The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#6,876
#6,876
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
You don't need to be sad, just stop believing the b.s. Trump is not a person you need to protect. He is a grown man that made his decisions.
Click to expand...
Nothing I said referenced protecting Trump in the least bit. I find it humorous and telling that democrats assume because I am against a corrupt president and his henchmen at the DOJ that I support Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#6,877
#6,877
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
Take a few minutes and read the actual indictment. You will be happier and understand the situation. Lying and being wrong is not what he is being charged with or part of the indictment.
Click to expand...
I have read the indictment, thank you. The indictment does not hold legal water. The fact that Jack Smith would put his name to legal stretches and fabrications shows that he is no more than a henchman for Biden. If Trump committed crimes, he should have been properly charged with those crimes immediately. That did not happen. Again, I am NOT speaking to the support of Trump. I am sickened by the way democrats have turned into nazis and communist in using government to attack a political opponent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Caculator
#6,879
#6,879
Tman44 said:
I have read the indictment, thank you. The indictment does not hold legal water. The fact that Jack Smith would put his name to legal stretches and fabrications shows that he is no more than a henchman for Biden. If Trump committed crimes, he should have been properly charged with those crimes immediately. That did not happen. Again, I am NOT speaking to the support of Trump. I am sickened by the way democrats have turned into nazis and communist in using government to attack a political opponent.
Click to expand...
How do you know that it doesn't hold legal water?

@RockyTop85 do you agree?
 
  • Like
Reactions: clarksvol00
#6,880
#6,880
I feel like if any of these changes had merit other then political why isn't he being considered a fight risk?? Is that normal to charge a fight risk with 40 plus charges and then let them run around unchecked
 
#6,881
#6,881
WBO said:
Better check the date on that one, or else Dershowitz has started bouncing around on his positions trying to get back on the A list for parties on Martha's Vineyard. Have you noted that Dershowitz declined to be part of Trump's defense team on the most recent charges. He did the impeachment but won't do the criminal.
Click to expand...

He probably never got paid.
 
#6,885
#6,885
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
You don't need to be sad, just stop believing the b.s. Trump is not a person you need to protect. He is a grown man that made his decisions.
Click to expand...
Interesting take. Does a grown man sitting in the WH need perfection from the FBI and CIA during the previous election? Being a grown man that made his decisions. Or do you believe BS that’s it’s not protection?
 
#6,887
#6,887
RockyTop85 said:
“Nixon had prevailed by just 140 votes, according to the initial results, which were certified by the governor. A recount was underway on Dec. 19, 1960, when presidential electors across the nation were required by law to meet and cast their ballots.”

“between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, who was vice president at the time.”

“three elector nominees”

So four additional differences.

The contest in that state was still legitimately in question (and ultimately flipped although I don’t think that’s significant except to illustrate that it was legitimately uncertain), it wasn’t significant to the overall outcome, It wasn’t an effort to overturn the overall election, and it wasn’t a farce to have the vice president throw the election and install Kennedy as an unelected executive.

This might mitigate the actions of the state-level people somewhat, but the people at the top were still trying to keep Trump in power despite the fact that he lost the election.
Click to expand...
Also didn't Nixon certify the fraudulent electors even after it was shown they should have gone to the Republicans....
 
#6,888
#6,888
The Biden plan is at work in Russia:

Russian President Vladimir Putin's most prominent opponent could be sentenced Friday to an additional two decades behind bars on extremism charges.

MSN
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeBoro
#6,889
#6,889
whodeycin85 said:
Also didn't Nixon certify the fraudulent electors even after it was shown they should have gone to the Republicans....
Click to expand...
Your article said that the state flipped to Kennedy after the recount and Nixon ultimately presented a third set of votes submitted by the same three Kennedy electors who had already submitted votes.
 
