US Politics The 2021 Former President Trump Thread - I look very much forward to showing my financials, because they are huge.
- Thread starter JessFR
- Start date
Trump denies request to testify under oath in Senate trial
* i know he's not formally exercising his right under the 5th amendment but the net is the same.
alasdair
* i know he's not formally exercising his right under the 5th amendment but the net is the same.
alasdair
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
Yeah, although I suppose pleading the 5th occasionally is used by the innocent if they feel like their words will come across as incriminating (I suppose, maybe)... generally the guilty use the 5th amendment.
I think it beyond any doubt that Trump's word did in fact inspire the riot (from the words of rioters themselves, plus from common sense if you actually listened to his speech (and even moreso by Guiliani and Trump Jr))... it's possible he didn't mean for them to, though I think that's pretty flimsy considering his rhetoric in the leadup to this whole situation. Either way, you have to hold politicians accountable for their words, as their words affect people moreso than the words of regular people.
I think it beyond any doubt that Trump's word did in fact inspire the riot (from the words of rioters themselves, plus from common sense if you actually listened to his speech (and even moreso by Guiliani and Trump Jr))... it's possible he didn't mean for them to, though I think that's pretty flimsy considering his rhetoric in the leadup to this whole situation. Either way, you have to hold politicians accountable for their words, as their words affect people moreso than the words of regular people.
of course.
it's just yet another example of trump's words and actions being completely out of sync. his position is, simply, "if you don't testify you're guilty". then he refuses to testify. guilty per his own logic.
alasdair
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
No you misunderstand. Trump's number one position is "whatever it was I said was wrong or a sign of weakness does not apply when it's me". Therefore, he's not a hypocrite. 
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
If it hadn’t taken him so long to come out with a watered down message about stopping the violence instead of watching it on live tv, he might have a sliver of credibility. But no.
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
Yeah, agreed. And when it was happening, as you said, he watched it on TV instead of intervening. Despite members of his team literally begging him to do something to stop it. He only even condemned it reluctantly, well after the fact, when he realized it had failed and he was probably facing serious trouble.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
Refusal to testify before a Democrat led House that has already impeached him once, yeah it makes sense. Why go in when you have no chance even if you were innocent?
because, by not testifying, you're admitting you're guilty.
#trumplogic #trumpstraightshooting
alasdair
#trumplogic #trumpstraightshooting
alasdair
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
Question, do you believe nothing should be done? That he wasn't trying to steal the election and whip a mob into a frenzy? He should be prevented from holding office again simply based on his attempts to undermine the election process. When election officials from both parties categorically state that the claims of widespread fraud were false, and when republican judges determine that his claims were false and his cases had no merit, and he still pushes to undermine the faith in the system of half the population, don't you find that dangerous and incredibly inappropriate? Should he just get to move on and not face any consequences? This isn't even examining his conduct related to the storming of the capitol following his speech, which I heard, and it's no surprise what happened after what was said there by him and his team.
Serious question. It really blows my mind that someone I respect and hasn't been caught up in the Trump cult or personality can dismiss the way everything went down with this election. I realize you're far from alone, even to this day something like 75% of Republicans are in support of Trump. It confuses me and I would like to understand.
I might have jumped the gun, as you have a point in your post. But from other posts you've made, my impression is that you think he didn't do anything and that the election was stolen. I may be wrong in which case, sorry.
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
Trump won’t testify at his second impeachment trial
The former president “will not testify in an unconstitutional proceeding,” his spokesperson says.
Please let him testify...pleeze.
Deleted member 521610
Bluelighter
just subpeona him.
Sky God
Bluelighter
I think Trump has to much private information for anything to happen to him. He was close friends with Epstein. Maybe all those years being a creep with creepy friends afforded him some nasty information on the people who could actually hurt him. I am in no way a supporter but in 4 years nothing has happened to him. Some people are just above the law it seems.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
Put aside Trump for a second. Recognize this is an impeachment hearing by the same Pelosi-Schumer group that impeached him before on shaky grounds and spent the first 3y of his presidency proclaiming there is irrefutable proof of collusion (Schumer had it in his desk, he'd seen it!), except it wasn't there. The Democrats in congress have spent years trying to fight Trump and get rid of him by any and all means necessary. A higher priority than actually doing their job for the American people, they helped propagate lies about him (not really needed when he buffoons his way into trouble on his own). Why would Trump have any faith in getting a fair hearing? Especially if he feels the grounds for this impeachment are just as shaky and false?
