I think that we all knew that Biden's victory in the 2020 election would result in exactly the kind of obsessive persecution of Trump that has wasted so much time and money over the past couple of years. But let us consider a hypothetical situation that could have eliminated all of this.
What if Trump had resigned from office at 5:00 PM on January 19th 2021, and allowed Pence to take over as president for the 18 hours before Biden was inaugurated? What if, during that period of time, Pence pardoned Trump for any acts he'd engaged in prior to the pardon?
Clearly the above scenario would be legal, as presidential pardon authority is broad and has minimal restriction.
Just as clearly, it would have left a bad taste in the mouths of most of us.
I'm a little surprised that someone allegedly as smart as Trump is, didn't think of this.
61 comments:
He's at the least, a malignant narcissist. Narcissists don't resign or admit defeat or weakness.
"obsessive persecution of Trump that has wasted so much time and money"
By all appearances and the known data, he broke laws, it appears quite clearly. LawSSS. Multiple criminal violations. To wave that off as if it were nothing would just be another nail in the coffin of notions of a free Republic. When rich, powerful white men operate under different rules than the rest of us, that undermines liberty.
And before you complain that he's innocent until proven guilty, yes, of course he is. But when one commits crimes in public view to the degree he did, it's hard to imagine he won't be found guilty on at least some of the charges. And this is an opinion shared by many conservatives, including former Trump allies. The testimony that will likely sink him will come from Republicans and former Trump allies.
Why do you think pursuing criminal convictions is a waste of money?
Dan
"From a prosecutor's standpoint, I think it's a legitimate case."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/bill-barr-trump-indictment-first-amendment-face-the-nation/
Dan
More from Barr...
“I do think we have to wait and see what the defense says and what proves to be true. But I do think … if even half of it is true, then he’s toast … It’s a very detailed indictment and it’s very damning,” said Barr.
Dan
Washington
CNN
—
J. Michael Luttig, a conservative retired federal judge and key adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence, declared on Wednesday that “there is no Republican Party” and said former President Donald Trump is even more dangerous than he was in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
“American democracy simply cannot function without two equally healthy and equally strong political parties. So today, in my view, there is no Republican Party to counter the Democratic Party in the country,” Luttig, who advised Pence on how to handle the January 6, 2021, election certification vote, told CNN’s Poppy Harlow on “CNN This Morning.” “And for that reason, American democracy is in grave peril.”
Luttig, who holds bona fide conservative credentials with longstanding ties to the Supreme Court, has become increasingly outspoken in sharing his criticisms of the GOP, calling the party “spineless” in June over its continued support of Trump.
“A political party is a collection and assemblage of individuals who share a set of beliefs and principles and policy views about the United States of America. Today, there is no such shared set of beliefs and values and principles or even policy views as within the Republican Party for America,” he said on Wednesday.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/09/politics/michael-luttig-conservative-judge-republicans-cnntv/index.html
Dan
I have to admit that I'm pretty impressed. Dan has managed to find several sources that agree with his view of Trump, that appear to be biased at the very least, and are all completely off of the topic of this post.
It's not surprising that Dan defaults to posting off topic crap, it is surprising how quickly he went down that road.
I will agree with one of the off topic points, although that doesn't mean that I'll allow the thread to be hijacked.
I agree that the GOP is going through an identity crisis right now and that there is a split between the establishment/RINO/liberal GOP, the conservatives, and the MAGA folks. As much as I'm not a fan of this development, I can only hope that we will end up with a viable conservative alternative to the DFL.
You raised a question/pondered something in your post...
I'm a little surprised that someone allegedly as smart as Trump is, didn't think of this.
Is that NOT the point of your post - why didn't Trump step down at the last minute and have Pence pardon him?
If so, I directly answered the point of your post: Trump is a narcissist. THAT is why he didn't do this.
I didn't, but should have, added: Also, Trump clearly is not a very smart man. Either that, or the pathology of his mental problems presents by acting like a very stupid man in a convincing manner.
So, I considered your hypothetical, the point of this post, and I provided a reasonable, well-reasoned, explanation as to why your hypothetical didn't happen.
Maybe you were cleverly trying to make some other point and I missed it?
From there, I responded to another thing that YOU said in YOUR post. You made the rather hard-to-believe claim that:
the kind of obsessive persecution of Trump that has wasted so much time and money over the past couple of years.
AND, I addressed that claim:
1. There was/is nothing obsessive in persecuting criminals.
2. And there is plenty of evidence on plenty of fronts that even former Trump allies and extreme conservatives acknowledge is reasonable evidence that crimes likely happened.
This is all from YOUR words in YOUR post.
If you don't want people to point out the irrational flaws in a claim like Trump's "persecution..." well, don't make stupidly false claims.
Is it the case that you truly believe that all these conservatives and former Trump allies are lying or making it up when they acknowledge there is more than enough evidence on multiple charges to reasonably conclude Trump may have committed crimes, and thus it's reasonable to prosecute a likely criminal?
Is it the case that you suspect all these prosecutors and people testifying against Trump in all these jurisdictions are making up the charges and cases?
If so, where is your evidence for any of that?
Trump is an idiot. He is corrupt. He has lived mostly above the law for years and now he's being held accountable for actions HE took and he STUPIDLY did most of these in plain view and by his own public admissions.
