NY GRAND JURY VOTES TO INDICT TRUMP

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No it won't. This case is even more ridiculous than the documents case. The documents case he at least technically did something kind of illegal, though I don't think he understood he was doing anything illegal.

This case you basically have to read his mind and claim he knew he lost when there's basically zero evidence he thought he lost, and a mountain of evidence that he thought he won. If the trial is even remotely fair, there's essentially no way for the prosecution to prove anything.

These people are deranged, completely partisan, and have no interest in actual justice. It's a huge dog and pony show.

So you're assuming propriety on behalf of Trump, and impropriety on behalf of "various actors", to make the point: "This is a sham trial because Trump is so clearly innocent and those 'various actors' are so clearly nefarious!" Wow, great point! Even if it were just about the phone call there could be a case. Unfortunately for him, I think it's also about the trump allies on film in Coffee County, Georgia illegally accessing voting machines, as well as plotting between Trump and his cronies to create fake, pro-Trump electors in Georgia, in addition to the phone call. Giuliani specifically, acting as Trump's lawyer, is in trouble for drafting fraudulent certificates of ascertainment and trying to get Georgia officials to sign them. Coupled with the phone call from Trump, that could very well be racketeering.

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Find the votes" does not mean "fabricate fake votes". It means literally find the votes that are legitimate, and exist, and aren't being counted due to impropriety by various actors. The entire phonecall he was alleging fraud. It makes no sense to allege fraud while also acknowledging you lost legitimately.

During the call, Trump falsely implied Raffensperger could have committed a criminal offense by refusing to overturn Georgia's election results in Trump's favor. Then why the fuck was he asking specifically for the number of votes he had lost by, plus one? Trump gave him a specific number of votes he wanted him to find lol.

"What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than (the 11,779 vote margin of defeat) we have, because we won the state."

Add all these things up and you've got some RICO predicates. Whether this goes anywhere is going to depend on the evidence they have, which we don't know the full extent of. But given they have hard video evidence of at least one of the RICO predicates.....

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

Originally Posted by aussenseiter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Iraq was justified with or without WMDs.

Yeah, justified as what? A liberation of angry sectarian tribalism, ala steam cooker pressure relief valve? Hussein operated a territory. Iraq is religiously closer to Iran than his government ever would have liked.

Do you mean it was justified in the sense of a required chaos engine? A surprisingly effective life sink in a superfluous population?

Looking at Cheney and Rumsfeld, what am I looking at? Certainly not lawful neutral.

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

^^ Not how the law works. If it did....

If the law released every defendant who can prove beyond reasonable doubt they really didn't know what they were doing, there would maybe be two, three prisons in the entire country.

If the law released, among those remaining, everyone who can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no one can know for sure what was in their mind, we are down to one cell.

The nature of any crime involves a specification of its duration. The thing about a conspiracy is, it's the opposite of a crime of passion, for example. It generates a lot of records.

Cheating because you think you got cheated, I hate to break it to you, is still cheating. And conspiracies, yikes.

Remember the dudes in Casino who were caught cheating? One guy got his hand hammered? Imagine the plot went, that those two guys went back to their hotel room, furious, and convinced they were wrongly accused, and they then go back to the casino, to cheat that rotten place. They claim they can prove they were wrongly accused, but they never can. No court believes that it wasn't them scouting dealer hands.

You are saying, essentially, it is totally irrational that DeNiro, if this were the plot, wants to now break both of his hands, and so who in their right mind could even find such an outcome believable, unless they simply have a known dislike for card sharks.

OK?

You'd be surprised at the things I don't know.

The court ruled that the statute violated the due process clause of the constitution. Without any mental state requirement, the law criminalized “unknowing” drug possession and people could be arrested and convicted even if they did not realize they had drugs in their possession. The majority concluded, “The legislature’s police power goes far, but not that far.”

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, justified as what? A liberation of angry sectarian tribalism, ala steam cooker pressure relief valve? Hussein operated a territory. Iraq is religiously closer to Iran than his government ever would have liked.

Do you mean it was justified in the sense of a required chaos engine? A surprisingly effective life sink in a superfluous population?

Looking at Cheney and Rumsfeld, what am I looking at? Certainly not lawful neutral.

Jus ad bellum, a just war. Hussein was a murderous despot.

