There is no First Amendment right to overturn an election

[Jarod]

And what illegal activity did Trump tell Cobb to do exactly?

What illegal activity did Trump tell Pence to do?

HE told Pence not to certify the election.

 

[Jarod]

Number one would be the timing of it.

They filed the charges when they knew the case would be coming up right during election season.

They had all this information three years ago but sat on it.

Had they filed charges earlier you would be crying that they rushed to judgement.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Had they filed charges earlier you would be crying that they rushed to judgement.

LOL Agreed. All Trumpers do is whine and blame others for their sorrows.

 

[Yakuda]

Had they filed charges earlier you would be crying that they rushed to judgement.

If they didn't and they chose THIS time to do it and that's purposeful. Normal people arent as stupid as leftists.

 

[Jarod]

The argument was that experienced prosecutors don't file cases unless they are sure they can win.

The OJ trial proves that statement wrong.

Experienced prosecutors often file charges that are challenging, not in this case. Who knows what defense Trump can come up with, maybe something strong, but from today's perspective, Smith's case looks very strong.

We will see. I thought the prosecution in the O.J. case proved their case, but the jury thought otherwise.

 

[Jarod]

There is no such thing as a guaranteed conviction unless you have a tainted jury.

If that were true then why would we even need a trial, just let the prosecutors decide who is guilty and sentence them.

The first intelligent thing I have ever seen you write. Who wrote that for you?

It also works the other way, there is no sure win for the Defense, unless there is a tainted jury...

Yet, you are sure Trump will be acquitted.

 

[Yakuda]

Why do they have to prove he lied?

Because they are claiming he knowingly lied. What's wrong with you?

 

[Jarod]

If they didn't and they chose THIS time to do it and that's purposeful. Normal people arent as stupid as leftists.

The charges were filed early if anything, in order to try to get it settled before the election. Four months ago wold have been better, but they weren't ready then. Had MAGA not obfuscated and tried to delay, it would have been quicker.

Note, who is pushing for a speedy trial and who is delaying already?

 

[Jarod]

Because they are claiming he knowingly lied. What's wrong with you?

You really should read the indictment.

 

[Yakuda]

The charges were filed early if anything, in order to try to get it settled before the election. Four months ago wold have been better, but they weren't ready then. Had MAGA not obfuscated and tried to delay, it would have been quicker.

Note, who is pushing for a speedy trial and who is delaying already?

Pure bullshit. It's a well orchestrated plan.

 

[Yakuda]

You really should read the indictment.

I did and thats exactly what it says. Maybe you should give it a look. And stop pretending you're a lawyer.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Proving yet once again you haven't actually read the indictment.
Where in the indictment is Trump charged with organizing the conspiracy?
When the indictment states that Trump called the RNC to make sure they were executing the plan of the fake electors, you are going to argue that was not an act by Trump and he had nothing to do with the plan? That is a stretch that no one with a brain would accept as true.

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.

I see you have decided to jump to the other indictment which has nothing to do with the one in DC. No judge will let evidence of obstruction in Florida into a court in DC. No prosecutor would bring that in because it would be cause for appeal.
The obstruction charge in Florida isn't that hard. They can draw a straight line from Trump being told about the subpoena to talking to Natua to Natua flying to Florida to Natua talking to De Oliviera to Natua and De Oliviera hiding from cameras to De Oliviera talking to the IT guy telling him the "boss" wants the server deleted. Who benefits from having the server deleted?

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.

It isn't the word of one person against the word of another. It is the word of several people along with text messages, video evidence and other physical evidence against someone that refuses to testify. Trump is presumed not guilty so the evidence has to rise to the reasonable doubt standard but the doubt only has to be reasonable not the unreasonable bullshit you keep using.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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

He doesn't need to testify.

Your points are easy to defeat by simply asking the jury to apply a reasonable person standard to his actions.

 

[Yakuda]

Your points are easy to defeat by simply asking the jury to apply a reasonable person standard to his actions.

Better not have any leftists on that jury then

 

[Jarod]

Pure bullshit. It's a well orchestrated plan.

You have some evidence of that claim?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Better not have any leftists on that jury then

I knew you were a Nazi. No doubt you'd stack the jury with male White Nationalists because that's how Nazis roll.

 

[Jarod]

I did and thats exactly what it says. Maybe you should give it a look. And stop pretending you're a lawyer.

Please cite where is says that they have to prove Trump knowingly lied?

Even if I missed something, a prosecutor is not required to prove everything in an indictment, only the elements of the crime. This is whats called a speaking indictment, where it tells a story, but it could have been a bare bones indictment and still would be valid. The laws Trump is accused of violating do not require proof Trump lied to anyone, only that he conspired to cause fraud... Which if only some of the allegations are true... he did.

 

[Yakuda]

You have some evidence of that claim?

Plenty

 

[Yakuda]

Please cite where is says that they have to prove Trump knowingly lied?

Even if I missed something, a prosecutor is not required to prove everything in an indictment, only the elements of the crime. This is whats called a speaking indictment, where it tells a story, but it could have been a bare bones indictment and still would be valid. The laws Trump is accused of violating do not require proof Trump lied to anyone, only that he conspired to cause fraud... Which if only some of the allegations are true... he did.

One of the elements is that he knowingly lied to defraud the United States by using dishonesty fraud and deceit. Good luck

 

[Jarod]

Plenty

Please share, or are you going to keep it in your mind, because you have none...?