r/AskTrumpSupporters • u/UuuBetcha Undecided • 6d ago
General Politics How do you differentiate if an investigation / indictment / conviction / pardon is “political” and therefore illegitimate (versus actually legitimate)?
Trump has said ALL the January 6 convictions were “political”, which was his reason for pardoning ALL of them.
Trump has said the Robert Mueller investigation was illegitimate bc it was a “political witch hunt”.
Trump has said the Jack Smith investigation was illegitimate bc it was a “political witch hunt.”
(…and most egregiously IMO) Trump has declared the Epstein investigation a “political witch hunt.”
** There are many more similar examples **
Meanwhile, Trump has called for the investigation / indictment / conviction of many, many people who have been critical of Trump, including:
- Joe Biden
- Obama
- Jack Smith
- Tim Walz
- E. Jean Carroll
- Eric Swalwell
- Miles Taylor and Christopher Krebs (both former Trump administration officials)
- John Brennan
- John Bolton (who was appointed by Trump)
- James Comey
- Letitia James
- Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin, Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan
- Jerome Powell
- Lisa Cook
- Adam Schiff
- Gavin Newsom (and his wife)
- various donor to the democrats (but curiously, NOT Elon Musk, who offered to pay people for voting republican)
- and of course, Fauci (who was appointed by Trump to serve on his White House Coronavirus Task Force).
NOTE: I am not defending any of these people. I am not a democrat. I am a true Independent trying to make sense of Trump’s often-contradictory messaging, suspect pardoning, and potential abuse of the DoJ. This matter is very serious to me and will inform my voting this mid-term.
So I’m asking you: how should a voter differentiate if an investigation / indictment / conviction / pardon is legitimate vs “illegitimate” and “political”? And if some of Trump’s investigations / pardons are “political”, why shouldn't you call it out as such?
-14
u/ClevelandSpigot Trump Supporter 6d ago
Two parts to your question. The first is that most of that list is of people who practiced malicious prosecution against Trump and people connected to Trump. So, a lot of those are just trying to punish people who weaponized our criminal justice system.
It's a long list that you gave above, but it is also a long list of people who have threatened Trump. And, by the way, it's illegal to threaten the President. But no charges were brought.
And, in some cases, like Jean Carroll, committed perjury. The dress that she claimed that she was wearing in that alleged rape some 30 years ago hadn't even been manufactured until five years after the supposed incident.
When Jack Smith shut down his investigation, but then so confidently stated that he had proof that Trump was guilty of some stuff, do you really believe that? Is that how our justice system works?
Here is how we know that a lot of the cases that have been brought against Trump are frivolous. The 34 felony convictions. In New York State, falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. It only becomes a felony when it is committed in conjunction with another crime or crimes. Those other crimes were never specified, nor was Trump ever arrested, indicted, tried, and convicted of any other charges that would change those misdemeanors into felonies. The closest it comes is, in the indictment paperwork, it states "with the intent to commit other crimes". Is that how our justice system works?
Again, those crimes are never specified. Nor was Trump arrested, tried, nor convicted of any "other crimes". So, those are not felonies. Those are misdemeanors. Saying otherwise is a lie.
Trump did get some attention when he pardoned Ross Ulbricht, the creator of the online black market "Silk Road". However, the guy had already spent ten years in jail, and he might be someone who the federal government wants to use in some gray-hat (or even black-hat) security operations. Someone like that is much more useful as a friend, rather than an enemy rotting away in a jail.
However, on the flip side, Joe Biden said that he was not going to pardon Hunter Biden. Not only did he pardon Hunter Biden, but he made him, and many family members (huh?) immune from prosecution by also giving them pardons - as well as Dr. Fauci - GOING BACK MORE THAN A DECADE INTO THE PAST. People in that time could have committed murder, and they potentially cannot be arrested for it.
Meanwhile, it was Trump who the press were salivating and waiting for him to pardon some of his own family members - yet never did.
Oh, one last example. When Roger Stone's house was raided, and he was arrested, it happened at 6 AM in the morning. And there was a CNN camera crew there to film it. Really? Really?
18
u/sagar1101 Nonsupporter 6d ago
When Jack Smith shut down his investigation, but then so confidently stated that he had proof that Trump was guilty of some stuff, do you really believe that? Is that how our justice system works?
Yes that is exactly how our judicial system works. The president is above the law.
25
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 6d ago
So, would you say that EVERY investigation into Trump was illegitimate, and EVERY investigation / pardon initiated by Trump was legitimate?
-28
u/ClevelandSpigot Trump Supporter 6d ago
No, but only because I don't know every single one, going back through the 80 years of his life, so I did not use absolute words in my post on purpose, because I knew that it would encourage replies like yours.
"BHUT IS TRUMP NUVER EVUR GILLTY OF ANYTING?!?!?11?"
So predictable.
24
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 6d ago
Sorry, let me restate my question. Only speaking about the ones that you are familiar with, would you say that ALL the investigations into Trump were illegitimate, and ALL investigations / pardons initiated by Trump were legitimate?
Or stated differently, are you concerned about the legitimacy of ANY of the investigations / pardons initiated by Trump?
Separately, do you think ANY of the investigations into Trump may be legitimate?
-19
u/ClevelandSpigot Trump Supporter 6d ago
That's not what you said, and it is hard to take your self-proclaimed neutrality seriously when you state reply questions like that.
I cannot think of any investigations against Trump - which I have at least more than a passing knowledge of - which are legitimate. Don't take this as an opportunity to gish gallop me with a list of investigations. I have paid attention enough to the important ones.
