Trump allegedly indicted in a Georgia 2020 subversion probe

[Foxi4]

Except Trump was not ignorant in knowing the things he was doing were illegal. That's only a portion of where you fail. Secondly, you seem to have a failing memory with the timeline of events on J6. Trump didn't say shit to the J6 crowd until hours later. He also sympathized with the rioters during his bullshit of a "speech". As stated previously, you're completely full of shit.

My recollection of the timeline is perfectly fine, what you’re saying is patently untrue. Donald Trump urged the crowd to protest peacefully during his speech, long before anyone marched towards the Capitol.

”I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
-Donald Trump, January 6th speech, 12:16 p.m

The Capitol building barricades haven’t been breached until 12:57 p.m, from the western side, and the first rioter entered the building 2:12 p.m., nearly 2 hours after Trump asked the protesters to be peaceful. He repeated the request on Twitter at 2:38 p.m, a little over 20 minutes after the building was breached:

”Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
- Donald Trump, via Twitter, 2:38 p.m

He repeated his call for peaceful protest a third time at 3:13 p.m, once again via Twitter:

”I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”
- Donald Trump, via Twitter, 3:13 p.m

Since the riot was still raging on, he opted to publish an unscripted video in which he urged the protesters to disperse:

”I know your pain, I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt. It's a very tough period of time. There's never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us—from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- Donald Trump, on video, via Twitter, 4:17 p.m

…and one final time immediately after the D.C curfew went into effect:

”These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”
- Donald Trump, via Twitter, 6:01 p.m

He sent this tweet against the recommendation of White House staff who believed it would imply complicity with the events, but Trump sent it anyway, I can only speculate that having the crowd leave was more important to him than appearances. It was later deleted once the account was reinstated.

There is testimony that he was reluctant to relay any instructions to the crowd once the riot started, which is perfectly understandable given what he’s being accused of now. More likely than not, he wanted to avoid the appearance of being in charge of the riot.

I don’t know why you’d argue this point at all, the timeline is public. Trump told the crowd to be peaceful long before any violence broke out, and continued telling them to be peaceful throughout the event. We can have a different interpretation of why he said what he said, but there can be no disagreement about the timeline - it’s been carefully recorded. There is no doubt whatsoever that he was telling the gathered crowd to be peaceful from the very beginning, he said as much in his speech, before the riot even started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

this is why i dislike foxi he's the elon musk of temp in a position of power who has the ability to ban/susspend or otherwise your account (or havent you noticed he's a mod?) if you even disagree (hasn't happened yet and i doubt the likes of the owner of temp would hopefully keep him in check

God forbid somebody of a different political persuasion than yourself is in a position of power and, by your own admission, doesn’t abuse it. We should all live in sewers and eat scraps like Morlocks.

In case the joke is a bit too highfalutin, I’m talking about a fictional species from “The Time Machine”, by H.G. Wells.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morlock

 

[smf]

I don’t know if I can agree with that. The 24 hour news cycle is exhausting in and out of itself, hearing the exact same name in the exact same context over and over again ceases to be damaging and starts working as advertising at a point. We’ll chalk it up to a difference in perspective though.

If he was being prosecuted once a month then the ongoing coverage would be minimal.

As far as I’m concerned, the Trump presidency achieved everything I expected from it and then some, with only a handful of minor gripes which go beyond the scope of this thread.

What exactly were the things you expected from it?
As far as I can tell, he didn't achieve anything.

 

[Foxi4]

If he was being prosecuted once a month then the ongoing coverage would be minimal.

It’s hard to speculate on events that simply haven’t happened. All I can say is that people in general feel more emboldened to act if somebody else does first. There’s a general and well-understood tendency to avoid being the first to step forward. I imagine the pressure is immense considering a former head of state is involved, which explains why the indictments are all pouring out in quick succession. That doesn’t change the appearances though.

