The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#6,676
#6,676
Vol8188 said:
Cool? It shouldn’t matter if 99% of people have that opinion. The question isn’t “do you believe trump knew”, but rather “can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt”
Click to expand...
I guess we'll see. Maybe he gets lucky and becomes the new OJ. And he'll always have his horde of worshipers.
 
#6,678
#6,678
Vol8188 said:
You’re all over the place here. The point is simple. You have to prove trump did not belief he won or that trump did not believe what he was doing to be constitutional. You have to “go constitutional” to actually analyze the crime
Click to expand...
Except there are records that have him acknowledging he knew he had lost. No, I'm not all over the place. Nice try
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#6,682
#6,682
Vol8188 said:
Cool? It shouldn’t matter if 99% of people have that opinion. The question isn’t “do you believe trump knew”, but rather “can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt”
Click to expand...

They should be able to. He was told multiple times, by multiple people, including White House lawyers, that he lost the election. He was told multiple times that there was no proof of election fraud--the attorney general told him, among others. He was aware of all the lost court cases and the recounts. Yet he kept on...The gangster's ploy was obvious the minute he came out and held a presser and claimed vote fraud, many hours before votes were fully counted. His plan all along was to claim vote fraud if he lost the election. It was premeditated--fact.
 
#6,685
#6,685
turbovol said:
They should be able to. He was told multiple times, by multiple people, including White House lawyers, that he lost the election. He was told multiple times that there was no proof of election fraud--the attorney general told him, among others. He was aware of all the lost court cases and the recounts. Yet he kept on...The gangster's ploy was obvious the minute he came out and held a presser and claimed vote fraud, many hours before votes were fully counted. His plan all along was to claim vote fraud if he lost the election. It was premeditated--fact.
Click to expand...

I’ve been told multiple times by multiple people the earth is flat. Does that make me legally obligated to believe them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#6,686
#6,686
Vol8188 said:
Which records specifically are you talking about
Click to expand...
“Trump’s own campaign experts told him that there was no evidence to support his claims. His own Justice Department appointees investigated the election fraud claims and told him — point blank — they were false. In mid-December 2020, President Trump’s senior advisers told him the time had come to concede the election. Donald Trump knew the courts had ruled against him.”
 
#6,688
#6,688
luthervol said:
“Trump’s own campaign experts told him that there was no evidence to support his claims. His own Justice Department appointees investigated the election fraud claims and told him — point blank — they were false. In mid-December 2020, President Trump’s senior advisers told him the time had come to concede the election. Donald Trump knew the courts had ruled against him.”
Click to expand...

That’s not what was just claimed. He claimed trump knew he lost. Multiple people told me the earth is flat. Am I obligated to believe them?

Someone told you something and you believed them are two different things
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#6,689
#6,689
Vol8188 said:
Which records specifically are you talking about
Click to expand...
Brad Parscale, who had served as Trump’s campaign manager before Stepien, and that Parscale had told them “that President Trump planned, as early as July, that he would say he won the election even if he lost.”
 
#6,690
#6,690
Vol8188 said:
Which records specifically are you talking about
Click to expand...
The California lawmaker also played audio from Stephen K. Bannon — a former senior adviser for Trump who had been in touch with him before Jan. 6 — telling associates in China a few days before the election that regardless of the actual results, Trump was simply going to say he had won.
 
#6,691
#6,691
luthervol said:
Brad Parscale, who had served as Trump’s campaign manager before Stepien, and that Parscale had told them “that President Trump planned, as early as July, that he would say he won the election even if he lost.”
Click to expand...

So heresay is the best you’ve got so far? You’ve got to do better
 
#6,692
#6,692
Vol8188 said:
You’re all over the place here. The point is simple. You have to prove trump did not belief he won or that trump did not believe what he was doing to be constitutional. You have to “go constitutional” to actually analyze the crime
Click to expand...

Wrong. The state has to prove that there was /no reason/ for the gangster to believe there was vote fraud and that he, in fact, won. That's the distinction, and they should have proof of that. They will be Republicans and White House staffers on the stand to prove that the was told multiple times that there was no fraud and that he in fact lost the election. His con-man act will fail.
 
#6,693
#6,693
Vol8188 said:
Yes, it’s gross to defend police violating the law to go after people you don’t like.
Click to expand...
No. It's not about liking or disliking them. It's about them continuously breaking the law and getting away with it. Most of this country's outlandish criminals were caught and then prosecuted with shady warrants

Edit:This doesn't apply here because 100% of the evidence was obtained from Trump voting, Trump appointees to his cabinet and staff
 
#6,694
#6,694
luthervol said:
“Trump’s own campaign experts told him that there was no evidence to support his claims. His own Justice Department appointees investigated the election fraud claims and told him — point blank — they were false. In mid-December 2020, President Trump’s senior advisers told him the time had come to concede the election. Donald Trump knew the courts had ruled against him.”
Click to expand...

I presume he had other advisors telling him otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#6,695
#6,695
turbovol said:
Wrong. The state has to prove that there was /no reason/ for the gangster to believe there was vote fraud and that he, in fact, won. That's the distinction, and they should have proof of that. They will be Republicans and White House staffers on the stand to prove that the was told multiple times that there was no fraud and that he in fact lost the election. His con-man act will fail.
Click to expand...

To prove what he did was fraudulent you’d have to prove he didn’t believe it. Not that he shouldn’t have believed it.
 
#6,696
#6,696
turbovol said:
Wrong. The state has to prove that there was /no reason/ for the gangster to believe there was vote fraud and that he, in fact, won. That's the distinction, and they should have proof of that. They will be Republicans and White House staffers on the stand to prove that the was told multiple times that there was no fraud and that he in fact lost the election. His con-man act will fail.
Click to expand...

glad you aren't my lawyer because you don't know what you are talking about
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Vol since 77, VolsAgainstTheWorld15 and 1 other person
#6,697
#6,697
Vol8188 said:
So heresay is the best you’ve got so far? You’ve got to do better
Click to expand...
I don't......you do.
He knew, it's pure and simple.
I'm more than happy to let a jury decide.
He's already lost the court of public opinion.
But like I said, he could get lucky and be the new OJ.
 
#6,699
#6,699
luthervol said:
I don't......you do.
He knew, it's pure and simple.
I'm more than happy to let a jury decide.
He's already lost the court of public opinion.
But like I said, he could get lucky and be the new OJ.
Click to expand...

Maybe he knew it. That’s what you’ve got to prove. And “people told him” isn’t proof.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top