Report of Special Counsel Jack Smith - Vol 1 Released

Tobytone said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that the report tells you what the laws were that were broken?

Clearly you are lying about reading something if you need to be told what laws were broken.
This seems to be all you can do. Claim you read something and then the evidence proves you didn't read it.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

You see, once again you're spewing that it's illegal for Trump to ask, show me that law, genius. You'll be searching for a while.

Secondly, the reason an elector on Jan 6th can actually change the vote based on their belief there was fraud is for scenarios where, say, the current administration abuses its power to shut down or intimidate electors with their vast access to personal information that us mere mortals don't have. In such a case, the vote can be flipped. However, the elector will be on the hook to make their case.

I'm not saying that's what happened, just trying to spoon-feed you an example since you clearly need it. Regardless, my opening sentence still stands, rock solid. You seem to be the one whose bias is clouding your judgment, not me.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Do you understand that the report tells you what the laws were that were broken?

Clearly you are lying about reading something if you need to be told what laws were broken.
This seems to be all you can do. Claim you read something and then the evidence proves you didn't read it.
Click to expand...
Then stating them will be very easy for you. You only need to copy/paste. I told you, I'm currently enjoying watching Libtards make childish fools of themselves. So, please, enlighten me.
 
Tobytone said:
You see, once again you're spewing that it's illegal for Trump to ask, show me that law, genius. You'll be searching for a while.
Click to expand...
I won't be looking long. I only need to read Smith's report. Page 34-41 lays out why it was illegal for Trump to actually get fake electors. He didn't just ask the legislature to overturn the election, he conspired to get fake electors to fill out fake certifications that was after his attempt to get the legislatures to ignore the election results failed. It wasn't asking the legislatures to overturn the election that was a crime but that act helps to prove the conspiracy of the acts that were crimes.

Tobytone said:
Secondly, the reason an elector on Jan 6th can actually change the vote based on their belief there was fraud is for scenarios where, say, the current administration abuses its power to shut down or intimidate electors with their vast access to personal information that us mere mortals don't have. In such a case, the vote can be flipped. However, the elector will be on the hook to make their case.
Click to expand...
That doesn't even make sense. Electors can't change their votes on Jan 6th. Jan 6th is when Congress counts the votes from each state that were certified and submitted.
Tobytone said:
I'm not saying that's what happened, just trying to spoon-feed you an example since you clearly need it. Regardless, my opening sentence still stands, rock solid. You seem to be the one whose bias is clouding your judgment, not me.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't eat bullshit even if you are trying to spoon feed it to me.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I won't be looking long. I only need to read Smith's report. Page 34-41 lays out why it was illegal for Trump to actually get fake electors. He didn't just ask the legislature to overturn the election, he conspired to get fake electors to fill out fake certifications that was after his attempt to get the legislatures to ignore the election results failed. It wasn't asking the legislatures to overturn the election that was a crime but that act helps to prove the conspiracy of the acts that were crimes.


That doesn't even make sense. Electors can't change their votes on Jan 6th. Jan 6th is when Congress counts the votes from each state that were certified and submitted.

Sorry, I don't eat bullshit even if you are trying to spoon feed it to me.
Click to expand...
Are you telling me the law broken is 7 pages long??? Huh, that's got to be a record.lol How about you paste in the actual law, not the rants of a political hack. There's a big difference.
 
Tobytone said:
Are you telling me the law broken is 7 pages long??? Huh, that's got to be a record.lol How about you paste in the actual law, not the rants of a political hack. There's a big difference.
Click to expand...
This is what I said - "Page 34-41 lays out why it was illegal for Trump to actually get fake electors."

I guess you decided you are simply going to provide evidence that you lie all the time when you claim you read something.

Your ask was false, since Trump was not indicted for asking legislatures to overturn the elections in their state. At this point, it seems correcting your mistakes is pointless since you will continue to make the same false statements over and over.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I won't be looking long. I only need to read Smith's report. Page 34-41 lays out why it was illegal for Trump to actually get fake electors. He didn't just ask the legislature to overturn the election, he conspired to get fake electors to fill out fake certifications that was after his attempt to get the legislatures to ignore the election results failed. It wasn't asking the legislatures to overturn the election that was a crime but that act helps to prove the conspiracy of the acts that were crimes.


That doesn't even make sense. Electors can't change their votes on Jan 6th. Jan 6th is when Congress counts the votes from each state that were certified and submitted.

