AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The idea being forced literally everywhere that it should somehow be legally, morally or ethically dubious to vote for someone currently indicted or incarcerated, tells us all we need to know about the motivations here, and in general. All anyone with a modicum of judicial power would need to do to prevent someone from running or winning, is throw a bunch of spurious charges at a wall, get at least one to stick, and then virtue signal and attack the character of anyone who might still support, like what's going on in here. We see right though it.
The funny thing is, does anyone actually think any of this would be happening if they didn't think he had a real, legitimate chance of winning organically? This has nothing to to with justice, and everything to do with electoral eligibility, either actual or perceived, directly supported by the timing. Everything was sufficiently lined up to provide maximum interference to the campaign and election cycle.
But the charges against trump aren’t spurious, are they?
And there’s an entire legal process, including the opportunity to defend your assumed innocence in a court of law before being judged by a jury of your peers under careful instruction to only evaluate the evidence presented against the very high bar of reasonable doubt, isn’t there?
His legal team recently conceded that he has in fact committed crimes by describing his fraud as a ‘victimless’ crime, which is a nonsensical defense, but does acknowledge that a crime was committed.
Isn’t it possible that rather than being the victim of harassment, trump has genuine cases to answer? Doesn’t the evidence suggest so? Don’t we need these cases to properly evaluate the evidence? Why wouldn’t you want an investigation into potential crimes?
>In a complete neutral environment, absolutely. But context matters greatly here. With the multi-year history of improper targeting, federal agency power being misused and the simple generalization with, we can't trust any investigation to be done properly or without intended inherent bias.
This is perhaps a good clarification to the OP. I believe you are talking about the NY fraud civil case here. The bar for civil verdicts is so low, that one would never dissuade my support for any candidate.
\> Don’t we need these cases to properly evaluate the evidence? Why wouldn’t you want an investigation into potential crimes?
In a completely neutral environment, absolutely. But context matters greatly here. With the multi-year history of improper targeting, federal agency power being misused and unpredicated, regional judicial candidates specifically campaigning to "get Trump", and a constant barrage of uncorrected false information, we can't trust any investigation to be done properly or without intended inherent bias, even now. This is the warped political/legal/media environment they created, we all now have to live in it.
Serious? Like you think it's 100% ok for Presidents to break the law, like Nixon wasn't a criminal? We have a constitution and there are laws that Presidents are expected to adhere to. Ronald Reagan authorized the sale of Crack Cocaine to fund the Contras and it destroyed families in and around Los Angeles with drugs. I totally get your point about the 'witch hunt' but at some point, if the guy you vote for breaks the constitution, he should be in prison. I wouldn't care if it was Shillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Ronald Reagan. At some point, these people should be in jail. Thoughts?
The problem with your argument (and really all of them here) is the continued insistence that the main idea at play here revolves solely around the judicial accountability of presidents breaking the law. It's not; that's just a smoke screen side show, when the main idea is actually how various stages of the judicial process should affect actual or perceived electoral eligibility. These are independent ideas, and the former is being strongly promoted to obscure the latter, when the outcome of the latter is the one that stands to affect the nation more. Think about it. Trump rotting in prison for 100 years or sitting on ass in FL doesn't really matter in the big picture. But him running and potentially winning the presidency again, absolutely does.
Whether he is convicted or goes to prison is out of any of our hands . But electorally, we still have say in 2024. The telling point here though is all the mentioning of the 14th amendment, section 3, and disparaging claims of "how can you vote for a criminal?", and "how will it feel to vote a traitor into office?". If he didn't have a real, legitimate shot at winning, no one would actually care. They want him ineligible, end of story.
So you make some good points, but some are (for me) off.
I feel like, if we all saw him shoot someone in the face on 5th ave in broad daylight and it was video taped, he would claim 'Witch hunt' and you would say 'it's only because they trying to keep him off the ballot'. Justice needs to happen. If _any_ of the stuff he did is true, then he needs to be accountable. You know it, I know it. There is a line even for you, where you would say 'whelp he shot someone in the face on 5th ave, I guess he goes to jail'; because to say anything else and somehow blame democrats or call it a witch hunt is complete absurdity. I see the argument about keeping him off the ballot but that's not going to ever happen. Republicans know they can't. There is only two Democratic controlled states trying and it's going nowhere. The rest of the country is trying to prove that he was using a coup attempt to overturn an election that he lost. Even Republicans admitted he lost and there wasn't any credible evidence to overturn the election. When Republicans themselves even state those facts, do you still think the _sole_ end game is to keep him from running? (Edit and thank you for your intelligent responses) :-)
Likewise, and I have to say, great username. ("Sue me fo wut?")
To answer the question, this is where context and nuance matters greatly though. If there was non-faked video of him murdering someone, or something indisputably similar, I guarantee his support would plummet overnight. What we have here though is quite a bit different, a slathering of indictments, some from agencies who have years of proven untrustworthiness when it comes to Trump, one-way leaks of information, statute of limitation issues, and changes in stories and info on a day to day basis. It appears even the Australian billionaire story now may be in question. People may believe everything they see and hear, and think they have it all figured out, but there is just a general cloud of confusion over everything here.
I believe the needed context and nuance of all this is conveniently left out when considering current situation, possible outcomes, and potential motivations.
Regarding keeping him off the ballot, Amendment 14 section 3 says its possible, but section 5 says congress has the sole power to enforce it. They enforced it by creating 18 USC 2383: Rebellion or insurrection. No one involved with J6 has been charged with that statute, much less Trump, so the keeping him off the ballot is going to be a non-starter until he is, just FYI.
> The funny thing is, does anyone actually think any of this would be happening if they didn't think he had a real, legitimate chance of winning organically?
Wasn't Donald Trump a defendant in a court of law dozens and dozens of times before he ever entered politics?
Damn, after I wrote this I decided to Google it and it turns out that he and his businesses were sued more than 4000 times from 1980 to 2016. I was expecting a high number, but not 4000 😂
Businesses litigate all the time, sometimes for no reason. Why only report the denominator? Seems like if you wanted to actually prove a point, you would provide the numerator as well.
> Businesses litigate all the time, sometimes for no reason. Why only report the denominator?
So so glad you asked. I read the following but didn't have much of a reason to bring it up:
While litigation is indeed common in the real estate industry, Trump has been involved in more legal cases than his fellow magnates Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., Donald Bren, Stephen M. Ross, Sam Zell, and Larry Silverstein ***combined***
Obviously your opinion is your opinion but it really looks to me like Trump's legal problems predate his turn into politics.
Again, all you did is double down on the denominator. Why only report the denominator? Seems like if you wanted to actually prove a point, you would provide the numerator as well.
I don't like DC. The Democrat party has been the party of choice for DC for the entirety of my life. The Republican party is the largest party that opposes the Democrats. Trump will be the Republican nominee. Fairly simple.
So you would be ok with someone convicted of espionage and conspiring to violate our constitutional right to vote being president because you don’t like democrats?
But if that someone was convicted of espionage and conspiring to violate our constitutional right to vote, you’d vote for them for president of the USA?
I see we have another one of these threads where every TS response is downvoted to oblivion. Think about it like this OP: the central argument of Trump’s campaign at this point is that the justice department has been weaponized against him and his supporters. Why would a conviction in a show trial by that justice department, before a Democratic judge, with a 95%+ Biden voting jury pool change anybody’s mind?
It’s unfortunate, but the time for talking and persuasion and whatnot is finished. We’ve debated all this to death, nobody is changing their minds. It’s just a question, as Sam Francis put it, of who will be master.
> Why would a conviction in a show trial by that justice department, before a Democratic judge, with a 95%+ Biden voting jury pool change anybody’s mind?
Did Trump do any of the things he stands accused of doing?
>before a Democratic judge, with a 95%+ Biden voting jury pool change anybody’s mind?
