Donald Trump - GUILTY!

And Nixon was a special case. Resigned to avoid impeachment and pardoned by his replacement to avoid charges for any criminal action he might have committed.
Not sure Nixon was a special case, he would have been removed if he hadn't resigned but that in itself wouldn't have been a criminal case, the fact that Ford pardoned him of course removed that possibility.

Clinton wasn't protected either, he had to fight civil case whilst President as I recall
 
I'd love to be able to be like @Maticmaker, he has absolutely no idea whatsoever about anything he gives his opinion on, is demonstrably wrong in almost literally 100% of his posts in any thread, and has in all these years learn absolutely nothing from all the debates he's had on here after being thoroughly schooled time and time again. Life must so much easier when you are like that, I genuinely envy him.
 
You are correct, of the charges that (appear) to be on the horizon, the first one (stormy saga) was before he became President, the 'inciting a riot' was after he left (or was being kicked out!) and was no longer President, but not sure if the Georgia 'interference' was whilst he was still President?
So if the above is true, he may get some leeway on the last one; however it does not negate the fact that former Presidents, have (seemingly at least) got a pass on 'pre-or-post' Office matters, simply because they have held the highest office in the land.

Perhaps they know too much?
Maybe you're confusing the election date, Nov 3rd 2020, with other dates.

Trump's not so "perfect" call to the Georgia Sec of State was on Jan 2nd, 2021.


Trump was the sitting US president on Jan 2nd 2021 (and Jan 6th 2021) and was still in office until Biden was inaugurated on Jan 20th, 2021.
 
Last edited:
I can't see any of this making the people who didn't vote for Trump last time to decide to back him next time if he stands. His base will support him no matter what but that wouldn't deliver him the presidency.
 
I can't see any of this making the people who didn't vote for Trump last time to decide to back him next time if he stands. His base will support him no matter what but that wouldn't deliver him the presidency.
Yes.
He has plenty of idiots behind him but I doubt there will be enough to get him across the line. Still, with the way the electoral college votes go it’s hard to tell.
 
Wow. I've been reading your recent posts with bemusement, but this post plumbs new depths of stupidity.

Yes I thought that might be the case, you could be bemused, but you appear to be fluent in defining stupidity?
I give my opinions only and at my age that's about all I can do, its based on my lifetime experiences and Donald Rumsfeld's 'known v unknowns' thing; when you reach my age you will probably see life a lot different from what you do now... if you don't mind me asking, how old are you by the way?

Which former Presidents and for what crimes?

With respect, you really need to keep up with my posts.
I have explained this point previously, its part of the 'taboo' of not going after former (not sitting) Presidents. If such information was made public it would be devastating, as is likely to be the case down the road with the current Trump saga, in particular the incitement to rebellion.

To avoid such problems the Romans had a similar 'taboo' for ex- Generals who failed in battle, instead of putting them on trial, they were allowed to take early retirement and were allowed to return to their estates quietly and to live out the rest of their lives in peace, as long as they kept quiet and promised not to lead any rebellions. This (6th Jan) is probably the most devastating charge against Trump, at least in terms the security of the nation, it could go either way, because no one in their right mind can expect Trump to stay quiet...on anything!

fundamental precedent that a sitting president

See my reply above


The '"inciting a riot" aka Jan 6 happened whilst he was President not after, I would still love to know which Presidents have gotten a pass because I've never seen any evidence to support that - aside from Nixon

6th Jan/ previous former Presidents ... see my response above(Rob)
 
Last edited:
Yes I thought that might be the case, you could be bemused, but you appear to be fluent in defining stupidity?
I give my opinions only and at my age that's about all I can do, its based on my lifetime experiences and Donald Rumsfeld's 'known v unknowns' thing; when you reach my age you will probably see life a lot different from what you do now... if you don't mind me asking, how old are you by the way?



With respect, you really need to keep up with my posts.
I have explained this point previously, its part of the 'taboo' of not going after former (not sitting) Presidents. If such information was made public it would be devastating, as is likely to be the case down the road with the current Trump saga, in particular the incitement to rebellion.

To avoid such problems the Romans had a similar 'taboo' for ex- Generals who failed in battle, instead of putting them on trial, they where allowed to take early retirement and were allowed to return to their estates quietly and to live out the rest of their lives in peace, as long as they kept quiet and promised not to lead any rebellions. This (6th Jan) is probably the most devastating charge against Trump, at least in terms the security of the nation, it could go either way, because no one in their right mind can expect Trump to stay quiet...on anything!