Such a hearing would absolutely twist any words he says as he utters them. Recall recent hearings with Democrats with Barr? More of oration than Q&A, with constant 'claiming my time' and no interest in actually hearing an answer to any questions, if and when questions were actually asked rather than an accusatorial statement directed at Barr, or more accurately to the public for which the person 'on trial' isn't permitted to respond. Tell me you think the last Barr hearing was more than a Democrat circus.
I'll have to open this with the admission I didn't listen to his speech (rarely ever have, if his mouth is moving I'm generally not interested). The same goes for Rudy or any other politician (either party) = hot air. And, I'll resort to the talking points from the right indicating the timing to walk to Capital Hill from the rally is not in sync with the timing of his speech ending and the first ones in (my understanding, second hand, is that it was a 40-45min walk and he was still talking too late for anyone to get there in time). But, we can also point to the factual pipe bombs found outside that were supposedly planted the day before. It is impossible to cite his speech with planting pipe bombs the day before.
The bolded part is important, I'll come back to it.
Ignorance isn't a great defense. Actually, before I say that, let me be clear I'm not interested in attempting to defend him. I'm interested in fairness, and honesty from everyone. Being treated unfairly by Democrats isn't an excuse for any bad behaviour on his part, but it can certainly feed into his believing it was stolen. To the degree of 'whipping a mob into a frenzy' I still view Trump as an idiot without recognition of the power his position carried. I suspect the die hard Trump supporters also allowed his ego to feed on the idea that he was right, and his words were right. Recall, this is an individual who surrounds himself with followers, and those who disagree are fired, as we've seen repeatedly. He creates an echo chamber for himself. None of this is to say his pushing of a 'stolen election' is right or wrong, only that there is a foundation to believe it AND he doesn't tolerate voices in his ear that disagree with his take.
Nothing should be done? I'll get to that.
When the courts, and even his own party, have said 'stfu, dude, you lost' then he needs to listen. His choice not to stfu is his choice, and he bears the consequences. You've asked if I think he is justified claiming the election was stolen, and his actions following are justified. To me, these are separate issues, the second depending on one's view of the first.
I believe with all my heart that voter fraud occurred. Was it enough to change the election? Probably not, but for the sake of fair and honest elections, I'd want those concerns rooted out of our current system. You will never, however, hear me claiming the election was stolen. In 2016, Trump won largely because of the 'not her' vote against Hillary in favor of a somewhat unknown, non-politician, with public name recognition. And while we've seen TDS rage amongst some folks, it isn't caused by drinking water or seasonal allergies - the man put off a LOT of people. What I think occurs in the minds of the 'it was stolen' camp, is that if you love Trump how could anyone vote against him? But a larger group was thinking 'he has his faults but he is still preferred by me and I'm part of the majority (self assumption), so it was stolen'. However, what folks need to recognize, is the 'it was stolen' group is really pretty small. Not all 75m that voted for him believe it was stolen. Because there is a group of people recognize there could have been, and likely was, a large 'not him' vote. Trump lovers can't see that being possible, at least not by the majority, because they choose to be blind to it. For me personally, I see it as a possibility, and a likelihood, and in my mind Biden won. Circle back - YES, I believe there was fraud; however, NO the election was not stolen.
To the second point of 'is he justified with his continued rhetoric (about a stolen election)'? Somewhat. I believe there were irregularities, and many of us hoped his court cases would address those concerns - regardless of if they changed the election or not. It was justified to me, because I want our elections fair and honest. To Trump specifically, I can see he's insulated himself with others to help promote his belief. That he hired morons for lawyers in these cases is on him, and not a good look. That he continued after the courts, Reps, and some of his followers were saying 'its over, man, its OVER' is also on him and reflects someone unwilling to hear reality knocking. So, in that sense, I say he was justified but carried it out for too long. The other part is did he carry it out 'too far'? By this I mean words that would incite violence. Again, I've not heard his words nor read any transcripts. My input to date has been from the right, therefore biased, but even in the speech in DC moments prior to the riot
We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
^^Ok, so now I can't claim so much ignorance on my part. I found a transcript, skimmed it and found what I thought was in there. Not a call for violence but peace. This is what the right points to = a call for a peaceful march to the capital. I will pause and reflect here, however, as I've read the entire body of the transcript. It is the same as all his speeches to that point = full of rambling bluster with enthusiasm and emphasis, a means of generating energy among his followers as he speaks to the same old topics he likes to preach and they like to hear (fake news, democrat lies, I have PROOF on the stolen election, etc). Yes, it is words that stir his followers with anger, and he states again to never concede on something stolen (he still believes/d), etc. It is anger for what he sees as rightous and his followers eat it up. Nowhere does it call for violence. The closest is near then end where he indicates:
one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were.... but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
This is also not a call for violence, but for Americans to fight for their country's integrity. He concludes with
So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Again, not a call for violence, rioting, or harm to anyone. A call for his followers to go and support the weak Republicans facing acceptance of submitted votes. I defy anyone to read that entire thing and find me quotes of inciting violence. He rambled on for f'ing EVER on all kinds of crap, and it will make some Americans mad to hear what he says. More than half of what he says is utter bullshit. Still, no call for violence. I defy anyone to read it and find such. And, I sympathize with anyone who reads the whole thing. I just did, and tbh I feel kinda nauseous. A strong reminder why I never listen to him or other politicians in general.
