Not a veiled threat? Tell me this is not a veiled, nay, direct, threat?

Trump was asking how we can turn down the heat.

I was describing how he could do that.

Not sure why you feel so obligated to defend him.

he knows he's guilty. So he's being disingenuous

 

To imply that he is supposed to call for respect for those attacking him is nonsensical. Nobody would ever do that.

You say he is guilty. Guilty of what precisely? Being in possession of some records that might be classified? I am pretty sure that with hundreds of thousands of documents created during any Presidency, this has happened with literally every President. The unique thing here is that the DOJ is going after this ex-president. The left has pursued him non-stop for 6 years now and has yet to truly land a glove. Literally any person being pursued by their political enemies in that fashion for that long is going to fight back.

To act like he is supposed to call for respect for his political enemies is silly.

*I defend him because the TDS crowd has lost their ever-loving minds. I am far more of an issues person rather than one that worships individuals. I am far from being a Trump nut, but I fight back against the lunacy that is the modern-day American left.

 

eugene debs was arrested and imprisoned under the espionage act simply for advising people to avoid the draft, till now Eugene has been the only candidate running for president from prison, i have had the debs solution in mind for a while now..this was ww1 era, and debs was a socialist, we have come full circle

 

So you believe that Trump appointed a political enemy to run the FBI?

 

Do you really think his appointments were made in a vacuum?

 

Do you really think he picked a political enemy to head the FBI?

or that he just didn't have any control over anything?

 

I think he had advisors telling him who to appoint.

 

Were those advisors his political enemies?

 

I believe/know that the DOJ is behaving in a highly political manner. If Biden were president and Obama was the previous President and had the exact same documents, this raid would have never occurred.

Not in a million years.

 

If a politician commits a crime, should it not be investigated?

You're made up hypothetical is irrelevant. You should be able to defend your position without having to imagine things.

 

Passports are the property of the federal government, and granted as a privilege to law-abiding citizens. They can retrieve them at will, but only do so if they have good reason. Nobody "stole" Trump's passport.

 

Perhaps the passports were listed on the search warrant. Or maybe they confiscate them temporarily when executing a warrant, perhaps to deny the target a chance to flee.

 

It is not irrelevant.

The ONLY reason for this raid is political. This is not a good direction for our country. Turnabout is fair play, and that is predictably and precisely what will happen. When it does, you will magically all of a sudden understand the notion of a politically driven DOJ, while at this moment you conveniently are ignorant of even the notion of such.

 

To say it’s political requires knowledge that it is not justified.

 

It most certainly is justified.

You dont raid an ex-presidents house unless they were about to start WW3. The reason? Because they do not want to appear to be politically motivated. Without question, this has every appearance of being politically motivated. They could have simply issued a subpoena for those documents. They were not going anywhere.

 

So ex presidents are above the law.

you’re going to say that’s not what you said, but it is what you said.

 

Ex-Presidents get every benefit of the doubt yes. Our country's best interest is not served by dragging ex Presidents through the legal system. That type of thing occurs in corrupt Banana Republics. A subpoena would have more than sufficed for a national archives records request.

 

There isn’t any reason to believe that he wasn’t given the benefit of the doubt by the FBI.

 

I see no reason to keep going around in circles on this subject. We have both stated our position, and it is time to let the reader decide for themselves.

 

Trump is a thug, he talks like one, never direct. Never in a way that can easily pin him with a crime, that's how thugs speak, they learned

For years. Capone avoided capture, same with Gotti, they couldn't pin anything on him based on tapings because of thug speak. Time after time, Gotti beat the rap.

Who taught Trump the ways of the Mafia? Roy Cohn, the famous mafia lawyer who was HIS lawyer until he passed away.

This is why Michael Cohen went to jail but Trump didn't, though Trump was the reason for the Cohen indictment, and the signed checks prove it.

 

Hmmm. It would have been nice if you replied to what I said.

Non-sequiturs are not generally a means of having a productive conversation.

 

He didn't have to ask for them back. They were the ones who told him that the filter team had found them and were returning them. Yes, they willingly contacted him to let him know.

 

I was explaining to you Trumpian thug speak about which you appear to be oblivious. The gist of which goes:

That's a nice little democracy you got there, sure would be awful if something happened to her.

Now Trump is trying to say he wants to 'cool things down' .

Thing is, he knows how to do it, but he's not doing it, he's just planting the idea in the right wing media that he's concerned, when, in fact, he's the guy blowing the bellows of ill winds in the first place.

Why doesn't Trump go on TV with a message that all these threats by his followers on Judges and the FBi has to stop, that he find it despicable.

Does he do that?

No.

 

The cartoonish villain that you have created in your mind about Trump is a figment of your overactive imagination.

Basically you are admitting that you have proof of nothing, but you sure do dislike the man. That is hardly a strong argument pointing to his guilt.