 

[smf]

It’s hard to speculate on events that simply haven’t happened. All I can say is that people in general feel more emboldened to act if somebody else does first. There’s a general and well-understood tendency to avoid being the first to step forward. I imagine the pressure is immense considering a former head of state is involved, which explains why the indictments are all pouring out in quick succession. That doesn’t change the appearances though.

You can't worry about appearances, Trump supporters have already demonstrated they are incapable of critical thought.

 

[Foxi4]

What exactly were the things you expected from it?
As far as I can tell, he didn't achieve anything.

Off the top of my head? Overhaul of the tax code is a big one. Then there’s criminal justice reform (via First Step). Goes beyond the scope of the thread, I think.

You can't worry about appearances, Trump supporters have already demonstrated they are incapable of critical thought.

Is this supposed to be a dig at me in place of a rebuttal or are you using the royal “you”? If it is, it’s not very good. As I said, and as I maintain, nobody wants to be the first to step out of line in a situation like this, but once one person does, others feel emboldened to do the same. It’s a pretty general statement about the investigations, which all started at different times, but come to a head at the same time. Either some progressed more steadily than others and lined up coincidentally *or* this moment in time felt more appropriate for some reason. I don’t think that’s particularly objectionable to say, I can’t read the minds of those prosecutors and judges, I can only speculate as to why things unfolded the way they did. Analysing events that have happened seems more reasonable to me than analysing imaginary ones that “could have” happened.

 

[smf]

Off the top of my head? Overhaul of the tax code is a big one. Then there’s criminal justice reform (via First Step). Goes beyond the scope of the thread, I think.

Is this supposed to be a dig at me in place of a rebuttal or are you using the royal “you”? If it is, it’s not very good. As I said, and as I maintain, nobody wants to be the first to step out of line in a situation like this, but once one person does, others feel emboldened to do the same. It’s a pretty general statement about the investigations, which all started at different times, but come to a head at the same time. Either some progressed more steadily than others and lined up coincidentally *or* this moment in time felt more appropriate for some reason. I don’t think that’s particularly objectionable to say, I can’t read the minds of those prosecutors and judges, I can only speculate as to why things unfolded the way they did. Analysing events that have happened seems more reasonable to me than analysing imaginary ones that “could have” happened.

First Step was bipartisan, which Trump was against. Trumps tax reforms were about taxing the poor & middle classes while cutting tax for the rich, at best it will increase crime rates.

You are speculating that indictments have been timed without any evidence. Isn't that also an imaginary event?

I also think you have misunderstood the point I was making.

 

[Foxi4]

First Step was bipartisan, which Trump was against. Trumps tax reforms were about taxing the poor & middle classes while cutting tax for the rich, at best it will increase crime rates.

You are speculating that indictments have been timed without any evidence. Isn't that also an imaginary event?

I also think you have misunderstood the point I was making.

That’s the nature of speculation. If I knew why they lined up like this, I wouldn’t be speculating, I could make a statement of fact.



I can only observe that the indictments did line up, and try to guess as to why. That’s not “imaginary” - it happened, we’re talking about the circumstances surrounding a real event. This is distinct from forming a conspiracy theory, which would be suggesting that the prosecutors and judges coordinated together and collectively decided to indict at the same time in pursuit of a specific goal. I’m not saying that, I don’t know if there’s anything that would suggest that besides the upcoming election. Seems far fetched, even if individually they may be politically motivated to some extent.

 

[kevin corms]

Just put him in jail or whatever, then never report on him again.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Off the top of my head? Overhaul of the tax code is a big one

Yep making taxes much worse for the little people while parading himself as their champion.

 

[Xzi]

I can only observe that the indictments did line up, and try to guess as to why.

Nothing surprising or unusual about how they loosely "lined up," two of the three cases involve election crimes so prosecutors set a soft deadline for themselves knowing any trial date will be six months out at a minimum. Theoretically, having all his trials done by Spring could be good for Trump, but realistically there's no "good" time to be charged with rape, treason, and RICO.

