Trump indicted by grand jury for Jan. 6, effort to overturn election
The sweeping indictment, based on the investigation by special counsel Jack Smith, charges Trump with four felony counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
The indictment alleges that Trump knew that the claims he advanced about the election, specifically in Arizona and Georgia, were false -- yet he repeated them for months.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-indicte … =101612810Here is the actual indictment document. It is 45 pages and is very interesting to say the least. It mentions six co-conspirators by number only. However from the descriptive context, it is fairly easy to discern who they are.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ … 2/full.pdfFor all you Trumpers and Trumpets out there. Let's just cut out all the BS smoke screens. Do you believe that Trump and his co-conspirators tried to steal the election from Biden who is the duly elected president? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
no. The key word in your question is "steal", and I believe that Trump honestly thought there was sufficient fraud to have changed the election. Given that, he was "stealing" nothing, but instead demanding truth from the election.
Of course, you also indicate a "conspiracy", which I also highly doubt. While liberals have been screaming about that for a long time there has been nothing shown that I would term a "conspiracy" (although the law may have a different definition)."demanding truth"?
“I was clear with President Trump throughout all the way up to the morning (of Jan. 6, 2021). It wasn’t just that they asked for a pause. The president specifically asked me and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers asked me to literally reject votes...I don’t know if the government can meet the standard, the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal charges, but the American people deserve to know that President Trump and his advisers didn’t just ask me to pause. They asked me to reject votes, return votes, essentially to overturn the election.”
"And while I made my case to him, with what I understood my oath of the Constitution to require, the president ultimately continued to demand that I choose him over the Constitution... I really do believe that anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be President of the United States," he said. "And anyone who asks someone else to put themselves over the Constitution should never be President of the United States again."
- VP PenceWilderness: What do you call a fake slate of electors and just find me 11,780 more votes? That is not looking for fraud. That is a conspiracy to create fraud and steal the election from Biden who is the duly elected president.
If Pence would have used that fake slate, the way Trump wanted him to do, That would be an election by fraud. If the Georgia Secretary of State would have created 11,780 more votes, that would be a winning by fraud.
Trump and his co-conspirators knew exactly what they were trying to do. They even made life miserable for the mother and daughter ballot counters in Georgia, by accusing them of highly edited videos that showed them stuffing ballot boxes. It turns out all they were doing was securing the boxes for the next day.. That's conspiracy to commit fraud."just find me 11,780 more votes"
Was that not looking for the fraud where those votes were somehow not counted? A conspiracy...on one, right?
Problem is that you are unwilling to even try and understand where Trump was and where he was coming from. Was that place reality? No, but that does not mean he did not believe it.Wilderness: No, he needed those votes to win. I noticed you have not said anything about the fake elector's slate. Do you think he was looking for fraud there as well?
Who cares whether he believe it or not. It doesn't matter if it was reality in his mind or not. He can think and say whatever he wants. But acting on it to conspire to change the outcome of the certification process is a criminal act and removes legitimate votes made by the American people.
They did. They said they were gonna do it, out loud, and they did. Why are so many wilfully blind people is a mystery to me.
On the evening of October 31, 2020, Steve Bannon told a group of associates that President Donald Trump had a plan to declare victory on election night—even if he was losing.
You should listen to Steve Bannon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxNoUnxN_csI don't understand either. And the vitriol if anyone questions them. Al Gore got 500,000 more votes, but attended Bush i;s inauguration. Hillary Clinton got 3,000,000 more votes but conceded the next day - and attended Trump's inauguration. That is democracy. Trump would have lost me when he refused to honor the principle of supporting the peaceful transition of power - if nothing else.
What will it take for folks to be offended enough by his behavior for them to say - you lost me? At some point, don't you have to question your own integrity? No politician is perfect. But is there no line that can't be crossed?
With that big fat NO, I will add this: We must never again allow for an election, which allows for such opportunity to lie, cheat and steal. "We the People" were taken advantage of from the virus on through the election and beyond. Our trust, if not completely gone by now, is wavering!
If we do not have integrity and transparency in our elections (even in times of war or famine or disease, etc ...) we no longer have a Country!
If we no longer have a cherished Republic; which is strictly of, by and for...the people, it won't really matter what you or I think, will it?The only lying, cheating and stealing we on the left see is from Trump and his co-conspirators. We see a bunch of people putting their trust in a known fraudster over every other institution of government. Believing that that fraudster is the Republic - treating him as more of a king than an elected official. Or in this case, one who was voted out of office.
Not only the left, but many republicans too, including former Trumpers.
I intentionally left out left v. right in my comment, and approached this simply as an American, as I see it now, and going forward.
Your claim that there was not transparency and integrity in the last election, with all the recounts and investigations is where we differ. One side accepts those results. The side with the wavering trust in government believes the person who lost by seven million votes despite the courts, his Attorney General, elections experts hired to protect the election, multiple outside groups hired to look into the results after the fact and State Attorney Generals of his own party that assured everyone that this was free and fair. It's simple programming with a message used long before the election - the same message he tried in 2016 to excuse his loss of the popular vote - that also had no validity.
My claim is much, much broader, but whatever, you have all the answers to all the questions...good for you!
Better question might be - if they allow cameras in the trial, will you watch or just get the spin from the far-right media like what happened during the J6 hearings. Do the findings of Congress and the courts mean anything or is it just an autocracy for you now?
Probably not addressed to me, but.....
I don't believe in coincidences, Trump and his henchmen planned to cheat and steal the election from Biden, so it's a resounding YES
Legal expert explains why Trump’s 'remarkable capacity for self-delusion' isn’t a defense in DOJ’s case
Smith alleges in the indictment that Trump illegally:
(1) pressured state election officials to declare that Trump won the states they represent (even though he did not win those states);
(2) attempted to send “fake electors” to vote in the Electoral College (even though they had no power to vote);
(3) tried to get members of the Justice Department to endorse the idea that there was election fraud (even though there was not);
(4) sought to get then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the Electoral College votes (even though he had no constitutional authority to do so); and
(5) supported an angry mob who attempted to prevent the certification of the Electoral College.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … &ei=52
The indictment says Trump had six co-conspirators in his efforts to retain power.
While their identities could not be determined, their descriptions match up with a number of people who were central to the investigation of Jan. 6.
Rudy Giuliani, Trump's former personal attorney, appears to be co-conspirator 1, based on previous testimony and other records.
Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor who served on Trump's legal team, appears to be co-conspirator 3 in the Trump indictment.
The person identified in the indictment as co-conspirator No. 4 appears to be Jeffrey Clark, who served as a U.S. assistant attorney general for the civil division between Sept. 5, 2020, and Jan. 14, 2021.Three down, one to go. But this is the trial of the century, that's for sure.
It's going to be most interesting, that's for sure! Will he be given the "bye" that most rich and powerful get or not? Will he be railroaded with a verdict based on opinion and assumption rather than fact? If found innocent, or given an easy sentence, will he still be persecuted until jailed for life?
Wilderness: This indictment is nothing more than allegations without a court trial. Trump and his lawyers will do everything they can to delay the court trial until after he gets elected president. And if he doesn't get elected, we will see the same story again, only part two.
He is not wired to accept defeat. He will rally his troops again and claim the election was stolen. It won't matter to him if it is a democrat or republican, or an alien from outer space that won. He will fight it again. Of course, that is my opinion."He is not wired to accept defeat. He will rally his troops again and claim the election was stolen."
With this I fully agree, which is part of why I mentioned being "railroaded". I'm sure Trump positively believes the election was "stolen" in spite of everything everyone told him. Given that, did he lie, when insisting it was stolen?
The reason I mention it is because of an NBC report (daily news) that indicated the prosecution will have to prove his mindset, and that he knew his statements were false...I don't believe that can be done as he DID believe what he said. The assumption is that if he was told, by what someone else calls an "expert" (but that he knows to be either mistaken of lying), then he knew, but I do not believe that. Just as you say, he is not wired for defeat and will not accept it as true and real no matter WHAT he is told.A lame excuse, we will see if it can stand in the light of day....
What was Trump's basis to believe that the election was stolen outside of those in a position to know informing him that this was not the case? Was it intuition, instinct, neither which I give a damn about, nor would constitute as an explanation that would hold up in a court.
The fact that he is not "wired" to accept defeat, also, won't hold water. Who cares what he is wired for?
We mustn't cheat the hangman, not this time.Wilderness: If you truly believe someone was sabotaging your water supply to your house and you shoot and kill them, but it turns out they were only checking your water meter, are you then innocent?
If it is verified that Trump truly believes the election was stolen from him, then he is mentally ill and should be put away..Then should you? Don't you believe, with all your heart, that Trump conspired to cause that riot at the Capitol? You have the same evidence he did; that some people claim it is true in spite of Trumps own words recorded that day.
People all over believe what they want to, from Gods from another universe to vaccinations cause autism, and not one of them have evidence to back it up. With Trump's ego it is not difficult to think that he would rationalize whatever he wants to be true, but if that makes him mentally ill then the large majority of people would occupy the same institution you would put him in.In spite of some of his words. Other words such as 'fight like hell or you won't have a country' were interpreted by members of the crowd to mean he wanted a physical confrontation, according to many who testified at their trials for committing acts of violence.
Some of his words were reckless. And the fact that he had the plan to send the crowd to the Capitol after his speech, despite there being no permit to protest there, and with no communication with Capitol Police about that plan, definitely put lives in danger that day.
I'd say that maybe he was too dumb to understand the results of using angry rhetoric, but there had been enough incidents of violence towards his political opponents by his supporters prior to January 6 that anyone could have known better.
Since his campaign organized the rally and he sent his followers to the Capitol, I think he's got a lot of issues with the civil cases pending against him and his reelection campaign.Reckless, yes. A direct, intentional incitement to riot? No. And a call to insurrection? Don't be silly.
Of course, we will all see what that jury of "impartial" jurors in DC, and that "impartial" judge that has already been outspoken about the "insurrection" has to say.Jack Smith's indictment does not cover or charge anything to do with the riot, insurrection or whatever you want to call it.
I am hoping that everyone reads the indictment.
I understand that Trump is mounting a free speech defense but the indictment isn't even about free speech either.
Certain outlets are doing their usual job of muddying the waters.
I highly encourage people to seek neutral sources.True, the question of whether Trump incited an insurrection is moot to this case. Trump's belief of fraud was a good rebuttal to PP's claim of mental illness though.
"The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the
election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the
election and that he had won . He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election
through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote
in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the
Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the
outcome in any state through recounts , audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.
4. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of
discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results . In so doing, the Defendant
perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:
A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty , fraud, and
deceit 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;
a .
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 18
U.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
E" - part of the indictment.
I think this was part of Trump's pressure campaign. He goes down to the Capitol with his supporters, who were riled up, to pressure his allies. Some in the crowd already had alternate plans as we have seen from the seditious conspiracy convictions.
As to your claim of 'impartial,' outspoken but within the guidelines of the law. And I'm sure they can find jurors that will judge things based on the facts and the law, just like New York had Trump supporters on the E. Jean Carroll jury that unanimously convicted Trump in that case.It may well be within the guidelines of the law (we'll see if she remains on the bench), but her bias is absolutely unmistakable.
Jurors, maybe. How many DC residents have not heard of the riot and have not heard that Trump caused it, planned it, and conspired to have it happen?Jurors are charged with setting aside what they may have seen or heard in order to focus solely on the presentation of fact in the courtroom. They do not have to be people who have lived under a rock for the past 4 years.
If you see bias in judges assigning harsh penalties for criminals, that's more of an internal bias I think.
It doesn't matter if they have heard it. The question is can they set aside any bias to judge the case based on the facts, which is what the attorneys ask in jury selection.
"Republicans on Wednesday dug up past instances of Democratic House impeachment managers and President Biden using the words “fight” or “fight like hell” — one of the key allegations against former President Donald Trump at his Senate trial.
The Save America PAC’s “Trump War Room” tweeted a “FLASHBACK” screenshot of lead House manager Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) invoking the notion of combat to block Republican efforts to swiftly replace the late US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg following her death in September.
“The GOP rush to replace Justice Ginsburg is all about destroying the Affordable Care Act, women’s health care and reproductive freedom, and the voting rights and civil rights of the people,” Raskin tweeted at the time.
“We must fight like hell to stop this assault on health care and the Constitution.”
In another tweet unearthed by the Trump War Room, Raskin exhorted, “This is our Democracy–fight for it” in 2017 while calling for a probe into Trump’s alleged ties to Russia.
A 2019 Atlantic magazine interview featured Raskin saying of Trump’s presidency, “Let’s hope for the best, be prepared for the worst, and go fight like hell for the Constitution,” the Trump War Room tweeted.
And a 2017 article reposted on his website shows Raskin saying, “We’ve got to wake up every day and fight like hell for liberal democracy, not just in Maryland, not just in the United States, but all over the world.”
Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee also tweeted a screengrab of then-candidate Biden discussing how his father walked upstairs to break the news that their family had to move from Pennsylvania to Delaware so he could make a living.
“That’s why I’ve spent my whole career fighting — and I will continue to fight — like hell so that no one ever has to make that walk again,” Biden tweeted in May."
https://nypost.com/2021/02/10/old-tweet … like-hell/
In my view, the words are very common, and many politicians use the term.
Was it taken by some to physically fight? That could certainly be true. One would have a very hard time proving Trump meant for anyone to become violent.
I do think some of his words were uncalled for and reckless. But "fight like hell, not so much...
I think one must look at the number of people that came to his rally --- most did not become involved in violence, and most just went home. If they had not, I would hate to see what might have occurred, in the way of a very large protest.Does Raskin have a history of condoning violence like Trump does though?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/w … squad-cars
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- … story.html
Based on his history of speech, his followers certainly may take the word fight quite literally
Either way, I'm satisfied that Smith left the riot and Israeli speech out of the indictment.And do you not see a difference in tweeting out words and speaking them to an organized crowd that has been programmed for months to distrust their own government?
Do you have any of Raskin's followers that committed violence and claim that Raskin's tweets were taken as a call to that violence?
Sure, there were some that went home. But there were thousands who heard his words that day and committed illegal acts, including violence against police. Violence might not have been his intent, but it's been established that once the violence started, Trump was pleased by it and refused to act to stop it for hours.
Wilderness: It doesn't matter what Trump rationalized. He and his six co-conspirators acted upon his "rationalization" by trying to overturn the election of a duly elected president. Just read the introduction to the indictment. Here is the link
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ … 2/full.pdfThe entire point was NBC's comment that his "state of mind" had to be determined, and in such a way that he knew he was lying. He didn't.
