You be the judge ? The latest Trump indictments

[sartre play]

Turning a blind eye,
Never give an inch
. Live life based only on political party adherence.
That's why we are in this mess.

 

[2aguy]

Where does he say that ? He actually asserts trumps right to spout any shite that he wants.

He also isnt charged with "criticising the election.

Read the indictment.

We read it.....and the indictment is crap.......he just needs it to drag Trump into a democrat party controlled court, by a democrat, obama judge, in front of a democrat party jury...

 

[2aguy]

If you read the indictment you will see that his antics in Arizona are part of this.

He is not charged with any free speech issues. He is charged with conspiracy.

Read the indictment before spewing your crap.

Dipshit...........no one is taking this seriously outside of the democrat party....and Jack Smith has screwed up in the past as well.........the democrats, if they convict Trump on this will be very sorry...pay back is a bitch...

The latest indictment seems to draw on what law professor Jonathan Turley warned about concerning Mr. Smith’s interpretation of criminal statutes: he stretches them into illogical territory.

It’s why Smith’s past conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell was tossed out unanimously by the Supreme Court.
------------
noting that Barack Obama would have been jailed under the Jack Smith protocol of ‘saying things that I don’t like, so I’ll draw up federal charges’ paradigm:
----
A politician can lie to the public, Mr. Smith concedes. Yet if that politician is advised by others that his comments are untruthful and nonetheless uses them to justify acts that undermine government “function,” he is guilty of a conspiracy to defraud the country. Dishonest politicians who act on dubious legal claims? There aren’t enough prisons to hold them all.

Consider how many politicians might already be doing time had prosecutors applied this standard earlier. Both Al Gore and George W. Bush filed lawsuits in the 2000 election that contained bold if untested legal claims. Surely both candidates had advisers who told them privately that they may have legitimately lost—and neither publicly conceded an inch until the Supreme Court resolved the matter. Might an ultimate sore winner have used this approach to indict the loser for attempting to thwart the democratic process?

And why limit the theory to election claims? In 2014 the justices held unanimously that President Barack Obama had violated the Constitution by decreeing that the Senate was in recess so that he could install several appointees without confirmation. It was an outrageous move, one that Mr. Obama’s legal counselors certainly warned was a loser, yet the White House vocally insisted the president had total “constitutional authority” to do it. Under Mr. Smith’s standard, that was a lie that Mr. Obama used to defraud the public by jerry-rigging the function of a labor board with illegal appointments.

What’s the betting someone told President Biden he didn’t have the power to erase $430 billion in student loan debt. Oh, wait! That’s right. He told himself. “I don’t think I have the authority to do it by signing with a pen,” he said in 2021. The House speaker advised him it was illegal: “People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not,” Nancy Pelosi said.


wsj-columnist-points-out-the-obvious-flaw-in-jack-smiths-j6-indictment-against-trump-n2626643

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Most of the faithful will say things like, "he didn't do any of this. He hasn't broken any laws".

Evidently one of the symptoms of being in a cult is the delusion that you know all of your leaders' actions, from the moment he wakes up until the moment he goes to sleep. Like a little bird on his shoulder as he goes through his day, observing its master's every word and movement.

In reality, they say "he didn't do this", because he says so, and they automatically and obediently believe the words of the most obvious con man this country has ever seen. Without even a moment's question.

They havent even read the indictments. Its like reasoning with a bunch of chimps who have had their reasoning removed.
They seem proud of their ignorance.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Thanks for letting me be the judge. I rule that all of this shit is either abuse of power to get Trump or representative of a two tiered justice system. In any event, we need to prosecute the prosecutors. Prosecutors should not be above the law.

Which bit is wrong and why ?

 

[2aguy]

They havent even read the indictments. Its like reasoning with a bunch of chimps who have had their reasoning removed.
They seem proud of their ignorance.

Its like reasoning with a bunch of chimps who have had their reasoning removed.

You just described biden voters.......