Sorry, I don't eat bullshit even if you are trying to spoon feed it to me.
Click to expand...
That really shouldn't take very long I've been watching Hawaii's senator make a complete ass of herself hoping I would see this law that Trump broke pasted in clear language so I couldn't say wow I was completely wrong
Poor Richard Saunders said:
This is what I said - "Page 34-41 lays out why it was illegal for Trump to actually get fake electors."

I guess you decided you are simply going to provide evidence that you lie all the time when you claim you read something.

Your ask was false, since Trump was not indicted for asking legislatures to overturn the elections in their state. At this point, it seems correcting your mistakes is pointless since you will continue to make the same false statements over and over.
Click to expand...
I told you I only made it to page 20 before I started watching this circus of a hearing. I am still enjoying watching a bunch of hacks making fools of themselves. I thought your claim was that Trump broke the law. You must have read the seven pages, are you telling me it doesn't mention the law that was broken in all of the seven page explanation? It sounds like a dodge to me. It should be very simple. I know, if I was claiming someone broke the law, I'd know the law I was saying that person broke. Don't you do the same?
 
Tobytone said:
You wish, you have been owned and described to a T. You should go back to watching Al Jazeera TV and send them more of your trust fund, it will likely give you a much needed shot of some sick form of joy.
Click to expand...
Get lost kid- you're an embarrassment to yourself.
 
Tobytone said:
That really shouldn't take very long I've been watching Hawaii's senator make a complete ass of herself hoping I would see this law that Trump broke pasted in clear language so I couldn't say wow I was completely wrong

I told you I only made it to page 20 before I started watching this circus of a hearing. I am still enjoying watching a bunch of hacks making fools of themselves. I thought your claim was that Trump broke the law. You must have read the seven pages, are you telling me it doesn't mention the law that was broken in all of the seven page explanation? It sounds like a dodge to me. It should be very simple. I know, if I was claiming someone broke the law, I'd know the law I was saying that person broke. Don't you do the same?
Click to expand...
The title of the section cites the law. The first sentence quotes the law.

A. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)
The defraud clause of the general conspiracy statute makes it a crime "f two or more
persons conspire ... to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any
purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy."

The next 7 pages detail why the law applies including numerous court case citations.

Since you aren't serious about the questions you are asking, I will just ignore them in the future.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
This is what I said - "Page 34-41 lays out why it was illegal for Trump to actually get fake electors."

I guess you decided you are simply going to provide evidence that you lie all the time when you claim you read something.

Your ask was false, since Trump was not indicted for asking legislatures to overturn the elections in their state. At this point, it seems correcting your mistakes is pointless since you will continue to make the same false statements over and over.
Click to expand...
Can you point out the convictions?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I won't be looking long. I only need to read Smith's report. Page 34-41 lays out why it was illegal for Trump to actually get fake electors. He didn't just ask the legislature to overturn the election, he conspired to get fake electors to fill out fake certifications that was after his attempt to get the legislatures to ignore the election results failed. It wasn't asking the legislatures to overturn the election that was a crime but that act helps to prove the conspiracy of the acts that were crimes.


That doesn't even make sense. Electors can't change their votes on Jan 6th. Jan 6th is when Congress counts the votes from each state that were certified and submitted.

Sorry, I don't eat bullshit even if you are trying to spoon feed it to me.
Click to expand...
That really shouldn't take you very long I've been watching Hawaii's senator make a complete ass of herself hoping I would see this law that Trump broke pasted in your comment by now.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I won't be looking long. I only need to read Smith's report. Page 34-41 lays out why it was illegal for Trump to actually get fake electors. He didn't just ask the legislature to overturn the election, he conspired to get fake electors to fill out fake certifications that was after his attempt to get the legislatures to ignore the election results failed. It wasn't asking the legislatures to overturn the election that was a crime but that act helps to prove the conspiracy of the acts that were crimes.


That doesn't even make sense. Electors can't change their votes on Jan 6th. Jan 6th is when Congress counts the votes from each state that were certified and submitted.

Sorry, I don't eat bullshit even if you are trying to spoon feed it to me.
Click to expand...
Oh I've got a minute so...... I've been distracted while trying to talk sense into you, and was attempting to come up with a easy scenario for you to understand how or why an elector could change their vote and the Jan 6 date hit me, obviously, I think, because of how triggered it makes most lefties, but I'll admit, it was a fail. lol But anyways the point is the same. By the way, I am not aware of Trump trying to get the electors to change their vote after they were certified. It that one easy to provide?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top