There is no First Amendment right to overturn an election

Tinkerpeach said:
Tell me why they waited until November of 2022 to appoint Smith then?

There was no real investigation before then.

If there were they would have special council right away.
Click to expand...

OMFG. You really are this stupid.

Smith was appointed because Trump announced he was going to run for office.

No investigation before that? I thought you said they had all the information. Were you lying then or are you lying now? Frankly your arguments are getting more and more outlandish.
Do you have Alzheimer's? Are you off your medication? Did you fall and hit your head hard enough that you are badly concussed?

Go back and read the the things I listed that shows the didn't have all the information 3 years ago. You will find that some if it occurred prior to Nov of 2022. There is a lot of information out there showing they were conducting an investigation prior to Nov 2022.
Smith is a special counsel. He is not a special council.


Justice Department officials heading up the criminal investigation into the attack on the U.S. Capitol have asked a House committee for transcripts of interviews conducted in its Jan. 6 investigation, another sign the Justice Department is widening its inquiry.
Click to expand...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...ommittee-share-interview-transcript-rcna29321
From May of 2022
 
Yakuda said:
That he lied and did so knowingly. Good luck
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Poor Richard Saunders said:
OMFG. You really are this stupid.

Smith was appointed because Trump announced he was going to run for office.

No investigation before that? I thought you said they had all the information. Were you lying then or are you lying now? Frankly your arguments are getting more and more outlandish.
Do you have Alzheimer's? Are you off your medication? Did you fall and hit your head hard enough that you are badly concussed?

Go back and read the the things I listed that shows the didn't have all the information 3 years ago. You will find that some if it occurred prior to Nov of 2022. There is a lot of information out there showing they were conducting an investigation prior to Nov 2022.
Smith is a special counsel. He is not a special council.



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...ommittee-share-interview-transcript-rcna29321
From May of 2022
Click to expand...

If they were already investigating Trump for crimes why would they appoint a special prosecutor just because he was running for office?

Wouldn't they have just prosecuted him anyways?

What does running for office have to do with a crime?
 
Tinkerpeach said:
That standard rarely is used in criminal trials because of how "iffy" it is.

It is mostly reserved for civil cases.

It would be a mistake for the prosecution to go that route.
Click to expand...


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.
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.

Does a reasonable person hide in the bushes to have conversations? Does a reasonable person suddenly have a family emergency only after a meeting with their boss? 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?

The simple reason is that most reasonable people have never lost a presidential election.
Click to expand...
Everyone that has lost a presidential election except one has been reasonable. Everyone that lost a Presidential election except one conceded the election. Everyone that lost a Presidential election except one have congratulated the winner. Everyone that lost a Presidential election while they were President except one attended the inauguration of the person that defeated them. It seems Trump is the only unreasonable person that has ever lost a Presidential election.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
If they were already investigating Trump for crimes why would they appoint a special prosecutor just because he was running for office?

Wouldn't they have just prosecuted him anyways?

What does running for office have to do with a crime?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
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.
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.

Does a reasonable person hide in the bushes to have conversations? Does a reasonable person suddenly have a family emergency only after a meeting with their boss? 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?


Everyone that has lost a presidential election except one has been reasonable. Everyone that lost a Presidential election except one conceded the election. Everyone that lost a Presidential election except one have congratulated the winner. Everyone that lost a Presidential election while they were President except one attended the inauguration of the person that defeated them. It seems Trump is the only unreasonable person that has ever lost a Presidential election.
Click to expand...

The reasonable person standard is subjective, not objective which is why it's rarely used in criminal charges except for violent crime.

It is simply too hard to argue.

Like I said, a reasonable person has never lost a presidential election so it would be very hard to apply it here since the pool of reasonable persons is so small.

Plus, plenty and I mean plenty of elections results have been challenged over the years.

But hey, if they want to go that route then more power to them.

Trump is hardly the first person never to concede an election.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The reasonable person standard is subjective, not objective which is why it's rarely used in criminal charges except for violent crime.

It is simply too hard to argue.

Like I said, a reasonable person has never lost a presidential election so it would be very hard to apply it here since the pool of reasonable persons is so small.

Plus, plenty and I mean plenty of elections results have been challenged over the years.

But hey, if they want to go that route then more power to them.

Trump is hardly the first person never to concede an election.
Click to expand...

You were talking about the obstruction charge when I applied the reasonable person standard. The obstruction has nothing to do with Trump being President. It has to do with hiding evidence that is under subpoena.

If you can't tell one indictment from the other maybe you should stop posting.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
The reasonable person standard is subjective, not objective which is why it's rarely used in criminal charges except for violent crime.

It is simply too hard to argue.

Like I said, a reasonable person has never lost a presidential election so it would be very hard to apply it here since the pool of reasonable persons is so small.

Plus, plenty and I mean plenty of elections results have been challenged over the years.

But hey, if they want to go that route then more power to them.

Trump is hardly the first person never to concede an election.
Click to expand...

The crime here is not challenging election results. The crime is conspiring to fraudulently change election results by preventing the legitimate electors from having their votes certified.

Big difference.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jarod said:
The crime here is not challenging election results. The crime is conspiring to fraudulently change election results by preventing the legitimate electors from having their votes certified.

Big difference.
Click to expand...

A point Trumpers and Russian agents refuse to admit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top