There is no First Amendment right to overturn an election

[Tinkerpeach]

Your stupidity is showing.

If Garland is the hand picked AG by Biden and Trump has announced he is running to take that job from Biden and to be POTUS that establishes a very clear 'conflikct of interest' for Garland to make a charging decision against Trump, when he would directly benefit from it, if Biden wins and he is kept as AG.

A Special Prosecutor has no such conflict.

Be smarter.

Everybody knew Trump was going to run again, why didn't they appoint a special council right after the election was over then.

Trump had been very clear he was running again.

Why did they wait three years and start an investigation instead of turning it over to special council in the first place?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Read the indictment, idiot. You dont have a clue!

I have many times and there is nothing in there.

The only charge is some broad conspiracy charge.

There were no threats or coercion listed in the indictments.

 

[Into the Night]

If it were a legit defense, it just might work, we all know he is stupid.

All defense is legit, Fake Lawyer.

 

[Into the Night]

The crimes he is charged with are not about him lying. They are about ACTIONS he and others took based on lies.

Let me dumb it down from you.

Yakuda : 'I believe I am Jeff Bezos illegitimate son and heir to his fortune"

The above is ok for you to believe and say and even if you know you are lying you can say it under free speech and you will face no criminal prosecution.


Yakuda : "I believe I am Jeff Bezos illegitimate son and heir to his fortune and as such i have filed all sorts of legal document stating that to make my claim to his fortune"

The above is BASED on the exact same protected lie, but BECAUSE you took actions that were illegal in furtherance of that lie you now are subject to criminal prosecution.


The latter is what Trump is charged with and NOT the prior, which is the lie.

Not a crime.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

All defense is legit, Fake Lawyer.

Bulverism. Bigotry.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism,

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not a crime.

Bulverism. Bigotry.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism,

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That's bullshit as Trump is not in office.

There is nothing stating that someone running for office needs a special prosecutor.

The DOJ could have prosecuted him just fine.

So let me ask you this, if Trump decides to drop out or loses the election will Smith quit the case?

I thought not.

Smith was hired to be a hit man against Trump, pure and simple.

Like you said, he is not subject to all of the rules the DOJ is.

Smith is subject to the exact same rules Durham was subject to.
Smith is certainly moving much faster than Durham did when it comes to indictments.


The standard for a special counsel is to prevent an appearance of a conflict of interest. Trump is running for the office of President. The President is head of the executive branch. The DoJ is part of the executive branch.
The appointment of a special counsel is to prevent the appearance of the current President being the one indicting Trump.

 

[Into the Night]

OMFG. You are getting more and more stupid every day.

The standard in a civil trial is preponderance of evidence to get a verdict.
The standard in a criminal trial is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no 'standard', Poorboy.

Juries are asked to look at the evidence to reach a verdict. How they view the evidence is not the same way they reach a verdict. They don't have to apply the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to every piece of evidence.

No crime. You have to specify the crime before you need to bother with evidence.

Does a reasonable person hide in the bushes to have conversations?

Yes.

Does a reasonable person suddenly have a family emergency only after a meeting with their boss?

Yes.

Does a reasonable person text someone with the authority to delete a server after they asked someone else to delete it if they had no intention of having the server deleted?

Paradox. Irrational statement.

Everyone that has lost a presidential election except one has been reasonable.

Trump has never lost an election.

Everyone that lost a Presidential election except one conceded the election.

Trump has never lost an election.

Everyone that lost a Presidential election except one have congratulated the winner.

Trump has never lost an election.

Everyone that lost a Presidential election while they were President except one attended the inauguration of the person that defeated them.

Trump has never lost an election.

It seems Trump is the only unreasonable person that has ever lost a Presidential election.

Trump has never lost an election.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I have many times and there is nothing in there.

The only charge is some broad conspiracy charge.

There were no threats or coercion listed in the indictments.

The only charge? Clearly you haven't read either indictment if you think there is only one conspiracy charge.

 

[Into the Night]

A special counsel is not subject to the control of the DoJ. They are independent and make the decisions without consulting the DoJ. The prosecutions of a special counsel are not approved by the AG.
If there was no special counsel then the AG would be the one to approve any high level prosecution. A special counsel is apolitical. When Trump announced he was running for office, it required an apolitical decision maker.

Why don't you educate yourself?

Announcing that you are running for office IS a political decision, Poorboy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

There is no 'standard', Poorboy.

No crime. You have to specify the crime before you need to bother with evidence.

Yes.

Yes.

Paradox. Irrational statement.

