╌>

A Political Prosecution in Prime Time

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  9 months ago  •  315 comments

A Political Prosecution in Prime Time
"It's just the next chapter in a book of lies with the purpose of framing President Donald Trump and anyone willing to take on the ruling regime. They lied about Russian collusion, they lied about Joe Biden's foreign bribery scheme, and they lied about Hunter Biden's laptop hard drive proving 30 years of criminal activity. The real criminals here are the people who have brought this case forward both directly and indirectly."

Link to Quote: Live updates: Trump, 18 others charged in sweeping indictment in Georgia election probe - ABC News (go.com)



Last night the nation was treated to another bit of theatre from those who are part of the political prosecution of Donald Trump. Last night a Fulton County grand jury indicted former President Trump and 18 others on charges related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. The indictment could have been more easily have been handed down today, but that would have lacked all the drama we had last night as the Fulton Court House was kept open late and the nation was kept on the edge of its seat.

It was an incident that happened earlier in the day which captured the attention of the more attentive observers:

"On Monday afternoon, the Fulton County Court’s website posted a document listing the same charges included in the indictment released late Monday night. Reuters first reported on the document, before the Fulton County Court quickly removed it from the website."

Indictments returned in Trump-Georgia case | Live Updates from Fox News Digital

Later a Fulton County Clerk declared it to be fake and that people should look for the Fulton County Court letterhead. However when the indictment finally was released late into the night, because the grand jury supposedly rendered its verdict at around 8:00 PM the two documents appeared to be identical. How can that be? It seems every one of these prosecutions turns up another piece of questionable actions on the part of the prosecution.



The prosecution in this case is Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and she responded to questions about the odd circumstance with:

"No, I can't tell you anything about what you refer to," Willis said. "What I can tell you is that we had a grand jury here in Fulton County. They deliberated till almost 8:00, if not right after 8:00, an indictment was returned. It was true billed. And you now have an indictment." 

Indictments returned in Trump-Georgia case | Live Updates from Fox News Digital





Willis delivered her presentation at around 11:30 PM EST last night before the entire nation.

"Former President Donald Trump was indicted for the fourth time, this time in Georgia, on Monday night along with 18 others who authorities say were involved in illegal efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in the state.

In addition to Trump, who is facing 13 counts in the latest indictment, the  18 other people charged  for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia are:

Former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, lawyers John Eastman, Ray Smith III and Robert Cheeley, former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, former Trump campaign attorney Kenneth Chesebro, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, former members of Trump legal team Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell, ex-Trump staffer Michael Roman, former chairman of the Georgia Republican Party David Shafer, Georgia state. Sen. Shawn Still, Illinois police chaplain Stephen Lee, Black Voices for Trump executive director Harrison Floyd, Publicist Trevian Kutti, former Coffee County Republican Party in Georgia chairwoman Cathy Latham, 2020 Fulton County Republican poll watcher Scott Hall and former Coffee County, Georgia, election supervisor Misty Hampton."

Indictments returned in Trump-Georgia case | Live Updates from Fox News Digital


The Trump hating Willis cut her teeth using the RICO statute, so it is something she feels comfortable with. Her 98-page indictment contains 41 counts, 13 of which Trump faces, and alleges that Trump made 13 false statements in his effort to overturn the election results. For those who want to read the indictment, it can be found here:

Read the full Georgia indictment against Trump and 18 allies | PBS NewsHour




OIP.43_0yNp7MBiCsB7OUm6OQQHaGL?w=244&h=203&c=7&r=0&o=5&pid=1.7
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz


"Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, speaking to Fox News Digital, criticized the pending indictment, calling Trump’s actions  "very similar" to that of Al Gore’s legal strategy in the Bush v. Gore case that decided the 2000 presidential election. 

"We challenged the election, and we did much of the things that are being done today and people praised us. I wrote a bestselling book called ‘Supreme Injustice. Now they're making it a crime," Dershowitz said."

Dershowitz slams GA indictment, says Trump used same tactics as Al Gore in 2000: not a ‘crime' (msn.com)



Harvard Law Alan Dershowitz noted that the use of the RICO Act was one of the quickest/easiest ways to gain an indictment yet was also one of the most vulnerable to being overturned on appeal. Usually, such cases take a few years to adjudicate, thus Fat Fani Willis wanted to get the indictment out there last night. Right now, she is enjoying her minute of fame in the eyes of the radical left. However, these ideological prosecutors have done irreputable damage to our legal system. They have bastardized American law and anyone who is not a radical leftist can see it.

I can't help believing that there are independents out there who had no intention of ever voting for Donald Trump, now saying to themselves "hey, wait a minute...why are they coming after this guy this way?"




Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    9 months ago

I'm expecting another surge in the polls for Donald Trump.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    9 months ago

Watching the news here in NC this morning and they reported he's polling far better now than he did in the last 2 elections.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    9 months ago

I'm expecting a surge in squirrels, NT should be looking like Glendale, Ohio in short order.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @1.2    9 months ago

in america, as seen on TV, the easiest targets are the first to threaten a civil war...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @1.2    9 months ago

“Resist” lemmings have been surging for years now.     Although the drop of the cliff they’ve been leaping off isn’t quite as far.    The bottom is rising via all the lemming bodies that have been stacking up over the years ….

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
1.2.3  Hallux  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.2    9 months ago
lemmings have been surging for years now.

