My thoughts, as a liberal, on the Trump indictment

[zep73]

I usually avoid political discussions, because they always get so hateful and ruin my good mood. But sometimes things get so stupid, you have to react. I hope I won't regret this.

It is no secret that I dislike Trump, and that it brought me great joy when he lost the 2020 election. The reason for this is not that he's republican, or that he's conservative, or that he's right wing. The reason is that he's a selfish person. A divider. Someone who'd gladly sacrifice the safety of his people and country for his own benefit.
I have beloved friends who support Trump, and I respect that. We just don't agree about him.

I however think that indicting him is a huge mistake, because, what is the purpose of the law? Is it not to keep the peace? To keep everybody safe? Does the law stand above people's safety? If it does, something is terribly wrong with it.
This indictment will only destabilize the US further. It will enlargen the divide. It will turn Trump into a martyr. He is the only one who will benefit from it.

What the US needs right now is more tolerance and more communication between the wings. Not this re-ignition of the hate. The left has shot itself in the foot, and no nonsense about "nobody is above the law" can justify it. Peace is above the law, and this is most likely seen as a declaration of war by his supporters.

One could add that this indictment is not political, but just justice being served, but when the indicted is a former president, it gets political, no matter what narrative you try to use.

[MGB]

You know, Trump has had almost 4,000 lawsuits in his life. This isn't really a normal thing, but regardless, he has won some and lost some. Yet if he is charged with these other possible indictments that he is calling a witch-hunt and partisan, then he will have his day in court to prove the charges were indeed a witch-hunt and he is innocent of the charges.

The problem is as a billionaire the man pays less taxes than the common man, and Michael Cohen alerted congress to how Trump would inflate his wealth for loans, and lower his wealth come tax time. And with 17 convictions from the Trump organization for tax fraud, it appears Michael Cohen was right. There was no witch hunt as Trump called it.

Next Letitia James is looking into Trump and his children for tax fraud with a trial date sometime in 2023. The evidence must be overwhelming to go to trial especially in light of the Trump organization convictions.

On the access Hollywood tape Trump can be heard boasting about what he would do to women. He didn't wait, or ask, he would come right up kiss em, grab em by the &^**% and the sad part is, years earlier in sworn deposition Trump had a few women accuse his of exactly what he admitted on the tape. A few women were payed off for silence, and a few were discredited naturally, by Trump - as liars. 

In Georgia Trump called an did try to overturn the election there. The words he spoke were discredited by his own team sent to Georgia who found no evidence of voter fraud. And those words will come back to haunt him - unless he can prove in court what he said on the phone.

What was the purpose of January 6th other than to pressure Mike Pence to unlawfully overturn the election with false electors? Mike Pence said he had no Constitutional authority to do so, and the Constitution lays out how electors are chosen, and the false electors were unconstitutional.

Regardless of all of Trumps supposed criminality, his supporters will believe that a man being lawfully prosecuted in a court of law with evidence to support the verdict was just a kangaroo court. In other words, laws do not apply to Trump in their eyes.

So, it is not hatred of the man, or TDS, just accountability.

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

40 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I however think that indicting him is a huge mistake, because, what is the purpose of the law? Is it not to keep the peace? To keep everybody safe? Does the law stand above people's safety? If it does, something is terribly wrong with it.
This indictment will only destabilize the US further. It will enlargen the divide. It will turn Trump into a martyr. He is the only one who will benefit from it.

I think we need some much better evidence that indicting him is going to be a threat to safety.  He calls regularly for rallies and protests and they haven't really been overwhelmingly attended, leading me to believe that he has a small core of diehard believers like most popular politicians have.  I don't know why you think 'nobody is above the law' is nonsense; differences in how different people are treated by the law have historically been the cause of some of our largest protests and threats to safety.  I don't think it's going to enlargen the divide, I doubt that many people are going to become Trump diehards all of a sudden because he was indicted.

