Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

At least Castor admitted that Trump lost the election:

"The people are smart enough ... to pick a new administration if they don't like the old one. And they just did." Then, soon after, Castor added that this is commonplace: "The people get tired of an administration they don't want. And they know how to change it. And they just did."

I agree with johny99 here.

In fact, I think the impeachment case is rather flimsy.

Also, talent is often overrated. For example, Trump is clearly retarded in several ways (at least emotionally and ethically, and perhaps intellectually), and also apparently suffering from dementia and yet he still nearly won the election, and won many, many votes, and still has many fans and backers, even after his general inability to govern, or to negotiate, or to carry through on almost any of his promises, and even after he is not very subtle about using his fans to line his own pockets.

I'm not sure johny99 is actually arguing that the case is "flimsy", he's arguing that the defense could have provided better cover for those who are going to dismiss it in the interest of political expediency regardless of the objective facts of the case.

The job of a defense lawyer isn't isn't to arrive at some objective truth, it is to present the most favorable argument for their client. What the Republican senators would like is to dismiss the case so as to not get primaried by the Trump wing of the party and to have a plausible enough rational for doing so that they don't lose swing voters.

I should clarify.

I think the case for insurrection or sedition is flimsy.

Trump is quite clearly a coward, and so hardly a candidate as an insurrectionist. He would never answer the call of country and duty; he would happily pay some illegal under the table to take his place; that's obviously his style. He speaks in scorn of our military and of its volunteers.

The case for sedition is plausible, but weak I think. He was vague; not only because he rambles and has problems with coherence and dementia, but also on purpose I think. Again, as we have seen played out for four years in his rambling and incessantly whining tweets, he lives his life in constant fear, and he was afraid of getting in too much trouble.

zgcpvwzu wrote:

or to carry through on almost any of his promises,.

really? This is crazy talk. Trump carried through on many, many things. Most things, I'd say. Paris, Iran, lower taxes, right wing judges, cut regulation, make the libs cry a lot, tell white christians they are persecuted, fight against the free press, get NATO to spend more on defense, pull away from international connections, push for more carbon burning, push for worse fleet fuel mileage, slow immigration, make the economy grow well, high employment, drastically cut asylum, etc.

He's done pretty well in following through, by my book.

Anyway, here's some good news. Insiders acknowledge that if trump is prosecuted criminally, he's in big trouble because the legal profession hates him and refuses to work with him. Karma.

zgcpvwzu wrote:

I should clarify.

I think the case for insurrection or sedition is flimsy.

Trump is quite clearly a coward, and so hardly a candidate as an insurrectionist. He would never answer the call of country and duty; he would happily pay some illegal under the table to take his place; that's obviously his style. He speaks in scorn of our military and of its volunteers.

The case for sedition is plausible, but weak I think. He was vague; not only because he rambles and has problems with coherence and dementia, but also on purpose I think. Again, as we have seen played out for four years in his rambling and incessantly whining tweets, he lives his life in constant fear, and he was afraid of getting in too much trouble.

Trump is being tried for "Incitement of insurrection". He is not being tried for committing insurrection.

So we have two incontrovertible facts that prove Trump's guilt:

1. The insurrection happened. We all saw it.

2. Trump incited the insurrection. We all heard the speeches and saw the tweets.

The evidence for incitement is as direct as it gets. There is nothing flimsy about the case at all.

agip wrote:

zgcpvwzu wrote:

or to carry through on almost any of his promises,.

really? This is crazy talk. Trump carried through on many, many things. Most things, I'd say. Paris, Iran, lower taxes, right wing judges, cut regulation, make the libs cry a lot, tell white christians they are persecuted, fight against the free press, get NATO to spend more on defense, pull away from international connections, push for more carbon burning, push for worse fleet fuel mileage, slow immigration, make the economy grow well, high employment, drastically cut asylum, etc.

He's done pretty well in following through, by my book.

Anyway, here's some good news. Insiders acknowledge that if trump is prosecuted criminally, he's in big trouble because the legal profession hates him and refuses to work with him. Karma.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-in-trouble-bad-lawyers/

Anyone could walk away from the Paris Accords and the Iran deal. Those are not accomplishments. With a Republican controlled Senate, it was easy to have right-wing judges approved. Cutting regulations was just signing EOs that he probably didn't read. The lower taxes were negotiated by other people and Trump couldn't provide a single detail if asked. The other stuff on your list are just things he did that didn't require any persuasion skills. He did set records for number of tweets, hours watching T.V. and rounds of golf that will never be approached by future POTUS.

In regard to his defense team, a top of the line attorney isn't going to take the case. The attorneys that left his team were probably competent, but the remaing attorneys are 2nd rate.

He'll never be tried in criminal court. It would be impossible to put together an impartial jury in a country where people either hate him or love him. There would be at least one Trump fanatic masquerading as a normal person in any jury.

