Final Report of the Special Counsel

[Radiorum]

5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

1876 was almost exactly like 2020. In 1876, Florida Republicans certified the Republican when the Democrat won. The Democrat sent alternate electors and congress chose to accept the Democrat.

In 2020, the Trump campaign contended that the votes in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Arizona and Detroit were tainted with fraudulent votes.

The Trump campaign had one problem, they were challenging votes after they had been counted. When we count votes we deidentify them. A ballot comes in, it is verified and then deidentified. If you find that a set of ballots are fraudulent after that, you can't determine who those ballots benefited. From a judge's perspective, the votes could have been for any candidate. How can the judge invalidate votes if the judge has no idea who benefited? That's why the alternate electors scheme failed.

This last election, the Trump team (via the RNC) prepositioned lawyers in those key cities to challenge fraudulent votes. As a result, Trump performed far better in those cities and won the election.

The fraud is real and the RNC has the formula to stop it.

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.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And btw, nixon.  Look him up. 

I have already addressed this in previous posts.

3 hours ago, User said:

So... you only care about elections being stolen when Trump does it. Got it. 

He's the only one who tried to do it!!

[Radiorum]

3 hours ago, User said:

This is an absurd argument. In the end, Trump did not do anything and it played out entirely legally and VP Pence presided over the certification of Biden without incident. Power was transferred peacefully. Trump got on the helicopter and flew away. 

Where were you on January 6th?

[User]

2 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

He's the only one who tried to do it!!

Nope. Al Gore did too. 

If we want to ignore how Clinton and Obama conspired to obstruct Trump in his Presidency too....

Just now, Radiorum said:

Where were you on January 6th?

At home watching on TV. Are there any more irrelevant questions you would like to ask?

[gatomontes99]

1 minute ago, Radiorum said:

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.

Do you think your ballot has your name on it when it's counted?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

 

I have already addressed this in previous posts.

 

Sorry, you were wrong.

I know it's a popular leftist trick to try and suggest that something they don't like has never ever ever happened before even though there are many examples of it happening before. Nixon illegally bugged his opponents for political reasons to win an election.

And you still haven't managed to deal with the fact that trump has never been convicted of any wrongdoing with regards to this either.

It sounds like you're becoming frustrated, and the obvious reason for that is that you cannot defend your ridiculous position.

This is not a unique situation similar things have happened before. Trump has never been convicted of anything regarding this so you can't pretend he has. Sorry for the inconvenience

[Radiorum]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nixon illegally bugged his opponents for political reasons to win an election.

Yeah, and then he resigned. But that's a different crime than Trump committed.

Haldeman kept a secret audio diary, too. And he recorded Nixon's reaction to Trudeau Sr.:

“He [Nixon] had the Trudeau meeting at 4 o’clock for two hours and then the Trudeau dinner tonight,” Haldeman dictated during that visit, “and … he was thoroughly disgusted with Trudeau, who he hasn’t liked much anyway, but who has turned into even more of a f*g than he was before. And it’s considerably more obvious [in] his hairdo, and attitudes and everything else are really repulsive.”

Anyway, the takeaway is that Nixon was held accountable for his crimes (which pale in comparison to Trump's).

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

to deal with the fact that trump has never been convicted of any wrongdoing with regards to this either.

I think I have. In the first place, his impeachment did not result in conviction for purely political reasons. And all those Republicans, including McConnell, made noises about getting Trump in a subsequent criminal investigation.

A solid case was built against Trump, and was only put aside because he was elected president. Not because he was innocent of the crimes. So, quit blathering on about this technicality. Trump did the crimes. You know it, everyone knows it, it is all very familiar. 

 

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It sounds like you're becoming frustrated, and the obvious reason for that is that you cannot defend your ridiculous position.

Following the law is not ridiculous.

 

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This is not a unique situation similar things have happened before.

Not so. Please read my previous post.

[User]

2 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Trump did the crimes. You know it, everyone knows it, it is all very familiar. 

Nope. 