Since when did the GOP go soft on crime? (At least when it's a rich white man who claims to be conservative)
It's not surprising that Dan defaults to posting off topic crap, it is surprising how quickly he went down that road.
YOU led with a ridiculously false claim. I responded to YOUR words. How is that off-topic?
there is a split between the establishment/RINO/liberal GOP, the conservatives, and the MAGA folks. As much as I'm not a fan of this development, I can only hope that we will end up with a viable conservative alternative to the DFL.
I'm curious who you think are the "establishment/RINO/liberal GOP" types? Are you suggesting Liz Cheney is a LIBERAL? That all the other anti-Trump conservatives are somehow LIBERAL?
This is part of what's killing the GOP: You all eat your own and do so regularly and with great gluttonous delight. "Kick her out! She's a RINO! She isn't one of us!" If ultra-conservative Liz Cheney and other truly conservative people who are opposed to MAGA/Trump are not "conservative enough" and don't belong, then you all are cutting your numbers ever downward. I see that some conservative extremists in Congress now reject the Marjorie Taylor Greene type of extremists...
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-marjorie-taylor-greene-removed-us-house-freedom-caucus-politico-2023-07-06/
So it would seem like the very thing you hope doesn't happen is being promoted by you and your using terms like "RINO" and "liberal" to describe fellow conservative GOP types.
For the most part, you don't see that sort of hyper-divisive action on the Democrat side. Yes, we disagree with one another on various topics. Yes, we acknowledge "He isn't as liberal as she is" and "they're not as centrist as I am..." but we by and large don't calling one another "DINOs" and we don't tell people they're not part of the party. Not to the degree that the GOP does it.
"Is that NOT the point of your post - why didn't Trump step down at the last minute and have Pence pardon him?"
No. The point of the post is to explore a completely legal, rational alternative that would have allowed Trump to avoid all of these charges.
Trump being a narcissist is a possible answer, it's not the only possible answer. Perhaps had you quit when you were ahead, offering a possible answer to a question I didn't ask...
But then you had to let your imagination run free, make up a bunch of excuses for you to vent your repetitive rants about Trump, and decide that you were better able to discern the point of the post than I.
The fact that you answered a question I didn't ask, isn't a good start.
The point of the post is to explore a completely legal, rational alternative that would have allowed Trump to avoid all of these charges.
Only if you think dodging one's responsibilities is a "rational alternative."
I call it sick, irrational and dangerous. I believe in personal accountability. IF I had done as much wrong as Trump or others have done, I would not try to dodge being held accountable and don't view such dodging as rational. Quite the opposite.
"I'm curious who you think are the "establishment/RINO/liberal GOP" types? Are you suggesting Liz Cheney is a LIBERAL? That all the other anti-Trump conservatives are somehow LIBERAL?"
I'll indulge this off topic rant for a bit.
I'm not going to list every "establishment/RINO/Liberal GOP" type here. I'd suggest that the GOP senators who reliably vote with the DFL, would be a couple of examples. Yes, I would consider Cheny as a "liberal GOP". I know the use of qualifiers confuses you, but try to keep up. No, not all "anti-Trump conservatives" are liberal.
It's strange to hear someone who blindly supports the DFL, which does the same thing complain about the GOP trying to go through a period of defining what being a republican means in the 21st century is pretty amusing.
Well, the GOP has always had a liberal wing and conservatism is a spectrum, so I'm not sure how identifying where people fit on that spectrum is a problem. Finally, when someone claims that they are a republican, but rarely/never votes with the GOP, espouses things that go against the GOP platform, and the like why wouldn't people raise questions as to their commitment to the philosophy.
Let's recall that the DFL has completely banned anyone who claims to be pro-life from having any voice in the party, and went to great lengths to manipulate the primaries to exclude Sanders and is currently in the process of excluding Kennedy, before we pat ourselves on the back.
One aspect of this problem is that Trump, who has never been particularly conservative, managed to run and govern in a conservative manner. This has convinced people that Trump=conservative, when that's not necessarily the case.
With that, this off topic diversion is closed.
Do YOU view stepping down at the last minute and Pence pardoning Trump from any potential crimes as a rational alternative?
Also, can you grant pardons for crimes where you have not yet been convicted? I don't think so.
Also, I don't think the presidential pardon would cover a state conviction, as my happen in Georgia for his crimes there.
So even IF you thought it were rational (it's not), I don't think that plot would work for Trump.
So many crimes, so much to keep up with!
Dan,
I know your hatred for Trump informs everything you say. The problem is that you've allowed that hatred to convince you that I've said things I haven't actually said. I'm not trying to get you to stop, I'm just pointing that out.
Finally, when someone claims that they are a republican, but rarely/never votes with the GOP, espouses things that go against the GOP platform
Cheney, as a point of fact, did not "rarely/never vote with the GOP." She is solidly conservative and has a solidly conservative voting record.
Here again, you're advocating eating your own.
Also, since Trump (at least the last I heard), the GOP HAS no platform. It's just follow the pervert king leader.
https://www.vox.com/2020/8/24/21399396/republican-convention-platform-2020-2016
The problem is that you've allowed that hatred to convince you that I've said things I haven't actually said
By ALL MEANS, point out ANY thing that I've said, "Craig said this..." where you didn't say that.
This is, almost certainly, a rather stupidly false claim.
