The Jan 6th trial is the big one. If Trump is convicted for election interference you’d think it’ll have to drive the 14th Amendment stake through his heart.

We can only hope.

We used to have standards -- specifically to filter out the bogus stuff. — GRWelsh

Yes indeed; standards. It goes for anything. We have food standards, hygiene standards, safety standards, building standards, that we rely on; and, here on this informal site we still have standards of behaviour. Fake money is not tolerable why would we tolerate fake talk? Money is nothing but a promise that we trust. Counterfeit money destroys trust in the currency and inflation is the measure of the loss of trust. Civil unrest is the measure of the loss of trust in government.

And wacko conspiracy theories are the measure of the loss of trust in those institutions that have taken over from religion – Science and the Media.

Without trust there is no society, no government, no police, no army, "...and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".

Mind you, this ‘skill’ without the likes of Bannon and Murdoch, would probably not have taken him far. — Tom Storm

Don't forget his Russian comrades.

Trump's an idiot, wouldn't be surprised to find forum members who like his style though. — Vaskane

The idiots like that Trump is an idiot. He is their Golden Idiot, and they put him on a pedestal. "He is one of us, he is just like us!" they say, "Except he's a billionaire, and you know, one day I might be a billionaire, too!" A billionaire idiot who is held up as the golden standard of idiocy, that's what Trump is. He gets away with petty insults, rambling speeches, self-aggrandizing, and constant lying -- which is what the idiots do, and they love it. Take that, intellectuals and people with any education or nuance!

Trump's an idiot, wouldn't be surprised to find forum members who like his style though. — Vaskane

I think there's only one here.

Educated and nuanced is how they see themselves, but then they repeat almost verbatim the propaganda they’ve been spoon fed for the last few years, as if it was soy. Trump was educated in the Ivy League. I’d love to compare their education, but then again these days “educated” is another word for “instructed”, and instruction aptly describes how they think about politics. It’s why they fell for the Russia hoax, and every hoax since—just following instruction.

Trump was educated in the Ivy League. — NOS4A2

Well, Trump went to the Ivy League.

Well, Trump went to the Ivy League. — RogueAI

Where he learned enough about tertiary education to set up one of his scams, Trump University.

The New York attorney general sued the company, accusing it of scamming students. Two class action lawsuits alleged the school defrauded students through misleading marketing and aggressive sales tactics.

Trump initially denied the allegations, but he agreed to pay a $25 million settlement to those who attended Trump University in 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010. Of the thousands of students who attended Trump University between 2005 and 2010, 6,000 are covered for damages under the settlement agreement. — Source

The Republicans of the Blue state of Colorado had a Centennial Celebration Dinner and did a poll on presidential candidates. Trump won in a landslide.

His re-election as president may trigger all sorts of PTSD. Be prepared.

The Republicans of the Blue state of Colorado had a Centennial Celebration Dinner and did a poll on presidential candidates. Trump won in a landslide. — jgill

He may, nonetheless, not be eligible to appear on the electoral ballot in Colorado, due to his participation in the Jan 6th coup attempt, if a lawsuit there succeeds.

Meanwhile, Trump has been telegraphing his intentions, loud and clear, to gut the bureaucracy, suspend the Constitution, call out the Riot Squad to suppress protests, and go after his enemies in the Department of Justice and FBI. You can bet your boots he would also call off the 2028 Elections. I'm sure this is all part of the fevered revenge fantasies that are playing out in his tortured mind every evening before sleeping, based on his fury at the impudence of mere underlings who are trying to bring him before the Courts. It's why he admires Putin and Kim - he fantasises that he'll be a Strong Man, like them, who can dispose of his enemies in the press and in government by having them killed or exiled to Siberia.

One way you can know you're on the wrong side if you're a Trump supporter is that Trump is intimating he will, if he becomes President again, use the Department of Justice to go after political opponents by indicting them. Let us say you, as a Trump supporter, think this is what Biden is doing to Trump right now and that it is morally wrong. Well, it doesn't become morally right for Trump to do it to others in the future because it is being done to him now. That's like arguing that when fighting against totalitarians we are justified in becoming totalitarians ourselves. That's what is wrong with the tit for tat mentality: "They impeached our guy so we're justified in impeaching their guy" or "they indicted our guy so we're justified in indicting their guy." You're indignant that something -- you claim -- is being done to your guy that is immoral, but then you turn around and support the same thing being done to the other side's guy.