What else should we not do because of this reasoning?  No more impeachments ever for any President because of the inevitable division it will cause?

[+Desertrat56]

57 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I however think that indicting him is a huge mistake, because, what is the purpose of the law? Is it not to keep the peace? To keep everybody safe? 

I think you are confused.   Letting any politician or rich person get away with breaking laws of any kind because of the fear of riots or violence by idiots who support that person is wrong.  The law exists for a reason and everyone should abide by it.   It doesn't matter if you like the florida man or not, or if you think he is innocent or not.  A grand jury deemed it necessary to indict him.   LIke @MGB said, he has been skating with too many civil suits against him over the decades to make anyone pause, 4000 is excessively high number of suits and they have not been proven frivolous for the most part.   He is not an honest man and like someone else said, he gets to go to court and prove his innocence if he can.   

My biggest problem about the whole thing is that it is obvious that not only the florida man, but many other politicians expect to be immune from the same laws they are supposed to uphold for the rest of us.  And the florida man flaunts it, his narcissism is at a sociopathic level, and sometimes looks psychopathic to me.

It seems to me that you are fearful of something that will most likely not happen.  If it was going to happen it would have been last Tuesday when the silly man lied and called for protests against the NYC courts.   4 people showed up, does that look like anyone is in danger?  In the city I live in we had a small group with signs and U.S. flags saying "Maga Loosers!" on the signs.   They were not supporting the florida man.   

Maybe you just need a vacation from the media and the computer.   And I don't expect anyone on this forum to spew hate towards you over your post.  You are being honest about what you are thinking and even someone who doesn't agree with you has no reason to be angry you posted it.  If they are that is THEIR problem, not yours.   

[zep73]

@MGB  @Liquid Gardens @Desertrat56 Thanks for your replies. Please allow me some time to reflect over them. If I do not reply, it means I have no objections.

[zep73]

52 minutes ago, MGB said:

You know, Trump has had almost 4,000 lawsuits in his life. This isn't really a normal thing, but regardless, he has won some and lost some. Yet if he is charged with these other possible indictments that he is calling a witch-hunt and partisan, then he will have his day in court to prove the charges were indeed a witch-hunt and he is innocent of the charges.

The problem is as a billionaire the man pays less taxes than the common man, and Michael Cohen alerted congress to how Trump would inflate his wealth for loans, and lower his wealth come tax time. And with 17 convictions from the Trump organization for tax fraud, it appears Michael Cohen was right. There was no witch hunt as Trump called it.

Next Letitia James is looking into Trump and his children for tax fraud with a trial date sometime in 2023. The evidence must be overwhelming to go to trial especially in light of the Trump organization convictions.

On the access Hollywood tape Trump can be heard boasting about what he would do to women. He didn't wait, or ask, he would come right up kiss em, grab em by the &^**% and the sad part is, years earlier in sworn deposition Trump had a few women accuse his of exactly what he admitted on the tape. A few women were payed off for silence, and a few were discredited naturally, by Trump - as liars. 

In Georgia Trump called an did try to overturn the election there. The words he spoke were discredited by his own team sent to Georgia who found no evidence of voter fraud. And those words will come back to haunt him - unless he can prove in court what he said on the phone.

What was the purpose of January 6th other than to pressure Mike Pence to unlawfully overturn the election with false electors? Mike Pence said he had no Constitutional authority to do so, and the Constitution lays out how electors are chosen, and the false electors were unconstitutional.

Regardless of all of Trumps supposed criminality, his supporters will believe that a man being lawfully prosecuted in a court of law with evidence to support the verdict was just a kangaroo court. In other words, laws do not apply to Trump in their eyes.

So, it is not hatred of the man, or TDS, just accountability.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think you are confused.   Letting any politician or rich person get away with breaking laws of any kind because of the fear of riots or violence by idiots who support that person is wrong.  The law exists for a reason and everyone should abide by it.   It doesn't matter if you like the florida man or not, or if you think he is innocent or not.  A grand jury deemed it necessary to indict him.   LIke @MGB said, he has been skating with too many civil suits against him over the decades to make anyone pause, 4000 is excessively high number of suits and they have not been proven frivolous for the most part.   He is not an honest man and like someone else said, he gets to go to court and prove his innocence if he can.   

