[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

[Abomination]

Replace him with a better Republican candidate, for heaven's sakes.

Throw a rock into an Insane Clown Posse mosh pit. You'd hit a better candidate.

 

[Saelune]

Trump not releasing the report is an admission of guilt.

 

[Sonmi]

Trump not releasing the report is an admission of guilt.

In a very rare moment of me having to side with Trump on this one, Trump does say that he'd want it released, McConnell is the one blocking the release of the report, mostly because it makes him look absolutely horrible due to him actively rejecting to co-sign Obama's condemnation of meddling in the 2016 election.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Trump not releasing the report is an admission of guilt.

In a very rare moment of me having to side with Trump on this one, Trump does say that he'd want it released, McConnell is the one blocking the release of the report, mostly because it makes him look absolutely horrible due to him actively rejecting to co-sign Obama's condemnation of meddling in the 2016 election.

Trump said he was going to release his taxes, has he done that yet? Trump says a lot of things, but doesn't actually mean them. It is like Trump's inauguration cake, it is fake, just a con, for show and really Styrofoam on the inside.

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/trumps-inaugural-cake-wasnt-just-a-copy-of-obamas-it-was-fake/

You can't believe anything Trump says, he just says things he thinks will make him look good and then forgets he even said them.

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/trump-hinting-changed-mind-releasing-full-mueller-report-62062090

 

[CaitSeith]

Replace him with a better Republican candidate, for heaven's sakes.

Throw a rock into an Insane Clown Posse mosh pit. You'd hit a better candidate.

Trump is the epitome of the Republican party and knows how to keep the supporters hyped above anything else. For the purposes of winning the elections (which has become a popularity contest with no relation with the skills required to guide the country), they don't have a better candidate.

 

[Sonmi]

Trump not releasing the report is an admission of guilt.

In a very rare moment of me having to side with Trump on this one, Trump does say that he'd want it released, McConnell is the one blocking the release of the report, mostly because it makes him look absolutely horrible due to him actively rejecting to co-sign Obama's condemnation of meddling in the 2016 election.

Trump said he was going to release his taxes, has he done that yet? Trump says a lot of things, but doesn't actually mean them. It is like Trump's inauguration cake, it is fake, just a con, for show and really Styrofoam on the inside.

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/trumps-inaugural-cake-wasnt-just-a-copy-of-obamas-it-was-fake/

You can't believe anything Trump says, he just says things he thinks will make him look good and then forgets he even said them.

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/trump-hinting-changed-mind-releasing-full-mueller-report-62062090

I absolutely believe that he's a liar and that, rule of thumb, don't believe what he says... the fact that Schumer's motion to demand the release of the report was unanimously supported by both Democrats AND Republicans is what leads me to believe the blame entirely falls on Turtle Mitch. If Republicans (and Trump) seriously believed there was anything that could hurt them further with the report, they wouldn't have supported the release of it in the first place.

Trump (and the GOP) flip-flopping is pretty much par for the course at this point, it's part of what makes following American politics so exhausting, and makes me wish I could just stick to my local Canadian politics, the rank hypocrisy is draining.

 

[Saelune]

Trump not releasing the report is an admission of guilt.

In a very rare moment of me having to side with Trump on this one, Trump does say that he'd want it released, McConnell is the one blocking the release of the report, mostly because it makes him look absolutely horrible due to him actively rejecting to co-sign Obama's condemnation of meddling in the 2016 election.

Trump says a lot of things. If Trump wanted it released, it would be released. Trump doesn't want it released because it doesn't exonerate him.

A couple of times 'in the pursuit of fairness', I too tried to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Every-single-time that turned out to be a mistake.

Trump not releasing the report is an admission of guilt, along with every other thing that he refuses to release even though it 'proves him innocent'. Having evidence that 'proves you innocent' that you intentionally hide, is an admission of guilt. 'Innocent until proven guilty' doesn't mean they are actually innocent, it is just a method (often not actually followed by the US legal system) that is supposed to think better of people.

Plus we have over 40 years of evidence that Trump is every horrible thing we say he is. I doubt Republicans cared to disagree back when he was shit talking them too.

 

[Saelune]

Trump and his minions continue to intentionally obfuscate evidence that 'totally clears him of wrong doing'. That is what someone does when it doesn't clear him.