Oh I know, I just wonder why the 'right' adopted them and became a dysfunctional family of maga proportions.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @1.2.3    9 months ago

It is vexing why so many of my lemming friends on the left insist on jumping off the TDS cliff of delusion.    Perhaps like their namesake it’s just migratory behavior and Trump just happens to be a cliff in their migratory path.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
1.2.5  Hallux  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.4    9 months ago

Modern lemmings are equipped with both parachutes and bungee cords ... I am sure that is most vexing to you.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @1.2.5    9 months ago

And yet, the bottom of the cliff keeps getting closer and closer each day.

Modern lemmings need a new rigger ….

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @1.2.3    9 months ago

Hilarious how they're all willing to go over the cliff for their loser hero.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
1.2.8  Hallux  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.6    9 months ago

I suggest a consultation with Warby Parker.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
1.2.9  Hallux  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.7    9 months ago

I think it is sad.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.10  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @1.2.9    9 months ago

you'd think some people would be more appreciative of simplifying the GOP primary for them. it's now down to the short italian, the fat italian, and a handful of why did they even bother...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.11  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @1.2.8    9 months ago

Not needed [deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @1.2.3    9 months ago

Look at the monster they created and now cannot get to shut the fuck up.  I heard the former 'president' is giving a press conference about the latest indictment and charges and his lawyers and allies are asking him not to.

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    9 months ago
I'm expecting another surge in the polls for Donald Trump.

... courtesy of those that have a defective grasp of the constitution and american ideal of equal justice under the law.

the wannabe dictator is going to spend his last months of freedom traveling from one courtroom to another, burning thru the cash gathered from his legion of suckers, while attempting to stall his inevitable incarceration with bogus legal maneuvers, only to wind up in government housing without the benefit of a camera pointing at him and no access to to a cell phone. this isn't the last state or federal indictment coming down the pipeline...

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.3.1  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @1.3    9 months ago
courtesy of those that have a defective grasp of the constitution and american ideal of equal justice under the law.

Coming from someone that supports the Democrat Party that is pure hypocritical BS. Equal justice under the law means the law applies equally to everyone.

Hillary and her crew were let off the hook by Comey for mishandling classified documents over a private server; destroying government property; and destroying evidence by bleachbitting her server hard drives; and smashing government cell phones and tablets. Guess Comey was keeping in step with Bill Clinton being allowed to keep tapes containing information that was deemed classified.

Obama kept classified documents in an unsecured warehouse for 3 years- no FBI raid to reclaim them; and no charges from the DOJ. 

Brandon has classified documents in unsecure locations since he was a Senator; and continued the practice while he was VP. The only thing coming from the Special Counsel Garland appointed is they are no where near ending their investigation. I am sure they can slow walk it for another 4 or 5 years before letting it die on the vine.

Let's not forget Hunter- who had the most serious charges against him have the statute of limitations run out; and the gun charge dropped in a sweetheart plea deal by a Federal DA stooge Brandon kept on- who was just named Special Counsel by Garland as a reward for slow walking and playing ball with the DOJ. Given how slow charges were brought on Hunter- expect something around 2027 or 2028.

Either the law applies to everyone or no one.

Democrats/leftists will be screaming the loudest when it applies to no one.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.2  devangelical  replied to  Ronin2 @1.3.1    9 months ago

but, but, but what about...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.3    9 months ago

Behind bars . . . . . . . . . . a lot of people have been waiting a long time to see that sight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Penniless (I hope) and behind bars!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    9 months ago

Yep, even many, many Democrats are starting to turn MAGA.

Another day, another indictment. (Big Yawn!)

I'm getting a craving for a ham and cheese sandwich.  jrSmiley_101_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.1  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4    9 months ago

a totally delusional comment...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.4.1    9 months ago
a totally delusional comment...

Careful....The last guy who used that phrase is among the missing.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.4.3  Greg Jones  replied to  devangelical @1.4.1    9 months ago

I'm emulating you. Very little you post makes sense

I doubt that the Dems are gaining supporters from all these investigations.

They can lie, steal, and cheat in attempting to win elections. Once in power all they can do is investigate, impeach, and indict on baseless accusations. The one thing they can't do is govern wisely, and the voters are quickly becoming aware of that fact.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.4.4  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4.3    9 months ago
Once in power all they can do is investigate, impeach, and indict on baseless accusations. The one thing they can't do is govern wisely, and the voters are quickly becoming aware of that fact.

who are we talking about, again...?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.5  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.4.4    9 months ago

wow, talk about projection . . .

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.6  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4.3    9 months ago
I doubt that the Dems are gaining supporters from all these investigations.

Kind of suggests that these actions are more focused on the rule of law than on political gain.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.7  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @1.4    9 months ago

No way in hell.

That's the worst insult in the world to sane, decent, thinking, intelligent people.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.5  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    9 months ago

“I'm expecting anothe surge in the polls for Donald Trump.”

Saying just what?

That he has been denied? No. That he has a leg to stand on? No. That he could still be our next president? Unimaginable and sadly  still stupidly possible. God damn us if it comes to pass.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @1.5    9 months ago
Saying just what?

It says that an obvious political prosecution backfires.

The left was too damn obvious...again!

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.5.2  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.5.1    9 months ago

“It says that an obvious political prosecution backfires.”

When will you acknowledge that this ‘man’ has no business in determining the course we as a nation should take?  

Retribution does not a platform make. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.5.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @1.5.2    9 months ago
When will you acknowledge that this ‘man’ has no business in determining the course we as a nation should take?  

I can't. He just had far too good a first term!