I don't hate Trump. I pity him. He's sad and pathetic and damaged, poor fella. He probably comes from a mentally unhealthy/unstable family and their great wealth, privilege and power has resulted in no one ever trying to seriously stop him from his irrational, dangerous excesses.
I do not like, however, the way the GOP has by and large sold its soul in support of a pathetic, damaged fella whose actions are harmful to a free republic. And this is what many actual conservatives are saying, too, so it's not like I'm part of some vast left wing conspiracy making stuff up. Trump is a sick outlier and he needs help - he needed help long ago. The real problem is not Trump, it's the MAGA wing of the GOP. And that, according to conservatives, historians, scholars and other informed people.
By all means, support your claims, if you can.
But since they're demonstrably false, you can't.
Wow! Dan can really go down a rabbit hole at the drop of a hat, can't he?
One of the most absurd things Dan does is to speak of Trump as having committed crimes, and then says "the data" backs up that assertion. It does not and hasn't at any point throughout any of the staged legal attacks on the man throughout his presidency and since. But again, like most modern progressives, allegations are facts if they are aimed at center-right figures, and Trump is a favorite target of the honesty deficient modern progressives.
Another favorite tactic of Dan...and this could be on the list of fraudulent acts of Dan appearing at my blog...is the citation of any center-right or perceived center-right figure who is a NeverTrumper or worse. When Trump won the nomination, the conservative NeverTrumpers came out in force, with one conservative magazine driving itself out of business by their hatred for the guy. National Review lost readers as well. George Will doesn't get much attention these days, but the reality is that anyone from the right who chooses to attack Trump like lefties do find eager ears on the various lefty networks, simply because they attack him...not because their attacks are legit. Citing Bill Barr or someone on the Pence team is just the latest example, but Barr has proven himself to be a fraud and unfortunately another poor choice by Trump. Like Dan, Barr claims (in the quotes above) to see the indictments referenced as beyond hope for Trump, while honest lefties of legal expertise have consistently spoken to the weakness of pretty much every damned one of them (and "weakness" is putting it mildly).
Now, with what's going on due to this schmuck Jack Smith, this could be the weakest case of all brought with the hope of killing Trump.
As to Trump's narcissism, I again insist that its a trait of most every politician in existence, with few exceptions. Obama was a great example, and certainly the current Diaper-Filler-In-Chief thinks his diapers don't stink. Trump simply does nothing to hide it because he's not a politician by trade where posturing as a better person than one is seen as necessary for success.
Trump=conservative. I think if one acts in a conservative manner when president, it's legit to refer to that person as a conservative. I don't know how much conservative action one must take before one crosses the line and becomes conservative. What matters to me is simply that the person in charge is acting on conservative principles more often than not, if not always. I'm convinced Trump will continue to do that if he gets a second term.
As to your post, that ploy would be seen as somewhat dishonest, even though it would satisfy the truth of the matter. He didn't do anything wrong, but it would still seem that way.
And of course, to pardon Trump, and for Trump to accept the pardon, would be an admission, or be seen as admitting, they he had committed crimes...which he didn't do. I think that's a far more reasonable explanation for why it wasn't attempted or considered. Only morons and liars believe he's acted criminally at any time during his presidency. The truly criminal people were those who spent his entire presidency and the time since in trying to falsely imprison him.
"Do YOU view stepping down at the last minute and Pence pardoning Trump from any potential crimes as a rational alternative?"
Yes, especially for someone like Trump who is incredibly amoral. It is a perfectly rational option. I personally think it's kind of shady, but it's totally rational.
"Also, can you grant pardons for crimes where you have not yet been convicted? I don't think so."
What you "think" is "so" is irrelevant. The presidential pardon power is incredibly broad and unlimited.
"Also, I don't think the presidential pardon would cover a state conviction, as my happen in Georgia for his crimes there."
See my above answer.
"So even IF you thought it were rational (it's not), I don't think that plot would work for Trump."
See my above answer.
"So many crimes, so much to keep up with!"
Yet no convictions.
It does look like pardons do not affect state crimes. It does look like there is room for preemptive pardons.
If I was Trump, with his financial resources, I would be perfectly happy to take federal crimes off the table and only deal with state crimes.
"Cheney, as a point of fact, did not "rarely/never vote with the GOP." She is solidly conservative and has a solidly conservative voting record."
I realize you're obsessed with finding something you can call a lie on my part, but my statement was NOT directed specifically at Cheney, but more generally at GOP legislators who regularly vote against the GOP. Murkowski and Collins come to mind.
"Here again, you're advocating eating your own."
If by "eating your own", you mean that I would like to see the GOP get back to a coherent platform which is widely accepted, then sure.
"Also, since Trump (at least the last I heard), the GOP HAS no platform. It's just follow the pervert king leader."
Which is one of the reasons I don't support Trump.
Dan,
As long as you won't support your claims, and the threads over the last few months are replete with instances where I pointed this out, why would I do something you won't do.
FYI, your insistence that my general, non specific, comment about RINO's specifically applied to Cheney, is an excellent example of you ignoring what I actually said, and instead acting as if your made up version is what I actually said.
Art,
Dan seems to get confused about some things, either intentionally or out of ignorance. The reality is that while Trump has been accused of crimes, that doesn't mean he's actually committed the crimes. In the US we value the notion of innocent until proven guilty, except when Dan talks about Trump. the reality is that, legally, Trump has not committed any crimes. If he's convicted then it's a whole different deal. Dan wants to selectively apply innocent until proven guilty to people who he disagrees with.
