• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If there is sufficient proof should Trump be indicted?

independentusa said:
There is several investigations into possible Trump wrong doing. To name a few, January 6th. , The attempt to change the outcome of the Georgia election by finding more votes, The documents removed from the White House and stored at Mar A Lago. There is also a possible one in New York concerning his manipulation of values of his properties. So far there have been no indictments, but if they find sufficient proof should Trump be indicted?
Click to expand...
I mean if there's proof of illegal stuff of course he should be indicted.
Just like anyone else who does that shit.

The question in my mind is whether he will be, regardless of what he has done.
 
Trump could sign a confession admitting guilt for Jan 6 and go on all TV stations declaring his guilt. Right wingers would still say there is no evidence and Trump is innocent.
 
Fishking said:
That's not a news flash, and it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Is it, maybe not? We often hear that he is the ex-president when people are defending him. A big part of the question here is if we should treat an ex-president differently from you and I?
 
Jacksprat said:
Trump could sign a confession admitting guilt for Jan 6 and go on all TV stations declaring his guilt. Right wingers would still say there is no evidence and Trump is innocent.
Click to expand...
He already said that he could shoot someone then walk down Fifth Avenue and no one would care.
Well, normal people would care.
MAGATS would continue to defend him. No matter what.
He’s going down. I can’t wait to read what the MAGATS have to say when he is photographed in a pinstripe jumpsuit.
 
Jacksprat said:
Why is that a question for you?
Click to expand...
It is not a question for me, the answer for me is no. It is a big part of the question when it comes for many when it comes to indicting an ex-president, at least this ex-president.
 
independentusa said:
It is not a question for me, the answer for me is no. It is a big part of the question when it comes for many when it comes to indicting an ex-president, at least this ex-president.
Click to expand...
If you don't believe it, then why proffer it as a question.
 
independentusa said:
You do realize that using "dismissed" like Mycroft means you have run out of good arguments.
Click to expand...
You realize when people fill their post with rhetoric they aren't worth the effort?
 
Sandy Shanks said:
On December 19, 2020, President Trump, for all practical purposes, circled the date. The Times reports, "For weeks, President Trump and his supporters had been proclaiming Jan. 6, 2021, as a day of reckoning. A day to gather in Washington to “save America” and “stop the steal.”
Click to expand...
Sandy Shanks said:
Trump and his followers are doing the bidding of our foreign adversaries by attacking the foundation of our democracy, free and fair elections. Trump and his misguided followers are still saying he won the election without ever producing evidence of such an outrageous lie.
Click to expand...
I do not expect Trump Republicans to respond to the issues in these two posts.

I was right about that, but it wasn't too hard. Trump Republicans avoid what their party is doing.
 
Fishking said:
You realize when people fill their post with rhetoric they aren't worth the effort?
Click to expand...
Everything I wrote in that post was true. Problem is, MAGATS don’t live in a world of facts and truth.

Fact: the jackass was illegally in possession of hundreds of government documents, many of which were marked “top secret”.
Fact: he ignored a lawfully issued subpoena to return them all, necessitating the issuance of a search warrant
Fact: he lied to the FBI, saying through his attorneys that all the requested documents had been returned before the subpoena was issued. Lying to the FBI is against the law.

These facts are not in dispute. They are a matter of public record. To deny them is to deny reality.
 
Last edited:
Jacksprat said:
Trump organized the violent attack on the Capitol.
Click to expand...
In many ways, but is there enough evidence to claim that he intended for the "protesters" to engage in hand-to-hand combat with the Capitol police and break their way into the Capitol building? I guess there is the evidence that he just watched on TV the break in and desecration of the Capitol and didn't call in anyone to help the overwhelmed officers who were being viciously assaulted. He did nothing but watch, and to top things off, afterward he said he "loved" the rioters, that they were "special." Assaulting the police and breaking into the Capitol? Really? Talk about banana republic with no rule of law!
 
DCCougar said:
In many ways, but is there enough evidence to claim that he intended for the "protesters" to engage in hand-to-hand combat with the Capitol police and break their way into the Capitol building? I guess there is the evidence that he just watched on TV the break in and desecration of the Capitol and didn't call in anyone to help the overwhelmed officers who were being viciously assaulted. He did nothing but watch, and to top things off, afterward he said he "loved" the rioters, that they were "special." Assaulting the police and breaking into the Capitol? Really? Talk about banana republic with no rule of law!
Click to expand...
The rally was staged on the day congress was in session to certify Electoral College. Trump knew the Capitol building was closed. So the protest even at the rally would be pointless. President Trump knew many were armed with glocks and AR15's because capitol police were reporting it. He ordered the metal detectors removed so that all could be together to march to the Capitol. Why would anybody at a rally be wearing military grade bullet proof vests?
It is obvious he knew they were there to get violent.
 
Ethel2 said:
Everything I wrote in that post was true. Problem is, MAGATS don’t live in a world of facts and truth.

Fact: the jackass was illegally in possession of hundreds of government documents, many of which were marked “top secret”.
Fact: he ignored a lawfully issued subpoena to return them all, necessitating the issuance of a search warrant
Fact: he lied to the FBI, saying through his attorneys that all the requested documents had been returned before the subpoena was issued. Lying to the FBI is against the law.

These facts are not in dispute. They are a matter of public record. To deny them is to deny reality.
Click to expand...
Your facts actually are in dispute because, as I stated, the laws governing it is an EO, which is on the President's authority.
 
independentusa said:
There is several investigations into possible Trump wrong doing. To name a few, January 6th. , The attempt to change the outcome of the Georgia election by finding more votes, The documents removed from the White House and stored at Mar A Lago. There is also a possible one in New York concerning his manipulation of values of his properties. So far there have been no indictments, but if they find sufficient proof should Trump be indicted?
Click to expand...
I think you should have asked why shouldn't he be indicted? The only answer could be, "Because I believe he's not subject to the law like every one else."
 
Fishking said:
Your facts actually are in dispute because, as I stated, the laws governing it is an EO, which is on the President's authority.
Click to expand...
Please present the evidence that the top secret documents were declassified. Good luck. There is none.
One more time: the classification of the documents is immaterial to the case. It’s illegal for ANYONE, including a former president, to be in possession of ANY government documents.
 
Ethel2 said:
Please present the evidence that the top secret documents were declassified. Good luck. There is none.
One more time: the classification of the documents is immaterial to the case. It’s illegal for ANYONE, including a former president, to be in possession of ANY government documents.
Click to expand...
You can obviously read words but understanding them is not happening. It is not established that the procedures to declassify something applies to the President as the rules for it are literally made up by the President.
 
Fishking said:
You can obviously read words but understanding them is not happening. It is not established that the procedures to declassify something applies to the President as the rules for it are literally made up by the President.
Click to expand...
What a bizarre argument. So I guess Congress doesn't have to follow laws then, ether. We have crossed into Dumblandia...
 
Galactic Spin said:
What a bizarre argument. So I guess Congress doesn't have to follow laws then, ether. We have crossed into Dumblandia...
Click to expand...
It's not a bizarre comment at all. The laws and rules surrounding it are literally an EO.
 
Fishking said:
It's not a bizarre comment at all. The laws and rules surrounding it are literally an EO.
Click to expand...
And the laws passed by congress are laws.

"EOs don't apply to the president"

Said nobody ever, anywhere, until the orange slob got his nuts in a vice. It's a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom