There is no First Amendment right to overturn an election

Tinkerpeach said:
Because it's for political show.

What proof has he been sitting on for three years and why weren't charges filed earlier instead of when the election is coming up?

He was more than likely forced into bringing charges and prosecutors often bring charges they know they can't prove.

I've had it done to me.

Plus he is getting paid lots of money and is getting famous, more than enough reason to file whatever he can.
Click to expand...


What evidence do you have that it’s purely political.
 
Jarod said:
What evidence do you have that it’s purely political.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Yep, just like OJ.

If it doesn't fit you must acquit.
Click to expand...

The fact you don't see the differences in the cases and the prosecutors is interesting. Nonetheless, I think Jack wouldn't have filed the charges unless he knew they would stick.
 
Doc Dutch said:
The fact you don't see the differences in the cases and the prosecutors is interesting. Nonetheless, I think Jack wouldn't have filed the charges unless he knew they would stick.
Click to expand...

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

The OJ trial proves that statement wrong.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Were the OJ prosecutors sure they could win?
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point I was addressing.

The statement made was that experienced prosecutors don't bring cases they know they can't win.

I said yes they do.

There are many cases of prosecutors losing trials.

It happens daily.
 
Doc Dutch said:
The fact you don't see the differences in the cases and the prosecutors is interesting. Nonetheless, I think Jack wouldn't have filed the charges unless he knew they would stick.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
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.
Click to expand...
Only in your Mother Russia.

However, due to a preponderance of evidence, I'm getting he'll be convicted unless there's a tainted jury. :)
 
Doc Dutch said:
Only in your Mother Russia.

However, due to a preponderance of evidence, I'm getting he'll be convicted unless there's a tainted jury. :)
Click to expand...

Since you have to add in your Russia bullshit to every post I'm simply going to stop responding to you.

It's simply annoying at this point.

You need to grow up.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Since you have to add in your Russia bullshit to every post I'm simply going to stop responding to you.

It's simply annoying at this point.

You need to grow up.
Click to expand...

Results count, comrade Tink. You consistently defend Putin and Mother Russia plus attack the United States at every turn. I consistently defend the United States and attack both Putin and Russia...which pisses you off. LOL

If you don't like my posts, tovarich, stop reading them. Хоро́шего дня!! Feel free to take your little friend with you. :)

6huq3s.gif
 
Tinkerpeach said:
By the way Doc Dutch you are now on ignore since you can't make a single post without bringing up your childish Russia crap.
Click to expand...
Спасибо! Хорошего дня.

Dutch scores another kill on a pro-Trump, pro-Putin anti-American agent. W00t!

6b6rxt.gif
 
guno said:
Shortly after special counsel Jack Smith unveiled four new criminal charges against former president Donald Trump — all arising out of Trump’s failed efforts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election — one of Trump’s lawyers revealed one of the legal arguments he plans to use to defend the former president.


“This is an attack on free speech and political advocacy,” Trump attorney John Lauro told CNN Tuesday evening. In a separate appearance on Fox News, Lauro claimed that Trump is being prosecuted for “what he believed in and the policies and the political speech that he carried out as president.”

Lauro, in other words, appears to be laying the groundwork for an audacious First Amendment defense. His argument appears to be that, even if Smith proves all the facts laid out in the recent indictment — which alleges that Trump pressured officials throughout the federal and state governments to change vote counts, appoint fake members of the Electoral College, and otherwise tamper with the 2020 election’s results — Trump’s actions were all political speech protected by the First Amendment.

There are at least two reasons Trump’s alleged actions are not protected speech. One is that Smith repeatedly accuses Trump of pressuring other government officials to commit criminal acts of election fraud, and it is well established that soliciting another individual to commit a crime is not protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Williams (2008), “offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection.”

Trump, for example, may not pressure a state elections official to “find” fraudulent votes that will change the electoral result in that state, for the same reason that he could not legally tell a hit man, “I will give you $50,000 if you kill my wife.” In both cases, Trump is engaged in speech. But the fact that this speech solicits another person to commit a specific crime generally removes it from the First Amendment’s protections.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...p?cvid=75244f451df64538b6e9c4371e904d00&ei=16
Click to expand...

Beres the important piece and the only thing that matters

"...even if Smith proves all the facts laid out in the recent indictment..."

See the "if"? Small word but a big problem. IF he can prove the CLAIMS, they aren't facts. Nice try though. Id give this a grade of C+. It's creative and it helps leftists get their it is off but its short on substance.
 
Yakuda said:
Beres the important piece and the only thing that matters

"...even if Smith proves all the facts laid out in the recent indictment..."

See the "if"? Small word but a big problem. IF he can prove the CLAIMS, they aren't facts. Nice try though. Id give this a grade of C+. It's creative and it helps leftists get their it is off but its short on substance.
Click to expand...

We will see
 
guno said:
We will see
Click to expand...

Yes we shall and the best part will be hearing the heads of leftist heads exploding all across the fruited plain when trump walks scot-free. I'm going to watch The View for the first time ever after trump walks just to soak up the bitch tears
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top