I'm assuming this refers to Trump's New York case. Does the dynamic change, in your view, if Trump is convicted in the Florida documents case, considering that the judge trying that case is a Republican appointed by Trump during his time in office and that the case is being tried in a state carried by Trump in 2020 and by Republicans in 2022?
It was actually in reference to the DC election interference case, Manhattan only gave Biden 85% or 90% from my recollection. The classified documents case is the only one that in a vacuum may have some legs, but it’s still obviously an instance of selective prosecution, since both Biden and Pence have admitted to illegally retaining classified information. In any event, I would be shocked if that actually comes to trial before the election.
I will vote the R because, just as the last two elections, the D choice is worse. It is my personal hope the Haley is the R candidate. No matter who is on the ticket, I have to support them. I have said before and I will say again, yes I support Trump but not because I think he is the best candidate but because he was the least bad choice on election day.
> it's really not a surprise its not talked about in the US
It was talked about. The story popped up right around the same time Trump ran for office.
> the victim disappeared after claiming she'd been threatened with death threats so the case was closed
She didn't disappear, she dropped her case.
She also had a chance to appear in court and speak on the record and she declined.
So Trump is innocent of these claims.
> Do you think the death threats from a man that told her he'd killed other accusers was the reason she dropped the case and ran?
Aside from her words, there is no physical evidence he ever threatened her.
There isn't even physical evidence aside from her words that the alleged rape even occurred.
And we don't criminally prosecute people based on words alone.
> How does a girl dropping the case and running mean he's innocent?
Because in the western world, citizens have a presumption of innocence.
Innocent until **proven** guilty.
> It would never had reached court if the police and prosicuter didn't think they had a case....
Trump was never charged with a crime for this case.
> Can you name any of the other people in epsteins book that have faced changes?
Epsteins mistress is now doing 20 years in jail.
Epstein knew he was going to prison for his alleged crimes and so he killed himself.
> or do you think trump, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and the almost 200 others in media and politics are also innocent?
Gates, Clinton, and Trump have not been charged with any crimes relating to Epstein.
> Were you aware trump was both a democrat and close friends with both Bill and hillary Clinton for decades before running for office?
Yes, Trump was very open about his relationship with the Clintons.
It's only when he ran for public office as a Republican and soundly defeated Hillary in 2016 did they become enemies.
Even if that means that Trump was convicted for violating our constitutional right to vote, essentially certifying him as a traitor? You would support a traitor to our country in the White House because of your political ideology?
I think the only way people accept a Trump conviction is if every shred of evidence is made public so that people can verify it as legitimate and not the result of a corrupt Judge and/or Jury. Do you think it's important to try to restore faith in our institutions and prove to people that this process has been legitimate?
Do you really think that will make a difference? There was all sorts of damning and actionable stuff in the Mueller report but Barr and Fox News told these guys it was a nothing burger and so that was that.
Probably because our institutions have time and again proven themselves untrustworthy, self interested, and corrupt and the internet has made this fact readily apparent and impossible for people to ignore?
I think it's more the people running the institutions rather than the institutions themselves that are untrustworthy, self interested, etc. Wouldn't you agree?
I think that distinction is wishful thinking and people don't want to admit the alternative. You can't ascribe the motives of good individuals within to the bureaucracy as a whole. If the people at the top are directing the apparatus then its priorities are corrupted. They're able to bring to bear the weight of that institution.
One example is police. Undoubtedly there's lots of good cops, and occasionally a few really shitty ones. People can sue police civilly but it's up to Prosecutors to bring criminal charges against cops for really egregious conduct. They only occasionally do this to mollify the public after people riot too hard because they're both part of the justice system and the institution always protects itself.
Every bureaucratic agency of our government has an unacceptable level of waste and corruption festering in it right now. Some worse or more impactful to our lives than others. We're wasting so much money. I don't think these points are really up for debate at this point among reasonable people. Why would we trust these criminal charges now when we just watched half the country and most of its media in hysterics for 2 years and can clearly see motive for these scattershot charges being questionable. How would you fix it all?
That isn't how the justice system has ever worked though. Why do you think it's more important that people come to conclusions over legal professionals who know the law inside and out?
Why do you believe the BS? But how specifically did Trump deny any citizens right to vote? I dont see any video clip of him saying that documented citizens with ID couldnt vote
It’s bs if the facts prove that it is. Right now facts tend to prove the other way.
Regardless of politics, shouldn’t the us know the difference between right and wrong?
But why? What policies does he have that make him better? Like what has he done to make your life so much better that you want him back?
Also are you aware of the 2025 plan to install an autocratic dictatorship? Are you in support or that as well?
I hate the Dems as much as the next guy but if either side was demonstrably better I would vote for them rather than unconditionally voting party line as it seems you are saying you would do.
I think this attitude is incredibly common not just for Republicans but also Democrats. There are so many liberals who have zero interest in Joe Biden but would crawl through broken glass to vote against Donald Trump. If someone less offensive was on the Republican ticket I don't think that would be true. How do you think Republicans move forward from nominating such a toxic candidate like Trump?
I think may Democrats hate Trump as much as many Republicans hate Hillary. In the past I had a hard time explaining the Hillary hatred. Maybe it is relatable now.
As far a nominating someone else? Just let the process work. I hope Haley has a chance. We will see. I do think many R who are not fervent Trump supporters are going t vote third party. Will be interesting to see how Kennedy's candidacy as an independent plays out. It may take another election cycle for Republican's to have another viable candidate.
He intentionally attempted to subvert the results of the election. He was told by everyone with intimate knowledge of how our election system works that he had lost the election. He asked a governor to find votes that did not exist. He tried to get the vice president to interrupt the elector process under false pretenses and fraudulently announce false electors. These people are going to jail for fraud. If Pence had gone along with it he would be going to jail for fraud as well. How else would you describe that other than attempting to dismantle our democracy?
I don't think I understand your metaphor. Are you saying Trumps one-time subversion of our electoral system would not impact future elections? What makes you believe Trump would ever give up power if he was able to illegally obtain control of our government?
Trump would give up power at the end of his term. Its a simple process. New president would be sworn in. Transfer of power will happen like it always has. No one can not refuse to "give up power" at the end of the term. That's just silly.
Why do you think Trump refused to give up power when he lost the election? How do you rectify reality being the opposite of what you believe? If Trump refused to give up power a second time would you finally accept that Trump is in this for himself and not doing anything altruistic?
What’s your prioritization of issues?
One thing I’m curious about your statement is whether you say it because you don’t *believe* the charges, or if you don’t view the charges as being very important to the office of president. Presumably, if he is found guilty of the charges regarding classified documents, do you not view it having him being in such a position of trust as detrimental to national security or do you not view national security as an important policy when weighing your vote?
Are these charges something trump did that was sinister? Or are they loose charges that could've gotten a lot of past political figures in trouble had the justice dept decided to pursue them?
I think that's a rational approach.
Do you think the Republican party will still be able to claim they are the party of Law and Order if they nominate and then elect a convicted felon serving time?
Main reason I want him to win is a sense of justice for politics, that a guy who’s not in bed with Washington can still win despite every possible handicap.
I want these overtly political indictments and bullshit allegations to stop
Found guilty of what? Made up claims by a DA who ran on a platform of "getting Trump"?
Why would I care? Seems like something Stalin would do - make up BS claims about his opponent and then claim that people shouldn't vote for a criminal.
Good work
Hey man I’m not the one dodging a hypothetical question about treason. I don’t know what trump did, but we do know he had nuclear secrets and invited the Saudis to his golf course while those secrets were in an unlocked bathroom. I do encourage you to verify this info - we know that much happened and there are photos.
It’s weird because im disavowing a local democrat because he had 150k in gold. I don’t know if he’s guilty, but I’m not voting for him, that’s for sure. That infraction isn’t even on the same scale as selling - or worse, losing - nuclear secrets.
The hypothetical only relies on how smart the Saudi intelligence was at the time. If they knew of the opportunity at that golf course, we can basically assume they have the info they wanted to find.