 

[Mac1958]

They havent even read the indictments. Its like reasoning with a bunch of chimps who have had their reasoning removed.
They seem proud of their ignorance.

Look at it from their perspective -- and I'm not kidding:

They think they're at war with evil. Literally. Evil. The real evil stuff. So they don't care about what is true or real. They will back and defend and attack for ANYTHING that advances their "war".

This, of course, is the same thing we said about the jihadis after 9/11. It's a strangely helpless feeling, being in such an asymmetrical situation.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The indictments are an insult to anyone with a brain. Jackoff Smith is trying to eliminate the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

As a citizen lawyer you would know that. When are you going to read the indictments. ?

 

[2aguy]

Which bit is wrong and why ?

Here...more on why this is simply an excuse to drag Trump into a courtroom controlled by a democrat party, obama judge, with a democrat party jury.....the same kind of democrat party jury that ignored the law and found the democrats who murdered Emmet Till not guilty....

And now let’s assess the legal ramifications of this latest indictment. We have Professor William Jacobson from Cornell Law School to discuss what the four charges against Trump actually mean and what kind of evidence is needed to prove them.
----
The question is, is there a crime here? That’s what I think a lot of people are questioning.

A lot of what they’re complaining about, a lot of the indictment is constitutionally protected speech.


For better or worse, politicians are allowed to lie. That’s not a crime. Maybe a reason not to vote for them, but it’s not a crime. So it’s not really clear what is the actual crime that was committed here. And that’s something a judge is going have to rule on.
----
WAJ (02:36):

Well, I mean that’s the whole point. What was the disruption of Congress that took place? It was the riot. It wasn’t Trump talking to people in Georgia or making phone calls or going on TV. They don’t charge him with inciting the riot. And that’s a very key point.

A lot of people, and frankly my initial thought was when I saw the media reports, is he was being indicted for the January 6th riot, but he’s not, that’s actually not what the indictment says.

The indictment says he was trying to obstruct things by convincing people to create fake certificates that there were electors and things like that. But that is, that’s I think a major defect in the indictment.

I’m not saying the indictment’s going get thrown out, but my guess is that the prosecutors have the evidence, they claim they have, but it’s going be up to a judge and eventually a jury as to whether that’s actually a crime.

Trump DC Indictment – Where is the crime?

My interview about the Trump DC Indictment: "let's go on the assumption they think they can prove these things, that the allegations were made in good faith. The question is, is there a crime here? That's what I think a lot of people are questioning."

legalinsurrection.com

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Look at it from their perspective -- and I'm not kidding:

They think they're at war with evil. Literally. Evil. The real evil stuff. So they don't care about what is true or real. They will back and defend and attack for ANYTHING that advances their "war".

This, of course, is the same thing we said about the jihadis after 9/11. It's a strangely helpless feeling, being in such an asymmetrical situation.

Its a shame for trump that the case isnt being heard by a klan coven.
There is a jury right here.

 

[2aguy]

Its a shame for trump that the case isnt being heard by a klan coven.
There is a jury right here.

The klan actually supported hilary and biden you doofus.....

But the Democratic VP nominee might want to look at those who have publicly endorsed Clinton before he invokes the KKK. Will Quigg, grand dragon of the KKK’s California chapter, is among those who have endorsed Clinton for president.
An interview, taped at a KKK rally in California in March, included this exchange:

Reporter: Who do you like for president, sir.
Quigg: Hillary Clinton.


Video shows KKK Grand Dragon endorsing Hillary Clinton

White supremacist Richard Spencer votes for Joe Biden as he tweets 'to hell with libertarian ideology'​

White supremacist Richard Spencer votes for Joe Biden​

 

[2aguy]

Its a shame for trump that the case isnt being heard by a klan coven.
There is a jury right here.

Do you even understand that the kkk was founded by members of the democrat party? That Trump is a repulblican?

