Georgia State Senators move to impeach PFW (Phony Fani Willis)

[WestCanMan]

49 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You claimed: "No, entrapment doesn't require 'coercion'"

But Rebound never said it is REQUIRED. He said ONLY coercion made entrapment ILLEGAL.

I get it. You're just here to prove that you're stupid.

Here's what Rebound said:

Quote

 Entrapment requires coercion on the part of the government.

Take that to mean what you want. No one else knows the rules in your idi0tic little world. Here in NA that means one thing, and one thing only. 

Quote

As evident by the LIST of all the entrapments he told you were NOT ILLEGAL.

It makes sense that coercion is "ILLEGAL", stupid. Do you even know what coercion is? It means that they used force, or the threat of violence, or threatened some other unacceptable outcome for you in order to make you do something that you did not want to do.

By illegal they don't just mean that you get out of your criminal proceedings, it means that the police are going to be facing their own disciplinary proceeding for their "illegal" activity. 

Quote

And that is TRUE IN CALIFORNIA, dumbo.

Confucious said: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging", but I understand that you're gonna follow your woke cult's advice: "Just keep on lying until the topic is completely dead and no one is paying attention anymore, then start lying about the next topic. That way, in the future you'll be able to refer back to the old lies as if they are just established facts, and anyone who's dumb enough to be sucked into becoming a leftard will never figure any of it out. Just look at robo, who is by far our most useful idi0t."

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Speaking of stupid, you apparently don't understand the meaning of this very concise statement:

WTF do you think the above means? Does it mean:

1)The legal definition of entrapment is the exact same everywhere in the world, or 

2) The exact standard varies among jurisdictions of the free world....

If I was you I'd just flip a coin, it will increase your chance of getting it right by 50.00%.

Good for California, I guess? 

FYI the police can't coerce you to do anything and then charge you for it, idi0t. It doesn't just ruin their entrapment schemes. From your own link:

I'm not sure why the art about coercion is there, it's not the only way to use the entrapment defence.

Again, your reading comprehension just failed you. It's a huge part of the reason that you're a leftist in the first place. 

You mention another form of entrapment, in which the government either compels someone to perform an illegal activity by telling them to break a law or by telling them they will be immune. 
For example, if there is an accident and the police tell you to drive on the opposite side of the road, they can’t ticket you for it.  Or if they use an informant and tell them to try to buy cocaine from a suspected criminal in return for payment or a promise of immunity, that person cannot be charged for the crime. 

[WestCanMan]

49 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You mention another form of entrapment, 

"Entrapment occurs when (a) the authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry, and, (b) although having such a reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a ..."

 

 

Pretty basic

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

"Entrapment occurs when (a) the authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry, and, (b) although having such a reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a ..."

 

 

Pretty basic

That definition varies by jurisdiction.  Generally, coercion is the factor.  No coercion, no entrapment.  

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I get it. You're just here to prove that you're stupid.

No, I'm here to inform you that an entrapment defense depends on the jurisdiction. 

If the government used coercion, that is an illegal entrapment in CA, and a VALID DEFENSE against the charges HERE. Duh

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Here's what Rebound said:

Take that to mean what you want. No one else knows the rules in your idi0tic little world. Here in NA that means one thing, and one thing only. 

Nope. It means different things in different jurisdictions.

All the other "entrapments" (without coercion) that Rebound mentioned are NOT illegal entrapments, and thus NOT a VALID DEFENSE against the charges IN CA.

 

[Rebound]

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

"Entrapment occurs when (a) the authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry, and, (b) although having such a reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a ..."

 

 

Pretty basic

At the end of the day, it has little to do with Fani Willis or with the Michigan kidnapping scheme, as nearly all of those defendants wound up in prison and some for a very long time. 
 

In Georgia, the question is whether the legislature has the legal authority to remove an elected prosecutor, and the answer is a resounding NO. And if you think about it, there’s no legitimate reason for removing her anyway.  Prosecutors are shackled by the law.  They can only indict if a grand jury agrees.  They can only charge if a judge agrees. They can only get a conviction if the law, the judge and the jury all agree.  
 

This “weaponized Justice” nonsense is just that: Nonsense.  Yes, you can harm someone financially with false accusations but you cannot bring charges without probable cause.  Donald Trump is charged with 91 felonies and we both know that means he’s done some wrong things and no, “They all do it” just isn’t so because this has never happened before.  Nixon was child’s play compared to this guy.