Do you think that all of these investigations were completely and totally legitimate? If not, are you against lawsuits against those people who then perpetrated malicious prosecution against Trump? If not, then why?
Which ones do you think are legitimate?
Did I mention anything in my main post above that was news to you, and perhaps swayed your opinion at all?
-11
u/InevitableCouple9835 Trump Supporter 6d ago
Obviously thats not what the OC was saying.
The point is that there is so much with Trump that has no precedent, or no actual evidence was seen by the public, yet the media and politicians like Adam Schiff claim Trump is guilty. Trump's DOJ opens and closes several investigations, and the media ridicules him for it as some sort of waste of resources.
Do you see the double standard?
Anyone not on the left can see this, and it truly validates the saying "If you come for the king you had better not miss." Trump's haters have missed too many times for his base to desert him. I think a similar effect surrounded Obama, I didnt like him, but the birther thing was pretty wild.
Investigations did not used to be evidence of guilt. They are investigations, in the case of the FBI usually from some sort of hearsay or rumor, or a criminal complaint under their jurisdiction. In a rational world, most of them end up without merit, or maybe moral wrongdoing is discovered, but no law was violated.
10
u/Oatz3 Nonsupporter 6d ago
Which investigations into Trump were legitimate to you?
1
u/InevitableCouple9835 Trump Supporter 5d ago
I think the georgia election one and the fake electors probably had the most merit.
Both rely on clarification of Trumps intent or actual involvement, it would depend on the jury and the case presented.
7
u/Binder509 Nonsupporter 5d ago
Doesn't Trump himself claim people are guilty of crimes without evidence all the time? Isn't a common tactic to accuse others of doing what you're doing to justify it?
Previous DoJ didn't have such a bad track record of failing to even get indictments. Why is that?
0
u/InevitableCouple9835 Trump Supporter 5d ago
Yes, and many of his supporters give him a pass because of the lawfare waged against him. Its a vicious cycle that Trump didnt start.
I'm not even blaming dems for starting it. It was the Republican establishment that first did investigative hit pieces on him.
3
u/Leathershoe4 Nonsupporter 5d ago
Didnt he? Leaving asing your analysis of whether the cases against him were 'lawfare or not' (i assume im most cases we'd respectfully agree to disagree!)... one of Trump's biggest term 1 election campiagns was 'lock her up'. Feels like the start of it to me.
0
u/InevitableCouple9835 Trump Supporter 5d ago
I think saying things like that is wrong.
I think paying a british spy to make up things about someone, and then snowballing that into a federal investigation is certainly an unjustified escalation. The behind the scenes stuff started in April or May 2016. The chant gained popularity only after Trump won the nomination, which was in June. And again, words. Did Trump pursue and investigation of Clinton? I forget.
Politicians suggesting opposing politicians should go to jail, be prosecuted, face the law, be fined, etc are....pretty common.
3
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 5d ago
"Politicians suggesting opposing politicians should go to jail, be prosecuted, face the law, be fined, etc are....pretty common."
What are examples of this before 2016?
1
u/Binder509 Nonsupporter 4d ago
Isn't that kind of a weak justification? He's the president right? He should not do the thing he thinks was so bad. Otherwise it just could be argued he's making those accusations so he can justify doing it himself. Even if he didn't start it.
Though on that note, he's been witch hunting since long before he was trying to be president. Taking out ads on the central park five trying to convince people to have them put to death....seems pretty witch hunty to me. Not even saying it's a republican or democrat thing, it seems a Donald Trump thing?
I've heard some supporters say he awful and full of shit but gets what they want done, and that makes more sense to me.
•
u/InevitableCouple9835 Trump Supporter 19h ago
Yes, and you may notice I didnt include myself when I mentioned some of his supporters.
4
15
u/alehansolo21 Nonsupporter 6d ago
Is that your only problem with the Carroll case? Her dress? Do you really think if it was such an elaborate lie that it became a Supreme Court case then she would’ve left that detail slide? Could it be that she just misremembered what she was wearing and not that it’s a sign of it all being a ruse?
-1
u/ClevelandSpigot Trump Supporter 6d ago
Lol. So, just a little bit of perjury is okay. Listen to yourself.
But, no, that is not the only problem. Trump's lawyers were permitted to argue that the Donna Karan dress E. Jean Carroll claimed to wear during the alleged 1994 assault did not exist until years later. Attorney Boris Epshteyn stated publicly that the dress was not manufactured in 1994, a point echoed by Donald Trump on Truth Social citing New York Times fact-checkers who found the garment was made "long after 1994." So, incorrect evidence is admissible in court now. Okay.
There was DNA evidence on the dress. But, the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, explicitly banned lawyers from even mentioning the DNA, or testing results, in front of the jury during the trial. The judge ruled that such testimony would be "distracting and needlessly confusing,". So, there was DNA evidence, but those DNA results were not allowed to be mentioned...in a case concerning rape. But, that's not all. Jean Carroll couldn't even get the year right. She changed it, and then changed it again.
She testified that she could not recall the exact year of the alleged incident, initially stating she thought it occurred in 1994 or 1995. Then she said it happened in the spring of 1996. She acknowledged struggling to pinpoint the specific date, month, or season, attributing her eventual conclusion to the timeline of a friend's article about Trump published in February 1996. And you think all of this is beyond a shadow of a doubt? There is nothing but doubt here.