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.5.4  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.5.3    9 months ago

Enjoy your delusions. History will have a much different interpretation. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.5.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @1.5.4    9 months ago

I doubt it.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
1.6  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    9 months ago

Say what you will, Trump is the greatest reality television producer of all time.  It's been running for over 7 years now on all networks.  The news outlets report on it.  Everybody is talking about it.  New loves emerge and families fragment because of it and people fight over it.  It looks like now they're releasing a new season that promises to be the best season yet.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.7  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    9 months ago
I'm expecting another surge in the polls for Donald Trump.

I'm expecting to see him put into custody for violating the conditions of his DC release on bail.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.7.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.7    9 months ago

Anything can happen in this era. The FBI just shot and killed an elderly man who could barely walk.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2  Ronin2    9 months ago

Will these rogue Democrats ever be held accountable for their illegal actions?

Later a Fulton County Clerk declared it to be fake and that people should look for the Fulton County Court letterhead. However when the indictment finally was released late into the night, because the grand jury supposedly rendered its verdict at around 8:00 PM the two documents appeared to be identical.

The fact that the document was released to the media before Trump's legal team is also illegal. Guess Willis, or one of the Fulton County Clerks, wanted to get a jump on the proceedings. Don't expect anyone to be held accountable. Democrats never are.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @2    9 months ago
The fact that the document was released to the media before Trump's legal team is also illegal.

Yes, you are right. It is a felony in every state.


Don't expect anyone to be held accountable. Democrats never are.

Correct!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    9 months ago

Just a further continuation of the rabid liberal left's campaign to get Trump at any cost.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.1    9 months ago

And they, after all the publicity, HAD to absolutely jump on the bandwagon.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.1    9 months ago

And it is a well-planned campaign, just like we see around here.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
2.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    9 months ago
And it is a well-planned campaign, just like we see around here.

And Paranoia Derangement Syndrome is born. Yikes!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @2.1.4    9 months ago

Remember: "mission accomplished!"

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
2.1.6  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    9 months ago

Just the one draped on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Is there another of 'historical' importance?

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
2.2  Hallux  replied to  Ronin2 @2    9 months ago

I expect there are scores of Fulton County Clerks and not all of them are democrats ... 'nice' try.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Hallux @2.2    9 months ago

I am expecting only a TDS driven Democrat DA would have sent the charges to the clerk in advance; and only a TDS driven moron clerk would have processed and released them in advance.

Chances are the clerk was a Democrat. Either way TDS driven is a given.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
2.2.2  Hallux  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.1    9 months ago
TDS driven is a given.

You may be correct, 74,223,369 deranged sufferers voted for him in 2020.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @2.2.2    9 months ago

never mind the charges, the search for a legal technicality to spring their fuhrer intensifies...

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2.4  Ronin2  replied to  Hallux @2.2.2    9 months ago

Google what TDS means.

Why do Democrats/Leftists always think they can redefine words?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2.5  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @2.2.3    9 months ago

Trump is entitled to the same protections under the rule of law and the Constitution as Brandon, Hillary, Bill, and Obama.

In fact we all are.

But it seems that Democrats/Leftists have no damn problem breaking the law in pursuit of what the deem justice.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
2.2.6  Hallux  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.4    9 months ago
Google what TDS means.

Something along the lines of CDS, ODS or BDS? /S

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.7  devangelical  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.5    9 months ago

trump was a democrat until he figured out that the majority of people that were ignorant enough to vote for him were republicans...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Hallux @2.2.6    9 months ago

From CNN

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
2.2.9  Hallux  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.8    9 months ago

I  can't stand CNN, do I have to read it?

OK, out of friendship I read it. Alas it offered up zilch new.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @2.2    9 months ago

It's a felony.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
2.2.11  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.10    9 months ago
It's a felony.

So I understand, but that is not a reason to blindly condemn.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @2.2.11    9 months ago

Fanni Willis charged Trump before the Grand Jury in Georgia voted. 

Get it?

vJCORFkC?format=webp&name=small

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.13  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.12    9 months ago

that motion should stall trump's conviction and incarceration by a week... /s

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @2.2.13    9 months ago

He is looking at a thousand years for questioning election results. In Ecuador they simply assassinate political opponents. 

Six Colombians Arrested in Assassination of Ecuador Presidential Candidate - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

We aren't far behind

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.15  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.14    9 months ago
a thousand years for questioning election results

uh yeah, the available evidence seems to show a bit more than that...

try again.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @2.2.15    9 months ago
the available evidence

What evidence?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.17  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.16    9 months ago

recorded phone calls, subpoenaed text messages, etc, etc...

sorry, I thought you were better informed...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @2.2.17    9 months ago
recorded phone calls, subpoenaed text messages, etc, etc... I

You said evidence. The notorious phone call is evidence?  Evidence of what?

The argument has been made that Willis simply charged everyone she could with everything she could and left it for the Court to sort out.

Is that supposed to be American justice?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.19  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  devangelical @2.2.17    9 months ago
recorded phone calls, subpoenaed text messages, etc, etc...

Well obviously one of you isn't. That phone call?? LMAO

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
2.2.20  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.18    9 months ago
The notorious phone call is evidence?  Evidence of what?

Let's toy with Hunter making a similar call ... there would not be enough tar and feathers.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @2.2.20    9 months ago

Ah, Hunter would just end up with a sweetheart deal!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.22  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.21    9 months ago

... from a trump appointee.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.23  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.2.7    9 months ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.2.22    9 months ago
.. from a trump appointee.