But tells us, do you agree Biden did the crimes? Hunter did the crimes? That everyone knows it and the only reason why Biden was not charged was because he was mentally unfit to even be President and his son had his tax cases slow walked to run out the statute of limitations?

 

[Legato]

5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Do you think your ballot has your name on it when it's counted?

He thinks ballots have names like Nutcracker and Swan Lake.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Yeah, and then he resigned. But that's a different crime than Trump committed.

Not really. It's technically a different crime but at the end of the day it's a government sitting president using his powers unlawfully to influence an election. I get that you want to try and split hairs to pretend that this is completely new but it isn't.

Now he was set to face trial but was pardoned. With trump they never even tried to convict him until the next election rolled around and he was running again.

But at the end of the day any so-called evidence has to be tested in a court of law before you can say that he's guilty of something and I'm really sorry that having a judicial system is inconvenient for you but that is the case.

This kind of thing has happened before, presidents have been threatened to be tried before, if they really wanted to they could have charged him in time before the next election, there's nothing terribly new about this.

And other elected people have been involved in all kinds of schemes as well

NY Democrat charged in voter fraud scheme over dozens of absentee ballots | Fox News

Arrests in Bridgeport ballot fraud case from 2019 election : NPR

Eastern District of Pennsylvania | Former U.S. Congressman and Philadelphia Political Operative Pleads Guilty to Election Fraud Charges | United States Department of Justice

 

At the end of the day what you're basically talking about is a voter fraud claim. And we have PLENTY of those. 

5 hours ago, Radiorum said:

I think I have. In the first place, his impeachment did not result in conviction for purely political reasons. And all those Republicans, including McConnell, made noises about getting Trump in a subsequent criminal investigation.

 

Well you haven't. That's not an opinion that's a fact. Whether you like it or not trump has never been convicted. You can say that in your opinion it was political but sorry, he was not convicted. The people in charge of determining his guilt did not find the evidence compelling enough to convict him one way or another.

Quote

A solid case was built against Trump, and was only put aside because he was elected president. Not because he was innocent of the crimes. So, quit blathering on about this technicality. Trump did the crimes. You know it, everyone knows it, it is all very familiar. 

A solid case that was never tried!!! And let's not forget that this supposedly solid case was held for 4 years until they decided they needed it for political reasons. He was so guilty that they didn't bother bringing it forward before he decided to run for president again.

And a case is not a conviction. Every single case brought before a judge has a strong argument from both sides as to what the truth is and only one of them can be right.

And what kind of communist degenerate do you have to be to claim that the fact that he was never tried in court and never convicted is a "Technicality"?  There is no doubt that government officials have lied about him in the past including the FBI so you absolutely cannot say that somebody making a case is the same as a conviction. It needs to be tested in court, they chose not to bother until he was running for president again and they knew that if they waited that long and he won they wouldn't be able to proceed.

So get your head out of your butt. The degree to which he is actually guilty of a crime cannot be ascertained until he goes to court. He claims he is not guilty. His defense attorneys have made a number of arguments which the court may well find compelling. Or not.  We don't know till it happens and because they waited 4 years it's not going to happen. 

5 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Following the law is not ridiculous.

But you're not following the law. The law says a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court. You are insisting that he is guilty without the court.

Maybe you should follow the law and stop being ridiculous.

 

[Radiorum]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

With trump they never even tried to convict him until the next election rolled around and he was running again.

The two federal criminal investigations came first. Then, Trump announces his candidacy, no doubt to keep himself out of prison. This was not a case of prosecution to interfere in a candidacy, but a candidacy to interfere with prosecution.

As early as late 2021, the DoJ began to consider the fake elector scheme, and to seriously investigate it in early 2022. 

 

During the summer of 2022, it was first reported that Trump’s actions were being examined as part of a criminal probe. Garland announced that “everyone responsible would be held accountable.”

Then, Trump announced his candidacy in November, 2022, no doubt to inoculate himself from criminal charges.

Trump did try to halt the proceedings, using his candidacy as the reason, but the courts did not agree.