See my reply above




6th Jan/ previous former Presidents ... see my response above(Rob)
Your opinions which you try to pass off as truth are bereft of any factual basis.

Case in point with your recent missive to which I responded, you had no idea that the riot incitement for which he was impeached & the GA call were actually during Trump's presidency. How could he have gotten impeached the second time if he wasn't in office when the incitement occurred?

This is easily corroborated with an unbelievably short search of the internet.

You simply have no grasp of the facts. You open yourself up to be proven wrong consistently due to this. Trying to pass them off as 'opinions' to try to squirm out of being shown to be fact absent is rather embarrassing.

e - 40s. I know you are of an advanced age, but collective accumulation of knowledge throughout one's life doesn't absolve someone of being flat out wrong when they are.
 
Classic Maticmaker the last few pages. Have to think he/she/they are just playing a character at this stage. Or they just enjoy talking in circles without saying much.
 
I think half the problem here is that @Maticmaker is debating a totally different argument from everybody else.

He's going on about former presidents, which Drumf is now, and everyone else is talking about crimes that happened when he was a sitting president and before.

But, if a president can be impeached while in office, why can't they be punished after? Because a former president has nothing to lose in divulging national security secrets, whereas a sitting president does? That makes no sense, divulging those secrets would be a crime regardless of whether he was sitting or not, surely?
 
I'd love to be able to be like @Maticmaker, he has absolutely no idea whatsoever about on, is demonstrably wrong in almost literally 100% of his posts in any thread, and has in all these years learn absolutely nothing from all the debates he's had on here after being thoroughly schooled time and time again. Life must so much easier when you are like that, I genuinely envy him.
These are my opinions, so go on demonstrate/school me on where 100% of my opinions, on every thread, are wrong and please explain why in your opinion they are?
You are 'shooting from behind cover my friend', not a very worthy act nor deserving of a reply, but you've got one.

Envy me, you won't when you are my age :nono:

Maybe you're confusing the election date, Nov 3rd 2020, with other dates

Trump's not so "perfect" call to the Georgia Sec of State was on Jan 2nd, 2021.


Trump was the sitting US president on Jan 2nd 2021 (and Jan 6th 2021) and was still in office until Biden was inaugurated on Jan 20th, 2021.

Thank you for the confirmation of dates, the 2nd Jan and 6th Jan would qualify him for the 'taboo' then... if it were still in place!
 
Your opinions which you try to pass off as truth are bereft of any factual basis.

Case in point with your recent missive to which I responded, you had no idea that the riot incitement for which he was impeached & the GA call were actually during Trump's presidency. How could he have gotten impeached the second time if he wasn't in office when the incitement occurred?

I give my opinions, not claiming the are 'known' facts, the whole point of what I describe as a 'taboo' around former Presidents comes under Rumsfeld's 'unknowns' and as such cannot therefore be given as a fact...that's why I didn't. As for the dates of the riot/Georgia call I was assuming they were, but not sure. I am not talking about impeachment either, but about cases in the courts which are to come, which may well deliver some justice to Trump , but in my opinion the price of that deliverance could be severe for future administrations.
 
@Maticmaker - just so I understand your position correctly ....

If Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George W Bush or Jimmy Carter walked in to a school with an AR-15, opened fire and shot dead 10 kids - it would be taboo to prosecute any of them because they are former President's?
 
@Maticmaker - just so I understand your position correctly ....

If Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George W Bush or Jimmy Carter walked in to a school with an AR-15, opened fire and shot dead 10 kids - it would be taboo to prosecute any of them because they are former President's?
 
e - 40s. I know you are of an advanced age, but collective accumulation of knowledge throughout one's life doesn't absolve someone of being flat out wrong when they are.

In your opinion is that, or is it a fact? What about if you are only in your 40's is it still true, or maybe just your version of it?
One thing I have learned in reaching my advanced age is never put all your trust in someone else's version of what constitutes 'their truth'.
Have a nice day! ;)
 
@Maticmaker - just so I understand your position correctly ....

If Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George W Bush or Jimmy Carter walked in to a school with an AR-15, opened fire and shot dead 10 kids - it would be taboo to prosecute any of them because they are former President's?
But if they did it WHILE they were sitting presidents, they would be impeached and sanctioned?
 
@Maticmaker - just so I understand your position correctly ....

If Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George W Bush or Jimmy Carter walked in to a school with an AR-15, opened fire and shot dead 10 kids - it would be taboo to prosecute any of them because they are former President's?