While Trump did do some conservative things as president, his handling of the deficit/debt/spending, and COVID could hardly be considered conservative. If you look at his past, there is no hint that he's conservative on any social issues, although he did do some positive things in the pro-life area.
The man who shoots someone dead out in public and it's captured on video... that man is innocent until proven guilty. I'm confused about nothing.
At the same time, most people who see the video of the man Killing another person are going to conclude it's a safe bet that he will be found guilty. We don't have to pretend known evidence doesn't exist. THAT would be a confused and foolish person.
I'm not saying that Trump's as certain to be found guilty as the man in my example, but according to Barr and many former Trump allies, the evidence is compelling.
Dan
While you continue to focus on Trump spending, as if that's the alpha and omega of conservative policy positions, he's done far more which is indeed conservative and in doing so proved his time as the most conservative since Reagan.
https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2021/01/on-policy-donald-trump-was-by-far-the-most-effective-consequential-conservative-since-reagan/
I don't think Dan's confused...except as what constitutes Christian morality....I think he's just a liar and a grace embracing hater.
Art,
I focus on Trump's spending for several reasons.
1. He promised to spend less and to reduce the deficit/debt. He did the opposite.
2. Spending is likely the single biggest issue in government, and potentially the most harmful to the US going forward.
3. Given his alleged expertise in finance, this should have been something he did well.
4. His performance on spending was exponentially worse than would be expected of a conservative.
Most conservative since Regan is a pretty low bar.
"I'm not saying that Trump's as certain to be found guilty as the man in my example, but according to Barr and many former Trump allies, the evidence is compelling."
Yet you continue to refer to Trump as a "rapist", criminal, etc.
"Yet you continue to refer to Trump as a "rapist", criminal, etc."
1. No, I don't. I refer to his obvious corruption, criminal behavior and open perversion. There's a difference.
2. Again, if someone is openly engaging in apparent criminal behavior... to the point where he and his cronies have been indicted, we don't have to ignore the evidence in front of our eyes.
3. That doesn't mean we lock them up without a trial. Legally, they are innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't mean we ignore criminal behavior.
We don't have to be blindly naive.
Dan
Also, I'm curious, did you ever agree with the Lock Her Up! crowd? Did you ever, even one time, tell the idiots to quit saying Lock her up?
Dan
Dan claims he's never referred to Trump as a rapist or criminal. He says it, so it must be True.
The fact that you see something that you believe is "evidence", is immaterial. The bottom line is that for all of the criminal acts you claim Trump has committed, he's been convicted of zero.
" the actual rapists and sexual predators you and your side give a pass to."
The above quote is from Dan's comment addressing Biden groping Eva Longoria. One wonders, which "rapists and sexual predators" he was referring to.
"sexual harassment of your pervert king."
Again, one wonders who this "pervert king" Dan accuses of "sexual harassment"?
"defend sexual assault and rapists"
Again, one wonders who Dan is referring to. FYI, the context makes it clear he's referring to Trump.
I could mine a few more examples, but once again Dan's claims about what he's said or not said are proven false.
1. One would have to be a fool to not recognize Trump as a malignant sexual pervert and harassed of women. Do you seriously reject that?
2. With 20+ women accusing Trump of rape or sexual harassment AND the testimony of his own words and open actions, one would have to be dangerously naive if one didn't recognize Trump is at least a sexual harasser of women.
3. Those who defend perverts like Trump ARE defending the toxic, vulgar masculinity found in rapists and sexual predators. I don't know if Trump is a rapist, but defending his open sexual perversity DOES empower rapists. Read the research.
Dan
1. I'm sorry, how many times has Trump been charged with sexual crimes? How many convictions does he have?
2. Yet, you've referred to Trump as a "rapist". All of those terms apply to people who have been convicted of those crimes.
3. Excellent, try to deflect from what you actually said by making up a bunch of obfuscatory bullshit. If you "don't know" if Trump is a rapist, why would you refer to him as a rapist?
You could have just acknowledged your mistake/lie, but instead you double down on it.
"Also, I'm curious, did you ever agree with the Lock Her Up! crowd?"
Irrelevant. But the answer is no. I believe (based on seeing what federal employees have to agree to vis a vis email security) that she should have been prosecuted for violating federal law. But have never advocated locking anyone up without a trial.
"Did you ever, even one time, tell the idiots to quit saying Lock her up?"
In the famous words of Hillary, "I don't recall.".
But really, excellent job of trying to deflect from your repeated use of the term "rapist" to describe Trump despite his never having been convicted of rape.
Hell, in his recent civil trial (with a much lower burden of proof) his accuser couldn't get a jury to find in her favor. In other words Trump's accuser couldn't demonstrate that it was 50.00001% likely that Trump had sexually assaulted or harassed her.
By the way, did you ever label Bill Clinton as a "sexual harasser"?
1. I'm sorry, but WHERE did i say he'd been convicted? And, as anyone informed about sex crimes knows, sex predators very often get away with it. Trump has been found guilty of sex crimes in the Carroll civil case.
Again, one would have to be a fool to give Trump the benefit of the doubt to Trump's claims of innocence.
I'm NOT saying we should lock him up without a trial. I'm saying we don't have to ignore a mountain of data.