The indictment lays out multiple ways that Trump was informed he lost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh9X4k8yxPM&t=206sBeing informed and believing what you have been told...
Someone tells you that God is not real, they can bring you a ton of evidence disproving that he exists, you cannot show any direct evidence that he does, but you still believe in God.
So the fact that someone comes and tells you something and you believe something else... how is that criminal?
Computers and Mail In Ballots and election rules changes in certain states, you can bet there was fraud... now whether it was enough to change the outcome of the election... I don't know, I don't care.
Hopefully they throw him in jail and before the 2024 election they start rounding up all the Trumpsters and throwing them in jail too... time to bring back the gulags put these malcontents to work for the state... treat them like the Chinese treat the Uyghurs.if Trump truly believed he won the election, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and no credible evidence that he won, he clearly lacks a moral attribute essential in a president: intellectual honesty. Either Trump knew he lost the election and deceived millions of Americans with a “Big Lie,”
Given the immense power of the presidency, the person holding that office must be able and willing to make decisions based on reasonably unbiased weighing of evidence. That is, a president needs what can be called cognitive competence, which includes the capacity for clear-headed, rational evaluation of evidence, Or he allowed himself to believe he won. That still would not excuse his trying to subvert Congress’s certifying the election.It's not the belief he is being indicted for. It's the actions taken on those false beliefs that violated laws.
Computers caused fraud? Solid conspiracy theory.
There have been plenty of elections with rules changes to protect voters because of emergencies. Rick Scott in Florida in 2018 is one notable example. Just because there are changes like extending early voting, doesn't necessarily mean that that will lead to fraud. Or that people chose to use a different form of voting that has been available to them for some time now, a method with very little history of fraud, does not, again, mean there was added fraud.
As to your 'hopefully they throw him and all his supporters in jail' thought, If they have committed crimes, just like any other citizen who has committed crime, then yes, throw them in jail.
Wilderness: The Insanity Defense: Do you think he might resort to that? Enough people have referred to him that way.
That would be novel - "50 million people have said I'm insane, so I must be. And that's my defense!".
Im sure he knows he lost the election. That he wont admitted out loud, tha's different. He knew he was going to lose, that's why their "election is going to be stolen" strategy began months before the election. He did the same thing the previous election, but he was "lucky" that time. "We won, so we dont longer care", he said. Also, there's video of Roger Stone and Steve Banon admiting to this strategy, even before the election.
In any case, if they have witness testimony saying Trump admitted to them he lost, is not going to be that hard.Alyssa Farah Griffin said the following,
"I popped into the Oval (Office) just to, like, give the president the headlines and see how he was doing. And he was looking at the TV and he said, ‘Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?’
There's always the insanity defense if he really believed what he was saying. I don't believe he did, at least not in the beginning. Some habitual liars lie until they convince themselves the lie is truth.
You hit the nail on the head - Trump convinced himself that his statements were true.
Not unusual; mankind is noted for rationalizing whatever he wants to believe is true.
Just want him to answer for his actions. Hunter Biden should as well.
This is America. Let justice be served."Will he still be persecuted?"
He is being prosecuted because there is sufficient evidence to bring charges against him.
There is a difference.I understand there is a difference; I was very careful with the spelling.
No? Do you agree that he is being persecuted, and has been for years? Not prosecuted, persecuted?
And if he is convicted by a jury of citizens, as his business was and the way he was found liable for sexually abusing a woman, is that persecution? Or is the rule of law no longer valid to you? Don't bother answering, we all know how Republicans view the law when it concerns Trump - we saw it first hand during his impeachments when they found any reason for excusing his lawless behavior while some acknowledged it and still voted in his favor.
Trump has brought each of these indictments upon himself by his actions. It's not persecution when you are the cause,
Explain then why he {Trump} was "persecuted" by the left, from the minute he descended the escalator at Trump Tower NY?
Oh, so no one persecutes the opposing candidates any more?
Persecute - subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation or their political beliefs.
Now, if there is confusion between persecute or prosecute, the moment Trump asked the Russians for assistance with Hillary on national television and they gave it to him, any normal human might see that as a national security issue. Russia was not an ally to the United States in 2016, after all. So, like Kathleen said, it was an action by Trump that made him a national security concern.Oh, you mean when he asked if Russia or anyone else might know where Hillary's missing emails were?
It is commonly referred to as:
a joke!
Joke - do something for sport, or as a joke; to be merry in words or actions; to jest. Something said for the sake of exciting a laugh; something witty or sportive (commonly indicating more of hilarity or humor than jest ); a jest; a witticism; as, to crack good -natured jokesLove how the right always makes edits. This one, by adding the words 'or anyone else.' Please tell me where the anyone else is in his words:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” Trump said in a July 27, 2016 news conference.
Meanwhile, Trump had a campaign aide whose sole purpose was to be in contact with Russia. Here is a timeline of his work:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa- … KKBN1CZ2PJ
You might recognize the name, he went to jail for lying to the FBI about these contacts.
Who asks an enemy of our country to assist them? Even as a joke? That his supporters believe his version that this was a joke is the latest in a long line of lies they are willing to believe.I wasn't quoting him V, but yes Trump made more than one joke, on more than one occasions, about Hillary's missing emails.
"Tuesday’s indictment accuses a former president of the United States with attempting to subvert the democracy upon which the nation rests." Washington Post
"Conspiracy against rights: This charge criminalizes any joint effort to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” people to stop them from enjoying their constitutional or federal rights. It was passed after the Civil War, when White vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan were terrorizing Black southerners who sought to vote or otherwise enjoy their rights under the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. " Politico
This indictment is a real tribute to 1 and validates the work done by the j6 committee.
Smith has obviously compelled the testimony of those who stonewalled the committee.
Of course some will continue to call this a witch Hunt and weaponization of the government
Those individuals need only look to this indictment that has been built upon evidence given entirely by Trump's inner circle. Pence and Meadows appear to be at the foundation. I, for one, am anxiously awaiting to hear the full body of evidence.This part of the indictment could be problematic:
The indictment notes that Pence took “contemporaneous notes” during one meeting with Trump and alleged co-conspirator John Eastman. The indictment alleges that Trump “knowingly false claims of election fraud” during that meeting.
“Bottom line won every state by 100,000s of votes," Trump said, according to Pence’s notes. The president claimed he “won every state” and asked about a claim that senior Justice Department officials had previously had told him was false—the alleged claim that there were 205,000 more votes than voters in Pennsylvania.
According to Pence’s notes, Eastman asked Pence to either unilaterally reject the legitimate electors from seven states that Trump wanted to dispute, or to at least send the question of which slate of electors was legitimate back to state legislatures.
Pence purportedly challenged Eastman on whether he was allowed to do that. "Well, nobody's tested it before,” Eastman said, according to Pence’s notes.
Pence apparently seized on that to challenge Trump. "Did you hear that? Even your own counsel is not saying I have that authority," he allegedly said. Trump then told Pence that was OK because he preferred the first option—Pence just unilaterally rejecting the legitimate electors—anyway.“For my part, I want people to know that I had no right to overturn the election and that what the president maintained that day, and frankly has said over and over again over the last two and a half years, is completely false,” Pence said. “And it’s contrary to what our Constitution and the laws of this country provide.”
“You know, I’m a student of American history. And the first time I heard in early December somebody suggest that as vice president I might be able to decide which votes to reject and which to accept, I knew that it was false … I dismissed it out of hand,” Pence added. “Sadly, the president was surrounded by a group of crackpot lawyers that kept telling him what his itching ears wanted to hear.”
He is the first president in the history of the republic to try to overturn the results of a free and fair election.
That should matter to every American.Kathleen: I don't think it matters to the MAGA crowd. They could care less about this indictment. Trump was stupid to follow what his co-conspirators were telling him what he wanted to hear. However, he is very smart when it comes to conning his supporters. He is a master con-artist.
When master con-artist are caught at their con, they will play the victim to their people and attack those who haver uncovered the con. That is precisely what Trump has done in the past and will more than likely do it this time as well.Here it is Trump's rant about attacking the other side and blaming Biden.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … &ei=26
Here is Trump playing the victim and martyr
I just see a man stating facts.
Ya'll (the left) are making him a martyr.ab: Christ died for your sins. Trump is being indicted for his sins, but on your behalf. What do you think "I'm being arrested for you means"? To me it means I'm being arrested to save you from those evil, sinful democrats and I shall rise again, just like christ.
Maybe just take his words verbatim. Your version is certainly dramatic, but are you sure his words mean what you want them to?
Trump has formed a bond with many, that is undeniable. I think they certainly know what he means. He will not stop, and yes, he is a Martyr at this point. And to borrow AB's sentiment Ya'll made him a bigger-than-life Martyr ---
Agree... Hey, many have waited for this day knee-deep in mud. Once in the mud, it is very hard to get out from under it. The hate is palpable.
So are you both saying you agree with the Big Lie about election fraud?
When they are done with Trump, throwing him in a box and throwing away the key, they need to round up all his supporters, its time for the 21st century's gulags to be filled with those that do not want to accept reality.
This split reality, this Trump delusion, fostered by Fox News and a plethora of conspiracy propagating websites must be extinguished.
Whatever it takes, they must be rooted out of Congress, out of positions of power within State governments and any Federal position. Those who determinedly cling to their delusions must lose everything and be permanently separated from the rest of society.
Examples MUST be made, Trump MUST be imprisoned for LIFE, and those who continue to support him deserve no less.You're taking Trump's indictment by his fellow citizens pretty hard, eh?
Former Trump Lawyer Ty Cobb on the indictment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg5dSKCk7sI&tAs is typical in your responses to me, you completely miss the intent and sarcasm and mis-characterize the meaning.
Unlike some others who post here, none of this is taken to heart, it isn't a "cause" or an "ideology" or personal.
Civilizations rise and fall, people are subjugated, then rebel, then are subjugated again.
I recognize that Biden is merely a convenient fool put in front of Americans to deliver the teleprompter's messages.
I recognize Trump is not a savior or martyr of the people.
I truly do look forward to Trump being locked up in a box and the key being thrown away, as well as those who support his extremism.
The nation has long been on this path, in my opinion, it began down this road one day in Dallas back in 1963 and anything that hastens the nation along to reaching a catalyst point to the next stage is a good thing.Why was the post directed to me though? I wasn't even talking to you with that reply that I made. That was directed to AB and Sharlee who seem to be on the 2020 election fraud bandwagon with their comments.
Yes, the "sixties" as we understand them began on November 22, 1963.
The American political and social and economic status quo then would hardly be acceptable today. People want to reminisce over a period that really cannot be compared, fawned after nor resurrected.The intent, as I am sure you know, had a slightly different meaning.
One that harkens back to what I was saying the other day in the post I made about The Republic, to you.
Dwight D. Eisenhower ended his presidential term by warning the nation about the increasing power of the military-industrial complex.
President Truman, whose Administration established the CIA in 1947, said in 1963 that by then he saw “something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic positions, and I feel that we need to correct it.”
President Kennedy promised to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds”, he also said:
"There exists in this country a plot to enslave every man woman and child. Before I leave this high and noble office, I intend to expose this plot." - 7 days before he was assassinated.
I never supported the election was fraudulent, due to not having anyone thing to hand my hat on. I do believe Trump does believe the election was fraudulent. He has a long list of issues that he claims were voter fraud. I certainly believe Trump did a good job as president, and feel he truely loves America.
He will have his day in court, and have a chance to bring his claims before a jury.
I take Ken's comment to heart. I see an administration that has born a kind of hate that makes Hitler's ideologies look, little league.And yet you agreed with AB about Trump stating facts in his post that claims the election was rigged and stolen. Those were not facts - those were delusions.
So presenting evidence of criminality to a jury of citizens that agree that an indictment is warranted is 'hate that makes Hitler's ideologies look, little league?' Much of that evidence that was developed from a bipartisan committee in the House of Representatives - and not from 'the administration.'
And his claims of voter fraud have already been litigated in courts of law right after the 2020 election. There is a good chance the judge does not see that argument as relevant."Those were not facts - those were delusions."
If they were delusions (no argument there), how were they also intentional lies?Why does that matter in this case? He was not charged with intentional lies. Seems like you keep trying to shift the goalposts to make this about First Amendment rights. It is not.
And you keep ignoring what I said about news reporting: it IS about his intent and what he believed. That was repeated again last night on NBC nightly news.
I will admit, though, that Lester Holt and his cronies do not seem to have read or understood the charges...Which was addressed in the indictment in a whole section called 'The Defendant's Knowledge of the Falsity of His Election Fraud Claims' that started with the small letter 'a' example and ended with a small letter 'h' example from page six to page eight in the indictment.
Are you saying you haven't read the indictment and are getting your news solely from media sources?That would be correct; I have not read the 46 page indictment for it would do me no good to read the legalize; something I do not speak.
But are you insinuating that Lester Holt (and cronies) are lying to us about something to do with Trump?!?! Shock!
Or are you saying that Trump will be imprisoned for trying to stop a fraudulent process and maintain fair elections?I'm saying that you don't seem to be aware that Jack Smith had already addressed the question of Trump's intent by laying out the evidence in the indictment.
If you reversed those two ideas, you're closer to what many Americans likely think. Trump may end up being imprisoned for trying to stop a fair election through a fraudulent process.And intent has no meaning under the law. This is something I would disagree with, but we will see, won't we? Hopefully it really IS a matter of law and not "what many Americans likely think", but we will see.
Wilderness: You don't have to speak legalize to understand the indictment. It is written in clear to understand text. I think you are using legalize as an excuse so that you don't have to read it. It is apparent that you are not getting a clear picture of what Trump is being indicted for by the type of comments you are posting.
Here is what he is being indicted for:
.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;a .
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 18 U.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. 241A. Dishonesty. This is exactly what I've been saying, repeating what NBC reported. Dishonesty means someone is lying intentionally, not merely by mistake, and that means you must prove what they believed. Not knew (from information given by others), but what they believe. I cannot understand what is so difficult about that concept to understand.
Fraud and deceit, seems to me, have the same problem; is it fraudulent or deceitful to state a falsehood if one believes it to be true (every priest thus has a problem)?
You, and the others attacking the report from NBC, all have the same problem; you know what he said was false and thus Trump knew it too. Unfortunately that is patently false (you must be intentionally lying, right?).Wilderness: It doesn't say anything about whether he believes it to be true or true or not. The defense may try to use that as a tactic to plead he is not guilty because he truly believes the election was stolen from him. There is too much evidence to support that he knew he lost the election.