Whom Biden's AG just named as special counsel in the ongoing Hunter Biden investigation.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
2.2.25  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.24    9 months ago

Y'all wanted him before y'all didn't want him ... flip flop ... flip flop.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @2.2.25    9 months ago
Y'all wanted him before y'all didn't want him ... flip flop ... flip flop.

Thank you for reading my comment.

My point was that it really doesn't matter who appointed him or when, now does it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.14    9 months ago
He is looking at a thousand years for questioning election results.

You have a pattern of ignoring all the details and recasting Trump's indictments in simplistic innocuous terms.

Few people are dumb enough to think that all Trump did was question election results.   So who do you think is buying the bullshit you are peddling?

Trump engaged in specific acts and many of those acts were illegal.    If a court finds that Trump did indeed act as alleged, he faces legal consequences.

Surely you can see that engaging in a lying campaign to coerce officials to take illegal / unethical actions and organizing fake electors in an attempt to steal an election is not simply "questioning election results".

"Jeffrey Dahmer got life for cooking and eating exotic meals."

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.2.28  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.12    9 months ago
Fanni Willis charged Trump before the Grand Jury in Georgia voted.

No. The charges were written before the grand jury voted. That’s how it works. That’s how it has to work. Otherwise, there’s nothing to vote on.

The grand jury is just folks. They aren’t lawyers. They don’t sift through the evidence and figure out what to charge. The prosecutor, who is a lawyer, is the one who does that. The grand jury just deliberates, and then votes yes or no.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.29  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.28    9 months ago

Then why did the clerk call it "fictitious?"

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.30  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.27    9 months ago
Trump engaged in specific acts and many of those acts were illegal. 

Prove that statement. You do realize that under American law we don't prove innocence. A prosecutor has to prove guilt. I will gladly give you the counter side (below) to the indictment but be careful with what you declare as bullshit. Everyone can clearly see that all of this is political, just like the non-investigation of Joe Biden is political. It stinks to the point that, as I said, those who would never vote for Trump might now consider it.


Surely you can see that engaging in a lying campaign to coerce officials to take illegal / unethical actions and organizing fake electors in an attempt to steal an election is not simply "questioning election results".

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who worked with Al Gore during the 2000 recount read the indictment. This is what he said:

"When I read the indictment, I said to myself, 'Oh, my God. I did some of those things during Bush vs Gore.' I did everything possible to try to get a recount. I called people and said, 'Look, it's only 600 votes. Can't we find 600 votes that were not properly counted?'"

"This RICO indictment could have been applied to us Democrats who challenged the Bush v. Gore election in Florida," Dershowitz said. "It could have been used against Thomas Jefferson in 1800. It could have been used in the Tilden Hayes election. It could have been used against John F. Kennedy's people in Hawaii. Election challenges are a central part of America."

Some of the charges that Trump and others such as Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani are facing include allegedly making false statements to officials and false statements in relation to voting machines and "false electors." 

Trump is also receiving backlash due to a 2021 phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger where he asked him to help him "find 11,780  votes ."

Dershowitz said that that conversation was exculpatory, but not incriminating. 

"You listen to that conversation from beginning to end and you read the transcript," he said. "It's clear what he was doing. He wasn't saying to manufacture or make votes. He was saying 'there are votes out there that haven't been counted. We have to find those votes.'"

"That's what I said in Florida in 2000," Dershowitz continued. "'We can find 600 votes-the butterfly ballots, the hanging chads. Come on, let's get to work. Let's find 600 votes and turn this election over to Al Gore.' I didn't do anything wrong, and certainly he didn't do anything wrong in this conversation. There may be more that we don't know about."

Dems could have been indicted for Bush v. Gore by Georgia DA's standards: Dershowitz | Just The News



And btw, Dershowitz never voted for Donald Trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.31  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.30    9 months ago
Prove that statement.

My position is that Trump broke the law.   For me to be wrong, Trump would have to be found not guilty on these indictments.   Legal determination is the result of a court of law.   That is when the proof comes.   Right now we operate on the evidence.   There is no question in my mind that Trump engaged in many specific acts (e.g. attempted coercion of Raffensperger, attempt to suborn Pence to table certified votes) that were wrong and we have indictments that map those and other acts to laws.  

Is it your position that Trump did nothing wrong ... that he will be found not guilty of all the current charges?

See, Vic, you are whitewashing this situation.   You are trying to spin reality to make it look as though all Trump did was question the election.   That is such bullshit.   Do you actually think you can get people to believe that all Trump did was question the election?

"When I read the indictment, I said to myself, 'Oh, my God. I did some of those things during Bush vs Gore.' I did everything possible to try to get a recount. I called people and said, 'Look, it's only 600 votes. Can't we find 600 votes that were not properly counted?'"

If Trump has simply done what Dershowitz described I am confident he would not be facing indictments.   I personally would not consider this wrongdoing.   But in reality Trump went way beyond the pretty picture painted by Dershowitz.   Trump did not stop at legal actions and recounts and instead sought to coerce officials to deliver false results and take unconstitutional / unethical / illegal actions.  (That is my position, proof comes from the lawsuits.)   Gore engaged in legal and ethical acts (e.g. recounts) to challenge the election results because they were indeed razor thin and he did win the popular vote.   But when Gore's practical legal challenges were exhausted (and I have always felt he went too far even though it was his right to do so) he conceded the election and moved on.  

There is no comparing Gore's collective actions with Trump's.   And the fact that Dershowitz is trying to compare Trump with history back to Jefferson (where history has no conclusion of corrupt attempts by Jefferson in the election) illustrates the tactic.   

