Radiorum

This is no way provides a counter-point or a rebuttal to what I have posted. I think you just saw a big word and thought it was in your favour. Do you even know what deidentification is? You should provide your source when you cut and paste. I have already addressed this in previous posts. He's the only one who tried to do it!!

Not according to the courts. Trump did try to argue before the courts that conduct similar to his had occurred before, and to charge him would conflict with historical practice, but that is false. There were no historical analogues to Trump’s criminal behavior. From page 91 of Smith’s report: The historical episodes that Mr. Trump invoked-arising from elections in 1800, 1824, 1876, 1960, 2000, 2004, and 2016-did not involve similar conduct and did not supply a valid reason to decline to bring charges here. In litigation, the Office addressed each historical episode he cited and explained why none was meaningfully similar to the charged conduct. See ECF No. 139 at 40-47; ECF No. 141 at 6-9. Taken together, those episodes showed that "[t]here have been times, as in 1800, 1876, and 1960, when genuine questions have arisen over which slate of electors from a particular state has been duly appointed"; "[t]here have also been times, as in 1824, when the failure of any candidate to obtain a majority of electoral votes has thrown the election to the House of Representatives"; and "there have been times, as in 2000, 2004, and 2016, when those dissatisfied with the results have sought to raise objections to the electoral vote count, resulting in either the objections being overruled or, in one case, a brief adjournment designed as an Ohio-focused protest vote without 'the hope or even the hint of overturning the victory of the President."' ECF No. 139 at 46-47 (quoting 151 CONG. REC. 199 (Jan. 6, 2005)). But none of the historical episodes at issue involved "any attempt by any person to use fraud and deceit to obstruct or defeat the governmental function that would result in the certification of the lawful winner of a presidential election." Id. at 40-47; see ECF No. 141 at 6-9. From page 92 of Smith’s report: Mr. Trump was "not being prosecuted for publicly contesting the results of the election; he is being prosecuted for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and for obstruction of election certification proceedings." ECF No. 198 at 5-7. Likewise, in its opinion denying Mr. Trump's immunity motion, the district court found that "none of the contested elections" Mr. Trump "invokes is analogous to this case," as none involved "any allegation that any official engaged in criminal conduct to obstruct the electoral process." ECF No. 171 at 47.

That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The dispute over the 2000 election was conducted entirely legally, and then VP Gore presided over the certification of Bush as president-elect without incident. Power was transferred peacefully. See 147 CONG. REC. 101 (Jan. 6, 2001).

From Ronald Reagan's 1981 inaugural address: To a few of us here today this is a solemn and most momentous occasion, and yet in the history of our nation it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place, as it has for almost two centuries, and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle. Mr. President, I want our fellow citizens to know how much you did to carry on this tradition. By your gracious cooperation in the transition process, you have shown a watching world that we are a united people pledged to maintaining a political system which guarantees individual liberty to a greater degree than any other, and I thank you and your people for all your help in maintaining the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.

Focus. Try not to get distracted. From page 69 of Smith's report: Mr. Trump's prosecution served multiple federal interests, including the federal interest in the integrity of the United States' process for collecting, counting, and certifying presidential elections, and in a peaceful and orderly transition of presidential power; the federal interest in ensuring that every citizen's vote is counted; the federal interest in protecting public officials and government workers from violence; and the federal interest in the fair and even-handed enforcement of the law. All of these federal interests, which are rooted in the law, the Constitution, and our basic democratic values, are substantial and command protection from Mr. Trump's criminal design to subvert them. … the investigation revealed that Mr. Trump and others conspired to use false claims of election fraud to attempt to disrupt the United States' electoral process and obstruct the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election results. Prosecution for that conduct thus vindicated abiding federal interests in protecting the electoral process and the previously unbroken tradition-before Mr. Trump's charged conduct-of a peaceful transition of presidential power from one administration to the next

No sitting president had ever attempted to steal an election. No sitting president had ever illegally attempted to prevent the certification of the president-elect’s victory. No sitting president had ever tried to use the powers of the federal government to reverse the outcome of an election.

Um ... there is no precedent to Trump attempting to illegally overturn an election, and it hasn't been tried since, so there can be no double standard.

