Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

The Founding Fathers would have horse whipped someone like Trump, or tarred and feathered, or just shot him in a duel.

They would never have intended a man like Trump to be anywhere near the office of the President.

In a move that seems to have surprised Rep Matt Gaetz, the former speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy on a Tuesday visit to Capitol Hill, passed comment on Gaetz's house resolution to defend Trump from accusations of leading an insurrection on Jan 6th 2020 and shield Trump from legal challenges to kick him off the 2024 ballot around the country. McCarthy also made reference to Gaetz and the ethics committee hearing into him, claiming Gaetz had asked him to do something about it [while speaker] but he told him he couldn't as it would have been illegal. He also referred to Gaetz as "probably also lying about whom he sleeps with too". Gaetz said 70 members of the house had joined him in the resolution, had moved on, and asked why he had not moved on, referring to McCarthy as the disgraced former speaker.

It seems the GOP members on the Hill are still intent on gutting themselves as much as gutting the Democrats.

They always say he will appeal, but has he ever won them?

Seems a strange strategy to set out to lose his cases so that he can then appeal. Why not just win the first time?

Because the facts are against him. Any appeals will be in technicalities.

On this fraud trial he has been shown to have committed fraud on many occasions. And let us not forget its not the 1st time. Trump University. His charity. So before anyone claims political timing, were they political as well?

And far from having time for appeals, he faces into the criminal trial about the hush money. Which he has already admitted to.

Bring some semblance of evidence to the DAs office and they can pursue it.

You do realise that Trump isn't the first or only business to be held legally accountable for fraud? Or do you actually think Trump is the only one ever.

Still, it's a pretty poor position to be in when all you've got is to claim that others should be tried as well.

Does that mean that you believe Trump has been properly treated under the law or that he has been mistreated? If mistreated why would you want anyoneelse to suffer the same?

Come on, we all know what is going on, every democrat in a position of power is doing their bit to take him out, it's hardly a secret, it's looking like it's going to backfire this plan, as Trump seems to get more popular, I said it before, a couple more losses in courts and the White House is his , this is a big step towards it. He just needs another huge loss now, the people of America can see it for what it is, and are going to vote that way, it's sad that in 2024 the US is acting like Russia.

Those look like real crimes, fire insurance fraud, failing to declare income etc, Trump crime was valuing his assets, even though the banks had to do their own due diligence , before making decisions about the security of loans. Who exactly did Trump defraud of money, no one it seems in this case. In general anyone who owns property, cars, houses would value them more than an outsider would, even to this day Trump values Mar a Lago in the 100s of millions, while Judge said it was estimated at 18m - 27m. The judge said the value Trump has on it of 350m or more was indeed fraud.

But Forbes valued it at 350m plus also. Even independent real estate agents value it at over 400m

So yea, court is wrong, you'd not even buy the land it sits on for 18m.

That rape case would not stand up in a European court, ZERO evidence, even cases with evidence are rarely won, but in Trumps case there was ZERO evidence, but he lost. It's nuts.

The way I look at it is, if the people of America vote for Trump as president, respect the will of the people.

In all fairness she's out there to say the least.

Your theory is that the Democrats have infiltrated and corrupted the entire legal system of the US.

That they have done so in such a way as that his defence counsel as at no stage being able to put up any evidence.

This, despite Trump being in power for 4 years. During which he could have rooted out thos clear corruption. But he didn't. In fact anytime a minority group like BLM raised the possibility that the legal system was weighed against them were quickly told how everyone was treated the same under the law.

You claim that no real laws were broken so it should have been really easy for Trumps lawyers to get the case thrown out.

And what about his previous fraud findings. Trump University. Trumps charity. Not to mention his well documented lying. All before he even got into politics.

But you have come to the conclusion, with no evidence more than 'I think', that this is all a vast conspiracy coming from a party that let the SCOTUS being loaded by the GOP such that cases like Roe v Wade have been overturned.

There was also no defence. Trump didn't take the stand. He had his opportunity to proclaim his innocence under oath and refused to take it. Why is that?

Do you think Trump was innocent of all charges? As in him/his company didn't inflate assets to get preferable loan rates?

Well, he's still alive, so no, the US is not acting like Russia.

Question for you.

Is it possible for Trump to break the law?

Any law btw, not just high crimes or fraud.

And of he was able to break the law, who should try him?

Respect the will of the people like inciting an insurrection that led to an attack on Congress?

Even the Supreme court called it a riot. If you look at insurrections throughout history you'll see how violent they are, it's one hell of a coincidence that every person on Jan 6th forgot their weapons while planing a insurrection, and that the front lines contained little old ladies waving flags. It was a riot with the aim of having their voice heard, of course it still was an abominable showing of patriotism.

The issue got got him was he valued it one way for the banks and another for taxes. You are right that valuations are subjective but he added sq footage where it didn't exist.

He tried to argue that valuations are subjective but it fell down when a different valuation method was used for reporting.

Why do you think he did that?

And while you continue to claim its all political, you continue to ignore that Trump has already had fraud found against him. Most notably for Trump University and his charity. Both were before he entered politics.

Are you claiming that the Democrats were already working on politicising Trump years ago but waiting until he had won one election and then lost another before doing anything?