[WestCanMan]

11 hours ago, Rebound said:

That definition varies by jurisdiction.  Generally, coercion is the factor.  No coercion, no entrapment.  

You're so wrong. I'm pretty sure that you have no idea what coercion even is. 

[Rebound]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're so wrong. I'm pretty sure that you have no idea what coercion even is. 

Only the LEGAL definition matters. You don't get to invent your own laws. 

And.... the entrapment defense DID NOT WORK in the Michigan case, BECAUSE the defendants were NOT coerced into conspiring to kidnap the Governor of Michigan. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

This “weaponized Justice” nonsense is just that: Nonsense.  Yes, you can harm someone financially with false accusations but you cannot bring charges without probable cause.  Donald Trump is charged with 91 felonies and we both know that means he’s done some wrong things and no, “They all do it” just isn’t so because this has never happened before.  Nixon was child’s play compared to this guy.

That's stupid just on its face. You don't need a law degree or any special knowledge to understand that a legal system can be weaponized.

Do you think that Putin's political adversaries have nothing to fear? 

Do you think it's normal to have a group like the FBI committing crimes to get warrants to spy on Americans? Is it normal for them to lie about things like the Hunter laptop in order to influence an election?

The whole Jan 6th thing is a farce. Top to bottom, back to front, a farce.

Americans attacked the WH while Trump was POTUS and it was no big deal. The guy who openly talked about the need to get rid of Trump at a riot was never charged with anything. He's a "reporter". 

Jan 6th was one of two things, stupid. It was either such a big deal that Pelosi et al really needed to protect the capitol or it was a small riot. If it was the former, Pelosi understaffed the police by about 10,000 members. And then she put, what, 20,000 national guard there for two months afterwards?

The US is in dire straits right now and it has nothing to do with Trump. It has everything to do with Pelosi and her useful idi0ts (you).

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That's stupid just on its face. You don't need a law degree or any special knowledge to understand that a legal system can be weaponized.

Do you think that Putin's political adversaries have nothing to fear? 

Do you think it's normal to have a group like the FBI committing crimes to get warrants to spy on Americans? Is it normal for them to lie about things like the Hunter laptop in order to influence an election?

The whole Jan 6th thing is a farce. Top to bottom, back to front, a farce.

Americans attacked the WH while Trump was POTUS and it was no big deal. The guy who openly talked about the need to get rid of Trump at a riot was never charged with anything. He's a "reporter". 

Jan 6th was one of two things, stupid. It was either such a big deal that Pelosi et al really needed to protect the capitol or it was a small riot. If it was the former, Pelosi understaffed the police by about 10,000 members. And then she put, what, 20,000 national guard there for two months afterwards?

The US is in dire straits right now and it has nothing to do with Trump. It has everything to do with Pelosi and her useful idi0ts (you).

Russia's justice system is nothing like America's. You cannot compare the two at all, so let's stop right there.

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

Only the LEGAL definition matters. You don't get to invent your own laws. 

Yup. And the legal definition of coercion basically amounts to 'force'. It means that police somehow forced people to commit a crime: either physically at that moment, with a threat of future violence, or with a threat of some other dire occurrence.

Dude, there's no need for the word "entrapment" in that scenario. You could literally just say "He only did it because he had a gun pressed against his ear."

The idea of entrapment is that the police create a really enticing scenario that you play along with instead of actually committing your own crime that you had an active interest in committing. Thats essentially what entrapment is.

Part of the reason that it even makes sense is that the police know something's gonna happen, it's harder for them to track it all without an inside guy, and if they play along then they can be on hand to make sure that no one gets hurt while they're wrapping it all up.

If the police offer a bunch of 19 yr old kids a chance to earn $3M in ten minutes what percent will say yes? "Hey Johnny, you have a really low chance of getting caught and no one will get hurt. The money just comes from a bank with $60 billion. They won't miss $20M at all! At worst, if we get caught, you do 3 years in jail and you go back to being a roofer when you get out." 

Do you think that police can do that in California? Do you think that Johnny has to prove that they were gonna kill him if he didn't do it to stay out of jail? 

What you're proposing is utterly stupid. You just misinterpreted your own laws, and there's no need for you to feel embarrassed about that. All leftists are stupid. 

Quote

And.... the entrapment defense DID NOT WORK in the Michigan case, BECAUSE the defendants were NOT coerced into conspiring to kidnap the Governor of Michigan. 