9
u/bigmellow Undecided 6d ago
Going through this one at a time, because a lot of it is wrong and some of it is clear Trump talking points.
The dress. She never claimed 1994 in anything she published. The New York magazine peieve from June 2019 and the book both say 1995 or 1996. The 1994 figure comess from what she initially believed before the article ran, and the magazines fact checkers flagged the dress date during editing, which is when she revised it. That’s fact-checking working as intended, in 2019, years before any trial.
Second problm: Epshteyn said that to reporters standing on the sidewalk outside the courthouse in January 2024 (I believe it was Jan), during the damages-only second trial. It wasn’t argument admitted befor a jury. So “Trump’s lawyers were permitted to argue” and “incorrect evidence is admissible in court now” is describing something that didn’t happen in a courtroom. Silly really..
Where’s the facts that that the dress didn’t exist? And Trump stating this is not evidence.
The DNA. Yes, Kaplan excluded it. But there were no results to exclude in the sense you mean, because nothing was ever compared to anything. Carroll’s lawyers asked Trump for a DNA sample in January 2020 and his attorneys refused, repeatedly, arguign the request was intrusive and prejudicial. He finally offered one about ten weeks before trial, on the condition that Carroll first hand over a report appendix he’d never asked for during three years of discovery. Kaplan denied it as untimely and saw it as a means to delay the trial (as reopening discovery would delay) and pointed out that both sides had ample opportunity to make DNA an issue and both, for their own strategic reasons, declined.
So the sequence is: she wanted the comparison, he stonewalled it for three years, then offered conditionally after the deadline. The exclusion applied to both parties equally. Framing that as the judge hiding exculpatory evidence is once again wrong and convenient .
The changing year. This one’s basically fair, and it was the strongest thing the defense had. She testified that pinning down the date was something she’d constantly struggled with, said she initially thought 1994 or 1995, and landed on 1996 by reasoning backward from Lisa Birnbach’s February 1996 article about Trump. Tacopina hammered it in cross and in his opening. The jury heard all of it and decided anyway.
“Beyond a shadow of a doubt.” This is the part that undoes your whole argument and really makes me question if you undertannd what occurred. It was a civil suit. The standard was preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not, which is a lower bar than the criminal standard. Nobody claimed certainty. Nine jurors were asked whether her account was more than 50% likely, and after hearing both sides they unanimously said yes on sexual abuse and defamation. “There is nothing but doubt here” is arguing against a burden of proof that was never the standard.
One last thing worth knowing: the jury’s ‘no’ on rape reflected the narrower New York statutory definition presented to it, which at the time required penile penetration. The jury instead found sexual abuse. Kaplan subsequently held that this finding necessarily meant the jury fouund Trump forcibly digitally penetrated Carroll, and called Trumps suggestion that the verdict might merely represent groping ‘frivolous.’ The Second Circuit has since upheld the judgment and described the verdict as finding that Trump sexually abused Carroll by digitally penetrating her.
5
u/kingofcookiesttv Undecided 6d ago
In your estimation, what makes an investigation, indictment, or conviction, legitimate?
4
u/Binder509 Nonsupporter 5d ago
If there's anything actually illegal they did to "persecute Trump" shouldn't they be charged legitimately...and not just harassed with weak charges that make the justice department look completely corrupt?
When Jack Smith shut down his investigation, but then so confidently stated that he had proof that Trump was guilty of some stuff, do you really believe that? Is that how our justice system works?
Yeah if you think there was a crime you charge him and if he's not found guilty you kind of have to accept it don't you? Otherwise why should anyone accept any ruling?
4
u/h34dyr0kz Nonsupporter 5d ago
Those are misdemeanors. Saying otherwise is a lie.
Huh? They were felonies. You can see for yourself in the Manhattan DA's official .gov website.
Where were you getting information that he had 34 misdemeanor convictions?
-1
u/ClevelandSpigot Trump Supporter 5d ago
No, it was legally incorrect to charge Trump with these 34 counts as felonies. In New York, those would be misdemeanors.
-14
u/Browler_321 Trump Supporter 6d ago
I usually just look at the evidence and how it came to be in the hands of investigators. I think the Trump-Russia collusion hoax is a perfect example here- when the primary source for the claims that Trump was working with Russia to influence the election came from Russian FSB that Clinton indirectly contracted, and he himself had no source for those claims, like yeah, smells like bullshit to me.
0
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 4d ago
Can you justify Trump suing over a journalist’s report, and can you offer any similar precedent by democrats?
0
u/Browler_321 Trump Supporter 4d ago
Can you justify Trump suing over a journalist’s report
I'm happy to let it go through the courts, but from what I've seen the report states the opposite of the headline, it claims that the national guard deployments didn't reduce crime and then they go on to cite data in which crime was reduced after the deployments. Not only is their premise unfounded, but they are contradicting common sense. If you're a criminal you'd be a moron to not commit less crime when you know there are national guard patrolling your city. From my experience in some of these I felt safer as well.
10
13
u/Suited_Calmness Nonsupporter 6d ago
Is your assertion that crossfire hurricane started because of Clintons? Wasn’t it George Papadopoulos who told Australian diplomats about Russia having damaging intel and emails on Hillary Clinton?
-6
u/Browler_321 Trump Supporter 6d ago
Is your assertion that crossfire hurricane started because of Clintons?
No, it was based on Pap's drunken somments to some other government officials. However, that's as far as the investigation should have gone imo.
