@no1marauder saidSure. And in August 2023, ordinary people who have read the charges are writing things like this: conspiring to obstruct the peaceful transfer of presidential election results.
You must be another right winger who refuses to read the indictment.
The Federal Conspiracy charges Trump faces are most certainly "on the books".
And I'd imagine all Soviet charges were on the books too.
I have no doubt that actual lawyers are capable of much better mental gymnastics than this rubbish.
If Trump wanted to challenge the election results, he is free to use any legal means available. We all knew the plan at the time was to get 10 days for the the election to be reviewed before certification. Had they found a reason to change the results through that process, it would have been legal. Had they not found a reason, the results wouldn't have been changed.
@techsouth saidHis "legal means" failed so he decided to use illegal ones.
Sure. And in August 2023, ordinary people who have read the charges are writing things like this: conspiring to obstruct the peaceful transfer of presidential election results.
And I'd imagine all Soviet charges were on the books too.
I have no doubt that actual lawyers are capable of much better mental gymnastics than this rubbish.
If Trump wanted to chall ...[text shortened]... ess, it would have been legal. Had they not found a reason, the results wouldn't have been changed.
@techsouth saidThe plan you describe is illegal. All states had already signed off on the results. Trump knew there were no legal options left to try. Delaying an official proceeding based on false information that you know is false is illegal. It is a conspiracy to obstruct.
Sure. And in August 2023, ordinary people who have read the charges are writing things like this: conspiring to obstruct the peaceful transfer of presidential election results.
And I'd imagine all Soviet charges were on the books too.
I have no doubt that actual lawyers are capable of much better mental gymnastics than this rubbish.
If Trump wanted to chall ...[text shortened]... ess, it would have been legal. Had they not found a reason, the results wouldn't have been changed.
He might be able to argue he received false counsel but in the indictment it seemed like there were several lawyers telling him this was illegal and he just ignored or fired them.
@wildgrass saidLobbying congress to send the electors back to the states is not even slightly illegal.
The plan you describe is illegal. All states had already signed off on the results. Trump knew there were no legal options left to try. Delaying an official proceeding based on false information that you know is false is illegal. It is a conspiracy to obstruct.
He might be able to argue he received false counsel but in the indictment it seemed like there were several lawyers telling him this was illegal and he just ignored or fired them.
I can lobby congress to require clown face paint in funeral homes if I want.
Do you recall in 2016 when democrats tried to persuade Trump electors to vote for Hillary? Oh, that's okay. Although they were trying to change the results of an election they lost, it's okay because,... well because.
There were even congressmen who refused to vote to validate the election.
There is no legal standard being consistently applied. The only consistency is the Democrats are fine with anything that opposes Trump no matter how flimsy the pretense.
@techsouth saidNice try, but you gotta read the indictment. He's not being charged with lobbying Congress 😂
Lobbying congress to send the electors back to the states is not even slightly illegal.
I can lobby congress to require clown face paint in funeral homes if I want.
Do you recall in 2016 when democrats tried to persuade Trump electors to vote for Hillary? Oh, that's okay. Although they were trying to change the results of an election they lost, it's okay because,. ...[text shortened]... stency is the Democrats are fine with anything that opposes Trump no matter how flimsy the pretense.
@no1marauder saidStop pretending you read the indictment. Read it yourself before shaming others for being just as lazy as you are.
You must be another right winger who refuses to read the indictment.
The Federal Conspiracy charges Trump faces are most certainly "on the books".
@wildgrass saidStop pretending you read the indictment. Read it yourself before shaming others for being just as lazy as you are. The indictment says Trump can legally lie about the election. Then the indictment said Trump violated the law because he lied and he knew he lied about the election.
Nice try, but you gotta read the indictment. He's not being charged with lobbying Congress 😂
The indictment contradicts itself. Read it yourself. Aside from the fact nobody can prove Trump knew he lied it is perfectly legal for him to lie. The indictment says so!
@metal-brain saidYou're a moron if you actually think the indictment charges that " Trump violated the law because he lied and he knew he lied about the election."
Stop pretending you read the indictment. Read it yourself before shaming others for being just as lazy as you are. The indictment says Trump can legally lie about the election. Then the indictment said Trump violated the law because he lied and he knew he lied about the election.