That's really interesting? Who was the mind reader able to peer inside Trump's head and know what he was thinking?
Evidence of what Trump believed is not some "expert" (that Trump found to be wrong) telling him he lost. I really cannot understand what is so darned difficult about that to conprehend.There is evidence that people told him eight times he lost the election.
Donald Trump was told repeatedly he lost the 2020 election, including by those inside his circle. Here are the eight times—at least—that people told Trump he lost fair and square, according to the indictment:
1. Vice President Mike Pence: He told Trump “he had seen no evidence” of fraud that would change the result of the 2020 election.
2.Senior Justice Department Leaders: They told Trump multiple times there was no evidence to support his claims of election fraud.
3. Director of National Intelligence: Told Trump the intelligence community did not find any evidence of foreign interference that “would change the outcome of the election.”
4. Department of Homeland Security: Issued a public statement that “that there was no evidence any voting system had been comprised” and ‘the 2020 election was the most secure in American history.’”
5. Senior White House Attorneys: Told Trump there was “no evidence” of election fraud.
6. Senior Trump Campaign Staff: The day before the election, they told Trump he only had a 5-10% chance of winning his re-election, and only if he won ongoing vote counts and litigation in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. A week later, he lost in Arizona, “meaning he had lost the election.”
7. State legislators and officials: Many, who supported his re-election and voted for him, repeatedly told him that his election fraud claims were “false.”
8. State and federal courts: They assessed all of his lawsuits alleging election fraud and ruled “his allegations were meritless.”
One can argue that he is stubborn and didn't want to believe it, but he had to know after eight times, each from different sources, that he lost the election.That's really interesting? Who was the mind reader able to peer inside Trump's head and know what he was thinking?
-------
That is the excuse that every two bit criminal type uses to absolve themselves of accountability for their crimes, but under careful analysis it never holds water.I get that. I served on a jury where it was obvious that a guy stole a car, but one juror insisted that she didn't know if he was going to return it. Hung jury, no verdict, but at least she was honest even if she disagreed with 11 other people that had zero doubt he intended any such thing.
Comes down to a reasonable doubt, but when your mind is made up before any evidence there can be no "reasonable" doubt, can there? Nothing can "hold water" when the verdict is predetermined.Interesting case, can I assume that you voted with the other 11 jurors?
What presumption did the woman have for believing that it would be returned? Was it intuition? Did she share her opinion with the rest of you?
Reasonable doubt would have to be more than just an intuition, when it is common knowledge that car thieves don't steal cars just to return them.
Not when Trump admitted to staff, namely Alyssa Farrah Griffin, stuff like 'Can you believe I lost to this guy?' Seems to be damning proof that he knew what he was saying was intentional lies then.
Trump is the one who put himself in the mud. The election was not stolen by Biden, but Trump did try to steal the election from Biden. Why would he do that unless he knew he lost the election?
Trump still maintained to this very day that the election was rigged. Does it matter what anyone else thinks? I would think he will need to put up or proven he is living under a misconception. He will have the opportunity to bring all his beliefs into court. The cards will all be there for us to see. One way or the other this will be laid out for all to see.
Actually, since all these claims have already been litigated, they are not relevant in the least. The courts looked at his claims and denied them already.
True, but not information some want to hear or are able to process.
It is not what everyone else thinks. It what everyone else has seen and heard,except the MAGA crowd. Trump is his own worst enemy. The accusations he has made about others are really about him. He lies, he broadcast fake news, he is the fraud with his fake electors, and he is as crooked as he calls Biden. Of course, none of this his fault because he truly believes everything he does and says.
He will do everything he can to delay his three trials. There is also a fourth indictment that is coming with the Georgia secretary of state and just find 11,780 votes, and the fraudulent voting machines with 1,000 of dead voting ballots.I think there may be more coming...In 1972, he removed a mattress tag and then......attempted, to cover-it-up!!
You heard it here first folks!ab: Spoken like a true right wing American, not like leftist anti-American with no sense of humor.
Seriously? What do you consider a "major" crime if three indictments and a civil judgemnt equate to removing a mattress tag?
What do I "consider a major crime"?
Wow, where to start!!
It was a major crime setting up Trump for ties with Russia. It was a major crime counting invalid ballots to give Biden the go-ahead needed. It was a major crime setting up Trump and Trump supporters on Jan. 6th.
It is a major crime utilizing every 'tool' possible to get Trump, while ignoring/dismissing the Biden Prime Time Crime family.
I understand all of your sentiments. And I may very well agree with you in some cases. However, you need to realize many Americans may agree with you, some nights partially agree with you, and some may not agree with you or me at all...
The hate created to punish one man is starting to say something very sad about our society.Should people not be disgusted when the Capitol is attacked based on lies? Should someone who tried to overturn an election he lost and eliminate people's legal votes not be punished? That some don't see those actions as needing punishment is not only the sad part, but the very troubling part that they can put their leaders above our laws.
Should we also be asking these kinds of questions about city/state leaders that encourage violent riots? About leaders that openly declare that the laws of the country shall not apply within their city/states? About leaders that bend the knee to rioters and remove badly needed police protection from their people?
I think so; while you concentrate on one man with a big mouth and not much else the nation is being filled with legislators, mayors, etc. that act directly against the laws our government has put into place.We can always count on you to try and fall back on your whataboutisms with the far-right skew that changes the facts of what really happened.
Please name those city/state leaders that encouraged violent riots. The ones that said to use violence or asked people to riot.
I would also disagree with the claim that any leader openly declared that 'laws of the country shall not apply in their city/states.' Some made the choice not to assist federal authorities with the enforcement of federal laws in their municipalities. So please tell us when states lost the right to determine if they would enforce federal laws, something that was granted by the Supreme Court back in 1842. When did that change?
And if it was just one man with a big mouth, there would not be six co-conspirators named in the indictment. Like many of the posts I read, that one was so full of right-wing edits that it was comical.I believe it was the Sacramento mayor that led a riot onto private property, breaking down the gate to do so.
I believe it was in California where the mayor publicly announced a raid by ICE, telling illegal aliens to stay home until they were gone. Hard to think of a more direct interference with law enforcement than that. Many have refused to give ICE information on who they have jailed, setting criminals free rather than allow ICE to deport them.
Excusing such actions by asking who is violating the laws and intent of federal enforcement is disingenuous at best and illegal at worst.
But you never answered the question; should be be looking at such things as well as at the single biggest threat to Democrat rule? Or is ignoring/violating federal laws OK as long as by a liberal?You believe? I think you believe falsely since the Sacramento mayor was a victim during the riots and why I didn't answer your question, because it is based on fabrications. But I'll say that if the federal government feels local politicians have violated federal laws, go ahead and charge them. I don't see any issue there.
Of course you don't - it was not done by Trump. That was kind of the point.
When you put into question the validity of the election, you open the door to what occurred, and worse.
The changes to the 2020 election, the allowance of votes to come in days after the election, in key swing states. The fiasco of Mail In Ballots that could not really be verified, and of course the claims of failed or hacked computers.
The severity with which one party fights to do away with voting requirements, like showing a valid government ID, requiring Mail In Ballots to arrive by election day to be counted, etc. does not help perceptions any.
Let me turn it around, lets say Biden loses to Trump in the next election. And you have seen evidence that you fully believe proves that the election of Trump was based on unfair and fraudulent tampering. Are you going to be OK with that?Not really a 'you' question. One man put the validity of the election into question - the one that was behind in the polls. Just like he also did in 2016 when he spent most of that election behind in the polls. He won and still claimed that the only reason he lost the popular vote was because of fraud. He even created an election fraud commission with Chris Kobach taking the lead. A commission that turned up none of the fraud he claimed had occurred and quietly went away. This should have been Trump supporters' first lesson about Trump's lies about supposed election fraud.
Allowing votes to come in days after the election is not a new thing. Nor are making voting changes to protect voters during times of emergencies, as I have cited to you before (2018-Florida). Nor are mail-in ballots, which have a long history of being very secure.
'Claims' of failed or hacked computers were completely debunked by the hand recounts prior to January 6. Lawsuits have confirmed that those making the claims of failed or hacked computers were outright lying to people about that claim. As have recent concessions that a certain Trump aide lied about election fraud claims in Georgia that led to death threats for election workers.
Your claim that it's only one party that prevents states from counting mail-in ballots by election day is a false one as GOP-led legislatures in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania all resisted that change. Let alone that any party wants to 'do away with' voting requirements. The current requirements have shown very little fraud associated with them, so one party asks why add more hurdles that would affect the rights of some citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights. When that other party can show significant levels of fraud to justify the added voter suppression laws that they want surrounding voting, then maybe it would be a two-party issue. But those levels of fraud do not exist.
Lastly, using your example, let's say Biden loses to Trump in the next election. Biden claims, that there is evidence of fraud that he has presented to the courts and asked his DOJ and Homeland Security to investigate. He even hires outside consultants to look into the matter. All of them look at the evidence and claims and assure Biden that the election was secure, the voting machines functioned properly, and none of the claims Biden is putting forth are valid in any way.
If Biden denies the opinion of all of his people and instead listens to a non-governmental lawyer spouting conspiracies about Venezuela, two CEO's (one a pillow company and one a furniture company), and the guy who was removed from his government position for lying to the FBI - then I'm pretty sure it's time to take a good hard look in the mirror if I actually still am willing to listen to anything Biden says.Ken, you don't think any of us are going to believe all this election is stolen stuff from the party that lost, do you?
Was I not distressed when Gore lost against G.W Bush in 2000? While Gore had the majority of popular votes, the Supreme Court threw the election to Bush over 500 votes counted in Florida. But, both the left and Gore graciously accepted and conceded.
In 2016, Trump won under slimmer margins than what occurred in 2020. Trump was accepted and Hillary Clinton did not go around saying that the election was stolen although she had the popular vote by over 3 million nationwide.
Nobody knew how the pandemic would effect the 2020 election. Every state changed its rules to accommodate voters and ensure the safety of participants. The Covid was not invented by either side, it just was and we all had to accommodate. In spite of this, Biden won by 8 million votes. What does the Right do? Bellyache about how unfair everything was without a whit of proof from any responsible source of impropriety. I couldn't care less about a Rightwingers intuition without proof. The attempt by Republicans and the Right, Trump included, to undermine the electoral process and nullify the votes of the majority will not be tolerated and must be punished.
It seems to me that the only fair election for a conservative/Republican type is one where the rightwinger's candidate wins.
It appears that the progressive is always the citizen that operates from a higher standard consistent with the democratic ideal. If this nation unravels it will be rightwing, conservatives that will be the impetus.
The progressive will accept Trump's victory under conditions of propriety and won't need to create drama, conspiracy theories or threats against Constitutional protocol and the rule of law, as they always have."Bellyache about how unfair everything was"
You mean things like whining and crying about how unfair the electoral system is, with a major thrust to effectively end the system without changing the laws? Things like that?The cameras were rolling and America was watching, as hanging and dimpled chads were meticulously analyzed during the Bush-Gore campaign.
It was excruciating, but at least it was done in a setting which was as fair, as was humanly possible!
The ballots in question for the Trump/Biden campaign were counted in the dead of night...with no one watching!! There were ballots which couldn't be traced, had no dna...so to speak! There were bundles of ballots, completely blank, but for one lone dark mark for GUESS WHO, it sure as heck wasn't Trump!!
When you factor in the convenience of voting in 2020, due to COVID, civil unrest, fear,....you must factor in the convenience of cheating.
If you don't, you were either involved in it or are living in the state of denial.ab: Can you prove your accusations? If not, then you are in denial in my book.
Prove that ballots with no origin existed and were counted? How do I go about doing that?
There are interviews. I can try to find them again and share them with you. However, if found, you'll be in denial of the source, if it isn't one you utilize...correct?
So, why should I have believed in 2000 that all was above board just because it was on Tee-Vee?
I have no more reason to believe that the outcome was any more fair then than you do about the 2020 election, now...
The real issue is that urban areas were counted toward the end of the day and Trump wanted those voices disenfranchised, knowing that most opposition votes were to come from there but, he failed miserably.
But, I hope that he keeps babbling on about it, I am sure that it will advance his prospects.There's no difference between cameras rolling/everyone watching vs. opposing Party sent home, doors locked behind them for an all nighter counting party?
Alrighty then....
I, too, hope...and pray, that he is never silenced!
There are two separate matters.
Who Trump is and what he did.
The perception people had/have of that election, the changes made in swing states for that election, the demand by the government and MSM that you accept the results of the that election.
Trump can be a bad apple and there can be reason to believe there was fault in the election.The "perception" of Trumpers, lets qualify this properly.
Belief is not proof, I am not convinced that there were sufficient anomalies in that election campaign to the magnitude that Joe Biden would have lost. Before you deny the people's choice, you had better have irrefutable proof.
Who Trump is explains what he does and why...
It's not the left that's going to make him a convict, it'll be a jury of his peers. Just like in the New York trial that a jury found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming a woman that included people who voted for him. They could set their political leanings aside and decide the case based on those facts. And those facts found he sexually abused and defamed a woman.
The psychotic woman?
"A jury of his peers"?
In D.C. or New York?
Now that's a good one!AB, it is only conservatives who see the concept of acting impartially and professionally while assigned to the Dept. of Justice or otherwise, a member of a jury as impossible. Many of us are still able to be objective in the task at hand and put aside political preferences and vendettas.
You think I just fell off the turnip truck...still?
There's nothing "objective" about leftists.
There's nothing Americana about leftists.
The goal is to end Trump, to wipe conservatism off the map and to have some incompetent ditto head in charge of the mayhem and chaos which will ultimately follow. I envision Portland, NYC or San Fran.... but from coast to coast, when and if, leftists get their way.ab: Therefore, you and the right are the epitome of true Americans and the left are nothing but heathens. It must be nice to separate yourselves from "the others" and make yourselves the self-righteous True Americans that you are.
The goal is not to end Trump. The goal is to bring justice to a man who has caused 1,000 of people to be prosecuted on his behalf while he tries to walk away free. That's what the constitutional justice is about, not a bunch of flag waving self-identified Americans who think the country will fall into chaos just because justice is being served.
Oh, so the rule of law only applies in states that vote red. Got it. That's rational.
Trump has made himself what he is. As is true of most of us.
How many times has a recount been demanded to overturn the results of an election?
The usual misunderstanding that Trump is not charged with demanding a legal recount.
A request for a recount is not the same as physically attempting to overturn the results of a free and fair election, we both should know that, Wilderness.
