A couple of right wing think tankers jump the shark.

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump's tariffs will cost the GOP the House in 2026.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Berg and Lafayette, you can thumb down this comment all you want, but I noticed that neither one of you could refute what I said with actual words. I'll just take that as a concession that you can't go to the indictment and point out where I'm wrong.

Berg and Lafayette recognize you have nothing of worth to refute.

 

[lafayette]

I am? Quote me.

You said he had a majority. He did not.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump has 49% of the popular vote and a solid, solid majority in the EC.

 

[Nostra]

You said he had a majority. He did not.

I did? Quote the post.

 

[lafayette]

no insurrection charge, Gimpy.

You are just prevaricating now. On Ignore for this thread.

 

[Nostra]

You are just prevaricating now. On Ignore for this thread.

I accept your admission you are a lying sack of vermin shit.

Run away now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are just prevaricating now. On Ignore for this thread.

Petulant nonsense from a mindless troll.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Plainly speaking, it's a disgusting idea to pardon a man so clearly guilty of trying to subvert the Constitution to retain power. Moreover, it would make a mockery of the violent attacks Capital police officers suffered at the hands of trump's mob. Not to mention the gobsmacking shock millions of Americans experienced as they watched an assault on the republic live and on TV.

What’s also disgusting is voting for Trump and wanting to see him return to abusive power.

 

[PeanutGallery]

Berg and Lafayette recognize you have nothing of worth to refute.

You don't need to try and "white knight" these two. They said to read the indictment. I read it and told them what they're claiming is there isn't there. I'll throw the same challenge to you. Find in Smith's indictment where the word insurrection is mentioned or the law that covers insurrection and rebellion. I'm very sure that you'll find some way to blow it off because you won't be able to refute what I said either.

 

[lafayette]

You don't need to try and "white knight" these two. They said to read the indictment. I read it and told them what they're claiming is there isn't there. I'll throw the same challenge to you. Find in Smith's indictment where the word insurrection is mentioned or the law that covers insurrection and rebellion. I'm very sure that you'll find some way to blow it off because you won't be able to refute what I said either.

It is there, and you are wrong. You know you are wrong yet insist that is not so.

 

[Nostra]

It is there, and you are wrong. You know you are wrong yet insist that is not so.

Cut and paste it.

 

[PeanutGallery]

It is there, and you are wrong. You know you are wrong yet insist that is not so.

Show and prove, lafayette. It should be very easy to prove me wrong. It wasn't there in the indictment before the Supreme Court made their immunity decision, and it's not in the one Jack filed in October. I'll even help you out. Here's a link to Jack Smith's 2nd indictment.

Jack Smith

 

[berg80]

Berg and Lafayette recognize you have nothing of worth to refute.

Manner and Means

The Defendant's conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means:
a. The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant's opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant. That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.

b. The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did. The Defendant and co-conspirators then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the
Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.

c. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome; that sought to advance the Defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department's authority to falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors; and that urged, on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted states' legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

 

[berg80]

Since we have an actual law, 18 U.S.C. 2383: Insurrection and Rebellion, on the books, you would think that Jack Smith would've referenced that in his indictment of Trump. In his whole indictment document, the word "insurrection" doesn't appear and he didn't refer to that law at any point. So, if Trump was not charged with Insurrection and Rebellion according to Jack Smith, please explain on what basis is Trump is guilty of insurrection?

It appears Smith felt a charge for insurrection would be dependent on a complicated legal judgement of trump's speech from the Ellipse. It threatened a protracted trial. The conspiracy charges were a more elegant way to secure a conviction for the crimes trump committed.

Does it make you feel better knowing he was charged with.........

a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;

b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified ("the certification proceeding"), in violation of 18U.S.C. § 1512(k);and

c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.

 

[lafayette]

Cut and paste it.

No. You have to prove your comments. You cannot.

 

[lafayette]

berg80 is running the table.

 

[berg80]

berg80 is running the table.

The indictment has a way of cutting thru their bullshit like little else.

 

[berg80]

Berg and Lafayette, you can thumb down this comment all you want, but I noticed that neither one of you could refute what I said with actual words. I'll just take that as a concession that you can't go to the indictment and point out where I'm wrong.

If you think there's anything you could say that I can't refute think again.

 

[Nostra]

Show and prove, lafayette. It should be very easy to prove me wrong. It wasn't there in the indictment before the Supreme Court made their immunity decision, and it's not in the one Jack filed in October. I'll even help you out. Here's a link to Jack Smith's 2nd indictment.

Jack Smith

lafayette puts you on "this thread ignore" (Whaterver the fuck that is) when you expose his lies.

Already happened to me in this one. The simp ran away after I exposed his lies.