Re: 2024
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2023 4:00 pm
Au, contraire!
If someone told me to guess the real numbers of all registered Republican voters I would guess TODAY....
Maybe they can do a Zoom call from prison for Trump to accept the GOP nomination at next year's GOP Convention.RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 6:33 amIf someone told me to guess the real numbers of all registered Republican voters I would guess TODAY....
Trump 48%
DeSantis 32%
Christie 7%
Haley 4%
Scott 4%
Pence 3%
Ramaswamy 2%
Hutchinson 0%
Burgum 0%
Butler 0%
I figure some/many will drop out but 6 months from now I would guess...
Trump 42%
DeSantis 31%
Christie 7%
Scott 7%
Ramaswamy 6%
Pence 4%
Haley 3%
Of course this is nonsense; the whole thing here is to more or less say there is no such thing as an ok time to criminally charge an aspirant for the presidency. Too soon? Not enough evidence. Too late? Too close to the election. These morons act like there is a 36-hour golden window, outside of which any action is impermissible (or "astonishing").From O.J. Simpson’s arrest on June 17, 1994, on charges of murder to his acquittal on Oct. 3, 1995, in what was billed as the “trial of the century,” nearly 16 months elapsed. How many months will pass, from Donald Trump’s arraignment on June 13, before a verdict in what might well be the trial of this century — the unprecedented federal criminal prosecution of a former president? Sixteen months would mean the nation learning Trump’s fate a matter of weeks before Election Day, with the accused very possibly on the 2024 presidential ballot.
The idea that the Justice Department is flirting with that possibility is astonishing. Prosecutors had other options — to charge Trump sooner or delay prosecution until later — but instead have chosen to take this route, two months before the Republican presidential debates begin.
So, talk to me like I'm five years old. You're saying there isn't anything to do with someone who illegally kept national defense secrets, unless and until you can prove that the secrets were in fact given to an adversary?[The] most basic question about the case is one I had, and I’m sure many shared, when the indictment of Trump for allegedly violating the Espionage Act was unveiled: That’s it? In this “espionage,” no documents were given to a third party? None were sold? It’s all about “unlawful retention”?
Again, the bad-faith moving goalposts. Are you saying that the charges here should fail because Smith...didn't go farther with them than he did? How does that make any sense?Smith has loaded up lots of criminal counts — 37 of them — and released seemingly damning photos of cardboard boxes stacked at Mar-a-Lago, with the implication that they are full of classified material. But the indictment hinges on just 31 documents — presumably small enough to fit in a single box — and among the containers in the infamous chandeliered-bathroom photo is one with “Bedroom” scribbled on it with a marker, just as millions of Americans would do when moving.
Again: what's the Justice Department supposed to do? Where's the just-right porridge here, timing-wise?Has the Justice Department really thought this through? After the GOP presidential debates begin on Aug. 23, they will occur regularly for months to come. Trump might or might not participate, but he will certainly be campaigning hard. Do prosecutors envision sandwiching court hearings between debates and campaign appearances? Do they foresee hearings while Iowa is caucusing or New Hampshire is holding the first Republican primary? Will the government demand his presence on Super Tuesday?
What the FUCK are you talking about? Garland isn't "out front, answering questions," because he appointed an independent special counsel so as to protect Trump's rights.This possible invasion of the nation’s quadrennial election cycle — of the democratic process — by a group of never-elected lawyers, never even queried by the people’s elected representatives, demands explanation by Attorney General Merrick Garland. Where is he? Garland should be out front, answering questions about the decision to proceed now, and why.
Trump, knowing Biden would be his 2020 opponent, had years of control of all three branches of government. You think he wouldn't have had Biden charged, if there were even barely-coherent facts supporting a charge?At a minimum, Americans have a right to know how the attorney general will ensure that the same standard of prosecutorial discretion used to charge Trump will be applied by the special counsel investigating President Biden’s trail of improperly kept classified documents.
It does! But aren't you more or less admitting here that, given the complexities of our laws (and the defense's right to, you know, mount a defense), there simply IS NOT a window to bring a complex case against a candidate for office that will not overlap with the candidate's race?[Complex pretrial decisions could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court before the actual trial begins. This case seems certain to drip into every day of this election cycle.
Again, no, we should not hear from Garland. That's a goddamn trap.That’s why the country needs to hear from Garland. Why the Justice Department dawdled so long in bringing its expansive charges just as the 2024 election season gets underway is deeply puzzling. I’ve always dismissed conspiracy theorists and pushed back on “deep state” paranoia, while defending the great majority of professionals working at the FBI and elsewhere in the Justice Department. But this sequence of events has painted both the FBI and DOJ a deep blue in the eyes of red America. That’s going to be very difficult to undo.
Exactly. And that chapter of the playbook is easy reading.KUTradition wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:13 pm red ‘murica was already skeptical of the FBI and DOJ…trump has made sure if that since 2016
hugh is a dipshit (most guys named hugh seem to be)
personally, i actually have MORE faith in the DOJ/FBI right nowjfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:51 pmExactly. And that chapter of the playbook is easy reading.KUTradition wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:13 pm red ‘murica was already skeptical of the FBI and DOJ…trump has made sure if that since 2016
hugh is a dipshit (most guys named hugh seem to be)
Step One: Seed the conversation with "grave doubts" and "questions" and demands that negatives be proven.
Step Two: Point to "the people's" grave doubts and questions, and the requirement that negatives be proven.
Anyone who's ever met a teenager knows this silly dance. Declare that something can be done only when conditions are just so, and then make the conditions impossible to meet. That way, inaction is only logical!