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

During the call, Trump falsely implied Raffensperger could have committed a criminal offense by refusing to overturn Georgia's election results in Trump's favor. Then why the fuck was he asking specifically for the number of votes he had lost by, plus one? Trump gave him a specific number of votes he wanted him to find lol.

"What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than (the 11,779 vote margin of defeat) we have, because we won the state."

Add all these things up and you've got some RICO predicates. Whether this goes anywhere is going to depend on the evidence they have, which we don't know the full extent of. But given they have hard video evidence of at least one of the RICO predicates.....

He asked for one more because then he wins the state, which he believed he did. He was saying "I legit won, I know it's a headache to dig through all this stuff, so here's the exact number needed. I'm confident those votes are out there if you'll take the time to look for them.".

It makes no sense to allege election fraud on the same phonecall where you supposedly ask for fabricated votes. Trump is either a buffoon or an evil genius according to you, but he can't be both.

Also it's not a crime to "falsely imply" something. You're allowed to just be wrong. It's not a crime to be wrong in your beliefs. If it were, hillary would be in prison, biden, stacey abrahms, every single dem who has also denied election results.

You're such a loyal and dedicated statist, it's incredible.

[Iron Chob]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No it won't. This case is even more ridiculous than the documents case. The documents case he at least technically did something kind of illegal, though I don't think he understood he was doing anything illegal.

This case you basically have to read his mind and claim he knew he lost when there's basically zero evidence he thought he lost, and a mountain of evidence that he thought he won. If the trial is even remotely fair, there's essentially no way for the prosecution to prove anything.

"Find the votes" does not mean "fabricate fake votes". It means literally find the votes that are legitimate, and exist, and aren't being counted due to impropriety by various actors. The entire phonecall he was alleging fraud. It makes no sense to allege fraud while also acknowledging you lost legitimately.

These people are deranged, completely partisan, and have no interest in actual justice. It's a huge dog and pony show.

Jesus H Christ.

Re: Paragraph 1 - "Ignorance of the Law" is not a viable defence, ever.

Re: Paragraph 2 - you don't have to read minds. You assemble evidence to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of reasonable doubt, you accept the weight of accusatory evidence.

Re:Paragraph 3 - accepting the premise that appropriately empowered, trained, capable and experienced personnel accepted that the votes were cast and counted in accordance with transparency and thus were correct and valid, any dispute then becomes about proving the previous statement is/was incorrect. Which multiple litigations at the time found no evidence to support. Thus, continued and/or subsequent complaints about a "rigged" or "stolen" election are unproven and unsubstantiated allegations, having no basis in legal, electoral or procedural fact.

Re:Paragraph 3, last statement - equally, it makes perfect sense to engage in fraud whilst knowing you lost legitimately. That particular knife cuts both ways and is part of the brief of alleged criminality.

Simple assessment - The dude lost. He didn't like it. He went nutsoid crazy and tried to encourage disobedience and criminal conspiracy and activity in retaliation.

OR

the entire system is rigged against him personally, because he scares the shadowy elites who control everything and he's the only guy in the world who can stop them.

One of those two statements makes sense and appears rational and supported by a decent body of evidence, in various forms (eyewitness, audio, video, sworn testimony). The other sounds utterly megalomaniacally unhinged.

Whether you agree with Trump or not, are a Biden tragic or not, the fundamental reality is that things are individually perceived one way and not another. We live in a shared reality and for it to function, we all therefore have to accept basic interpretations or else society crumbles into anarchy and discord....which appears exactly the goal of Trump's belligerence.

If such an environment appeals to you, go for it - I simply request that when law and order crumbles in the face of Mad Max style futsies arguing their reality is right and yours isn't, you accept the outcomes of leaders having narcissistic disregard for accepted norms.

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trump is also not a "big wig politician", he was literally never a politician until 2016 and I'm pretty sure he didn't even expect to win and was just doing it for publicity and brand recognition or something.

Know who is though? Joe Biden! Literally in government for 50 years, somehow becomes multi-millionaire along with most of his family on a senator's salary, and tries to throw primary political opponent in jail for a bajillion years. Not a great look!

Foreign interference made promises and delivered on them for Trump.

You seem to forget Biden releases his Taxes and Trump doesn’t.

Sorry you are wrong all the time and easily triggered about the obvious corruption Trump is being realized for by voters.