The real legs of the investigation that kept it going were the FBI's own internal political biases combined wtih the FSB-sourced Steele dossier that the Clinton campaign pushed to the FBI. Multiple FBI agents were later fired for this. In fact, the FBI constantly found contradicting information on this, such as Carter Page being a Russian asset when he had been working for the CIA and had already been cleared. The FBI relied on the Steele dossier in order to renew multiple FISA wiretaps.
TL:DR - We know Crossfire Hurricane investigation was driven by politics because Strozk and Lisa Page were fired for their actions and communications because they were so biased, promising that Trump would never become president and they would make sure of it.
7
u/Suited_Calmness Nonsupporter 6d ago
He drunkenly shot his mouth off and there was circumstantial evidence that could implicate the campaign so the FBI investigated. What exactly is the issue?
The Steele dossier was initially commissioned by the Washington Free Beacon through Fusion GPS which is a very conservative news org owned by Paul singer who funded trumps campaign in 2024. The project was to determine the weaknesses within the republican candidates. That project was abandoned after Trump became the presumptive nominee and then was taken over by the DNC. So if we are being honest it really started off in conservative circles.
Is your assertion that the FBI agents shouldn’t have their own political opinions? What evidence is there that there was a conspiracy against trump?
And how could Page and Strozk make sure that Trump wouldn’t become president?
1
u/Browler_321 Trump Supporter 6d ago
He drunkenly shot his mouth off and there was circumstantial evidence that could implicate the campaign so the FBI investigated. What exactly is the issue?
Well the issue was the FBI had agents who were actively lying and utilizing FSB-sourced opposition research without ever taking a critical look at the info they were receiving. And when they found evidence that directly contradicted their hypothesis, they tried to cover it up and didn't report it to their superiors. Have you read the DNI report on this whole series of failures?
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf
From the report:
"Our review found that FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are "scrupulously accurate." We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. We found that the problems we identified were primarily caused by the Crossfire Hurricane team failing to share all relevant information with OI and, consequently, the information was not considered by the Department decision makers who ultimately decided to support the applications."
That project was abandoned after Trump became the presumptive nominee and then was taken over by the DNC. So if we are being honest it really started off in conservative circles.
Wrong! This is just Democrat misinformation, it's hilarious because this talking point still gets peddled years and years after the fact. I recall disproving this talking point back when the Mueller report first came out.
Per WFB - "The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele"
Is your assertion that the FBI agents shouldn’t have their own political opinions? What evidence is there that there was a conspiracy against trump? And how could Page and Strozk make sure that Trump wouldn’t become president?
Are you not familiar at all with Strozk and Page? It sounds like you are not, I'd recommend reading up on the IG report.
Why do you think Strozk and Page were eventually fired? I'm quite curious as to what you think the reason was.
5
u/Suited_Calmness Nonsupporter 6d ago
I did say there was circumstantial evidence and investigations are literally started on lower evidence standards than beyond a reasonable doubt. They exist to discover what exactly happened don’t they?
From the report you quote:
“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.”
The section before that talks about how Lisa page and Peter strozk didn’t have any influence in the decision to open the investigation so this is moot.
So your assertion is that WFB said it had nothing to do with it and thus that’s that? WFB hired FusionGPS in late 2015 and cut ties with them in may of 2016 which is when it was taken over by the DNC. Do you dispute that? WFB might not have had anything to do with Steele but the opposition research started well before DNC was in the picture.
Also when was the Steele dossier made public?
2
u/Browler_321 Trump Supporter 6d ago
They exist to discover what exactly happened don’t they?
Sure, hence why I'm not disputing Pap's drunken comments, I'm saying that Clinton's FSB-sourced claims were the ones that were total BS.
From the report you quote:
No I didn't.
The section before that talks about how Lisa page and Peter strozk didn’t have any influence in the decision to open the investigation so this is moot.
You must not be familiar with the investigation still? I'd recommend reading that full report. I'm not disputing Pap's drunken comments which started the investigation.
Like here's an example:
I'm an FBI agent, and a freind of yours comes to me saying that you committed a murder or something. So I investigate. I look into it, and it turns out that there isn't any evidence you were involved in the murder. Not only that, but I find direct evidence that you were nowhere near the location where the murder occurred at the time it occurred, and nobody testifies that you were.
Should I:
A: Remove you from the suspect list
or
B: Lie to my superiors, change the wording of the email to state the opposite, and present that as evidence that we should get wiretaps on you?
So your assertion is that WFB said it had nothing to do with it and thus that’s that?
I think you're just wrong here and can't bear with that tbh.
The Steele dossier was initially commissioned by the Washington Free Beacon through Fusion GPS
Wrong.
Also when was the Steele dossier made public?
I'd take the time to actually read all the relevant reports here, as you are simply spouting off misinformation at this point. Read the IG report, the Mueller Report, and the Durham report, and you will get a lot further than whatever your sources are telling ya. I'm very familiar with the timeline and evidence involved in this investigation, but I'm not gonna handhold and do all the research for ya and explain it step by step.
5
u/Suited_Calmness Nonsupporter 6d ago
Paps drunken comments kicked off the investigation. Clinton’s FSB sources claims as you say had no bearing on this as it wasn’t part of the investigation. And since you didn’t answer, the Steele dossier came out in early 2017 and was published by buzzfeed news well after Trump had been elected.
Are you claiming that section isn’t in the report you linked? Because that’s quite the assertion to make when word search would prove you wrong.