My biggest problem about the whole thing is that it is obvious that not only the florida man, but many other politicians expect to be immune from the same laws they are supposed to uphold for the rest of us.  And the florida man flaunts it, his narcissism is at a sociopathic level, and sometimes looks psychopathic to me.

It seems to me that you are fearful of something that will most likely not happen.  If it was going to happen it would have been last Tuesday when the silly man lied and called for protests against the NYC courts.   4 people showed up, does that look like anyone is in danger?  In the city I live in we had a small group with signs and U.S. flags saying "Maga Loosers!" on the signs.   They were not supporting the florida man.   

Maybe you just need a vacation from the media and the computer.   And I don't expect anyone on this forum to spew hate towards you over your post.  You are being honest about what you are thinking and even someone who doesn't agree with you has no reason to be angry you posted it.  If they are that is THEIR problem, not yours.   

 

But is he not a symbol, for a huge minority of the American people, and as such, should he not be treated as such symbol, rather than a normal man? I mean, he is dirty and rotten, but he can cause much more harm being attacked than being ignored. Sometimes the wisest action is no action at all.

 

57 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think we need some much better evidence that indicting him is going to be a threat to safety.  He calls regularly for rallies and protests and they haven't really been overwhelmingly attended, leading me to believe that he has a small core of diehard believers like most popular politicians have.  I don't know why you think 'nobody is above the law' is nonsense; differences in how different people are treated by the law have historically been the cause of some of our largest protests and threats to safety.  I don't think it's going to enlargen the divide, I doubt that many people are going to become Trump diehards all of a sudden because he was indicted.

What else should we not do because of this reasoning?  No more impeachments ever for any President because of the inevitable division it will cause?

Are you willing to take that risk, in a historical perspective? Attack a hero for millions? Risk instability for a single act of righteousness?

My personal feeling of justice might be satisfied, but at what cost?

[+Desertrat56]

3 minutes ago, zep73 said:

 

 

But is he not a symbol, for a huge minority of the American people, and as such, should he not be treated as such symbol, rather than a normal man? I mean, he is dirty and rotten, but he can cause much more harm being attacked than being ignored. Sometimes the wisest action is no action at all.

 

Are you willing to take that risk, in a historical perspective? Attack a hero for millions? Risk instability for a single act of righteousness?

My personal feeling of justice might be satisfied, but at what cost?

He is not a hero to very many people, the media makes it seem like he is but he isn't.  Proof of that is what happened (or didn't happen) last Tuesday.   And you contradict yourself using the phrase "huge minority".   A minority by definition is not huge.   And there are fewer supporters of the florida man now than 6 months ago.  Much fewer than 5 years ago.   You need to realize that a lot (many) 30 to 40 year olds voted for Donald the first time because they hated Hilary.   They realized their mistake and did not vote for him the in 2020.   The media is designed to keep everyone on edge and fearful, divided and untrusting of their neighbors.   When you hear a news story that evokes fear, stop, look around and see if you actually see that in your local area, or is it that some neighborhood in a big city thousands or hundreds of miles away had an incident, and the media portrayed it as "what is going on all over the country".   You can check the AP news instead of choosing a skewed media source to find out what is going on.  Also, find the same stories from BBC, Al Jazira, Telemundo and see if they synch up.

[acidhead]

1 hour ago, MGB said:

In Georgia Trump called an did try to overturn the election there. 

No Trump didn't try to overturn the election in Georgia. You're being misled. Calling the governor, raising the numerous election issues and then asking him to look into those claims is not "trying to overturn the election". 

