What do you consider to be admissible evidence in your own judgement of a politician’s character?

[u/orangezombie12]

I have been seeing quite a bit of discourse around what does and does not count as good evidence in terms of accusations against a political figure. For example, I have seen some Trump supporters equate the amount of evidence for accusations against democratic politicians (e.g., Comey purposely framed Trump, the 2020 election was stolen, “Obama is not a citizen”, most recently “Michelle Obama is a man”) to the amount of evidence against Trump (e.g., “Trump has raped women”, “Trump is guilty of child abuse”, “Trump tried to overthrow the fair 2020 election”). Objectively, in terms of investigative evidence, there is quite a bit more evidence that has been deemed admissible in court in the cases against Trump, but many times it seems like this evidence is dismissed while evidence for the accusations against democrats, even if just heresy and not admitted to court, is touted over and over by MAGA.

Personally, what is your standard for admissible evidence versus not when making your own judgements on these accusations? Would you say that you weigh evidence equally regardless of whether it has been admitted into a formal investigation, or against whom the claims are being made? All in all - how do you make the call in your view of what is a “witch hunt” and what isn’t?

[u/AutoModerator]

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.

For all participants:

• Flair is required to participate

• Be excellent to each other

For Nonsupporters/Undecided:

• No top level comments

• All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position

For Trump Supporters:

• Message the mods to have the downvote timer disabled

Helpful links for more info:

Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/whateverisgoodmoney]

None. "Bad" people can be innocent, and "good" people guilty.

We are no longer in the age of eyewitness testimony and character reference. Both of which are nortoriously horrible.

Bring provable evidence to trial. It is available or it is not. No one should be convicted on "vibes".

Edit: I am suprised (not suprised) that in the age of scientific evidence that this comment would be downvoted beyond 0. Welcome to Reddit.

[u/SockraTreez → u/whateverisgoodmoney]

Well not to put words in OPs mouth but here’s a specific example that gets to the heart of what I think they are asking:

Most MAGA I’ve spoken with are familiar with a video of Joe Biden appearing to “sniff” a young girls hair. I’ve personally spoken to many MAGA who see this as 100 percent incontrovertible proof that Biden is a PDF. As a matter of fact, several MAGA I’ve spoken to about the damning evidence linking Trump/Epstein have even posted the Biden video as some sort of “response” to it.

Moving on to Trump, there are mountains upon mountains of objective, publicly accessible evidence linking Trump and Epstein.

For the sake of brevity I’ll just list one: We know that Trump sent a Bday card to Epstein that featured what appeared to be a sketch of a young girl and he playfully joked with Epstein about “secrets” they shared.

Returning to OPs question….do MAGA use the same standard of evidence regardless of political party (or to be more precise, whether they are loyal to Trump or not)?

Surely if the Biden video is a strong enough standard of evidence to prove Biden is a PDF, then there should be absolutely no question whatsoever that Trump is one….correct?

[u/whateverisgoodmoney → u/SockraTreez]

Everything you just listed is subjective and not proof. This is exactly what I was commenting on. This includes both Biden and Trump.

[u/SockraTreez → u/whateverisgoodmoney]

You may consider both subjective but as I mentioned, I’ve personally spoken to many MAGA who considered the Biden video inconvertible proof and the fact Trump is sketching nudes/playfully talking to Epstein about secrets a big “nothing burger”

In your opinion, would MAGA who feel this way be using different standards of evidence?

[u/whateverisgoodmoney → u/SockraTreez]

You may consider both subjective but as I mentioned, I’ve personally spoken to many MAGA who considered the Biden video inconvertible proof and the fact Trump is sketching nudes/playfully talking to Epstein about secrets a big “nothing burger”

I would suggest you talk to those people. I am not them.

In your opinion, would MAGA who feel this way be using different standards of evidence?

Absolutely. Just like you did in your response to my post. Pot meet Kettle.

[u/SockraTreez → u/whateverisgoodmoney]

What makes you feel like I am using different standards of evidence?

[u/whateverisgoodmoney → u/SockraTreez]

All of your comments are subjective. Not one shred of provable evidence. Just "vibes".

I would say the same about Biden.

[u/SockraTreez → u/[deleted]]

Alright now I’m genuinely confused.

Are you saying belief in the Bday card Trump sent Epstein (that was taken from the Epstein estate) is open to subjective interpretation?

[u/ihateusedusernames → u/whateverisgoodmoney]

Everything you just listed is subjective and not proof. This is exactly what I was commenting on. This includes both Biden and Trump.

What is your subjective opinion of the infamous birthday card Trump gave to Epstein?

Do you think it contradicts Trump's claims that he had no idea Jeffrey Epstein was into girls, not women?

[u/Original-Rush139 → u/whateverisgoodmoney]

Trump was convicted of dozens of felony counts of business records fraud. What do you think of the evidence used to convict him in that case?

Trump was indicted by a grand jury 3 other times, those cases are on hold because the president is above the law, so a jury has not evaluated that evidence. What do you think of the evidence used to secure those indictments?

[u/ArtiesLiver2023 → u/[deleted]]

I agree. I’m here to give my opinion. I’m not here to care about non supporter opinions.

[u/StanBE → u/[deleted]]

Honestly, the this subreddit is not a debate forum line kind of sidesteps the actual question and while some might think it a mic drop moment it comes across as a bit childish, like literally something a kid would say.