From page 102 - 103 of Smith's report:

Both during the investigation and after the case was charged, however, Mr. Trump sought to delay the proceedings, taking the position that when the judicial process conflicted with his election campaign, the courts should always yield. See, e.g., ECF No. 30 at 11 (proposing April 2026 trial date, emphasizing that "[n]o major party presidential candidate has ever been charged while in the middle of a campaign"); ECF No. 103 at 20

(Mr. Trump's counsel arguing, "The easiest solution to all of this is an obvious one.... and that is to adjourn the case after the presidential election. That's the solution."); ECF No. 242 at 7-8 (asking court to reconsider scheduling order, emphasizing that "President Trump is the leading candidate in the Presidential election, which is just weeks away").

But the courts consistently rejected Mr. Trump's efforts to delay or stop the proceedings.

 

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But at the end of the day any so-called evidence has to be tested in a court of law before you can say that he's guilty of something

No matter how many times you say this, it does not change Trump's words and deeds, which are now part of the historical record. 

 

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And other elected people have been involved in all kinds of schemes as well

You'll have to explain how corruption justifies further corruption.

 

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The people in charge of determining his guilt did not find the evidence compelling enough to convict him one way or another.

Not the case. An impeachment trial followed by conviction does not rely on evidence in the same way a criminal trial does. Instead, political considerations decide the outcome.

From page 89 of Smith's report:

Not only are impeachment and prosecution separate and distinct proceedings, they apply different standards and pursue different objectives. When Congress decides whether a President should be impeached and convicted, that process does not depend on rigorously adjudicating facts and applying law, or on finding a criminal violation. Instead, the impeachment process is, by design, an inherently political remedy for the dangers to governance posed by an office holder who has committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." U.S. CONST. art. II, § 4. Congress may decide not to impeach or convict for reasons that have little or no connection to the nature of the evidence of the officer's culpable conduct

 

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And what kind of communist degenerate do you have to be to claim that the fact that he was never tried in court and never convicted is a "Technicality"?

A technicality is any reason the case was put aside unrelated to the facts of the case, so, yes, the case was set aside because of a technicality.

 

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The law says a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court. You are insisting that he is guilty without the court.

And you are insisting he is innocent despite the mountain of evidence he is not.

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Radiorum said:

The two federal criminal investigations came first. Then, Trump announces his candidacy, no doubt to keep himself out of prison. This was not a case of prosecution to interfere in a candidacy, but a candidacy to interfere with prosecution.

As early as late 2021, the DoJ began to consider the fake elector scheme, and to seriously investigate it in early 2022. 

 

During the summer of 2022, it was first reported that Trump’s actions were being examined as part of a criminal probe. Garland announced that “everyone responsible would be held accountable.”

Then, Trump announced his candidacy in November, 2022, no doubt to inoculate himself from criminal charges.

Trump did try to halt the proceedings, using his candidacy as the reason, but the courts did not agree.

From page 102 - 103 of Smith's report:

Both during the investigation and after the case was charged, however, Mr. Trump sought to delay the proceedings, taking the position that when the judicial process conflicted with his election campaign, the courts should always yield. See, e.g., ECF No. 30 at 11 (proposing April 2026 trial date, emphasizing that "[n]o major party presidential candidate has ever been charged while in the middle of a campaign"); ECF No. 103 at 20

(Mr. Trump's counsel arguing, "The easiest solution to all of this is an obvious one.... and that is to adjourn the case after the presidential election. That's the solution."); ECF No. 242 at 7-8 (asking court to reconsider scheduling order, emphasizing that "President Trump is the leading candidate in the Presidential election, which is just weeks away").

But the courts consistently rejected Mr. Trump's efforts to delay or stop the proceedings.

 

No matter how many times you say this, it does not change Trump's words and deeds, which are now part of the historical record. 

 

You'll have to explain how corruption justifies further corruption.

 

Not the case. An impeachment trial followed by conviction does not rely on evidence in the same way a criminal trial does. Instead, political considerations decide the outcome.

