Asa Hutchinson "Trumps probably getting convicted next year"

[Legato]

After all the trumped up charges are dismissed, a new charge will follow.

In accordance with federal law 69.69 you have been charged with "Knowingly and Willingly Causing a Severe Knicker Twist to all Snowflakes and will be summoned to testiclelfy on a future court date".

Trump will plead "no contest".

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That is really thin. I know that's the narrative but from a criminal defense point of view it's REALLY thin. Remember - trump doesn't have to prove his case, the prosecutor has to prove theirs and prove it beyond reasonable doubt. And a huge amount of it hinges on intent. And that's VERY hard to prove.

As an example all they have to say is 'at the time we DID beleive there was voter fraud and the actions were not fraudulent".  Ok - even if they are wrong how do you PROVE they knew they were wrong? How do you PROVE that trump specifically didn't believe there was voter fraud? He's STILL saying he does, he's been consistent from beginning to end.

There are other problems with it too.  So that's a challenging one to win. And once again - it's not hard to wind up delaying it.

Not really. As mentioned the number is completely irrelevant adn you show your lack of knowledge on the issue repeating it.  There's 4 indictments - and if one gets put on hold alllllll of the charges associated get put on hold with it.

 

Trump's beliefs about voter fraud do NOTHING to dismiss his ILLEGAL ACTIONS. He had NO LEGAL RIGHT to intervene with fake electors who fraudulently signed attestations to their legitimacy, no matter what he "believed."

They were NOT legitimate and were dismissed out of hand.

He tried the legitimate objections IN COURT AND FAILED. Duh

Once again you demonstrate YOUR FAILURE to understand US law. 

Just now, Legato said:

After all the trumped up charges are dismissed, a new charge will follow.

In accordance with federal law 69.69 you have been charged with "Knowingly and Willingly Causing a Severe Knicker Twist to all Snowflakes and will be summoned to testiclelfy on a future court date".

Trump will plead "no contest".

You are a ridiculous TROLL. Why don't you ever take yourself seriously instead of constantly playing the CLOWN?

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You are a ridiculous TROLL. Why don't you ever take yourself seriously instead of constantly playing the CLOWN?

Whatsamatter did Pennywise frighten you?.

Anyways, thank you for your OPINION  LMAO

Duh.

[CrakHoBarbie]

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That is really thin. 

Guess again dimwit. At least eight of the fake electors have signed immunity deals with Willis’ office, offering to cooperate in exchange for not being prosecuted.

In layman's terms, that means they've agreed to testify against Donald to avoid prison.

Though it is fun to watch you wallow in ignorance, you may want to read up on what's "actually" happening before chiming in.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4138124-trumps-fake-electors-7-states-he-lost/

Edited November 5, 2023 by CrakHoBarbie

[Fluffypants]

Can someone please explain how this fake elector plot was supposed to work, were they gonna kidnap the real electors and replace them?

Was this a provisional elector plot, where if the election was overturned they would be the new electors? If it was what made it fraudulent or illegal especially when it was done in Hawaii in the past?

A lot of the reasoning behind a lot of this January 6 stuff is so stupid. Like somehow a group of unarmed protestors were going to be successful in overturning the government because they got into the Capitol. I don't quite know how that was supposed to accomplish their goal.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

And yet the reality is that Donald will probably be convicted on Federal charges next year.

And none of your moronic babbling can change that.

 

LOLOL - holy Crap - i can hear your desperation and fear from here

 

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Guess again

No need to guess at all. It's thin. The immunity deals won't help much. They only make it vaguley possible. But it's still very thin.

Quote

In layman's terms, that means they've agreed to testify against Donald to avoid prison.

Which is why testimony given with immunity deals tends to hold less weight.  It's not freely given, it's "bought and paid for".

And what will they testify? Probably not that donald secretly doesnt' believe that the election was stolen. Which is what they need to prove.

LOL -  but hey, nobody expects you to be knowledgeable about this kind of stuff.  I mean you're just a girl right?  Sort of. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Which is why testimony given with immunity deals tends to hold less weight.  It's not freely given, it's "bought and paid for".

The FBI already tried to coerce false testimony from Manafort, Cohen etc. during the collusion witch hunt.

I guess they figure that if they just keep leaning on enough people they'll eventually get someone to lie for them.

If only he had done a business deal with an E Jean Caroll of Dr Ford type they'd definitely get the kind of story they want. 

[West]

7 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

guy promotes castrating children

Well, does he or doesn't he? 

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The weirdo? Isn't half the demonrat population in the same boat?

To be fair Asa claims he's a Republican. A woke Republican but claims it nontheless

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Trump's beliefs about voter fraud do NOTHING to dismiss his ILLEGAL ACTIONS.

it has everything to do with it of course.  He's looking at a mens rea offense.