 

[Drathnoxis]

If Trump is innocent you should prove it. Stop expecting other people to do your research for you.

 

[Schadrach]

Republicans control the Senate. As long as they do Trump will not be impeached, regardless of what he has done. The Republicans do not care that he is an evil and vile man, they want to keep their power. They have shown time and again that they will follow Trump and protect him as long as it means denying Democrats power.

Impeaching Trump wouldn't hurt the GOP's power, aside from possibly losing the Cult of Trump voters next time - the office of POTUS would move from the Fool to the Theocrat. So long as they didn't then impeach Pence before he picked a new VP the GOP would hold onto the office.

It should be considered no different than receiving stolen property, and in Clinton's case, that would be stolen property belonging to the US government. Receiving stolen email should be considered no different under the law, as they were illegally obtained. That is far worse than anything Clinton has done.

Releasing or discussing leaked confidential or otherwise secret documents is not the same thing as receiving stolen property. It's not even illegal to do so. The actual act of the leak of such things happening can be (and usually is) illegal, but once it's out, it's out (more or less). The New York Times fought a case over that basic concept regarding the Pentagon Papers, with the US government arguing they were illegal to write about because they were illegally leaked confidential documents.

See New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713).

Unless you are arguing that the contents of the DNC emails and Podesta emails are a matter of national defense or something...

Trump has a record of not showing his records. I wont even believe he was actually born in New York until I see his birth certificate, and I bet if asked he wouldn't show it.

I am totally for demanding to see his birth certificate, it is after all tied to an actual requirement to hold the office.

Havent seen his taxes, haven't seen his school records, and now this.

None of those are actually, you know, a hard requirement. Hell, the tax returns thing isn't even that old of a tradition, relatively speaking.

Anyone who is willing to believe Trump is innocent because of a report we haven't seen, it is you who are showing your hand as willing to believe whatever garbage Trump throws at you.

I want the House Judiciary Committee to have unrestricted access to the report and free reign to decide what needs done with it after, I want a redacted version made public, and I want Mueller to testify as to whether or not the report provided is the report he submitted (to remove the possibility that it was "edited" before release). Here's the real question - will it change or effect your position at all if exactly that does happen and there's nothing against Trump sufficient to impeach in the report?

After all, even if the report has nothing but sunshine and roses about Trump, he can't make it easy for his opposition to have access to it. Consider how it will look if after all this hemming and hawing demanding the report because it will prove Trump's guilt it just...doesn't? How do you think that will effect the next set of elections? Hint: It would make the loudest voices demanding it look like they really *were* participating in a witch hunt.

If I gave Trump more strategic props than I think he deserves, he'd want to delay releasing it till closer to elections if it didn't prove his guilt of anything. Because the Dems will hang onto that and being able to throw it back in their face at the right time would be massively advantageous.

 

[Saelune]

Anyone who is willing to believe Trump is innocent because of a report we haven't seen, it is you who are showing your hand as willing to believe whatever garbage Trump throws at you.

I want the House Judiciary Committee to have unrestricted access to the report and free reign to decide what needs done with it after, I want a redacted version made public, and I want Mueller to testify as to whether or not the report provided is the report he submitted (to remove the possibility that it was "edited" before release). Here's the real question - will it change or effect your position at all if exactly that does happen and there's nothing against Trump sufficient to impeach in the report?

After all, even if the report has nothing but sunshine and roses about Trump, he can't make it easy for his opposition to have access to it. Consider how it will look if after all this hemming and hawing demanding the report because it will prove Trump's guilt it just...doesn't? How do you think that will effect the next set of elections? Hint: It would make the loudest voices demanding it look like they really *were* participating in a witch hunt.

If I gave Trump more strategic props than I think he deserves, he'd want to delay releasing it till closer to elections if it didn't prove his guilt of anything. Because the Dems will hang onto that and being able to throw it back in their face at the right time would be massively advantageous.

If God came down from the heavens and said 'I created everything' and then showed his God powers, I would believe in God.

But I have learned to call the pro-Trump bluff, cause LITERALLY every time I turn out to be right. But hey, remember when he solved the problem with North Korea, and now Korea has re-unified peacefully and everything is fine? Oh wait, that didnt happen, cause despite how he solved the problem, turns out, he didnt.

