Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Research it myself?Thanks for cutting and pasting something I’ve already read. Just saying “its all illegal” wont stand up.
A criminal Statute and an action that violated that statute is needed for a crime.
Research it yourself, it’s old news.
If you would spend a few minutes to read the article, its all explained there. Try that instead of knee-jerk replying. The answers are there.Just naming the statues isn’t enough.
Just naming the statues isn’t enough. What part of the statute did what action of Trump violate?
If I’m a disingenuous poster, you are more than welcome not to read my post. It seems like you want to talk about everything in the world except name in the actions by Trump that violated specific criminal statues.
I know it seems like something I just pulled out of my rear end to you I guess. But believe it or not, that is how prosecutor prove crimes in every other case.
Now you are moving the goal posts and speculating.Except that, they also have to prove that the defendant actually did those actions. None of the cases against Trump have any chance of conviction. There’s been enough prosecutorial, misconduct, and bias decisions by judges to throw it out, even if there was strong evidence against him.
At this point, I don't think the poster cares.The four statutes are described here
18 USC 371 conspiracy to defraud US
18 USC 1512k conspiracy to obstruct official proceeding
18 USC 1512c2 obstruction of official proceeding
18 USC 241 conspiracy against rights
It's in post 93.Just naming the statues isn’t enough.
Just naming the statues isn’t enough. What part of the statute did what action of Trump violate?
Al Gore’s shenanigans in the 2020 election are well known, unless you are too young to remember them. I don’t know if this is supposed to be Socratic irony, or just playing dumb, but luckily, I am not required to play along either way.Research it myself?
That isn't how debate works.
You made claims, you need to back them.
Otherwise I could claim you are an alien from Mars and when asked for proof I respond by saying, old news. Research it yourself.
Are you sure you are cut out for fair political discourse?
2020 elections? You mean 2000 I assume?Al Gore’s shenanigans in the 2020 election are well known, unless you are too young to remember them. I don’t know if this is supposed to be Socratic irony, or just playing dumb, but luckily, I am not required to play along either way.
Yes, thank you.2020 elections? You mean 2000 I assume?
I’ll also not be supporting my claims that the confederacy lost the Civil War, that water is wet, and that a dog will bark at the slightest touch of someone outside the door.So you refuse to support your claim he tried to sue his way into the Whitehouse and that he wanted rule changes in his favor.
Yes! Yes!I expect it didn't happen or the context isn't as you say...but actually it's moot anyhow because it's not illegal to sue or want rules charged.
Yes, thank you.
I’ll also not be supporting my claims that the confederacy lost the Civil War, that water is wet, and that a dog will bark at the slightest touch of someone outside the door.
Yes! Yes!
Miracles happen after all!
Of course, it’s not illegal to take a case to court, to try to get the rules changed, or even to try to get the existing rules enforced when state election executives have decided to ignore them.
Is it legal to take to ask politicians and allies to take legal actions. In short, is not a crime to be a sore loser in a presidential election.
The crimes and statutes are listed of the indictments.Unseemly? Yes. Conducive to public confidence? No.
But a crime? I’m … No. Trying to make it One is the definition of criminalizing disagreement.
we need to cheat like there is no tomorrow.
For those sincerely interested in maintain the integrity of our election process, a good starting point is to assess our current situation in light of a Harper’s Magazine article, How to Rig an Election . . . The G.O.P. aims to paint the country red, 2012, which takes a deep-dive into vote rigging in the United States.
Not only does the article recall New York City’s Tammany Hall vote rigging machine, “ . . . which bought off judges, politicians, and ward captains”, but also highlights “. . . the outsourcing of our elections to a handful of corporations that operate in the shadows, with little oversight or accountability. . . ”, and this has occurred without the people’s knowledge or consent.
One significant question mentioned in the article is: “Who controls the new technology of Election Night?” Another unanswered question being, “Why would someone who owns a voting-machine company want to run for office?”
Keep in mind, a significance feature of the article is, it was written long before our current politically inspired and partisan big media folk relentlessly condemn anyone who dares to question today’s election process, integrity or results.
While it is obvious the author is sympathetic to democrats, one cannot deny the clarity in which she demonstrates weaknesses in the then, election process, which today have not only been augmented and is exacerbated by the use of no-excuse mail-in ballot voting, but no-excuse mail-in ballot voting has flung open the door to countless undetectable clever ways for vote stealing and government perpetrated election fraud. Perhaps that is why so many democratic run countries have banned mail-in voting, LINK, and returned to paper ballots, strict voter ID and in-person voting as a rule.
JWK
The troubling truth about allowing no-excuse mail-in voting in one state is, when acts of corruption infect an electoral process in one jurisdiction “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain.” Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)”.
Trump tried that already and it didn't quite work.we need to cheat like there is no tomorrow
don't care.....we need to cheat like the dikens to make it fairTrump tried that already and it didn't quite work.
Thus the indictments.
Well I appreciate your honesty.don't care.....we need to cheat like the dikens to make it fair
It will be hilarious when you try again and fail. Maybe then you goobers will learn that it's not possible.don't care.....we need to cheat like the dikens to make it fair
hopefully as good as the luck you had in 20.....lolol.......83million...lolWell I appreciate your honesty.
Good luck with your cheat.
even the blacks are leaving in droves palIt will be hilarious when you try again and fail. Maybe then you goobers will learn that it's not possible.
Well that was an irrelevant outburst. I think maybe you make the mistake of thinking everyone is a thin skinned cultist, since you are.even the blacks are leaving in droves pal
I’m not claiming that Gore’s actions were illegal. I said exactly the opposite, in fact. How can the same actions by Trump and by Gore result in one being indicted at the other night? The answer is simple, politically charged prosecutors, and a desperate Democrat party with a Surefire loser if he goes against Trump.False equivalences. You are dodging.
Of course it isn't. In Trump's case those actions potentially were not legal.
No such potential existed for gores actions unless this is another claim you won't back up?
So are you admitting that you cannot connect the dots between Trump’s actions and the criminal statutes?The crimes and statutes are listed of the indictments.
They are not for disagreement.
You keep trying to marginalize the charges.
Yeah. 83 million.hopefully as good as the luck you had in 20.....lolol.......83million...lol
I’m not claiming that Gore’s actions were illegal. I said exactly the opposite, in fact. How can the same actions by Trump and by Gore result in one being indicted at the other night? The answer is simple, politically charged prosecutors, and a desperate Democrat party with a Surefire loser if he goes against Trump.
So are you admitting that you cannot connect the dots between Trump’s actions and the criminal statutes?
You are making that up.You seem to think that the indictments proved the crime. Not a valid premise, unless there has never been in person indicted. Is that your position?