 

[smf]

That’s the nature of speculation. If I knew why they lined up like this, I wouldn’t be speculating, I could make a statement of fact.

You have observed something happen and you can list reasons why it could happen, but saying that you believe that it is the reason for your observation is just bias and is imaginary.

He repeated his call for peaceful protest a third time at 3:13 p.m, once again via Twitter:

For the recent RICO charges, that is kinda irrelevant. I'd like to see more RICO charges bought against him that would include January 6th. RICO was designed to prosecute people when you know there was a link within a criminal enterprise, as Trump and the rioters both are alleged to have broken the law and there are clear links between them then he may find it uncomfortable.

 

[Foxi4]

Yep making taxes much worse for the little people while parading himself as their champion.

I’ve discussed the TJCA on this forum across many threads a number of times already, always with the same usual suspects. The tax cuts benefited nearly everyone across the income scale, with the largest percentage savings recorded in the $50K-100K tax bracket (around 16%). There’s no point in arguing about it again in an unrelated thread. If anyone wants to argue about this (I don’t), they can follow the link below and have an argument with themselves, in front of a mirror.

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-...e-youre-wrong-about-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act

If you “don’t like the source” then I guess you can just head straight to irs.gov to confirm these findings. For the record, Bernie Sanders got three Pinocchios for making the exact same claim, and the Washington Post is hardly a pro-Trump outlet. As stated in the article below, the primary beneficiaries of the bill are in the bottom 80% of the income scale.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...7-tax-cut-went-wealthiest-large-corporations/

 

[Xzi]

I’ve discussed the TJCA on this forum across many threads a number of times already, always with the same usual suspects. The tax cuts benefited nearly everyone across the income scale, with the largest percentage savings recorded in the $50K-100K tax bracket (around 16%). There’s no point in arguing about it again in an unrelated thread. If anyone wants to argue about this (I don’t), they can follow the link below and have an argument with themselves, in front of a mirror.

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-...e-youre-wrong-about-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act

If you “don’t like the source” then I guess you can just head straight to irs.gov to confirm these findings. For the record, Bernie Sanders got three Pinocchios for making the exact same claim, and the Washington Post is hardly a pro-Trump outlet. As stated in the article below, the primary beneficiaries of the bill are in the bottom 80% of the income scale.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...7-tax-cut-went-wealthiest-large-corporations/

It's not beneficial to the working class to raise their taxes, and that's precisely what Trump did. He just set them to raise slowly, over the span of a decade or so, in order to give the illusion that it's actually some other administration raising them. In the long run his cuts were only permanent for the rich.

WaPo's record on financial/economic matters has been poor since they were bought out by Bezos.

 

[Foxi4]

It's not beneficial to the working class to raise their taxes, and that's precisely what Trump did. He just set them to raise slowly, over the span of a decade or so, in order to give the illusion that it's actually some other administration raising them. In the long run his cuts were only permanent for the rich.

WaPo's record on financial/economic matters has been poor since they were bought out by Bezos.

It has always been the plan to extend the provisions of the TCJA, and the article mentions that. Expiration of provisions was a necessary evil required at the time to push the bill through. The best thing the current administration could do is to extend them further, or even indefinitely.

 

[Xzi]

It has always been the plan to extend the provisions of the TCJA, and the article mentions that. Expiration of provisions was a necessary evil required at the time to push the bill through. The best thing the current administration could do is to extend them further, or even indefinitely.

It's one big transparent scam to tie the top tax rate to changes which affect the bottom one. The best thing the current administration could do is toss the whole thing, raise taxes on the wealthy and lower them for the working class. I doubt Biden has the motivation necessary to do that though, and even if he did, he doesn't have the necessary congressional support. Oligarchs win another round.

 

[Foxi4]

You have observed something happen and you can list reasons why it could happen, but saying that you believe that it is the reason for your observation is just bias and is imaginary.

