What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

suicide_circus

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Running in 2024 means getting on the campaign trail in a short 18 months. I expect he'll be filling out stadiums by then.

Look if he does run again and wins, the dems can have another crack at impeachment

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So not able to put it in your own words...

Did you miss the part where he proved the impeachment managers doctored evidence?

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Did you miss the part where he proved the impeachment managers doctored evidence?

No, because he in fact read my post.

stefanovich

Is it okay to doctor evidence if you irrationally hate the person under investigation?

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Is it okay to doctor evidence if you irrationally hate the person under investigation?

No. Good thing no one doctored evidence.

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. Good thing no one doctored evidence.

There’s rock solid proof they did.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

There’s rock solid proof they did.

Well then you will have no problem replying to my post above about it.

Tell me how

stefanovich wrote: »

There’s rock solid proof they did.

Was it, in any way remotely close to being possible significant enough to impact the result of the election?

Should have brought that to one of the 60 court applications they made instead of keeping it to themselves.

stefanovich

Tell me how wrote: »

Was it, in any way remotely close to being possible significant enough to impact the result of the election?

Should have brought that to one of the 60 court applications they made instead of keeping it to themselves.

So it is acceptable to doctor evidence you present in an impeachment trial?

Do any of you actually agree with this or are you starting to question whether the democrats are trustworthy?

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

So it is acceptable to doctor evidence you present in an impeachment trial?

I have already answered this. It is your turn to respond to my post above. Or you can ignore it, again, because you don't like hearing the truth.

stefanovich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have already answered this. It is your turn to respond to my post above. Or you can ignore it, again, because you don't like hearing the truth.

I can literally do nothing. Your side has been caught with their pants down. Why would you doctor evidence?

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

I can literally do nothing. Your side has been caught with their pants down. Why would you doctor evidence?

You asked me to answer a question, and I have. So I will instead simply quote that answer to this question for you instead since scrolling up seems to be difficult for you.

To sum up what it's about:

Trump's attorney got angry at the newscaster for asking to clarify what piece of evidence it was that he was suggesting was doctored.

The piece of evidence he was referring to was a retweet of someone's tweet by Trump and a tweet by that same person thanking Trump for the retweet. Since Trump's tweets cannot be accessed, they have to be recreated. In an image used in the New York Times, both a wrong year and a verified blue checkmark were incorrectly used for that person's tweets. This was very obviously an unintentional mistake as the title of the slide in that picture has the correct year and it is likely to have been caused by a graphic designer using a template and forgetting to change that template for this tweet.

When this evidence was then eventually used during court proceedings, the prosecution had noticed and fixed the incorrect year by then, but seemed to have forgotten to remove the incorrectly included blue checkmark. This is most likely again simply human error as there is no real benefit to its inclusion to the prosecution and the prosecution would be aware that many people watching would have noticed and pointed out this mistake if it was done on purpose.

In summary, his attorney got angry at the newscaster for asking a sensible question.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

I can literally do nothing. Your side has been caught with their pants down. Why would you doctor evidence?

It was pretty clearly addressed by another poster already. You really don't seem to have any desire to have a discussion. So far you seem intent on pushing nonsense and conspiracy theories.

MisterAnarchy

extra gravy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1360951935797317632?s=19

While the Trumpists here revel in what they perceive to be some sort of victory, even their hero knows it's far from over.

Griffin: "Lawyers inside the DC attorney general's office are working to determine if it is legally viable to use district statutes to charge Trump for his role in the insurrection."

Kyle Griffin is a biased hack who suffers from TDS.

extra gravy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Kyle Griffin is a biased hack who suffers from TDS.

When someone reports something you don't like they've "tds":D

Perhaps you'd prefer the Financial Times, I suppose they have "tds" as well

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/225e04cb-851f-4594-8d85-8968282d48ec

"But legal experts agree that Trump, who is already facing a criminal investigation in Manhattan relating to financial dealings at the Trump Organization, is likely to find himself at the centre of several more probes. Now that he is a private citizen, he no longer enjoys the legal protections afforded to him when he was president."

Tell me how

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Kyle Griffin is a biased hack who suffers from TDS.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is more accurately ascribed to people who thought he was still the man for the job after he behaved so abysmally at it while he had it, wouldn't you think?