Quote

He had NO LEGAL RIGHT to intervene with fake electors who fraudulently signed attestations to their legitimacy, no matter what he "believed."

"no right" is not the same as committing a crime.

Quote

They were NOT legitimate and were dismissed out of hand.

Not really . A large body of people believed them.

Quote

He tried the legitimate objections IN COURT AND FAILED. Duh

Nope, sorry.   oh - and i forgot  -  "THiS OpInIoN iS USELESS wItHoUt PrOOOOOOOOO(breathe!)OOOOOOOOOoooooooooffffah!

Quote

Once again you demonstrate YOUR FAILURE to understand US law. 

Once again i've demonstreated that a canadian knows more than you, and american, do     It's also been demonstrated that you're an 1diot but in fairness it was you demonstrating that and not me.

[CrakHoBarbie]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOLOL - holy Crap - i can hear your desperation and fear from here

 

What will you do once your demigod gets imprisoned?

What ever will you whine about then?

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

1 hour ago, West said:

Well, does he or doesn't he? 

Figure out who said he did, then request a citation from them ?

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

What will you do once your demigod gets imprisoned?

What? why on earth would they lock up Einstein?    Besides he's pretty dead so i doubt i'd notice

The is the funniest bit - you are so Trapped in your own weird little echo chamber that you think everyone else is as polarized and mindless as you are.       I'm canadian.  For me trump isn't as much about politics as he is about sheer entertainment. Watching what he's going to do next is absolutely hilarious for me - and watching people like you and robodope lose what's left of your teeny tiny little minds over him is the kind of freak show you just can't buy.

So i care about him in the same way i cared if Jon Snow was really dead.

So if he goes to jail i guess i'll watch something else

But - i don't think this is his final season just yet.  And you know i'm probably right or you wouldn't be having an emotional melt down over it.

If he pulls it off - delays the trials and becomes president and dodges all of this - it's going to be absolutely spectacular to watch the fall out.

If he doesn't well i'm sure he'll get up to something.  To be honest, it's probably in my best interest for him to lose.  It's obvious trudeau is planning to use trumps victory as a club against PP here in Canada, and that only works if trump wins. If trump loses and it's more of "bedtime stories with biden" then the opposite happens and the CPC becomes more attractive.

So you could say either way i win or either way i lose, but i'm not all that invested in trump in any case.   But boy - he sure lives rent free in YOUR head doesn't he   

 

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Figure out who said he did, then request a citation from them ?

No one said he did - it was still a question.

You need to either answer "yes, he is" and defend that, or "no he isn't" and defend that or "probably but i agree so if he did yay team', in which case you don't really have to defend it.

C'mon - I realize you've probably been hanging around your echo chamber so you may be a little out of practice talking to intelligent people but surely we don't have to explain the basics to you all over again?

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

it has everything to do with it of course.  He's looking at a mens rea offense.

"no right" is not the same as committing a crime.

Not really . A large body of people believed them.

Nope, sorry.   oh - and i forgot  -  "THiS OpInIoN iS USELESS wItHoUt PrOOOOOOOOO(breathe!)OOOOOOOOOoooooooooffffah!

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were INFORMED about the 60+ cases challenging the election that Trump FAILED TO WIN.

I should always assume you're IGNORANT cause you've proven that AGAIN.

 

Trump’s judicial campaign to upend the 2020 election: A failure

Quote

USA Today provided the conventional assessment of those challenges: “Out of the 62 lawsuits filed challenging the presidential election, 61 have failed,” and “decisions have came [sic] from both Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed judges.” (In fact, most of the judges were elected state judges.)

 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Once again i've demonstreated that a canadian knows more than you, and american, do     It's also been demonstrated that you're an 1diot but in fairness it was you demonstrating that and not me.

^This OPINION "demonstreated" NOTHING.

You don't get to interfere with election vote counting just cause you "believe" there was FRAUD.

Vote counting is a function of the STATES. There is NO FEDERAL ROLE and certainly NOT for one of the CANDIDATES. Duh.

 

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, robosmith said:

You don't get to interfere with election vote counting just cause you "believe" there was FRAUD.

Sure you do . There's all kinds of legal methods for that. Recounts, challenging the method of count - you presumably remember the whole "hanging chad" episode i'm sure  (well relatively sure - look it up).

Quote

Vote counting is a function of the STATES. There is NO FEDERAL ROLE and certainly NOT for one of the CANDIDATES. Duh.

The candidates in a federal election ABSOLUTELY have the right to challenge the vote count. Absolutely. I just mentioned a few cases but this should be obvious even to someone as uneducated as you.

