Et tu, Ann Coulter? Updated

 

6-16-23:  Et tu Ann Coulter Update:

See comment 68



Comment:

CTH mentioned this recently. Not the pic, but the reference to the event. The event is the genesis of the entire "case" being brought on Trump regarding so called "classified documents". They dumped the records on the White House parking lot, and forced Trump to take possession of them. Then, they ginned up a complaint that Trump had documents that he wasn't supposed to have.

FAKE!!!

The entire indictment is ginned up out of the clear blue sky. Where have we seen this before???

Better yet, when will people like Ann Coulter ever learn? Or, just exactly WHO is Ann Coulter? Here's a video of Coulter predicting that Trump would win in 2016. She was laughed at. But that doesn't necessarily mean she was onboard with Trump. It was just a prediction. I don't see advocacy for Trump in what she predicted at that time.

original 6-15-23 post below:

Ann Coulter on indictment

She's never-Trumper now, and maybe she's always been for all I know. Somewhere down the line, she lost me. She's like a lot of folks that gotten on my fecal roster. You can stop being on that roster by stopping the a-hole stuff.

My view on the indictment is that it is probably fake. So many things are these days. Who's to believe anybody anymore? On things like this, I'd say the track record is what counts the most. Ann Coulter acknowledges that Trump's critics got it wrong before, but this time's different.

But why? Why is this time any different than before? Instead of listing the reasons, she goes off on Trump supporters. It's as if we're like the Democrats now. She thinks Trump supporters could care less if Trump broke the law. It's an insult. If she really respected the people she's trying to convince, she'd list why this time is different from the other times. But she doesn't. It's probably because it isn't, but she doesn't like Trump. Maybe that makes it different.

While accusing Trump supporters of repeating what they've heard, she repeats what she's heard. If she's heard more, and has solid reasons for what she believes, then why not share them? I didn't see anything compelling here.

She has staked out a position that's in opposition to Trump. Fine. Go for it. But don't hang an argument upon sources that have been less than reliable in the past.

As for a process crime, then why not hold the Democrats responsible for following the process? If they can nail Trump on a process crime that they know has no basis in evidence, then they can do this to anyone anytime. Should they really be able to do this? They've forfeited any reason at all to take them seriously. She admits that herself, yet she does it anyway. But she doesn't like Trump. Well, boo hoo.

I could say more, but I'll leave it at that.

The Democrats don't have the evidence. If they did, they'd have shown it already. REAL evidence would sink Trump. Nobody wants a fool in the White House, unless it's Democrats. Nobody wants a traitor in the White House, except Democrats. Just because you don't like Trump doesn't mean you have to join THOSE guys. Those guys have already shown many, many times that they'll say ANYTHING. Why would any serious person be willing to join them?