• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Is there enough publicly known evidence to indict Donald Trump

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Is there enough publicly known evidence for an indictment of Trump?

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 93.5%

  • No. I will explain why

    Votes: 3 6.5%

  • No. I would never vote to indict no matter what Trump did.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    46
fskimospy said:
Okay so in other words we all agree that OJ committed the crime in question but that due to various quirks in our system was not convicted of it.

I think we would all agree that by the OJ standard Trump is in the same boat. Everyone knows he's a criminal, the only question is if we can get the system to punish him for it. Agree?
Click to expand...
No, no I don't. Trump is an asshole, it appears that he's always pushed to the limits of the law, but so far every bit of evidence I've seen of his crimes is hearsay, opinion, and conjecture. All of it, every single word I've read has always been stated with the presumption of guilt.
 
Greenman said:
No, no I don't. Trump is an asshole, it appears that he's always pushed to the limits of the law, but so far every bit of evidence I've seen of his crimes is hearsay, opinion, and conjecture. All of it, every single word I've read has always been stated with the presumption of guilt.
Click to expand...
Everything you just said here applies to OJ as well. Remember, he was clear his book was a work of fiction. Do you think it's wrong for people to presume OJ killed Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Of course it isn't, it's the most likely conclusion based on the available evidence, as it is with Trump. Unless you think it's unfair for people to presume OJ killed those two people you should have no problem here.

Also, what's wrong with hearsay, opinion, and conjecture? Hearsay is commonly admitted as evidence in court, expert opinion is an integral part of plenty of court proceedings, and conjecture is essentially what a jury does when it convicts someone.

Finally, if you're going to say 'but OJ had DNA evidence!' well, here's your DNA evidence for Trump:

www.nytimes.com

Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father (Published 2018)

The president has long sold himself as a self-made billionaire, but a Times investigation found that he received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it through tax dodges in the 1990s.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Greenman said:
No, no I don't. Trump is an asshole, it appears that he's always pushed to the limits of the law, but so far every bit of evidence I've seen of his crimes is hearsay, opinion, and conjecture. All of it, every single word I've read has always been stated with the presumption of guilt.
Click to expand...
So all the planning to overturn the election including plans drawn up in the White House people just decided to do that on their own? Really believe that?

Rudy just decided out of thin air to ask the military to seize voting machines?
 
Greenman said:
And that's the rub. A lot of people are so wrapped up in Trump hate that it's the only thing they see or hear. You already know beyond any reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty. You enjoy discussion with others that know he's guilty. There is no question of his guilt, other than a trial and conviction.

The reality is that we don't know he's guilty of any crimes. He may never be charged with a crime. He might end up being president again. Your absolute conviction of guilt is absolutely meaningless.
Click to expand...
This you?
Greenman said:
That's simply stupid. You're closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears so you won't have to face the truth. There is absolutely no doubt at this point that she knowingly and willfully ignored the rules, attempted to destroy evidence, and continually lied to the American people and the FBI about it. It's either intent or stupidity on an enormous scale.

I was on the fence about this until today, but watching the FBI director's questioning, the truth is obvious. Hillary is either a complete idiot, a criminal, or absolutely certain that she's untouchable.
Click to expand...
 
K1052 said:
Trump usually gets other people to do crimes on his behalf.
Click to expand...
But that's just it, Eastman had the memo. Then confirmed he was one of the people who came up with the elector idea. And most recently he confirmed he was acting as lawyer for the orange monkey. Unfortunately I doubt there was an official contract confirming this.
 
The real test here is how slippery Trump can make himself in order to slime his way back into the White House so as to escape prosecution (again) for his many acts of malfeasance and crimes committed against the people.

In a perfect world, Trump would've been incarcerated even before he lied his way into being elected. That being said, there are 8 million reasons why Trump will never see the White House from the inside out ever again.

This "unindicted co-conspirator" has cornered himself with his many confessions and it's only a matter of time when justice comes a-call'in for him.
 
Greenman said:
Properly presented I'd say yes, there is enough evidence for an indictment. The question that actually matters is, is there enough evidence for a conviction?

My issue is that every story I've ever read about most of those events contains the presumption of guilt. That's fine for a news outlet, doesn't work in court.
Click to expand...

I agree. Im not a lawyer, but I know the law is tricky. My feeling is indictments keep coming around for Trump's circle. I think this is planned, as using possible convictions and testimony from others when the time comes to indict Trump. I think it will happen, eventually. Probably years.

edit: Its stories like this that keep accumulating that will eventually get Trump convicted.
Maddow Blog | New memos connect Team Trump directly to fake electors scheme (msn.com)
 
Last edited:
OP hasn't touched on the stuff more likely to get him locked up.

The various financial frauds in multiple jurisdictions, here and abroad. The graft, grift, tax evasion, state, federal and international.


The DC hotel thing isn't over yet either.
 
Lost_in_the_HTTP said:
OP hasn't touched on the stuff more likely to get him locked up.

The various financial frauds in multiple jurisdictions, here and abroad. The graft, grift, tax evasion, state, federal and international.


The DC hotel thing isn't over yet either.
Click to expand...
I left that out because it has nothing to to with his term as President. However you are right that stuff has a better chance of guilt in court
 
There is enough public to indict, however, if and when an indictment comes you know they have more than enough evidence to convict.
 
Greenman said:
We can circle around this debate forever, but the bottom line is that without a conviction it doesn't matter what "everyone knows". We can enumerate Trumps crimes, we can site the irrefutable evidence and his admissions of guilt, we can be outraged that this criminal is free to do as he pleases, we're entitled to all of that, but until there is a conviction, it's a zero sum.
Click to expand...

You think repeatedly getting your ass handed to you was some kind of equal exchange?Haha! Dank69 just showed you to be utterly full of shit (again) just a few posts up, so maybe knock it off with this 'we' talk. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
HomerJS said:
Everyone knows if the negro elected in 2008 had done half this stuff, Republicans would have had him arrested already. Trump is walking around because of affirmative action white guy style.
Click to expand...


Why don't the Democrats have Trump arrested already? Are the Republicans more powerful than the Democrats?
 
Trump DIRECTLY involved in attempt to seize voting machines. After the election Trump invited various GOP state reps to the White House and tried to get them to take the machines.
Trump involved in proposals to seize voting machines: report | TheHill
Trump also tried to encourage state lawmakers in key battleground states — including Michigan and Pennsylvania — to utilize law enforcement agencies to seize voting machines, according to the Times. The state lawmakers, however, would not get on board with the effort, the newspaper added.
Click to expand...
 
HomerJS said:
Trump promising a pardon BEFORE elected is witness tampering. ILLEGAL.
If Trump promised to pardon anyone if they kill the Jan 6 committee chairman that would be illegal

Remember these are promises made BEFORE he is President
Click to expand...

If it’s so obviously illegal where’s the charge?
 
pcgeek11 said:
Not in mine...
Click to expand...

Good for you champ. 10's millions of your fellow GOP voters suffer the same affliction you chastise, and most of their elected officials either suffer from it or use it to keep people electing them.

You really need to get your head outta the sand.
 
I guess they will get Obama and Hillary out of their head when you and yours get Trump out of your head.

😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top