The indictment contradicts itself. Read it yourself. Aside from the fact nobody can prove Trump knew he lied it is perfectly legal for him to lie. The indictment says so!
More likely you're doing what you always do; lying to carry water for right wingers.
@no1marauder saidRead the indictment!
You're a moron if you actually think the indictment charges that " Trump violated the law because he lied and he knew he lied about the election."
More likely you're doing what you always do; lying to carry water for right wingers.
The indictment says Trump can legally lie about the election. Read it yourself!
https://rumble.com/v34b9ec-the-real-reason-for-trumps-latest-indictment-explained.html
Here's what he is actually charged with doing as part of the conspiracy to overturn the election (MB wouldn't know this since he refuses to read the indictment):
"Manner and Means 10.
The Defendant's conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal goverment function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means:
a. The Defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral voles for the Defendant's opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr, to electoral votes for the Defendant. That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions o fvoters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.
b. The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did. The Defendant and co-conspirators then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.
c. The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome; that sought to advance the Defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department's authority to falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors; and that urged, on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted states” legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.
d The Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results. First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince the Vice President to use the Defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them. When that failed, on the morning of January 6, the Defendant and co-conspirators repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused.
e. After it became public on the afternoon of January6 that the Vice President would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd— including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results— violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding. As violence ensued, the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.
From the Indictment MB won't read, pp. 5-6
@no1marauder saidIn every banana republic that has ever existed there are numerous people who believe any charges against political opposition.
You're a moron if you actually think the indictment charges that " Trump violated the law because he lied and he knew he lied about the election."
More likely you're doing what you always do; lying to carry water for right wingers.
@metal-brain saidIt does say that.
Read the indictment!
The indictment says Trump can legally lie about the election. Read it yourself!
https://rumble.com/v34b9ec-the-real-reason-for-trumps-latest-indictment-explained.html
But that is not what he is charged with, so you are lying.
EDIT: Why do you waste time posting links to Jimmy Dore? He has no more knowledge or expertise thnt the average drunk on a street corner possesses and he, like you, has been carrying water for Trump for years.
@techsouth saidRight wing hypocrisy is really nauseating; weren't you one of the posters screaming for an indictment of Hillary Clinton a few months before the 2016 election?
In every banana republic that has ever existed there are numerous people who believe any charges against political opposition.
I don't see anything in this indictment that isn't true. Smith will have to convince a jury that Trump knew his claims of election fraud that tainted the election were false but the indictment doesn' have to spell out how exactly he intends to do so. The rumor mill says that his Chief of Staff Mark Meadows may have "flipped" on him (he did testify in front of the Grand Jury) and might have direct knowledge that Trump knew his claims were false.
@techsouth saidJury of peers, presumed innocence, right to legal counsel etc. This is the system of justice we have. It sounds like you are advocating for criminal justice reform? Or that politicians should be immune from our laws?
In every banana republic that has ever existed there are numerous people who believe any charges against political opposition.
@no1marauder saidLets start with a and b.
Here's what he is actually charged with doing as part of the conspiracy to overturn the election (MB wouldn't know this since he refuses to read the indictment):
"Manner and Means 10.
The Defendant's conspiracy to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal goverment function through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit included the following manner and means:
a. The Def ...[text shortened]... further delay the certification based on those claims.
From the Indictment MB won't read, pp. 5-6
Prove he did that. I proved the electors change of votes would only count if the courts ruled in Trump's favor. How would that disenfranchise millions of voters?
e is completely ridiculous. It is the same big lie you have been telling for months. It is blaming the conduct of others on Trump. You cannot blame Trump for protesters that trespassed on Capitol grounds and the Capitol building. Trump never told people to do that, Ray Epps did and he is still running free.
It also says this:
"the Defendant and co-conspirators exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud"
The indictment said that is perfectly legal. So why did the indictment list that as a violation of the law? That is not relevant to the law. The only purpose in saying that is to make you angry at Trump since it is perfectly legal. Even if he knew it was a lie that is legal. The indictment said so!
"First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud"
The indictment does not prove Trump knowingly lied. This is a mind reading lie. Nobody knows what Trump thought. That is simply an untrue statement. Indictments should not lie while condemning lies they know are perfectly legal and said so.