There is no First Amendment right to overturn an election

Tinkerpeach said:
The problem here with the charges Smith has filed is that he has to prove that Trump pressured officials and organized fake electors.

None of which he can do.

This is why these charges are bogus.

Who knows, maybe Smith is hiding some secret informant or something or has some audio on tape of Trump doing it.

If not the charges will never stand in court.
Click to expand...

No such thing as "fake" electors.

Obama's little troll Smith is a fraud and a thug.

{ As it dragged on, the judge rejected GOP attempts to stop the count. When the mid-December date came for the Electoral College to meet — this year it’s Dec. 14 — both Republican and Democratic electors sent their votes to Washington to be counted. }

1960: Hawaii Sends Two Slates to Electoral College > Hawaii Free Press

Wait, so Kennedy did this? But the Reich says it's illegal?

Is Mobster Smith lying?

Yep!
 
zymurgy said:
even more, they have to prove he lied

If being an idiot were illegal, the democratic base would be decimated. He didn't lie, he just surrounds himself with yes men because he is a narcissist
Click to expand...

There is no law against lying. Unless one is under oath, which Trump was not.

These actions by mobster Smith are outrageous, a rape of the rule of law.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Even if Trump gets an unsympathetic jury and they do find him guilty it will be overturned on appeals.

Even the charges coming from Georgia where Trump said to them to find votes can be argued away.
Click to expand...

Trump never said that - it is a lie by the Reich.

Trump said "I just want to find 11,780 votes,"

That is on the level of "I just need to win the lottery." It isn't a command to anyone.

They would have to prove he told them to find them illegally and he never did and that is by far their strongest case and it's not that strong.

They would also need to prove that Trump somehow threatened them with retaliation which he never did.

None of these charges against Trump are going to hold up in a court of law.
Click to expand...

He didn't tell anyone to find anything - the Marxists at lying.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Remember that this is a court of law.

Saying your business may burn down is not a crime.

Saying your business will burn down is a threat.

Your house may burn down tomorrow, are you going to have the cops arrest me for that?
Click to expand...

Of course it is a court of law. It also means that your arguments are specious in that court of law.
Does the person making the threat have the ability to carry out that threat? Is the person making the implied threat asking for something in exchange for not carrying out the threat?

Trump is the chief law enforcement officer and has already shown he is willing threaten arrest of others.
Trump is asking for 11,773 votes to be found.

But Trump isn't charged with making a threat. He is charged with conspiracy in which this threat is simply one more fact. It would be like the mob asking for money from business owners and saying "It would be a shame if your business burned down." The mob isn't charged with the single threat. The threat is part of a pattern proving the charged crime.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Trying to prove conspiracy in court is almost impossible.
Click to expand...


You use the word "impossible." I don't think it means what you think it means.


Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, and Kelly Meggs, the leader of the Florida chapter of the organization, were found guilty by a jury today of seditious conspiracy
Click to expand...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/lead...r-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-and-other

A jury in the District of Columbia today returned guilty verdicts on multiple felonies against five members of the Proud Boys, finding four of the defendants guilty of seditious conspiracy
Click to expand...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/jury...editious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach

A married couple from New York City pleaded guilty today to money laundering conspiracies
Click to expand...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/bitf...oney-laundering-conspiracy-involving-billions
COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho (AP) — Five members of the white nationalist hate group Patriot Front were convicted Thursday of misdemeanor charges of conspiracy to riot at a Pride event.
Click to expand...

A Silver Spring man was one of two MS-13 gang members sentenced in federal court on Tuesday for their roles in a racketeering conspiracy,
Click to expand...
https://patch.com/maryland/silverspring/guilty-pleas-murder-conspiracy-put-ms-13-gang-members-prison
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Of course it is a court of law. It also means that your arguments are specious in that court of law.
Does the person making the threat have the ability to carry out that threat? Is the person making the implied threat asking for something in exchange for not carrying out the threat?

Trump is the chief law enforcement officer and has already shown he is willing threaten arrest of others.
Trump is asking for 11,773 votes to be found.

But Trump isn't charged with making a threat. He is charged with conspiracy in which this threat is simply one more fact. It would be like the mob asking for money from business owners and saying "It would be a shame if your business burned down." The mob isn't charged with the single threat. The threat is part of a pattern proving the charged crime.
Click to expand...

The awesome power of the presidency put heavy pressure on the secretaries of state. They do not get one on one talks with the Prez. Trump was trying to use that power to make them do illegal acts. Trump has no defense against what he did. That was not the only phone call to Raffenspeger. Trump made other calls, Lindsay called and others did too. Trump was trying to get them to commit crimes and declare him the winner.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Of course it is a court of law. It also means that your arguments are specious in that court of law.
Does the person making the threat have the ability to carry out that threat? Is the person making the implied threat asking for something in exchange for not carrying out the threat?

