Report of Special Counsel Jack Smith - Vol 1 Released

Poor Richard Saunders said:
The first volume of the Special Counsel was released overnight - It can be found here-

www.documentcloud.org

Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Feel free to post your comments on the actual report but if you are just going to troll, you will be ignored.
Click to expand...

I'm about 20 pages into the document, and so far, it reads like an extended letter trying to justify Smith's motives and methods, followed by a heavily biased portrayal of reality. For instance, Smith goes on a tirade about Trump suggesting that electors should change their votes, framing it as unprecedented. However, this tactic isn't new, especially not for the Democrats. Let's look at 2016: Democratic leaders and their radical allies were vocal in advocating for the same strategy. Historically, Democrats attempt this far more frequently; you'd have to delve back into the 1800s to find a similar Republican effort. I'll continue with this 'report' after watching Pete's confirmation for the DOD. From what I've gathered, there's nothing groundbreaking in the entire document. I suspect my initial impression will hold true upon further reading.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
On which page did you find this?
I see where Trump tried to get state legislators to replace the legitimate electors.
Click to expand...
There is one little difference when the democrats try it........Oh excuse me, a complete lunatic libtard drone was just screaming out some unintelligible garbage at Pete's hearing, oh, it's been dealt with. Where was I.........oh, more moron libtards screaming........ the usual of course, they finally left their mommy's basement and rather than getting a job, they ran down to the Capital to throw a childish tantrum. .........Ok, back again, oh yes, the democrats not only tried it in 2016, one actually did place a 'faithless elector' vote, in hopes to get many others to follow. Hollywood was united in the effort as well. That's the most recent, I could go on, but why bother.
 
Tobytone said:
There is one little difference when the democrats try it........Oh excuse me, a complete lunatic libtard drone was just screaming out some unintelligible garbage at Pete's hearing, oh, it's been dealt with. Where was I.........oh, more moron libtards screaming........ the usual of course, they finally left their mommy's basement and rather than getting a job, they ran down to the Capital to throw a childish tantrum. .........Ok, back again, oh yes, the democrats not only tried it in 2016, one actually did place a 'faithless elector' vote, in hopes to get many others to follow. Hollywood was united in the effort as well. That's the most recent, I could go on, but why bother.
Click to expand...
A faithless elector is still a legitimate elector. Faithless electors are not a criminal act since the elector is legitimate. Some states do not require that the electors vote for the person the state voted for. Other states have laws requiring them to or they will be replaced with another elector.

The difference is not little. It is huge. What Trump tried to do is a crime which is why many of those fake electors have been charged with a crime.

Why bother? I guess you shouldn't bother actually being factual or actually looking at the evidence since you don't bother.
 
Tobytone said:
I just did, but I'm not going to do your work for you. It would do you good to find it yourself. Here's a huge hint "The Hamilton Electors Movement"
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO. Trying to get legitimate electors to change their votes is not the same thing as a slate of fake electors.

It seems you can't do the work so you are just going to play your usual games.
Maybe you should go read a couple of videos before you come back.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
On which page did you find this?
I see where Trump tried to get state legislators to replace the legitimate electors.
Click to expand...
He said he read the first twenty pages, which is largely Smith outlining in general his case before presenting the evidence, and then when the poster goes off on the Democrat whataboutisms you know he never read any of it but just regurgitating AM talk radio rhetoric
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The first volume of the Special Counsel was released overnight - It can be found here-

www.documentcloud.org

Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Feel free to post your comments on the actual report but if you are just going to troll, you will be ignored.
Click to expand...
What impressed me is the documentation, every bit of information is authenticated via footnotes

And, just like the FICA requests and Mueller Report, no one on the right will actually read it, they don’t primary sources, rather wait to see what their demagogues say
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
A faithless elector is still a legitimate elector. Faithless electors are not a criminal act since the elector is legitimate. Some states do not require that the electors vote for the person the state voted for. Other states have laws requiring them to or they will be replaced with another elector.

The difference is not little. It is huge. What Trump tried to do is a crime which is why many of those fake electors have been charged with a crime.

Why bother? I guess you shouldn't bother actually being factual or actually looking at the evidence since you don't bother.
Click to expand...
See, here's the issue with you clueless leftists. First off, it's not illegal to ask for an elector to change their vote, genius, so let's evict that moronic notion from your brain. Secondly, in states where electors are supposed to vote for the majority popular vote winner, that rule flies out the window if the vote's being contested or is suspected of being fraudulent. And no, it doesn't need to be proven fraudulent at that point, just to clarify for the intellectually challenged among you.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO. Trying to get legitimate electors to change their votes is not the same thing as a slate of fake electors.

It seems you can't do the work so you are just going to play your usual games.
Maybe you should go read a couple of videos before you come back.
Click to expand...
You're obviously an idiot, and I take no pleasure in saying that. How about you start by telling me the law broken by Trump asking for 'anyone you choose' to change the electors vote. Seems like a good place to start since it's the first claim of the report.
 
Tobytone said:
See, here's the issue with you clueless leftists. First off, it's not illegal to ask for an elector to change their vote, genius, so let's evict that moronic notion from your brain. Secondly, in states where electors are supposed to vote for the majority popular vote winner, that rule flies out the window if the vote's being contested or is suspected of being fraudulent.
Click to expand...
When a vote is certified it is no longer contested. Suspicion of fraud is not a valid reason to commit a crime. The courts are the way to contest an election. Trump lost over 60 cases on the election. You don't get to commit a crime because you lost in court.
Tobytone said:
And no, it doesn't need to be proven fraudulent at that point, just to clarify for the intellectually challenged among you.
Click to expand...
Oh. OK.. so I don't have to prove you committed fraud before I come and burn your house down? It seems it's you that is intellectually challenged. Suspicion of fraud without proof is not a defense when it comes to committing a crime. Proof of fraud is also not a valid defense when it comes to commission of a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top