3 ms·

> I don't think it's OK, but it's semi-understandable given the lawfare undertaken by Democrats after his first term Examples? > when he leaves office he will

by tzs 23d ago

> I don't think it's OK, but it's semi-understandable given the lawfare undertaken by Democrats after his first term Examples? > when he leaves office he will be spending the rest of his life fighting spurious court case after court case, none of which will be cheap. Uhm...have you mixed Trump up with someone else. It is Trump who loves to bring spurious lawsuits. When Trump is on the receiving end it is almost always not a spurious lawsuit.

gadders 22d ago
>> I don't think it's OK, but it's semi-understandable given the lawfare undertaken by Democrats after his first term > Examples? I don't think there is much point debating with someone who doesn't actually follow the news.
- tzs 22d ago
  I do follow the news. I'm aware of his hush money trial, the case against him over Jan 6th, the illegal retention of classified documents, and the Georgia election interference case, The E. Jean Carroll lawsuit, and the New York civil fraud trial. None of these are "lawfare". The only one that could even remotely maybe be called that was the retention of classified documents, because other Presidents have also retained documents they were not allowed to, as have others such as Vice Presidents, so it might give the initial appearance of Trump being singled out for something that ex-officials are usually not punished for. However, in those cases either the ex-official or their staff discovered that they had documents they were not allowed to have and immediately notified the government and arranged to securely return the documents, or if it was the government that discovered it and as soon as notified the ex-official immediately returned the documents. Only Trump refused to return the documents, despite many requests and warnings that it could result in criminal charges. This was widely reported. When you said "follow the news" did you only mean Fox or Newsmax or whatever shows up on your social media feeds?

by tzs 23d ago

gadders 22d ago

>> I don't think it's OK, but it's semi-understandable given the lawfare undertaken by Democrats after his first term > Examples? I don't think there is much point debating with someone who doesn't actually follow the news.

tzs 22d ago
I do follow the news. I'm aware of his hush money trial, the case against him over Jan 6th, the illegal retention of classified documents, and the Georgia election interference case, The E. Jean Carroll lawsuit, and the New York civil fraud trial. None of these are "lawfare". The only one that could even remotely maybe be called that was the retention of classified documents, because other Presidents have also retained documents they were not allowed to, as have others such as Vice Presidents, so it might give the initial appearance of Trump being singled out for something that ex-officials are usually not punished for. However, in those cases either the ex-official or their staff discovered that they had documents they were not allowed to have and immediately notified the government and arranged to securely return the documents, or if it was the government that discovered it and as soon as notified the ex-official immediately returned the documents. Only Trump refused to return the documents, despite many requests and warnings that it could result in criminal charges. This was widely reported. When you said "follow the news" did you only mean Fox or Newsmax or whatever shows up on your social media feeds?