And i notice that you still failed to provide any evidence that it's necessary to intend to commit voter fraud for it to be fraud.

Surely you don' think the usa today article was an actual ruling by a judge on that?

So - once again a canadian knows more than you do about US law   Pretty embarrassing.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The FBI already tried to coerce false testimony from Manafort, Cohen etc. during the collusion witch hunt.

I guess they figure that if they just keep leaning on enough people they'll eventually get someone to lie for them.

If only he had done a business deal with an E Jean Caroll of Dr Ford type they'd definitely get the kind of story they want. 

The difference this time is that Trump can't buy their silence with promise of a pardon.

[CdnFox]

35 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The difference this time is that Trump can't buy their silence with promise of a pardon.

He may be able to by the time the trials really get going  

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

He may be able to by the time the trials really get going  

Except in order to get their immunity, they had make a sworn deposition testifying against Trump.

Contradicting that is a NEW crime at the trial and no pardon is going to negate that sworn testimony.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure you do . There's all kinds of legal methods for that. Recounts, challenging the method of count - you presumably remember the whole "hanging chad" episode i'm sure  (well relatively sure - look it up).

The candidates in a federal election ABSOLUTELY have the right to challenge the vote count. Absolutely. I just mentioned a few cases but this should be obvious even to someone as uneducated as you.

Trump already did that AND LOST. Duh

 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And i notice that you still failed to provide any evidence that it's necessary to intend to commit voter fraud for it to be fraud.

Fake electors are clear evidence of INTENT to commit FRAUD. Duh

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Surely you don' think the usa today article was an actual ruling by a judge on that?

So - once again a canadian knows more than you do about US law   Pretty embarrassing.

USA Today REPORTED on the rulings by MULTIPLE JUDGES. ^Total IGNORANCE AGAIN. Duh

You are just a SHAMELESS LIAR and there's nothing more DISHONEST and EMBARRASSING than that.

I really thought you were not that dense, but I was wrong.

Edited November 6, 2023 by robosmith

[Nationalist]

Tweenkies like the Crack ho and robo-twit, are going to be incredibly upset soon. See...the justice system may be bias, but they know 2 things:

1. If convicted, Trump will appeal and the SCOTUS won't convict on such flimsy crap.

2. If kept from running, conservatives will likely revolt...this time for real. And who would stop them? Most of the police and military side with Trump.

I know you Tweenkies stain your undies with the thought. But it just ain'-a-gonna happen.

Best go enjoy the final year of abject Obammy failure.

[CrakHoBarbie]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No need to guess at all. It's thin. The immunity deals won't help much. They only make it vaguley possible. But it's still very thin.

Which is why testimony given with immunity deals tends to hold less weight.  It's not freely given, it's "bought and paid for".

And what will they testify? Probably not that donald secretly doesnt' believe that the election was stolen. Which is what they need to prove.

LOL -  but hey, nobody expects you to be knowledgeable about this kind of stuff.  I mean you're just a girl right?  Sort of. 

You keep holding onto that morsel of hope 

With 91 felony charges, the chances are extremely high that Donald will be convicted of at least one.

 

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Tweenkies like the Crack ho and robo-twit, are going to be incredibly upset soon. See...the justice system may be bias, but they know 2 things:

1. If convicted, Trump will appeal and the SCOTUS won't convict on such flimsy crap.

2. If kept from running, conservatives will likely revolt...this time for real. And who would stop them? Most of the police and military side with Trump.

I know you Tweenkies stain your undies with the thought. But it just ain'-a-gonna happen.

Best go enjoy the final year of abject Obammy failure.

I'll be here the day Donald's convicted.

I'll drink champagne while you eat crow.

Yummy!!

[CrakHoBarbie]

9 hours ago, robosmith said:

 

I really thought you were not that dense, 

I've never shared this delusion.

[CdnFox]

12 hours ago, robosmith said:

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were INFORMED about the 60+ cases challenging the election that Trump FAILED TO WIN.

I am - that defense was never used.   But that's ok -  I KNEW you werent  

And once again nothing you posted contradicts that. 

You're not only useless without proof - you're just plain useless   ROFLMAO!!!

 

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

Trump already did that AND LOST.

But that's not possible - you claimed that there's NO WAAAAAYYYY the federal candidate should be challenging or getting involved with the out come!!!!!!!

Gee - guess you were wrong

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

Fake electors are clear evidence of INTENT to commit FRAUD.

They call them fake but that's not quite what happened. As you'll see.

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

USA Today REPORTED on the rulings by MULTIPLE JUDGES. ^

They opined.  Not reported.  I get that someone like you woudln't understand the difference. But - as always -  their OpInIoN  is USELESS WiThOuT FACTS!!!!!

Where as you're just useless either way