Not GP, but I share his general viewpoint. My response would be:

1. I do not believe he would actually be able to do this (like the wall). Thankfully, unlike other aspects of our government, our judiciary is generally functional and independent. I think what he is really saying here is something like this:

"HRC should have been indicted for the e-mails. The FBI director and AG are both Obama appointees. Bill Clinton was seen meeting with the AG very shortly before the decision was announced. There are many documented cases of lower-level officials being indicted for lesser mishandling of classified information. Based on all of this, it seems reasonable to propose that her exoneration was primarily a political decision, and was unjust. I'd like to correct that."

Not watertight, but a reasonable enough argument. In other words, I think he is saying that HRC should be in jail because he believes she performed a criminal act, not simply because she was his opponent.

2 & 3. My reading is that he is doing this, but not nearly as forcefully or frequently as the press implies he does. Furthermore, our elections can be and have been rigged in the past. There are numerous examples of this in the Democratic primaries this year. The real question is not whether both parties attempt to rig elections (they do: gerrymandering, voter ID laws, laws on criminal voting are all instances of this), but whether the rigging determines the election's outcome. Most people would say that it usually does not.

So if he argues, even pre-emptively, that the elections will be rigged, it is quite likely he will have a fact-based case to make that they are. It will be a much harder slog to convince anyone that the rigging was what prevented him from being elected, and I think he will not be successful in this if he tries.

I do not believe in criticizing people's statements based on consequentialist logic: i.e. "the things he is saying may or may not be true, but we should condemn them anyway because they are corrosive to democracy". My only real criterion for whether to accept or condemn statements is based on their truth or falsehood, or likelihood, or logic.

>>1 I'm impressed by the 9th dimensional re-reading of "You'd be in jail" if he were president. I know your God Emperor loves that you help him complete his sentences and also tie his shoes.

>>2/3 Sure, Trump is a fact-based kind of guy! So after he cries fire in a crowded theater let's trust he's the the guy trying to stop the mob. /s

I'm not a Trump supporter. Actually I was a Bernie supporter. I dislike both remaining candidates, but I do try to take as charitable an interpretation of both candidates' statements as reasonably possible. I have not found it productive to work any other way.

I can take a charitable interpretation of one candidate's statements, but not the other -- in which case my thinking becomes biased, or I can take an uncharitable interpretation of all candidates' statements, in which case they all seem irredeemably evil. Or I can try to make a good-faith attempt to determine what each candidate seems to be trying to say, which at least makes logical (as opposed to purely tribal) discourse possible, even though my inferences may be wrong.

I'm also a contrarian -- so, even though I may appear to be defending Trump here, because HRC is so overwhelmingly favored on HN, I do exactly the opposite with my friends and family in the red state I live in.

Of course I am not saying Trump is an especially honest or fact-based person. I am simply saying that when we evaluate candidates and their statements, we should try to look at facts. In case I didn't make it clear enough:

#1 is supported by some facts, if you take the interpretation I have taken. If he means something different, maybe not.

If he means, "I would put her in jail if I became President simply for being my political opponent", then that would be very bad, and of course I wouldn't condone that. I just don't see any more evidence for that interpretation than for mine.

#2 could be supported by ample facts, or not, depending on what he means by "rigged". Actually the bar would be much higher if he said something like "the election is/was rigged in HRC's net favor". I strongly doubt that.

#3 will almost certainly never be supportable.

Those are all super good points. I am also a contrarian. So I understand your points.

But this is basically coming down to the sharp drop off in your world view. You give Trump a wide latitude in what he says. What if he puts her in jail? What if he meant that? What if he meant everything that he said but you explained it away?Were you complacent?

edit: typo

This fear based "what if" is what is moving us towards "tribal discourse" and is an existential danger to our country far more than Trump. Between safety above all else and the out-group is evil, we're looking at the end of civil discourse.

I agree Trump is mostly a symptom of polarization (although I would say "what if"-based fear is more of a rhetorical tactic than a problem in itself).

Bottom line: we have some very severe systemic issues that allowed Trump to get as far as he has. Even if he isn't elected, if the issues aren't addressed, there will just be another Trump, and that one might be successful. So it behooves everyone to at least listen and try to understand what his supporters want and why they feel underserved by the current system.

We won't be able to do that if we write off everything Trump says as crazytalk. Clearly, his supporters don't see it that way.