2. Nope. You reading into my words what I haven't said is your problem, not mine.
3. I haven't. You reading into my words what I haven't said is your problem, not mine.
Dan
I might have accidentally deleted Dan's comment. However, in my comment of 10:53 above, I quote the majority of Dan's comment. As always I apologize for my mistake, and will gladly re post the comment if Dan makes it again. I try very hard to post the comments of most of my commenters, and always regret it when I accidentally delete one.
I misspoke in my earlier comment. Trump was found "liable" for "sexually abusing" Ms Carrol. She accused him of rape, and for whatever reason he was never charged. She then took advantage of the significantly lower burden of proof required in a civil case, and did get a finding in her favor although of a lesser act than rape. I apologize for my poor memory and my failure to confirm what I thought was the case.
1. When you refer to someone as a "rapist", the term indicates someone who has been convicted of rape.
"Trump has been found guilty of sex crimes in the Carroll civil case."
It is literally impossible for Trump to have been "found guilty" in a "civil case".
"Again, one would have to be a fool to give Trump the benefit of the doubt to Trump's claims of innocence."
If you say so. Thank goodness the US justice system doesn't apply this standard to all who are accused of crimes. The presumption of innocence (which you just acknowledged you don't extend to Trump) is a foundational part of our justice system.
"I'm NOT saying we should lock him up without a trial. I'm saying we don't have to ignore a mountain of data."
No, you've claimed multiple times that he is a "rapist". The only legal way to refer to someone as a "rapist" is if they've been convicted. Anyone else is innocent by definition, and legal presumption and therefore not a "rapist". Further, if this "mountain of data" you claim to have is so compelling, then why has Trump not been tried and convicted for these alleged "rapes"? Is it possible that this "mountain of data" is not actually admissible as evidence in a court of law?
"2. Nope. You reading into my words what I haven't said is your problem, not mine."
Nope, you've said "rapist" multiple times, I've quoted you. Unless you are claiming that "rapist" doesn't mean "rapist".
"3. I haven't. You reading into my words what I haven't said is your problem, not mine."
See above.
"1. When you refer to someone as a "rapist", the term indicates someone who has been convicted of rape."
Sigh...
A. I haven't referred to Trump as a rapist. I haven't. Is he LIKELY a rapist? I'd say odds are good. He is certainly a sexual harasser of women and certainly behaves and talks in a sexually predatory manner.
B. And, No. If I know or have excellent cause to believe someone RAPED someone, then he IS a rapist, whether or not he ever gets convicted.
You DO understand how words work, right? A rapist is one who rapes. A convicted rapist is one who is convicted of rape. Understand?
Think of it this way: if you're on a pastor search committee looking for a pastor for your church... and if 2... 3... TWENTY+ women who are credible tell you that this applicant either harassed, assaulted or raped them... in that case, EVEN IF he was never convicted, don't you think you'd be a fool to not recognize he was very likely some form of sexual predator? AND, if there were multiple video recordings with him boasting in his own words of sexually predatory behavior, you're not going to trust he's innocent, are you?
Again, we aren't talking about jailing people without a trial, we're just talking about not ignoring compelling evidence.
Dan
"you've said "rapist" multiple times..."
I've also used the word, Wombat multiple times in my life. That doesn't mean I've called Trump a wombat.
Stop being obtuse.
"A. I haven't referred to Trump as a rapist. I haven't. Is he LIKELY a rapist? I'd say odds are good. He is certainly a sexual harasser of women and certainly behaves and talks in a sexually predatory manner."
Other than the fact that you have referred to Trump as a "rapist"... Look, you believe whatever you want, I'll choose to wait for actual legal evidence produced in the proper forum.
"B. And, No. If I know or have excellent cause to believe someone RAPED someone, then he IS a rapist, whether or not he ever gets convicted."
If you choose to ignore the whole presumption of innocence thing, then sure. Call me crazy, but I think the presumption of innocence is important.
But, let's look at it this way. As of right now, Trump could sue you for slander/libel for your characterizations of him. In such cases the Truth is a defense. Could you prove, in a court of law, that your characterizations of Trump were True?
"You DO understand how words work, right? A rapist is one who rapes. A convicted rapist is one who is convicted of rape. Understand?'
You do understand how the legal system works, right? Anyone who is accused of rape is considered 100% innocent of rape. The only way a person is legally a "rapist" is after they've been convicted. Now, had you chosen to refer to Trump as an "accused rapist" or an "alleged rapist", there would be no problem. Yet you chose to refer to him as a "rapist" which is not True from a legal perspective.
"Think of it this way: if you're on a pastor search committee looking for a pastor for your church... and if 2... 3... TWENTY+ women who are credible tell you that this applicant either harassed, assaulted or raped them... in that case, EVEN IF he was never convicted, don't you think you'd be a fool to not recognize he was very likely some form of sexual predator? AND, if there were multiple video recordings with him boasting in his own words of sexually predatory behavior, you're not going to trust he's innocent, are you?"
1. Apples and orages.
2. I am going to presume (in the absence of a conviction) that this person carries the presumption of innocence.
"Again, we aren't talking about jailing people without a trial, we're just talking about not ignoring compelling evidence."
Not exactly. We're talking about the fact that none of this "mountain" of "compelling evidence" has resulted in a single criminal charge being filed, a single trial being held, or a single conviction.