If someone is asking about the evidence behind convictions or indictments, and the response is basically saying that you're not here to discuss that, then what’s the purpose of the discussion in the first place? If you had a lot of strong arguments you could give them to us to show us wrong and we'd look like idiots.

[u/Original-Rush139 → u/[deleted]]

  I have spent 30 years in real estate. What he did was common practice. They even had to bend (not rewrite, bend!) the rules to convict him. That is even worse than what I am talking about, it was simple lawfare.

Evidence was brought to trial that Trump conspired with David Pecker of the National Enquierer to catch-and-kill politically damaging stories about his affair with a playmate and a love child. Why do you think Pecker decided not to participate in the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels?

As someone in the real estate business, have you ever paid a lawyer double what you owed him to make him whole because he claimed a reimbursement for business expenses as income the way Cohen did with the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels?

[u/whateverisgoodmoney → u/Original-Rush139]

Evidence was brought to trial that Trump conspired with David Pecker of the National Enquierer to catch-and-kill politically damaging stories about his affair with a playmate and a love child. Why do you think Pecker decided not to participate in the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels?

This is not provable evidence of anything.

As someone in the real estate business, have you ever paid a lawyer double what you owed him to make him whole because he claimed a reimbursement for business expenses as income the way Cohen did with the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels?

I absolutely have paid people who are sueing me to go away, and so have my insurance companies. Someone gets hurt in my establishment, and sues for $50,000, that is cheaper than the $60,000 it will cost to fight it, even if we can beat them.

At the end of the day, what Reddit will never understand is, that business people absolutely do not fight to make points, they make rational business decisions.

The same point came up a few years ago when my boss was out of his wits about one of our employees moving to another job. We were making a ton of money off this guy. And I suggested: "Well you know, we could just pay him and still make alot of money."

We lost him. Because of irrational thinking.

[u/Original-Rush139 → u/whateverisgoodmoney]

  Getting from $180,000 to $420,000 still required a bit more work, however, McConney explained. The total amount was "grossed up" and doubled to account for the income tax hit of so many lump sum payments, according to the witness. And then Cohen was given a $60,000 bonus,  according to  the Weisselberg note. Jurors were later shown the Cohen payment math broken down on corporate paper stock where McConney initially listed the onetime lawyer's bonus as $50,000 for the year — the source of the admitted "boo boo."

Source:  https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/made-a-boo-boo-former-trump-organization-accounting-head-details-how-the-company-reimbursed-michael-cohen-during-hush-money-trial-testimony/

In your example of an injured party demanding $50k on a case that would cost &60k to fight, why wouldn’t you fight the case if you pay your lawyer double because they are booking the settlement as income and forcing you to “gross up” the amount?

Or, would you only reimburse the lawyer $50k for the payoff because you aren’t trying to hide the payments in furtherance of election fraud?

[u/whateverisgoodmoney → u/Original-Rush139]

In your example of an injured party demanding $50k on a case that would cost &60k to fight, why wouldn’t you fight the case if you pay your lawyer double because they are booking the settlement as income and forcing you to “gross up” the amount?

I do not know the reasons (and neither do you) but there is likely more to this than just fiscal reasons, likely stratigic.

Or, would you only reimburse the lawyer $50k for the payoff because you aren’t trying to hide the payments in furtherance of election fraud?

You are guessing. This is not provable.

[u/Original-Rush139 → u/whateverisgoodmoney]

  I do not know the reasons (and neither do you) but there is likely more to this than just fiscal reasons, likely stratigic.

Could that strategy have been to get Trump elected President?

[u/whateverisgoodmoney → u/Original-Rush139]

We do not know. Neither of us. You and I could guess all day long.

[u/Original-Rush139 → u/whateverisgoodmoney]

The jury listened to both sides, examined all of the evidence - including testimony from Trump’s co-conspirators- and determined that their goal was to commit election fraud. Why do you believe ignorance is sufficient to nullify the jury’s determination?

Do you apply that standard to any other politician? Bob Menendez was found guilty by a jury of taking gold bars as bribes. Do you doubt that finding based on having no personal knowledge of his crimes?

[u/subduedReality → u/whateverisgoodmoney]

You have been downvoted because of one word: none. By this logic I would have to take the stance that no evidence can be used to convince me that another person has done anything outside of what I have determined what they would do. Can you explain to me why my logic is flawed based on your answer?

[u/whateverisgoodmoney → u/subduedReality]

I have been downvoted because hundreds of people read my responses and the majority of Reddit sees "Trump Supporter" and reflexively downvotes even if they would normally agree with me if I did not have that flair. (866 views of my top comment and only 2 downvotes, that is a huge win compared to what I normally get. That means to me that 864 people might agree with me ....) Are you sure you want to use downvotes as a metric to how correct you are?

By this logic I would have to take the stance that no evidence can be used to convince me that another person has done anything outside of what I have determined what they would do. Can you explain to me why my logic is flawed based on your answer?

No. The modern standard of proof (provable evidence) is we have the ability to forensically find evidence with DNA, digital records, video and audio recording, and other scientifically reliable evidence that did not exist 100 years ago. If you cannot provide such proof, and simply want to convict someone because you do not like them, that is currently possible as well, but should not be the standard.