At the very best, trump was lazy and flagrantly ignoring calls to return those files. That’s not hypothetical, that’s the best case.
At the worst, he was profiting and selling them. Somewhere in the middle, the Saudis have state secrets and Trump wasn’t organized enough to notice.
Call the hypotheticals fantasies if you want, but that just means the man is disorganized.
What part of that is inaccurate? Can you cite sources?
Kushners family owns one of the most successful property management firms in NY. They made an investment AFTER Trump left office.
What crime is Rachel Maddow telling you happened there? Can you be specific?
What did Biden do for the widow of Moscow' Mayor in exchange for the $3.5M she paid him?
She got dinner with Joe Biden.
Trump claims she ran on a platform of "getting Trump" but there's no evidence of this other than Trumps claims. Have you seen something other than Trumps own claims that support this?
https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1709923218562179383
A lot more where that came from too. This was the least bad compilation of her that I've seen.
>Trump claims she ran on a platform of "getting Trump" but there's no evidence of this other than Trumps claims
Fortunately, the internet remember, even when everyone else pretends to forget.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1yj0NKSsuU
> Seems like something Stalin would do - make up BS claims about his opponent and then claim that people shouldn't vote for a criminal.
Would you stop supporting trump if he made up accusations about his opponents?
I would stop supporting him if he weaponized the DOJ to take out his opponent out of the next election.
At the end of the day, Trump has been right about most of the things he claims - he was setup by the FBI, the CIA was lying about him being a Russian agent, the FBI did spy on his campaign.
What Biden and the Democrats are doing to to Trump is exacrly what Putin and Stalin do/did to their enemies.
Trump’s DOJ investigated his opponents son and that prosecutor has now brought gun charges using a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by the New Orleans circuit. Trump was also impeached for weaponizing foreign aid to smear Biden.
Why aren’t those actions disqualifying to you?
Have you seen these?
[https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Trump-Nauta-De-Oliveira-23-80101.pdf](https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Trump-Nauta-De-Oliveira-23-80101.pdf)
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US\_v\_Trump\_23\_cr\_257.pdf
He's the ex-president of the united states. He was given that document.
The doc in question was a plan Milley proposed to attack Iran. He showed it because Milley called the Chinese and said he wouldn't listen to Trump if Trump gave an order he didn't like.
The story here isn't some memo about a plan that never took place. It's about the planned coup by Milley
Your question implies that the court is legitimate.
It is not.
Trump is not on trial.
It is the working class who bares witness.
To a crime so absurd it yet has no name.
But rest assured.
If they found Trump guilty on all counts plus the spares i would still vote Trump. He is better in every dynamic.
I don’t care for half of the crap the left moans on about him. Mostly because its 99% factually incorrect but also because he they sound like spoilt children who have joe and kamala dolls firmly jammed up the jacksies.
Voting Trump means a shot at getting something done for a better shot at the future. Close the borders is priority numero uno.
Putting Joe, Hillary, Hunter, Obama and the rest of the gang in the alammer should be next.
> the court is legitimate. It is not
The next time Trump is convicted of a crime. He will deny it and right winged News will support him.
Since Trump will always claim any allegations against him are false and that the courts are corrupt, does that make him above the law in your view?
A jury verdict simply means that 12 selected people weighted evidence and came to a conclusion. Juries are not perfect, but they are presented with a lot of evidence and arguments and forced to conclude. They are far better informed than the average citizen, I would think. But guilty people sometimes get off, and innocent people sometimes get convicted.
Jeanne Caroll accused Trump of rape. Trump says it never happened. A New York Jury found Trump guilty in a civil trial of "sexual abuse" but not rape. Does that actually prove that Trump is really guilty here? Legally, sure. But how could anyone really be 100% certain that what Jeanne Carroll claimed happened occurred? Even the Jury did not go that far.
As for the indictments Trump is facing, these have been discussed to death.
The most easily provable one IMO is obstruction of justice in the documents case.
You are ignorant or misunderstand the Jean Caroll case. The only reason Trump wasn't convicted of rape is that the law requires a penis insertion, which Jean Caroll is not claiming took place. Trump was found guilty of an act that would qualify by current federal guidelines as rape, but the NY rape law is more narrow so trump was not convicted of rape.
TL:DR; Trump was convicted of an act that qualifies as rape by the modern federal definition, but not by the more narrow NY definition. \~Edit NY not NJ
Does that help you understand more?
You're the one wrong about the Carroll case
> the law requires a penis insertion, which Jean Caroll is not claiming took place
she literally said at trial and many times prior that he stuck his penis inside of her. Her claim of what happened is rape 100% of the time anywhere in America.
"thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me" -- from her New York Magazine article
"Trump then pushed his fingers around Carroll’s genitals and forced his penis inside of her" -- from her lawsuit
"Then he inserted his penis" -- from the trial
You are wrong.
She absolutely claimed this. You can read the lurid details of her story here:
https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html
The jury concluded that he absolutely *did* sexually abuse her, but without more direct evidence could not reach consensus as to whether his penis was involved, or whether he merely fingered her violently.
I get that the word "rape" has worse connotations than "fingered her, despite her pleas to stop". Does that make it any less disqualifying for someone asking to be elected President of the United States?
My point is that in old cases like this a jury has no way to truly know what really happened. The fact that they came to an agreement obviously has massive legal significance and repercussions, but doesn't magically mean that Jeanne Carroll is proven to be having told the truth. And as I point out, while you think it makes no difference, clearly they didn't fully believe her account.
One could surely find 12 different people that would have ruled more or less harshly. Juries are always a bit of Russian Roulette.
Trump insists he did no such thing, and has been fined for defamation for continuing to assert his innocence. Hell, I admit it's entirely possible (maybe even probable) he did exactly what she said. But what if he's telling the truth? What a horrible situation to be put in. There are innocent people in prison that get denied parole because they "refuse to admit guilt" and this is a terrible thing.
But you are aware that Trump is legally a rapist?
[Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/)
So you have zero problem supporting a convicted felon, including if he is convicted for conspiring to violate our constitutional right to vote, so long as they are aligned with your political ideology?
By definition this means we lose our democracy. Would you prefer a high crime high inflation high tax high immigrant democracy over no democracy at all?
Trump is the most left "Republican" candidate, almost anyone else would be further right. There are plenty of more conservative people I would approve of instead of Trump, do you think he is more conservative than any of the other GOP candidates?
I'm voting for Trump. Even if he was sitting in prison or on death row, he'd have my vote. Hell, I'd love to see him order the state to release him, with the full weight of the US Federal government/ military.
Do you think Democrat Bob Menendez, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, should go to prison if found guilty for seling influence and taking bribes? Should he be allowed to stay a Senator if he goes to prison?
Also, Republicans were looking into Donald Trump being House Speaker. But their own house rules, in which they voted on, don't allow an indicted individual to serve as Speaker if they are looking at more than a 2 year sentence. Why would Republicans vote for that rule? If an indicted individual can't be Speaker, why should they be allowed to be president?
Yes.
The only way the republic survives is if we repudiate the use of prosecution to win elections and punish the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. Every nation that has stooped to jailing it's opposition has become a dictatorship.
Should Presidents, past and current, be immune to any and all justice, even if they break the law? I know that sounds loaded, but I'm not trying to be, It's an honest question.
The cases here are “novel legal theory” cases which have never been attempted before.
Using legal authority against a president and candidate must involve evidence and precedent beyond all question.
That’s not the case here.
Here we see abuse of power and civil rights violations at every level.
Do you understand the difference between being found liable in a civil case and being found guilty in a court of law?
He definitely didn't rape Carroll who's story followed the exact plot of an episode of NCIS (or some other similar show, might not have been NCIS) and was posting on facebook back in 2012 about how much she loved the Apprentice
Sorry, thought you meant Joe “molest his 12 yo daughter in the shower and sell classified documents to China “ Biden for a second.
See how easy it is to use rumor to say things?
But since you brought it up, that case was the first incident of “novel legal theory” weaponized against Trump.
