Go back
Donald Trump's Mugshot

Donald Trump's Mugshot

Debates


@no1marauder said
Actions which would normally be perfectly legal can be "overt acts" which are proof of a criminal conspiracy.

It's perfectly legal to stroll past First National Bank, but if you are doing so to find out where the guards and cameras are as part of a plan to rob First National then you're guilty of conspiracy:

" The overt act does not have to be criminal and ma ...[text shortened]... at what Trump and Lefty the Protection Guy are doing is a criminal act, however, namely "extortion".
freedom of speech is not illegal shytweasel


@no1marauder said
I really think I'm going to stop responding to your posts, which are invariably brainless stupidity.

The guy who runs the Executive Branch of the United States says you and your lawyer are committing a "criminal offense" and are "at risk" if you don't do what he says and you're going to keep asking "where's the threat"?

Moron.
more recently…the guy who runs the executive branch is abusing the system to attack political opponents.
this will not end well.

now…you can take your ball and go home 😂

2 edits

@mott-the-hoople said
he guy who runs the executive branch is abusing the system to attack political opponents.
Which includes his own son?

Christ, you're dumb.


@no1marauder

"This is because he was extorting (or asking very nicely according to Mott) Raffensberger to violate his oath of office by 'finding' non-existent votes to overturn an already certified election..."

The question is about whether the election results were already finally certified. If not and it was still possible to dispute the results, the demand to "find non-existent votes" may mean the demand to "find falsified votes".


@eintaluj said
@no1marauder

"This is because he was extorting (or asking very nicely according to Mott) Raffensberger to violate his oath of office by 'finding' non-existent votes to overturn an already certified election..."
But did he violate his oath of office? Just askin'!!!

If I ask you to rob a a bank, and you don't,.... have you, and/or I, broken the law?


@averagejoe1 said
But did he violate his oath of office? Just askin'!!!

If I ask you to rob a a bank, and you don't,.... have you, and/or I, broken the law?
Yes, you have:

"Solicitation is an inchoate crime that involves seeking out another person to engage in a criminal act. A defendant may be charged with solicitation if he or she requests or induces another person to commit an act that would amount to a felony. "

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/solicitation/


@eintaluj said
@no1marauder

"This is because he was extorting (or asking very nicely according to Mott) Raffensberger to violate his oath of office by 'finding' non-existent votes to overturn an already certified election..."

The question is about whether the election results were already finally certified. If not and it was still possible to dispute the results, the demand to "find non-existent votes" may mean the demand to "find falsified votes".
The election in Georgia was certified no later than December 14th, when the electors met in the State Capitol. A recount of every single ballot by hand was completed by November 20th.

There were no votes to "find"; Raffensberger repeatedly informed Trump that his claims of fraud were baseless.


@mott-the-hoople said
freedom of speech is not illegal shytweasel
Neither is a nice stroll by the First National Bank.

Is "hands up and give me your money" covered by your definition of "freedom of speech"?


@no1marauder said
Yes, you have:

"Solicitation is an inchoate crime that involves seeking out another person to engage in a criminal act. A defendant may be charged with solicitation if he or she requests or induces another person to commit an act that would amount to a felony. "

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/solicitation/
Well. …….if that is the law it makes no sense!!! that’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it!! I certainly think that there is a little more meat to this than you suggest… Thousands of bad people a day sit around and discuss just such things, like let’s go knock off that liquor store. You’re saying that that is a crime, just talking about it.
A rather liberal interpretation I would think.


@no1marauder said
Neither is a nice stroll by the First National Bank.

Is "hands up and give me your money" covered by your definition of "freedom of speech"?
When did Trump do this? you look like a fool coming up with these scenarios that are not relevant to the situation.

it is illegal to rob someone, it is not illegal to contest an election.


@mott-the-hoople said
When did Trump do this? you look like a fool coming up with these scenarios that are not relevant to the situation.

it is illegal to rob someone, it is not illegal to contest an election.
Stop with the BS; you can contest an election by going to court, not by threatening public officials if they don't "find" you non-existent votes or scheming to replace duly elected electors with fake ones or by inciting a mob to attack Congress to stop the certification of the election or any of the other illegal acts outlined in the indictments.

And the scenario given is relevant to your absurd claim that all that is Constitutionally protected "free speech".


@no1marauder said
Stop with the BS; you can contest an election by going to court, not by threatening public officials if they don't "find" you non-existent votes or scheming to replace duly elected electors with fake ones or by inciting a mob to attack Congress to stop the certification of the election or any of the other illegal acts outlined in the indictments.

And the scenario given is relevant to your absurd claim that all that is Constitutionally protected "free speech".
“Stop with the BS; you can contest an election by going to court”

nope…not when pelosi declares an emergency, that is why they enticed Trump supporters to enter the capitol building, so pelosi could do that.

You lie twice in your comment. You run in circles repeating lies that are meant to fool the gullible…shytweasel


@no1marauder said
Stop with the BS; you can contest an election by going to court, not by threatening public officials if they don't "find" you non-existent votes or scheming to replace duly elected electors with fake ones or by inciting a mob to attack Congress to stop the certification of the election or any of the other illegal acts outlined in the indictments.

And the scenario given is relevant to your absurd claim that all that is Constitutionally protected "free speech".
What threat?


@mott-the-hoople said
“Stop with the BS; you can contest an election by going to court”

nope…not when pelosi declares an emergency, that is why they enticed Trump supporters to enter the capitol building, so pelosi could do that.

You lie twice in your comment. You run in circles repeating lies that are meant to fool the gullible…shytweasel
I can't wait for the facts to be adjudicated by a jury.

Your right wing propaganda version isn't going to survive contact with the American legal system is my prediction.


@averagejoe1 said
But did he violate his oath of office? Just askin'!!!

If I ask you to rob a a bank, and you don't,.... have you, and/or I, broken the law?
I do not understand your question. It doesn't seem to be related to my text above.