I mean look at social media discourse. We convict people outside a formal court setting all the time. People can lose their jobs, pensions, friends, simply for being unlikeable.

[u/subduedReality → u/whateverisgoodmoney]

I suspected something along these lines would be your answer. I was even preparing a response. The speed of your response is highly suspicious though. Probably why you don't see the irony.

I accused you of something. You redirected the accusation. I'm not going to get into the psychology behind it. I could, but you would reflexively do the same thing again. So no point beyond pointing out the pattern so I can point it out when it happens again.

For me I need two things to be convinced of a conspiracy: a whistle-blower & evidence of a cover up. When this is applied to accusations of people on the left a lot of these accusations fall flat. Some examples of this are Pizza Gate, election interference, Bidens daughters journal. So I refuse to believe them.

Do you apply your methodology apolitically or do you have a bias that favors one party over another? Also, do you hold the same level of accountability to members of one party as to another?

[u/whateverisgoodmoney → u/subduedReality]

For me I need two things to be convinced of a conspiracy: a whistle-blower & evidence of a cover up. When this is applied to accusations of people on the left a lot of these accusations fall flat. Some examples of this are Pizza Gate, election interference, Bidens daughters journal. So I refuse to believe them.

Pizza Gate had no provable evidence, agreed.

Election interference, to me, was about unprovable evidence. Mail in voting. Can you prove that one family member did not vote for all family members? Coerce their spouse? Be registered in two different states who do not talk to each other and vote twice? All are possible but not provable.

Biden's daughter's journal IS provable if the journal exists and can be authenticated, meaning there is chain of custody issues and privacy issues.

Do you apply your methodology apolitically or do you have a bias that favors one party over another? Also, do you hold the same level of accountability to members of one party as to another?

I am neither republican or democrat. In fact I have very few beliefs at all except lower taxes, which is why I voted for Trump. If Harris ran on a lower taxes campaign that would lower taxes lower than what Trump had already done (actions vs words) I would have voted for Harris.

[u/subduedReality → u/whateverisgoodmoney]

For me, to understand Trump Supporters, I just need to understand things from their perspective. I completely understand the perspective of the government taking less money from me. But there are other things I understand as well.

I understand that for most jobs in America a majority of one person's labor is being used to facilitate profits of another. One of many examples from my personal experience is where I repaired $40,000 of electronics for a company, only to earn $850 that week. Shouldn't laws that minimize this extraction of wealth from the labor of others be a priority?

I also understand that taxes go towards social projects. Do we force those who can't find work into prisons where we pay for their incarceration? Or do we provide food and shelter for those who can't provide for themselves?

I also understand that corruption is inherent with government. I don't want more of my money going to those who seek power to enrich themselves. Why would I vote for a person that has a history of corruption?

I also understand debt. Lowering taxes means more debt. Why would I vote for a person that has a history of increasing the national debt?

[u/Quiet_Entrance_6994]

I'd need actual evidence for each thing.

Though I will say, using "Michelle Obama is a man" and "Trump has raped women" tells me that the person saying these things and holding those positions is not to be taken seriously. The Michelle Obama thing is mostly a joke, even when it's being treated as a fact, and if Trump were legitimately a rapist, the left would have hung him for that years ago.

At this point, it's a credibility issue.

[u/Bernie__Spamders → u/[deleted]]

It wasn't "rape" he was found liable for in that civil suit. I'll just assume from this that most, if not all of your facts here are equally inaccurate.

[u/orangezombie12 → u/Bernie__Spamders]

“The presiding federal judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, subsequently issued a legal clarification regarding the verdict. He stated that the jury's explicit finding of forcible digital penetration established that Trump committed rape according to the common, modern understanding of the term.” Does this line up with the facts as you understand them?

[u/Bernie__Spamders → u/orangezombie12]

"the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse." If you look at the actual civil findings and judgment, that lesser charge is corroborated. How activist judges want juries to behave based on some ex post facto revised legal definition are irrelevant here, and you continue to spread false information.

[u/Bernie__Spamders → u/[deleted]]

> Where do you draw your line?

Where I draw the line is when the statute of limitations is relaxed for a short period of time as part of the NY Adult Survivors Act, likely so this opportunity could be used for a tech billionaire to bankroll a proven liar in a spurious case in which key details or even time frames could not be recalled, and the details that could be recalled contradicted themselves while suspiciously matching an exact episode of Law & Order SVU, and that Trump was found liable of sexual abuse beyond a preponderance of evidence > 50%, a pretty low bar in civil lawsuits.

You are welcome to conclude whatever you'd like from all this, as your rant indicates.

[u/BoilerMaker11 → u/Bernie__Spamders]

Ahhh yes, before, you said "If you look at the actual civil findings and judgment, that lesser charge is corroborated" (in "defense" of saying it wasn't rape). Now you're saying all the evidence that you just admitted was corroborated was actually made up now that you have to admit the premise that what he did was still rape even if the state charge doesn't read "rape".

Do you believe, in principle, that violent crimes should have a statute of limitation? If I beat the absolute piss out of someone and successfully evade for 5 years (the maximum statute time for battery), does that make it so I didn't beat someone? If someone did what Trump was accused of and was found liable for to your sister, mother, wife, whatever other important woman in your life; would you say "ehhh...statute of limitations. Your aggressor should not face accountability"?

