5 ms·

Innocent until proven guilty. AFAIK Trump has not been convicted of any "illegal activity" in that regard.

Bud 4y ago
He's been proven guilty. He did it on live tv. The fact that he still has enough political power to avoid execution for sedition, or any responsibility whatsoever for this crime, does not have any effect on the truth value of my statement.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  >”He's been proven guilty. He did it on live tv.” Proven guilty in the court of public perception, perhaps, but certainly not in a court of law.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- lenkite 4y ago
  proven guilty of what ? Any evidence ?
  - LightG 4y ago
    We could get into the detail but I won't, it's a waste of time here. But the very denial of the election result, and all that stems from that, is enough. If you can't see that, then you're a bigger fool than most of us.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      Lots of people deny the 2000 election. Lots of people deny the 2016 election. Lots of people deny the 2020 election. Why is denial of 2020 worse than any of the others? Stacy Abrams is still claiming her election was stolen. Denial of elections is quite common in the US.
      - lp0_on_fire 4y ago
        Usually when this point is brought up you get swarms of comments saying "well that's different". The only "different" things I see are the political affiliations.
      - LightG 4y ago
        * mumbles something about 'lots of people' are not the POTUS in the face of countless, countless court hearings to confirm that fraud didn't take place at scale and the result was valid. * opines about the effect these continual denials have on a rabid, angry ... loser ... voter base. * the result? Jan 6. If you can't see that, good luck. It's f@cking so simple.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Regardless of the legal technicalities that do or don't enable it, executing or imprisoning former heads of state is counterproductive if the goal is to ensure continued peaceful transitions of power.
- seanw444 4y ago
  Man it's a scary state of affairs when people unflinchingly support execution of a President that literally didn't incite a riot. And that they think it was a genuine attempt at a coup. All I'm saying is, I think it's pretty obvious which side has most of the guns in this day in age. I don't recall seeing many armed that day. Actually I don't recall hearing about any. Except for, of course, all the obvious undercover agents watching it unfold. Who in their right mind attempts a coup without arms? I guess by having the police let them in the doors?
  - phailhaus 4y ago
    Ignorance is not an excuse. 1. Trump attempted to use fake electors to overturn the election in his favor. [1] 2. The wife of a Supreme Court Justice pursued efforts to overturn the election. [2] 3. There were tons of communications between senior members and the Trump admin on how to overturn the election. [3] 4. The Oath Keepers, an armed militia group, stood by on Jan 6 ready to "swoop in" on a signal. [4] 5. And of course, the President of the United States of America told his followers that "if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore". And "We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved." And "Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about … We will stop the steal." And "Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong.”" And then told them he would march to the Capitol with them. [5] [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079835695/how-trump-sought-to-use-fake-electors-conspiracy-theories-to-remain-in-power https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079835695/how-trump-sought-t... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/virginia-thomas-mark-meadows-texts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/virginia-... [3] https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/mark-meadows-texts-2319/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/mark-meadows-texts-2... [4] https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-capitol-arrests/oath-keepers-militia-was-ready-on-jan-6-to-act-on-trumps-orders-prosecutors-say-idINKBN2AB24T https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-capitol-arrests/oa... [5] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-fight-like-hell-speech-extremely-calming-1270504/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-fi...
  - epakai 4y ago
spicymaki 4y ago
That is a technicality. You cannot convict the President of anything (he controls enforcement of the laws, has pardon power, etc.). The senate would need to impeach him, remove him from office (which would never happen due to Republican opposition), then convict him as a private citizen (which would never happen due to political norms).
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  You can convict a president of a state crime, just not federal crime.
  - spacemanmatt 4y ago
    That is false. The President enjoys immunity for many actions taken as President, but not all actions can be considered official, and not all actions are immunized. State charges, especially committed before taking federal office, are certainly possible.
- mccorrinall 4y ago
  He hasn’t been president for a year already. Yet no one even tried to bring him to court because of anything; all I see are some keyboard warriors who don’t get how the presumption of innocence works. He is not guilty just because some random comment says it. He is only guilty when a court says so.

