‘We Need to Start Killing’: Trump’s Far-Right Supporters Are Threatening Civil War

[rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Are you kidding?this thread is about trump supporters threatening violence because of his indictment over  stealing classified top secret documents + storing them in an unsecured manner therefore putting the United States and our allies national security at risk how do you feel about that fact?

I think you and I do not live in the same reality.

 

When Trump makes it back into the White House, please do not scream or break anything.

[bendejo]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

Rarely prosecuted because there are no penalties.  The US Constitution and many of the laws pertaining to the Presidency were written under the assumption that US Presidents would be honorable men who wouldn't do certain things, especially break clearly written laws, because that would be dishonorable.  Trump has shown what a bad assumption that was.  Times have changed.

The assumption of honor has gone out the window, we saw it fly out the day of his inauguration.  I saw it coming when they (they being whoever handles oversight) seemed to be ignoring his businesses.  When all this is over they are going to have to enact some black-letter laws regarding the presidency.

Dick Cheney kicked some doors open regarding the powers of the vice-presidency, and ol' Joe should be commended for not using those advantages when he was 44's VP.  Pence?  He probably isn't aware of what I mentioned in the previous sentence.

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

You can't just jail a President on any old scuttlebut or hoax(of which we have seen so many). There needs to be a proper TRIAL using actual EVIDENCE under law which is supposed to be applied EQUALLY to all.

 Again we see the false and misleading phrase "stealing"!!? 

Really?  We now have to define "stealing" for you?

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

11 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

"Your previous claim:

"My point is that Trump was allowed to have these documents under the PRA.

Still waiting for you to back that up?"

 

I am claiming he was allowed to retain the documents because they are not classified but "contain classified markings" based on what I have read. I also believe the media are portraying things in a way which is purposely unfavourable to Trump.

 

I am giving my strictly personal opinion, inferences and interpretations based on original documents which I have linked above.

 

I know you disagree with me, what I am telling you is that time will tell, and if I am wrong, I will say "I was wrong".

I am claiming he was allowed to retain the documents because they are not classified but "contain classified markings" based on what I have read. I also believe the media are portraying things in a way which is purposely unfavourable to Trump.

 

In other words ignoring the evidence in the indictment, including where Trump himself admitted he could not declassify the document referred to.

 

 

 

[rattlesnake]

7 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

I am claiming he was allowed to retain the documents because they are not classified but "contain classified markings" based on what I have read. I also believe the media are portraying things in a way which is purposely unfavourable to Trump.

 

In other words ignoring the evidence in the indictment, including where Trump himself admitted he could not declassify the document referred to.

 

 

 

Again, let's see how this unfolds in Court and if the 37 charges actually hold any water beyond the media hysteria.

[placeholder]

10 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I think you and I do not live in the same reality.

 

When Trump makes it back into the White House, please do not scream or break anything.

You know someone has nothing when they invoke the future. You've got nothing.

[placeholder]

10 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

You can't just jail a President on any old scuttlebut or hoax(of which we have seen so many). There needs to be a proper TRIAL using actual EVIDENCE under law which is supposed to be applied EQUALLY to all.

 Again we see the false and misleading phrase "stealing"!!? 

What is the definition of "to steal"?
To steal is to take something without permission or unlawfully.

https://www.google.com/search?q=to+steal+definition&oq=to+ste&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i64j69i60j69i65l2j69i61j69i60.3127j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[ThailandRyan]

It seems that some of Trumps former staffers are at odds with hi as well and one believes that he will be pulling out of the election race as he is too stressed about the indictment

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/scaramucci-says-trump-stressed-over-indictment-predicts-he-will-drop-out-of-2024-race/ar-AA1cxXrB?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=7284e753b4ab4661b85e341388165b21&ei=14

 

"I know President Trump's personality reasonably well. Remember it wasn't just 11 days for me, it was 71 campaign stops and a full year's worth of work," Scaramucci said. "He does not like this, he is stressed about it."

 

Scaramucci also said he thinks Trump will end his third presidential campaign before he can become the 2024 Republican nominee.

 

"I think he ends up eventually dropping out of the race," Scaramucci said on NewsNation. "I don't think he makes it to the Iowa caucus."

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

30 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Again, let's see how this unfolds in Court and if the 37 charges actually hold any water beyond the media hysteria.

The evidence I quoted from Trumps own words is not media hysteria. But when you have nothing to counter it, then yes we will see in court indeed.