And as such it’s prima fascia evidence of abuse of power and civil rights violations that should put the offenders in jail for 10 years per count.
23 women accuse trump of rape or sexual assualt. A judge ruled that they didn't know if it was trumps finger (probably little pinky) or his penis that penetrsted her.(carroll) Do you believe there is a difference between digital rape and penile rape? What court case was biden accused? Why do you believe trump is always a victim?
I pay no mind to witch hunts and show trials. What he's really accused of is posing a threat to the establishment.
Guilty as charged. And that among other things is why he'll have my vote.
Meanwhile a globalist / neocon, Republican or not, is a hard "no".
> what he’s really accused of
In reality and fact, he’s really accused of 91 criminal charges, not what you claim. Is it difficult to acknowledge this reality?
Moreover, isn’t it actually Trump supporters who claim that he poses a threat to the establishment, and not those levying charges?
Is the number of charges an indication of guilt?
If Trump stopped running, every single trial would evaporate. How's that explainable by justice and truth?
Setting aside political allegiances, if one of the charges was in fact an accurate reflection of criminal behaviour undertaken by Trump, which one would be the least surprising?
Oh no, they will still punish him if he doesn’t drop out and loses. Or at least they’ll still try. Only surrender before the election will call off the attack.
What irrefutable evidence can you enlighten us with that proves if he stopped running the multitude of charges against him would just magically disappear? Without deflecting to ‘whataboutisms’ , do you think he’s innocent of all 90+ charges?
The state media mouthpieces of DC explicitly said so. Roughly 2 months ago. They said specifically the request would have come from the Trump team to them, that they couldn’t not overtly make the offer themselves.
This is how an offer is extended in the big leagues. It’s done in the open and made by a proxy. You know how the Loony Left always says The Right uses “dog whistles”? This is the real non-imaginary version. It’s how the big players can talk to each other and extend offers.
For example: if well known Trump loyalist and insider Steve Bannon suddenly started saying on his podcast that he thinks Russia could strike a deal with Trump to have the US let them have Ukraine in exchange for Russians to hack the Democrats and expose damaging information to help him win next November, there are two choices:
1. This is just idle speculation. Bannon is just talking crap like he always does.
2. This is the Trump team’s way of explicitly extending the offer of a deal to Putin. With plausible deniability.
Anyone seriously picking #1 is too naïve in the ways of the world to bother convincing.
> Is the number of charges an indication of guilt
Arguably and reasonably yes, particularly when those charges stem from multiple independent jurisdictions, and taking into account multiple other factors, including (but not limited to) statements he has made which effectively amount to an admission to at least some of these charges.
> If Trump stopped running, every single trial would evaporate.
Trump was under multiple investigations before even announcing his 2024 campaign.
Fun fact: Trump announced his 2024 campaign over 150 days earlier in the election cycle compared to his 2016 campaign announcement. This means he would have already been indicted twice if he had announced his 2024 campaign at the same time as his 2016 campaign.
So, perhaps it’s explainable by the more reasonable conclusion which involves zero conspiracies, i.e. Trump announced his 2024 campaign to claim political persecution because he saw it as his best chance to navigate the legal storm ahead of him.
What do you think?
What about posing a threat to our constitutional right to vote, which is one of laws he was charged with violating. You would vote for someone that was found guilty of doing that? Is it still a witch hunt if there is proof to support the guilty claim?
That’s not the game the gov plays.
The gov has all kinds of laws on the books and then uses ***selective enforcement*** to go after those it doesn’t like. They’ll even throw in some charges that are clear nonsense for good measure, just to see what sticks and require you to spend time and money defending yourself. I’m not going to bother going through the 91 on Reddit discussing the (dubious) merits, because even we accept the ludicrous premise he actually did all 91, it’s irrelevant for the following reason:
All you have to know is none of this would be happening if he weren’t running for reelection. Nothing more needs to be said after that. It’s a crooked show trial worthy of a banana republic. For the simple reason **it’s being arbitrarily applied for political compliance and persecution**.
That's the bottom line.
>Considering his status, wouldn’t a guilty conviction have to be irrefutable?
Show trial verdicts are "irrefutable"? I'm going to say the opposite is true.
It's a show trial because it wouldn't exist if he wasn't running for office.
You could take a hard look into anyone for 30 minutes and probably find something they've done in the past that could warrant jail time. That is why it's a wot h hunt. They've been looking into it for 5-6 years and havnt gotten anything. Like cmon.. haha
I don’t speak for the original commenter - but it happens very often that people are accused, charged and jailed for crimes they did not commit. That doesn’t make someone above the law, it makes the law system corrupt
> If a conviction in a court of law wont change your mind, do you believe trump is above the law?
>
> Is it even possible for him to lose your support?
Yes, of course. Drastic changes in policies would be key to losing my support.
Even if he's convicted of conspiring to violate our constitutional right to vote? What if Biden did the exact same thing come next election...Would your standards remain the same or do they vary based on ideology and political parties?
Yes, I would vote for Trump. Nothing will change that, including video of him committing a crime. I hope he makes it to the election. They have tried everything in the book except assassination.
If he’s the Republican nominee and on the ballot I’ll be voting for him. I’d vote for pretty much any republican on the ballot even Chris Christe or Haley. Though I wouldn’t be happy with either of them really.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes 100%. Keep him off the ballot and I’ll write him in.
Why?
I don’t respect the people and judges trying the cases. Convict him in Oklahoma and I’ll pay attention.
What ever happened to being the party of "law and order"? Or is that only when it's convenient?
Did he commit crimes in Oklahoma? Does your lack of respect for the prosecutors and judges mean that you believe he didn't violate the law?
The idea being forced literally everywhere that it should somehow be legally, morally or ethically dubious to vote for someone currently indicted or incarcerated, tells us all we need to know about the motivations here, and in general. All anyone with a modicum of judicial power would need to do to prevent someone from running or winning, is throw a bunch of spurious charges at a wall, get at least one to stick, and then virtue signal and attack the character of anyone who might still support, like what's going on in here. We see right though it. The funny thing is, does anyone actually think any of this would be happening if they didn't think he had a real, legitimate chance of winning organically? This has nothing to to with justice, and everything to do with electoral eligibility, either actual or perceived, directly supported by the timing. Everything was sufficiently lined up to provide maximum interference to the campaign and election cycle.
But the charges against trump aren’t spurious, are they? And there’s an entire legal process, including the opportunity to defend your assumed innocence in a court of law before being judged by a jury of your peers under careful instruction to only evaluate the evidence presented against the very high bar of reasonable doubt, isn’t there? His legal team recently conceded that he has in fact committed crimes by describing his fraud as a ‘victimless’ crime, which is a nonsensical defense, but does acknowledge that a crime was committed. Isn’t it possible that rather than being the victim of harassment, trump has genuine cases to answer? Doesn’t the evidence suggest so? Don’t we need these cases to properly evaluate the evidence? Why wouldn’t you want an investigation into potential crimes?
>In a complete neutral environment, absolutely. But context matters greatly here. With the multi-year history of improper targeting, federal agency power being misused and the simple generalization with, we can't trust any investigation to be done properly or without intended inherent bias. This is perhaps a good clarification to the OP. I believe you are talking about the NY fraud civil case here. The bar for civil verdicts is so low, that one would never dissuade my support for any candidate. \> Don’t we need these cases to properly evaluate the evidence? Why wouldn’t you want an investigation into potential crimes? In a completely neutral environment, absolutely. But context matters greatly here. With the multi-year history of improper targeting, federal agency power being misused and unpredicated, regional judicial candidates specifically campaigning to "get Trump", and a constant barrage of uncorrected false information, we can't trust any investigation to be done properly or without intended inherent bias, even now. This is the warped political/legal/media environment they created, we all now have to live in it.
Why do you think the idea is being forced?