The question is whether those people who stormed the Capitol would have done it otherwise without the provocation of Trump's words and actions.

Did Trump incite them or would they have done it anyway?

An update on the Georgia situation. The Fulton County DA has officially opened a criminal investigation into Trump's conduct. As I understand it, this would allow prosecution without going through the office of the Republican Attorney General, Christopher Carr.

Fulton County is where the alleged crime was committed and it's a Democratic stronghold. I'm now thinking that this has a pretty good chance of going forward.

L L wrote:

The question is whether those people who stormed the Capitol would have done it otherwise without the provocation of Trump's words and actions.

Did Trump incite them or would they have done it anyway?

Of course they wouldn't have. Without Trump, they wouldn't have even known that electoral votes were to be counted on 1/6.

His reaction when the Capitol was attacked is 100% evidence that he wanted more from his supporters than just a peaceful demonstration.

L L wrote:

The question is whether those people who stormed the Capitol would have done it otherwise without the provocation of Trump's words and actions.

Did Trump incite them or would they have done it anyway?

Incitement is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime. Whether the person is likely to do it or not is of no consequence.

How ya doin’ mr president?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/us/politics/trump-georgia-investigation.html

You feeling ok, Mr President?

The Biden administration has “indefinitely” shelved a proposed U.S. takeover of the popular video app TikTok, according to a Wall Street Journal report. Last year, the Trump administration brokered a deal that would have had U.S. corporations Oracle and Walmart take a large stake in the Chinese-owned app on national-security grounds.

The unusual arrangement stemmed from an order by then-President Donald Trump that aimed to ban TikTok in the U.S. unless it accepted a greater degree of American control.

Fat hurts wrote:

2. Trump incited the insurrection. We all heard the speeches and saw the tweets.

This idea that his speech on January 6 being the main/only thing that caused the insurrection is nonsense. It started when he began to attack and draw into question (without just cause or evidence in favor of) the voting process and it continued with all the tweets and retweets about election fraud prior to and after the election. His speech on January 6 wasn't him lighting the match (so to speak), that was just him pouring fuel on fire. He spent 5 months stacking the wood and it was right here when he lit and tossed in the match (go to 1:20 mark)

The moment he claimed he won the election is the moment he incited the insurrection. The nonsense since was him simply adding more fuel to the spreading fire. "Stop the Steal." He promoted it, so he owns it. And as such should own what happened on January 6

Trump's inaction during the attack on the Capitol is further evidence that he should be held responsible. Here is small piece of the timeline. I left out a lot of stuff, but included the things that refer to my argument:

..at 1:49 p.m.: Trump retweets a video of the rally, which includes his previous statements that: “our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you came up with, we will stop the steal. . . You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

1:59 p.m.: Sund receives the first report that rioters have reached the Capitol’s doors and windows and are attempting to break at least one window.

OVER 2 HOURS AFTER THE START OF THE ATTACK BY HIS SUPPORTERS

4:17 p.m.: Trump tweets a video telling rioters, “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… 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.”

ALMOST 2 HOURS AFTER THAT

6:01 p.m.: Trump tweets: “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!”

You can see full timeline from here:

https://billmoyers.com/story/insurrection-timeline-first-the-coup-and-then-the-cover-up-updated/

It's interesting to see the media narrative change over the past two days. It used to be "Trump supporters are violent people." Now it's "Trump supporters are victims of Trump and it was actually Trump who caused the violence." And articles are coming out in the mainstream media about how the rioters had financial hardships, and digging deeper into their stories.

You can't blame the rioters if you are trying to blame Trump, so they had to change the narrative.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

L L wrote:

The question is whether those people who stormed the Capitol would have done it otherwise without the provocation of Trump's words and actions.

Did Trump incite them or would they have done it anyway?

Of course they wouldn't have. Without Trump, they wouldn't have even known that electoral votes were to be counted on 1/6.

His reaction when the Capitol was attacked is 100% evidence that he wanted more from his supporters than just a peaceful demonstration.

What do you mean they wouldn't have??? They had planned this for 2 weeks. The FBI said this had been preplanned. You can not incite something that is already taking place. Think!!! You Dems have blinders on. You all are maybe just trolling us. You really can't be this dense.

responder wrote:

It's interesting to see the media narrative change over the past two days. It used to be "Trump supporters are violent people." Now it's "Trump supporters are victims of Trump and it was actually Trump who caused the violence." And articles are coming out in the mainstream media about how the rioters had financial hardships, and digging deeper into their stories.

You can't blame the rioters if you are trying to blame Trump, so they had to change the narrative.

Why can't we blame both?

I haven't noticed a change in any narrative. I don't doubt that you've seen some stories like you describe, but I don't see any overall change.

responder wrote:

You can't blame the rioters if you are trying to blame Trump.

Are you stupid or what?