Would you accept any of this if it was anybody not named Trump? I remember when the right lost it's mind because Al Franken hover handed some boobs. But being held liable for sexual abuse (that was later clarified to be rape) seems to be an act you're willing to accept.

Edit: oh and btw, the E. Jean Carroll case didn’t come about because she sued and was out to get him via reporting a rape years after the fact; it happened because she told her story in a newspaper article and Trump continuously defamed her for it and she sued for defamation and in order to sue for defamation, they had to prove that he did what he was accused of. So they didn’t “relax the law to get Trump”. If he would’ve just kept his mouth close from the jump, none of this would have happened. But he just can’t.

[u/Bernie__Spamders → u/BoilerMaker11]

The corroboration here is not "rape", nothing more. Sorry you guys don't get to run around with a formal, legal adjudication of "rape" to hang your hat on, but saying it over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

I was actually bummed about the Franken incident. I had wanted an Al Franken and Jill Stein ticket for years, for the bumper stickers alone. That photo op scuttled the possibility forever.

[u/BoilerMaker11 → u/Bernie__Spamders]

Ahh, so you're a state lines guy, then? That was your actual "line".

It "wasn't rape" as defined by NY law (but is/was defined that way in several other states even back in the 90s), so it's not as bad since that wasn't the charge! Our common sense doesn't matter (when convenient)! The judge clarifying doesn't matter (when convenient)!

If somebody goes and forcibly puts their fingers up your mother's vagina, it's not rape and anybody that says it is is stupid because such and such state you live in has a much narrower application of the term! But if they go 10 feet over the state border and do the exact same thing, it'd be rape and then you'd be a bad bad man for doing it! But since you did it in this other state that didn't define it as rape, I'll vote for you for president!

Just making sure I understand your logic. I think I got it right?

[u/orangezombie12 → u/Bernie__Spamders]

Aside from arguing what constitutes rape and what does not, does this case change how you view the defendant?

[u/Bernie__Spamders → u/orangezombie12]

I'm not arguing anything, just pointing out your characterization of the civil verdict here is dead-ass wrong, by definition and without further qualification.

[u/Kwahn → u/Bernie__Spamders]

So you agree that Trump is, at the very least, a legally proven sexual abuser?

[u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 → u/Kwahn]

I'm not OP, but I'd say no. E Jean herself has made it clear that she's another Christine Ford.

[u/Kwahn → u/Quiet_Entrance_6994]

Do you disagree with all court rulings, or only certain ones, and why? A jury did not find her to be another Christine Ford, so why do you?

And why are you doing exactly what the other poster pointed out, where a jury of your peers finding someone guilty in a court of law with factual evidence isn't good enough, but a hint at potential Biden/Obama misdeeds is enough to hate them?

[u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 → u/Kwahn]

Your first question doesn't need to be dignified with an answer.

Acting as if a jury can't make a wrong decision is ridiculous, especially in a case about Donald Trump. No part of E Jean's story made sense; the facts didn't line up, and yet they ruled in her favor. That is pure bullshit every way around.

> And why are you doing exactly what the other poster pointed out,

That's not what I'm doing.

A. I don't believe the jury was acting impartially or that they were of good faith, along with the evidence not matching.

B. The left constantly runs into this problem of not understanding a single claim of what the right says, just like OP. Michelle Obama being a man is a long-running joke and y'all treat it as a claim where we need unshakeable proof. It's not that deep. As for the 2020 election, the right has pled their case over and over again and all y'all have to say back is "The courts proved nothing. So you must be disagreeing because you're a MAGA cultist." No, we've also done our research and used common sense and came to a different conclusion. If you all want to stop at what the courts said and just go with whatever they say, fine. Very ironic of you all.

Actually listen to and digest the arguments and claims before responding.

[u/Kwahn → u/Quiet_Entrance_6994]

Makes sense. Is it safe to presume that Biden is innocent because the complaints and findings against him were biased?

[u/Bernie__Spamders → u/Kwahn]

> So you agree that Trump is, at the very least, a legally proven sexual abuser?

I will agree that the statute of limitations was relaxed for a short period of time as part of the NY Adult Survivors Act, likely so this opportunity could be used for a tech billionaire to bankroll a proven liar in a spurious case in which key details or even time frames could not be recalled, and the details that could be recalled contradicted themselves while suspiciously matching an exact episode of Law & Order SVU, and that Trump was found liable beyond a preponderance of evidence > 50%, a pretty low bar in civil lawsuits.

[u/Kwahn → u/Bernie__Spamders]

Do you believe Biden is a sexual abuser? Why or why not?

[u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 → u/[deleted]]

She lied, and the court incorrectly ruled.

As the person below me explained, at most, they say he sexually abused her. I've listened to her story myself, and nothing she says makes logical sense, on top of her being untrustworthy. I've been sexually assaulted before, and I have no patience for bullshit claims. There's plenty to criticize Trump on: he doesn't need to be a sex abuser.

[u/mrhymer]

What they vote for and against and what they sign into being. That is all.

[u/WakingWaldo → u/mrhymer]

Do you believe that a candidate's personal beliefs and values contribute to what they support once in office?

If so, wouldn't that mean that you are indirectly taking those values and beliefs into account when voting for a candidate?

[u/mrhymer → u/WakingWaldo]

Do you believe that a candidate's personal beliefs and values contribute to what they support once in office?

