ChiGoose

Sure. 40-45% of them trust the GOP right now. More likely that they *stop* supporting the GOP if it turns away from Trumpism.

For some people, democracy is only good so long as it yields the results they want. In the face of a future in which their ideas are rejected, the GOP has opted not to adjust its policies to be more popular, but to instead reject democracy itself.

Turns out that a platform of things that are unpopular to Americans ends up being unpopular with Americans. Who could have thought?

No we don’t. You’re smarter than this.

I feel like it would end up complicating everything. Revoking bail on a former president / current presidential candidate would be a huge story and something that Trump would immediately appeal, which could delay the proceedings. It’s clear that Trump isn’t interested in a strong defense or legal strategy, he just wants to delay until he can get elected and dismiss the case. It’s a unique problem we have never seen before. Revoking his bail gives him another weapon to use for delay and to whip up his supporters. That being said, if he really and truly, unambiguously starts attempting to intimidate witnesses, there may be no other choice.

True. And while there’s no legal basis for treating an ex-president differently than a regular citizen in this context, I can’t say I blame the judge. I would probably do the same thing.

Nah. Seems like they’re only charging him with crimes that they have a lot of evidence that he committed.

Even if he violates the protective order, I imagine the judge is going to be very reluctant to revoke bail. Trump’s going to get a lot of leeway here that wouldn’t be available to people like us. It would probably take something obvious and egregious for that to happen. That being said, if it does happen he won’t be the first person to run for president from jail. And nothing prevents him from running from jail or even winning and serving while in jail (in that event, I imagine his sentence would be suspended for the duration of his term but there’s not much precedent here).

In addition to the Conspiracy to Defraud the US charge that we saw, I’ve been expecting wire fraud charges to come out of this investigation as well. I’m wondering if that’s what they are still looking into.

If you can’t tell the difference between someone acting on the orders of the President of the United States, in conjunction with support from US allies, and someone telling a state official to change vote tallies, then I really gotta question your grasp on reality.

Many such acts are alleged in the indictment.

I think is a pretty telling thing that’s common from people on the right today: They just make ***t up. And if the facts don’t match their narrative, they just ignore the facts. Feelings over facts, all day every day. You don’t know jack about me but it doesn’t matter because the fictional version of me you’ve made up in your head fits your narrative and allows you to divert from the topic at hand when it’s convenient to you.

No, you very much are wrong. But you’re so sure of yourself that it is impossible for you to believe you’re wrong even when you very much are.

Fixed. Thanks.

Wow. Completely wrong. But shouldn’t be surprising. You seem to be unable to read and like to project your insecurities about your deficiencies on others.

Ironic coming from the moron who brags about how many people he’s blocked. I don’t care about Ray Epps. Wouldn’t mind at all if he’s charged with a crime. Just find it funny that Trump defenders need him to excuse MAGA behavior because they believe MAGA people are dumb as hell.

I’ve made no such claim. And you haven’t cited me supporting them either. You’re just making stuff up based on your assumptions and not any facts. Then you’re casting aspersions on me based on what you’ve decided I said and did without any evidence that I said and did them. I would encourage you to try something along the lines of a 6th grade reading comprehension class. It might do you wonders.

Here’s a fun idea. Instead of making up stuff about people, maybe just listen to what they are actually saying. Might be tough, reading seems to be difficult for a lot of people here, but maybe you’ll surprise yourself if you give it a try.

Can you cite evidence of me saying the things you accuse me of?

This is my favorite thread. Their argument is that Trump supporters are so gullible and stupid that a guy saying “commit crimes” means that they have no choice but to commit crimes. It’s an entire thread of people trying to convince people how stupid they are. And they’re very convincing!

People get charged with conspiracy even if they don’t get charged with another crime because requiring that the crime be done successfully in order to charge someone is dumb. (Queue Sideshow Bob: “Attempted murder. Now honestly what is that? Can you win a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?”) Also, Trump was charged with a non-conspiracy charge in the indictment anyway. For people who are unfamiliar with indictments, a good place to start is to look at the specific statutes cited and what their elements are. You can only be convicted of a crime if you meet all of the elements of the crime as defined in the statute. The job of the prosecutor is to convince a jury that all of the elements are met beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, Trump was charged with violating a handful statutes, so we can check the elements of those statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States Elements: -Two or more persons -Conspire to either commit an offense against the US or to defraud the US or any agency thereof -In any manner or for any purpose -One or more of such persons do any effect to the object of the conspiracy 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) - Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding This is a bit of a catch-all that basically states that you face the same penalties for conspiring to commit any offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 as you would for actually committing one. 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), 2 - Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding Elements: -Someone corruptly either: -Obstructs -Influences -Impedes -Any official proceeding OR -Attempts the above 18 U.S.C. § 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights Elements: -Two or more people conspire to do any of: -Injure -Oppress -Threaten -Intimidate -Any person in any state, territory, Commonwealth, possession, or district -In the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution; Or -Two or more persons -Go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another -With intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution

Comey didn’t indict Hillary because he would have lost the case. He did, however, give Trump a nice gift with his October surprise.

Conspiracy to commit crimes is a crime. Just because you don’t succeed in your end goal doesn’t mean you didn’t commit a crime by taking steps towards it. It’s not a weak case. The evidence is pretty strong. It’s not as strong as the documents case though. That’s basically the closest you can get to a sure thing for a prosecutor.

I honestly believe that those lies were less about Trump and more about enshrining the unitary executive belief that the president is basically a king. The idea that the president is capable of committing crimes is laughable if you believe all power is vested in the president.

He was pretty run of the mill conservative in his first stint as AG. Big proponent of the unitary executive but that’s not that far out of the mainstream for conservatives.