So what would you believe and say if, and when, Trump is indicted, and gets convicted? Will you just keep insisting it's just haters, or would you admit that Trump was corrupt and was finally caught? I you opt for the first one then you will essentially say that our legal system is corrupt, even though there are witnesses on the record testifying how Trump broke laws.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jan 6th committee subpoeanas Trump.
- Thread starter England my lionheart
- Start date
Hypotheses non fingo. Get back to me if he is ever indicted.
I am waiting for actual evidence to be presented in a judicial forum. A forum where the accused is permitted to present his case. Since such a forum has never been convened, I am quite correct in pointing that out. With all the "miles of evidence"[sic] that should be reasonable to expect it to be convened. Yet it hasn't been after all these years. That speaks volumes.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Since he has been subpoenaed, he has a chance to present his case.
Last edited:
The evidence is the same regardless of the forum. What is being reported is law enforcement and prosecutors taking witness testimony. This is the testimony that will be given in court, so it can be trusted. A report in recent days reveals that a Trump aid lied about moving boxes of documents at Mar A Lago and then changed his story admitting that Trump asked him to move boxes that held the documents the government was trying to recover. That is criminal and intentional.
It hasn't happened yet, correct. But the reports coming out are severe and suggest Trump will be indicted soon.
The Watergate cases took over two years, and we are not that far into this set of cases. This is a vastly larger conspiracy, and Trump tried to conceal evidence, and intimidate witnesses, so the obstruction has slowed the process down. Obstruction of justice is likey another crime that Trump will be indicted for.
That should be an interesting show. I wonder if they'll try to goad Trump into exploding into a tantrum. Or maybe Trump will goad them.
His own mouth his his own worst enemy. One tiny little nudge at his ego, and the torrent of admissions will come forth like a overflowing dam.
Although it won’t happen it would be a prime time stage for Trump and great viewing,he could just incriminate himself just by talking.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Which, if true, says more about the poor state of the US justice system
Possibly, although he doesn't really seem to defend against accusations as much as he goes on the attack against those who are accusing him. Plus, there have been indications that he's more and more off his rocker. One wonders whether he could even be considered sane enough to testify, although if he does, it could be a real circus.
I will be watching the ongoing events with interest, even if they are taking way too long a time.
It is good to see the USA actively regaining a measure of self-respect.
BTW, I take it that Steve Bannon remains where he belongs?
It is good to see the USA actively regaining a measure of self-respect.
BTW, I take it that Steve Bannon remains where he belongs?
Last edited:
tytlyf
Not Religious
Fake news.
An Independent commission was to be created with 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Trump didn't want that and other ranking Republicans denied it's creation.
A Select committee was created instead and only 2 Republicans voted to support the committee. (More could have voted and supported it).
Republicans are lying.
PolitiFact - The legitimacy of the Jan. 6 committee, explained
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I certainly wouldn't bet your house on this.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Oh, so they aren't spouting the party line, eh. So, the gist of this is that, iyo, party loyalty is much more important than the country and the rule of law. This is message you continue to send, Shaul.
She only banned those who had an outspoken "verdict" prior even to the formation of the committee. Other, more objective and law minded Republicans, were more than welcome to be part of it, but party loyalty was much more important to the vast majority of them.
Obviously, the rule of law means nothing to you, but party loyalty certainly does. So sad.
The committee is disparaged by rule-of-law and democracy-hating Republicans, not patriotic Americans. And your account is factually challenged.
You seem to think that despising Trump is some kind of moral or intellectual defect. I see it the other way around. I see failing to recognize what a moral dumpster fire that man is as a litmus test of sorts.
Are you familiar with the ad iram fallacy? "The argumentum ad iram fallacy (ad iram, Latin for "to anger") is an informal logical fallacy, that involves accusing one's opponent of being angry or holding their beliefs for anger-related reasons, which purportedly disproves their argument or diminishes its weight."