[nauseus]

Hopeful propaganda.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Pink Mist
Removed quoted post

[rattlesnake]

That's not the impression he gave in his Bedminster speech, he was in top form.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/13/trump-new-jersey-speech-after-arraignment

Edited June 15, 2023 by Pink Mist
Reply to removed post

[rattlesnake]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The evidence I quoted from Trumps own words is not media hysteria. But when you have nothing to counter it, then yes we will see in court indeed.

Yes, let's see how this isolated audio clip and the 37 charges actually play out.

[jerrymahoney]

8 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

in other words ignoring the evidence in the indictment, including where Trump himself admitted he could not declassify the document referred to.

 

Yes and this is also from the indictment 34. just above what you posted.

 

The New Yorker article  “You’re Gonna Have a F*****g War”: Mark Milley’s Fight to Stop Trump from Striking Iran
ran July 15, 2021. Trump was not happy.

 

The Bedminster meeting was July 21, 2021.

 

Trump says as above: Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers This thing just came up

 

So in just 6 days Trump was able to come up with the Milley document that he was heard crumpling on the audio in his hands. How did he do that -- with his computerized archival records system?

 

There is no one at that meeting who say say what exactly was in his hands And Milley has said that he never produced such a document:

"The document Trump references was not produced by Milley, CNN was told."

 

CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics/trump-tape-classified-document-iran-milley/index.html

 

And Trump was notorious for misrepresenting detailed documents:

 

"One person said it's not clear if the document with the "plan of attack" exists, or if Trump was misidentifying something to those assembled for the meeting, but said prosecutors have the tape." 

 

"Sometimes aides and visitors weren't even sure if what Trump was talking about on national security or military matters was true or if documents Trump mentioned existed, sources recalled. But Trump seemed to talk a lot about Milley and his own view of what really happened on that front."

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-indictment-documents-mark-milley-mar-a-lago/

 

And Trump was maybe saying "It's classified I can't show" so the meeting attendees wouldn't see that the Document was not what Trump said it was.

Edited June 15, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[rattlesnake]

35 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You know someone has nothing when they invoke the future. You've got nothing.

I've got nothing I can post here, but from what I have seen on my loony plan-trusting conspiracy sites, things are looking pretty good.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I've got nothing I can post here, but from what I have seen on my loony plan-trusting conspiracy sites, things are looking pretty good.

What's really bizarre about your projection errr prediction re the behavior of those who oppose Trump should he win, that's exactly how Trump supporters behaved when he lost. The majority of his voters still believe that the election was stolen. That Trump was cheated out of his victory. These people are the epitome of sore losers. It's the kind of lunacy that led to the the Jan 6 invasion of the Capitol.

[rattlesnake]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What's really bizarre about your projection errr prediction re the behavior of those who oppose Trump should he win, that's exactly how Trump supporters behaved when he lost. The majority of his voters still believe that the election was stolen. That Trump was cheated out of his victory. These people are the epitome of sore losers. It's the kind of lunacy that led to the the Jan 6 invasion of the Capitol.

Did you miss the video I posted earlier in this thread regarding violence?

 

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Did you miss the video I posted earlier in this thread regarding violence?

 

What has that got to do with the fact the the majority of Trump supporters believed that the elections were stolen? And still refuse to accept the results? As I pointed out, this denial of reality led to the invasion of the Capitol. What's worse the majority still believe that the elections were stolen. Why should we believe that, in the event Trump gains the nomination and loses the election, their behavior will be any better next time around?

Edited June 15, 2023 by placeholder

[rattlesnake]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What has that got to do with the fact the the majority of Trump supporters believed that the elections were stolen? And still refuse to accept the results? As I pointed out, this denial of reality led to the invasion of the Capitol. What's worse the majority still believe that the elections were stolen. Why should we believe that, in the event Trump gains the nomination and loses the election, their behavior will be any better next time around?

DNC supporters are in no position to lecture about violence or election denial. The useless Mueller investigation into "Russian collusion" wasted 32 million dollars and two years of valuable time/ressources. Not to mention the impeachment of Trump for alleged "abuse of power" in which he was acquitted.

[TDCNINJA]

On 6/10/2023 at 5:34 PM, Felton Jarvis said:

The last Civil War did not end well.  Something to remember.

