Judge sets absurd trial date for Trump case

[Oldestyle]

Conspiring to create forged election documents isn't legal.

Trying to pressure the VP to violate the law by halting an official election proceeding isn't legal.

Trying to rob people of their vote isn't legal.

And Trump did all those things.

Eastman's emails make it cystal clear that they knew that what they were asking Pence to do was illegal.

With all due respect, Skylar? The Trump camp attempted legal strategies that were turned down by the courts. We have a legal system here. It worked. Attempting those legal strategies isn't "illegal"!

 

[Oldestyle]

And I'm providing you with an excellent resource to look up the answer. The Mueller report goes into very specific detail.

The Mueller Report

Page 213, under Introduction to Volume 2, 4th paragraph.

If you refuse to look at the answer to the very question you asked, then you didn't really want the answer, did you?

I already know the answer to that question. The Founders understood that a President could be burdened with lawsuits brought by their political opponents to such an extent that they couldn't do their job. To make sure that wouldn't happen they made the President immune to lawsuits until after leaving office.

 

[Oldestyle]

So what do you think the Founders would think about what you on the left are doing to the political opposition right now?

 

[Dragonlady]

That's part of the fraud DemoKKKrats will be perpetrating. The only problem is Republicans are A LOT smarter than DemoKKKrats, so that's probably not going to work.

Now, offering free weed and crack to Dems on election day is a GREAT idea!

A party which is now preparing to allow the biggest loser in American history to lose the election for again, because losing in a landslide isn't a big enough hint to Donald Trump that the American people want him GONE, and the party leaders are too afraid of his stupid voters to tell them the truth.

The party which crashes the US economy every time they're in the White House, but is able to convince their idiot voters that Republicans are better for the economy.

A party which convinced its voters that life saving vaccines, will kill them. That Donald Trump doesn't lie, and global warming is a hoax, even as people in Texas are getting 2nd degree burns just falling on the pavement.

 

[Skylar]

With all due respect, Skylar? The Trump camp attempted legal strategies that were turned down by the courts. We have a legal system here. It worked. Attempting those legal strategies isn't "illegal"!

In fairness, I'll amend my post: Trump is accused of doing all those things. These haven't been proven in court as of today.

But the evidence for them is strong enough to justify the charges.

Conspiring to create forged election documents isn't a 'legal strategy'.

And trying to compel someone to violate the law isn't a legal strategy. Eastman knew that what they were asking for was illegal. Trump's own attorney already admitted it was Trump that chose to try and halt the January 6th election proceeding.

That's is the text book definition of attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.

 

[Skylar]

So what do you think the Founders would think about what you on the left are doing to the political opposition right now?

I think they'd do what MAGA has so far refused to do: Look at the evidence.

If the evidence justifies the charges, the Founders would be fine. And the evidence absolutely justifies the charges.

• Trump's own lawyer admitted that Trump tried to convince him to lie to authorities and withhold documents.
• There are two seperate recordings of Trump admitting that the secret documents he was showing off had never been declassified.
• Trump's own IT guy recanted his false grand jury testimony and directly implicated Trump in ordering the destruction of subpoena'd videos from Mar-a-lago.
• Classified documents galore were seized from Trump's residence after Trump had lied to authorities that he'd returned them all. Many in a box at Trump's desk.

The indictments are damning and detailed. If the charges are justified by evidence, this is just due process. And the Founders would have no problem with due process.

 

[Dragonlady]

I already know the answer to that question. The Founders understood that a President could be burdened with lawsuits brought by their political opponents to such an extent that they couldn't do their job. To make sure that wouldn't happen they made the President immune to lawsuits until after leaving office.

Wrong and wrong. The Founders had nothing to do with it.

The DOJ created an opinion memo when Nixon was in office saying a sitting President could not be prosecuted, because a criminal trial would disrupt his Presidency and distract him from the job. But civil suits can and do go ahead.

Bill Clinton was sued by Paula Jones when he was in office, and Donald Trump faced multiple civil suits while he was in office, including E. Jean Carroll, and emoluments law suits.