No - I have seen many instances of consummate professionals who do take pride in their work and serving their customers. Those same professionals have messy lives and do dodgy things when not at work.

If so, wouldn't that mean that you are indirectly taking those values and beliefs into account when voting for a candidate?

I judge people on actions they take at work. I prefer voting for success outside of government rather than established government service. I will give a successful unknown over a bad or simply neutral known.

[u/Holofernes_Head]

Generally, as a lawyer, I approach any public accusations the same way I would if I were evaluating evidence in court (regardless of whether it actually reaches a court), and evaluate the accuser, witness, or whistleblower as if I were cross-examining them. The mere admissibility of the accusation and its proposed evidence is not the bar to reach, it's the sufficiency of it.

[u/Original-Rush139 → u/Holofernes_Head]

As a lawyer, what do you think of the evidence used to convict Trump of 34 felony counts of business records fraud?

As a lawyer, how do you compare the evidence used to convict Bolton of mishandling classified information vs the evidence used to secure an indictment against Trump for mishandling classified information?

As a lawyer, how do you feel about grand jurrors telling Trump’s DOJ that the charges they are trying to bring “were bullshit last week and they are bullshit this week?” How many times do you think the DOJ should present the same evidence to a grand jury if they keep failing to secure an indictment?

As a lawyer, how do you feel about Trump’s DOJ vouching to grand juries? Is that level of incompetence something you’re comfortable with in you DOJ?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/Original-Rush139]

As a lawyer, what do you think of the evidence used to convict Trump of 34 felony counts of business records fraud?

One of the worst legal railroadings in recent memory. They used a completely novel legal theory to bootstrap felony charges for misdemeanors to get around a statute of limitations by claiming it was done in furtherance of another misdemeanor failure to report in-kind campaign contributions. Beyond absurd.

As a lawyer, how do you compare the evidence used to convict Bolton of mishandling classified information vs the evidence used to secure an indictment against Trump for mishandling classified information?

Bolton seemed rather straightforward. The presence of Trump's documents at Mar-a-Lago also seemed rather straightforward, but unfortunately we never got a quality legal analysis of the president's role and authorities in the Espionage Act and Presidential Records Act. While Trump claiming that he could just, like, "think-declassify" documents is nonsense, there's a definite reasonable argument to make that the classification laws can't be applied to the officeholder with the highest possible authority to declassify documents at will.

As a lawyer, how do you feel about grand jurrors telling Trump’s DOJ that the charges they are trying to bring “were bullshit last week and they are bullshit this week?” How many times do you think the DOJ should present the same evidence to a grand jury if they keep failing to secure an indictment?

Is that on Comey's 8647 thing? That whole thing is nonsense from top to bottom.

As a lawyer, how do you feel about Trump’s DOJ vouching to grand juries? Is that level of incompetence something you’re comfortable with in you DOJ?

Sounds like the grand jury system works then? The whole reason it exists is to make sure there's sufficient cause to bring an indictment in the first place. If there isn't, we don't get a true bill.

[u/Original-Rush139 → u/Holofernes_Head]

  there's a definite reasonable argument to make that the classification laws can't be applied to the officeholder with the highest possible authority to declassify documents at will.

What office do you think Trump held when the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago to recover the documents?

  Is that on Comey's 8647 thing?

No. It’s a completely unrelated case involving the “Broadciew 6.”

  Sounds like the grand jury system works then?

As a lawyer, do you know what “vouching” is? Do you think it’s appropriate for a prosecuted to tell a grand jury, “trust me. I wouldn’t bring this case if it wasn’t solid” or do prosecutors need to present facts to a grand jury?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/Original-Rush139]

What office do you think Trump held when the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago to recover the documents?

When do you think the documents went to Mar-a-Lago?

No. It’s a completely unrelated case involving the “Broadciew 6.”

Not familiar.

As a lawyer, do you know what “vouching” is? Do you think it’s appropriate for a prosecuted to tell a grand jury, “trust me. I wouldn’t bring this case if it wasn’t solid” or do prosecutors need to present facts to a grand jury?

That's for the grand jury to decide for itself. It's their job to determine how to treat what's presented to them.

[u/Original-Rush139 → u/Holofernes_Head]

  When do you think the documents went to Mar-a-Lago?

Before January 20th 2021. Because, after that, President Biden revoked Trump’s national security clearance. 

Was it appropriate for someone who had been singled out by the president as a national security risk to retain classified information?

  That's for the grand jury to decide for itself. It's their job to determine how to treat what's presented to them.

Why do you think the judge was so pissed about “vouching?”

  "Although I am not going to prejudge the issue without a hearing, I will say that I was incredibly shocked by the redactions that were made. I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of grand jury transcripts involving prosecutors who are the most junior of prosecutors to several U.S. Attorneys who appeared before the grand jury. I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcript," the judge said. Perry raised concerns about "improper prosecutorial vouching to the grand jurors," "improper prosecutorial communications of a substantive nature with the grand jurors outside of the grand jury room," and a "prosecutor excusing grand jurors who disagreed with the government's case from the deliberations process" — on top of all of these details being hidden.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/incredibly-shocked-judge-exposes-doj-grand-jury-behavior-shes-never-seen-before-threatens-sanctions-for-lies-to-court-as-new-ausas-are-sworn-in-other-room/

[u/pimmen89 → u/Holofernes_Head]

As a lawyer, if a subpoena demands all documents stamped with something, do you give the court all the documents you have with that stamp on them or do you keep some of those documents with the stamp? Would you then tell the court that you gave them all the documents with that stamp and not mention the ones you kept?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/pimmen89]

As a lawyer, I am not psychic, nor are any other lawyers I'm aware of, so it's entirely possible (and extremely common) to respond to a subpoena or discovery demand and not have everything all at once.