In other words:  

Trump did far more than simply "challenge the results of an election".

Your attempt to recast reality in such simple and inaccurate terms will not persuade anyone who looks at this objectively.


Finally, is my question for you @13 too probative?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.32  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.31    9 months ago
My position is that Trump broke the law. 

Well, I hate to sound like a democrat, but where is the "evidence?'  Maybe you are just giving an opinion, which is fine with me, except when I do that I get called "hyper partisan."


There is no question in my mind that Trump engaged in many specific acts (e.g. attempted coercion of Raffensperger, attempt to suborn Pence to table certified votes) that were wrong and we have indictments that map those and other acts to laws.  

That is why I posted the Dershowitz piece.


See, Vic, you are whitewashing this situation.   You are trying to spin reality to make it look as though all Trump did was question the election.   That is such bullshit.

Actually, I didn't argue the merits of this case, nor Bragg's case, nor Jack Smith's case. My position has always been that none of this should be connected to Biden's DOJ. From the day Trump was elected this has been going on. What you don't seem to understand is that there is a price to be paid for corruption and the blatantly partisan acts of DOJ/FBI which amounts to malfeasance, right from the beginning, discredit anything done now. Talk about bullshit! Do you think the American people don't know that all these prosecutions of a political candidate are anything but what they appear to be?  You are easily going to get a conviction in left leaning shit holes like "Fulton County" GA or NYC or DC.  None of it will matter to the general public, many of whom are wondering why this is all being done to a political candidate and former President.


If Trump has simply done what Dershowitz described I am confident he would not be facing indictments.  

I absolutely disagree. Some of the prosecutors in these cases ran on getting Trump.


Gore engaged in legal and ethical acts (e.g. recounts) to challenge the election results because they were indeed razor thin and he did win the popular vote.

That's debatable too. You know he only contested ballots in heavy democrat districts and even tried to get military mail in ballots tossed if they weren't perfectly signed & certified. (Military ballots were regarded as heavily Republican). Think of how mail in ballots were treated in the last two elections.



But when Gore's practical legal challenges were exhausted (and I have always felt he went too far even though it was his right to do so) he conceded the election and moved on.  

But then again, many democrats haven't conceded losses, Stacey Abrams being most notable.



Finally, is my question for you @13 too probative?

Ahh, no, educators must take all questions.

Do you think this indictment is without merit?

Do you think the documents and Jan 6th indictments are without merit?


The answer to the former is most likely and to the latter is totally without merit.  The indictment that hasn't come yet may be closest to the mark. Unfortunately, the actions of the government both federal and state have "nullified" any and all verdicts of juries. One of those Simpson jurors might be able to explain what that means.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.32    9 months ago
Well, I hate to sound like a democrat, but where is the "evidence?' 

What, specifically, are you asking for?   There is an abundance of evidence in public domain and then there is evidence that will only be delivered in a trial.   

From the day Trump was elected this has been going on.

Irrelevant.   What matters is what Trump actually did and how that relates to the law.

I absolutely disagree.

There is no way that someone would indict Trump for merely questioning the results and calling for a recount.   No court would allow such a frivolous lawsuit and only a moron would attempt to bring it.

But then again, many democrats haven't conceded losses, ...

Who cares?   Focus on what we are talking about.

The answer to the former is most likely and to the latter is totally without merit.  

Explain why you think the latest indictment most likely has no merit.   You realize that you are stating these are frivolous lawsuits.   That Trump did not engage in the stated actions.   That the accusers  invented actions by Trump.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.34  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.33    9 months ago
What, specifically, are you asking for? 

There you go again. The burden isn't on the accused. You want to argue that he broke the law. Some might say make your case. I say the deep state has pulled too much shit already. They haven't faced any consequences. One that the American people can deliver would be a nullification of all verdicts via the ballot box.


Explain why you think the latest indictment most likely has no merit. 

Because it conflates the questioning of an election with trying to overturn it.

The Constitution allows people/candidates to question election results :

Explaining how Congress settles electoral college disputes | Constitution Center  

In 2016 there were democrats who did anything they could to change the outcome :

House Dems who challenged 2016 election results escalate fight with Republicans behind 2020 challenges | Fox News

Do I think Trump asked GA officials to manufacture votes? Of course not. 


You realize that you are stating these are frivolous lawsuits. 

I expect any convictions coming out of Fulton County to be overturned on appeal.  You heard it here first.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.2.35  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.29    9 months ago
Then why did the clerk call it "fictitious?"

Don’t know, don’t care, and that’s irrelevant. What the clerk may or may not have called it has no bearing on what I said about it. And I’m right. Focus on that.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.2.36  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.34    9 months ago
The Constitution allows people/candidates to question election results :

The law requires that when you make complaints to the government about, well, anything, that you do so honestly - in good faith.

Think, for example, about filing a police report. We hear this kind of thing all the time. Filing a false police report is a crime. If you claim you’ve been wronged, when you know you haven’t, that’s a crime.

When there is a form involved, it typically has a place for a signature right under the words:

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of [jurisdiction] that the foregoing is true and correct.

Or words to that effect. Hopefully, you get the idea. You can’t just jerk government officials around with bullshit hoping to make things go your way.

There is substantial evidence that Donald Trump made multiple claims of election fraud that he knew were false. That’s a crime. There are other allegations, of course, like conspiring to produce false electors, but when you say he “questioned election results” these phony claims of election fraud are what we are talking about.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.37  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.34    9 months ago
The burden isn't on the accused.