And remember how all of us nay-sayers just had to 'Wait and see' that Trump would not be racist, would not be incompetent, and not actually be very comparible to Hitler? I mean, I guess we were wrong in that he was actually even worse than we thought.

In short, Trump COULD be innocent, and I could win the lottery, and aliens could be watching us right now, controlling our thoughts. But there is an important distinction between possible and probable.

I have never seen so much effort be put into a side hiding evidence that proves them innocent.

 

[Silvanus]

If Trump is innocent you should prove it. Stop expecting other people to do your research for you.

Well, no, Saelune doesn't have hundreds of pages of evidence and testimony. William Barr does. The responsibility is not equal.

None of those are actually, you know, a hard requirement. Hell, the tax returns thing isn't even that old of a tradition, relatively speaking.

No, but given that Trump demanded Clinton's tax returns, to fail to provide his own would be ludicrous hypocrisy.

 

[Kwak]

... would be ludicrous hypocrisy.

Ummm, that is basically his strategy for everything he does. It has absoltely no consequence for him.

 

[Drathnoxis]

If Trump is innocent you should prove it. Stop expecting other people to do your research for you.

Well, no, Saelune doesn't have hundreds of pages of evidence and testimony. William Barr does. The responsibility is not equal.

Since when are you an expert on what Saelune does and does not have? I believe she does have the evidence to prove him innocent and is simply hoarding it to herself.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Republicans control the Senate. As long as they do Trump will not be impeached, regardless of what he has done. The Republicans do not care that he is an evil and vile man, they want to keep their power. They have shown time and again that they will follow Trump and protect him as long as it means denying Democrats power.

Impeaching Trump wouldn't hurt the GOP's power, aside from possibly losing the Cult of Trump voters next time - the office of POTUS would move from the Fool to the Theocrat. So long as they didn't then impeach Pence before he picked a new VP the GOP would hold onto the office.

It should be considered no different than receiving stolen property, and in Clinton's case, that would be stolen property belonging to the US government. Receiving stolen email should be considered no different under the law, as they were illegally obtained. That is far worse than anything Clinton has done.

Releasing or discussing leaked confidential or otherwise secret documents is not the same thing as receiving stolen property. It's not even illegal to do so. The actual act of the leak of such things happening can be (and usually is) illegal, but once it's out, it's out (more or less). The New York Times fought a case over that basic concept regarding the Pentagon Papers, with the US government arguing they were illegal to write about because they were illegally leaked confidential documents.

See New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713).

Unless you are arguing that the contents of the DNC emails and Podesta emails are a matter of national defense or something...

That is a false equivalency. Hacked and leaked are two entirely different things. Leaking = someone who had legal access to said information chose to share it with someone else willingly. Hacked= someone illegally broke into someone else's property without a warrant and illegally stole information that they did not have legal access to. There is a huge difference between someone giving something they had legal access to and someone breaking in and stealing something they did not have legal access to. This is why to even use such information in court, it has to be obtained legally otherwise it is illegal search and seizure or aka THEFT. It is stealing plain and simple and to receive stolen information is no different than receiving stolen property. Why else do you think courts toss information pertaining to cases all the time because they were obtained illegally? It is stolen property. We have laws against illegal search and seizure for a reason.

 

[Schadrach]

That is a false equivalency. Hacked and leaked are two entirely different things. Leaking = someone who had legal access to said information chose to share it with someone else willingly. Hacked= someone illegally broke into someone else's property without a warrant and illegally stole information that they did not have legal access to. There is a huge difference between someone giving something they had legal access to and someone breaking in and stealing something they did not have legal access to. This is why to even use such information in court, it has to be obtained legally otherwise it is illegal search and seizure or aka THEFT. It is stealing plain and simple and to receive stolen information is no different than receiving stolen property. Why else do you think courts toss information pertaining to cases all the time because they were obtained illegally? It is stolen property. We have laws against illegal search and seizure for a reason.

It's really not, no matter how much CNN wanted to be gatekeepers on the Podesta and DNC emails (they literally claimed on camera that it was illegal for you to read the emails, but media is special so you'll just have to get all your information from them).