You can stop with the smoke and mirrors any time now.....He's trying to do that in most of his posts it seems. Keeps bringing up examples of Trump doing things for which he is not charged for in this case. We're like, how about them trying to submit fake electors after the courts had already ruled his fraud claims were found to be speculative and then Wilderness comes in and asks about a zucchini.
Yes, first it was " innocent until proven guilty, splitting virtually every hair available giving Trump an endless benefit of the doubt. Now after 3 indictments, now it is the weaponized Justice Department, the "Deep state" and mainstream media that is giving Trump a raw deal?
That DOES seem something you are unfamiliar with, or at least don't like (when given to Trump); the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
But Trump or Jeffrey Daumer, Bryan Kohberger or Ted Bundy, all are to be given that assumption until proven guilty before a jury of their peers.
(Did you know that an indictment is not proof of guilt? And that all the words of MSM, no matter how often repeated, is not either?)A man running for President of the United States is not Ted Bundy, so excuse me if I insist that a higher standard consistent with a candidate that has had more adverse criminal actions against him than any one ever seeking this lofty office has ever had in the past.
Once again, Wilderness, false equivalence, whether he is ultimately found innocent of the myriad of charges against him, the very appearance of impropriety and criminal association regarding the charges should make any American wince. I did not have those kinds of issues with Jeff Dahmer or Ted Bundy.Funny the company Trump's own supporters lump him in with...
YOU let the appearance of claimed impropriety and criminal association influence you. I will stick to facts and our justice system, without modifying it with subjective feelings and guesses.
Your "so called" objective perspective is just another excuse to embrace Trump. Facts don't matter with Trumpers, you are mesmerized to make any adjustment necessary to avoid betraying your master?
Anyone can see that this goes far beyond some application of strict legal standards.Trumpers create this very enigma in a clumsy effort to shroud the truth. But it is clear to most that this Trump is far from being Presidential timber.....From the peanut gallery, it seems that you are dismissing the 'belief' point as a valid concept and reiterating your reasons for why what Trump believed doesn't matter because of what you believe to be true.
You might be right. The legal direction of the indictments may not be related to first amendment rights. The flip side might also be right. It seems that any inclusion of "dishonesty" in a charge will naturally link to intent which, also naturally, links to belief.
Consider John Doe as the name. You have no 'side' and no loyalty motivation. I bet intent and honesty vs. dishonesty would be in your objective consideration.
GAI could believe that someone is evil and deserves to die. If I act on that belief and murder someone, are you saying that my belief justifies the murder?
I believed the grocery store was a place where they gave out free food, so I took what I wanted. You can't prove that I didn't believe it. Does my belief free me from the crime of theft?
Nothing wrong with having beliefs. Acting illegally on those beliefs doesn't absolve people of crimes.My point wasn't about the right or wrong of the 'belief' argument but simply that it appears to be a valid argument.
In that view, I suspect Mr.Smith is prepared to address that validity. It would be a surprise if he allowed 'belief' to be part of his prosecution plan.
GANeither is mine. It's not the belief that is valid in this case, it is the illegal actions. As I have shown, beliefs don't justify or absolve criminality.
Hopefully, 'belief" won't be legitimately relevant to Smith's charges, even though it is almost a sure bet the defense will try to make it the crux of the case.
But, if it is, if 'belief' would have any mitigating effect on the "illegal action" being defended (consider the examples provided to Wilderness), then 'belief' could be relevant. Particularly if "dishonesty" is used as a deciding factor.
On this issue, I don't think 'intent' or 'belief' have any mitigating value. But that's just what I think. If the defense can make it a factor then I think Wilderness' original point about proving intent by disproving belief seems a valid argument. Maybe not a successful one, but certainly a legitimate one.
GAIf curious the following article has a good discussion on proving intent with the case. If you scroll close to the middle you will discover it with a bold subheading.
How Jack Smith Structured the Trump Election Indictment to Reduce Risks
The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/us/p … arges.html
As the title of the article shares it speaks a little to Smith's strategy with the indictment and why he chose the charges he did.I ran into Time's paywall. But thanks for the link. Fortunately, for me, I'm not inclined to dig into the issue beyond the basics.
GABummer! Intent is key with the indictment. If Smith cannot prove intent Trump walks.
It was a mistake to tie intent to belief in my comment. Intent is a major consideration.
GAYes and No as I see it. I did a bit of reading on intent (Mes rea as it is known in the legal world). Mes rea refers to the state of mind. To me, state of mind is founded on belief(s). In that sense, they are connected.
What is Mens Rea?
https://www.grievelaw.com/WICriminalPro … ng/MensRea
Having read the indictment about a third or so with my novice legal mind Smith spent a lot of effort establishing intent. Regarding belief, at the end of page six it begins a new portion: 'The Defendant's Knowledge of the Falsity of His Election Fraud Claims'.
The PDF doc of the indictment
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap … .1.0_1.pdf
Here we can philosophically question is knowledge and belief equal. In other words, for Trump, though he has specific verifiable knowledge he can reject it, right? His belief remains intact, right?
Anyway, for me it is a question of what defense Trump's team will use. I don't think the Free Speech one holds water. Justification may use necessity or Duress. With the first, what would be the greater harm to himself or others? (I posted on that earlier with a feeble attempt at satire). With the second, the defense team would have to prove his advisors somehow pressured him to commit the crimes. I don't know how a perceived threat (Peer pressure) may enter into that.
Justification and Excuse as Criminal Defenses
https://www.chamberslawfirmca.com/justi … -defenses/
And, then comes along Excuses. (From the article above) Excuses are:
Excuse defenses allow the criminal defense attorney to argue that the defendant’s criminal conduct should be excused based on some sort of defect or disability. Common arguments include:
The defendant’s conduct was not voluntary
The defendant is incapable of telling right from wrong
The defendant cannot understand the consequences of his conduct
The defendant cannot understand the law
Finally, defenses for conspiracy are:
Effective conspiracy defense strategies can rely on proving that:
** You did not get involved in any agreement to commit a crime, so the conspiracy did not exist
** You had no intent to commit a crime
** You did not know the plan involved criminal activity
** You withdrew your support from the conspiracy
** You participated in the conspiracy under coercion or duress
What Are My Defense Options Against Conspiracy Charges?
https://www.hesterlawgroup.com/blog/202 … spiracy-c/
So, for me, I am left pondering while will research more later. It will prove to be an interesting trial as will his others. The impact of them all affects so many different variables not only for today, yet the future. As they say, 'Change is inevitable'.
Great to have you weigh in....
I use the standard legal lingo "known or should have known", the "should of known" part allows me to dismiss having to put Trump on a psychoanalysts couch and subject the country to endless streams of psychobabble.
--------
"The allegations of a stolen election are also repudiated in both the court of law and the court of public opinion. For months, President Trump and his supporters have tested their theories in multiple courts of law, and they have lost every case of any consequence. When offered opportunities to present evidence, they have failed. That these claims continue to propagate amongst Trump’s most fervent supporters, including some elected officials, does not change the fact: the 2020 election was fair, secure, and accurate. Democrats and Republicans won seats up and down the ticket. President Trump lost the election. And nothing in the law or the facts can change the outcome."
----------
THAT is the "should have known" part.
Secondly, as Valeant mentions, what gives Trump the right to act on his delusions outside of the official remedies and channels?
This is not partisan as you seem to imply, NO ONE should be able to commit the offenses against our Government that Trump has "allegedly" committed. So, I stand with the prosecuting attorney, Jack Smith and believe that I am in good company. If he is found innocent, good for him, but woe to America. Otherwise, he has a date with hangman and I have an RSVP.......
.
One has to believe the justice system is impartial.
One has to believe the facts presented are truthful, reliable, verifiable.
Otherwise, if it is a politicized court, what difference does it make whether guilty or not?
In Hunter Biden's plea deal, the agreement was the government, the United States, agrees to not prosecute him for any other federal crimes "encompassed by the attached statement of facts" which included a whole lot.
Ukraine. China. Those concerns of where and why he received those funds are now closed.
Those who control the judicial system control who is guilty and who is innocent.Fine, then when Hunter Biden tries to overturn a presidential election or willfully retain classified documents in violation of a legal subpoena, the government can charge him as well.
And when there is a crime for him doing business in Ukraine and China, which may have even included selling the illusion of access to his father as noted by Devon Archer, then go ahead and charge him for that. But right now, the right is clamoring about impropriety while not having an actual crime that Hunter Biden broke in his business dealings that he hasn't already admitted guilt of.
Fact: Trump was found unanimously liable by a jury that included people who voted for him for sexually abusing and defaming a woman in New York. That is not an 'appearance of claimed impropriety.' Basically, half the GOP is saying that they support a person who digitally raped a woman, and then defamed her. And they wonder why they get called deplorable...
This data comes from a report released by FairVote in November 2020 authored by Deb Otis, Declan Alvidrez, and Austin Bartola.
The report analyzed 5,778 statewide general elections from 2000 to 2019, and found that recounts occurred 31 times (0.54 percent). Of these 31, the report identified 16 as consequential, which was defined as having an original margin of victory of 0.15 percent or less.
The report identified three instances where a consequential recount resulted in a result reversal: U.S. Senate in 2008 in Minnesota, auditor in 2006 in Vermont, and governor in 2004 in Washington.
The average shift across all recounts was 430 votes, which accounted for 0.024 percent of the statewide vote in those races.
"Trump lawyer John Lauro told CBS News on Wednesday that West Virginia would be a "political opposite" and argued that it was "more diverse" than D.C. "The bottom line is the President, like everyone sitting in this room, is entitled to a fair trial, and we're going to get that," he added."
-----------
Well folks, I am not a Constitutional Law scholar but I thought an individual is to tried by a jury of ones peers. Through the miracle of television, the entire nation became peers and witnesses to the events of January 6, 2021 and Trump's alleged criminal involvement.
Even if there were a case favoring Trump and there isn't, Trump and his crackpot team of legal advisors are nuts. What makes his Excellency think that he can move the venue of the trial to wherever it suits him? Why West Virginia, how about Delaware, Maryland or Virginia, are they not just as diverse? Trump is doing what he always does, cheat to attempt to give himself every advantage. But, it appears that for a second time " Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", this time he is on to Trump and his tactics and understands how to hold on to a slippery serpent firmly with both hands.LOL Watching a biased media report of a riot makes me Trump's "peer"? Now that's funny, I don't care who you are!
For you conservatives, ANY account of the events of that day where your orange cretin does not shine is inherently biased, but that does not make it any less true.
For Trumpers and Strumpets, all of mainstream media is biased against Trump, I wonder why?
"And, you know, at some point, trying to defend the indefensible really demeans you." Bill Barr
I wish those I care about who still support him would realize that. I don't care a twit about Trump, but I do care about them.
Former Attorney General Bill Barr called former President Trump’s Jan. 6 indictment the “tip of the iceberg,” arguing that special counsel Jack Smith and the Justice Department (DOJ) have “a lot more” evidence to come on Trump’s state of mind.
“The government, in their indictment, takes the position that [Trump] had actual knowledge that he had lost the election and the election wasn’t stolen through fraud,” Barr told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Wednesday night. “And they’re going to have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a high bar of course. … Now that leads me to believe that we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg on this.”
When asked if he thinks Smith has more in connection with the indictment, he said he believes DOJ has “a lot more.”
“And that’s one of the things that impressed me about the indictment,” he continued. “It was very spare, and there were a lot of things he could have said in there and I think there’s a lot more to come and I think they have a lot more evidence as to President Trump’s state of mind.”So, I'm watching live and "Lock him up, lock him up"! is the only thing I can hear.
Irony is such a beautiful thing sometimes...
Makes good sense to me --- I mean the all-you-can-hear part. LOL
What I saw was so much different. Go figure.
Plus, surprised you could receive coverage in PR -- the island has some of the lowest internet access rates in the United States.Was that supposed to be (an immature) jab? LOL
I guess it must be hard.
Well you really show your hatred and bile, cool down it's bad for anyone to hate, hate burns the hater more than the hated, people hate what they fear, which is why Trump is hated, he threatens the whole corrupt regime that has deliberately set about destroying America and enforcing a totalitarian state.
I should hate those globalists and their 'useful idiots' they control, but I just feel sad that they have been decieved and brought down to the level of immorality and lack of integrity that allows them to view others a worth less than themselves.
Selfishness is a killer.
I am not saying Trump is still not part of the problem, but I do see him as a 'for such a time as this' implant into history similar to Baalams donkey, he is a blunt tool to crack a very hard shell and may well be destroyed himself in the process, but that's neither relevant or consequential, except it may rouse his patriotic supporters to exert their constitutional right to self defense and free speech in a manner likely to produce another very un-civil war.
The fact is that the very God you state cannot be proven has always been in total control, He allowed free choice (which humanity thought of as free will) and which we all abuse and misuse, He allowed us to ignore Him, to attack Him and finally to kill His son, but His word does not return void, and neither do ours.
Every word we speak is either empowering good or evil, when we are selfless, when we rise above the deception, our actions should produce good for others, when we selfish, when we are full of contempt for others, our actions produce evil and bad things happen to those we treat with iniquity.
I chose to live by the advice and rules that God gave us, in the Liberty of being able to choose good, over evil and the protection this gives me from the evil that seeks to devour those who conjoin with it.
We are not our enemy, unless we allow our words, thoughts, actions and deeds to produce evil.
Selah“I was clear with President Trump throughout all the way up to the morning” of Jan. 6, 2021, Pence told Fox News. “It wasn’t just that they asked for a pause. The president specifically asked me and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers asked me to literally reject votes.”
“I don’t know if the government can meet the standard, the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal charges,” he said. “But the American people deserve to know that President Trump and his advisers didn’t just ask me to pause. They asked me to reject votes, return votes, essentially to overturn the election.”If I was thinking heathen, I would have utilized the word.
What is the great reset all about, in your opinion?A reasonable discussion seems to be emerging here if we can restrain ourselves from generalizations.
Not at all, it's an echo chamber.
The rest have just stepped out of the conversation. As they do many of these threads.
The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election andthat he had won . He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts , audits,or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.
Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results . In so doing, the Defendant perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:
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 18 U.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. 241Thank you Island. That is straight out of the indictment, for those of you who have not read it, like Wilderness, and others.
