Yup, another indictment.

Who is the "you" ?
Who is the "They're" ?
How is the Orange Stain standing in "their" way ?

 

What quote would that be.... the one Jack Smith left out, just like the select committee tried to pull also... "march peacefully and patriotically"... prosecutorial misconduct at least.. trying to leave out exculpatory evidence.

 

I trust the DOJ.... I trust the DOJ will do whatever is takes to keep the coverup of not only Biden's corrupt actions but their own through the years.... Trump in the White House puts a nail in their coffin...

And we the tax payer are funding it....

 

IOW, you don't understand the distinction Smith made between recognized 1st A rights and the actions taken to subvert democracy. It seems to be a ubiquitous issue among those immersed in the disinformation cohort.

 

It's bizarre. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-is-the-point.612472/

 

LOL! Yeah, "they" are trying really hard to "get" some shlub, but courage the cowardly dog is in their way! Life isn't some poorly drawn cartoon, bud.

 

Ah. Well, I guess the courts will tell.

But I dont know how you can possibly say that. Just his recorded call to Raspberger in Georgia alone "Just find me 11,001 votes!!" In and of its self is pretty evident to me.

There are plenty of other incidents.

Wouldnt you consider his lies of fraud an attempt? After all, he has admited privately to many people he knew he lost.

His own AG said as much as well.

And yet he continued to spread massive lies regarding fraud.

That its self isnt a crime if the intent is to overturn a legal elecrtion?

 

Trump's indictments are due to his fake elector scheme to overthrow democracy, not his violent cultists who tried to kill Pence for choosing the Constitution over Trump.

 

Aren't you one of the eeeeevil libruls trying to punish the real Americans but can't because an orange superhero in the way? I can put you on the newsletter list if you'd like.

 

I cannot answer that since it is not a sentence. Try again?

What is he charging that troubles you so much? (Please copy it directly from the indictment with a link.)

 

I don’t see Biden as a defense witness. Why do you?

 

He isn't being charged for expressing opinions. You'd know this if you were the least bit curious about the facts. You aren't. You should educate yourself and actually read the indictment instead of just copy/pasting the lies your handlers have told you about it.

 

Apparently prosecutors with years of experience don’t understand the law as well as you do.

 

An opportunity to take a cheap shot over a RW trope. Which is empirically untrue.

 

THAT's why I haven't been getting newsletter. Thanks for reminding me, I have to send in my annual dues to the eeeeevil libruls of America society.

 

*Twisting mustache and cackling*

 

You still haven't explained what I'd left out had any effect on my reply, which was not a criticism of your "argument," but a reminding you that I had said, from the start, I had not read the indictment, either; that I had given you the name of a member who was reading it; that other posters had given you links to the indictment, if you cared to read it; and that my answer to your redundantly asked question, was therefore only my general sense of the issue. Your depicting this as "dishonest," is, in fact, the only dishonest thing, about our exchange.

 

I wouldn't go by your feelings if I were you. You've once again, either purposefully or just because your hitting the limits of comprehension, failed to understand my point.

 

Sure.

 

What did he do that qualifies as fraud?

 

Still waiting

 

LOL-- the public record, cannot contain any withheld evidence, exculpatory or otherwise. Withheld evidence would only apply to facts known to the prosecution, which were not general knowledge.

But your "lawyering," is about on par with the others, in this thread's Right wing braintrust.

 

You actually bring up some good points. That seems a rarity in this thread.

The Raspberger call can be taken multiple ways. You, and I'm sure the Georgia prosecutors, take the view that what Trump was really saying was to find him 11,001 fraudulent, or otherwise fake votes. So in context with the entire conversation, is that what Trump was asking, or was he asking for recounts and to check and make sure all votes were counted? In any case, that's a separate case that he's not yet indicted for, but I'm sure we'll be discussing it at that time.

"Lies of fraud." Your going to have to be more specific with that one. Does Trump lie? Surely, but was he lying about thinking that the election was stolen from him? I don't think so. Yes Trump lost, but I don't think to this day he thinks that that he lost the election fairly. I'm sure he still thinks it was stolen from him. But much of this case depends on him knowing he lost a fair election, and that nothing was stolen from him.

I don't know how you would prove that, and frankly I doubt we find out at trial, but we'll see.

 

Oh I think they understand the law just fine, it's just that this isn't about law.

 

So you are defending editing my reply.

Typical.