And they aren't as different as you think - you emphasize that it was someone with legal access deciding to willingly share in one case, but it was also illegal to share as in the case of most government "leaks" it's classified info. In the DNC and Podesta emails the method of obtaining them originally was illegal, but there's nothing illegal about discussing or reading them once published.

Although the US is looking to push back the line set by NYT v US after the diplomatic cables leak, which is why they are so eager to get a hold of Assange and have been for a decade. Of course, most of the people here and now supported the diplomatic cable leak because it largely made the Bush administration look bad, that was before Wikileaks released something negative about Clinton and magically morphed from "bastion of transparency and free information" to "Russian propaganda outlet." Because knowing that a political party was functionally purchased by a candidate to advantage her during the primaries is definitely not a matter of public interest or import. Not at all.

But I have learned to call the pro-Trump bluff, cause LITERALLY every time I turn out to be right.

The pro-Trump bluff that innocence is the default position and none of the evidence is publicly available yet but I'd really like it to be? All I'm saying is you can't assume guilt without evidence and since it's in Trump's best interest to not push the release of the evidence but to make Congress and the DOJ fight it out whether it damns him or exculpates him so he's highly unlikely to do so and his not doing so cannot itself be treated as proof of guilt.

Also, in reference to the line under your avatar, Obama also put kids in cages, mostly the same cages. The facilities in question for the most part weren't built by Trump's administration, and separating minors from adults for processing is not a new Trump policy (it was originally put in place to try to filter for kids brought across by human traffickers pretending to be their parents).

I have never seen so much effort be put into a side hiding evidence that proves them innocent.

It might, it might not. We can't know until we see it. Either way, it benefits Trump to not help push it out the door -- either it delays the inevitable proof of his guilt or it allows him to prolong the "witch hunt" which would be good for his reelection campaign.

 

[Saelune]

That is a false equivalency. Hacked and leaked are two entirely different things. Leaking = someone who had legal access to said information chose to share it with someone else willingly. Hacked= someone illegally broke into someone else's property without a warrant and illegally stole information that they did not have legal access to. There is a huge difference between someone giving something they had legal access to and someone breaking in and stealing something they did not have legal access to. This is why to even use such information in court, it has to be obtained legally otherwise it is illegal search and seizure or aka THEFT. It is stealing plain and simple and to receive stolen information is no different than receiving stolen property. Why else do you think courts toss information pertaining to cases all the time because they were obtained illegally? It is stolen property. We have laws against illegal search and seizure for a reason.

It's really not, no matter how much CNN wanted to be gatekeepers on the Podesta and DNC emails (they literally claimed on camera that it was illegal for you to read the emails, but media is special so you'll just have to get all your information from them).

And they aren't as different as you think - you emphasize that it was someone with legal access deciding to willingly share in one case, but it was also illegal to share as in the case of most government "leaks" it's classified info. In the DNC and Podesta emails the method of obtaining them originally was illegal, but there's nothing illegal about discussing or reading them once published.

Although the US is looking to push back the line set by NYT v US after the diplomatic cables leak, which is why they are so eager to get a hold of Assange and have been for a decade. Of course, most of the people here and now supported the diplomatic cable leak because it largely made the Bush administration look bad, that was before Wikileaks released something negative about Clinton and magically morphed from "bastion of transparency and free information" to "Russian propaganda outlet." Because knowing that a political party was functionally purchased by a candidate to advantage her during the primaries is definitely not a matter of public interest or import. Not at all.

But I have learned to call the pro-Trump bluff, cause LITERALLY every time I turn out to be right.

The pro-Trump bluff that innocence is the default position and none of the evidence is publicly available yet but I'd really like it to be? All I'm saying is you can't assume guilt without evidence and since it's in Trump's best interest to not push the release of the evidence but to make Congress and the DOJ fight it out whether it damns him or exculpates him so he's highly unlikely to do so and his not doing so cannot itself be treated as proof of guilt.

Also, in reference to the line under your avatar, Obama also put kids in cages, mostly the same cages. The facilities in question for the most part weren't built by Trump's administration, and separating minors from adults for processing is not a new Trump policy (it was originally put in place to try to filter for kids brought across by human traffickers pretending to be their parents).

I have never seen so much effort be put into a side hiding evidence that proves them innocent.