The blue states (The Socialist States of America) don't have the political will, support from rank and file military members, training, military hardware or the majority of major combat arms military bases to attack the red states (The Conservative States of America) should red states leave the union. 

 

Hence the old leftist anti-war slogan "What if they started a war and nobody showed up?"

 

It's only a matter of time before red states demand a divorce. Personally, I think it's a win-win situation for both sides.  Who wants to live with people you despise?

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

DNC supporters are in no position to lecture about violence or election denial. The useless Mueller investigation into "Russian collusion" wasted 32 million dollars and two years of valuable time/ressources. Not to mention the impeachment of Trump for alleged "abuse of power" in which he was acquitted.

Deflecting much? Do you really expect me to take such obvious bait? The fact is that Trump supporters are operating in an alternative reality. And we have no reason to believe that these extremely sore losers will behave any differently should Trump lose again.

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

Yes and this is also from the indictment 34. just above what you posted.

 

The New Yorker article  “You’re Gonna Have a F*****g War”: Mark Milley’s Fight to Stop Trump from Striking Iran
ran July 15, 2021. Trump was not happy.

 

The Bedminster meeting was July 21, 2021.

 

Trump says as above: Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers This thing just came up

 

So in just 6 days Trump was able to come up with the Milley document that he was heard crumpling on the audio in his hands. How did he do that -- with his computerized archival records system?

 

There is no one at that meeting who say say what exactly was in his hands And Milley has said that he never produced such a document:

"The document Trump references was not produced by Milley, CNN was told."

 

CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics/trump-tape-classified-document-iran-milley/index.html

 

And Trump was notorious for misrepresenting detailed documents:

 

"One person said it's not clear if the document with the "plan of attack" exists, or if Trump was misidentifying something to those assembled for the meeting, but said prosecutors have the tape." 

 

"Sometimes aides and visitors weren't even sure if what Trump was talking about on national security or military matters was true or if documents Trump mentioned existed, sources recalled. But Trump seemed to talk a lot about Milley and his own view of what really happened on that front."

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-indictment-documents-mark-milley-mar-a-lago/

 

And Trump was maybe saying "It's classified I can't show" so the meeting attendees wouldn't see that the Document was not what Trump said it was.

So, Trump's unreliabilty and inclination to lie are are going to play very well with a jury?

[rattlesnake]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Deflecting much? Do you really expect me to take such obvious bait? The fact is that Trump supporters are operating in an alternative reality. And we have no reason to believe that these extremely sore losers will behave any differently should Trump lose again.

 

An alternative reality to yours, definitely.

[jerrymahoney]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So, Trump's unreliabilty and inclination to lie are are going to play very well with a jury?

The fact that the meeting as described maybe can not be used to show that Trump knew documents in his possession were still classified may resonate with the jury if it is shown he was describing a non-existent document

 

... and is maybe not the "smoking gun" in the case.

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

An alternative reality to yours, definitely.

Given that they overwhelmingly believe that the elections were stolen even though Trump hired 2 teams of investigators who both concluded that wasn't the case,  it's absolutely clear who's living in a world that's not this one.

[In Full Agreement]

 

Over 1,000 idiots who rioted at the US Capital building have been arrested so far.    Little by little they are being convicted since they were all so stupid as to have themselves on camera and photos.

Nice evidence for the government trying them.

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

The fact tht the meeting as described in the indictment may not be what the prosecution said was may be noted by the jury.

You think that a first rate prosecutor like Jack Smith is likely to misrepresent the evidence?

[jerrymahoney]

Just now, placeholder said:

You think that a first rate prosecutor like Jack Smith is likely to misrepresent the evidence?

If he is going to use the meeting to prove that Trump knew that documents in his possession were still classified he may hit a snag if it is proved the documents described were non-existent.

[earlinclaifornia]

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

I've got nothing I can post here, but from what I have seen on my loony plan-trusting conspiracy sites, things are looking pretty good.

Not so much is reality in your world view. Here on Fox news this claim is destroyed by Bill Barr no less!!

Farcical !!!

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6329444568112

[nauseus]

37 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

The fact that the meeting as described maybe can not be used to show that Trump knew documents in his possession were still classified may resonate with the jury if it is shown he was describing a non-existent document

 

... and is maybe not the "smoking gun" in the case.

 

Maybe.

[nauseus]

32 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You think that a first rate prosecutor like Jack Smith is likely to misrepresent the evidence?

Maybe he's been misrepresented as first rate?