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

Remember the Trumpist Prayer:

"Innocent until proven guilty

Though being proven guilty doesn't mean he is

I'm not a Trump supporter

Though I'll defend every crime of his"

Yeah, they want us to believe he's still uber popular.

And yet not one of them will admit they're a fan and give logical reasons why they feel he is capable. (Same goes for their false gods in UK politics)

It's nothing more than 'the enemy of my enemy is friend' approach to political ideology alignment.

And they futher muddy the water every so often then with their 'Both Sides' BS or outright blaming the Left for the individuals and actions of the right.

And I'd be fine with all that, let them focus on hatredastheir motivation if that's how they're wired.

But what has happened over the last years in particular, is that they've gained power and been as inept in how they've carried that out as we expected they would be.

And we've all had to suffer the consequences of that.

Possibly but many don't actually want to die for him and just want to kill for him. That will keep many at home.

In the end it is irrelevant except for security planning. You can't overrule democracy for fear of violence. Security will just have to be pro active and stopping terrorist threats at the planning stage. Violence will come one way or another because of what Trump has built.

If they try an insurrection again the national guard won't be left sitting on their hands.

Know they have little traction but Christie and Hurd, are taking him on, very late in the day. It shows some sign at least that some recognise the GOP is going nowhere with Trump as its head.

@Water John

A number of Republican politicians have made known their opposition to Trump at various points throughout his rise to prominence in the party. You can basically sort the outcome of this into three categories: obscurity, shutting up, or getting in line. Plenty within the party know that Trump could well be its ruination, but they're more worried about their own positions than the future of the party or the country.

Chris Christie doesn't hold any office at the present time, so he has more leeway to say what he likes. We can be fairly sure that if he was counting on Republican votes in an upcoming election of some sort, he wouldn't be so bold.

All that Christie is going to really achieve is that he'll become MSNBC and CNN's go-to talking head when they want a 'reasonable Republican' commentator to speak about whatever mad thing Trump has done, said or become involved in lately. For the Republican party itself, he will become a fringe figure.

He's doing what he always did.... Test the limit of people's patience. Keep pushing the limits to find out what he can get away with.

The republican party never yanked his leash. Will the judge do so now, or wait until he goes for a witness?

Interesting bit of projection from the most Corrupt (& Incompetent) President in the history of the United States.

Kind of feeling that the quote of the Judge he posted makes the point against him. That the Jan6 insurrectionists were beholden to Trump himself and not to the United States. If they can prove that he knew he could weaponise that against the Capitol, that’s maybe a game over for him. If they can prove that intent.

While it does make a point against him, I think that, more importantly, it does demonstrate that the judge has a preconceived bias towards him which could bring into question the possibility of him not getting a fair trial.

If she said it.

Even the quote in itself states a lot of fact. Many of the attackers were plastered with "Trump" apparel, and had been egged on by the man himself to be there. The defendants that came before her likely had fanciful interpretations of US law to argue their right to violently assault a democratic legislature while it was in session (spoilers: there's no such right). And indeed, it is incredible to think that the man who clearly and publically ginned up those people into attacking the Capitol, never even faced to possibily of sanction for it up until now.

Anyone possessing functioning vision and moral compass would be hard pressed to not come to a similar conclusion. However, she is a judge, and judges must make their rulings within the framework of the law, and based on the evidence. She can't find him guilty simply because she doesn't like him, the prosecuction has a burden of evidence, and if he is found guilty (in a legal sense, because we all saw him do it on live TV) then her sentencing will also have to follow a strict set of guildlines.

I also get the feeling that any judge who isn't a dyed in the wool MAGA-sycophant would still be painted as "biased" as a way to try to derail the trial as long as possible.

If you were to try any high-profile U.S. politician, the point would be made that the trial is unfair due to potential or real leanings of the judge and the jury.

I would have thought that in any legal case, the judge and the jurors are supposed to leave aside their personal feelings and examine only the facts presented in the arguments when deliberating. Does this always happen? Almost certainly not, but this remains the best system we have until the point where we can all agree that AI would be better off making a verdict (although that would invariably raise questions about the political leanings of those programming it).