Why Couldn't Mueller Indict Trump? This DOJ Policy Prevented Him

"To wound him by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus," the DOJ wrote in 1973.

fortune.com

 

[Oldestyle]

In fairness, I'll amend my post: Trump is accused of doing all those things. These haven't been proven in court as of today.

But the evidence for them is strong enough to justify the charges.

Conspiring to create forged election documents isn't a 'legal strategy'.

And trying to compel someone to violate the law isn't a legal strategy. Eastman knew that what they were asking for was illegal. Trump's own attorney already admitted it was Trump that chose to try and halt the January 6th election proceeding.

That's is the text book definition of attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.

When has Eastman ever admitted that he knew what they were asking for was "illegal" It was something that hadn't been done before. That doesn't make it illegal until a court declares that it is.

 

[Skylar]

When has Eastman ever admitted that he knew what they were asking for was "illegal" It was something that hadn't been done before. That doesn't make it illegal until a court declares that it is.

He explicitly called it a violation. So yes.

 

[Dragonlady]

With all due respect, Skylar? The Trump camp attempted legal strategies that were turned down by the courts. We have a legal system here. It worked. Attempting those legal strategies isn't "illegal"!

The Fake Electors scheme wasn't a "legal strategy", it was an "illegal strategy", and John Eastman and Donald Trump both knew it. That's why Eastman asked for a pardon on January 7th.

Attempting anything that's you know is illegal, isn't a "strategy", it's a crime.

 

[Skylar]

The Fake Electors scheme wasn't a "legal strategy", it was an "illegal strategy", and John Eastman and Donald Trump both knew it. That's why Eastman asked for a pardon on January 7th.

Attempting anything that's you know is illegal, isn't a "strategy", it's a crime.

That too. You don't need pardons for legal acts.

And Eastman begged for one after his fraudulent elector and forged election document scheme.

 

[Oldestyle]

I think they'd do what MAGA has so far refused to do: Look at the evidence.

If the evidence justifies the charges, the Founders would be fine. And the evidence absolutely justifies the charges.

• Trump's own lawyer admitted that Trump tried to convince him to lie to authorities and withhold documents.
• There are two seperate recordings of Trump admitting that the secret documents he was showing off had never been declassified.
• Trump's own IT guy recanted his false grand jury testimony and directly implicated Trump in ordering the destruction of subpoena'd videos from Mar-a-lago.
• Classified documents galore were seized from Trump's residence after Trump had lied to authorities that he'd returned them all. Many in a box at Trump's desk.

The indictments are damning and detailed. If the charges are justified by evidence, this is just due process. And the Founders would have no problem with due process.

I think you're sorely mistaken! For the same reason that they understood that the President needed to be protected from lawsuits brought by his opponents designed to tie him up in courts...I think the Founders would say that someone running for President should have the same protection from opponents bringing lawsuits who's only purpose is to hamper their campaign! I think they would be shocked and appalled at what Democrats are doing prior to this election!

 

[Oldestyle]

The Fake Electors scheme wasn't a "legal strategy", it was an "illegal strategy", and John Eastman and Donald Trump both knew it. That's why Eastman asked for a pardon on January 7th.

Attempting anything that's you know is illegal, isn't a "strategy", it's a crime.

Are you claiming that alternate electors haven't been used before, Dragonlady?

 

[Skylar]

I think you're sorely mistaken!

I don't think so. If the evidence justifies the charges, then any claim of election interference goes out the window.

And the evidence absolutely justifies the charges.

A point made all the more apparent by your stark refusal to acknowledge the evidence or discuss it. If the evidence was weak, you guys would tear it apart.

But we both know its strong. Which is why you ignore it entirely. The Founders never would.

For the same reason that they understood that the President needed to be protected from lawsuits brought by his opponents designed to tie him up in courts...I think the Founders would say that someone running for President should have the same protection from opponents bringing lawsuits who's only purpose is to hamper their campaign! I think they would be shocked and appalled at what Democrats are doing prior to this election!

The Founders never once even suggested that running for the presidency should shield you from any law.