Two guys got out of jail because of their entrapment defence, so you could make a strong case that it did. Right, jackass?

[WestCanMan]

14 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Russia's justice system is nothing like America's. You cannot compare the two at all, so let's stop right there.

The FBI is exactly like the KGB. They operate with the exact same set of principles. 

The FBI commits crimes - verified 100%.

The FBI holds fake trials to influence elections.

The FBI lies to influence elections.

Now that you know all these things, what more do they need to do to get on your radar? Do they need to skin someone alive just for voting Republican before you connect the dots? 

The FBI committed crimes to try to get FISA warrants, what makes you think that they haven't committed other crimes that we just don't know about? Of course they did ffs.

And if they are constantly lying about Republicans and committing crimes against them, do you think they'd protect Demmies? Why did they let Hillary just say "I don't remember, I bumped my head" 50 times on two separate occasions, without just re-scheduling her interrogation? Why did they give her associates immunity for not even providing any evidence against anyone? Real police don't do that. 

The FBI put Flynn in jail because they thought he told 1 lie, then their own guy intentionally falsified evidence and presented it to a judge and he didn't even lose his license to practice law. How do you think the FBI is better than the KGB?  

How are the FBI's ultra-low standards ok with you? Why is it that citizens go to jail for lying to the FBI, but the FBI can falsify evidence and present it to a judge without even losing their job? 

 

(Re: Hillary, she claimed temporary amnesia during Whitewater and again after she deleted subpoenaed evidence. How is it possible that Hillary Clinton got temporary amnesia twice in her lifetime, for a day or two each time, and it just magically coincided with her FBI interrogations? The second time was theoretically right in the middle of her presidential campaign. One week she was out giving hour-long rallies in front of thousands of people, then she had amnesia for a day and couldn't remember anything, a couple days later she was out doing hour-long rallies again. Really? When she got 'diagnosed', how did they know it was going to be so temporary Was she really fit to be prez if her mental state was that fragile? If she was at the helm during WWIII would it be ok to have a few days where she didn't really have a clue wtf she was doing?) 

[Nationalist]

23 hours ago, Deluge said:

You mean "RIGHT! ALWAYS RIGHT!"

And thank you, robobobo, it's nice when clarity penetrates that thick skull of yours.

robobobo...love it.

[robosmith]

26 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

robobobo...love it.

Because it appeals to your very childish nature, as usual.

Thanks for confirming that you're a TROLL AT HEART.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

The FBI is exactly like the KGB. They operate with the exact same set of principles. 

The FBI commits crimes - verified 100%.

A couple of agents does not equate to "the FBI". Duh.

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

The FBI holds fake trials to influence elections.

 

The FBI holds NO KIND OF trials. That would be the DoJ. Duh.

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

The FBI lies to influence elections.

"All the signs" was NOT a LIE. Duh

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Now that you know all these things, what more do they need to do to get on your radar? Do they need to skin someone alive just for voting Republican before you connect the dots? 

The FBI committed crimes to try to get FISA warrants, what makes you think that they haven't committed other crimes that we just don't know about? Of course they did ffs.

Nope. ^Just speculation and a "poisoning the well FALLACY."

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

And if they are constantly lying about Republicans and committing crimes against them, do you think they'd protect Demmies? Why did they let Hillary just say "I don't remember, I bumped my head" 50 times on two separate occasions, without just re-scheduling her interrogation? Why did they give her associates immunity for not even providing any evidence against anyone? Real police don't do that. 

The FBI are "real police," and they MAY HAVE DONE what you ALLEGE.

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

The FBI put Flynn in jail because they thought he told 1 lie, then their own guy intentionally falsified evidence and presented it to a judge and he didn't even lose his license to practice law. How do you think the FBI is better than the KGB?  

No they put him jail because he CONFESSED to a crime. Duh.

 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

How are the FBI's ultra-low standards ok with you? Why is it that citizens go to jail for lying to the FBI, but the FBI can falsify evidence and present it to a judge without even losing their job? 

Because the JUDGE RULED that. Duh.