Tony EH

Tell me how wrote: »

Trump Derangement Syndrome is more accurately ascribed to people who thought he was still the man for the job after he behaved so abysmally at it while he had it, wouldn't you think?

I'm guessing "no", will be the answer from that particular poster. :pac:

They drank so much Koolaid, there's none left for anyone else.

MisterAnarchy

extra gravy wrote: »

When someone reports something you don't like they've "tds":D

Griffin has a track record for misleading tweets.

MisterAnarchy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Griffin has a track record for misleading tweets.

Do you have some examples? Generally not doubting you, I just don't follow the guy.

extra gravy

Republican Governor of Maryland Larry Hogan: "We've got to move on from the cult of Donald Trump."

Hear hear. There's a few posters here that need to move on too instead of continuing to embarrass themselves.

extra gravy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Griffin has a track record for misleading tweets.

Says the Trump fan...the irony.

Livvie

Basically, guilty as hell but got away with it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/13/mcconnell-condemns-trump-acquitted-469002

stefanovich

Now that it is clear that the democrats doctored evidence in the impeachment trial will you guys admit that you were wrong ?

stefanovich

extra gravy wrote: »

Republican Governor of Maryland Larry Hogan: "We've got to move on from the cult of Donald Trump."

Hear hear. There's a few posters here that need to move on too instead of continuing to embarrass themselves.

What’s embarrassing is that the democrat case against trump was so strong that they presented forged evidence.

Tony EH

Livvie wrote: »

Basically, guilty as hell but got away with it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/13/mcconnell-condemns-trump-acquitted-469002

The Republicans are now terrified of Trump, which is why they voted to acquit. It's an olive branch of sorts. Plus, any bad reflection on Trump is a bad reflection upon them, as he was their ticket and they supported him through all his nonsense and bullshit for years.

There was never really much of a chance that this was going to go down to the wire, though, when you have such a low calibre of people littered throughout the Republican party. But the party in crisis at the moment. They sought a deal with the devil to achieve power and it has left them adrift at sea and with an even more tarnished reputation than they had.

They're retreated now to lick their wounds and to try and distance themselves as quickly as possible from Trump, in order to prepare for 2024, when the whole silly game gets played again.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Now that it is clear that the democrats doctored evidence in the impeachment trial will you guys admit that you were wrong ?

To sum up what it's about:

Trump's attorney got angry at the newscaster for asking to clarify what piece of evidence it was that he was suggesting was doctored.

The piece of evidence he was referring to was a retweet of someone's tweet by Trump and a tweet by that same person thanking Trump for the retweet. Since Trump's tweets cannot be accessed, they have to be recreated. In an image used in the New York Times, both a wrong year and a verified blue checkmark were incorrectly used for that person's tweets. This was very obviously an unintentional mistake as the title of the slide in that picture has the correct year and it is likely to have been caused by a graphic designer using a template and forgetting to change that template for this tweet.

When this evidence was then eventually used during court proceedings, the prosecution had noticed and fixed the incorrect year by then, but seemed to have forgotten to remove the incorrectly included blue checkmark. This is most likely again simply human error as there is no real benefit to its inclusion to the prosecution and the prosecution would be aware that many people watching would have noticed and pointed out this mistake if it was done on purpose.

In summary, his attorney got angry at the newscaster for asking a sensible question.

.

Parachutes

It’d be hilarious to see him as republican speaker of the house to enrage the democrats. Don’t think very likely though, it’s not big enough for him.

Tell me how

Parachutes wrote: »

It’d be hilarious to see him as republican speaker of the house to enrage the democrats. Don’t think very likely though, it’s not big enough for him.

As always, much of the conservative motivation is on 'enraging the Democrats'. Beats having to work at governing I suppose.

extra gravy

stefanovich wrote: »

What’s embarrassing is that the democrat case against trump was so strong that they presented forged evidence.

What's actually embarrassing is that you're focussing on a clearly minor unintentional error and ignoring all the damning evidence. As I said previously, we'll see what happens in a real court.

Parachutes

Tell me how wrote: »

As always, much of the conservative motivation is on 'enraging the Democrats'. Beats having to work at governing I suppose.

That was the only reason I was interested in yank politics. A morbid sense of curiosity like watching a train wreck. With Trump out of the picture, it won’t be nearly as interesting.