Final Report of the Special Counsel

[ironstone]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

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. 🤮

In your humble opinion, what is the job of a defense lawyer? To defend the client to the best of his or her ability or to agree with everything the prosecution does?

I'm actually surprised that you thought OJ was guilty. Don't you guys always go on and on about how racist your country is?

Edited January 17 by ironstone

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, ironstone said:

In your humble opinion, what is the job of a defense lawyer? To defend the client to the best of his or her ability or to agree with everything the prosecution does?

His job was to get OJ off; BY ETHICAL MEANS. NOT by LYING.

Some lawyers REFUSE to LIE to get a guilty client's charges dismissed.

I knew a guy who retained an honest lawyer to whom he lied about his guilt, because he knew the lawyer would not take his case if he admitted guilt.

5 minutes ago, ironstone said:

I'm actually surprised that you thought OJ was guilty. Don't you guys always go on and on about how racist your country is?

OJ was a FOOTBALL STAR at USC, beloved by the LAPD. AKA in a class by himself.

[CdnFox]

5 hours 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.

Well trump would argue that he was the one defending that because the democrats had interfered with the election.

Everybody's got their argument. That is why we test things in a court of law. Then once that entire process is done we can save with a reasonable degree of certainty regardless of your opinion or anyone else's that the law was offended or it wasn't or that this right was violated or not.

I don't know why the left these days are so hate filled when it comes to the rule of law but if you do not respect the rule of law then sooner or later you will come to regret it when it is used against you

[robosmith]

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well trump would argue that he was the one defending that because the democrats had interfered with the election.

You're a FOOL if you believe the pathological LIAR Trump was telling the truth.

His claims WERE TESTED IN COURT an HE LOST.

AMPLE EVIDENCE of SWORN TESTIMONY by WH insiders that Trump KNEW HE LOST.

[Radiorum]

5 hours ago, User said:

So, you think Biden was guilty of violating the law with his handling of classified information?

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

[Radiorum]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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.

So, if I witness John kill Mary, I can't consider it a murder until a judge says so?

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Why are all you lefties so amazingly authoritarian dictatorial fascists?

Omg, for someone who says only judges should be allowed to judge you sure are quick to judge

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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. 

Assumption, presumption and judging

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What YOU care about is orange man bad and to hell with people's rights,

You think Trump has the right to illegally overturn the 2020 election?

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Which makes you a bad person.

More judging

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

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. 

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.

[User]

32 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

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

And I am talking about the double standard folks like you expect out of others... and asking you for that clarification. 

 

[Radiorum]

2 hours ago, User said:

And I am talking about the double standard folks like you expect out of others... and asking you for that clarification. 

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.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Radiorum said:

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.

Are you trying to claim there have been no criminal cases before this one in the history of the us?

I'm afraid there have. Dealing with all kinds of similar issues. 

Heck we need look no further than hillary clinton who was selling influence while representing her country and violating the law. 

You guys had a different take then didnt you.

[User]

9 hours ago, Radiorum said:

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

You pleaded with us to read the report and to find that Trump was guilty... yet, you won't comment on if you read the report about Biden and come to the same conclusion...

Also, as I already pointed out, Al Gore did in fact illegally attempt to overturn the 2000 election. 

 

Edited January 18 by User

[Radiorum]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Are you trying to claim there have been no criminal cases before this one in the history of the us?

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.

 

[Radiorum]

6 hours ago, User said:

You pleaded with us to read the report and to find that Trump was guilty... yet, you won't comment on if you read the report about Biden and come to the same conclusion...

Also, as I already pointed out, Al Gore did in fact illegally attempt to overturn the 2000 election. 

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

[Radiorum]

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.

[Radiorum]

6 hours ago, User said:

Also, as I already pointed out, Al Gore did in fact illegally attempt to overturn the 2000 election. 

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).

[gatomontes99]

13 hours ago, Radiorum said:

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.

Except for Gore and JFK.

[Radiorum]

5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Except for Gore and JFK.

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

[gatomontes99]

27 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

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

It's been evidenced ad nauseam.

 

[Radiorum]

2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

It's been evidenced ad nauseam.

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.

[gatomontes99]

35 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

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.

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.

Edited January 18 by gatomontes99

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Radiorum said:

No sitting president had ever attempted to steal an election.

 

No sitting president has been convicted of trying to steal an election.

And btw, nixon.  Look him up. 

[User]

5 hours ago, Radiorum said:

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.

 

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

 

4 hours ago, Radiorum said:

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).

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. 

[myata]

American populace voted to cancel the principle of universal justice. A crime has to be prosecuted regardless of who is the alleged perpetrator: cancelled. No ways around it. No chance of swiping it under the rug and pretending that nothing happened. A key principle of justice, just cancelled by a public plebiscite.

Is democracy possible without rule of law? Does this set an effective end to the period of the first American constitution, 1789?

[Legato]

35 minutes ago, myata said:

American populace voted to cancel the principle of universal justice. A crime has to be prosecuted regardless of who is the alleged perpetrator: cancelled. No ways around it. No chance of swiping it under the rug and pretending that nothing happened. A key principle of justice, just cancelled by a public plebiscite.

Is democracy possible without rule of law? Does this set an effective end to the period of the first American constitution, 1789?

Don't you mean a key principle of justice verified by the American public?

If so then correct you would be. If not then your attempt is like trying to add spice to a Carolina Reaper pepper.

[User]

54 minutes ago, myata said:

American populace voted to cancel the principle of universal justice.

When did this vote take place and where?

I must have missed it... 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Don't you mean a key principle of justice verified by the American public?

Of course not. "American public" cannot substitute the law and due process that would be called "mob rule". But if it decided to cancel it effectively, it means that the rule of law is broken and the Constitution itself is now dysfunctional as one of its key functions no longer words. Ergo, the end of the period of the first.... factually.