Following the thread it appears to me at this time based on Trump's beliefs the only defense he has deals with justification. From a little poking about I see there are three justification defenses:
https://www.chamberslawfirmca.com/justi … -defenses/
** Self-Defense: This justification defense is probably already familiar to you. Under this legal principle, criminal acts like battery or even homicide are not subject to punishment if the defendant was acting to defend himself or another party from harm. In order to use this defense, two important conditions must be met. First, the attorney must be able to prove that the defendant had a reasonable and imminent fear for their life. Secondly, the attorney must be able to establish that the defendant only used an appropriate amount of force that was proportional to the threat being faced at the time.
** Necessity: Sometimes circumstances require an individual to break the law in order to prevent greater harm to themselves or others. For example, perhaps a raging wildfire threatens a community. An individual may set a small fire around the perimeter of the area to create a firebreak. Technically, this is arson or possibly malicious destruction of property. However, given that the “crime” was committed in order to prevent much greater fire damage, it could be justified under the legal principle of necessity.
** Duress: The legal principle of duress is very similar to that of necessity, with the difference being that the pressure to commit the crime is supplied by another individual rather than natural forces.
With that knowledge I 'ponder' with 'Necessity' focusing on, circumstances require an individual to break the law in order to prevent greater harm to themselves or others. I see 'others' as being the voters or the 'people' as in all citizens with his case. In other words, Biden would harm the nation in his beliefs and sought to protect the nation.
And, there is in my mind a propensity for 'Duress' as well. That is because he did receive feedback from trusted individuals confirming to him the election was stolen while was proven to him with reports and statistics. That is where belief comes into play. That being, though the information provided was false, he believed it as true as a result of his faith and trust in his advisors.
And, then comes along 'Excuses' for as defense. Those are:
Excuse defenses allow the criminal defense attorney to argue that the defendant’s criminal conduct should be excused based on some sort of defect or disability. Common arguments include:
The defendant’s conduct was not voluntary
The defendant is incapable of telling right from wrong
The defendant cannot understand the consequences of his conduct
The defendant cannot understand the law
Have fun with that.
What do you think? Does that make sense for a defense? Or, is it hogwash?tsmog: Your next to last gragh is his only defense. He will never agree to it.
tsmog. He may of been under duress because he knew he lost the election.I believe it would be a stretch for his advisors to believe he actual won the election. What reports and statistics prove that Trump actually won the election?
Giuliani was being paid $2,000 per day. That is quite a motivator to tell your client anything he wants to hear and believe. Trump has a habit of surrounding himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear, even though he knows better.
I believe it is because of his narcissistic disorder and that he is a master con-artist who plays the victim when the con has been uncovered and attacks those who uncovered the con, like Jack Smith.
The defense would actually have to prove that Trump believed in his mind that he won the election. Even with a brain scan and lie detector test, I don't think that can be proven in a court of law.Ha!! So, you don't like satire?
Here is one for you from the Onion. It is a short read.
Trump Campaign Worried There Might Not Be Enough Indictments To Meet All Fundraising Goals
https://www.theonion.com/trump-campaign … 1850692369
Setting a precedent that the sitting president can throw out legitimate votes if he has a belief the opponent is a danger to the country would end democracy as we know it. I doubt that would be an acceptable defense by a jury.
I agree. Does that leave us with the concept that motive for criminal activities does not matter?
Beyond that, what about impeaching a sitting President without reasonable cause in order that he could never run again, "saving" the country from his evil?
History is replete with terrible actions in the name of God, or other very good reasons...but all false. It is indeed a fine line we walk in such matters.Motive seems important when you don't know who did it. When you know, who cares about motives - they broke the law, serve the punishment.
"When you know <who did what>...". "they broke the law, serve the punishment."
And there again is the difference between us, for I do not claim to know anything at all. Only that a charge has been made; guilt/innocence is yet to be determined. The attitude says pretty plainly why you won't actually discuss this, for the verdict is already in as far as you're concerned.Yes, we know that claim to not be aware of many of the details of the case, but to want to come here to debate the case. You didn't watch the evidence that was presented in the J6 hearings and didn't read the indictment to know about some of the evidence being presented there.
And we have been discussing motive or intent, I just don't see it as valid. But yes, based on the evidence that I have seen, I have the opinion that he is guilty. Might that change, sure. You know, in the same way the entirety of the right believes Joe Biden is guilty of....something.
Setting a precedent that a sitting president can prosecute his opponent in the next election is the end of democracy as you know it and elevates the US to the status of a banana republic.
Wait? Joe Biden ordered this? That he only nominated Garland if he promised to go after Trump? You have proof of those thoughts, right? Of course you don't.
Mitch McConnell told his own party that January 6 was a matter for the courts. A bipartisan committee of Congress recommended charges for Trump after their investigation. Yet, it just has to be Joe Biden and Joe Biden alone who is doing this. Those are the delusions of the right, the latest alternate reality they choose to live in to play the victim card.
Setting a precedent that a president who was voted out of office cannot get away with a coup attempt by trying to overturn an election he lost actually preserves democracy. Unless you're a Republican, then you don't care about that kind of lawlessness and will re-nominate the coup attempter to lead your party. That's where we are in America.
Plus, the precedent was already set that the government should be willing to investigate presidential candidates for crimes. Maybe you've already forgotten 2016 where Hillary was under active investigation for a large part of the campaign by a GOP head of the FBI, with the opposing candidate claiming to want to lock her up. Thank you to the GOP for setting the same precedent that they are now complaining about.
Pence confirms he took notes on Trump about overturning election
Former Vice President Mike Pence has confirmed that he took notes on his conversations with former President Trump leading up to the Jan. 6 riot, as Trump repeatedly pressured him to reject the results of the 2020 election during the the certification in Congress.
“I generally didn’t make a practice of taking notes in meetings over the four-year period of time, but given the momentous events that were unfolding, I did take a few notes to remind myself of what had been said,” he added.
Aides, lawyers, VP... all took notes. They knew/know what was happening, what was going to happen and who is Trump.
He's toast, said Barr.
One can hope.
Actually, there were changes done in 30 of the states since there was a deadly pandemic raging. And the legitimacy of those changes were challenged in courts and found to be valid. What Trump did and is still doing is denying those legal rulings. What he also did was to take steps with his co-conspirators to eliminate the legal electoral votes and to try and stop their being counted, after the courts did not rule in his favor and even during the hours after the insurrection had taken place.
That the government and courts and media asked that Trump and his supporters accept the legitimacy because of the lack of proof of fraud, or a lack of illegality due to a national emergency, is just Trump-world choosing to deny reality in the most Trumpian way. Listen to one man who had to settle a court case because of fraud (Trump U case) or listen to the courts, the Secretaries of State of their own party, and the administration of their own party. And Trumpers go with the guy who settled with people who had accused him of fraud.You can say that those states made changes "legally" and that is fine, but those changes allowed Mail In Ballots that cannot be verified, to be counted to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of votes, depending on the state.
It was explained very well in the link below, and it is why no one should get excited about future elections, as they will no longer be decided by those who vote... but rather by those who count the votes, as we saw in 2022 in the AZ election for Governor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eTG32YC_Uw&t=152s
At the 8 minute mark he explains exactly what happened in 2020.
It is "legal" for the United States government to give Hunter Biden a plea deal that buries all his crimes. It is "legal" for a swing state controlled by Democrats to change the voting laws so that Mail In Ballots can be handed out to everyone and those ballots be counted after the election is over, without any observers, without any signature verification... sure, all legal.
It will be in 2024 as well, once you remove the barriers to getting the results you want, why would you ever allow those restrictions to be put back in place?'You can just grab as many as you want' is the claim from Ken Paxton about mail-in ballots? Apparently he thinks they are just sitting on a counter at the local CVS and are not mailed to those that request them, or to those registered to vote. Maybe you didn't hear that part.
Or that in a state like Pennsylvania, voters are confirmed in their initial application by a driver's license number. Let alone that you're relying on the word of the guy that Texas has impeached for corruption.
And is your claim that swing states like Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina were controlled by Democrats in 2020? Or that it wasn't just swing states, as South Carolina waived their witness requirement for mail-in ballots as an example.
Here is an article that details many of the changes across the 30 states that made them so you can move on from the claim that it was only battleground states. You can note in many that judges made rulings to legitimize the changes.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/states- … d=72309089
And if a voter is registered to vote, why should they not receive a ballot to vote by mail? Especially since the right still cannot prove there is any significant fraud in using the process.
Oh, and Hunter Biden's plea deal did not bury all his crimes. By definition a plea deal is where a defendant pleads guilty to some of them to save the government the time and monetary cost of a trial."Apparently he thinks they are just sitting on a counter at the local CVS and are not mailed to those that request them, or to those registered to vote."
And how many were mailed to registered voters that did not request them...and did not live at the address listed on a years old registration?
During the pandemic millions of ballots mailed out to "voters" (or anyone else that now lived there) were an effort to mitigate difficulties tied to COVID. But most of the plans were ill-conceived, few if any had real security attached and none had any effort to actually check if the voter intended was the one that sent it back in. We need to do a great deal better if we're going to make such mass mailings in the hope we get the right person at the address we use.In Oregon - the state’s Legislative Fiscal Office found from 2000-2019 there were approximately 61 million vote-by-mail ballots cast. Of those, 38 criminal convictions of voter fraud were obtained. This amounts to a .00006% rate.
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/lfo/D … 20Mail.pdf
Just because someone gets a ballot not addressed to them, does not mean they are going to commit the crime of opening someone else's mail or voter fraud. That's like saying that because someone owns a gun, they intend to shoot someone.I've voted by mail for years. I refuse to spend hours standing in line. I like to take my time and research an issue if necessary based on the wording on my ballot. I hand carry my ballot to the drop box or now to the office.
When I've filled it out wrong, they call me and give me a chance to provide the information they need.
Online I can confirm that my ballot has been counted.
There is no magic to voting in person. Absentee voting is confirmed - in Georgia of all places - as well as in person voting.One thing I like with voting in person is that I feed the ballot into the machines. It is not lost in the shuffle somewhere, it is not declared "unreadable" somehow - I know it was counted. I like that.
In Georgia you can check online to see if your ballot was counted. In Georgia - the home of limiting voting rights!
"In Oregon - the state’s Legislative Fiscal Office found from 2000-2019 there were approximately 61 million vote-by-mail ballots cast. Of those, 38 criminal convictions of voter fraud were obtained. This amounts to a .00006% rate."
Ahhhh...the good ole days!Yeah, we better add seventy more steps to complicate the process with all of that massive fraud.
No, just show up on election day; with your i.d. in hand.
It isn't complicated.Oh, so everyone has to do it the way the far-right wants it done, despite just showing how little fraud there is with mail-in votes. Nothing authoritarian about that at all.
Odd, that you consider the way our elections are intended to be done, "far right"!?
Intended? If that were true, there would not be any mail-in voting. Apparently, states have updated the intent of how people can vote with the technology of the day. Only the far-right seems to be saying that people have to show up at a polling site as the only option to exercise their Constitutional right. Multiple state laws seems to disagree with that stance.
Nothing about deciding the direction and fate of the nation, and it's citizens, should be convenient.
There shouldn't be anything easy and convenient about getting a driver's license, or a pistol, or a credit card.
Same for voting, there should be some level of effort and proof associated with being able to vote, it's the only way to minimize fraud.
Mail In Ballots are a joke. Signature verification is a farce. You have no way of knowing who filled out the ballots or for that matter if they are sitting there filling them out after the election is over. There is no oversight, no accountability, no way to prove legitimacy or fraud.
Does it matter?
Not really, you aren't going to get near the Presidency unless you have the backing of many Billionaires and Trillion dollar corporations.
And they won't back anyone who they consider a threat to their control over DC and the issues that matter to them.
Trump was an abbarration, a billionaire that pulled just enough support from other billionaires and Republican backers to pull it off."Nothing about deciding the direction and fate of the nation, and it's citizens, should be convenient.
There shouldn't be anything easy and convenient about getting a driver's license, or a pistol, or a credit card.
Same for voting, there should be some level of effort and proof associated with being able to vote, it's the only way to minimize fraud."
. . . and the dinosaurs roar.
I also hold that view. A secure mail-in ballot system isn't a bad thing, but our privilege of the vote should be held as a civic responsibility more important than convenience.
But . . . that's just a personal choice. As in mentioned examples (Kathleen, and others), there are almost certainly more mail-in ballot voters that take their privilege just as seriously as we walk-in voters do, than bums just taking advantage of the convenience.
Even so, the symbolic effort of going to the polls seems more respectful.
GAAbsentee voters in Georgia used to have the "convenience" of placing their ballot directly into the ballot box at any hour of the day or night. Boxes were under video surveillance and were emptied daily by at least two election workers only.
"the symbolic effort of going to the polls seems more respectful."
Not being able to vote during business hours is a major reason for voting absentee. Now, thanks to 2020 and the GOP-led GA legislature, ballots not mailed must be delivered during business hours forcing those who work off-hours to resort to trusting the US mail and having their ballot handled by multiple strangers.
Being concerned with being "respectful" is only for someone who never had to work the night shift or for an inconsiderate boss.
News flash: Not everyone has the "convenience" of your lifestyle.That was a pretty defensive response. With the added jab about my 'lifestyle' it seems you think I attacked mail-in ballot voting (or those that use it).
GA
"I also hold that view. A secure mail-in ballot system isn't a bad thing, but our privilege of the vote should be held as a civic responsibility more important than convenience."
Perhaps, but that does not mean that the two concepts have to be mutually exclusive. Civic responsibility and convenience can and do go together.Security is always inconvenient. Civic responsibility and convenience must therefore be balanced as they are nearly polar opposites.
Unless, of course, that responsibility does not include security.Yep, they have coexisted for decades. And they have been considered secure. Now . . . not so much.
Consider the early years' requirements (sort of restricted to service members and invalids) to vote by mail. Also consider that until the 2000s mail-ins were a small percentage of votes cast. Now, stir in the controversies of the massive changes made due to Covid. We've gone from proving you need one to automatically mailing you one.
My original qualifier was "secure". With each step, from the servicemen to the auto-mailings, some security has been sacraficed in the name of convenience.
GAJust for info, there are only eight states that send out ballots to everyone. It is called All-Mail voting. They are:
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Washington, D.C.
https://ballotpedia.org/All-mail_voting
The next link speaks to No-Excuse Absentee ballots by the National Conference of State Legislatures (July 12, 2022)
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-camp … tee-voting
The opening paragraphs say;
Twenty-seven states and Washington, D.C., offer "no-excuse" absentee voting, which means that any voter can request and cast an absentee/mail ballot, no excuse or reason necessary.