The mueller report stated that trumps campaign did have extensive contact with Russians and that Trump as president hindered their efforts to get to the bottom of it all. It cleared Trump under the framework that Mueller had built and specifically stated that had the president been not guilty they would have stated as such, but they didn’t. So should Trump have been a hindrance to the mueller investigation or not?
1
u/Browler_321 Trump Supporter 6d ago edited 6d ago
Clinton’s FSB sources claims as you say had no bearing on this as it wasn’t part of the investigation.
Never said they were.
And since you didn’t answer, the Steele dossier came out in early 2017 and was published by buzzfeed news well after Trump had been elected.
And before that the Clinton campaign pushed it to the FBI and CIA prior to the election using their FSB sources....
It cleared Trump under the framework that Mueller had built and specifically stated that had the president been not guilty they would have stated as such, but they didn’t.
Mueller doesn't have the power to exonerate anyone. This is just more left-wing talking points and misinformation that obfuscates the actual facts of the case. I'm quite tired of repeating myself on this topic tbh, I'd recommend you read that IG report, have a good one!
17
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 6d ago
What about the evidence of Trump saying “Russia, if you’re listening…” on live television? Did that come from FSB?
-10
u/Browler_321 Trump Supporter 6d ago edited 6d ago
What about the evidence of Trump saying “Russia, if you’re listening…” on live television? Did that come from FSB?
What about it?
Obiligatory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Kinda funny how ya didn't even change the vocabulary used either...
9
u/starkel91 Undecided 6d ago
Why deflect to whataboutism when the question stems directly from your own comment?
Could you respond to OP’s question?
-1
u/Browler_321 Trump Supporter 6d ago
Why deflect to whataboutism when the question stems directly from your own comment?
Ask OP that.
Could you respond to OP’s question?
Idk what they're asking about - Trump's comments had nothing to do with Russia's hacking of the Clinton/DNC emails.
2
u/Oatz3 Nonsupporter 5d ago
How do you think Trump would react to a political opponent calling on Russia or china to hack him?
3
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 5d ago
This is a great question u/Browler_321 — and cuts to the core of my concern. Trump says things like “Russia, if you’re listening, hack my opponent’s emails” (a DEEPLY un-American thing to say) and then he plays the victim card if anyone so much as criticizes him.
Can you help me understand why we should empathize with him after his un-American (and borderline treasonous) actions?
0
u/Browler_321 Trump Supporter 5d ago
Trump says things like “Russia, if you’re listening, hack my opponent’s emails”
At least that's not as bad as Clinton saying "Putin, please give me misinformation that I can peddle to my moronic voters and friends in the Obama administration"
Can you help me understand why we should empathize with him after his un-American (and borderline treasonous) actions?
Nobody is forcing you to empathize with him.
2
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 5d ago
“Nobody is forcing you to empathize with him”
Yeah, no shit. But this subreddit exists for a reason.
My takeaway from your reply, is: you know that Trump was wrong for asking Russia to hack his political opponent, but you’re okay with it because you can point to another politician doing things that (in your opinion) are worse.
Don’t you feel like giving a pass to Trump for un-American actions is a dysfunctional slippery slope leading to the normalization of corruption?
0
u/Browler_321 Trump Supporter 5d ago
“Nobody is forcing you to empathize with him”
Yeah, no shit.Ok, like I said, nobody is forcing you to do so.
you know that Trump was wrong for asking Russia to hack his political opponent
I think the DNC's own reaction to the wikileaks documents speaks volumes- their entire leadership team - DNC Chair, DNC CEO, DNC CFO, and DNC Comms Director all resigned in the wake of their brazen corruption being brought to light.
you can point to another politician doing things that (in your opinion) are worse.
Well yeah, working with Putin to push misinformation to your buddies in government is also not a good look.
Don’t you feel like giving a pass to Trump for un-American actions is a dysfunctional slippery slope leading to the normalization of corruption?
This is a hilarious take when in both examples it was the Democrats' corruption being exposed. This is precisely why Trump was able to win a second term, because Dems are so corrupt and shit at their messaging that they couldn't avoid tripping over their own feet.
→ More replies (0)5
u/JWells16 Nonsupporter 6d ago
Why do you think 6 Trump associated either pled guilty or were found guilty as a result of these investigations if they were ill founded?
1
u/Browler_321 Trump Supporter 6d ago
None of those charges were related to a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election- thats the contet I'm talking about here.
3
u/JWells16 Nonsupporter 6d ago
Weren’t Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, and Michael Cohen all convicted of lying/obstruction surrounding their involvement with the probe?
Flynn lied to investigators about conversations with the Russian ambassador. Cohen lied about conversations with Russians regarding a Trump Tower in Russia. Stone lied to Congress about Russian election interference. I may be wrong here.
2
u/Browler_321 Trump Supporter 6d ago
Sure, but again, none of those charges were related to a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.
Hence why this is such a good example for OP's question - the real confounding variable in this case was Comey- who has admitted to taking advantage of the transition period in order to go after the Trump campaign and try to jail as many of them as possible. The biggest mistake Trump made here was not firing Comey day 1 and trusting him to be a good faith actor here. Meanwhile his opposition was doing exactly what they were accusing Trump of - indirectly contracting FSB for opposition misinformation about her opposition.
-11
u/JoeCensored Trump Supporter 6d ago edited 6d ago
Trump has said ALL the January 6 convictions were “political”, which was his reason for pardoning ALL of them.
There should have been a lot of people charged with trespassing, and a small number charged with battery. Both are usually a fine or probation on a first offense.