I'm not conceding that Biden is using the justice system to go after a political enemy, by the way, I'm merely pointing out that even if this were the case, it wouldn't make Trump's intention to use the justice system to go after political enemies in the future okay. That would be tantamount to doing away with our democracy, and making us like a Banana Republic, Russia, North Korea, or other totalitarian states where elections don't matter or don't occur at all, and where no one has any true power except the dictator who justifies what he does in ways very similar to what Trump is doing now. You aren't "righting the ship" in a democratic republic with a law that is supposed to apply equally and fairly to everyone if you're simply going to adopt the method of your political opponents that you are claiming is "wrong" now but somehow becomes acceptable when you do it later.

You can tell what is and isn’t driven by straight propaganda by its constant repetition. Repetition makes true. It has been the hill upon which the anti-Trump mind crucifies itself, but at the same time reveals its naked absurdity.

The notion that Trump called for the termination of the constitution or that he was going to indict political opponents is nonsense. It’s just the clever twisting of his admittedly loose words into something palpable for the anti-Trump mind, riddled as it is with the incessant campaign for views and advertising bucks from an industry in its death-throes. So it cannot be that Trump’s opponents are weaponizing the justice system against him, even though they campaigned on it and are now doing it, it’s that we ought to fear Trump maybe doing it in some dystopian future, much like the future they promised us before he was elected the first time, but what only Biden could deliver: war, failed economy, weaponized and two-tiered justice.

The "Russia Hoax" wasn't proven to be a hoax since the conclusion wasn't that Trump was exonerated by the Mueller Investigation. The conclusion was more nuanced than that. Mueller himself said that his report didn't exonerate Trump. I was disappointed that the report failed to establish Trump colluding with Russia, but I admired Mueller for his reticence if that was what was called for due to lack of conclusive evidence. If it had indeed been a witch hunt, Mueller would have "found" the evidence to support the conclusion, whether it actually existed or not. That leaves us with a genuine question mark.

The reason the investigation was not conclusive was because of the obstructions put up to it by the involved parties. Mueller explicitly stated this is why he could not exonerate the parties.

A.G. Barr launched an investigation into the FBI that petered out after years of Durham rooting about for a cabal who was said to be the fabricator of the cause for the investigation. It was what MAGA likes to call a fishing expedition.

The notion that Trump called for the termination of the constitution or that he was going to indict political opponents is nonsense. — NOS4A2

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109449803240069864

A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second/

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

The Durham report was damning, and completely lost on those who followed blindly the false reporting around that time. The involvement of the Clinton campaign, the dismissal of exculpatory evidence, the confirmation bias, and the corrupt hearts and minds of those involved in that investigation is found not only the central actors to that scam, but also in their true believers. The problem is, these corrupt hearts and minds still run the show, and the true believers still follow along.

A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.

This is true. A fraud at that level allowed for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles of the constitution. That’s why it was wrong.

If I happen to be president, and I see somebody who is doing well and beating me very badly, I'll say, 'go down and indict them.'

He was explaining why it was wrong to weaponize the justice department, because doing so sets the precedent.

This is true. — NOS4A2

No it's not.

He was explaining why it was wrong to weaponize the justice department, because doing so sets the precedent. — NOS4A2

He wasn't just explaining that. He was also saying that he will weaponize it in the future.

And whereas he is being indicted because there is evidence of multiple crimes, he explicitly said that he would indict someone if "[he sees] somebody who is doing well and beating [him] very badly."

He's planning to weaponize the justice department in response to legitimate cases against him.

No it's not.

But you thought he was saying it allows him to terminate the constitution, which is an absolute lie.

He's planning to weaponize the justice department in response to legitimate cases against him.

False. He was explaining why it was wrong.

But you thought he was saying it allows him to terminate the constitution, which is an absolute lie. — NOS4A2

"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles ... found in the Constitution."

He's literally saying that.

False. He was explaining why it was wrong. — NOS4A2

He wasn't just explaining why it was wrong. He was explaining that he would commit that very same wrong (that he is falsely accusing others of).

