The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#4,201
#4,201
whodeycin85 said:
The way your coming at it tho isn't straight forward If you go looking at a situation with a preconceived idea then your will fit what you hear/feel to the idea ignoring thing that counter your idea. Your of the idea orange man bad so anything he says or does has an evil skew to it, while what he is doing is a desperate man believing the election was stolen. but no threats were made....I'll he shocked if it goes anywhere..same place the fake electors scam went.
Click to expand...
The Orange Man has a well documented 40 year history of operating though intimidation and threats. Only a fool would ignore that history. It's the whole chickens coming home to roost...........finally.
 
#4,202
#4,202
NCFisher said:
A threat of what? He can’t fire Raff, nor sic DOJ on him. Raff might not like being told he’s not doing his job, and that if he’s ignoring election crime willingly he places himself in legal jeopardy, but that’s an opinion, not a threat.

You’ve a penchant to easily see just that you want to be true.
Click to expand...
It was a threat. Trump knew good and well Raff wasn't ignoring any election crime.
 
#4,203
#4,203
luthervol said:
The Orange Man has a well documented 40 year history of operating though intimidation and threats. Only a fool would ignore that history. It's the whole chickens coming home to roost...........finally.
Click to expand...

LOL. Look at you making stuff up on the fly. 40 year history & never went to jail for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,207
#4,207
luthervol said:
The Orange Man has a well documented 40 year history of operating though intimidation and threats. Only a fool would ignore that history. It's the whole chickens coming home to roost...........finally.
Click to expand...
His “40 year history“ is not a legal basis regarding this conversation, but the conversation itself. Is this Nancy Pelosi? Do you not understand the basis of the judicial system?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and StarRaider
#4,209
#4,209
NCFisher said:
His “40 year history“ is not a legal basis regarding this conversation, but the conversation itself. Is this Nancy Pelosi? Do you not understand the basis of the judicial system?
Click to expand...
It certainly plays into how one would expect the message to be received....which is paramount.
 
#4,210
#4,210
luthervol said:
threat:
a suggestion that something unpleasant or violent will happen, especially if a particular action or order is not followed:

The threat was that something unpleasant would happen if he did not follow the order to come up with more votes.
Click to expand...
where does he say that something unpleasant would happen to Raffensperger, or someone he is responsible for? you are projecting on the assumption that Trump is guilty.

If I tell you that voting fraud is a criminal offense, and you should take actions to avoid being part of voting fraud, is that a threat?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and NCFisher
#4,211
#4,211
LouderVol said:
where does he say that something unpleasant would happen to Raffensperger, or someone he is responsible for? you are projecting on the assumption that Trump is guilty.

If I tell you that voting fraud is a criminal offense, and you should take actions to avoid being part of voting fraud, is that a threat?
Click to expand...
"you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. That's a big risk."
 
#4,213
#4,213
luthervol said:
It certainly plays into how one would expect the message to be received....which is paramount.
Click to expand...
Well, no, intent is actually paramount, and Trump make sure that he believes that votes are being destroyed or stolen is his premise, and that Raffensperger should put a halt to that, and that will reveal the actual votes in his favor.

Your premise is that Trump goes on the conversation with Raff and nine other people, most of them lawyers, and ask him to manufacture votes and threaten him if he doesn’t. Both are ideological projections by you and others on the left, which do not mirror the conversation being had, nor does Trump have the ability to threaten him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and AM64
#4,214
#4,214
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,218
#4,218
NCFisher said:
Well, no, intent is actually paramount, and Trump make sure that he believes that votes are being destroyed or stolen is his premise, and that Raffensperger should put a halt to that, and that will reveal the actual votes in his favor.

Your premise is that Trump goes on the conversation with Raff and nine other people, most of them lawyers, and ask him to manufacture votes and threaten him if he doesn’t. Both are ideological projections by you and others on the left, which do not mirror the conversation being had, nor does Trump have the ability to threaten him.
Click to expand...
It is exactly what happened. Trump accused Raff of knowing that votes were being shredded and doing nothing about it. (which everyone on the call knew was a false accusation) He then went on to say that he couldn't do that, that it would be a big risk to both him and his lawyer (curious how it was a risk to his lawyer - Trump showing his hand) And then said again "that's a big risk."

What exactly was the big risk? Trump said it twice. What was the risk to Raff's lawyer? Maybe as you attempt to answer that question, Trump's true intent will dawn on you.
 
#4,219
#4,219
NCFisher said:
@luthervol The utter nonsense you convince yourself of.


Yeah, but Raff can’t insert meaning that isn’t there, into it anymore than you can.

Trump is quite literally talking about his belief that ballots are being destroyed and hidden, and it’s Raffs job to stop it and recover those votes. He clearly isn’t telling him to manufacture votes; Raff can talk til he’s blue and the context won’t change.

You choose to be duped, and in an endless loop.
Click to expand...


Logic is not your friend. There was not vote fraud, and thus no votes to recover. That was explained to the gangster, but he persisted for weeks in
pushing a big, blatant lie and trying to bully people into committing election fraud and/or sedition. Eight or nine people are dead because of Jan.6
and the lies and anti-democratic, anti-American BS spread by a deeply corrupt gangster. If you insist on supporting a conservative for president, may
I politely suggest that you try to find somebody who is not an absolutely terrible and deeply anti-American human being; somebody with just an ounce of human decency. We should all hope the gangster ends up in prison--but I'll be happy if he just spends his final days as the male equivalent of Norma Desmond (wait--a trans?!), shuffling around a cobweb-covered Mar-a-Lago, insisting to his two last friends--fellow mental cases Mike Lindell and Michael Flynn---that "No, really, I used to be the president."
 
#4,225
#4,225
turbovol said:
Logic is not your friend. There was not vote fraud, and thus no votes to recover. That was explained to the gangster, but he persisted for weeks in
pushing a big, blatant lie and trying to bully people into committing election fraud and/or sedition. Eight or nine people are dead because of Jan.6
and the lies and anti-democratic, anti-American BS spread by a deeply corrupt gangster. If you insist on supporting a conservative for president, may
I politely suggest that you try to find somebody who is not an absolutely terrible and deeply anti-American human being; somebody with just an ounce of human decency. We should all hope the gangster ends up in prison--but I'll be happy if he just spends his final days as the male equivalent of Norma Desmond (wait--a trans?!), shuffling around a cobweb-covered Mar-a-Lago, insisting to his two last friends--fellow mental cases Mike Lindell and Michael Flynn---that "No, really, I used to be the president."
Click to expand...

If concerned with logic or rule of law instead of self-indulgence, perhaps you could focus.

It doesn’t matter what was known or thought to be known, but did Trump try to persuade Raff to manufacture votes; that is literally the claim. That is not borne out by the phone call between them with five lawyers (and Navarro and Meadows) on the call.

That’s the legal threshold in the matter, not pillow guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT, AM64 and StarRaider
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top