From page 89 of Smith's report:

Not only are impeachment and prosecution separate and distinct proceedings, they apply different standards and pursue different objectives. When Congress decides whether a President should be impeached and convicted, that process does not depend on rigorously adjudicating facts and applying law, or on finding a criminal violation. Instead, the impeachment process is, by design, an inherently political remedy for the dangers to governance posed by an office holder who has committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." U.S. CONST. art. II, § 4. Congress may decide not to impeach or convict for reasons that have little or no connection to the nature of the evidence of the officer's culpable conduct

 

A technicality is any reason the case was put aside unrelated to the facts of the case, so, yes, the case was set aside because of a technicality.

 

And you are insisting he is innocent despite the mountain of evidence he is not.

 

Sorry but you started off with a lie and i kind of lost interest in further lies part way through. 

Trump announced taht he would run again for pres in november 2022. 

Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

The gov't select committee voted to forward the case for charges in DECEMBER. just a month after trump announced.  And then they put it before a grand jury in August of 2023 which meant it wouldn't go to trial till just as the election season was starting in March of 2024.

\Tracking the Trump criminal cases: Latest on legal charges and key players

It doesn't matter when they were "considering" charges. It matters when they decided to actually PROCEED with charges. And they decided within a month of him announcing he would run. 

And the ORIGINAL start date for the trial was march 2024. 

The timing couldn't BE more political. They could have proceeded sooner. But they didn't bother till just after he announced he'd run again. 

But you lied and said the charges were laid before he announced his run. They were not. 

When you have to lie to make your point, then even YOU have to know you don't have a point. 

The charges were completely political. They were designed to suck up time and money along with his other legal challenges during the election cycle and weaken him as a political opponent. 

That doesn't mean he's not guilty of something of course. But it sure as hell doesn't mean he is. And the report of a gov't funded political hit man that was never tried in court is of limited interest. 

[robosmith]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

With trump they never even tried to convict him until the next election rolled around and he was running again.

Your Canuck IGNORANCE doesn't understand it is SOP to get the MOB BOSSES' lackeys FIRST and get them to flip on the BOSS.

Obviously a mistake in THIS case.

[Radiorum]

59 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry but you started off with a lie

I said nothing that is not true. But as usual, you were quick to judge without considering the meaning of words.

Trump knew what was going on at the DoJ and that spurred him on to act.

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your Canuck IGNORANCE doesn't understand it is SOP to get the MOB BOSSES' lackeys FIRST and get them to flip on the BOSS.

Obviously a mistake in THIS case.

Wow! You worked up the courage to get over your fright and actually speak to me!  Good for you little guy,  

Trump isn't an organized crime group and neither are the dems so unfortunately you were too stupid to realize you were wrong when you started. 

However, there's another problem with your analogy.  They DIDN'T get the lakeys first. 

It wasn't until august 2024 that they nailed any of the 'accomplices"

Woman charged in Arizona 'fake elector' case pleads guilty, docket shows - ABC News

They moved forward in recommending charges to trump in 2022.  Two years earlier. 

So what you're saying is that they BROKE  SOP to go after trump. 

Having provided proof you're wrong i fully expect that you'll put me back on ignore now.  You can't tolerate people who provide facts and cites to dispute your constant lies can you   

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

I said nothing that is not true.

Sure kiddo. 

As i've proven. the timing of the charges were politically motivated. 

And you said the investigations took place before trump said he'd run in the next election. False

Trump 2024: President Seriously Considering Run, Sources Say : Biden Transition Updates : NPR

Even before he left office he was saying that he would probably run again and continued to do so. 

So they knew he was going to run again likely when they 'sort of' investigated. And they kept that in their back pocket till just AFTER he officially announced is bid, knowing that this would put the trial into the 2024 election cycle. 

The only thing that ruined their plans was the judges saying that their charges were not legal. Ooopsie. 

Otherwise he'd have been fighting that court case and spending the time and money on his defense right up till the election start. 

Trump said he was going to run again in 2020.  But your'e trying to pretend he had no intention despite his mentioning it NUMEROUS times before 2022. 