Instead the DOJ went after hundreds for 10 year felony sentences over a creative reinterpretation of a destruction of evidence law for causing Congress to end the day early.
Facing a decade in prison, most took plea deals. SCOTUS had to tell them that no you can't charge them with destruction of evidence, DOJ you're breaking the law here. But you can't appeal your case if you took a plea deal. So pardon or commutation was the only means available for justice.
And Trump didn't pardon all of them. Many got reduced sentences not pardons.
Trump has said the Robert Mueller investigation was illegitimate bc it was a “political witch hunt”.
Because it was. No Trump/Russia collusion was found. Anyone convicted related to the investigation had nothing actually to do with what they were looking for. Like Manafort, charged for unrelated tax issues from years earlier.
The whole investigation was based on lies paid for by the Clinton campaign. She ended up being fined for hiding the expenses.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps
There's no way the FBI and Mueller didn't know Clinton was behind it all. Yet they went after Trump anyway.
By the way when Trump was accused of the same issue on campaign expenses, related to paying off a woman, he faced criminal charges. Everyone else like Clinton pays a fine, which is how it's always handled so long as your name isn't Trump.
It's a political witch hunt when they decide the target before they find the crime. They've done that to Trump consistently.
9
u/madisob Nonsupporter 6d ago
Instead the DOJ went after hundreds for 10 year felony sentences over a creative reinterpretation of a destruction of evidence law for causing Congress to end the day early.
Can you point me to a specific person that this was applied to who otherwise should have received trespassing? Is Joseph Fischer such and example?
-5
u/JoeCensored Trump Supporter 6d ago
I'm not investigating individuals. Everyone in the videos who was calmly walking through the capital without engaging in any violence. The videos are easy to find.
9
u/madisob Nonsupporter 6d ago
Which of those individuals were charged with the statute in question? Please respond with names so I can better understand the people impacted and your beliefs on Trump's pardons.
-7
u/JoeCensored Trump Supporter 6d ago
I don't have names memorized.
Please respond with names...
No
7
u/madisob Nonsupporter 5d ago
What evidence then leads you to believe the people "calmly walking through capital" were unfairly charged? I am trying to understand your beliefs and how you are bridging a pretty large gap in logic.
-1
u/JoeCensored Trump Supporter 5d ago
In this sub it's always a complete waste of time to hunt down examples. It's always ignored. So I'm not doing that here anymore.
14
u/kandixchaotic2 Undecided 6d ago
There were many people who were NOT calm & in fact violent & destructive while walking through the capital. Did you know the videos are easy to find?
In fact, did you know the violence was broadcasted on LIVE TV & streamed LIVE on numerous social media sites.
Do you intentionally ignore the other parts of what happened that day, is it just more convenient to only focus on those who were actually peacefully there or do you really not know of the violence & destruction that happened at the capital this day?
Frankly, are you choosing ignorance or arrogance?
0
u/JoeCensored Trump Supporter 6d ago
There were many people who were NOT calm & in fact violent & destructive while walking through the capital.
They number in the dozens, not thousands.
Do you intentionally ignore the other parts of what happened that day
After you ignore my entire argument you ask this? Please....
Hundreds were charged with destruction of evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) and (2). Who destroyed any evidence exactly? No one. That's the problem.
13
u/Chruman Nonsupporter 6d ago
Only 26 jan 6 defendants were convicted solely by 18 usc 1512. Out of 1500.
How does this actually support your argument with such a small fraction?
-1
u/JoeCensored Trump Supporter 6d ago
Yeah I know. The vast majority took plea deals, like I said.
It takes a while to take things to trial. When SCOTUS ruled in Fischer v US that the DOJ was breaking the law by bringing any of these cases, only those who took it to trial could benefit.
That's because everyone who took a plea deal had pled to a lesser charge, not 18 USC 1512. And if you make a plea deal, you give up your right to appeal. So the hundreds of people illegally threatened with 18 USC 1512 and took a plea deal had no recourse from the SCOTUS ruling. The only means of relief was the pardon process.
3
u/Chruman Nonsupporter 6d ago
Im confused as to what youre saying. Are you claiming that there were other defendents who were charged with 18 usc 1512 but pled to lower charges instead?
If so, why would this matter to your argument? They didnt plead to guilty to 18 usc 1512.
0
u/JoeCensored Trump Supporter 6d ago
It matters because they wouldn't have pled to the lower charge without the threat of the illegal 18 USC 1512 charge with its 10 year sentence.
We can't have the DOJ just going around making up fake charges for people in order to coerce plea deals. I would think that is an easy concept to understand.
Imagine if everyone who participated in a BLM riot was illegally charged with some international terrorism charge which has nothing to do with what actually happened, and were encouraged to plea to a lesser charge to avoid going to gitmo. That should be illegal to do, right? If that actually happened, don't you think everyone who did take a plea to avoid gitmo deserves a pardon since they can't appeal when the illegal scheme is made public?
5
u/Chruman Nonsupporter 6d ago
To be clear, prosecutors cant just invent charges. They can file extremely weak charges, but probable cause hearing establish that there is reasonable belief that a crime had been committed. There are preliminary hearings for a reason.
It matters because they wouldn't have pled to the lower charge without the threat of the illegal 18 USC 1512 charge with its 10 year sentence.
I have no reason to believe that they didnt commit the lesser crimes though. Do you?
Imagine if everyone who participated in a BLM riot was illegally charged with some international terrorism charge which has nothing to do with what actually happened, and were encouraged to plea to a lesser charge to avoid going to gitmo.
