Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

I mean come on. Trying cases in super liberal ATL, DC, and NYC were not an accident.

Of course. They’re way more likely to get anti trump jurors there.

 

[KLB]

If I were on the jury, beyond reasonable doubt would mean they’d have to have more than a few credible witnesses hear him say first hand to the contrary of what Trump has said publicly. He’s been very consistent that the election was stolen.

You are really hung up on whether he lied about believing the election was stolen. How is that relevant to the fraud charges? How would that lie have been used for fraud?

 

[jamil]

You are really hung up on whether he lied about believing the election was stolen. How is that relevant to the fraud charges? How would that lie have been used for fraud?

Ask the government. Did you read the indictment?

 

[KG1]

Ask the government. Did you read the indictment?

He's really hung up on telling you that you are hung up on whether he lied about believing the election was stolen.

 

[Tombs]

That’s no proof at all. I wouldn’t call it an unlawful act. Saying Trump had no case is not the same thing as saying he broke the law. That’s the mistake the TDS’ers are making. They want it to be illegal. And now it is.

So you don't think it's proof when someone claims what you're doing isn't legal, then turns around later and makes a law outlawing it?

Why would they have needed to make a law if it wasn't previously legal? I don't see how that doesn't meet the highest standard for proof.

 

[jamil]

Somehow Trump’s attorneys thought it was a viable legal theory. Making sure there’s no doubt seems like a reasonable action if that’s true. And if the constitution did grant the VPOTUS such power, then the new law would be unconstitutional and should be challenged.

 

[KG1]

Somehow Trump’s attorneys thought it was a viable legal theory. Making sure there’s no doubt seems like a reasonable action if that’s true. And if the constitution did grant the VPOTUS such power, then the new law would be unconstitutional and should be challenged.

I think in trying to promote their legal theory it was a last-ditch hail Mary to get Pence to suspend the proceedings and send it back to the States legislatures who they were contesting hoping to seat their alternate electors and the worst they thought would happen is that the question of their legal theory would be decided in a court. Well, I guess you could say it kinda is but not the way they expected it to be as criminal defendants now.

The thing is that Eastman who came up with it wasn't so confident in that legal theory because according to J6 testimony he reportedly acknowledged to others in private that SCOTUS would most likely shoot it down.

 

[Ziggidy]

I thought questioning elections was anti-democratic?

The FBI will be showing up soon.

 

[Ziggidy]

Sometimes, while reading this thread, my head begins to hurt.

 

[KG1]

Go take a couple Tylenol and lay down.

 

[DragonGunner]

Thought it amusing when Trump hater Joe Rogan had liberal moron Bill Maher on his podcast and Bill said what a liar Trump was, Joe did say Biden was way worse. But Bill would have none of that and started naming the lies Trump has told. For examples when he said we had planes that are totally invisible, you can’t even see them. Then called him a narcissist which I laughed because most presidents are. But Bill is a bigger one in that a narcissist only hears what he wants to hear from you. So he took Trumps statement about stealth fighters being invisible to radar and read what he wanted him to mean. And there’s Joe not once correcting him or calling him out. Joe once again does his fans an injustice when he brings people like this baboon on his show. Who’s next, Killary? Maybe Whoopi? C’mon on Joe.

 

[jamil]

I think in trying to promote their legal theory it was a last-ditch hail Mary to get Pence to suspend the proceedings and send it back to the States legislatures who they were contesting hoping to seat their alternate electors and the worst they thought would happen is that the question of their legal theory would be decided in a court. Well, I guess you could say it kinda is but not the way they expected it to be as criminal defendants now.

The thing is that Eastman who came up with it wasn't so confident in that legal theory because according to J6 testimony he reportedly acknowledged to others in private that SCOTUS would most likely shoot it down.

The thing that they're calling fraudulent is the attempt to persuade the state legislatures in 7 states to go along with certifying a different slate favorable to Trump. But, according to the indictment...