Trump deserves extreme contempt for who he is and what he does. Such "anger" is a virtue. The following are all in the context of atheistic anger at religions, but the sentiments apply here as well:
- "But I also have to quarrel with the very notion that a person's arguments can be dismissed because of anger. Smugly accusing someone of anger doesn't do anything to discount the content of the argument. I'd argue that people who see vile behavior in the name of religion and don't get angry are the ones who have something wrong with them." - Amanda Marcotte
- "Atheists aren't angry because we're selfish, or bitter, or joyless. Atheists are angry because we have compassion. Atheists are angry because we have a sense of justice. Atheists are angry because we see millions of people being terribly harmed by religion, and our hearts go out to them, and we feel motivated to do something about it. Atheists aren't angry because there's something wrong with us. Atheists are angry because there's something right with us."- Greta Christina
- "I've wondered, for awhile, why Christians think that accusing me of being angry at their religion is actually an argument against my objections. I mean, even if I were abnormally angry ... I have absolutely no rational reason I can come up with that makes that a good enough reason to think I'm wrong ... the reasoning often seems to be that, because I'm angry, my argument is flawed and I can be dismissed." - Peter Mosley
- "Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn't argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we're doing is, we're presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain." - A.C. Grayling
That's a legal formality for putting Trump in prison. The rest of us aren't involved in that process and have already evaluated the existing evidence. He's guilty as hades of multiple crimes. Let's see if America has the will and means to do the right thing. I suspect not. I still don't understand why Trump is enjoying special privilege. Does he take some of the power of presidency with him even after being replaced? Apparently. Had he never been president, he'd be in prison already. He seems to have some of the immunity reserved for presidents still.
Trump has presented much of his case in defense of possessing classified documents. He owns them, plus the FBI planted them there. I haven't heard his defense of insurrection yet, but there can be none. He has also made his case for election fraud. He won in a landslide, but there was a lot of ballot dumping and voting machine fraud - already ruled out. What more do you need? His reasons for committing financial fraud?
So what are you waiting for before expressing an opinion of probable guilt or innocence? A verdict? Why? You're not on a jury.
I had an acquaintance through a local email group, who passed away about two years ago. He was a conservative Christian, an attorney, and a Trump supporter. Around 2017 and early 2018, he was like you. I was identifying Trump as a criminal then, but he needed to see a courtroom verdict before making a judgment, citing innocent until proven guilty. I explained to him that those rules applied to the government and juries determining who will go free and who will not - not him or me. I also pointed out that juries are also deciding the likelihood of guilt or innocence throughout the trial just as observers are.
By about late 2018 and 2019, he was beginning to relent a little in his enthusiasm for Trump, then describing him as a lesser of evils relative to Hillary. At this point, he told us that he had reregistered as an Independent, but wouldn't answer when asked how he was voting in 2020. For Trump, obviously, if that was his answer.
Then, unfortunately, he died. I would love to hear him tell me today that Trump was the lesser of evils and that he shouldn't be judged for criminality before hearing a courtroom verdict.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
A recent survey that was shocking to me is that roughly 30% of Americans when polled said they preferred having an unelected autocracy that any form of democracy. What I don't know is the party breakdown on this or if it was even asked.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Yes, I saw that as well: Poll: Large minority of Americans supports unelected leaders, firing judges (axios.com)
Americans seem to be evolving away from Americanism (democracy, church-state separation, rule of law, egalitarianism). When they get to be like much of the Islamic world, for example, who also seem to have no interest in or use for democracy, they will discard it willingly. You hear people warning about democracy slipping away in America, but apparently that's a feature rather than a flaw for increasing numbers of Americans. America is no longer one nation under anything. Which America will prevail? I'm pessimistic. The omens, like the numbers you cited, are inauspicious.
No he doesn't. The January 6th Committee is an investigative forum, where he is not given a right or opportunity to present his case, and not a judicial forum, where he would have the right to do so. You actually make my point. Trump's opponents refuse to give him his day in an actual court. Because they know there is no case and they want to deny him an opportunity to present his arguments.