It might, it might not. We can't know until we see it. Either way, it benefits Trump to not help push it out the door -- either it delays the inevitable proof of his guilt or it allows him to prolong the "witch hunt" which would be good for his reelection campaign.

Trump doesn't get that card, cause he didn't give it to anyone else. By Trump's own rules, or lack there-of, we owe Trump no concessions of innocence. Trump's side doesnt believe in innocent until proven guilty, so his side doesnt get to hide behind that. Turnabout is fair play.

Citation needed. Trump murdered children with HIS policies that HE chose to enforce. Claiming Obama did the same thing is a lie and blatant distortion of fact. Obama's policy was to make sure kids were with family, Trump's was to seperate them and put them in literal internment camps.

If Trump gets a second term, then the US government has completely and utterly failed as a system. It would be the final nail in the notion of checks and balances, which already is close to dead.

 

[Silvanus]

Ummm, that is basically his strategy for everything he does. It has absoltely no consequence for him.

Well, yes, but I'd hope that such would at least convince forumites not to defend it.

 

[Schadrach]

Citation needed. Trump murdered children with HIS policies that HE chose to enforce. Claiming Obama did the same thing is a lie and blatant distortion of fact. Obama's policy was to make sure kids were with family, Trump's was to seperate them and put them in literal internment camps.

In both cases the policy was to separate kids from adults if there was suspicion that the adult was not a parent, if the kids appeared to be mistreated, or if the adults were being prosecuted for the border crossing. The only difference was Trump's admin being more likely to prosecute illegal border crossings than Obama's. Not a new policy, just more enforcement of the existing policy.

In fact many of the first round of "Trump put kids in cages!" photos that made the rounds were actually taken in 2014. It's the same cages, the same foil blankets, etc now as then - Trump didn't build a bunch of internment camps to lock children in or anything.

If Trump gets a second term, then the US government has completely and utterly failed as a system. It would be the final nail in the notion of checks and balances, which already is close to dead.

If Trump gets a second term, that means that the Democrats "done fucked up somethin' royal." It shouldn't be hard to beat him, he's not a good president. All you have to do is appeal to folks who aren't on the coasts because having a massive lead in California or New York doesn't help you if everywhere in between goes to the other side.

The party you oppose winning the presidency isn't the death of checks and balances though, any more than they were dead in 2008 when we had a Dem president and Dem majorities in both houses of congress.

 

[Saelune]

Citation needed. Trump murdered children with HIS policies that HE chose to enforce. Claiming Obama did the same thing is a lie and blatant distortion of fact. Obama's policy was to make sure kids were with family, Trump's was to seperate them and put them in literal internment camps.

In both cases the policy was to separate kids from adults if there was suspicion that the adult was not a parent, if the kids appeared to be mistreated, or if the adults were being prosecuted for the border crossing. The only difference was Trump's admin being more likely to prosecute illegal border crossings than Obama's. Not a new policy, just more enforcement of the existing policy.

In fact many of the first round of "Trump put kids in cages!" photos that made the rounds were actually taken in 2014. It's the same cages, the same foil blankets, etc now as then - Trump didn't build a bunch of internment camps to lock children in or anything.

If Trump gets a second term, then the US government has completely and utterly failed as a system. It would be the final nail in the notion of checks and balances, which already is close to dead.

If Trump gets a second term, that means that the Democrats "done fucked up somethin' royal." It shouldn't be hard to beat him, he's not a good president. All you have to do is appeal to folks who aren't on the coasts because having a massive lead in California or New York doesn't help you if everywhere in between goes to the other side.

The party you oppose winning the presidency isn't the death of checks and balances though, any more than they were dead in 2008 when we had a Dem president and Dem majorities in both houses of congress.

Arent you one of the people wo hates being accused of defending and supporting Trump?

Thats not true. Trump ripped families apart, refused to keep track of the families, and let multiple children die in their 'care'. How many kids did Obama kill with this 'same policy'. The point is, this claim is a load of lies.

It means that Democracy is dead in America. Trump is a terrorist, rapist, racist, liar, and overall incompetent moron. He didnt even get more votes. The Electoral College is corrupt by design, and the rest is corrupt by decades of Republicans corrupting it.

You keep doing that thing where you claim 'both sides are the same' when facts have proven that super untrue. But hey, I mean, Trump thinks Nazis = People who oppose Nazis.