So, if I witness John kill Mary, I can't consider it a murder until a judge says so? Omg, for someone who says only judges should be allowed to judge you sure are quick to judge Assumption, presumption and judging You think Trump has the right to illegally overturn the 2020 election? More judging There was sufficient evidence in the report to convict Trump. But now the criminal is the president-elect. So, his crime cannot be punished. That's the simple truth. On Monday, when Trump swears to uphold the Constitution, it will be as meaningless as it was the first time he took that oath in January 2017. As one of the coauthors of Project 2025, Russel Vought, says: Our constitutional institutions, understandings, and practices have all been transformed, over decades, away from the words on the paper into a new arrangement—a new regime if you will—that pays only lip service to the old Constitution.

We're talking about Trump's illegal attempt to overturn the 2020 election in this thread

But he is not. Read the report. Open your eyes.

This kind of extremism weakens your argument and diminishes how seriously we can take you.

I'm sorry, but are you actually trying to present this as a justification for Trump's illegal fake elector scheme?

This is categorically false.

Gore did none of the stuff Trump did, as laid out in the report.

SCOTUS did not throw it out but decided to give presidents immunity. "Rebranded" is the wrong word. What Smith did with his immunity filing was focus instead on Trump's crimes as a candidate (thus a private citizen) rather than as president.

The facts are the facts, and the role of the courts is not to question to the facts, but to determine if they support the charges. When a country puts loyalty to an amoral autocrat over logic and facts, that country is in trouble.

What needed to be protected in this case was the right to vote and have your vote counted. This is what Trump attempted to violate. From page 49 of the report: Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States." A violation of Section 241 requires proof of three elements: (1) Mr. Trump entered into a conspiracy, (2) to willfully injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States, (3) in the exercise or enjoyment of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 241; see, e.g., United States v. Epley, 52 F.3d 571, 575-576 (6th Cir. 1995). You can read the supporting evidence in the report, as well as Smith’s immunity filing from last October. Pence did not act on opinion, but what the Constitution allowed. An unwillingness to throw out the rule of law is the basis of the case against Trump.

This is a position contrary to the facts and to logic.

Okay, then, sorry. Smith is devoted to the rule of law. Trump is devoted only to himself. Discuss.

Omg, thanks for the laugh. Are you laughing when you write this drivel?

I'm not relying on my credentials. I am relying on Harvard Law. The DoJ has been appointing Special Counsels for decades, but Cannon makes the decision that the statutes do not authorize the DoJ to do so. In a first for a district judge, she looks at the history, and determines (according to - Liz Mineo, Harvard Staff Writer) … that a sentence in a Supreme Court opinion that was decided 9-0 was, in fact, “dicta,” which means that it is not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. And as a result, she as a district judge was entitled to disregard it. I’ve never seen a district court conclude that a portion of a Supreme Court opinion is not binding; that was a first for me.

No, his evidence was never discredited. The case against Trump, re: illegally trying to overturn the 2020 election, was put aside because sitting presidents cannot be tried, and the case, re: Classified Documents, was put aside because of a technicality Cannon invented. Any reasonable person would see Trump for what he is. This isn't about me. Why do right-wingers have so much trouble with facts?

Lol, she was about the Classified Documents case, and she tossed the case on a very questionable analysis of Smith's credentials to bring the case forward. Basically, what Cannon did, was conclude that the statutes do not authorize that the attorney general to appoint a special counsel. She focused on the fact that Smith was not a DoJ employee at the time of the appointment but was working at the Hague. Not clear why that matters, as he is working for the DoJ today. Oh, I know why it matters. She is angling for a Supreme Court seat.

Like what? Please provide evidence and sources. This is inaccurate. the only thing the Supreme Court ruled on is immunity for presidents. I have doubt that the press talked about the laws that Trump contravened. Did the press make specific reference to the laws that Trump broke? re: conspiring against rights From Page 49 of the report: Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States." A violation of Section 241 requires proof of three elements: (1) Mr. Trump entered into a conspiracy, (2) to willfully injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States, (3) in the exercise or enjoyment of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 241; see, e.g., United States v. Epley, 52 F.3d 571, 575-576 (6th Cir. 1995). You can read the supporting evidence in the report, as well as Smith’s immunity filing from last October. Again, you are making broad claims without substantiation. The report is not a point-of-view. And it sure has nothing to do with Hitler. Left-leaning, right-leaning, doesn't matter. The truth is the truth.