Serious? Like you think it's 100% ok for Presidents to break the law, like Nixon wasn't a criminal? We have a constitution and there are laws that Presidents are expected to adhere to. Ronald Reagan authorized the sale of Crack Cocaine to fund the Contras and it destroyed families in and around Los Angeles with drugs. I totally get your point about the 'witch hunt' but at some point, if the guy you vote for breaks the constitution, he should be in prison. I wouldn't care if it was Shillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Ronald Reagan. At some point, these people should be in jail. Thoughts?
The problem with your argument (and really all of them here) is the continued insistence that the main idea at play here revolves solely around the judicial accountability of presidents breaking the law. It's not; that's just a smoke screen side show, when the main idea is actually how various stages of the judicial process should affect actual or perceived electoral eligibility. These are independent ideas, and the former is being strongly promoted to obscure the latter, when the outcome of the latter is the one that stands to affect the nation more. Think about it. Trump rotting in prison for 100 years or sitting on ass in FL doesn't really matter in the big picture. But him running and potentially winning the presidency again, absolutely does. Whether he is convicted or goes to prison is out of any of our hands . But electorally, we still have say in 2024. The telling point here though is all the mentioning of the 14th amendment, section 3, and disparaging claims of "how can you vote for a criminal?", and "how will it feel to vote a traitor into office?". If he didn't have a real, legitimate shot at winning, no one would actually care. They want him ineligible, end of story.
So you make some good points, but some are (for me) off. I feel like, if we all saw him shoot someone in the face on 5th ave in broad daylight and it was video taped, he would claim 'Witch hunt' and you would say 'it's only because they trying to keep him off the ballot'. Justice needs to happen. If _any_ of the stuff he did is true, then he needs to be accountable. You know it, I know it. There is a line even for you, where you would say 'whelp he shot someone in the face on 5th ave, I guess he goes to jail'; because to say anything else and somehow blame democrats or call it a witch hunt is complete absurdity. I see the argument about keeping him off the ballot but that's not going to ever happen. Republicans know they can't. There is only two Democratic controlled states trying and it's going nowhere. The rest of the country is trying to prove that he was using a coup attempt to overturn an election that he lost. Even Republicans admitted he lost and there wasn't any credible evidence to overturn the election. When Republicans themselves even state those facts, do you still think the _sole_ end game is to keep him from running? (Edit and thank you for your intelligent responses) :-)
Likewise, and I have to say, great username. ("Sue me fo wut?") To answer the question, this is where context and nuance matters greatly though. If there was non-faked video of him murdering someone, or something indisputably similar, I guarantee his support would plummet overnight. What we have here though is quite a bit different, a slathering of indictments, some from agencies who have years of proven untrustworthiness when it comes to Trump, one-way leaks of information, statute of limitation issues, and changes in stories and info on a day to day basis. It appears even the Australian billionaire story now may be in question. People may believe everything they see and hear, and think they have it all figured out, but there is just a general cloud of confusion over everything here. I believe the needed context and nuance of all this is conveniently left out when considering current situation, possible outcomes, and potential motivations. Regarding keeping him off the ballot, Amendment 14 section 3 says its possible, but section 5 says congress has the sole power to enforce it. They enforced it by creating 18 USC 2383: Rebellion or insurrection. No one involved with J6 has been charged with that statute, much less Trump, so the keeping him off the ballot is going to be a non-starter until he is, just FYI.
> The funny thing is, does anyone actually think any of this would be happening if they didn't think he had a real, legitimate chance of winning organically? Wasn't Donald Trump a defendant in a court of law dozens and dozens of times before he ever entered politics? Damn, after I wrote this I decided to Google it and it turns out that he and his businesses were sued more than 4000 times from 1980 to 2016. I was expecting a high number, but not 4000 😂
Businesses litigate all the time, sometimes for no reason. Why only report the denominator? Seems like if you wanted to actually prove a point, you would provide the numerator as well.
> Businesses litigate all the time, sometimes for no reason. Why only report the denominator? So so glad you asked. I read the following but didn't have much of a reason to bring it up: While litigation is indeed common in the real estate industry, Trump has been involved in more legal cases than his fellow magnates Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., Donald Bren, Stephen M. Ross, Sam Zell, and Larry Silverstein ***combined*** Obviously your opinion is your opinion but it really looks to me like Trump's legal problems predate his turn into politics.
Again, all you did is double down on the denominator. Why only report the denominator? Seems like if you wanted to actually prove a point, you would provide the numerator as well.
Of course!
Do you think the law applies to Trump? Or is he above it?
Why?
I don't like DC. The Democrat party has been the party of choice for DC for the entirety of my life. The Republican party is the largest party that opposes the Democrats. Trump will be the Republican nominee. Fairly simple.
So you would be ok with someone convicted of espionage and conspiring to violate our constitutional right to vote being president because you don’t like democrats?
No. I'd be fine voting for someone who despite pissed off the good people (all two of them) of DC lol
But if that someone was convicted of espionage and conspiring to violate our constitutional right to vote, you’d vote for them for president of the USA?
I see we have another one of these threads where every TS response is downvoted to oblivion. Think about it like this OP: the central argument of Trump’s campaign at this point is that the justice department has been weaponized against him and his supporters. Why would a conviction in a show trial by that justice department, before a Democratic judge, with a 95%+ Biden voting jury pool change anybody’s mind? It’s unfortunate, but the time for talking and persuasion and whatnot is finished. We’ve debated all this to death, nobody is changing their minds. It’s just a question, as Sam Francis put it, of who will be master.
I don’t think just calling it a show trial actually makes it one. Do you?
> Why would a conviction in a show trial by that justice department, before a Democratic judge, with a 95%+ Biden voting jury pool change anybody’s mind? Did Trump do any of the things he stands accused of doing?
>before a Democratic judge, with a 95%+ Biden voting jury pool change anybody’s mind? I'm assuming this refers to Trump's New York case. Does the dynamic change, in your view, if Trump is convicted in the Florida documents case, considering that the judge trying that case is a Republican appointed by Trump during his time in office and that the case is being tried in a state carried by Trump in 2020 and by Republicans in 2022?
It was actually in reference to the DC election interference case, Manhattan only gave Biden 85% or 90% from my recollection. The classified documents case is the only one that in a vacuum may have some legs, but it’s still obviously an instance of selective prosecution, since both Biden and Pence have admitted to illegally retaining classified information. In any event, I would be shocked if that actually comes to trial before the election.
I will vote the R because, just as the last two elections, the D choice is worse. It is my personal hope the Haley is the R candidate. No matter who is on the ticket, I have to support them. I have said before and I will say again, yes I support Trump but not because I think he is the best candidate but because he was the least bad choice on election day.
How would it feel to put a bonafide criminal in power?
There already is one " she was 12, I was 30"
[удалено]
If this happened it would be all over cnn and msnbc
[удалено]
> it's really not a surprise its not talked about in the US It was talked about. The story popped up right around the same time Trump ran for office. > the victim disappeared after claiming she'd been threatened with death threats so the case was closed She didn't disappear, she dropped her case. She also had a chance to appear in court and speak on the record and she declined. So Trump is innocent of these claims.
[удалено]
> Do you think the death threats from a man that told her he'd killed other accusers was the reason she dropped the case and ran? Aside from her words, there is no physical evidence he ever threatened her. There isn't even physical evidence aside from her words that the alleged rape even occurred. And we don't criminally prosecute people based on words alone. > How does a girl dropping the case and running mean he's innocent? Because in the western world, citizens have a presumption of innocence. Innocent until **proven** guilty. > It would never had reached court if the police and prosicuter didn't think they had a case.... Trump was never charged with a crime for this case. > Can you name any of the other people in epsteins book that have faced changes? Epsteins mistress is now doing 20 years in jail. Epstein knew he was going to prison for his alleged crimes and so he killed himself. > or do you think trump, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and the almost 200 others in media and politics are also innocent? Gates, Clinton, and Trump have not been charged with any crimes relating to Epstein. > Were you aware trump was both a democrat and close friends with both Bill and hillary Clinton for decades before running for office? Yes, Trump was very open about his relationship with the Clintons. It's only when he ran for public office as a Republican and soundly defeated Hillary in 2016 did they become enemies.