No clearly you don't. Of course they would be prosecuted, whether in or out of office... I don't think anywhere in the Constitution or any laws in any State does it allow Presidents that kind of leeway and as far as anyone knows none of the above have ever been accused or suspected of that kind of atrocity.

However 'the fact' that none of these Presidents when in office saw fit to use their Presidential office to change or amend the gun laws to try to prevent such happening, or were pressed by other internal US forces to back off with any attempt at changes... well now that could be covered up under the 'taboo'... but that is only an opinion see @calodo2003
 
Last edited:
But if they did it WHILE they were sitting presidents, they would be impeached and sanctioned?
Impeached - you would hope so but in this polarized world I wouldn't bet on it, sanctioned, depends on what you mean by that, aside from removing from office Congress can't actually do anything else that I'm aware of
 
In your opinion is that, or is it a fact? What about if you are only in your 40's is it still true, or maybe just your version of it?
One thing I have learned in reaching my advanced age is never put all your trust in someone else's version of what constitutes 'their truth'.
Have a nice day! ;)
So you dismiss the validity of the Gregorian calendar?
 
No clearly you don't. Of course they would be prosecuted, whether in or out of office... I don't think anywhere in the Constitution or any laws in any State does it allow Presidents that kind of leeway and as far as anyone knows none of the above have ever been accused or suspected of that kind of atrocity.

However 'the fact' that none of these Presidents when in office saw fit to use their Presidential office to change or amend the gun laws to to try to prevent such happening, or were pressed by other internal US forces to back off with any attempt at changes... well now that could be covered up under the 'taboo'... but that is only an opinion see @calodo2003
So some crimes are OK and some aren't, I wonder who determines which is which
 
I give my opinions, not claiming the are 'known' facts, the whole point of what I describe as a 'taboo' around former Presidents comes under Rumsfeld's 'unknowns' and as such cannot therefore be given as a fact...that's why I didn't. As for the dates of the riot/Georgia call I was assuming they were, but not sure. I am not talking about impeachment either, but about cases in the courts which are to come, which may well deliver some justice to Trump , but in my opinion the price of that deliverance could be severe for future administrations.
Again, surreal.

You'd think you'd would want their opinions to be fact oriented.
 
So you dismiss the validity of the Gregorian calendar?
Yes, as an absolute fact... because it differs from the Solar calendar by 26 seconds; leap years don't really occur every fours years in the Gregorian calendar it was slightly too long ; however Aloysus Lillus (developed system for Pope Gregory) created a system formulae to resolve the lag; so its accepted in most countries as more accurate than the Julian Calendar.
 
Classic Maticmaker the last few pages. Have to think he/she/they are just playing a character at this stage. Or they just enjoy talking in circles without saying much.

Based on people of his age that I know of, I'd think this is the answer. /Profiling
 
Again, surreal.

You'd think you'd would want their opinions to be fact oriented.
You are wasting your time mate. He's just going to ruin this thread like he ruined the Brexit one where he couldn't rebute any of @Paul the Wolf well made and concise points.
 
You seem to be allergic to facts. It's common of someone who practices willful & intentional ignorance.

Not at all, only you don't seem to understand that personal opinions are based on a range of things that are personal, e.g. beliefs, or insights/understanding of events, personal convictions (e.g. United will win three trophies this year) etc. and of course the 'selected facts' that support that opinion, that is the persons opinion of what constitutes 'truth' ... their truth... like you do.

I see elsewhere that you have 'bailed out' of this discussion now in frustration at an old mans ramblings, don't worry you wont be the first to do that.

Therefore may I thank you for your posts even the ones that were less than polite, we've passed a few hours of more or less a peaceful exchange of ideas... now, if you are at work, then travel home safely ....and don't take it out on the dog! ;)
 
Not at all, only you don't seem to understand that personal opinions are based on a range of things that are personal, e.g. beliefs, or insights/understanding of events, personal convictions (e.g. United will win three trophies this year) etc. and of course the 'selected facts' that support that opinion, that is the persons opinion of what constitutes 'truth' ... their truth... like you do.

I see elsewhere that you have 'bailed out' of this discussion now in frustration at an old mans ramblings, don't worry you wont be the first to do that.

Therefore may I thank you for your posts even the ones that were less than polite, we've passed a few hours of more or less a peaceful exchange of ideas... now, if you are at work, then travel home safely ....and don't take it out on the dog! ;)
That's not how truth works. It is how DJT and his supporters wished it worked though, coincidentally.