If, perhaps, you refer to his other rants as inciting violence and calling for the riots, well I likely missed them but would be open to hearing of them. The only instance I'm aware of is when he was asked yet again to denounce the Proud Boys and gave the response of 'stand down, stand by'. The left views that as a command (despite PB's coming out saying they don't support Trump and obviously wouldn't take orders from him), and I view it as a guy fumbling his words about a group he doesn't really know.
Bottom line - I think this 2nd impeachment is a sham, yet again. It's a desperate measure by Dems because they don't want to face him again. I don't know that he could make it to the WH again in general, but that's a different story. So no, I don't think he's done anything worth impeachment nor prosecution. He defended his right to fairness, f'd it up badly, refused to listen to reality. None of that is illegal. He stirred his followers, but never condoned nor promoted violence, rioting, or any illegal activity, at least not in what I've seen or heard (limited as that may be).
Last edited:
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
queue the 'whataboutism' in 3...2...1.....
Again, I have not seen Trump's words call out for violence or support it in any way. I've not seen him direct followers to cause harm or harass others. What I have seen is
Maxine Waters: "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere."
and BLM & Antifa protestors doing exactly this and worse by destroying businesses and taking over parts of cities. Meanwhile
Obama:
"argue with them, and get in their face" he told other supporters that "we need to punish our enemies" and then there was this:
"argue with them, and get in their face" he told other supporters that "we need to punish our enemies" and then there was this:
I'll believe Dems have an honest interest in fairness, in treating others with respect, when they SHOW it. To date, I'm not seeing it. Until then, they need to stop throwing stones (at shadows, mind you) while in their glass houses.
Burnt Offerings
Bluelight Crew
The only time I've ever seen an overt "call to violence" from Trump is that commonly-cited clip of him saying "knock the crap out of him" or whatever when that counter-protester was getting hauled away from one of his rallies in 2016. But yeah, you're right, you're not going to find any clips of Trump extolling his followers to march to the Capitol and "BURN BABY BURN!" or whatever...
The thing is though, if you accept the premise of what he was saying (that a corrupt and decadent political establishment was overthrowing the will of the people and "stealing the election") then basically anything is acceptable to counter that, up to and including violence. Trump is not exactly an "intellectual" and I think people have routinely overestimated his "3d chess" abilities or whatever, but he does seem to have a natural political ability and an intuitive understanding of crowd psychology, so yeah, I think he definitely knew what he was doing when he riled up the MAGA jihadists lol
The thing is though, if you accept the premise of what he was saying (that a corrupt and decadent political establishment was overthrowing the will of the people and "stealing the election") then basically anything is acceptable to counter that, up to and including violence. Trump is not exactly an "intellectual" and I think people have routinely overestimated his "3d chess" abilities or whatever, but he does seem to have a natural political ability and an intuitive understanding of crowd psychology, so yeah, I think he definitely knew what he was doing when he riled up the MAGA jihadists lol
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
Sure, Dems are often hypocrites, but that doesn't negate the need to hold any particular individual accountable.
Thanks for the well-thought-out and reasonable replies, TLB. t is entirely possible Trump didn't mean to incite violence, though it begs the question, why did he not try to stop it when he was watching it on TV, despite members of his team asking him to repeatedly? You would think he would have tried to help diffuse the situation once he realized it got violent. Instead, he watched it on TV and refused to do anything, and was even reluctant to condemn the violence. To me, it reads like he was hoping it would work, and only tried to save face once it was clear it failed. Or, at the very least, he was getting a massive dopamine hit from his ego being stoked and he cared more about that than the fact that the violence and assault on the capitol were happening.