Are you really this stupid in real life or just when you post?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Here...more on why this is simply an excuse to drag Trump into a courtroom controlled by a democrat party, obama judge, with a democrat party jury.....the same kind of democrat party jury that ignored the law and found the democrats who murdered Emmet Till not guilty....

And now let’s assess the legal ramifications of this latest indictment. We have Professor William Jacobson from Cornell Law School to discuss what the four charges against Trump actually mean and what kind of evidence is needed to prove them.
----
The question is, is there a crime here? That’s what I think a lot of people are questioning.

A lot of what they’re complaining about, a lot of the indictment is constitutionally protected speech.


For better or worse, politicians are allowed to lie. That’s not a crime. Maybe a reason not to vote for them, but it’s not a crime. So it’s not really clear what is the actual crime that was committed here. And that’s something a judge is going have to rule on.
----
WAJ (02:36):

Well, I mean that’s the whole point. What was the disruption of Congress that took place? It was the riot. It wasn’t Trump talking to people in Georgia or making phone calls or going on TV. They don’t charge him with inciting the riot. And that’s a very key point.

A lot of people, and frankly my initial thought was when I saw the media reports, is he was being indicted for the January 6th riot, but he’s not, that’s actually not what the indictment says.

The indictment says he was trying to obstruct things by convincing people to create fake certificates that there were electors and things like that. But that is, that’s I think a major defect in the indictment.

I’m not saying the indictment’s going get thrown out, but my guess is that the prosecutors have the evidence, they claim they have, but it’s going be up to a judge and eventually a jury as to whether that’s actually a crime.

Trump DC Indictment – Where is the crime?

My interview about the Trump DC Indictment: "let's go on the assumption they think they can prove these things, that the allegations were made in good faith. The question is, is there a crime here? That's what I think a lot of people are questioning."

legalinsurrection.com

Dopey, the crimes are laid out in the doc I provided for you to read..
Bit you choose not to engage.

 

[miketx]

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

A chance to discuss the indictments without reference to Hillary, Hunter ir Micjet Mouse.

There are several indictments here. They look to be well founded and backed up with factual evidence.

I think that Trump has been clumsy in his methods and that he crossed the line in thinking that peoples loyalty to trump outweighed the oath that they took.

He thought that he was above the law.

I think Mr Smith is lucky that he has a target so dumb. Any proper lawyer will tell his client to shut up. Trump was probably given that advice but was too stupid or arrogant to take it.
Smith just needed to press record rather than go digging for evidence.
You are free to dispute this but you need to refer to the docs not your soul.
The idea that America does not prosecute Presidents is from another age. It does not work for a character like Trump.

America cannot afford not to prosecute.

Nixon should have been prosecuted. Criminality is not acceptable.

Anyway this is an indictment discussion thread. There are other threads to discuss trump and democrat oppression. Real or imagined.

Total bullshit.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

This case's only purpose is to put the "2020 election was clean and pure" line out in the msm because the most Americans think it was rigged.

Democrats are persecuting Trump saying Trump actually believed 2020 was clean and pure, but lied and said it wasn't to defraud people.

Totally dumb.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

This case's only purpose is to put the "2020 election was clean and pure" line out in the msm because the most Americans think it was rigged.

Democrats are persecuting Trump saying Trump actually believed 2020 was clean and pure, but lied and said it wasn't to defraud people.

Totally dumb.

The witnesses are republicans.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Total bullshit.

Is that a summary of trumps defence ?

 

[TheGreatSatan]

The witnesses are republicans.

Who cares.

You are trying to claim Trump believed the 2020 election was clean and pure when most Americans know it wasn't.

It's a dumb case. You are stupid if you think it's not.

 

[miketx]

Is that a summary of trumps defence ?

No liar, you're post.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

This case will bring the 2020 election fraud debate back to the msm. Trump should use this to make the case 2020 was stolen.

It wasn't long ago that just saying 2020 was stolen would get you censored by democrats. Many normies haven't been exposed to much of the election irregularities.