---

As the Defendant's attempts to obstruct the electoral vote through deceit of state officials met with repeated failure, beginning in early December 2020, he and co-conspirators developed a new plan: to marshal individuals who would have served as the Defendant's electors, had he won the popular vote, in seven targeted states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—and cause those individuals to make and send to the Vice President and Congress false certifications that they were legitimate electors. Under the plan, the submission of these fraudulent slates would create a fake controversy at the certification proceeding and position the Vice President—presiding on January 6 as President of the Senate to supplant legitimate electors with the Defendant's fake electors and certify the Defendant as president.

---

Fraud is a huge part of the case against Trump. They alleged in the indictment that, though Trump has a 1st amendment right to claim the election was stolen, even to lie about it, he tried to deceive people into doing all that's in the indictment. If Trump were telling the truth, or at least that he believed that the election was stolen, the fraud part of the indictment would fall apart.

One other thing I want to mention, what they're saying he did is not benign. They're alleging he was trying to circumvent the lawful proceedings to prevent Biden's electoral votes from being counted, thus stealing the election from Biden. Now if what they're alleging is true, that Trump knew he lost but was just scheming to stay in power, Trumpers might be fine with that, you know, end justifies means and all, but he guilty as **** if that's true.

 

[Ingomike]

I think in trying to promote their legal theory it was a last-ditch hail Mary to get Pence to suspend the proceedings and send it back to the States legislatures who they were contesting hoping to seat their alternate electors and the worst they thought would happen is that the question of their legal theory would be decided in a court. Well, I guess you could say it kinda is but not the way they expected it to be as criminal defendants now.

The thing is that Eastman who came up with it wasn't so confident in that legal theory because according to J6 testimony he reportedly acknowledged to others in private that SCOTUS would most likely shoot it down.

Another possibility was if the EC vote was below 270 then the vote would go to the house for state delegations to vote…

 

[dburgette]

Sometimes, while reading this thread, my head begins to hurt.

That's funny. I was thinking the same thing. At least I'm not the only one.

 

[Ingomike]

Fani Willis Fights for a Mass Trial As the Georgia Defendants Scatter

Below is my column in The Messenger on the early struggle of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to preserve her strategy of holding a mass 19-person trial over the 2020 election case invol…

jonathanturley.org

 

[BugI02]

If I were on the jury, beyond reasonable doubt would mean they’d have to have more than a few credible witnesses hear him say first hand to the contrary of what Trump has said publicly. He’s been very consistent that the election was stolen.

Well, that's because it was

 

[BugI02]

Go take a couple Tylenol {Abelour 12's] and lay down.

Fixy

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Somehow Trump’s attorneys thought it was a viable legal theory. Making sure there’s no doubt seems like a reasonable action if that’s true. And if the constitution did grant the VPOTUS such power, then the new law would be unconstitutional and should be challenged.

THIS... "if the constitution did grant the VPOTUS such power, then the new law would be unconstitutional and should be challenged."

And those that believe/believed Pence to have the power the ****can the elector certifications from several states on January 6, 2021... also MUST believe that Harris has that same power come January 2025.

Right?

 

[Ingomike]

THIS... "if the constitution did grant the VPOTUS such power, then the new law would be unconstitutional and should be challenged."

And those that believe/believed Pence to have the power the ****can the elector certifications from several states on January 6, 2021... also MUST believe that Harris has that same power come January 2025.

Right?

STANDING. New law likely cannot be challenged until a VP is limited if their duties. There are many unconstitutional laws in place…

 

[jamil]

STANDING. New law likely cannot be challenged until a VP is limited if their duties. There are many unconstitutional laws in place…

Or would be limited. So Joe Biden loses the election to Trump, now a felon. Right away Kamala files to question the constitutionality of the law because it prevents her from choosing a slate of electors who will vote for Biden over the ones duly certified who would have voted for the other guy. The court hears the case and ultimately finds for the plaintiff, not because the law was actually unconstitutional, but because 5 justices, the four ideologues want the democrats to be in power, plus Roberts, who ruled for the plaintiff because he thought that a felon POTUS would be icky.