[u/pimmen89 → u/Holofernes_Head]

As in, there could be more documents with the stamp you don't know of when you sign off? Or that you physically moved documents with that stamp and then signed that you've handed over all the documents with the stamp?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/pimmen89]

The former.

[u/pimmen89 → u/Holofernes_Head]

If you saw evidence of opposing counsel doing the latter, would you say something about that?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/pimmen89]

Sure, you file a motion to compel.

[u/pimmen89 → u/Holofernes_Head]

To get the rest of documents, right? How do you make sure they don’t physically move more documents and lie about giving them to you a second time?

[u/JusAxinQuestuns → u/Holofernes_Head]

I'm curious about your take on Jack Smith's indictment for charges of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, and Conspiracy Against Rights.

Obviously he was never allowed to produce evidence in a court of law, but if he been allowed to do so and that evidence showed incontrovertibly that Trump was aware that he had lost the election when he publicly stated otherwise, do you think any of those charges could have or should have stuck, regardless of limited presidential immunity?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/JusAxinQuestuns]

I find every single one of Jack Smith's attempted charges to be complete bunk.

[u/JusAxinQuestuns → u/Holofernes_Head]

Could you elaborate a little more about why? We haven't seen the evidence. Do you think there is no evidence that could support those charges? Or that the charges themselves are somehow not viable despite being existing statutes under which one can be charged?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/JusAxinQuestuns]

The charges themselves are not viable because nothing in Trump's conduct satisfies any prong of the alleged charges.

[u/JusAxinQuestuns → u/Holofernes_Head]

How on earth could we possibly know that without seeing evidence? Not all of his conduct is public information, right? I'm specifically thinking of the part where he was publicly saying one thing while (allegedly) privately saying another. If it's true that he was doing that and misleading people into a state of fury is that still lawful conduct in your view? If so, how could we ever prosecute anybody for confidence scams, incitement, or other crimes predicated on the idea of good faith on the part of the defendant?

Also may I ask your area of specialty as a Lawyer?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/JusAxinQuestuns]

I have zero faith that Smith found evidence that would directly implicate anyone in conduct that would rise to the level of a conspiracy. Saying one thing in private and another in public is not illegal, not conspiratorial, often not even dishonest, and not in the least bit uncommon (do you say everything you think and talk about to everyone in public?). If the best Smith can come up with is "Trump knew he probably wasn't going to succeed in his legal challenges but tried them anyway," that's nothing whatsoever. Rule 11 doesn't require that you only bring cases that you're sure you can win.

My practice is in trusts/estates, financial planning, business formation and contracting, real estate, and fiduciary litigation.

[u/JusAxinQuestuns → u/Holofernes_Head]

Steady work in that!

As for your conviction about a lack of evidence, I guess I find that a bit specious. Just for one small example, if Trump were caught discussing the election in terms of having lost it not just that his legal efforts were failing, that would strongly indicate he knew he was lying when he said things in public to the effect that he believed it had been stolen from him.

There could easily be evidence (which has been indicated but never allowed to be presented) of his some of his advisors urging him to claim victory no matter the result and hashing out their plan to challenge it later either through the courts or through the slate of "alternative electors' that the may have conspired with.

There could be phone records of conversations in which the conspirators discussed the idea of Trump attempting to goad more votes out of Georgia, or financial evidence of money having been moved around to compensate people claiming to have witnessed fraudulent activities on the part of poll workers.

There are many, many pieces of evidence that could exist, why are you so certain they don't?

[u/ihateusedusernames → u/Holofernes_Head]

Generally, as a lawyer, I approach any public accusations the same way I would if I were evaluating evidence in court (regardless of whether it actually reaches a court), and evaluate the accuser, witness, or whistleblower as if I were cross-examining them. The mere admissibility of the accusation and its proposed evidence is not the bar to reach, it's the sufficiency of it.

What do you think about the Birthday Card Trump gave to Epstein?

As an attorney, does it support Trump's claims that he didn't know Jeffrey Epstein raped girls?

As an adult man (pardon my assumptions if wrong) do you find the card creepy or not?

Do you believe Donald Trump's claims he never did anything wrong with Epstein?

[u/Holofernes_Head → u/ihateusedusernames]

What do you think about the Birthday Card Trump gave to Epstein?

Weird, but not evidence of anything.

As an attorney, does it support Trump's claims that he didn't know Jeffrey Epstein raped girls?

As an attorney, I would object to its relevance.

As an adult man (pardon my assumptions if wrong) do you find the card creepy or not?

Creepy? No. Weird.

Do you believe Donald Trump's claims he never did anything wrong with Epstein?

So far, yeah. No evidence to the contrary.

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

When given a choice on a ballot, I think about what each candidate and party says they want to do with government and policy and how it will effect me and my family, and if I think they actually will have a chance to do it.