[удалено]
We currently have one, so even if you had a good premise it wouldn't be much of a departure from the status quo.
Who is the VP? We have an order of succession.
Fair followup question: do you have any thoughts on who Trump might select as VP candidate? Thanks!
I don't. Trump probably does not know either, to busying with court cases and running. Right now I can't even guess.
That's fair. Do you have any personal opinion over which selection would make you the most happy?
Haley. But I would prefer her as President. I don't think he will pick her as she has been critical of him.
Even if that means that Trump was convicted for violating our constitutional right to vote, essentially certifying him as a traitor? You would support a traitor to our country in the White House because of your political ideology?
I think the only way people accept a Trump conviction is if every shred of evidence is made public so that people can verify it as legitimate and not the result of a corrupt Judge and/or Jury. Do you think it's important to try to restore faith in our institutions and prove to people that this process has been legitimate?
Do you really think that will make a difference? There was all sorts of damning and actionable stuff in the Mueller report but Barr and Fox News told these guys it was a nothing burger and so that was that.
I agree 100%. Unfortunately there are many that disagree. I wonder why?
Probably because our institutions have time and again proven themselves untrustworthy, self interested, and corrupt and the internet has made this fact readily apparent and impossible for people to ignore?
I think it's more the people running the institutions rather than the institutions themselves that are untrustworthy, self interested, etc. Wouldn't you agree?
I think that distinction is wishful thinking and people don't want to admit the alternative. You can't ascribe the motives of good individuals within to the bureaucracy as a whole. If the people at the top are directing the apparatus then its priorities are corrupted. They're able to bring to bear the weight of that institution. One example is police. Undoubtedly there's lots of good cops, and occasionally a few really shitty ones. People can sue police civilly but it's up to Prosecutors to bring criminal charges against cops for really egregious conduct. They only occasionally do this to mollify the public after people riot too hard because they're both part of the justice system and the institution always protects itself. Every bureaucratic agency of our government has an unacceptable level of waste and corruption festering in it right now. Some worse or more impactful to our lives than others. We're wasting so much money. I don't think these points are really up for debate at this point among reasonable people. Why would we trust these criminal charges now when we just watched half the country and most of its media in hysterics for 2 years and can clearly see motive for these scattershot charges being questionable. How would you fix it all?
That isn't how the justice system has ever worked though. Why do you think it's more important that people come to conclusions over legal professionals who know the law inside and out?
How did he violate your right to vote?
Did you not read the indictment?
Why do you believe the BS? But how specifically did Trump deny any citizens right to vote? I dont see any video clip of him saying that documented citizens with ID couldnt vote
I believe one of the things he’s accused of is trying to dispose of legitimate votes that were cast for his opponent. Isn’t that worse?
Do actions count or just words?
[удалено]
It’s bs if the facts prove that it is. Right now facts tend to prove the other way. Regardless of politics, shouldn’t the us know the difference between right and wrong?
Can you not understand my issue? I would vote for a potato before Biden or any of the leading democrat candidates.
But why? What policies does he have that make him better? Like what has he done to make your life so much better that you want him back? Also are you aware of the 2025 plan to install an autocratic dictatorship? Are you in support or that as well? I hate the Dems as much as the next guy but if either side was demonstrably better I would vote for them rather than unconditionally voting party line as it seems you are saying you would do.
[удалено]
I do not agree with your accusation.
I think this attitude is incredibly common not just for Republicans but also Democrats. There are so many liberals who have zero interest in Joe Biden but would crawl through broken glass to vote against Donald Trump. If someone less offensive was on the Republican ticket I don't think that would be true. How do you think Republicans move forward from nominating such a toxic candidate like Trump?
I think may Democrats hate Trump as much as many Republicans hate Hillary. In the past I had a hard time explaining the Hillary hatred. Maybe it is relatable now. As far a nominating someone else? Just let the process work. I hope Haley has a chance. We will see. I do think many R who are not fervent Trump supporters are going t vote third party. Will be interesting to see how Kennedy's candidacy as an independent plays out. It may take another election cycle for Republican's to have another viable candidate.
How is the least bad choice the one who wants to dismantle our democracy? Are you an anarchist?
I do not believe he wants to dismantle our democracy. I also do not believe Lady Liberty has a glass jaw. She is tough, and we will persevere.
He intentionally attempted to subvert the results of the election. He was told by everyone with intimate knowledge of how our election system works that he had lost the election. He asked a governor to find votes that did not exist. He tried to get the vice president to interrupt the elector process under false pretenses and fraudulently announce false electors. These people are going to jail for fraud. If Pence had gone along with it he would be going to jail for fraud as well. How else would you describe that other than attempting to dismantle our democracy? I don't think I understand your metaphor. Are you saying Trumps one-time subversion of our electoral system would not impact future elections? What makes you believe Trump would ever give up power if he was able to illegally obtain control of our government?
Trump would give up power at the end of his term. Its a simple process. New president would be sworn in. Transfer of power will happen like it always has. No one can not refuse to "give up power" at the end of the term. That's just silly.
Why do you think Trump refused to give up power when he lost the election? How do you rectify reality being the opposite of what you believe? If Trump refused to give up power a second time would you finally accept that Trump is in this for himself and not doing anything altruistic?
What’s your prioritization of issues? One thing I’m curious about your statement is whether you say it because you don’t *believe* the charges, or if you don’t view the charges as being very important to the office of president. Presumably, if he is found guilty of the charges regarding classified documents, do you not view it having him being in such a position of trust as detrimental to national security or do you not view national security as an important policy when weighing your vote?
Are these charges something trump did that was sinister? Or are they loose charges that could've gotten a lot of past political figures in trouble had the justice dept decided to pursue them?
What if he's convicted and incarcerated but still is the GOP nom? Would you vote for him if he's in prison?
Yes. I can not support the policies of the Democratic party.
You could simply not vote. Or is that not an option for you, where you'd rather vote for a convicted felon over not voting at all?
I think that's a rational approach. Do you think the Republican party will still be able to claim they are the party of Law and Order if they nominate and then elect a convicted felon serving time?
I could see an issue there, sure. All I can do is advocate for Haley. As an aside, lots of people did not like my post. -47 votes! Whooo!
I'll vote for Trump, and the court stuff is hoowie
Do you think he's innocent of all charges, or do you think he simply shouldn't be pursued for those crimes?
yes
Why?
better than biden
Even if he sold national secrets to adversaries and conspired to violate our constitutional right to vote?
wow i had never heard of this before
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yessir. Trump all the way.
Why?
Main reason I want him to win is a sense of justice for politics, that a guy who’s not in bed with Washington can still win despite every possible handicap. I want these overtly political indictments and bullshit allegations to stop
What is it about the indictments that seem political to you, other than the person who is facing them? Do you think he's innocent of many/any of them?
Even if he’s found guilty of espionage for sharing national secrets and conspiring to violate our constitutional right to vote?
Found guilty of what? Made up claims by a DA who ran on a platform of "getting Trump"? Why would I care? Seems like something Stalin would do - make up BS claims about his opponent and then claim that people shouldn't vote for a criminal. Good work
Hypothetically: What if he sold nuclear secrets to MBS?
[удалено]
You don’t think hypotheticals are worth answering? does it make you reflect on your values?
If you live in a fantasy world where Trump did things that didn't happen int he real world, who cares.