"I've also used the word, Wombat multiple times in my life. That doesn't mean I've called Trump a wombat. Stop being obtuse."
From someone who excels at being obtuse this is quite a claim.
But, I should have been more precise. You've used the term "rapist" multiple times in reference to Trump and have referred to him as a "rapist".
I can get more quotes, but since you've ignored the ones I've provided, I see no reason to. You think you're clever by referring to Trump as a "pervert king" or with other similar terms, but it's painfully obvious that you are all in on slandering/libeling Trump.
I haven't ignored the quotes you cited. I'm pointing out the obvious: NONE of the quotes you cited are me calling Trump a rapist. Not one.
Interestingly, it appears that a judge has clarified that the Carroll jury DID find Trump liable of rape, specifically.
A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.
“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.
He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
Dan
"You do understand how the legal system works, right? Anyone who is accused of rape is considered 100% innocent of rape."
This is so deeply weird. The lengths you're going to to downplay rape is awful.
Some points:
1. IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM, it is always vital to consider the accused as innocent until proven guilty. Always.
2. Generally speaking, outside the legal system, I believe it's generally a good idea to give people the benefit of the doubt. Did I think I heard someone speaking in an unkind manner to me? Ah, give them the benefit of the doubt! Why not?
3. However, OUTSIDE of the legal system, there are common sense exceptions to the benefit of the doubt policy.
For instance, if someone has been accused of abusing children or raping a woman in the past, it is common sense to be wary of such a person... probably not leaving a child alone with him, for instance.
And IF there are two dozen women, children saying he raped or abused them, that is an incredible huge red flag! We certainly shouldn't jail them or beat them up with no definitive proof, but still, common sense dictates and demands that such a person should be viewed extremely skeptically. Again, OUTSIDE the legal system, this is just basic common sense and one would be foolish to leave that person alone with children or women.
To ignore all that testimony is to treat the victims like they're the guilty ones!
AND, if the accused has been recorded confessing - BOASTING! of abusive behavior, you'd have to a special kind of fool and a predator assistant to give them the benefit of the doubt. Outside the legal system.
We ought not be naive.
Dan
You think you're clever by referring to Trump as a "pervert king" or with other similar terms, but it's painfully obvious that you are all in on slandering/libeling Trump.
Look, it's one thing to say that a decently decent-appearing fellow like J Biden or even exceptionally good moral models like Jimmy Carter and Barrack Obama are evil minions trying to undermine the US because they hate the US (and you KNOW that sort of slander was offered all the time at least about Biden and Obama). They're just stupidly false partisan nonsense.
But noting that an open pervert - one who doesn't hid his dishonesty or dishonor or greed or sexual depravity/oppression of women, who doesn't hide his racism and xenophobia - and who is over-the-top on the matter so much so that historians across the political spectrum recognize the crazy immoral/amoral excesses and threats to a free republic or that even his allies and former allies (as well as honorable conservatives) recognize his deep depravity and nonsense - NOTING the reality that Trump is wildly an outsider with his quite apparent literal amoral non-belief system... that's just not slander. It's noting reality.
BUT defending Trump as if he is just another flawed politician, like Biden and Obama or Liz Cheney and other more rational conservatives... THAT is a slander in inverse. One of these is not like the others and to such a demonstrable degree that, again, even his allies and former allies recognize his deep depravity and amorality, just as scholars, historians and mental health professionals recognize it.
Dan's attempt to paint Trump as a "rapist" by using all sorts of semantic dodges to try to avoid actually calling him a "rapist" is amusing, and pathetic at the same time.
As noted, it is impossible under civil law to find someone "guilty of rape". The fact that Dan can find one person who is willing to play semantic games to obfuscate that doesn't change the reality.
Dan's attempt to portray me as trying to "downplay rape" is quite impressive. It's completely false, inaccurate, and a steaming pile of bullshit, but impressive.
Dan's attempt to paint Trump as a "rapist" by using all sorts of semantic dodges to try to avoid actually calling him a "rapist" is amusing, and pathetic at the same time.
Whatever MEANING that Craig reads into my words are on him. I've been quite clear:
1. Trump is, by his own words and confession, a sexual pervert. He preys on women, objectifies women, sexualizes women and even girls, including his own daughter. This is what he literally does and I'm just noting that reality.
2. Additionally, Trump has been credibly accused of sexual assault/harassment and/or rape by more than two dozen women. While the accusations are not enough to convict him of rape/sexual assault and send him to prison, when taken in the context of Trump's own words ("grab them by the *****"), one would have to be a fool to think there's not some level of truth in these accusations.
3. AGAIN, if one is not entirely incapable of nuance and making distinctions, that is NOT me saying he is guilty in a court of law and should be locked up (something that Trump advocated against someone with MUCH less weight of evidence against her), just noting that one or two women making such an accusation COULD be instances of troubled women spreading false claims - it happens, but just with extreme rarity - but one would be a fool to think that Trump is anything other than what he publicly presents himself as - a sexual predator of women and girls.
Me noting that reality is NOT me calling Trump a rapist. It literally is not. It's not, just not. Literally, authoritatively, objectively speaking, it's simply not. ANY claims that I'm calling Trump a definitive rapist is a damned lie and can be seen in my words.