No shit, Vic.   I asked you to be specific and you engage in a strawman trying to make it look as though I have suggested that the burden of proof in a lawsuit is on the accused.   Intellectual dishonesty.

Because it conflates the questioning of an election with trying to overturn it.

The indictment does not charge Trump with questioning the results of the election, it charges him with trying to steal it.    You keep doing this.   Instead of being honest about the indictment you pretend it has no merit ... you falsely misrepresent it as charging Trump with merely questioning the results of an election.

Why engage in such obvious intellectual dishonesty?   Do you think readers are so stupid that they actually will believe that Trump was indicted merely because he questioned the results of an election?    And if you think this is the case I suggest you read the indictment before typing another word.

Do I think Trump asked GA officials to manufacture votes? Of course not. 

Fascinating.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.38  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.37    9 months ago

So, you are back to name calling?

That didn't take long.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.39  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.14    9 months ago

I'm cool with that

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.40  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.27    9 months ago

Gee, as one of our members has said, 'so what'?

jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.41  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.38    9 months ago

Identifying intellectual dishonesty is not 'name-calling'.   

Your entire post was nothing but deflection.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.42  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.41    9 months ago

Yes indeed.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.43  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.38    9 months ago
So, you are back to name calling?

show us where TiG did that in his comment, vic...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.44  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.36    9 months ago

Each time the former 'president' lied (knowing what he said was a lie) to his supporters/enablers on 1/6 was a count - in each state where he lost - each lie he told to the mob - knowing it was a lie - was a count - plus the fake electors - and some say there is no evidence.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.45  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.30    9 months ago

Who gives a shit what Dershowitz has to say?  Another former 'president' ass kisser who has something to hide regarding his relationships with the former 'president' and Jeffrey Epstein

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.46  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.38    9 months ago

tig doesn't 'name call'

that is the MO of the supporters/enablers of the former 'president' and what the former 'president' is also infamous for

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.47  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.45    9 months ago
Another former 'president' ass kisser

He never voted for Trump and said he never would.

So why not listen to a Law Professor with principles?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.48  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.46    9 months ago
tig doesn't 'name call'

TiG can speak for himself.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.49  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.48    9 months ago

I did @2.2.41.  

Post honest comments and I will not call out intellectual dishonesty.   Trump did far more than merely question the results of an election.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ronin2 @2    9 months ago
Democrats never are.

And they will be crying the loudest if this indictment gets thrown out because of the way it was released.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.3    9 months ago

There’s no reason it would be thrown out on that ground.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.1    9 months ago

That remains to be seen.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.3  Tacos!  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.3.2    9 months ago

Ok then, what could possibly be the reason?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.3.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.3    9 months ago

From @2

The fact that the document was released to the media before Trump's legal team is also illegal.
 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.5  Tacos!  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.3.4    9 months ago
The fact that the document

What “document,” exactly? Something official or a draft?

was released to the media

Was it, though? Released to the media? Or was it accidentally posted to the county website and almost immediately taken down?

is also illegal

Explain how. Tie facts to elements of a statute.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.5    9 months ago

No discussion of the indictment itself, just a sideshow of deflections.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.7  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @2.3.6    9 months ago

another example of forget the crimes, find the legal technicality to get the criminal off the hook...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @2.3.7    9 months ago
another example of forget the crimes,

Which crimes?

The falsifying of a FISA application for which nobody went to jail?


find the legal technicality to get the criminal off the hook...

You mean like what was done for Daniel Ellsberg or Bill Ayers or Tony Podesta?   It only seems to work one way.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.9  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3.8    9 months ago

sorry, I thought this article was about trump...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @2.3.9    9 months ago

Maybe you should read it again.

Clue: The title gives it away.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.11  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3.10    9 months ago

here's a bucket, good luck bailing out the titanic...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.12  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.3.11    9 months ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @2.3.11    9 months ago

I believe that's what they told Boris Berezovsky

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.12    9 months ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.4  Tacos!  replied to  Ronin2 @2    9 months ago
The fact that the document was released to the media before Trump's legal team is also illegal.

It wasn’t released to the media. It appeared on the website, probably accidentally, and only for a brief time before it was caught and taken down.

Guess Willis, or one of the Fulton County Clerks, wanted to get a jump on the proceedings.

How would that work? The bill can’t issue until the grand jury votes on it, and they were in court while this was going on, not watching TV. Regardless, all the document contained is the very charges they voted on. They were hearing about the charges at the same time it was “leaked.” It didn’t change anything.

Don't expect anyone to be held accountable.

Accountable for what? A harmless clerical error? What kind of accountability would you like?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3  Jeremy Retired in NC    9 months ago

The announcement of the supposed "Special Prosecutor" into Hunter and right on schedule - here is this "indictment".  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4  Just Jim NC TttH    9 months ago

You can tell by the woman's voice in the announcement that she is just giddy as hell to get her day in the sun. It had "if you guys can't get him, we will give it OUR shot" written all over it.

For those with at least a semi open mind, enjoy this little piece................

Attack if you will but NOT the source.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4    9 months ago

Oh ya, her voice kept rising. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4    9 months ago
that the grand jury recommended bogus charges based on the Fulton County district attorney’s misrepresentation of evidence.