#6,891
#6,891
RockyTop85 said:
Your article said that the state flipped to Kennedy after the recount and Nixon ultimately presented a third set of votes submitted by the same three Kennedy electors who had already submitted votes.
Click to expand...
Nixon asked for unanimous consent to award Hawaii to Kennedy but had already certified the GOP electors.. So essentially with unanimous consent the false electors were accepted as legit after recount... So Trump had challenges to the election in court after electors were awarded, had any of those changed the winner of those states then the fake electors wouldn't be fake as was the case in 1960... Similar scenario on a larger scale.. Not criminal
 
#6,892
#6,892
Sandman 423 said:
How do you know that it doesn't hold legal water?

@RockyTop85 do you agree?
Click to expand...
I don’t personally know enough about these specific statutes or this area of criminal law to give my own opinion.

Sources I trust to put in the leg work and give real analysis (David French being one) say that the way the statute has been interpreted in modern cases makes the charge seem sound but there seems to be some hand wringing over whether that will hold up. The Advisory Opinions podcast (David French and Sarah Isgur) did a pretty fair review of the indictment where they were both pretty skeptical, Isgur more than French.

I haven’t had a chance to confirm that for myself. But I haven’t seen anybody I trust say it’s a slam dunk for either side.

The following is from Ken White and I think it’s a very good outline for how to read legal punditry:
How can you tell the truth from a lie or mistake, when federal criminal law is complex? It’s not easy. Here are a few guidelines:

  • Rely, when possible, on people offering primary documents and links to citations and support.
  • Be skeptical of absolute certainty not backed up with proof. Be skeptical of pronouncements that there’s only one way a court will ever possibly interpret something.
  • Be more trusting of nuance, concessions of ambiguity and possible different interpretations, and exploration of opposing legal arguments. (Check out this post by Walter Olson as an example.)
Click to expand...
 
#6,893
#6,893
whodeycin85 said:
Nixon asked for unanimous consent to award Hawaii to Kennedy but had already certified the GOP electors.. So essentially with unanimous consent the false electors were accepted as legit after recount... So Trump had challenges to the election in court after electors were awarded, had any of those changed the winner of those states then the fake electors wouldn't be fake as was the case in 1960... Similar scenario on a larger scale.. Not criminal
Click to expand...
I will agree that if you shut your eyes and ignore all of the other context that makes the situations different, then there’s no difference.
 
#6,896
#6,896
MercyPercy said:
Trump may want to start actually paying his lawyers for once now that he's facing real indictments.
Click to expand...

Imagine a "billionaire" having to beg for money to pay his criminal legal bills.

Pathetic, but just underscores the grift.

I've got 11,780 Stanley Nickles that says @Franklin Pierce didn't donate $500.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#6,897
#6,897
Septic said:
Imagine a "billionaire" having to beg for money to pay his criminal legal bills.

Pathetic, but just underscores the grift.

I've got 11,780 Stanley Nickles that says @Franklin Pierce didn't donate $500.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you wouldn't believe him unless you don't think he can afford it. Based on his post history I find it very believable he got grifted and it's probably not the first time lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#6,899
#6,899
MercyPercy said:
I'm not sure why you wouldn't believe him unless you don't think he can afford it. Based on his post history I find it very believable he got grifted and it's probably not the first time lol
Click to expand...

I guess I just envision the low IQ die hard trumpers to also be low rent.
 
#6,900
#6,900
Sandman 423 said:
How do you know that it doesn't hold legal water?

@RockyTop85 do you agree?
Click to expand...
What I think about the topic is inconsequential; nevertheless, this is my opinion of what will happen. First, I see no way Trump is not convicted by a jury in Washington, D.C. (yes, an intentional double negative). The political animus from the left is too great in that area to afford Trump a fair trial. Secondly, the 4th circuit court of appeals is heavily left leaning. There are eleven appointees from democrat administrations to seven from republican administrations. There is also one vacant seat. Although the 4th circuit is not quite as bad as the 9th "circus" in so far as ignoring the law for the sake of politics, it is not far behind. In the 2020-2021 session, all three decisions by the 4th circuit to reach the supreme court were overturned. If convicted, Trump's appeal will likely be upheld by the 4th circuit court of appeals. The high court will then throw out the conviction. Who will win? That is the easy part! The attorneys. Can you say "billable hours?"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HammondB3Vol and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top