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

 

(Re: Hillary, she claimed temporary amnesia during Whitewater and again after she deleted subpoenaed evidence. How is it possible that Hillary Clinton got temporary amnesia twice in her lifetime, for a day or two each time, and it just magically coincided with her FBI interrogations? The second time was theoretically right in the middle of her presidential campaign. One week she was out giving hour-long rallies in front of thousands of people, then she had amnesia for a day and couldn't remember anything, a couple days later she was out doing hour-long rallies again. Really? When she got 'diagnosed', how did they know it was going to be so temporary Was she really fit to be prez if her mental state was that fragile? If she was at the helm during WWIII would it be ok to have a few days where she didn't really have a clue wtf she was doing?) 

Hillary DID NOT claim "amnesai." That you need to LIE just shows your desperateion.

Quote

Clinton told investigators she could not recall getting any briefings on how to handle classified information or comply with laws governing the preservation of federal records, the summary of her interview shows.

 

"However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot," the FBI's summary said. "Based on her doctor's advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received."

A Clinton campaign aide said Clinton only referenced her concussion to explain she was not at work but for a few hours a day at that time, not that she did not remember things from that period.

 

The concussion was widely reported then, and Republicans have since used it to attack the 68-year-old candidate's health in a way her staff have said is unfounded.

The FBI report, which does not quote Clinton directly, is ambiguous about whether it was her concussion that affected her ability to recall briefings.

 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Because it appeals to your very childish nature, as usual.

Thanks for confirming that you're a TROLL AT HEART.

Lol...robobobo...

[Deluge]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Because it appeals to your very childish nature, as usual.

Thanks for confirming that you're a TROLL AT HEART.

You're projecting again. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

You're projecting again. 

No, I'm READING your and natman's childish NAME CALLING.

Just STOP TROLLING.

[Rebound]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Yup. And the legal definition of coercion basically amounts to 'force'. It means that police somehow forced people to commit a crime: either physically at that moment, with a threat of future violence, or with a threat of some other dire occurrence.

Dude, there's no need for the word "entrapment" in that scenario. You could literally just say "He only did it because he had a gun pressed against his ear."

The idea of entrapment is that the police create a really enticing scenario that you play along with instead of actually committing your own crime that you had an active interest in committing. Thats essentially what entrapment is.

Part of the reason that it even makes sense is that the police know something's gonna happen, it's harder for them to track it all without an inside guy, and if they play along then they can be on hand to make sure that no one gets hurt while they're wrapping it all up.

If the police offer a bunch of 19 yr old kids a chance to earn $3M in ten minutes what percent will say yes? "Hey Johnny, you have a really low chance of getting caught and no one will get hurt. The money just comes from a bank with $60 billion. They won't miss $20M at all! At worst, if we get caught, you do 3 years in jail and you go back to being a roofer when you get out." 

Do you think that police can do that in California? Do you think that Johnny has to prove that they were gonna kill him if he didn't do it to stay out of jail? 

What you're proposing is utterly stupid. You just misinterpreted your own laws, and there's no need for you to feel embarrassed about that. All leftists are stupid. 

Two guys got out of jail because of their entrapment defence, so you could make a strong case that it did. Right, jackass?

Quote the law from the relevant jurisdiction. You keep whining about entrapment in a certain Federal case, but the fact is the entrapment defense failed.  
 

Of course, this has nothing to do with removal of a DA, which Georgia’s Legislature cannot do. So this is yet another ineffective GOP publicity stunt. Instead of working to improve society for the people of Georgia, they’re conducting stunts which won’t do anything. 

[reason10]

On 8/18/2023 at 3:34 PM, Rebound said:

Nothing but truth. 
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily.” 
— Donald Trump

 

”Entrapment is when the FBI creates their own kidnapping plot and times it to be unravelled 1 month before the election.”

No, that is NOT the definition of entrapment. That’s the definition you invented.  But you don’t get to invent your own laws.  Entrapment requires coercion on the part of the government. If the government offers to sell you cocaine and you buy it… no entrapment. If they offer to cut you in on a cocaine distribution system they’ve already set up… no entrapment. If they tell you they’ll hurt your sister if you don’t join their cocaine scheme… THAT is entrapment. 
Offering to help you get weapons, training you on the use of the weapons, making illegal schemes with you… these things are NOT entrapment. It is only when they coerce you to break the law.  

And you wonder why everyone says you're an idi0t.

NOTHING in that statement made by LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP violates any laws whatsoever.

But since I'm an EDUCATOR, and since you have NO EDUCATION,  I'm giving you a homework assignment. This is the statement:

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily.” 

(Which by the way was already COMMON FUGGING KNOWLEDGE before CANDIDATE TRUMP said it.)