Eight states conduct elections entirely by mail (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington), which means voters do not need to request a ballot, and instead automatically receive one.
The remaining states require a voter to provide an excuse to qualify for an absentee/mail ballot. See Table 2: Excuses to Vote Absentee for details.
From that, it does not appear it is out of control as it seems to be portrayed for the nation as a whole.
Edit: Here is the link to Table 2: Excuses to Vote Absentee by state
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-camp … e-absentee
As I demonstrated, absentee voting is not entirely convenient, but for some it is less inconvenient that voting in person. It gives the voter more options.
"Signature verification is a farce." In Georgia - not a sterling example of voting access - I have to provide my driver's license number so the elections office can compare my on record signature to my ballot signature. To impersonate me, someone would need access to my driver's license and be able to duplicate my signature. Possible? Yes. Convenient? No.
In person voting: someone could just steal my DL and show it at a polling place. No one confirms signatures."In person voting: someone could just steal my DL and show it at a polling place. No one confirms signatures"
A picture i.d., along with your signature, goes a long way in protecting your identity Kathleen Cochran.
If Joe Smoe steals your driver's
license, don't think he will get away with becoming YOU on election day {even in the year of our Lord 2024} Joe will automatically have two strikes against him and he will have many eyes upon him at this point. Ideally, the police are called and he is arrested, for pretending to be someone he is not!
You and your identity don't get these same protections any other way...
I want my identify protected Six ways to Sunday and the best way is for me to go in person, with my picture i.d. in hand, sign to receive my ballot, complete it and feed it into the scanner!!
Before my Mom died, she wasn't physically able to go into the polling place. My Dad drove her there and poll workers were outside to greet them. They checked her i.d. and took her ballot.
This is obviously not as secure, but she had no choice. I understand that.
What is inconvenient? The showing up part or having an i.d. in your hand?
You forgot to mention that only 40 ballots were checked and 38 of them were fraudulent.
A gross exaggeration, but it illustrates the point: how many ballots were tested to verify they came from the right person, and that that person was eligible to vote? The answer is "None" as far as I can see.
Valeant, I am all for vote by mail...when the ballot is requested. There will be fraud, but it will be extremely minor, I think. But when you mail out millions upon millions of ballots to people that have not requested them you KNOW that a great many will not go to the people on the label, and the possibility of fraud skyrockets. Either stop doing that or find a method of checking that each and every ballot goes to the right address for the person intended. We will still see fraud, and it will rise over in-person voting, but is probably within acceptable limits. Tens of millions of ballots sent to addresses that are years out of date are too risky and the process too important to allow that risk. IMO - you may have a different opinion, relying on the fact that we don't find much if we just don't check.Vote by mail or drop off is necessary for the many people who do not work for bosses who honor election day or work non-traditional hours or must travel out of their voting precinct for their jobs.
Not everyone enjoys the convenience of being just like you.
None of which answered the question.
In addition, you are correct that just because someone gets a ballot they shouldn't does not mean they will fill it out and send it back. Nor does the fact that only 38 convictions of voter fraud (presumably of all types) was found means there was not a lot more.
How many mail in ballots were checked to see if the intended recipient was the one returning it? How was that done (and a signature "analysis" by people with 30 minutes training is not a reasonable method)?
You would think that with a brand new method of getting votes some method would be used to check if a statistically significant number were actually valid...but as far as I have ever heard such a test was not, and will not be, ever done. Democrats will not allow anything that drops the number of votes, whether valid or not. Republicans have their own methods of fraud, but that one is high on Democrat lists.
Valeant: Thank you for fighting to good fight attempting to set the record straight. Those rewriting history here are relentless.
No conspiracy, they said...
Previously Secret Memo Laid Out Strategy for Trump to Overturn Biden’s Win
A lawyer allied with President Donald J. Trump first laid out a plot to use false slates of electors to subvert the 2020 election in a previously unknown internal campaign memo that prosecutors are portraying as a crucial link in how the Trump team’s efforts evolved into a criminal conspiracy.
The memo had been a missing piece in the public record of how Mr. Trump’s allies developed their strategy to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory. In mid-December, the false Trump electors could go through the motions of voting as if they had the authority to do so. Then, on Jan. 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence could unilaterally count those slates of votes, rather than the official and certified ones for Joseph R. Biden Jr.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ … 1/full.pdf"Lawless behavior", come on now, you are getting a little desperate. That's a perfect description, however, for the Biden Crime family/ring!
So, we all understand why the persecution of Trump, which, incidentally, began when he dared to run against Hillary, must continue! Whatever it takes to cover Joe & Co
The left hasn't let up, not for a second, and the balance of the voting public, is finally coming around to this ongoing "persecution".
The people aren't the least bit pleased with any of this. But go ahead, look around for some other flimsy reason to indict Trump; keep it up!Ah, yes, more of the projection from the programming the far-right receives. Have you guys found a crime yet since it's not illegal for Hunter to sell an illusion of access to his father?
Meanwhile, Trump has already been found liable of sexual abuse and defamation by a jury of citizens. His business has been convicted of fraudulent business practices. No doubt that running the payments to a porn star through his business is also fraud and reimbursing Cohen for the taxes on those payments is tax fraud. It's been proven without a doubt that his campaign manager colluded with Russian Intelligence in the 2016 campaign. We all watched Trump lie about the 2020 election just like he did the 2016 in terms of fraud being present - with no substantial fraud being found in either election - even by Trump's own people. Him raising money off those false claims of fraud will likely be charged soon. And it's amazing that trying to overturn a free and fair election is a flimsy reason - but not really surprising and why the actual balance of the voting public thinks the MAGA base is a cult. One that is willing to resort to domestic terror to reach their goals (Cesar Sayoc, Ricky Shiffer, Craig Robertson, David DePape, Joshua Macias/Antonio LaMotta)Yes, as we know a jury has never been known to make a wrong decision, and all people convicted of crimes in prison in the United States are guilty of the crimes of which they have been accused.
"Selling an illusion of access to his Father" in describing the Bidens v. "Domestic terrorists" describing Trump supporters......Priceless!
Do you work for the DNC? If not, you should.ab: It's not illusion with Trump.
Legal expert explains why Trump’s 'remarkable capacity for self-delusion' isn’t a defense in DOJ’s case
Smith alleges in the indictment that Trump illegally:
(1) pressured state election officials to declare that Trump won the states they represent (even though he did not win those states);
(2) attempted to send “fake electors” to vote in the Electoral College (even though they had no power to vote);
(3) tried to get members of the Justice Department to endorse the idea that there was election fraud (even though there was not);
(4) sought to get then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the Electoral College votes (even though he had no constitutional authority to do so); and
(5) supported an angry mob who attempted to prevent the certification of the Electoral College.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … &ei=52PP, you and V together at the DNC, would be unstoppable, comparable to Woodward & Bernstein.
ab: At this point all you have left is sarcasm...right? Actually I feel sorry for you and all you Trumpers out there. You are all suffering from cognitive dissonance,
What Is Cognitive Dissonance? Definition and Examples
This produces a feeling of mental discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance. For example, when people smoke (behavior) and they know that smoking causes cancer (cognition), they are in a state of cognitive dissonance.No, sorry, you don't get off that easy. I'll continue to point out double standards, true crime, smoke screens, etc....all while maintaining my sense of humor.
Lighten up and try to have a good day!
AB out
Compared to Woodward and Bernstein? Now, that's a compliment!
I didn't describe it, I listed specific examples of Trump supporters committing acts of domestic terror. And none of those examples even included January 6. And the selling the illusion of access came directly from the GOP's star witness - Devon Archer. Maybe I'm working for the RNC since I'm quoting their own witnesses.
Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6
Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.
Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.
The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
“When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.”
He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”
There is, the article said, “abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself.
“It is unquestionably fair to say that Trump ‘engaged in’ the Jan. 6 insurrection through both his actions and his inaction,” the article said.
The provision in question is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War, it bars those who had taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” from holding office if they then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
The new article examined the historical evidence illuminating the meaning of the provision at great length, using the methods of originalism. It drew on, among other things, contemporaneous dictionary definitions, other provisions of the Constitution using similar language, “the especially strong evidence from 1860s Civil War era political and legal usage of nearly the precise same terms” and the early enforcement of the provision.
The article concluded that essentially all of that evidence pointed in the same direction: “toward a broad understanding of what constitutes insurrection and rebellion and a remarkably, almost extraordinarily, broad understanding of what types of conduct constitute engaging in, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to such movements.”
It added, “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”
“Section 3’s disqualification rule may and must be followed — applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out — by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office,” the authors wrote. That includes election administrators, the article said.
“Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he said, adding that they may be sued for refusing to do so.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/t … tives.htmlYes, he can be disqualified if it can be proven that his activity is identified as insurrection against the United States. You can bet conservatives are busy questioning whether Trumps behavior did in fact reached the level of insurrection. That will have be firmly established in a court of law before he can be denied, but rest assured that the Right won't make this easy.
Just offering an interesting article by Reason a right-leaning online magazine for you. It is:
Donald Trump
Retribution, Deterrence, and the Case for Prosecuting Trump for Conspiring to Overturn the 2020 Election
His attempt to stay in power despite losing an election is well worthy of prosecution and punishment, on grounds of retribution and deterrence.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/02/re … -election/"It is important to recognize that Trump isn't being charged simply because he wrongly claimed he won the election. In and of itself, that is no crime. Rather, he went far beyond that and organized a wide-ranging conspiracy to overturn the result using fraud and deception, and by attempting to enlist state and federal officials to assist him."
Hi, TSmog, thanks for the article..
I offer this article as a complement..... and it may just reinforce what was provided by Island Bites in her linked article.
https://www.thenation.com/article/polit … ndictment/
Let me know if you have a "firewall" or anything that prevents you from reading it. I will figure something out.
Hi, TSmog, this article speaks of the "missing link" that I have been looking for, the one that ties the charges against Trump regarding his activities on J6, with the 14th Amendment definition of "engaged in insurrection against the Government of the United States". Both, being one and the same according to Constitutional Law scholars. Once he has been determined to have engaged in insurrectionist activity, he could be legally prohibited from being a candidate for any national office. Congress is either being timid or politically cautious not to take a more forthright stand in this matter. They are probably waiting for a conviction.Section Three of the 14th Amendment says regarding such crimes:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Would this outweigh the 1st Amendment? So is the OP really applicable to Trump's situation?
The charges do not mention insurrection in any fashion.
"one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread FALSE CLAIMS about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.
one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirator' alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election."The charges that Trump faces are irrelevant to the discussion over whether Trump should be disqualified from holding public office, according to two conservative scholars.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/conse … squalifiedYou have a point... I can't argue the author's views or share my own on this one. Too much water has passed under the bridge for this dam to hold up. But, the points in the article are fair. I do feel we need to be mindful that Trump has not been accused By Smith of committing an insurrection. Yes, many in public are accusing him of committing an insurrection, but it appears Smith did not find he could charge him with that crime.
Yes, I can see that many are on board with sharing their views on the
issue, it is an interesting thought. I think Baude, and Paulsen made good points. However, Trump has not been charged with insurrection, so where from here?
Plus --- Trump was acquitted on a charge of “incitement of insurrection” in relation to the January 6 riot at the United States Capitol. After a five-day impeachment trial in the US Senate, the vote was largely split along party lines with 57 lawmakers voting to convict and 43 voting to acquit.
So, he can't be tried again for the same crime.Sharlee: Trump's beliefs don't matter. He had no right to do any of these things.
Legal expert explains why Trump’s 'remarkable capacity for self-delusion' isn’t a defense in DOJ’s case
Smith alleges in the indictment that Trump illegally did the following:
(1) pressured state election officials to declare that Trump won the states they represent (even though he did not win those states);
(2) attempted to send “fake electors” to vote in the Electoral College (even though they had no power to vote);
(3) tried to get members of the Justice Department to endorse the idea that there was election fraud (even though there was not);
(4) sought to get then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the Electoral College votes (even though he had no constitutional authority to do so); and
(5) supported an angry mob who attempted to prevent the certification of the Electoral College.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … &ei=52Not sure of your point? I have read Smith's charges. None stipulate he committed an insurrection. Did you read the article Val posted? That is what prompted my comment to Val. It's clear there are many that feel he should be charged with committing an insurrection, but seem to forget --- Trump was acquitted on a charge of “incitement of insurrection” in relation to the January 6 riot at the United States Capitol. After a five-day impeachment trial in the US Senate, the vote was largely split along party lines with 57 lawmakers voting to convict and 43 voting to acquit.
So, he can't be tried again for the same crime.
I argue the point that Trump's beliefs will not matter in any of the charges. Many Consitusioal solars argue his 1st Amendment rights offer him the right to speak loudly in regards to his beliefs.
I feel the law will dictate, as it has tied Smith's hands from accusing Trump of an insurrection --- double jeopardy stopped him cold.
The 14th Amendment is non-applicable, but Trump's 1st Amendment is applicable.Sharlee: In those five points where does it say insurrection? It doesn't matter what Trump said or has to say or what he believes. He illegally did what those five points say he did. He is guilty of those five actions, is he not?
You again are reading something I did not say. I did not say Trump was guilty or not guilty. My conversation was about law, and how his team might defend each and every one of the charges.
I am not going to stick my neck out and predict the outcome
of the trial. Ultimately that will be left to a jury.
I think he may just use the defense --- yes he did all you feel he did, due to his beliefs and his 1st amendment rights.
I really have no idea who did what in the scenario of each of
the charges. I would assume Smith has witnesses that are firsthand that can stipulate Trump ordered them to carry out a task that ultimately is connected to charges. I have no idea if the charges will be able to be proven in a court of law. The law tries to keep evidence factual before a jury. No hearsay or I heard this as I listened outside a door...
I must think --- will you or would you be this hungry for a pound of flesh if Joe Biden is proven to have committed crimes with his family? ( keep in mind this is a thought and not an accusation in regard to Biden). It is so odd this is one of the only forums I post on that won't touch the Biden scandal. I attribute it to the ideologies of conservatives. We don't get too deep into unproven media reports... Even though the right media continually reports lots of unproven issues. On the left, they seem to jump in feet first to what they are being provided from left-leaning media and run like hell with it.Sharlee:
(1) pressured state election officials to declare that Trump won the states they represent (even though he did not win those states);
Q. Did Trump win those states? Did he not pressure Raffensberger to find 11,780 votes?
(2) attempted to send “fake electors” to vote in the Electoral College (even though they had no power to vote);
Q. Did he not have a fake slate made up by select governors? Wasn't the plan to have those votes replace the official slate?