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, zep73 said:

One could add that this indictment is not political, but just justice being served,

The flaw in your argument is that we've seen several DC democrats who have done far worse damage to the country but who are given a pass.  I won't argue with anyone about it but millions of Americans see the double standard.  The rest of your position I agree with wholeheartedly.  We need to back off, take a deep breath and begin looking for rational solutions and compromise.

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

And you contradict yourself using the phrase "huge minority".   A minority by definition is not huge.

Thanks for your reply.

When I use the term "huge minority" I take the minority as a whole and make it an item. And of that item, the specific group, in this case, is huge. It may sound contradictive, but if you analyze it, it's not.

[+and-then]

17 minutes ago, zep73 said:

But is he not a symbol, for a huge minority of the American people, and as such, should he not be treated as such symbol, rather than a normal man? I mean, he is dirty and rotten, but he can cause much more harm being attacked than being ignored. Sometimes the wisest action is no action at all.

Yes, he definitely IS a symbol.  The media has sown division and hate by using unfounded accusations and slanders against the guy for years.  Their biggest lie is when they mock his supporters as a cult who worship him.  There is some of that, to be sure but not the majority of his voters.  Those who've been convinced that he is evil, see his supporters about the same way.  The reality is that his supporters have no one else who is willing to call out the corruption in DC or work to bring the country back to some sanity.  

He gets votes because his message resonates.  The Left don't just hate him, they fear him and his supporters.  They have reached the point where they feel they have the right to hold onto power, regardless of the vote or the "irregularities" that seem to happen in every election now.  On the Right, there is no indication that there will be any violence.  Those who say there is, are lairs, plain and simple.  The gravest danger our nation faces today is the tribalism and the hate that has separated us to the point where we no longer feel we can trust our elections.

Those elections are the ONLY thing holding this nation together.  Between the issues with how the elections are held and the obvious legal double standards, those on the Right may very well just walk away.  That may seem like a huge win for Democrats but the truth is, we will walk away from the process, call it what it is - illegitimate - and stop obeying any laws that are passed or abused against one group but not the others.  That will come if things continue on the current path.  Let me be clear - I said we'd ignore/disobey illegitimate laws.  I didn't say there would be any violence erupting on some wide scale.  That won't be necessary.  

[zep73]

Sometimes children are the best to remind us of how silly we adults can be sometimes.

This is a song by rock band Carpark North called "Human"

 

[Golden Duck]

48 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Are you willing to take that risk, in a historical perspective? Attack a hero for millions? Risk instability for a single act of righteousness?

My personal feeling of justice might be satisfied, but at what cost?

Which version of the Cult do we believe?  The mob that cheers they will take back the country, or the mob that says they did nothing on 6 January?

The cult says their bark is worse than their bite, and The Other has a much worse bite.

[+Desertrat56]

1 hour ago, zep73 said:

Thanks for your reply.

When I use the term "huge minority" I take the minority as a whole and make it an item. And of that item, the specific group, in this case, is huge. It may sound contradictive, but if you analyze it, it's not.

I don't see any huge cohesive group supporting the florida man. 

Edited March 31 by Desertrat56

[MGB]

1 hour ago, acidhead said:

No Trump didn't try to overturn the election in Georgia. You're being misled. Calling the governor, raising the numerous election issues and then asking him to look into those claims is not "trying to overturn the election". 

If he has zero proof Georgia was stolen and then he asked him to "find the votes" yes, he did.

[Tatetopa]

I would suggest that there is yet another justification.

There is an old story about a pirate being brought to the throne of Alexander the Great.  Alexander condemns him to death and berates him for disrupting the peace of the seas, murdering innocents, and stealing their treasure.  The pirate is defiant.  "How am I any different from you?  You conquer nations, murder the citizens, loot their treasure and then enforce you pleasure upon them."   Alexander was reputed to reply, but I bet  the pirate probably didn't get off for his defiance.