Here's the law:

https://uscode.house.gov/

This is known as the STATUTES for the United States.

(Earth to idi0t: STatutes mean LAWS THAT WERE CREATED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE PRESIDENT.)

Your homework: FIND THE LAW in the U.S. Code that claims what LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID is somehow classified information. Find the law that says it is ILLEGAL for him to say it.

(Don't look in the Constitution; You've already wiped your ass with it. And FREEDOM OF SPEECH is the First Amendment)

Your assignment is simple: (a) Find the law, or (b) Admit you were lying and made the whole fugging thing up.

A or B.

simple as that.

 

 

 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

And you wonder why everyone says you're an idi0t.

NOTHING in that statement made by LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP violates any laws whatsoever.

But since I'm an EDUCATOR, and since you have NO EDUCATION,  I'm giving you a homework assignment. This is the statement:

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily.” 

(Which by the way was already COMMON FUGGING KNOWLEDGE before CANDIDATE TRUMP said it.)

Here's the law:

https://uscode.house.gov/

This is known as the STATUTES for the United States.

(Earth to idi0t: STatutes mean LAWS THAT WERE CREATED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE PRESIDENT.)

Your homework: FIND THE LAW in the U.S. Code that claims what LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID is somehow classified information. Find the law that says it is ILLEGAL for him to say it.

(Don't look in the Constitution; You've already wiped your ass with it. And FREEDOM OF SPEECH is the First Amendment)

Your assignment is simple: (a) Find the law, or (b) Admit you were lying and made the whole fugging thing up.

A or B.

simple as that.

 

 

 

Nobody said that “Russia, if you’re listening…” was Classified information. But he was encouraging Russia to continue breaking our laws, he was encouraging them to steal what he believed was Classified information, and he was encouraging them to interfere in our Presidential election… and he promised they would be rewarded for doing so.  
 

That constitutes probable cause that the Trump campaign was conspiring with Russia’s ongoing election interference, and the conviction of Roger Stone in particular proved it.  

[CrakHoBarbie]

On 8/17/2023 at 9:15 PM, West said:

The United States needs a competent leader who's not going to raise the price of gasoline by 2 dollars a gallon as Joe has done and drives up grocery prices/inflation by 7%

What an incredibly stupid comment.

Why do they allow 10 year olds to post here?

Prices across the board went up because of Worldwide activity after the pandemic eased.

That's why prices rose globally, and were not relegated to the U.S. only you dolt.

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by CrakHoBarbie

[CrakHoBarbie]

4 hours ago, reason10 said:

And you wonder why everyone says you're an idi0t.

NOTHING in that statement made by LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP violates any laws whatsoever.

But since I'm an EDUCATOR, and since you have NO EDUCATION,  I'm giving you a homework assignment. This is the statement:

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily.” 

(Which by the way was already COMMON FUGGING KNOWLEDGE before CANDIDATE TRUMP said it.)

Here's the law:

https://uscode.house.gov/

This is known as the STATUTES for the United States.

(Earth to idi0t: STatutes mean LAWS THAT WERE CREATED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE PRESIDENT.)

Your homework: FIND THE LAW in the U.S. Code that claims what LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID is somehow classified information. Find the law that says it is ILLEGAL for him to say it.

(Don't look in the Constitution; You've already wiped your ass with it. And FREEDOM OF SPEECH is the First Amendment)

Your assignment is simple: (a) Find the law, or (b) Admit you were lying and made the whole fugging thing up.

A or B.

simple as that.

 

 

 

Anyone who thinks it's ethical for a POTUS to ask a foreign leader to find dirt on a political opponent, has no ethics themselves.

Therefore I deem your caustic conclusions as nothing more than unethical fanboy gibberish.

Edited August 20, 2023 by CrakHoBarbie

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Anyone who thinks it's ethical for a POTUS to ask a foreign leader to find dirt on a political opponent, has no ethics themselves.

Therefore I deem your caustic conclusions as nothing more than unethical fan gibberish.

Excellent point!

and, by the way, LOVED THE BARBIE MOVIE!!!

Edited August 20, 2023 by Rebound

[CrakHoBarbie]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Excellent point!

and, by the way, LOVED THE BARBIE MOVIE!!!

Thank you so much!!

It's been exhausting.

My fans have been so supportive.

The paparazzi have been stomping my clit in the dirt, but it's been strangely arousing.

I went woke and got the opposite of broke.

I wouldn't trade it for anything.