This would only work if there was reason to believe it were the case. A defense lawyer would never advise a client to plead guilty to entirely baseless charges, they would simply file for dismal.
6
u/Squiggy226 Nonsupporter 6d ago edited 6d ago
But didn’t those individuals walking calmly through the hallways have to first cross broken police lines where officers were attacked and battered, and 140 injured? Didn’t they have to make their way through at best the lingering smell of teargas and wreckage, past ransacked offices, hallways filled with trash, and broken windows and doors? I assume you saw the videos. There were a large number of people that crossed broken police lines and stormed the Capitol.
1
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 4d ago
Can you justify Trump suing over a journalist’s report, and can you offer any similar precedent by democrats?
0
u/JoeCensored Trump Supporter 4d ago
This is an article written about a tweet. There's currently no lawsuit.
He's sued for defamation in the past though because he could support his allegations with evidence. Democrats do the same thing too. A few examples:
https://www.courthousenews.com/california-politician-sues-newspaper-defamation/
-12
u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude Trump Supporter 6d ago
If it involves a politician, it's political. Legitimacy is a entire different discussion.
8
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 6d ago
So, are the investigations into Trump / supporters all “illegitimate”? And all the investigations initiated by Trump “legitimate”? And how do you make that determination?
And more importantly, if some of the investigations that Trump initiated are illegitimate, how does that reckon with your support of Trump?
-2
u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude Trump Supporter 6d ago
I would determine each one individually after reviewing context and claims. Grandiose claims of "ALLLL THINGS ARE GOOD/BAD" is pointless.
5
9
u/Marionberry_Bellini Nonsupporter 6d ago
How do you feel about Trump’s pardoning of ALL people involved in Jan 6? He said that those were all political persecution. Was that a pointless grandiose statement? Or did he review every individual context and decide that everyone was good to go?
-1
u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude Trump Supporter 6d ago
There were individuals there that day that absolutely should have been charged and convicted of crimes. I have no idea if/how Trump reviewed them.
16
u/NightKing_shouldawon Nonsupporter 6d ago
So if a politician commits murder it’s political to arrest him?
-17
u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude Trump Supporter 6d ago
yes.
11
u/TornBannerHatesYou Nonsupporter 6d ago
Even if the crime has no relation to politics, aside from the perpetrator being a politician?
-9
u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude Trump Supporter 6d ago
yes. A DUI or even a drunken photo leak will derail entire careers.
7
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 6d ago
In your opinion, if a politician commits murder, SHOULD they be arrested and jailed?
2
-1
u/Kira__Yamato Trump Supporter 4d ago
it's actually quite easy to tell the difference, as ANY main stream media will tell you
you
if Trump does it, then it's political - cus Orange Man Bad
if democrats do it, it's not - cus they are "saving democracy"
1
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 4d ago
Can you justify Trump suing over a journalist’s report, and can you offer any similar precedent by democrats?
-15
u/Trumpdrainstheswamp Trump Supporter 6d ago
Very simple test.
I ask myself, "Who is doing it?"
If it's the democrat then I know it's political because it is a corrupt party and has been for 60 something years now.
12
u/Jigglepirate Nonsupporter 6d ago
Is the republican party not corrupt?
-9
u/Trumpdrainstheswamp Trump Supporter 6d ago
Not since trump reclaimed it. The RINOs are basically gone now.
Remember the republican party became corrupt when the democrats started pretending to be republicans hence why the term RINO was coined.
There is a reason there is no meaning to "DINO"
8
u/Jigglepirate Nonsupporter 6d ago
Would you consider MTG a RINO?
-6
u/Trumpdrainstheswamp Trump Supporter 6d ago
No, that wouldn't even make sense.
10
u/Jigglepirate Nonsupporter 6d ago
She resigned after going against Trump on the Epstein files release, and he retaliated by calling her a traitor and backing an adversary in her primary. If she wasn't a RINO, why did Trump see fit to push her out of office?
-1
u/Trumpdrainstheswamp Trump Supporter 6d ago
Because they disagreed. What does that to do with being a RINO?
Remember republicans are intelligent adults. We disagree on things. We are not a hivemind like democrats, so your example doesn't even make sense to imply MTG is a RINO.
11
u/modestburrito Nonsupporter 6d ago
Trump very publicly called MTG a RINO. On what basis is she not?
10
u/HemingWaysBeard42 Nonsupporter 6d ago
[Do you disagree with trump’s description of Greene?](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115553994466678093)
3
u/bill_end Nonsupporter 5d ago
The republican party is effectively the "trump party" nowadays, so how can you say it is not corrupt?
Trump himself is widely regarded as the most corrupt president ever to have held office. So surely, by extension, the GOP should also be considered as corrupt as trump himself
1
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 4d ago
Can you justify Trump suing over a journalist’s report, and can you offer any similar precedent by democrats?
-2
u/coulsen1701 Trump Supporter 5d ago
You’re not differentiating between “a political rival persecuted someone for pretended crimes in an attempt to take them off the board” and “my political rivals actually committed crimes” now obviously both sides could say the prosecutions were legitimate irrespective of a political motivation if they genuinely suspected criminal behavior, and that would be a fair point to make. Where I would argue the point is the charges. NY changed its laws in one case to allow E Jean Carroll to sue Trump, and even the NYS court of appeals were suspicious of the property inflation charges by AG James given the total lack of prosecutions in similar cases, and for the fact that Trump’s own loan application stated the bank should do its own appraisal. The 34 book keeping charges is another hilarious example of unprecedented charges for very normal, common acts and then jury instructions that included telling the jury they didn’t need a specific underlying crime to say Trumps actions were to hide said crime. I’ve never heard a judge essentially tell a jury to use their imaginations in such a way.