Well, Trump went to the Ivy League. — RogueAI

:up: :100:

He's literally saying that.

He’s literally not.

He wasn't just explaining why it was wrong. He was explaining that he would commit that very same wrong that he is falsely accusing others of.

All I have to do is look at the preceding context (which you suspiciously leave out) and see that you’re wrong.

“They have done something that allows the next party — I mean, if somebody, if I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say ‘Go down and indict them.’ They’d be out of business, they’d be out of the election.”

He’s literally not. — NOS4A2

He literally is.

All I have to do is look at the preceding context (which you suspiciously leave out) and see that you’re wrong.

“They have done something that allows the next party — I mean, if somebody, if I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say ‘Go down and indict them.’ They’d be out of business, they’d be out of the election.” — NOS4A2

Exactly. He’s saying that because he is being indicted then if he wins the election then he will indict his opponents if he sees that they are doing well and beating him.

Exactly. He’s saying that because he is being indicted then if he wins the election then he will indict his opponents if he sees that they are doing well and beating him.

And you think he’s going to do this in the 2028 election, even though he can’t and won’t run in 2028? Utter nonsense.

And you think he’s going to do this in the 2028 election, even though he can’t and won’t run in 2028? Utter nonsense. — NOS4A2

"“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”"

He'll just make up some bullshit and then call for terminating the Constitution again. The authoritarian playbook for consolidating power is not hard to follow: declare an emergency, suspend whatever rules there are, and tell the people you're their only hope.

The saving grace here is that Trump will be very old, but if he's capable of reading a teleprompter, they'll certainly try and keep him in power. Even if he's in a coma, one of his toadies will try and "terminate" the 22nd amendment.

The Horowitz Report is actually a more disturbing report on the problems with FISA warrants and information sharing in the various institutions. That report did not, however, support the charge that the entire investigation was a hoax.

The Durham report ignored many elements of the investigation Mueller presented. Durham's ignorance of those elements came out in Congressional testimony:

Eric Swalwell asked Durham about how Trump “tried and concealed from the public a real-estate deal he was seeking in Moscow.” This was a deal, described in the Mueller report, in which the Russian government promised Trump several hundreds of millions of dollars in profit at no risk to himself to license a tower in Moscow. The proposed payoff, and Trump’s public lies at the time about it, gave Russia enormous leverage over his campaign. Durham replied, “I don’t know anything about that.”

When Adam Schiff asked Durham if the Russians released stolen information through cutouts, he replied, “I’m not sure.” Schiff responded, “The answer is yes,” to which Durham reported, “In your mind, it’s yes.”

When Schiff asked Durham if he knew that, hours after Trump publicly asked Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails and release them, Russian hackers made an attempt to hack Clinton emails, Durham replied, “If that happened, I’m not aware of that.”

When asked if Trump referred to those stolen emails more than 100 times on the campaign trail, Durham answered, “I don’t really read the newspapers and listen to the news.”

And when Schiff asked Durham if he was aware that Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, passed on polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence agent, at the time Russia was conducting both a social-media campaign and the release of stolen documents to help Trump, Durham replied, “You may be getting beyond the depth of my knowledge.”

David Corn reacted incredulously to the last profession of ignorance. “The Manafort-Kilimnik connection — which the Senate Intelligence Committee report characterized as a ‘grave counterintelligence threat’ — is one of the most serious and still not fully explained components of the Trump-Russia scandal,” he writes. “It is inconceivable that Durham is unaware of this troubling link.” — Jonathan Chait

And then there is the fact that Durham failed to bring proof of the conspiracy he was promulgating into any successful convictions.

At the 12:16 mark, Acevedo asks if Trump would do what he says has been done to him:




At the 15:35 mark, Trump says "It could certainly happen in reverse." Not the most cogent response but certainly not a matter of his words being taken out of context.

“You can’t do that, you can’t go after people. You know, when you’re president, and you’ve done a good job and you’re popular, you don’t go after them so you can win an election.”

Why wouldn’t you include this in there?

Now who is taking the comments out of context? The question was whether he would do what was done to him. He continues to describe what he claims happened to him, not what he would never do.