I would urge you to actually listen to his speeches (from throughout his presidency and his campaign in 2015/2016). Despite what many on the right have said of me (of Trump opposers in general), the majority of my opinions on the man are based on witnessing the way he speaks and what he says. There is more to a speech than the written transcript... body language and inflection are a huge part of communication. I said this in another thread, but years ago, my ex and I were in support of Trump when he said he might run for president the first time. When he first announced his running, I was actually kind of excited. I thought the same stuff that others thought, that he was not part of the establishment, and was a successful businessman (all I knew of him was from The Apprentice, which we watched at the time, I later found out a lot more about the guy of course). I thought he'd be a breath of fresh air. I was planning to vote for him, until I started watching video of his rallies, and I became horrified at that point and did not vote for him in 2016 after all. And I have continued to be horrified as I have watched him give interviews and addresses throughout his presidency.
Thanks for the well-thought-out and reasonable replies, TLB. t is entirely possible Trump didn't mean to incite violence, though it begs the question, why did he not try to stop it when he was watching it on TV, despite members of his team asking him to repeatedly? You would think he would have tried to help diffuse the situation once he realized it got violent. Instead, he watched it on TV and refused to do anything, and was even reluctant to condemn the violence. To me, it reads like he was hoping it would work, and only tried to save face once it was clear it failed. Or, at the very least, he was getting a massive dopamine hit from his ego being stoked and he cared more about that than the fact that the violence and assault on the capitol were happening.
I would urge you to actually listen to his speeches (from throughout his presidency and his campaign in 2015/2016). Despite what many on the right have said of me (of Trump opposers in general), the majority of my opinions on the man are based on witnessing the way he speaks and what he says. There is more to a speech than the written transcript... body language and inflection are a huge part of communication. I said this in another thread, but years ago, my ex and I were in support of Trump when he said he might run for president the first time. When he first announced his running, I was actually kind of excited. I thought the same stuff that others thought, that he was not part of the establishment, and was a successful businessman (all I knew of him was from The Apprentice, which we watched at the time, I later found out a lot more about the guy of course). I thought he'd be a breath of fresh air. I was planning to vote for him, until I started watching video of his rallies, and I became horrified at that point and did not vote for him in 2016 after all. And I have continued to be horrified as I have watched him give interviews and addresses throughout his presidency.
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
As for the comparisons to BLM violence that right-wingers keep making, I will remind you that no Democrats in office (or very few if any, I am not aware of any) were ever calling for violence... Biden condemned the violence outright as did many others, as did BLM organizers themselves. But BLM itself is a movement that is important, addressing police brutality and institutional racism (and I know you and others deny there is still any racism built into the system, but to that I say, try talking to various black people about it and see what they have to say, and listen to their stories. It's easy to say everything is fine when you're not one of the people affected). The violence is unfortunate and I condemn it, as do most people, but if you're willing to say that the march on the capitol to object to the election results was valid and/or a good thing, and that a few bad apples who became violent does not mean the whole thing is suspect... then you have to admit the same for BLM. The VAST, overwhelming majority of BLM protests have been peaceful. A couple of cities (Portland) have been very problematic, but BLM protests have been happening all across the country in hundreds of cities. Any time there is a mob of people, violence is close to the surface. I mean hell, in South America there are riots resulting in property damage and injury/death when their soccer team wins, or loses. Does that mean soccer fans are invalid as a group?
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
I give you exhibit A
That, and I don't think his ego is capable of recognizing or acknowledging responsibility for something bad. Deflector/Ignorance shields up!!
= = = == ==
Yeah, I get that. It's where my use of the term 'buffoon' became cemented in my head from watching his early 2016 rallies and then deciding I had better things to do with my time like paint the cat and wash my nails.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
I haven't (and likely won't) express an opinion that the reason behind BLM is wrong. I may argue some points, but in general I seek fairness for all, and acknowledge my growing up white (surprise!) means I don't have certain experiences. I will, however, refuse to accept any guilt for something I did not earn. That's a topic for another thread.
To your point that the 'VAST, overwhelming majority of BLM protest have been peaceful'....Aside from the Capital riot, can you name another Trump rally that got violent? I can name several BLM protests that went violent. And yes, it's true anytime a mob gets together a few can cause violence that paints the effort in a bad light. How many went into the capital building vs how many are being blamed, targeted, and even cancelled for attending the rally (and NOT having anything to do with the riot)?
I'll close with the fact that I've not heard anyone, anywhere, from any 'side' that hasn't condemned the capital riot. Nobody has supported it, other than perhaps that lunatic fringe kook right wing extremists. Nearly every conservative I hear from wants them all fully prosecuted. In part to give us some solidarity on ending such violence, and in part to identify those actually involved (put to bed the Q group vs Antifa in disguise).