What is this his 4th indictment/arrest?

IMG_2024.jpg

[TheBardo]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you're assuming propriety on behalf of Trump, and impropriety on behalf of "various actors", to make the point: "This is a sham trial because Trump is so clearly innocent and those 'various actors' are so clearly nefarious!" Wow, great point! Even if it were just about the phone call there could be a case. Unfortunately for him, I think it's also about the trump allies on film in Coffee County, Georgia illegally accessing voting machines, as well as plotting between Trump and his cronies to create fake, pro-Trump electors in Georgia, in addition to the phone call. Giuliani specifically, acting as Trump's lawyer, is in trouble for drafting fraudulent certificates of ascertainment and trying to get Georgia officials to sign them. Coupled with the phone call from Trump, that could very well be racketeering.



During the call, Trump falsely implied Raffensperger could have committed a criminal offense by refusing to overturn Georgia's election results in Trump's favor. Then why the fuck was he asking specifically for the number of votes he had lost by, plus one? Trump gave him a specific number of votes he wanted him to find lol.

"What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than (the 11,779 vote margin of defeat) we have, because we won the state."

Add all these things up and you've got some RICO predicates. Whether this goes anywhere is going to depend on the evidence they have, which we don't know the full extent of. But given they have hard video evidence of at least one of the RICO predicates.....

save yourself some time and raise these points with your dog. You'll have a more insightful converstation

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Iron Chob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Jesus H Christ.

Re: Paragraph 1 - "Ignorance of the Law" is not a viable defence, ever.

Re: Paragraph 2 - you don't have to read minds. You assemble evidence to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of reasonable doubt, you accept the weight of accusatory evidence.

Re:Paragraph 3 - accepting the premise that appropriately empowered, trained, capable and experienced personnel accepted that the votes were cast and counted in accordance with transparency and thus were correct and valid, any dispute then becomes about proving the previous statement is/was incorrect. Which multiple litigations at the time found no evidence to support. Thus, continued and/or subsequent complaints about a "rigged" or "stolen" election are unproven and unsubstantiated allegations, having no basis in legal, electoral or procedural fact.

Re:Paragraph 3, last statement - equally, it makes perfect sense to engage in fraud whilst knowing you lost legitimately. That particular knife cuts both ways and is part of the brief of alleged criminality.

Simple assessment - The dude lost. He didn't like it. He went nutsoid crazy and tried to encourage disobedience and criminal conspiracy and activity in retaliation.

OR

the entire system is rigged against him personally, because he scares the shadowy elites who control everything and he's the only guy in the world who can stop them.

One of those two statements makes sense and appears rational and supported by a decent body of evidence, in various forms (eyewitness, audio, video, sworn testimony). The other sounds utterly megalomaniacally unhinged.

Whether you agree with Trump or not, are a Biden tragic or not, the fundamental reality is that things are individually perceived one way and not another. We live in a shared reality and for it to function, we all therefore have to accept basic interpretations or else society crumbles into anarchy and discord....which appears exactly the goal of Trump's belligerence.

If such an environment appeals to you, go for it - I simply request that when law and order crumbles in the face of Mad Max style futsies arguing their reality is right and yours isn't, you accept the outcomes of leaders having narcissistic disregard for accepted norms.

No, you don't weigh accusatory evidence when it hasn't even met the threshold of evidentiary legitimacy in the first place. "Donald trump really meant fabricate fake votes despite what he actually said which wasn't that at all" isn't evidence, and it's essentially what is being alleged.

These are elected officials acting like children who want to put their older brother in jail for a bajillion years for stealing their favorite toy. It's completely absurd and a total insult to legitimate law.

Btw: "You assemble evidence to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of reasonable doubt, you accept the weight of accusatory evidence." is one of the most despotic things I've ever read here. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt absolutely IS the burden of proof required in any criminal trial in the US. I dunno what country you live in but yikesaroo.

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, you don't weigh accusatory evidence when it hasn't even met the threshold of evidentiary legitimacy in the first place. "Donald trump really meant fabricate fake votes despite what he actually said which wasn't that at all" isn't evidence, and it's essentially what is being alleged.

These are elected officials acting like children who want to put their older brother in jail for a bajillion years for stealing their favorite toy. It's completely absurd and a total insult to legitimate law.

The short dunk is to say 'ballot curing' and leave her adrift.