4. That Craig goes to SUCH deep levels to defend an obvious pervert, sexual predator is not unique to Craig. It's the way that rapists and sexual predators have gotten away with these crimes for centuries... playing the "he said/she said" card as if that somehow proves innocence. It doesn't.
But downplaying sexually predatory behavior is what it is. And doing that DOES enable, empower and embolden rapists. The more they think they can get away with it, the more men come to the defense of troubled men, the more it's downplayed as "perhaps not true..." the less rapists have to fear from conviction, the more women are reluctant to come foreword, the less rapists have to fear from conviction.
That you can't/refuse to see that doesn't make it true.
Read the research, look at the data.
As noted, it is impossible under civil law to find someone "guilty of rape". The fact that Dan can find one person
Craig thinks that we should give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not a sexual predator in spite of the evidence. This judge/legal expert on the case says that the jury DID believe Trump raped Ms Carroll.
Who to believe? The guy (who is NOT a legal expert) on the internet defending an obvious sexual predator or a legal expert aware of the laws and this specific case?
It's really no choice. Can you see that much?
1. I've acknowledged for years that Trump has many failings, his sexual escapades are one of many. But, you've been calling him specifically a "rapist".
2. Credibility is a subjective term, and is in the eye of the beholder. Accusations are NOT charges, trials, or convictions.
3. I guess this means I don't need to find more evidence.
4. Wow, both bullet points 3 and 4 are simply Dan telling lies.
"Who to believe?"
I ask this every time you make some idiotic pronouncement, and never choose to believe you.
"The guy (who is NOT a legal expert) on the internet defending an obvious sexual predator or a legal expert aware of the laws and this specific case?"
You're going to believe whoever you want and whoever stokes your biases, prejudices, and preconceptions. My simply noting the reality that in general civil trials do not every return with a finding of "guilty" under any circumstance is simply that, reality. The fact that you found one guy who can play semantic games in such a way as to make you feel superior isn't my problem. Of course, the fact that you keep lying about me doesn't help your protestations.
"It's really no choice. Can you see that much?"
I know that when faced with a choice between someone who reinforces your biased, prejudiced, preconceived notion about a subject, and someone who doesn't, that you'll choose the former every time. The matter of which one is correct, is immaterial.
I'll simply note that you haven't even addressed my actual point (That civil trials do not ever reach verdicts of "guilty"), but instead have launched into all sorts of flights of fancy to try to avoid this reality.
"But, you've been calling him specifically a "rapist"."
But I specifically, literally have not. You repeating that false claim 1000 times won't change that. I don't know how to help you other than encouraging you to read for understanding.
Dan
You keep saying this as if repetition makes it True.
I'll simply note that you've failed to answer the questions asked in relationship to the quotes I posted of yours. I'll also note that you've repeatedly claimed I was defending "rapists", which specific "rapists" have I defended?
"simply note that you've failed to answer the questions asked in relationship to the quotes I posted of yours. I'll also note that you've repeatedly claimed I was defending "rapists", which specific "rapists" have I defended?"
Did I say you had defended specific rapists?
No.
Instead, I've made clear what sexual violence experts make clear: when we normalize, downplay, minimize and/or defend sexually predatory behavior, we empower and embolden sexual predators and rapists.
When we shame women or distrust what they're saying when they report sexually predatory behavior, we increase the likelihood of women reporting sexual assault which also empowers and emboldens sexual predators.
Do you doubt that reality? Do you need me to cite the research and expert opinion on that again?
And we see you being confronted with the reality of your false charge and instead of just admitting it, apologizing and moving all, you just ignore that you've made a false charge.
Be better.
Dan
"Did I say you had defended specific rapists?"
You've repeatedly referred to me as someone who has "defended rapists". Either you had specific "rapists" in mind, or you were simply making a false claim. By all mean, clarify.
Since I've done none of the things you claim are "clear" from "sexual violence experts", one wonders why you would accuse me of "defending rapists".
Since I've never "shamed, or distrusted" women, why would you say I've defended "rapists"?
I don't doubt that you can cherry pick some "expert" who'll back up your claims. I do doubt that any of that gives you the grounds to claim that I've defended "rapists".
I've got to hand it to you, the contortions you've gone to to pretend that you haven't called Trump a "rapist", and to twist "innocent until proven guilty" and providing proof of people's accusations, into defending "rapists". is impressive.
Indeed, Craig.
And again, this is a guy who bases much of his position on things Trump has said...a guy he otherwise calls a liar about whom from whose lips one can't believe a word. But when Trump has spoken crudely, THEN he's being totally honest and accurate.
This is what a liar does when hating on another. Dan is that liar. He lies about the "grab her by the..." remark constantly, as he did again above. It's one of many lies Dan's been known to spew repeatedly while he demands examples of him lying.
Either you had specific "rapists" in mind, or you were simply making a false claim. By all mean, clarify.
"No one should believe women when they say a man raped them unless there is a witness."
The person who makes this claim IS defending rapists, even though they are not defending a specific rapist.
It's possible to defend/embolden/empower rapists as a category without defending a specific rapist.
What about this is hard to understand?
(And to be clear, I'm not saying that YOU said the quote I just cited. I'm just making it clear how a person can defend rapists as a category without defending a specific rapist. Because, Duh.)
And once again, because you don't seem to understand: When it comes to the legal system, we MUST presume innocent until proven guilty.