That is a lie.  Trump intended to run again, trump was clear about that, the DOJ held these charges until they saw he really was going to run again and then they charged him. They could have charged him a year earlier but nope, waited a full 2 years from the election date when this supposedly happened and then, after he announces he'll be running again for sure, THEN they drop the bomb

If you can't tell the truth, you can't expect anyone to respect you. 

[Radiorum]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

As i've proven. the timing of the charges were politically motivated. 

But you haven't. You proved nothing except that you are willing to put your faith in a lying conman, rather than the US legal system.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And you said the investigations took place before trump said he'd run in the next election. False

No, I said he announced his candidacy. Pay better attention. You’re making yourself look foolish.

In any case, the investigations were well under way prior to his announcement.

In January 2022, deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco stated that the Department of Justice would investigate the Trump fake electors plot. 

By March 2022, the Department of Justice had opened an investigation into the events of January 6 and Trump's attempts to overturn the election. 

The Department of Justice began obtaining White House phone records in April in connection with the January 6 investigation, and a federal grand jury issued subpoenas to Trump's lawyers in connection with the fake electors plot in May. 

I do agree that the law can work slowly, especially in this unprecedented case (and maybe they were waiting for the report from the January 6 committee), but I accept that justice was their goal. In the final analysis, whether or not he was running for the presidency, he had to be held lawfully accountable.

From another thread, I got the impression you held the law in high regard. But it seems your devotion to the law is fickle. You can take it or leave it depending on whether it serves Trump’s purposes or not. Not only is this an unprincipled position, but it reveals a loose association with the truth. And we know, that Trump depends on the blind loyalty of the cult.

[robosmith]

25 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Not only is this an unprincipled position, but it reveals a loose association with the truth.

CdnLIAR has long had a "loose association with the truth" as you've found out. That's why he's on my ignore list.

His arrogance won't allow him to take a deeper look at issues, like a lot of right wingers who are very simplistic in their "thinking."

[User]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

CdnLIAR has long had a "loose association with the truth" as you've found out. That's why he's on my ignore list.

His arrogance won't allow him to take a deeper look at issues, like a lot of right wingers who are very simplistic in their "thinking."

LOL, dude, you put me on ignore because I repeatedly called out your lies. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

But you haven't.

But i have. WIth cites included. 

And saying "I will run again" is announcing his candidacy.  He would formalize that later but that's literally what it means. 

And he made that announcement in 2020 LONG BEFORE THE INVESTIGATIONS as i already demonstrated with citations. 

Your own quotes show the investigations started WELL AFTER he announced he would seek to run again. 

So you're lying. Big surprise. 

 

And this is why we can't trust anything that comes from the left. I provided you with explicit quotes from him saying I will run again that were made in 2020 and you're trying to pretend that an investigation in 2022 somehow came before that.

And we're supposed to believe that evidence provided by the left is beyond any reproach or question 🙄  You can't even be honest here for 5 seconds.

And the decision to proceed with charges was made as soon as he officially announced what he had already stated was his intent. The timing is crystal clear, as soon as he couldn't back out and was fully committed they fully committed to pressing charges. The investigation happened after he announced that he was looking to run again.

So it's hard to look at it as not being a political move on the part of the democrats. Despite your lies the timing absolutely indicates that it was based on his intention to run not on actual prosecution of a criminal.

Now we're supposed to believe that a report from a man who was hired to find him guilty is accurate because it says "I bet I could have found him guilty" . Yeah, no bias there at all.

If trump had actually done something illegal it could have put charges in place 2021, certainly by 2022. Instead they waited till 2023 to bring the actual charges and didn't even begin that process until after he had announced he would be running formally and officially.

You see the time line.   "I MAY RUN" .... start investigation just in case.  "I"M DEFINITELY RUNNING HERE"S MY PAPERS". - formal charges and we'll set the dates of the trial to completely interfere with his fundraising and run up to the next election. 

 

Democrats always try and lie their way out of simple truths. And that's why they were punished at the last election in the states and why the left wing is going to be punished in the next elections in Canada. You people cannot tell the truth to save your life