Trump has never lost an election.

Trump has never lost an election.

Trump has never lost an election.

Trump has never lost an election.

Trump has never lost an election.

Keep posting. Eventually everyone will know you are an idiot.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There is no 'standard', Poorboy.

Bulverism. Bigotry.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism,

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Announcing that you are running for office IS a political decision, Poorboy.

Bulverism. Bigotry.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism,

 

[Into the Night]

Smith is subject to the exact same rules Durham was subject to.
Smith is certainly moving much faster than Durham did when it comes to indictments.


The standard for a special counsel is to prevent an appearance of a conflict of interest. Trump is running for the office of President. The President is head of the executive branch. The DoJ is part of the executive branch.
The appointment of a special counsel is to prevent the appearance of the current President being the one indicting Trump.

Which is political persecution.

 

[Into the Night]

Keep posting. Eventually everyone will know you are an idiot.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Mantra 1a.

 

[QP!]

Everybody knew Trump was going to run again, why didn't they appoint a special council right after the election was over then.

Trump had been very clear he was running again.

Why did they wait three years and start an investigation instead of turning it over to special council in the first place?

Again your stupidity is showing.


No one knew for certain Trump would run again. A strong belief, no matter how strong, is not the same as knowing. SO again you are making a statement as if fact, that is not fact.

Garland might suspect strongly Trump would run and even be willing to bet on it, but he is smart enough to know health issues or other issues could prevent Trump from running.

Smart people do not ASSUME, in situations like that.

When Trump declared he is running, is the only time a SP is needed.


So since you are making the same stupid mistake thread to thread I will just copy and paste this reply in all threads when you do it.

I want to say this as it needs to be said Tink.


Tink there is nothing forcing you to be so stupid in every topic you engage in. In a topic like this, instead of you making every statement as undeniable settled fact, you could pose them as questions with your opinion attached. Saying "i don't think AI is at the point of XYZ' is very different than saying 'AI is NOT at the point of XYZ'.


And that is the flaw you and Marjorie Greene make constantly. You speak as if you come from a place of knowing and authority when you are generally the most stupid people in any room and you say stupid things to people who know better.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Mantra 1a.

Manta 69DD

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Again your stupidity is showing.


No one knew for certain Trump would run again. A strong belief, no matter how strong, is not the same as knowing. SO again you are making a statement as if fact, that is not fact.

Garland might suspect strongly Trump would run and even be willing to bet on it, but he is smart enough to know health issues or other issues could prevent Trump from running.

Smart people do not ASSUME, in situations like that.

When Trump declared he is running, is the only time a SP is needed.


So since you are making the same stupid mistake thread to thread I will just copy and paste this reply in all threads when you do it.

They didn't need to wait for Trump to run for office they could have appointed Smith anyways to avoid any possible conflict of interest.

Since Biden runs the DOJ that would present a conflict of interest in going after a political opponent, even a former president, so why did they wait so long.

On top of that, it's much more efficient to have one guy running the show then to start an investigation and then turn it over to someone else at the last minute when they have to play catch up.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

The only charge? Clearly you haven't read either indictment if you think there is only one conspiracy charge.

No there are more than one but they all rely on the same argument.

There are 31 charges relating to either conspiracy or obstruction in just the Florida case, or is it the Washington case, I get them confused because there are so many now.

Oh, it's the Washington case that's right.

Here is the problem with Smith's case.

They are filed under the Espionage Act which is not a broad law, it's very specific.

This means his burden of proof will be even higher.

However, if he filed the charges under anything else he knew they wouldn't stick, it's a long shot but the only shot he had.

 

[QP!]

They didn't need to wait for Trump to run for office they could have appointed Smith anyways to avoid any possible conflict of interest.

Since Biden runs the DOJ that would present a conflict of interest in going after a political opponent, even a former president, so why did they wait so long.

On top of that, it's much more efficient to have one guy running the show then to start an investigation and then turn it over to someone else at the last minute when they have to play catch up.

There is NO conflict in Garlands DoJ prosecuting citizen Trump who is not running for office again.

There is a conflict in Garland's DoJ prosecuting POTUS opponent Trump running against Garland's boss, Biden, when Garland stands to personally benefit if Biden wins again.

That Tinker says ''who cares Garland should not care about and should have just done that regardless' is just the stupidity that Tink shows constantly. Tink is not Garland's boss, nor does Garland care that Tink is fine with the issue of conflict.

That is Garlands decision to make and it is well founded practice to not sit over a trial or investigation where you are conflicted and to not recuse if you are not conflicted.