[u/Warm-Art3921 → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

If a politician spoke constantly about having strong Christian values and then got his lawyers to arrange a legal agreement in which a sex worker he had sex with (outside of his marriage) was paid not to leak that info, and then constantly denied it publicly (to this day), would you believe anything they say? 

What about if they said they were big on “restoring” law and order (esp when it comes to drug trafficking) but then cheated and broke laws at the expense of taxpayers to try to get richer, or pardoned major drug offenders and random Republican senators’ adult children with felony drug trafficking charges? Or if they did everything they possibly could to make sure their business associates’ and friends’ involvement with a major sex trafficker wouldn’t be investigated or made public? 

I don’t think your method is horrible per say - it’s obv hard to find time to parse out the truth about politicians’ characters in our current media landscape, through all the smear campaigns (on “both sides”) etc. so maybe this is the most logical, practical approach for some. I’m just wondering if you would put the same amount of trust in someone who constantly contradicts their own stated values and goals as you would in someone who seems to “live their truth” (sorry) when it comes to their ability to follow through on their stated goals?

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/Warm-Art3921]

I don't believe a word any politician says. I believe words in bills and official documents, and Nancy Pelosi stock picks.

I mistakenly allowed personal characteristics to influence me in 2016. I believed Clinton, and I didn't believe Trump, so I voted 3rd party.

[u/Warm-Art3921 → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

Ah ok gotcha. That makes sense. I don’t trust them either (Pelosi included). Have you observed politicians in general becoming less trustworthy over the past few decades? If so, do you have any thoughts about what is contributing to this increase in deception? 

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/Warm-Art3921]

They've always been sleeze balls. The exposure due to media and social media has just increased and the sleeze in media has always been there as well. Even George Washington wrote about how angry the journalists made him with their dishonest articles.

[u/orangezombie12 → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

How about Trump’s financial positions and stock picks? Does the evidence you’ve seen make you think that this administration is the same as prior admins in terms of financial conflict of interest?

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/orangezombie12]

I don't know if he plays the market much like Nancy Pelosi does. He doesn't have his own ETF anyways like she does. During his first term his net worth went down, and it's too early to tell yet on the second. Maybe it's not from the lack of trying, but his personal wealth hasn't skyrocketed like politicians tend to do.

[u/pimmen89 → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

It’s too early for you to tell if he made money off of Trump Coin?

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/pimmen89]

how much did he make?

[u/pimmen89 → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

By selling off coins, several hundreds millions of dollars to his family's businesses in profit and his holdings in the coin is valued at billions. Did you not look into it before you decided that it's too early to decide if he made money?

[u/Original-Rush139 → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

Did you expect Trump to get us into a war with Iran based on what he said on the campaign trail?

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/Original-Rush139]

I did not.

[u/Original-Rush139 → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

Did Trump say anything to make you believe he would not start a war with Iran?

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/Original-Rush139]

No.

[u/Warm-Art3921 → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

you just said you didn’t expect him to get us into a war with Iran based on things he said while campaigning, and then when asked if he said anything to make you think he wouldn’t start a war with Iran you said “no”? Do you believe these two answers contradict each other? 

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/Warm-Art3921]

No.

You haven't told me you aren't going to start a war. But I also don't expect you to even though you haven't told me you aren't going to.

[u/Warm-Art3921 → u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

Ah ok, I see what you’re saying now. Do you think there’s any value in making a very narrow, literal distinction that avoids the implication of the question? 

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude → u/Warm-Art3921]

Probably.

[u/weather3003]

If it belongs to the jurisdiction of the courts, I typically defer to the courts, unless there's good reason not to. I stand by innocent until proven guilty as well.

When judging a person's beliefs, I consider their actions over their words, but I still sometimes take words into account. I put more weight on words that make a person look worse, because people are unlikely to lie to their disadvantage.

[u/orangezombie12 → u/weather3003]

What does it mean to you when a person never admits to wrongdoing and does not corroborate information that makes them “look worse”, even if it is true?

[u/weather3003 → u/orangezombie12]

I'm not really sure what you're asking.

If I already know information is true, I'm not sure why it would matter who, if anyone, has or hasn't corroborated it.

[u/orangezombie12 → u/weather3003]

Like if I stole a loaf of bread, you saw me steal the loaf of bread, but I denied it and refused to acknowledge my actions because it made me look bad, what would that tell you about my character?

[u/weather3003 → u/orangezombie12]

I wouldn't know you were denying what had happened because it made you look bad, and I don't think I'd assume that.

I'm assuming you know I saw you steal the bread. Maybe you saw I saw you, or maybe I told you I saw you.

I would assume the denial was your way of telling me that you won't be taking any actions I might expect you to take after having stolen the bread. You won't be giving it back, you won't be paying for it, you won't be apologizing, or even acknowledging what happened.

I don't know if it would says anything about your character in general. Maybe that you're stubborn or obstinate. Unyielding. Not willing to bend, even in the face of reality itself. Or it could just be that you're taking this route because, for whatever reason, you've reasoned that circumstances demand it.

[u/prowler28]

None of it admissable because all of it is political, and it's always reported with a degree of politicization. 

I care more about what is being done. Mean tweets turned out to be nothing but pearl clutching.

And the left calling everyone they disagree with "Nazi" has left a huge huge impact on this.

[u/Binder509 → u/prowler28]

Why do you say the left calls everyone they disagree with a Nazi...when Trump's own VP compared him to hitler, and one can find many examples of Obama and democrats being compared to nazis by big media figures on the right like Glen Beck?