You've imagined it. And you imagining precedent that exists no where in our law, nor in any statements of the founders is not a strong argument for blanket immunity for any crime.

 

[Oldestyle]

I don't think so. If the evidence justifies the charges, then any claim of election interference goes out the window.

And the evidence absolutely justifies the charges.

A point made all the more apparent by your stark refusal to acknowledge the evidence or discuss it. If the evidence was weak, you guys would tear it apart.

But we both know its strong. Which is why you ignore it entirely. The Founders never would.



The Founders never once even suggested that running for the presidency should shield you from any law.

You've imagined it. And you imagining precedent that exists no where in our law, nor in any statements of the founders is not a strong argument for blanket immunity for any crime.

I don't think the Founders ever imagined that a sitting President would use the DOJ to bring multiple lawsuits against his primary opponent, Skylar! I'm still shocked that Democrats are doing what they're doing. We don't DO things like this in America. We let the voters decide.

 

[Dragonlady]

I think you're sorely mistaken! For the same reason that they understood that the President needed to be protected from lawsuits brought by his opponents designed to tie him up in courts...I think the Founders would say that someone running for President should have the same protection from opponents bringing lawsuits who's only purpose is to hamper their campaign! I think they would be shocked and appalled at what Democrats are doing prior to this election!

No. If you could avoid prosecution by running for President, every criminal in the USA would announce his candidacy.

There is a rule that they won't indict a candidate for high office within 6 months of the election,, which would be after May, 2024. Lots of time to get them done.

In announcing his candidacy so early, Trump was hoping that what you posted is true and he could stave off indictment by just announcing, and as always, he shot himself in the foot, and likely sped up the filing of charges, to ensure that can get the trial done before the 6 month rule kicks in. If a Republican gets in other than Trump, he can get a pardon, maybe.

I wouldn't give him jack shit, but Republican voters would destroy the electee if he didn't pardon Trump.

 

[Dragonlady]

I don't think the Founders ever imagined that a sitting President would use the DOJ to bring multiple lawsuits against his primary opponent, Skylar! I'm still shocked that Democrats are doing what they're doing. We don't DO things like this in America. We let the voters decide.

I don't think the Founders ever envisioned a criminal being elected President. That's why they established the electoral college - to prevent someone like Trump from ever being elected, even if the voters were conned by him.

The people got it right and the College still put the criminal in office.

 

[Skylar]

I don't think the Founders ever imagined that a sitting President would use the DOJ to bring multiple lawsuits against his primary opponent, Skylar! I'm still shocked that Democrats are doing what they're doing. We don't DO things like this in America. We let the voters decide

Again, there's nothing in case law, history, or any statement of the founders that even SUGGESTS that the Founders ever supported a blanket immunity from all law if someone decides to run for any office. Including president.

There's strong evidence that the Founders believed in law and order, constitutional protections, probable cause and speedy trials. All of which Trump has been afforded.

The Founders would do what MAGA refuses to do: Look at the evidence. If the evidence justifies the charges, then the Founders would be fine with it, in my opinion.

And the evidence in this case absolutely does.

 

[Oldestyle]

No. If you could avoid prosecution by running for President, every criminal in the USA would announce his candidacy.

There is a rule that they won't indict a candidate for high office within 6 months of the election,, which would be after May, 2024. Lots of time to get them done.

In announcing his candidacy so early, Trump was hoping that what you posted is true and he could stave off indictment by just announcing, and as always, he shot himself in the foot, and likely sped up the filing of charges, to ensure that can get the trial done before the 6 month rule kicks in. If a Republican gets in other than Trump, he can get a pardon, maybe.

I wouldn't give him jack shit, but Republican voters would destroy the electee if he didn't pardon Trump.

Care to explain why those 3 Democratic prosecutors waited over 2 1/2 years to indict Trump, Dragonlady?

 

[Oldestyle]

I don't think the Founders ever envisioned a criminal being elected President. That's why they established the electoral college - to prevent someone like Trump from ever being elected, even if the voters were conned by him.

The people got it right and the College still put the criminal in office.

Your ignorance is astounding. The Electoral College was NOT established to keep criminals from being elected!