(3) tried to get members of the Justice Department to endorse the idea that there was election fraud (even though there was not);
Q. Didn't Trump try to persuade a multitude of federal and state judges with false information about election fraud?l
(4) sought to get then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the Electoral College votes (even though he had no constitutional authority to do so); and
Q. Dld Trump have the constitutional authority to make Pence to refuse to certify the votes?
(5) supported an angry mob who attempted to prevent the certification of the Electoral College.
Q. Do you deny that Trump supported an angry mob who wanted to stop the certification process.
I am not going to get into a contest with you about Biden, other than congressional investigations by the GOP have been going on for seven years and they have come up with nothing.
You think the left runs like hell with the media. How about Fox and MAGA news, you don't think they jump in feet first? I'm going to be nice and tell you your hypocrisy is showing.1. The actual phone call(the entire phone call shows Trump claiming he won the state by over 300,000. He claims he will proved proof of his figures, he then makes mention he does not need the 300,000 votes to win, he says he needs 11,779 to win.
So, you may want to realize the jury will be made to listen to the full context of the phone call. It is clear Trump feels he has been given information that has him thinking fraud occurred, he speaks of the different fraudulent issues he feels occurred. Transcript of call
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics … index.html
What I see is Trump needs to put up why he felt fraud occurred, and where did he get his information from. If he just made it all up, he will have no way to prove his accusations. If someone else told him about evidence of fraud, it will be up to that person to give evidence or admit they lied to the president.
To answer your question, Trump did not win the state. The state was recounted numerous times. But for some reason at the time of the call, he claimed he did. We are yet to know why Trump felt he won. This will be provided in court.
2. Here is a link that covers 2. https://www.justsecurity.org/81939/time … ssociates/
There is no real mention of Trump participating in the scheme. Again if he did, I am sure Meadows or Eastman will spill the beans. Thus far, I have not read anything that claims Trump ordered anyone to attempt to send “fake electors” to vote in the Electoral College.
(3) tried to get members of the Justice Department to endorse the idea that there was election fraud.
I have no idea, Trump has not presented evidence of fraud as of yet. I have not seen any evidence.
4. I have no idea what Trump told Pence to do. It's been reported - Trump claimed that a bipartisan group of lawmakers working to reform the Electoral Count Act proves his claim that Pence had the power, according to the ECA, to overturn the 2020 election. Though the Act is vague, it is clear the role of the vice president is ceremonial and does not include the power to overturn the result of a presidential election.
5. In my view he did not support the riot that occurred.
To repeat in regard to the Right/left tendency when it comes to becoming hyperbolic over media reports. This is just my view, our views differ. I do feel that liberals are more apt to take a news report and run with it, with few to no facts. I just don't see conservatives getting their hair on fire over media reports. Hey again just my view.
I attribute it to the ideologies of conservatives. We don't get too deep into unproven media reports... Even though the right media continually reports lots of unproven issues. On the left, they seem to jump in feet first to what they are being provided from left-leaning media and run like hell with it.
Thanks for the link to an interesting article bringing light upon the subject of the 14th Amendment.
I have been following along and observing how history is unfolding. I read articles from both sides of the fence and including think tanks, which aren't promoted much. I must confess some are distinctly clear while others are vague. Plus there are those that only feed the masses' emotions. Many times they lead to an adventure of researching to satisfy my curiosity.
All I can say is America in my view has been challenged. By that, I mean its very identity and character seen with its foundation and with history past and present. To me, both the 'Summer of Love' and Jan 6th are the culmination of Liberty at task. I 'feel' it gives cause for self-examination with an open mind on beliefs, values, and principles guiding one's life. I know it has so with me.It is clear many Americans feel or believe Trump is guilty of some form of insurrection. Yet he has not been charged with that particular crime.
Yet, due to the media, he will be historically and Posthumously accused of the crime forever more.
He certainly did cause a ton of trouble by rejecting the outcome of the election. However, if one stands back and clearly looks through the glass, one can see he was very much out in the open sharing his beliefs in regard to his beliefs. In fact, he might as well have craved his thoughts in stone for all time. He never, and still has not backed down from his accusations of voter fraud, or that he felt Pence could have stopped the electoral count on that horrible day.
His team approached court after court to make an attempt to prove his beliefs, but most courts did not hear the complaints due to simply he came to the wrong court. His own AG told him to stop, that there was no satisfactory way to prove his claims.
So, now he will be heard, and one can only bet it will be very loud.
How does one judge one's beliefs or the right of one to loudly claim his beliefs?
I agree with your sentiment we are seeing a culmination of liberty at task.
We now have a full-blown martyr. I guy that could be off living the wonderful life of a wealthy man, but chooses to fight the power of Washington. From prison if need be...
So, you tell me ultimately how won?
Will America win with 4 more years of Joe or will he further destroy the country, and those that follow him be up with that, just due to --- hey we got Trump?
Perhaps a Republican will win, and it is certain that Republicans will carry on the MAGA agenda. We will have increasing bitterness and more investigations, and Trump would be pardoned.
So, who wins in this kind of scenario?
The 14th Amendment in no way applies to Trump"s charges --- he has not been charged with insurrection.
The 1st amendment will be Trump's where Trump will hang his hat.
At any rate, Trump wins, he not for a second backed away from what he claimed to believe. He is willing to be jailed for his beliefs.Thanks for the reply and offering 'your' view.
I am not convinced in any way the First Amendment offers a defense for him. Three are conspiracy charges and one is obstruction. The conspiracies were in fact carried out in my view. In other words, the actions did take place; offering proof there was the intent to agree and the intent to carry it out. Plus, they did further it with actions. The indictment has convinced me of that. Yes, I did read all 46 pages. What do they have to do with speech if they were actions carried out?
The question as I see it is 'reasonable doubt'. They have to prove those two intents and the actions to further the conspiracies beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is where the co-conspirators' testimony enters the fray. Along with the fake electors that actually participated. And, of course, Pence. I am pretty sure he made an attempt at influencing Pence and that fake electors were assembled. If I see that I would bet Smith has a high propensity to prove it to a jury.
However, I am fallible and can be wrong in my view.
I am not really concerned with the 14th Amendment. Intrigued, yes.Why I personally feel Trump aided the insurrection: After the violence began, he not only did nothing to stop it for hours (gave aid and comfort), but tweeted out to the mob that had already begun the violence, that Pence was not going to stop the count. On top of that, none of those participating in the insurrection would have been in DC that day if Trump did not organize them to be there. Nor would they have been outside the Capitol, as the rally was only permitted for the Ellipse. Trump told them to go there and warned no one that that was his plan. The evidence is overwhelming that he participated in the insurrection in many ways, albeit not in person at the Capitol in his case.
He looked at the facts about the outcome of the 2020 election and discarded them to try and get people to live in a reality where he was not a loser. You can call that a 'belief.' I call it lying. That he hasn't backed down just means he's had a psychotic break with reality is all. If that makes him a martyr to his supporters, they likely have had a similar psychotic break with reality.
Which is why many see them as a danger to the country. They choose to live, and often act with violence, to make Trump's false reality the one that all must live within. Well, no thanks. I choose the side that actually looked at the 'evidence' that was presented to the courts and found it speculative at best (nice rewrite of history in the claim by the way), the side that did audits and hand counts that verified the machines worked exactly how they should have, and the side that understand Trump has been claiming fraud since 2016 and had not shown any substantial proof of those claims in the seven years since.
In other words, I choose actual reality."You can call that a 'belief.' I call it lying. "
My comment was a bystander looking through a window comment. Just being devil's advocate. I think his lawyers will say he believes all he has been saying regarding the 2020 election. Due to being a very hard point to dispute. He has never wavered in his resolve. Can it be proven he had a "psychotic break:? It well appears he has been living a normal life, with no real signs of a psychotic break, that I can see.
As I said, I see your point, your logic. I am pointing out many other Americans' logic, just ignoring others' views, won't make those views dissipate.
I have shared my views in regard to the Jan 6th riot, and my strong belief I thought it best for the country to move on after the riot for the good of the nation. I feel neither Biden nor Trump should be even allowed to run at this point. Both are in y book now marked with corruption. Both should step away for the good of the Nation --- that will not happen. And yet We the people will sit back and pretend either at this point would be good for America. My disgust is unmeasurable at this point. I could not be more ashamed of our society. Hey, that's my reality.
We have been played --- and they won. Does anyone, I mean anyone see what is going on around us while the majority argue about a mere riot?
Maybe time for more citizens to step back and just look through the glass, and see how very foolish those on the other side appear.That you call it as a riot despite there being convictions for seditious conspiracy is what I feel is an omission to arrive at a false conclusion. And moving on might be possible if the person that helped plan the insurrection wasn't the leading candidate of one of the parties.
I agree that Hunter Biden has been 'marked by corruption.' But until there is actual evidence that his father took an active part in that corruption, I also see that claim that both candidates are corrupt as a very false equivalency.
And saying someone can commit fraud based on their beliefs that ignores actual facts is still fraud. If he decides to testify, I'm sure it can be proven that he had an actual psychotic break from reality. But, as we all know, Trump runs from testifying whenever he can.
The difference now is that this country has always experience riots since the "Whiskey Rebellion", but no one, no one, dared to attack the heart and foundation of how we all choose to govern ourselves, until now. And, that is where the danger lies.
Trumps violations go far beyond any discussions of free speech and First Amendment as this is a ruse, a "red herring". The allegations point to the fact that his participation in the events of Jan 6 are, as even the most conservative of legal scholars accept, an attempt to disrupt our system by replacing duly elected candidates unlawfully. That is by definition insurrection, how else can it be defined?
Mr. Trump needs to be disqualified from participation in our political processes as a result. The 14th Amendment is clear and the dictionary defines the word "insurrection".
The Republicans may well have to accept this possibility early and find a viable alternative, perhaps someone with rave reviews like Gov. Ron DeSantis?"have to accept this possibility early and find a viable alternative, perhaps someone with rave reviews like Gov. Ron DeSantis"
Oh really? DeSantis? You have been as critical of him, as you have always been of Trump!
Ya'll (the left) have been critical of Trump, since we first heard his name and politics... together in the same sentence. Now you all pretend, you've only recently become critical of him...and that he brought it upon himself!!
You started in on DeSantis, much in the same, manner!
But, it's what the left fears the most, strong, fearless, unwavering, patriotic, conservative, biological males...and females.Ah, cmon, AB, I fear tyranny, tyrannical people and attitudes.
I was being facetious about Ron DeSantis. Yes, in my opinion he is a jerk. But seeing that he is a weak second to Donald Trump in the polls, the elimination of Trump from politics will put the GOP into quandary as to who will carry the mantle.
Trump, from my perspective has been involved in dirty dealing and cowardice all of his life. And, I admit that I have never liked him from the beginning long before 2016, since he railroaded those young men in false charges of rape and harassment regarding a young woman in New York back in the 1990s. I have a long memory and I don't forget. The harassment of Barack Obama without cause or purpose, did not warm me up to Trump in anyway. His race baiting style and techniques has found a home with most of his supporters, as he says out loud what many of you would just say under your breath. He is a world renown chiseler and four flusher in every way.
Yes, my duty is unravel this MAGA stuff and reveal it to all for what it actually is. I am totally committed to its being discredited and ultimately dispensed with as soon as possible.....and "my duty" is to stop the quality of life-disrupting, U.S.A.-destroying, Biden, Democrats & Company!
I am "totally committed", as well!
'To repeat in regard to the Right/left tendency when it comes to becoming hyperbolic over media reports. This is just my view, our views differ. I do feel that liberals are more apt to take a news report and run with it, with few to no facts.'
When liberals attack their own nation's Congress based on zero facts, then you might have a case.I should have been more succinct. In general, I feel the left tends to become hyperbolic over media reports. I do feel that liberals are more apt to pick and choose a news report and run with it, and are very much selective as to what they gravitate to. For example, at this point, the left media, as well as some liberals, are concentrating (as they have now for many years) on news that is Trump-related. Many are in no respect interested in, what I will call the "Biden Scandal". Even though there is a ton of smoke, in the way of documents, firsthand emails, whistleblowers, unexplained LLCs, and clear evidence that Hunter's laptop was misrepresented by the FBI, before the 2020 election.
This example in my view, is a solid one, that should help you understand my thoughts on the difference between liberals and conservatives.
I just don't see conservatives getting their hair on fire over media reports. Hey again just my view.
I attribute it to the ideologies of conservatives. We don't get too deep into unproven media reports... Even though the right media continually reports lots of unproven issues. On the left, they seem to jump in feet first to what they are being provided from left-leaning media and run like hell with it.
I mean to go further, yes, many conservatives do look at Jan 6th differently than liberals do. I will give you that...
My full point --- there is a wide difference in how right and left view media reports.In terms of the Hunter Biden scandals, we on the left are following it. The difference between us and the right, is we just don't see anything there to connect it to Joe Biden. We don't see the right providing any policy changes that a Vice President affected. We on the left know Hunter Biden is sketchy. But we on the left understand that we are not electing Hunter Biden to office, and unlike the last administration, we know that Joe Biden will not be giving government jobs to his family members.
And you can have that view that the right doesn't get their hair on fire over media reports. That's fine. But it flies in the face of facts that has seen the right:
1.) Send pipe bombs to Trump's political opponents
2.) Break in and beat the Speaker of the House's husband up
3.) Violently attack a field office in Cincinnati
4.) Threaten to kill the president and then turn a gun on FBI when they come to arrest them
5.) Sit outside an election vote counting center with guns, planning 'to set things straight.'
6.) Attack their own Capitol based on media reports most elementary kids knew were false
Plenty of burning hair in those examples.My point --- the right does not get freaked out due to a given news report. The left (in my view) just does.
I can't imagine if we replaced the names Trump for Biden, and Donald Jr. for Hunter. LOL No really My Gid the left freaked out over a Russian woman meeting with Don Jr in Trump Tower... a meeting that took place in his office. Hey, whatever.
Biden could very well be compromised, and we the people need to have the facts on this mess before the next election. Don't ya think?
An impeachment in my view, would offer a trial that all sides could be heard. Hopefully, if nothing an impeachment trial could give insight to whether Joe was on the take or not. You are correct it seems thus far that there is only circumstantial evidence that Joe was involved.And I disagree with your point. In the same post you claim the right does not get freaked out by news reports, you want to impeach Biden for something where the evidence does not exist. Their latest star witness debunked the claims by the right in the media that Joe Biden talked business with his son. Let alone you want to impeach a sitting president for alleged conduct done over seven years ago during a completely different term.