Trump is the chief law enforcement officer and has already shown he is willing threaten arrest of others.
Trump is asking for 11,773 votes to be found.

But Trump isn't charged with making a threat. He is charged with conspiracy in which this threat is simply one more fact. It would be like the mob asking for money from business owners and saying "It would be a shame if your business burned down." The mob isn't charged with the single threat. The threat is part of a pattern proving the charged crime.
Click to expand...

The Democrat party is a conspiracy. Conspiracy is not a crime.
Saying it would a shame if your business burned down is just what an insurance salesman would say to try to sell fire insurance. Not a crime.
 
 
Nordberg said:
The awesome power of the presidency put heavy pressure on the secretaries of state. They do not get one on one talks with the Prez. Trump was trying to use that power to make them do illegal acts. Trump has no defense against what he did. That was not the only phone call to Raffenspeger. Trump made other calls, Lindsay called and others did too. Trump was trying to get them to commit crimes and declare him the winner.
Click to expand...

The secretary of State has no authority to declare Trump a winner or to choose the electoral college members.
Raffenspeger broke the law.
 
Nordberg said:
The awesome power of the presidency put heavy pressure on the secretaries of state. They do not get one on one talks with the Prez. Trump was trying to use that power to make them do illegal acts. Trump has no defense against what he did. That was not the only phone call to Raffenspeger. Trump made other calls, Lindsay called and others did too. Trump was trying to get them to commit crimes and declare him the winner.
Click to expand...

You have to prove that Trump was trying to get them to do something illegal.

You can't in a court of law.

Trump will simply argue he was trying to get them to do it legally.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Of course it is a court of law. It also means that your arguments are specious in that court of law.
Does the person making the threat have the ability to carry out that threat? Is the person making the implied threat asking for something in exchange for not carrying out the threat?

Trump is the chief law enforcement officer and has already shown he is willing threaten arrest of others.
Trump is asking for 11,773 votes to be found.

But Trump isn't charged with making a threat. He is charged with conspiracy in which this threat is simply one more fact. It would be like the mob asking for money from business owners and saying "It would be a shame if your business burned down." The mob isn't charged with the single threat. The threat is part of a pattern proving the charged crime.
Click to expand...

Trump never made any threat.

That's why these charges are bogus.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Trump never made any threat.

That's why these charges are bogus.
Click to expand...

Once again, you prove you didn't read the indictment. Not only that, you didn't read my post.
Trump isn't charged with making threats. Your claim that the charges are bogus is what is bogus since you don't even address the actual crimes and actions he is charged with.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
You have to prove that Trump was trying to get them to do something illegal.

You can't in a court of law.

Trump will simply argue he was trying to get them to do it legally.
Click to expand...

Trump won't argue anything. He can't because it would open him up to being questioned under oath.
His lawyers will have to make an argument that Trump can't make. That is never a good plan for any defense.

What is interesting is Trump sued Cohen and now doesn't want any of the discovery in that case released because it would be incriminate him.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...tion-worry-in-lawsuit-against-cohen#xj4y7vzkg
It seems Trump is recognizing that he has committed crimes.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Once again, you prove you didn't read the indictment. Not only that, you didn't read my post.
Trump isn't charged with making threats. Your claim that the charges are bogus is what is bogus since you don't even address the actual crimes and actions he is charged with.
Click to expand...

I know full well what the charges are and they are basically conspiracy and obstruction.

Conspiracy is almost impossible to prove in a court of law without direct threats which is why people are seldom charged with it.

And Trump isn't being charged with any actionable offenses, the co-conspirators are, Trump is being charged with organizing it.

Again that didn't happen.

The obstruction charge is even harder for Smith because he has to prove that the guy who admitted to trying to delete was actually told by Trump to do so.

He can't just claim it, he has to prove it.

It's word against word here. A jury cannot convict on that.

The charge stemming from the Iran document they found is also very problematic. They are accusing Trump of showing it but they need to prove that and they also need to prove that Trump wasn't allowed to have it which, if they can't do, drops the majority of charges against Trump as they all relate to the same thing.

None of these charges are going to stick in court.

Smith just doesn't have the evidence.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Trump won't argue anything. He can't because it would open him up to being questioned under oath.
His lawyers will have to make an argument that Trump can't make. That is never a good plan for any defense.

What is interesting is Trump sued Cohen and now doesn't want any of the discovery in that case released because it would be incriminate him.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...tion-worry-in-lawsuit-against-cohen#xj4y7vzkg
It seems Trump is recognizing that he has committed crimes.
Click to expand...

Trump's lawyers will do just fine, they aren't difficult points to make to a jury.

He doesn't need to testify.
 
zymurgy said:
even more, they have to prove he lied

If being an idiot were illegal, the democratic base would be decimated. He didn't lie, he just surrounds himself with yes men because he is a narcissist
Click to expand...

Why do they have to prove he lied?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top