Radiorum Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: well that would be true if Pence was the final arbiter of what is and isn't allowed or appropriate under the law. 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. 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: Pence could entirely believe he had no such power and be wrong. Trump could entirely believe he did and be wrong. And both could wind up being correct or incorrect without a law being offended. Pence did not act on opinion, but what the Constitution allowed. 18 hours ago, CdnFox said: It always amazes me how quickly those on the left are prepared to throw out the rule of law and just determine guilt based on someone's say so. An unwillingness to throw out the rule of law is the basis of the case against Trump. Quote
Radiorum Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 16 hours ago, CdnFox said: Has it been tested in a court? How can we prove they're facts otherwise. 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. 14 hours ago, robosmith said: Douchowitz was NOT under oath, so he can LIE WITH IMPUNITY and HE KNOWS IT. When a country puts loyalty to an amoral autocrat over logic and facts, that country is in trouble. Quote
Radiorum Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 11 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: And SCOTUS threw it out so Jack Smith rebranded it. 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. Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 6 hours ago, godzilla said: did Pence lie to the grand jury? "In repeated conversations, day after day, Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Pence to use his ministerial position as President of the Senate to change the election outcome" What does this question have to do with anything? Pence can't change the election outcome. Those are Jack Smiths words. Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 33 minutes ago, Radiorum said: 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. Wow, that sounds exactly like what Gore did in 2000! Quote
Radiorum Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 5 minutes ago, User said: Wow, that sounds exactly like what Gore did in 2000! Gore did none of the stuff Trump did, as laid out in the report. Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 minute ago, Radiorum said: Gore did none of the stuff Trump did, as laid out in the report. Gore conspired to deprive the American people of their votes in an illegal scheme to recount the votes selectively. Quote
Radiorum Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 7 minutes ago, User said: Gore conspired to deprive the American people of their votes in an illegal scheme to recount the votes selectively. This is categorically false. Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 2 minutes ago, Radiorum said: This is categorically false. It is 100% accurate. Gore engaged in an illegal scheme to defraud the American people. He tried to selectively recount votes. He was stopped from doing so and the only difference here is that we didn't have a DOJ bent on trying to get Gore by twisting the law to do so. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 45 minutes ago, Radiorum said: 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 SCOTUS recognized qualified immunity for the POTUS. As they said, if the President is tasked with it then it isn't and can't be illegal. Jack Smith was trying to prosecute Trump for doing his job. When that didn't work, he tried to claim that he wasn't doing his job. That's a rebranding of the same acts...official acts. It's also the same thing Jack Smith got rejected by SCOTUS in the McDonnell case. Even if Smith had managed to get a conviction it would have been thrown out a second time by SCOTUS. Jack Smith is the single worst abuser of the legal system we have ever seen. He should lose all law licenses he owns and barred from all offices. In addition, he should be jailed for what he did. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Radiorum Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 12 minutes ago, User said: Gore engaged in an illegal scheme to defraud the American people. He tried to selectively recount votes. He was stopped from doing so and the only difference here is that we didn't have a DOJ bent on trying to get Gore by twisting the law to do so. I'm sorry, but are you actually trying to present this as a justification for Trump's illegal fake elector scheme? Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 minute ago, Radiorum said: I'm sorry, but are you actually trying to present this as a justification for Trump's illegal fake elector scheme? No, presenting this as an example for how absurd these charges are. Quote
Radiorum Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 10 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Jack Smith is the single worst abuser of the legal system we have ever seen. He should lose all law licenses he owns and barred from all offices. In addition, he should be jailed for what he did. This kind of extremism weakens your argument and diminishes how seriously we can take you. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 4 minutes ago, Radiorum said: This kind of extremism weakens your argument and diminishes how seriously we can take you. Why? He's systematically using the legal system to harm political opponents. Other than murder, what could be worse? Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Hodad Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: Yeah. Like i said. Scotus threw it ot and Jack Smith rebranded it.. Jeebus. That's like how a child would describe legal proceedings. It's nonsense. Quote