And that Russian woman has major ties to the Russian government. So when the son of a presidential candidate is meeting with members of a country that is not an ally, why the right isn't also freaking out about it is the more disturbing point there, don't ya think?I realize you disagree with my view. Not much I can say beyond that.
"And that Russian woman has major ties to the Russian government. "
Hey, Archer testified
"Majority Counsel: And I want to talk about the value. Going back to this, it would be, spring of 2014 Cafe Milano dinner ‑‑
Mr. Archer: Uh‑huh. The spring of ’14, yeah, the first one.
Majority Counsel: And since we talked about it before the break, if you could just recap. Can you just say again who was there?
Mr. Archer: Sure. Kenes Rakishev, Karim Massimov, Yelena Baturina, possibly Yury, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and possibly Eric Schwerin.
Majority Counsel: The duration of time that Joe Biden stayed there you said you couldn’t recall. But do you recall whether he had dinner or whether ‑‑
Mr. Archer: He had dinner, yeah. I recall that he had dinner. It was a regular ‑‑ not a long dinner, but dinner.
Majority Counsel: And so this dinner takes place in spring of 2014, approximately. But then do you recall getting a wire on February 14th of 2014 from Yelena Baturina for $3.5 million to Rosemont Seneca Thornton?
Mr. Archer: To Rosemont Seneca Thornton?
Majority Counsel: Yes.
Mr. Archer: Yes. And why I remember that is from the ‑‑ from other testimony. Yes.
***
Majority Counsel: There’s a wire, an incoming wire, to the Rosemont Seneca Bohai account for April 22nd of 2014 for $142,300. Soon thereafter, there’s an outgoing wire, which appears to be the next day, to a beneficiary of Schneider Nelson Motor for this exact same amount. What was ‑‑ first off, our understanding is that Novitas Holdings, PTE Ltd. is associated Kenes Rakishev.
Mr. Archer: That’s my understanding.
Majority Counsel: Why did Rosemont Seneca Bohai receive this $142,000 payment from Rakishev?
Mr. Archer: It was for a car.
Majority Counsel: For whose car?
Mr. Archer: For Hunter’s car.
Majority Counsel: Was this a Porsche?
Mr. Archer: It gets a little foggy here. I believe it was a Fisker first and then a Porsche. But it was ‑‑ yes, it ‑‑
Majority Counsel: For an expensive car.
Mr. Archer: For an expensive car, yes. "
Transcript https://oversight.house.gov/release/com … %EF%BF%BC/
Do you recall all the fact checkers crucified Trump for sharing the above in regard to the 3.5 million payment from Yelena Baturina to Hunter's company? I do and it all is still sitting online as I write. So, do you feel this is a bit odd? I mean you feel Don Jr. was up to no good... I can't imagine why this Russian woman would give Hunter 3.5 million dollars.
"And that Russian woman has major ties to the Russian government. "
So I would guess the Mayor of Moscow is a bit more relevant than the woman Don met with, would you not think? This money exchanged hands while Joe was VP.
Can you see why I feel there is a lot of smoke, Americans have the right to answers about the entire Biden family that has been involved in raking in money from many foreign nations including China."Americans have the right to answers about the entire Biden family that has been involved in raking in money from many foreign nations including China"
While they're at it do you think they'd have any interest in digging into the billions Kushner raked in from Saudi Arabia? As well as the numerous Chinese trademarks Ivanka was granted while dining with Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago. Those 2 seemed to be expert influence peddlers.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/massi … s-dealings
https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor … ite-house/I would think if the Democrats felt that Kushner or Ivanka have broken any laws they would be charged. That's what Democrats do... Ivanka and her husband were very rich before ever stepping foot in the White House. Hopefully, both have followed the law. I would certainly think the IRS has its eye on two such rich individuals, and would not hesitate to charge them if they have broken any tax laws. Nice diversion, but get back to me when Congress starts posting bank documents or LLCs that may be a source to launder money. Or better yet when two high laced IRS agents come forward and claim Hunter was breaking tax laws that were felonies, and they slowly rolled and they watched several felonies be moot due to statute of limitations.
I am more concerned with Hunter Biden at this point, and finding out if Joe Biden has sold out the country for a bit of money.
‘Liar,’ ‘loser,’ a ‘national security threat’: Hurd rips into Trump
"Donald Trump is a liar. Donald Trump is a loser. And Donald Trump is a national security threat to the United States of America,” Hurd said. “And we need to be honest about that. And if we nominate him, if the GOP nominates him, then we’re giving Joe Biden and Kamala Harris four more years.”
"I was recently in Iowa and spoke at a group that had a lot of Donald Trump supporters, and I had to break the news to them that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election,” Hurd said. “Some folks were not happy with me being honest, but guess what, it had to be said.”
“If we can’t have these honest debates within the Republican Party, then we’re not going to be able to ensure that this trend that has been happening for the last 20 years, where a Republican has lost the national vote,…that shouldn’t be the case,” he added. “And it’s going to require us to be honest and look at ourselves.”
Republican presidential hopeful and former Texas Rep. Will HurdI Guess Hurd did not get the message. We The People choose. The GOP is backing Trump due to polls, polls that indicate the Majority of Republicans hope to see his name on the ballot. That certainly can change. But at this point polls indicate Republicans are backing Trump.
Average as of Aug. 10, 2023
Trump
53.7%
DeSantis
14.3%
Ramaswamy
7.5%
Pence
5.5%
Haley
3.6%
Scott
3.3%
Christie
2.6%
Hutchinson
0.6%
Burgum
0.5%
Suarez
0.2%
Hurd
0.1%I think he got it
"Donald Trump is a liar. Donald Trump is a loser. And Donald Trump is a national security threat to the United States of America...we’re not going to be able to ensure that this trend that has been happening for the last 20 years, where a Republican has lost the national vote."Really? And I'm not sure. Would this be the case why Trump was highly disliked? And why he's being undermined all the way?
I think you hit the nail on the head. No matter what the Democrats do Trump seems to just become more popular in the polls. This is odd, because as a rule here in the USA scandals ruin politicians. So, Trump is an oddity, and I would think the Democrats just are lost at what to do about him.
Popular in GOP polls. After each indictment, Trump's support among independents drops. And all this polling has been missing the mark since the Roe decision. You saw it in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election and the Ohio special election recently. Polls had it nearly even, but the results ended up going to the Democrats by double digits.
The Generic Ballot still gives a slight edge that more at this point would vote Republican. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po … ic-ballot/
Which speaks right to my point. The polls have it even. But when these last few elections have taken place, they are undercounting the young and female vote that are very, very angry about Roe. So going in, the polls are what you claim. The results are then off by double digits for the Democratic candidate/issue. And Trump claiming credit for ending Roe is going to be a major campaign ad for Democrats.
Yes, both candidates will be touting Roe in ads. Trump gave the pro-life supporters what they could only dream about, as many Catholics also do not appreciate abortion.
I don't think abortion is in the top 10 concerns at this point. Some red states may have a problem, I feel most likely the majority of women feel abortion is a right. Hey, who knows at this point? We have so much going on at this point. One must ask, what next?The economic recovery from Covid was going to take a long time. Anyone who thought that could be accomplished overnight was deluding themselves. But the economy seems to be the most pressing issue. However, immigration, government spending, climate and abortion are all in the top five.
https://www.newsweek.com/election-2024- … es-1813658
It seems like a battle royal...time will tell.
I would think the Democrats just are lost at what to do about him.
Keep making him lose elections?
Trump is a winner! The Dem should join him...lol! Does that make sense to pacified the country?
*shrug* This should not be a surprise to anyone. After Democrats made two faux attempts to remove Trump from office via impeachment we can expect pretty much every President to be impeached from now on.
Perhaps we will one day heal the rift between parties, but as long as we keep driving the wedges in nothing will change, and Presidents will be routinely impeached simply as a political ploy to gain party power.Trumpers are suffering from cognitive dissonance and have too much emotional capital invested in him to not support him. But there is another shoe about to drop.
Wait until Fanni Willis, the DA from Fulton County Georgia issues her indictment. Let's see I almost have lost track that will be three indictments and one pending for Trump and company.
1. The Jan. 6 Insurrection Case
2. The Classified Documents Case
3. The Hush Money Case
4. The Georgia Election Interference Investigation
"Presidents will be routinely impeached simply as a political ploy to gain party power"
I hope to God not. I think Trump is a one of kind person who doesn't come along that often. He is like a bad child who constantly gets in trouble, but is able to squirm his way out of it. My concern is he may have spawned MAGA clones like him that can't wait to do the same thing as him.It is not a "faux pas" to charge someone when there is sufficient evidence of wrong doing. For instance, when it is something more substantial than lying about cheating on your wife. And it is the responsible thing to do even when the fix is in by the majority.
Still the principle of reaping and sowing comes to mind. You not only reap what you sow. You reap after you sow. And you reap more than you sow.I think that the work of the January 6th committee has been vindicated by Jack Smith and the indictments made. The grounds for the second impeachment have been firmly established and validated in what has been laid out in these indictments. We sure would be in a much different place in this country currently if Trump had been convicted in the Senate during that second impeachment.
So true. Unfortunately, the statesmen/women in the Senate at the time could be counted on one hand.
Why was not Donald Trump convicted back then? The Senate, head by Nancy Pelosi, who initiated the impeachment, in a Democrate dominated assemble.
In both trials (blackmailing the Ukraine president and inciting the January 6 riot) Nancy Pelosi was the speaker of the House that passed the impeachment. Then it went to the Senate, which had a republican majority. Even with a few GOP senators voting to convict, the rest of the republican senators voted against a conviction. Democrats in both houses knew it would turn out this way, but they felt his actions warranted the impeachment.
One party showed it stood for law and order. One showed it bent down to the whims of Donald Trump.
But why is the talk nowadays that Donald Trump, was instrucmental to or inflamed or initiated the Ukraine war on the side of the current Ukraine president?
I don't know where you are getting your information, but I'd encourage you to add a few more sources.
Special Counsel Obtained Trump’s Direct Messages on Twitter
The federal prosecutors who charged former President Donald J. Trump this month with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election got access this winter to a trove of so-called direct messages that Mr. Trump sent others privately through his Twitter account, according to court papers unsealed on Tuesday.
While it remained unclear what sorts of information the messages contained and who exactly may have written them, it was a revelation that there were private messages, including those sent, received and “stored in draft form”, associated with the Twitter account of Mr. Trump, who has famously been cautious about using written forms of communications in his dealings with aides and allies.
The lawyer for Twitter told Judge Howell that the company had found both “deleted” and “nondeleted” direct messages associated with Mr. Trump’s account.
Mr. Trump’s relentless use of Twitter is detailed several times in the indictment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/us/p … rrant.htmlJudge Sets Trial Date in March for Trump’s Federal Election Case
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan rejected efforts by the former president’s legal team to postpone the trial until 2026 and scheduled it to start the day before Super Tuesday.
The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s prosecution on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election set a trial date on Monday for early March, rebuffing Mr. Trump’s proposal to push it off until 2026.
Judge Chutkan said that while she understood Mr. Trump had both other trial dates scheduled next year and, at the same time, was running for the country’s highest office, she was not going to let the intersection of his legal troubles and his political campaign get in the way of setting a date.
“Mr. Trump, like any defendant, will have to make the trial date work regardless of his schedule,” Judge Chutkan said, adding that “there is a societal interest to a speedy trial.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/28/us/p … jan-6.htmlSpecial counsel's office obtained 32 direct messages from Trump's Twitter account
The direct messages represent a “minuscule proportion” of the total data provided by the company, prosecutors said in a newly unsealed court filing.
Prosecutors from the special counsel's office revealed the number of messages in a memo filed before a D.C. federal appeals court earlier this year, according to the filing. The social media company was forced to turn over the records after receiving a search warrant in January from Smith's office.
The warrant itself was also unsealed Friday. It shows prosecutors were also looking for all accounts and usernames associated with Trump's account, and all devices that were used to login to the account.
It also sought "all content, records, and other information relating to communications sent from or received by" the account between October of 2020 and January of 2021, including all direct messages. It also asked for information about searches that were conducted by the account in that time period, and "all advertising information."
It's unclear exactly what the direct messages that were obtained say or what other data the special counsel's office received. The search warrant obtained by prosecutors required Twitter to turn over IP addresses associated with the account, unpublished draft tweets, and the account's Twitter search history from October 2020 to January 2021.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic … rcna105316Mark Meadows received immunity to testify to special counsel in federal election subversion probe
Donald Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, was granted immunity by special counsel Jack Smith and has met with federal prosecutors multiple times in their investigation into the efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, according to a report from ABC News.
Meadows told investigators he did not believe the election was stolen and that Trump was being “dishonest” in claiming victory shortly after polls closed in 2020, according to ABC.
Meadows met with Smith’s team at least three times this year, ABC reported, and prosecutors were focused on his conversations with Trump following the election defeat.
Meadows was also asked about Trump’s reaction to the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol, ABC reported. In his testimony, Meadows corroborated accounts that Trump was hesitant to call on his supporters to stop acting violently, at one point even telling then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, “I guess these people are more upset than you are.”
Related Discussions
- 4893
Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
by Scott Belford 14 hours ago
All of the available evidence seems to say so.Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest...
- 98
GEORGIA INDICTMENT
by IslandBites 6 months ago
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) is expected to present her case this week against former President Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.Willis is expected to seek charges against more than a dozen individuals when her team presents its case before...
- 52
Michael Flynn Calls for President Trump to Declare Martial Law
by Allen Donald 3 years ago
Former National Security Adviser has called for President Trump to suspend the Constitution and call for limited martial law in order to re-run the election that would be overseen by the military due to the massive election fraud.Do you agree with General Flynn?Clearly, President Trump believes...
- 39
More evidence that Trump's intention was personal gain
by Don W 4 years ago
David Holmes has provided evidence that indicates Trump's motives for requesting the leader of Ukraine investigate Biden's son:"An official from the United States Embassy in Kiev confirmed to House impeachment investigators on Friday that he had overheard a call between President Trump and a...
- 70
How likely is it that Trump will be removed as president before 2020?
by LoliHey 6 years ago
How likely is it that Trump will be removed as president before 2020?What you think will happen?
- 33
Trump is Immoral and an Outlaw
by Mike Russo 21 minutes ago
This is based on my observations.CNN has a split screen this morning. On the left side is the Supreme Court arguing over if Trump has absolute immunity as president. On the right side of the screen is the ongoing trial with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Last week they were covering...