Lawfare: US v. Trump, Trump wins!
- Thread starter Gallipoli
- Start date
Do some folks really believe this? Take the time to read the decision in its entirety. There are guardrails. It is not carte blanche as some would lead us to believe. Not even close.
And don't know where to put this so dropping it here. Several times I brought up "presentism" relative to statue removals, renaming of campus buildings, etc. in the post George Floyd sanctimonious convulsions. Spend 8:22 to hear this to the end from one of your of your own.
Do some folks really believe this isn't happening right now? The only reason Trump ran at all was to be able to get all these legal cases overturned or thrown out solely because he's president. And that's exactly what's happening. He has argued in court that the president shouldn't or can't be charged with any crimes at so. So yes, I am very worried about this happening because it literally is happening. You can choose to believe otherwise but that doesn't mean it's not.
With respect for your opinion, calling BS as I see it. Trump was running before the cases even arose. Evident he was running since his defeat in 2020.
Lawfare backfired. The public saw it for what it was, an effort to bastardize the justice system for political gain.
Lawfare backfired. The public saw it for what it was, an effort to bastardize the justice system for political gain.
Last edited:
He led an insurrection and was called out on it through the legal system. I'm not sure what part of that constitutes lawfare. He now will have the ability to do literally anything to anyone without repercussion, and he will. He gets away with everything he wants to, and it will only get worse in the next four years.
More mob violence than an insurrection in my view. Thought such behavior was acceptable to many given the George Floyd "mostly peaceful" protests which resulted in multiple deaths and over $1 billion in damages while authorities charged with protecting the public, too frequently, sat idly by.
Strongly condemn Jan 6 and Trump for whipping the flames that led to it. Disqualified him from my vote ( no, didn't vote for Harris either).
For your consideration:
1) Trump wanted National Guard troops to be present on January 6. Dems decided no.
2) Trump in Jan 6 speech urged followers (devotees) to march to the Capitol and make their voices heard "peacefully and patriotically".
Hard to see how points 1 and 2 sync up with insurrection. Only person killed was an unarmed female protester who was a veteran. Shooter, who was not physically threatened, was exonerated without a trial.
So we agree. January 6 was an abomination. Without Trump fanning the flames it would not have occurred organically. Despicable.
On the other hand, facts support it was an unarmed mob, not an insurrection. The record should be fairly reported.
Let's not allow hatred to blind us from reason.
Strongly condemn Jan 6 and Trump for whipping the flames that led to it. Disqualified him from my vote ( no, didn't vote for Harris either).
For your consideration:
1) Trump wanted National Guard troops to be present on January 6. Dems decided no.
2) Trump in Jan 6 speech urged followers (devotees) to march to the Capitol and make their voices heard "peacefully and patriotically".
Hard to see how points 1 and 2 sync up with insurrection. Only person killed was an unarmed female protester who was a veteran. Shooter, who was not physically threatened, was exonerated without a trial.
So we agree. January 6 was an abomination. Without Trump fanning the flames it would not have occurred organically. Despicable.
On the other hand, facts support it was an unarmed mob, not an insurrection. The record should be fairly reported.
Let's not allow hatred to blind us from reason.
Last edited:
"peacefully and patriotically" - Trump additionally said in the same speech "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore". Trump knows now to parse words to his advantage. Trump also disavowed any knowledge of Project 25. In that too, circumstantial evidence (announced government appointments) says otherwise.
Re point #1 about the National Guard troops, I really don't see where the Democrats said "no". I also realize it somewhat comes down to he said (Trump) / she said (Pelosi) and that instantly translates into a partisan take.
apnews.com
www.politifact.com
www.cbsnews.com
Re point #1 about the National Guard troops, I really don't see where the Democrats said "no". I also realize it somewhat comes down to he said (Trump) / she said (Pelosi) and that instantly translates into a partisan take.
Fact check: Trump repeats false claim that Pelosi rejected request for National Guard ahead of Jan. 6
Donald Trump recently repeated the false claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected his request for 10,000 National Guard troops ahead of Jan. 6.
www.usatoday.com
Trump did not sign an order to deploy 20,000 troops on Jan. 6
New footage released Thursday of House lawmakers on Jan. 6 has sparked a resurgence of false claims and conspiracy theories about the insurrection.
apnews.com
There’s no proof for Trump claim that Pelosi denied troops
Asked in an interview about the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, former President Donald Trump claimed that he had mad
www.politifact.com
Trump did not have 10,000 troops ready to deploy on Jan. 6, his defense secretary says
The House Jan. 6 committee tweeted a clip featuring former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller's testimony.
www.cbsnews.com
This is Democratic Lawfare at its best. Prosecute Republicans and let Democrats off. Now Uncle Joe has pardoned son Hunter. There are two systems of justice.
www.nbcnews.com
President Biden pardons his son Hunter Biden
The decision, which was first reported by NBC News, is a reversal for the president, who repeatedly said he would not use his authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence.
www.nbcnews.com