We cannot live in a world of seven billion people in which we allow pirates and conquerors to dominate us to keep the peace.  Slowly, slowly the world is changing.    A conqueror can produce a slave state, or death and destruction to enemy groups, but they cannot produce peace and prosperity and freedom for the bulk of mankind. 

Laws are not for the benefit of conquerors but for the populace.  Laws can guarantee some modicum of just and predictable behavior, consequences for actions, and personal accountability.  Many of my fellow Americans believe the Second Amendment is incorporated for just such a purpose, as a last resort against conquerors foreign or domestic.  But before we invoke that last resort, which will certainly result in death, destruction, and disruption, there is the Law.

[Setton]

3 hours ago, zep73 said:

Does the law stand above people's safety?

Another way of phrasing that is, 'should the law apply regardless of the threats made by those who break the law?'

And absolutely it should.

I understand your sentiment but what your saying essentially boils down to 'if you have enough supporters and they're violent enough, you're above the law'.

That's a very dangerous precedent on every side.

[zep73]

4 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I don't see any huge cohesive group supporting the florida man.  I see a 

Although your message was cut short, I get what you mean.

This indictment however will make that group grow. 35% (estimated) will become 40%. And then 45%. Catch my drift? Action creates reaction. In this case unwanted reaction.

[+Desertrat56]

12 minutes ago, MGB said:

If he has zero proof Georgia was stolen and then he asked him to "find the votes" yes, he did.

Does acidhead even live in the U.S.?   If not he doesn't know anything about it.

[MGB]

3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Does acidhead even live in the U.S.?   If not he doesn't know anything about it.

Not sure. I think he lives in Trumps head.

[zep73]

9 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

I would suggest that there is yet another justification.

There is an old story about a pirate being brought to the throne of Alexander the Great.  Alexander condemns him to death and berates him for disrupting the peace of the seas, murdering innocents, and stealing their treasure.  The pirate is defiant.  "How am I any different from you?  You conquer nations, murder the citizens, loot their treasure and then enforce you pleasure upon them."   Alexander was reputed to reply, but I bet  the pirate probably didn't get off for his defiance.

We cannot live in a world of seven billion people in which we allow pirates and conquerors to dominate us to keep the peace.  Slowly, slowly the world is changing.    A conqueror can produce a slave state, or death and destruction to enemy groups, but they cannot produce peace and prosperity and freedom for the bulk of mankind. 

Laws are not for the benefit of conquerors but for the populace.  Laws can guarantee some modicum of just and predictable behavior, consequences for actions, and personal accountability.  Many of my fellow Americans believe the Second Amendment is incorporated for just such a purpose, as a last resort against conquerors foreign or domestic.  But before we invoke that last resort, which will certainly result in death, destruction, and disruption, there is the Law.

 

11 minutes ago, Setton said:

Another way of phrasing that is, 'should the law apply regardless of the threats made by those who break the law?'

And absolutely it should.

I understand your sentiment but what your saying essentially boils down to 'if you have enough supporters and they're violent enough, you're above the law'.

That's a very dangerous precedent on every side.

 

But you're assuming that the law is wise.

The law is just a human attempt to make perfect rules for all. It is as flawed as we are.

[zep73]

7 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Does acidhead even live in the U.S.?   If not he doesn't know anything about it.

He's Canadian.

[Tatetopa]

24 minutes ago, zep73 said:

 

 

But you're assuming that the law is wise.

The law is just a human attempt to make perfect rules for all. It is as flawed as we are.

The law is no wiser than we are, and the law has evolved with us and our civilizations.  I think humans and the law will continue toward wisdom and justice.   JMO.  

[zep73]

1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

The law is no wiser than we are, and the law has evolved with us and our civilizations.  I think humans and the law will continue toward wisdom and justice.   JMO.  

I concur!

[Setton]

27 minutes ago, zep73 said:

 

 

But you're assuming that the law is wise.

The law is just a human attempt to make perfect rules for all. It is as flawed as we are.

If that is the case then the law should be changed, not disregarded because someone threatens violence if persecuted.