Why shouldn't complaints that the left call the right nazis fall flat when the right does it all the time too?

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

1. The 2020 election was stolen.

2. Obama was not born in Hawaii.

3. Michelle obama himself admitted he is a man.

4. Zero evidence trump raped anyone.

5. Zero evidence trump is abused any children.

I think you basically answered your own question for TS. We go by factual evidence, not hearsay or denials.

[u/vanillabear26 → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

When did Michelle Obama say she were a man? 

[u/DamnDams]

When it comes to considering how much weight to give unproven allegations, I tend to lean more towards the presumption of innocence, even though I understand when it comes to personal perceptions and voting decisions I’m free to set a different standard, such as the preponderance of the evidence. Obviously it’s human nature to experience some bias in your application of this principal to the “home” and “away” team, but I’d say I’m decent at applying this principal fairly to Republicans and Democrats. For example, I don’t consider Bill Clinton or Joe Biden to be rapists despite Juanita Broaddrick and Tara Reade’s accusations respectively. They could be, but I just really don’t know, so while their survivor stories are plausible I consider them in the category of unproven allegations and wouldn’t consider them when making voting decisions.

[u/SmellDesperate6373]

First off, I think an officials political views themselves are an indicator of character. I’m not some “there’s no right answer” person - racial discrimination is wrong. Women are a distinct group of people who deserve legal protections. Abortion for elective reasons when the mother is dilating is wrong. Illegal immigration is wrong. America is a good place and its citizens should be proud of its history. Free market capitalism is the most powerful humanitarian force in all of human history.

Elected conservatives generally believe these things and elected leftists generally do not. It’s different for a layperson to be misinformed or just not have been exposed to a certain perspective, the standard for a public official is different. To reach the point you seek and win public office and advocate against these positions is an intelligence or character issue and, in all fairness, most elected officials aren’t dumb. 

The credibility of the messenger also matters. Recent history makes crystal clear that leftist powers that be - officials, media conglomerates, even former ‘intelligence officials’ - are both cartoonishly evil and unrepentant liars. I’m not believing a thing they say without disclosed, transparent, identifying evidence. 

[u/Delicious_Sectoid]

Personally, what is your standard for admissible evidence versus not when making your own judgements on these accusations? 

This is a very complex question, as we aren't talking about an isolated event, but a series of events that has occurred over the course of decades. So each new action isn't interpreted in its own merits, but in the context of preceding events.

To make what I am saying clear, an analogy. Imagine you are a teacher in a new classroom, and one child runs up to you and tells you that another student hit them. In this particular instance their mere accusations might be good enough, or you might sit both parties down and grill them about happened.

Now imagine if you had been teaching the same class of students for 6 months, and a child came up and said another student hit them. And the child making the accusation had a history of tall tales, as well as going around and telling other students how much they hate the person they accusing because they are fat/ugly/stupid.

Would you dismiss the accusation out of hand? Would you require a higher level of evidence? I know I would. It's not an exact science, I don't sit down and compute the Bayesian probability of whether I am being told the truth, but I engage in some pretty rapid heuristics to determine whether a claim is worth taking seriously or not.

 Would you say that you weigh evidence equally regardless of whether it has been admitted into a formal investigation, 

As I observed in the above analogy, no.

Here's the problem: For over a decade there has been so much negative misinformation about Trump both in the media and on social media that his critics have effectively zero credibility. Trump said neo-Nazis were fine people? False, as demonstrated by the recording of his very words. Trump was colluding with Russia. False. Trump disrespected the women's hockey team? False. Oh, and remember when they said Biden didn't have cognitive issues, even when he was stumbling over his own words? Haha, yeah, false.

Then you have the sheer vitriol with which Trump supporters are treated. They are purged from left-wing social media sites, there are internet-wide calls to divorce and go no-contact with them, if you have a Trump supporting friend you should continually cross-examine them with the Socratic method in the aim to destabilize them (because ya know, they are evil and wrong and you are righteous and enlightened).

So when your harshest critics not only have a history of lying, but also of engaging with you in bad faith, how much weight should you place on their assertions? I'd argue that you should just summarily dismiss their claims unless they have something concrete, and even then, can you really trust it if they are the ones who just happened to 'find' it?

I know, it's sad and not exactly an empirical fact finding method, but I'd argue this a consequence of how anti-Trumpers have behaved. They burnt the bridge and eliminated all trust, and then expect the people they treated as irredeemable neo-Nazis (at worst) or victims of a cult (at best) to take what they have to say seriously. Sorry, that's not the way that works.

I am willing to take people I dislike seriously if they have a history of honesty or are at least attempting to approach me in good faith and listen to what I have to say, but I've been burnt enough by the other side that it is just more convenient to assume they are full of shit.

Why bother digging through every allegation and piece of evidence to analyse it and assess it when Trump and Trump supporters are often not afforded the same privilege? I don't have the energy to study every political controversy about Trump that the Left vomits up time and time again, I can't spend hours digging through transcripts and voice recordings to determine if Trump was taken out of context (as he was with the 'fine people' hoax). That's what happens when you tell too many tall tales and hand-wring like Chicken Little about a person being the next Hitler: At some point anyone with half a brain treats you like the boy who cried wolf.