Speculating why a real event, or series of events, unfolded the way they did is not equivalent to inventing imaginary events that didn’t happen along with their imaginary consequences. I don’t purport to know the real answer, it could very well be a coincidence, and I stated as much. I don’t “believe” anything, I’m pointing out possible causes. If I pretended to know the answer, I wouldn’t call it speculation.

For the recent RICO charges, that is kinda irrelevant. I'd like to see more RICO charges bought against him that would include January 6th. RICO was designed to prosecute people when you know there was a link within a criminal enterprise, as Trump and the rioters both are alleged to have broken the law and there are clear links between them then he may find it uncomfortable.

If they can prove there was some kind of criminal enterprise involving both the protesters (which according to the F.B.I were disorganised and not part of a large plot) and himself then sure. That’s a pretty serious accusation, so it would require some serious evidence. No doubt we’ll learn more as the cases progress further.

It's one big transparent scam to tie the top tax rate to changes which affect the bottom one. The best thing the current administration could do is toss the whole thing, raise taxes on the wealthy and lower them for the working class. I doubt Biden has the motivation necessary to do that though, and even if he did, he doesn't have the necessary congressional support. Oligarchs win another round.

We can agree to disagree on this, I really have no interest in discussing this again, especially if we’re just going to disregard the figures from the IRS and the Treasury Department just like we did every single time before. It would be nice if someone could put an iron chain around Biden’s ankle to make sure he doesn’t do anything at all and doesn’t advocate for anything in regards to the economy until a suitable replacement is found in 2024.

 

[Xzi]

We can agree to disagree on this, I really have no interest in discussing this again, especially if we’re just going to disregard the figures from the IRS and the Treasury Department just like we did every single time before. It would be nice if someone could put an iron chain around Biden’s ankle to make sure he doesn’t do anything at all and doesn’t advocate for anything in regards to the economy until a suitable replacement is found in 2024.

I'm not disregarding their numbers, the numbers say they're taking in a lot less taxes because of the combined cuts on the rich and working class. There's zero economic or social benefit to cutting taxes on the wealthy, however, as proven in multiple long-term studies.

 

[smf]

Speculating why a real event, or series of events, unfolded the way they did is not equivalent to inventing imaginary events that didn’t happen along with their imaginary consequences.

You are imagining that they were waiting for someone to go first.

If they can prove there was some kind of criminal enterprise involving both the protesters (which according to the F.B.I were disorganised and not part of a large plot) and himself then sure. That’s a pretty serious accusation, so it would require some serious evidence. No doubt we’ll learn more as the cases progress further.

He was asked to speak at the rally, they were wearing Trump branded clothes and waving the flags.
They were both involved in the same criminal enterprise of overturning the election.

Is that no real difference to Mob bosses getting prosecuted for the behavior of those within their organisation?

Rudi Gulliani really pushed RICO during his prosecution days, the irony.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm not disregarding their numbers, the numbers say they're taking in a lot less taxes because of the combined cuts on the rich and working class. There's zero economic or social benefit to cutting taxes on the wealthy, however, as proven in multiple long-term studies.

You just moved the goalpost, but I’m honestly not interested in exploring that in a thread that’s in no way related to tax reform. I disagree with your assessment of the TCJA, and I’ll leave it at that.

You are imagining that they were waiting for someone to go first.

It’s one of many possibilities, all of which are speculative and with no firm evidence to support them, as I stated earlier. I know what they did and when, I can only speculate about their motivation. “What” and “when” are empirically true, “why” is an open question, it deals with motivation to do things a certain way. I’m not in those people’s heads, I don’t know their thought processes, but I can make guesses based on available data. I don’t purport any of these guesses to be true, as you repeatedly tried to tell me I do. I can’t possibly be more clear about this. This exercise in semantics is getting extremely circular, and not worth the time it takes to perform. I made a very simple claim - if we’re going to speculate at all, it is easier and more reasonable to speculate based on things that did happen than based on things that didn’t. I maintain that stance and have nothing to add.

 

[MicroNut99]

Let the "allegedly" indicted criminal burn.