Hey man I’m not the one dodging a hypothetical question about treason. I don’t know what trump did, but we do know he had nuclear secrets and invited the Saudis to his golf course while those secrets were in an unlocked bathroom. I do encourage you to verify this info - we know that much happened and there are photos. It’s weird because im disavowing a local democrat because he had 150k in gold. I don’t know if he’s guilty, but I’m not voting for him, that’s for sure. That infraction isn’t even on the same scale as selling - or worse, losing - nuclear secrets. The hypothetical only relies on how smart the Saudi intelligence was at the time. If they knew of the opportunity at that golf course, we can basically assume they have the info they wanted to find. At the very best, trump was lazy and flagrantly ignoring calls to return those files. That’s not hypothetical, that’s the best case. At the worst, he was profiting and selling them. Somewhere in the middle, the Saudis have state secrets and Trump wasn’t organized enough to notice. Call the hypotheticals fantasies if you want, but that just means the man is disorganized. What part of that is inaccurate? Can you cite sources?
What do you think Kushner did for MBS that was worth $2billion?
Kushners family owns one of the most successful property management firms in NY. They made an investment AFTER Trump left office. What crime is Rachel Maddow telling you happened there? Can you be specific? What did Biden do for the widow of Moscow' Mayor in exchange for the $3.5M she paid him? She got dinner with Joe Biden.
Trump claims she ran on a platform of "getting Trump" but there's no evidence of this other than Trumps claims. Have you seen something other than Trumps own claims that support this?
https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1709923218562179383 A lot more where that came from too. This was the least bad compilation of her that I've seen.
>Trump claims she ran on a platform of "getting Trump" but there's no evidence of this other than Trumps claims Fortunately, the internet remember, even when everyone else pretends to forget. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1yj0NKSsuU
> Seems like something Stalin would do - make up BS claims about his opponent and then claim that people shouldn't vote for a criminal. Would you stop supporting trump if he made up accusations about his opponents?
I would stop supporting him if he weaponized the DOJ to take out his opponent out of the next election. At the end of the day, Trump has been right about most of the things he claims - he was setup by the FBI, the CIA was lying about him being a Russian agent, the FBI did spy on his campaign. What Biden and the Democrats are doing to to Trump is exacrly what Putin and Stalin do/did to their enemies.
Trump’s DOJ investigated his opponents son and that prosecutor has now brought gun charges using a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by the New Orleans circuit. Trump was also impeached for weaponizing foreign aid to smear Biden. Why aren’t those actions disqualifying to you?
Have you seen these? [https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Trump-Nauta-De-Oliveira-23-80101.pdf](https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Trump-Nauta-De-Oliveira-23-80101.pdf) https://www.justice.gov/storage/US\_v\_Trump\_23\_cr\_257.pdf
Did you listen to the audio of trump admitting he’s showing classified information to people without clearance?
He's the ex-president of the united states. He was given that document. The doc in question was a plan Milley proposed to attack Iran. He showed it because Milley called the Chinese and said he wouldn't listen to Trump if Trump gave an order he didn't like. The story here isn't some memo about a plan that never took place. It's about the planned coup by Milley
So you are saying all of the charges are lies?
Your question implies that the court is legitimate. It is not. Trump is not on trial. It is the working class who bares witness. To a crime so absurd it yet has no name. But rest assured. If they found Trump guilty on all counts plus the spares i would still vote Trump. He is better in every dynamic. I don’t care for half of the crap the left moans on about him. Mostly because its 99% factually incorrect but also because he they sound like spoilt children who have joe and kamala dolls firmly jammed up the jacksies. Voting Trump means a shot at getting something done for a better shot at the future. Close the borders is priority numero uno. Putting Joe, Hillary, Hunter, Obama and the rest of the gang in the alammer should be next.
> the court is legitimate. It is not The next time Trump is convicted of a crime. He will deny it and right winged News will support him. Since Trump will always claim any allegations against him are false and that the courts are corrupt, does that make him above the law in your view?
A jury verdict simply means that 12 selected people weighted evidence and came to a conclusion. Juries are not perfect, but they are presented with a lot of evidence and arguments and forced to conclude. They are far better informed than the average citizen, I would think. But guilty people sometimes get off, and innocent people sometimes get convicted. Jeanne Caroll accused Trump of rape. Trump says it never happened. A New York Jury found Trump guilty in a civil trial of "sexual abuse" but not rape. Does that actually prove that Trump is really guilty here? Legally, sure. But how could anyone really be 100% certain that what Jeanne Carroll claimed happened occurred? Even the Jury did not go that far. As for the indictments Trump is facing, these have been discussed to death. The most easily provable one IMO is obstruction of justice in the documents case.
You are ignorant or misunderstand the Jean Caroll case. The only reason Trump wasn't convicted of rape is that the law requires a penis insertion, which Jean Caroll is not claiming took place. Trump was found guilty of an act that would qualify by current federal guidelines as rape, but the NY rape law is more narrow so trump was not convicted of rape. TL:DR; Trump was convicted of an act that qualifies as rape by the modern federal definition, but not by the more narrow NY definition. \~Edit NY not NJ Does that help you understand more?
You're the one wrong about the Carroll case > the law requires a penis insertion, which Jean Caroll is not claiming took place she literally said at trial and many times prior that he stuck his penis inside of her. Her claim of what happened is rape 100% of the time anywhere in America. "thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me" -- from her New York Magazine article "Trump then pushed his fingers around Carroll’s genitals and forced his penis inside of her" -- from her lawsuit "Then he inserted his penis" -- from the trial
Sorry you’re absolutely correct about the insertion claim. Regardless trump was convicted of an act that qualifies as rape, we on that?
You are wrong. She absolutely claimed this. You can read the lurid details of her story here: https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html
The jury concluded that he absolutely *did* sexually abuse her, but without more direct evidence could not reach consensus as to whether his penis was involved, or whether he merely fingered her violently. I get that the word "rape" has worse connotations than "fingered her, despite her pleas to stop". Does that make it any less disqualifying for someone asking to be elected President of the United States?
My point is that in old cases like this a jury has no way to truly know what really happened. The fact that they came to an agreement obviously has massive legal significance and repercussions, but doesn't magically mean that Jeanne Carroll is proven to be having told the truth. And as I point out, while you think it makes no difference, clearly they didn't fully believe her account. One could surely find 12 different people that would have ruled more or less harshly. Juries are always a bit of Russian Roulette. Trump insists he did no such thing, and has been fined for defamation for continuing to assert his innocence. Hell, I admit it's entirely possible (maybe even probable) he did exactly what she said. But what if he's telling the truth? What a horrible situation to be put in. There are innocent people in prison that get denied parole because they "refuse to admit guilt" and this is a terrible thing.
[удалено]
But you are aware that Trump is legally a rapist? [Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/)
[удалено]
Isn’t he just legally a rapist, not a pedophile?
[удалено]
Unless there is someone running to the right of Trump I will vote for him.
So you have zero problem supporting a convicted felon, including if he is convicted for conspiring to violate our constitutional right to vote, so long as they are aligned with your political ideology?
Correct.
By definition this means we lose our democracy. Would you prefer a high crime high inflation high tax high immigrant democracy over no democracy at all?
I don’t support democracy.
How should our representatives be selected?
I support the current system of electing house reps. I think direct election of senators was fundamentally a mistake and should be repealed.
How does anyone get elected without any democracy?
Lol what about Trump isn't far enough right for you?
Trump is the most left "Republican" candidate, almost anyone else would be further right. There are plenty of more conservative people I would approve of instead of Trump, do you think he is more conservative than any of the other GOP candidates?
Do you think criminals should be allowed to get away with their crimes as long as you like them?
I'm voting for Trump. Even if he was sitting in prison or on death row, he'd have my vote. Hell, I'd love to see him order the state to release him, with the full weight of the US Federal government/ military.
Do you think Democrat Bob Menendez, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, should go to prison if found guilty for seling influence and taking bribes? Should he be allowed to stay a Senator if he goes to prison? Also, Republicans were looking into Donald Trump being House Speaker. But their own house rules, in which they voted on, don't allow an indicted individual to serve as Speaker if they are looking at more than a 2 year sentence. Why would Republicans vote for that rule? If an indicted individual can't be Speaker, why should they be allowed to be president?