I really wish I could say I'm surprised.  But with the history of misinformation, misrepresentation and just flat out lies from the left, sadly I can't.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
4.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4    9 months ago

"The source" is a 6-month-old article from a low credibility, strongly-biased publication.  I can definitely understand why you'd want to declare criticism of it off-limits, but it's fair game.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.3.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.3    9 months ago
declare criticism of it off-limits, but it's fair game.

And quite accurate.............

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
4.3.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.1    9 months ago

Says the guy who believes a non-credible source and tried to pre-emptively censor criticism of it.  It's a partisan opinion piece.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.3.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.3.2    9 months ago

No one said it was prohibited to criticize. I just know how the site works when it comes to sources others don't like. And you proved it.............quite well and......in with both feet. I know all about the Federalist FFS. [deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.3    9 months ago

like Sandy said, the source is a non-credible and highly biased, so a non-credible and highly biased 'accurate' opinion????

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.3.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.4    9 months ago

Not remembering asking you for your opinion...............hmmmmmmm let me look.

Nope sure didn't. [deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.5    9 months ago

I guess you don't realize how forums like this work . . . project much?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.7  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.3.5    9 months ago

Plus it's not a matter of 'not liking' the source, it's the lack of credibility of the source.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4    9 months ago
Attack if you will but NOT the source.

Funny how a single source can trigger so many but NONE of them can dispute the article itself.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
4.4.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.4    9 months ago

From the transcript of the "perfect" phone call:

Trump:   Well, you have to. Well, under the law you’re not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You’re not allowed to do that. And that’s what you done. This is a faulty election result. And honestly, this should go very fast. You should meet tomorrow because you have a big election coming up and because of what you’ve done to the president — you know, the people of Georgia know that this was a scam. And because of what you’ve done to the president, a lot of people aren’t going out to vote and a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative because they hate what you did to the president. Okay? They hate it. And they’re going to vote. And you would be respected. Really respected, if this thing could be straightened out before the election. You have a big election coming up on Tuesday. And therefore I think that it is really important that you meet tomorrow and work out on these numbers. Because I know Brad that if you think we’re right, I think you’re going to say, and I’m not looking to blame anybody. I’m just saying you know, and, you know, under new counts, and under uh, new views, of the election results, we won the election. You know? It’s very simple. We won the election. As the governors of major states and the surrounding states said, there is no way you lost Georgia, as the Georgia politicians say, there is no way, you lost Georgia. Nobody. Everyone knows I won it by hundreds of thousands of votes. But I’ll tell you it’s going to have a big impact on Tuesday if you guys don’t get this thing straightened out fast.
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.4.2  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.4.1    9 months ago
We won the election. As the governors of major states and the surrounding states said, there is no way you lost Georgia, as the Georgia politicians say, there is no way, you lost Georgia. Nobody. Everyone knows I won it by hundreds of thousands of votes. But I’ll tell you it’s going to have a big impact on Tuesday if you guys don’t get this thing straightened out fast.

Let me emphasize the above.   If Trump's call was not intended to ask Raffensperger to get the votes he needed to be declared the winner then what, exactly, was Trump asking for?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @4.4.2    9 months ago

What I find interesting about that 'perfect phone call' is that the former 'president' states often that 'EVERYONE KNOWS' - whatever subject he happens to be lying about at the moment - 'EVERYONE SAYS or EVERYONE KNOWS' . . . I note certain members here use that same language shall we say - when declaring certain things - it's immature, childlike, I don't know what words to use to describe it

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5  Buzz of the Orient    9 months ago

Although I'm not Trump's lawyer my advice to him right now is to run like hell, and I don't mean as a candidate. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    9 months ago

See comment #2 above and let's see if anyone else notices...................

And also from the article...........

"On Monday afternoon, the Fulton County Court’s website posted a document listing the same charges included in the indictment released late Monday night. Reuters first reported on the document, before the Fulton County Court quickly removed it from the website." Later a Fulton County Clerk declared it to be fake and that people should look for the Fulton County Court letterhead. However when the indictment finally was released late into the night, because the grand jury supposedly rendered its verdict at around 8:00 PM the two documents appeared to be identical. How can that be? It seems every one of these prosecutions turns up another piece of questionable actions on the part of the prosecution.
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1    9 months ago

Whether or not they've screwed this one up, he still has a few things to worry about.  I guess what amazes me the most is that as the polls indicate, the American people support him more with every indictment.  Makes me think that The Godfather could have been elected POTUS. 

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
5.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1    9 months ago
How can that be?

Jumping to conclusions on sparse evidence? Ah but for human frailty we could blame all upon the stars. (apol. to the bard)

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Hallux @5.1.2    9 months ago

Ignoring the evidence that the charges filed on the "fake" indictment are the same as what the actual indictment was?

It was all just a happy coincidence for TDS suffering leftists everywhere.

Rule of law means shit to Democrats.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
5.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.3    9 months ago
Rule of law means shit to Democrats.

I would not know, up here we're all a bunch of Trotskyite Monarchists.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @5.1.4    9 months ago

trump will probably be in an orange jumpsuit by the end of the month for violating his DC bail conditions...

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
5.1.6  Hallux  replied to  devangelical @5.1.5    9 months ago

He has a 'knack' for hoisting himself up any available petard.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @5.1.2    9 months ago

The facts are in or are you another who won't accept them?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.8  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @5.1.6    9 months ago

meh, all of his legal representation contracts have escalation clauses written into them...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    9 months ago
The facts are in or are you another who won't accept them?

oh, the irony...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @5.1.9    9 months ago

That's right and you spent all morning trying to obfuscate.