Bud 4y ago

He's been proven guilty. He did it on live tv. The fact that he still has enough political power to avoid execution for sedition, or any responsibility whatsoever for this crime, does not have any effect on the truth value of my statement.

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
>”He's been proven guilty. He did it on live tv.” Proven guilty in the court of public perception, perhaps, but certainly not in a court of law.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lenkite 4y ago
proven guilty of what ? Any evidence ?
- LightG 4y ago
  We could get into the detail but I won't, it's a waste of time here. But the very denial of the election result, and all that stems from that, is enough. If you can't see that, then you're a bigger fool than most of us.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    Lots of people deny the 2000 election. Lots of people deny the 2016 election. Lots of people deny the 2020 election. Why is denial of 2020 worse than any of the others? Stacy Abrams is still claiming her election was stolen. Denial of elections is quite common in the US.
    - lp0_on_fire 4y ago
      Usually when this point is brought up you get swarms of comments saying "well that's different". The only "different" things I see are the political affiliations.
    - LightG 4y ago
      * mumbles something about 'lots of people' are not the POTUS in the face of countless, countless court hearings to confirm that fraud didn't take place at scale and the result was valid. * opines about the effect these continual denials have on a rabid, angry ... loser ... voter base. * the result? Jan 6. If you can't see that, good luck. It's f@cking so simple.
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Regardless of the legal technicalities that do or don't enable it, executing or imprisoning former heads of state is counterproductive if the goal is to ensure continued peaceful transitions of power.
seanw444 4y ago
Man it's a scary state of affairs when people unflinchingly support execution of a President that literally didn't incite a riot. And that they think it was a genuine attempt at a coup. All I'm saying is, I think it's pretty obvious which side has most of the guns in this day in age. I don't recall seeing many armed that day. Actually I don't recall hearing about any. Except for, of course, all the obvious undercover agents watching it unfold. Who in their right mind attempts a coup without arms? I guess by having the police let them in the doors?
- phailhaus 4y ago
  Ignorance is not an excuse. 1. Trump attempted to use fake electors to overturn the election in his favor. [1] 2. The wife of a Supreme Court Justice pursued efforts to overturn the election. [2] 3. There were tons of communications between senior members and the Trump admin on how to overturn the election. [3] 4. The Oath Keepers, an armed militia group, stood by on Jan 6 ready to "swoop in" on a signal. [4] 5. And of course, the President of the United States of America told his followers that "if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore". And "We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved." And "Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about … We will stop the steal." And "Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong.”" And then told them he would march to the Capitol with them. [5] [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079835695/how-trump-sought-to-use-fake-electors-conspiracy-theories-to-remain-in-power https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079835695/how-trump-sought-t... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/virginia-thomas-mark-meadows-texts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/virginia-... [3] https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/mark-meadows-texts-2319/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/mark-meadows-texts-2... [4] https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-capitol-arrests/oath-keepers-militia-was-ready-on-jan-6-to-act-on-trumps-orders-prosecutors-say-idINKBN2AB24T https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-capitol-arrests/oa... [5] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-fight-like-hell-speech-extremely-calming-1270504/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-fi...
- epakai 4y ago

spicymaki 4y ago

That is a technicality. You cannot convict the President of anything (he controls enforcement of the laws, has pardon power, etc.). The senate would need to impeach him, remove him from office (which would never happen due to Republican opposition), then convict him as a private citizen (which would never happen due to political norms).

_-david-_ 4y ago
You can convict a president of a state crime, just not federal crime.
- spacemanmatt 4y ago
  That is false. The President enjoys immunity for many actions taken as President, but not all actions can be considered official, and not all actions are immunized. State charges, especially committed before taking federal office, are certainly possible.
mccorrinall 4y ago
He hasn’t been president for a year already. Yet no one even tried to bring him to court because of anything; all I see are some keyboard warriors who don’t get how the presumption of innocence works. He is not guilty just because some random comment says it. He is only guilty when a court says so.