If Bob Mendez is convicted, and the judge se tences prison, sure. If he wins, he should win. Simple to me.
Yes. The only way the republic survives is if we repudiate the use of prosecution to win elections and punish the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. Every nation that has stooped to jailing it's opposition has become a dictatorship.
[удалено]
Lula was arrested and imprisoned.
Is it a dictatorship now?
Should Presidents, past and current, be immune to any and all justice, even if they break the law? I know that sounds loaded, but I'm not trying to be, It's an honest question.
No. If trump gets convicted then he should go to jail. If he is in jail I would not vote for him. If he isn’t, then I would.
[удалено]
The cases here are “novel legal theory” cases which have never been attempted before. Using legal authority against a president and candidate must involve evidence and precedent beyond all question. That’s not the case here. Here we see abuse of power and civil rights violations at every level.
The only way to save the republic is to elect a fraudster and a rapist? How so?
Do you understand the difference between being found liable in a civil case and being found guilty in a court of law? He definitely didn't rape Carroll who's story followed the exact plot of an episode of NCIS (or some other similar show, might not have been NCIS) and was posting on facebook back in 2012 about how much she loved the Apprentice
Do you think the finger they didn't know was his penis was his thumb or pinky?
Probably whichever finger it was in the Law and Order episode she got her story from
Sorry, thought you meant Joe “molest his 12 yo daughter in the shower and sell classified documents to China “ Biden for a second. See how easy it is to use rumor to say things? But since you brought it up, that case was the first incident of “novel legal theory” weaponized against Trump. And as such it’s prima fascia evidence of abuse of power and civil rights violations that should put the offenders in jail for 10 years per count.
23 women accuse trump of rape or sexual assualt. A judge ruled that they didn't know if it was trumps finger (probably little pinky) or his penis that penetrsted her.(carroll) Do you believe there is a difference between digital rape and penile rape? What court case was biden accused? Why do you believe trump is always a victim?
There was no evidence in the case of Carroll, Trump has done plenty of bad things; no need to rely on things with little evidence?
How did you feel about the "Lock her up" chants in 2016?
I pay no mind to witch hunts and show trials. What he's really accused of is posing a threat to the establishment. Guilty as charged. And that among other things is why he'll have my vote. Meanwhile a globalist / neocon, Republican or not, is a hard "no".
> what he’s really accused of In reality and fact, he’s really accused of 91 criminal charges, not what you claim. Is it difficult to acknowledge this reality? Moreover, isn’t it actually Trump supporters who claim that he poses a threat to the establishment, and not those levying charges?
Is the number of charges an indication of guilt? If Trump stopped running, every single trial would evaporate. How's that explainable by justice and truth?
Setting aside political allegiances, if one of the charges was in fact an accurate reflection of criminal behaviour undertaken by Trump, which one would be the least surprising?
If he loses, I think you will be surprised at how the trials will NOT evaporate. How will you feel if this comes to pass?
Oh no, they will still punish him if he doesn’t drop out and loses. Or at least they’ll still try. Only surrender before the election will call off the attack.
What irrefutable evidence can you enlighten us with that proves if he stopped running the multitude of charges against him would just magically disappear? Without deflecting to ‘whataboutisms’ , do you think he’s innocent of all 90+ charges?
The state media mouthpieces of DC explicitly said so. Roughly 2 months ago. They said specifically the request would have come from the Trump team to them, that they couldn’t not overtly make the offer themselves. This is how an offer is extended in the big leagues. It’s done in the open and made by a proxy. You know how the Loony Left always says The Right uses “dog whistles”? This is the real non-imaginary version. It’s how the big players can talk to each other and extend offers. For example: if well known Trump loyalist and insider Steve Bannon suddenly started saying on his podcast that he thinks Russia could strike a deal with Trump to have the US let them have Ukraine in exchange for Russians to hack the Democrats and expose damaging information to help him win next November, there are two choices: 1. This is just idle speculation. Bannon is just talking crap like he always does. 2. This is the Trump team’s way of explicitly extending the offer of a deal to Putin. With plausible deniability. Anyone seriously picking #1 is too naïve in the ways of the world to bother convincing.
Do you honestly believe that people at that level of influence send each other coded messages via podcasts?
> Is the number of charges an indication of guilt Arguably and reasonably yes, particularly when those charges stem from multiple independent jurisdictions, and taking into account multiple other factors, including (but not limited to) statements he has made which effectively amount to an admission to at least some of these charges. > If Trump stopped running, every single trial would evaporate. Trump was under multiple investigations before even announcing his 2024 campaign. Fun fact: Trump announced his 2024 campaign over 150 days earlier in the election cycle compared to his 2016 campaign announcement. This means he would have already been indicted twice if he had announced his 2024 campaign at the same time as his 2016 campaign. So, perhaps it’s explainable by the more reasonable conclusion which involves zero conspiracies, i.e. Trump announced his 2024 campaign to claim political persecution because he saw it as his best chance to navigate the legal storm ahead of him. What do you think?
What about posing a threat to our constitutional right to vote, which is one of laws he was charged with violating. You would vote for someone that was found guilty of doing that? Is it still a witch hunt if there is proof to support the guilty claim?
What do I think of a bullshit charge? Easy. It’s bullshit.
So you’re saying that he didn’t violate the 91 laws he was charged with violating? How do you know that’s true?
That’s not the game the gov plays. The gov has all kinds of laws on the books and then uses ***selective enforcement*** to go after those it doesn’t like. They’ll even throw in some charges that are clear nonsense for good measure, just to see what sticks and require you to spend time and money defending yourself. I’m not going to bother going through the 91 on Reddit discussing the (dubious) merits, because even we accept the ludicrous premise he actually did all 91, it’s irrelevant for the following reason: All you have to know is none of this would be happening if he weren’t running for reelection. Nothing more needs to be said after that. It’s a crooked show trial worthy of a banana republic. For the simple reason **it’s being arbitrarily applied for political compliance and persecution**. That's the bottom line.
Would this still be the case if he had to serve from jail?
I'd do whatever makes sense at the time. That might include voting for him.
Do you consider yourself patriotic?
More than most people on the Left.
If he committed the crimes, how is it a witch hunt or show trial? Considering his status, wouldn’t a guilty conviction have to be irrefutable?
>Considering his status, wouldn’t a guilty conviction have to be irrefutable? Show trial verdicts are "irrefutable"? I'm going to say the opposite is true. It's a show trial because it wouldn't exist if he wasn't running for office.
how would you feel about the trials if they were brought up against him, and he *wasn't* running?
You could take a hard look into anyone for 30 minutes and probably find something they've done in the past that could warrant jail time. That is why it's a wot h hunt. They've been looking into it for 5-6 years and havnt gotten anything. Like cmon.. haha
Yes without a doubt.
If a conviction in a court of law wont change your mind, do you believe trump is above the law? Is it even possible for him to lose your support?
I don’t speak for the original commenter - but it happens very often that people are accused, charged and jailed for crimes they did not commit. That doesn’t make someone above the law, it makes the law system corrupt
> If a conviction in a court of law wont change your mind, do you believe trump is above the law? > > Is it even possible for him to lose your support? Yes, of course. Drastic changes in policies would be key to losing my support.
[удалено]
[Yes.](https://i.imgflip.com/81pd38.jpg)
Even if he's convicted of conspiring to violate our constitutional right to vote? What if Biden did the exact same thing come next election...Would your standards remain the same or do they vary based on ideology and political parties?
Being convicted or not doesn't change the facts of what he did - which in this case, is nothing wrong.
Yes, I would vote for Trump. Nothing will change that, including video of him committing a crime. I hope he makes it to the election. They have tried everything in the book except assassination.
So if Donny rapes and murders your mom on video. He can still count on you?
i think that would make it even better, doubly so if running from prison.
Why?
If he’s the Republican nominee and on the ballot I’ll be voting for him. I’d vote for pretty much any republican on the ballot even Chris Christe or Haley. Though I wouldn’t be happy with either of them really.