The people at large, however, would be foolish to do so in some circumstances where bad character has been demonstrated.
Again, not sure what's unclear to you about this.
Still, Dan can't answer what "rapist" he is referring to in the quoted passages. Just more of this bullshit. It may be "possible" to "defend/embolden rapists" in some broad, vague hypothetical sense, yet Dan has specifically accused me as an individual of "defending rapists" with no actual evidence and without identifying which "rapist" I'm defending. That's a lot of obfuscation and bullshit to avoid answering a simple question with a direct, specific answer.
Dan can't answer what "rapist" he is referring to in the quoted passages. Just more of this bullshit. It may be "possible" to "defend/embolden rapists" in some broad, vague hypothetical sense, yet Dan has specifically accused me as an individual of "defending rapists" with no actual evidence and without identifying which "rapist" I'm defending.
Rapists: Those who rape. People who commit sexual assault on women. The CATEGORY of rapists have their lives made easier the more the public distrusts women who make accusations and who defend the men accused of rape, even while they don't know that the woman is lying.
Look at is this way: If 25 women accuse a man of rape and a person says, "Well, we can't know that they're telling the truth that the man raped her," they are siding WITH those who are saying the women can't be trusted and WITH the rapist.
IF one is merely saying, "Gee, that's an awful lot of testimony and they all seem credible, but there simply isn't any material information (outside of their collective testimony and corroborations) that he's guilty, so in a court of law, we have to reach a not-guilty conclusion," that's one thing.
But if you have those 25 women giving credible testimony and the one man - who has been abundantly clear he is a sexual predator in his OWN words - and someone says, well, I don't think we can trust these women and we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the man, THEN such people ARE taking sides. They're saying that they don't find the women - as a group - trustworthy and that they think the accused might be innocent. It's casting aspersion and doubt upon that group of women in favor of the accused.
It's one thing to do that in a court of law if there isn't enough data to convict. It's a whole other thing to defend such a deviant out in the public, OUTSIDE a court of law.
The more that such men get believed over such women, the more the CATEGORY of rapists has a better life and is empowered and emboldened to prey again.
We have in our nation (and many places around the world) a "rape culture..." Rape and sexual assault happens to over half of women in the US. It rarely gets prosecuted and even more rarely are rapists found guilty. We have a dysfunctional justice system when it comes to sexual assault.
Over half of women and almost 1 in 3 men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes. One in 4 women and about 1 in 26 men have experienced completed or attempted rape.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html
"'Locker room talk' isn't harmless – it normalizes rape...
Men who boast about hurting women have a sense that their own masculinity is so fragile it can be shattered by a light breeze. Or a strong sniff. Men who boast about hurting women don’t often even recognize that’s what they’re doing, because they see women as instruments for male pleasure and power, not as fully independent human beings. "
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/11/locker-room-talk-not-harmless-rape-culture-trump
https://liesaboutparenting.com/raising-girls-rape-culture/
And on and on it goes. The more we downplay the deviants/oppressors like Trump, the more we come to his defense, the better we make life for the rapists and sexual predators of the world.
A massive comment when seemed to be prepared to answer my question regarding who Dan keeps obtusely referring to as a "rapist" in his desperate dance to avoid the reality that he's called Trump a "rapist", turns into more of the same bullshit.
Until Dan can produce a solid and absolute connection between "locker-room" talk or other lurid discussions between men and an actual rape, then he's blowing smoke in order to continue piling on his hatred for Trump and making his character assassination of him valid and credible. So when Dan sees something like this....
https://www.dailywire.com/news/8-women-have-accused-joe-biden-of-sexual-misconduct-inappropriate-touching?itm_source=parsely-api
...does he regard the charges as "credible"? Why or why not and how does he determine credibility? Add to that countless teens, adolescents and younger girls with whom Biden felt he had the liberty to creep them out and we hear squat from Dan about "fitness" for the White House. But just like the leftist media who cried rivers on behalf of Christine Blasey Ford, while never giving Alexandra Tara Reade the time of day, Dan continues to bleat outrage against Trump, taking every charge against him as if all have been proven factual already, and all the while never so much as utters the slightest hint of concern about his favored Joe Biden.
And now we hear from former Senator Scott Brown who adds to the mix. I can think of no time in Trump's political life where he took advantage of his station to creep out women and girls in public. He assaulted no one in any way, and again, an honest review of the Billy Bush tapes clearly indicate that how he speaks in private among men and how he acts in the presence of a woman are two very different things. Is that proof he's never acted "rapey" against a woman in his life? I'm not saying that. But without evidence to that effect, the modern progressive shouldn't, either.
Dan intentionally perverts the word "pervert" in order to demonize Trump for his past womanizing, while regarding actual perverts he favors as "beloved" friends.
It's funny. While Dan pretends Trump's past behaviors provide liberty for actual rapist to do their deeds, apparently arguably worse behaviors committed out in the open have no such affect, or Dan would be turning his attentions to the president we now have because of idiots like him instead of the far superior president he stupidly rejected on these flimsy grounds.
Trump's no "deviant" because he dug hot babes. That makes him normal, unlike the actual deviants Dan defends and calls "beloved". Trump hasn't oppressed anyone, unlike the true dunce he stupidly tried to assert was a better option for president and a better man than Trump.
But then, about whom do I refer here? Dan the Inveterate Liar.
Post a Comment