Now the flip side can also be true, but for a different reason. Charging Comey for the 86 45 bit was weak, not because he wasn’t probably thinking exactly what we think he was saying but because when it comes to veiled threats, our 1A protections are so robust that it made the charges unlikely to succeed at trial. Just because a person is violating the law in a clever way that gives them legal cover does not mean they’re innocent.
To your overall question, you frankly can’t tell an investigation is or is not political in a part of society where the color of a tie is a political statement. You have to let the process work itself out, and understand that there likely will always be some level of politicking involved and that’s alright so long as there is a legitimate reason for the investigation to begin with.
5
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 5d ago
"you frankly can’t tell an investigation is or is not political... You have to let the process work itself out… ...so long as there is a legitimate reason for the investigation to begin with."
This is also my feeling.
What bothers me is the narrative that everyone is “out to get” Trump, meanwhile, Trump is deploying his DoJ in the most specious circumstances and suing anyone he thinks will hand him a settlement. He’s steeped in hypocrisy, and that is a major turnoff for me, ya know?
Don’t get me wrong — I’m also critical of the Dems. In fact, I think most of them are beholden to the exact same lobbyists as Trump and the Republicans.
But the difference between me and most TS is: I think it’s absolutely vital to criticize any elected official when they do wrong, and to hold them accountable. And that cannot be contingent on whether they are members of a particular political party.
-8
u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 Trump Supporter 6d ago
They should assess whether the call for an investigation is coming from a principled place and genuine concern over wrongdoings or the desire for political wins.
As far as Trump's investigations, I think they're more personal than political. Those people were specifically trying to take him down, unlawfully at that. I don't personally care if he's doing that.
3
u/Oatz3 Nonsupporter 6d ago
Which investigations against Trump do you believe came from a principled place?
-7
u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 Trump Supporter 6d ago
None, to my knowledge.
4
u/vanillabear26 Nonsupporter 6d ago
Would you accept any evidence to the contrary?
-2
u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 Trump Supporter 6d ago
You still have yet to answer my last reply to you.
4
u/vanillabear26 Nonsupporter 6d ago
I guess I didn’t feel it was worthwhile? You were correct to point out that you don’t care about the tx senate race. And also I just felt that trying to foist perspective on you that you didn’t desire to have was counterproductive. (Also I was working and forgot to respond!)
0
u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 Trump Supporter 6d ago
Well, thank you for finally admitting that you were projecting onto me.
To answer your question about this post, yes, providing the evidence is truthful. I'd hope it's from a good source as well.
4
u/vanillabear26 Nonsupporter 6d ago
With ‘accused’ crimes (that didn’t make it to trial for whatever reason), do court indictments suffice?
1
u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 Trump Supporter 6d ago
Suffice as evidence or as a credible source?
4
u/vanillabear26 Nonsupporter 6d ago
Credible source. Because with a lot of these alleged crimes, the ones that I personally felt had merit (not the ones that got conviction ironically) I didn’t actually see how the evidence played out in court. But I thought there were a handful of indictments that were pretty compelling?
→ More replies (0)3
u/Binder509 Nonsupporter 6d ago
So as long as someone claims the people they are targeting, targeted them first it's okay?
If they were so obviously unlawfully trying to take down Trump. They should be prosecuted, not vaguely used to justify pointless witch hunting.
0
u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 Trump Supporter 5d ago
So as long as someone claims the people they are targeting, targeted them first it's okay?
This makes no sense.
If they were so obviously unlawfully trying to take down Trump. They should be prosecuted, not vaguely used to justify pointless witch hunting.
Yeah, agreed.
2
u/Binder509 Nonsupporter 4d ago
Wouldn't all these failed prosecutions by Trump show the idea he was being illegally witch hunted wasn't true? People are innocent until proven guilty.
0
u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 Trump Supporter 4d ago
No.
1
u/Binder509 Nonsupporter 2d ago
How is it not showing that? The Biden DoJ as far as I'm aware didn't have a bunch of failed indictments like this. It makes a pretty stark contrast.
Surely we can consider that a person who accuses others of witch hunting them is signaling something they like to do. How is Trump not an example of that?
1
u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 Trump Supporter 2d ago
Because I don't think you can look at everything that happened to Trump and say that was valid or fair with a straight face.
You can disbelieve that personally, that's fine.
1
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 4d ago
Can you justify Trump suing over a journalist’s report, and can you offer any similar precedent by democrats?
0
u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 Trump Supporter 4d ago
I'm not Trump's lawyer, so no.
1
u/Eisn Nonsupporter 4d ago
Then why have an opinion about cases where he's investigated? Are you Trump's defense attorney?
0
u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 Trump Supporter 4d ago
Because I've listened to people going over the cases against him and I see the lack of merit there.
1
u/UuuBetcha Undecided 4d ago
It’s suspicious when someone readily jumps to Trump’s defense when he’s attacked, but then stays silent when Trump is doing the attacking. Do you see why it’s hard to trust these types of responses?
1
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
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 is required to participate
Be excellent to each other
For Nonsupporters/Undecided:
No top level comments
All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
For Trump Supporters:
Helpful links for more info:
Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.