary of state. All they could say was “We looked into that”.

This remark by Trump’s lawyer makes the point:

“Mitchell: Mr. Secretary, Mr. President, one of the things that we have been, Alex can talk about this, we talked about it, and I don’t know whether the information has been conveyed to your office, but I think what the president is saying, and what we’ve been trying to do is to say, look, the court is not acting on our petition. They haven’t even assigned a judge. But the people of Georgia and the people of America have a right to know the answers. And you have data and records that we don’t have access to. And you keep telling us and making public statements that you investigated this and nothing to see here. But we don’t know about that. All we know is what you tell us. What I don’t understand is why wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest to try to get to the bottom, compare the numbers, you know, if you say, because - to try to be able to get to the truth because we don’t have any way of confirming what you’re telling us. You tell us that you had an investigation at the State Farm Arena. I don’t have any report. I’ve never seen a report of investigation. I don’t know that is. I’ve been pretty involved in this and I don’t know. And that’s just one of like , 25 categories. And it doesn’t even, and as I, as the president said, we haven’t even gotten into the Dominion issue. That’s not part of our case. It’s not part of our, we just didn’t feel as though we had any way to be able to develop —“

It showed the ballots were packed into the boxes by the election workers when they were told to end their day, and then they were told to stay and continue- so they opened them back up.

Trump’s lawyer made this claim following Trump’s “I have a better link” comment:

“I will tell you. I’ve seen the tape. The full tape. So has Alex. We’ve watched it. And what we saw and what we’ve confirmed in the timing is that. They made everybody leave, we have sworn affidavits saying that. And then they began to process ballots. And our estimate is that there were roughly 18,000 ballots.”

That video does not address this claim, nor could it. In response, Raffensperger could only say “We had GBI … investigate that”. His lawyer, Ryan Germany, stated further that “We had our law enforcement officers talk to everyone who was who was there after that event came to light.” Of course, “who was who” does not include anyone who signed sworn affidavits saying they made everyone leave.

If there was an investigation and a report, Trump’s team had clearly not seen it and Raffensperger wasn’t offering any.

The evidence was not offered. The lawyers and Mark Meadows requested many times that the two parties meet and compare the numbers, the data, the evidence. But apparently none was forthcoming.

Yes, criminality carries obvious risks, and Trump explicitly said they'd broken the law:

Trump: "Well, under the law you're not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You're not allowed to do that. And that's what you done."

This is your threat in context:

Well, you have to. Well, under the law you’re not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You’re not allowed to do that. And that’s what you done. This is a faulty election result. And honestly, this should go very fast. You should meet tomorrow because you have a big election coming up and because of what you’ve done to the president — you know, the people of Georgia know that this was a scam. And because of what you’ve done to the president, a lot of people aren’t going out to vote and a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative because they hate what you did to the president. Okay? They hate it. And they’re going to vote. And you would be respected. Really respected, if this thing could be straightened out before the election. You have a big election coming up on Tuesday. And therefore I think that it is really important that you meet tomorrow and work out on these numbers. 

People are going to vote negative. Oh dear.

Still hoping for a response on this:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/826970

I'm looking for clarity on your response - must that be a quote from Donald Trump or can it be a quote from eye witnesses to the events?

It must be a quote from Donald Trump because he is the only one that can speak about his thoughts, intentions, and beliefs. If an eye witness can quote him then that would suffice for me.

It must be a quote from Donald Trump because he is the only one that can speak about his thoughts, intentions, and beliefs. If an eye witness can quote him then that would suffice for me. — NOS4A2

"In the audio, recorded three days before the election and published by Mother Jones on Wednesday, Bannon told a group of associates Trump already had a scheme in place for the 3 November vote.

“What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory. Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner,” Bannon, laughing, told the group, according to the audio.

“He’s just gonna say he’s a winner.”"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/14/steve-bannon-audio-trump-declare-victory

Does that suffice?

He didn’t quote Trump. I want to know Trump’s thoughts, not Bannon’s.

the idea that one statement about a link proved all his claims were false is itself false — NOS4A2

No one said the link proved all the claims false. The link was offered in response to the claim Trump had just made.

Trump’s lawyer made this claim following Trump’s “I have a better link” comment:

“I will tell you. I’ve seen the tape. The full tape. So has Alex. We’ve watched it. And what we saw and what we’ve confirmed in the timing is that. They made everybody leave, we have sworn affidavits saying that. And then they began to process ballots. And our estimate is that there were roughly 18,000 ballots.” — NOS4A2

Notice the lawyer said nothing about the pertinent claim about the boxes of ballots being fraudulent. She only mentions the timing.

Gabriel Sterling gave a press conference on Jan 4, 2021 in which he walked through the allegations and discussed the fact that links to the videos were posted online.

Despite this, in his Jan 6 speech, Trump again referenced the debunked "suitcases of ballots" claim.

If there was an investigation and a report, Trump’s team had clearly not seen it and Raffensperger wasn’t offering any.

The evidence was not offered. The lawyers and Mark Meadows requested many times that the two parties meet and compare the numbers, the data, the evidence. But apparently none was forthcoming. — NOS4A2

The state, not the Federal Government, is responsible for election operations. Fraud claims were made to the State and they were investigated. Nevertheless, the FBI also investigated (see this), and confirmed there was no fraud. Barr testified that he reviewed this with Trump. Then on Dec 27, 2020, deputy AG Richard Donoghue also refuted the claims. These are relevant parts of the context.

You can only imagine the looming shitfight when the Georgia indictments come down and Resident Trump has a full dance card. Already it turns out some of his lawyers in one case are also witnesses in other cases. Him lobbing insults and threats over social media and trying to whip up a storm amongst the faithful. And meanwhile the US Government shut down by MAGA ideologues in the lead up to the election year. Grab popcorn and survival equipment, you’ll need both.

Bannon will likely testify that Trump had a scheme in place to claim the election was stolen if he was losing. That Trump, Bannon, Stone, etc. all talked about it and went forward with it. Wouldn't you agree that would be very damning? What do you think a jury would think of such testimony?