Topic on Talk:Donald Trump

Nitpicky objections from a Trump supporter intended to justify whitewashing generally rejected.

Suggested contributions to the following points;

• Pet the Dog
  • In 2018, Trump granted clemency to Alice Johnson, a 63-year-old woman who had been serving time for a drug charge and money laundering since 1996 and had been denied clemency by previous administrations despite meeting all the criteria. (source; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44390737 )
  • A literal example where Trump administration arranged for a White House meeting with of the special operations soldiers that participated in the Baghdadi raid that killed the leader of ISIS; literal because that included Conan, the special operations war dog in that raid. While the soldiers couldn’t be identified due to national security reasons from being on active duty at the time, Conan wasn’t on active duty. Trump also posted a declassified picture of Conan on Twitter and even considered reversing the policy on military canines not being awarded military honors. (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_(dog)#White_House_visit )
• Sore Loser:

Remove the part that says "...and when that failed he incited a mob to storm the Capitol Building in an unsuccessful attempt to seize the government." After a trial Trump was acquitted and declared innocent of inciting the Capitol Hill Riot (sources here, here and here) regardless of whether or not one likes the verdict not, the fact remains Trump was acquitted of that charge so legally there's no grounds to hold it over him.

(removed bit about sources and media to keep it relevant to the topic).

First off, some simple definitions: "Innocent" means "he didn't do it". "Not Guilty" means "insufficiently convinced by the evidence at hand", or in the case of the Senate trial, "the required minimum number of guilty votes was not reached". They are not equal to each other. No one is ever declared innocent by a trial; "innocent" is not a valid finding in a court of law.

Now that that has been clarified, Trump was not declared innocent, because no such thing is possible under how courts -- and the Senate -- work. In fact, Republican leader Mitch McConnell, despite voting to acquit, declared quite the opposite. Trump was caught on video doing the inciting, that was something no one but Trump and his lawyers denied. The case was made sufficiently well that a clear majority of the Senate voted to convict (just not enough to meet the minimum threshold required by the Constitution), and those who didn't generally voted as they did not because they thought he wasn't guilty, but because they felt the Constitution didn't permit them to. McConnell explicitly called him criminally responsible for the siege of the Capitol, and that he should be pursued in court -- criminal and/or civil -- for it. That is not by any measure declaring him innocent. Effectively, the official Republican stance on him is "sure, he did it, but we can't convict him in the Senate because he's not president any more -- take him to court and convict him there".

On the topic of tropes, what do you think of my ideas of what to add for the "Pet the Dog?" trope on Trump's page?

Thank you for explaining the definition of innocent, especially in the legal sense, I was mistaken about him being declared innocent, though he was acquitted and I stand by the fact that he did not deliberately incite the riot. That does bring to mind the Presumption of innocence, which is considered an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11, something recognized in the United States. The legal principle that one is considered "innocent until proven guilty" - while not itself proof of innocence, is an intrinsic part of due process required to prove guilt "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt", and Trump was not proven guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (and given how polarizing Trump is, I wonder how many people among both his supporters and his haters, even in the trial, were letting how they feel about him get in the way of facts).

I explained presumption of innocence to explain why I still say the part "...and when that failed he incited a mob to storm the Capitol Building in an unsuccessful attempt to seize the government." should be removed. It was proven he didn't deliberately incite the riot (or at least wasn't proven that he did); even though some among the Senate voted to convict, the fact remains enough people among the Senate also voted to acquit Trump which is why the minimum threshold required by the constitution wasn't reached. Our discussion her reminds me of the film "12 Angry Men", you ever see that?

The three videos you linked are just videos of the same speech by Mitch McConnell except for one of them including a speech by Nancy Pelosi, and while I acknowledge they said what they did, their feelings and personal views aren't legally binding. There was more to the trial than that and valid points brought up in Trump's defense as seen here (warning; long video). At the very least, if that text is not removed, how about the compromise of adding a footnote acknowledging Trump's acquittal, what say you?

MOD: This wiki is All The Tropes, not All The Courts.

There is evidence that Trump incited a mob to storm the Capitol Building in an unsuccessful attempt to seize the government. We have his own words saying it. This wiki is not a criminal court and is not bound by "presumption of innocence"; if we are like anything in the court system, we are more like civil court where "preponderance of evidence" is the rule.

We do not censor for politics - period. The statement remains.

So how about the points I suggested under Pet the Dog? Can we add those?

Thank you for explaining how this site treats the subject. I must say there's evidence against Trump deliberately inciting that mob, and not acknowledging the fact that Trump was acquitted in my opinion would also be censoring for politics.

I must say there's evidence against Trump deliberately inciting that mob,

I've never seen any.

I must say there's evidence against Trump deliberately inciting that mob

^{[please verify]}

Further, McConnell's statement is not merely opinion, it is for all practical purposes a statement of position for the Republican Party.

I am at a complete loss how the presence of a clip of Nancy Pelosi in one of the videos to which I linked has any relevance whatsoever.

Official view of the party perhaps, but not the entire party as some clearly voted to acquit Trump (side note; I know why McConnell said he voted to acquit, but to vote to acquit someone he thinks is guilty looks very two-faced imo).

I mentioned Nancy because she shared McConnell's sentiment towards Trump, it was part of the links you provided, and I was proving that I actually checked out your sources.

Regarding tropes, I'm not sure about Dodgy Toupee, because I think Trump's gotten hair implants; do hair implants count as a toupee?

Now that's a good question. As said elsewhere, Tropes Are Flexible, and I'm of the personal opinion that it's the "dodgy" rather than the "toupee" that's the key. Any kind of hair replacement that looks awful should count.

No arguments on this from me, you make a good point about the hair replacement part, I was just curious about the "toupee" part.