Radiorum Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: He's systematically using the legal system to harm political opponents. But he is not. Read the report. Open your eyes. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 8 minutes ago, Radiorum said: But he is not. Read the report. Open your eyes. Open your eyes: Quote In vacating McDonnell's conviction, the Supreme Court ruled that setting up a meeting or organizing an event – without doing more – isn't considered an "official act," as charged by the Justice Department, where at the time the Public Integrity Section was run by Smith. "That stretch was exceptionally painful; three-and-a-half years from the investigation until we got the unanimous vindication by the U.S. Supreme Court. I knew in my heart from the very beginning – I'm a lawyer, obviously, looking at the law and the facts – that these charges were completely wrong," he said."And yet they persisted and pulled the trigger and the indictments started. And of course, they've got all the investigators. They got all the money; they've got the access to The Washington Post through multiple leaks," he alleged." My walk-away from that, especially as I looked at what [Smith] did in the Lois Lerner case with advising people that they were was okay to go after conservatives and Bob Menendez and other cases is that I think he's just overzealous," he said. https://www.foxnews.com/media/ex-virginia-gov-who-saw-conviction-by-jack-smith-thrown-out-says-hed-rather-win-than-get-it-right McDonnell wasn't the only one: Quote We have evidence showing that Lois Lerner targeted conservatives. And who was involved in trying to prosecute the IRS’s targets? None other than Special Counsel Jack Smith. Referencing a New York Times article about nonprofits incorrectly using campaign funds, an email from Jack Smith to one of his deputies, Richard Pilger, reads: “Could we ever charge a 371 conspiracy to violate laws of the USA for misuse of such non profits to get around existing campaign finance laws + limits?” In other words, Smith was looking for a novel legal approach to bring a conspiracy case against conservatives. https://aclj.org/government-corruption/special-counsel-jack-smith-involved-in-major-irs-scandal 1 is meaningless 2 could be a coincidence 3 is a pattern. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 12 minutes ago, Radiorum said: But he is not. Read the report. Open your eyes. So, you think Biden was guilty of violating the law with his handling of classified information? Quote
Hodad Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 27 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Open your eyes: McDonnell wasn't the only one: 1 is meaningless 2 could be a coincidence 3 is a pattern. Taking shots at Smith is definitely a lot easier than trying to dispute the facts of Trump's well-documented crimes. Have fun with that. 1 Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 8 minutes ago, Hodad said: Taking shots at Smith is definitely a lot easier than trying to dispute the facts of Trump's well-documented crimes. Have fun with that. I can dispute them just fine. You are too big of a coward to engage with me though. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 12 minutes ago, Hodad said: Taking shots at Smith is definitely a lot easier than trying to dispute the facts of Trump's well-documented crimes. Have fun with that. I've done that since day one. I did that in this thread. Yall won't listen. Now I'm showing you Smith is the truly corrupt person. Yall won't listen. Just like Jack Smith has a pattern, yall have a pattern. 1 Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
ironstone Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 14 hours ago, Hodad said: Of course not. Jeebus, the number of things in life higher on my list than that is almost endless. I read the indictment. I don't need spin from Trumpworld to pre-chew my food. Way to keep an open mind. And this man isn't Trumpworld. Although he has not publicly stated who he voted for this last election as of yet, he has said that he has been a staunch Democrat supporter for most of his life. 1 Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
ironstone Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 13 hours ago, robosmith said: LYING DEFENSE LAWYERS do NOT SERVE JUSTICE. Do you believe OJ was guilty? Or know anything about that trial? IMO, he was guilty as sin and got off due to tricks of the defense team and a history of LA cops abusing the rights of blacks. Yes I think he was guilty. But he got off mainly because of the jury members giving a giant FU to the 'white' justice system. 1 Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
CdnFox Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 12 hours ago, godzilla said: let me help you out then... since you seem to refuse to read cites. confirmation bias. Arizona Republican becomes first fake elector to plead guilty for role in Trump scheme "Lorraine Pellegrino, one of 11 Arizona Republicans who falsely posed as Trump’s electors that year, accepted a guilty plea to a single charge for filing a “false instrument” — the fraudulent Electoral College certificate." adjudicated by a judge. so they exist? The answer doesn't change stupid. Whether they exist or whether or not trump was involved in them or whether or not what trump did is unlawful is to be decided by a court challenge and a judge after the entire process is complete. And that's what your answer should be as well unless you're a big fan of Hitler and Stalin. There's no work around to that. This is why we have jurisprudence. Why are all you lefties so amazingly authoritarian dictatorial fascists? Like i said, you can say that you find the balance of probabilities to be so, perhaps even clear and convincing but a criminal level of certainty needs to be tried in a court of law where evidence can be presented and tested. This lady didn't even go through a trial, for all you know they threatened her kid unless she gave a confession. So lets get to the meat of the matter. You don't give a shit about the law. You don't give a crap about what trump did or didn't do. And you couldn't give a flying eff about what does or doesn't exist. What YOU care about is orange man bad and to hell with people's rights, the importance of jurisprudence, or anythnig else. Which makes you a bad person. If you wanted to say "i find the evidence that trump did something convincing" that's perfectly fine, but you don't. You want him to have been found guilty by a court of law without ever having been in court for the issue. When trump has had a fair trial and a judge and jury has found him guilty and the appeals process has been satistfied then sure. Hell even before the appeals you can say he was convicted of it and to the best of our knowledge at this point he's guilty. but at this point all you can say is that you find the evidence we have compelling. 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
robosmith Posted January 17 Author Report Posted January 17 2 hours ago, ironstone said: Yes I think he was guilty. But he got off mainly because of the jury members giving a giant FU to the 'white' justice system. Well Douchowitz played a huge role in convincing the jury to DO THAT. Do you remember the STUPID CHANT, "if they don't fit, you must acquit" The jury didn't make that up. 🤮 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.