That is ironic.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.11  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.10    9 months ago

at least a 5 year minimum sentence on the collected charges, mandatory incarceration, no federal pardons...

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
5.1.12  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    9 months ago

Surely you jest but hey, you made me laugh ... a first! Mark it down, it's probably the last.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @5.1.11    9 months ago

Sure to get a conviction in a leftist shit hole like Fulton County and juat as certain to be overturned.

But hey, if we can only get a conviction before the election, it will be as one somebody here recently said "mission accomplished."

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.14  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.13    9 months ago

you keep forgetting that the majority of these charges are based upon the testimony of republicans and trump supporters...

why is that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @5.1.14    9 months ago
why is that?

You see, the man who drafted the RICO Act was very close to the Kennedys and he was convinced that the mob assassinated John or Robert or both. ( a valid idea since the Kennedy brothers screwed the very people who once enriched Joe Kennedy) His name was Robert Blakey and he crafted that Act to toss a net over a bunch of people in hopes of getting them to testify against one another. Of course, the problem with all of that is that you sometimes encourage people to make stuff up to save their own skins. As a matter of fact, Paul Manafort was a guest on Hannity last night and he said that is exactly what the Mueller team tried to get him to do: lie about Trump.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.16  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.15    9 months ago
Paul Manafort was a guest on Hannity last night, lie about Trump

it's funny that you put those in the same sentence...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.17  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @5.1.16    9 months ago

Not really. They wanted him to compose. He served two years in prison (one in solitary confinement) for the same thing that Hunter Biden did.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.18  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.17    9 months ago

pardoned = guilty

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.19  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @5.1.18    9 months ago

Hunter hasn't even been charged. He might be the only man who pleaded guilty while an investigation was supposedly still going on.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.20  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.19    9 months ago
He might be the only man who pleaded guilty while an investigation was supposedly still going on

... disgraced gen. flynn.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
5.1.21  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @5.1.20    9 months ago

LTG M Flynn retired as a three star.

His brother, GEN C Flynn is a 4 star.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.22  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.21    9 months ago

oh sorry, the pardoned one...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.1.23  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.13    9 months ago
But hey, if we can only get a conviction before the election

Lets hope so. For the record, the investigations started long before little bitch donny announced he was running, so claiming this is all to interfere in the 2024 election is complete and utter bullshit. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.7    9 months ago

Which 'facts'?

lol

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.1.25  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.15    9 months ago
You see, the man who drafted the RICO Act was very close to the Kennedys

So that means that the RICO Act is not valid at all? Your lack of logic with this statement is truly profound. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.1    9 months ago

They (meaning Willis/Georgia) didn't screw up a damn thing Buzz.

tig provided an interview and I loved this part especially - 'she didn't charge him - she threw the book at him'

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1    9 months ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.1.28  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.26    9 months ago

Hope you're right.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.1.29  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.13    9 months ago
"mission accomplished."

That was you back on 2.1.5.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.30  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  cjcold @5.1.29    9 months ago

You mean in all my comments.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.31  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.25    9 months ago
So that means that the RICO Act is not valid at all?

That is another issue. Is it really Constitutional?  Guilt by association? Why was it so hard to figure out how to use it, Guiliani being the first?  Why was it only used against the mob in the beginning?  Why is it allowed to be used so broadly in the state of Georgia?

All those questions can be asked in another article. Here they would be misconstrued as a defense in this particular case and I am not doing that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.32  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.24    9 months ago

The ones in front of you.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.33  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.23    9 months ago

Then why weren't the charges brought way back then?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.32    9 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6  George    9 months ago

This isn't the same Prosecutor who is 7 months into another RICO case and has sat a total of 0 jurors is it?  7 months and they can't pick a jury?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  George @6    9 months ago

Another heroine for them.

Maybe she'll trap Trump by asking his opinion of the 2020 election?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    9 months ago

pffft, after 3 years, everybody knows what his stock answer is...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @6.1.1    9 months ago

And everyone know what her opinion is!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    9 months ago

good luck in your search to find another typo in a sweeping RICO criminal indictment...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7  author  Vic Eldred    9 months ago

"Fulton County leaked the indictment before it was voted on, lied about it after they were caught, and then forgot to redact the names of the grand jurors trying to imprison Trump for tweeting. But I’m sure the 2020 election they ran was spotless."

(2) Sean Davis (@seanmdav) / X (twitter.com)


F3ixGz5WkAEeEMS?format=jpg&name=medium

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
7.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    9 months ago

I think this appropriate to explain the circumstances.

The Dems continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

The Wizard Of Oz (1939) If I only had a Brain - YouTube

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @7.1    9 months ago

Yup, like our friends on the left Ray Bolger was quite a dancer.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.2  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    9 months ago
the grand jurors trying to imprison Trump for tweeting

ROFL. Way to grossly misrepresent what is happening.

But I’m sure the 2020 election they ran was spotless

Aaaand, neither grand jurors nor DAs nor criminal courts run elections. 

Geez!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @7.2    9 months ago
Way to grossly misrepresent what is happening.

Ok. You tell us what is happening.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2.1    9 months ago
Ok. You tell us what is happening.

Seriously?   You recast reality as:

Vic @7 ☞ the grand jurors trying to imprison Trump for tweeting

And then you object when Tacos! observes that you are grossly misrepresenting reality.

Who do you think is stupid enough to buy the bullshit line that Trump was indicted for merely tweeting?   Might as well claim that Trump was indicted for merely talking to people.

What is the point of making such obviously wrong claims?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2.1    9 months ago

First, show me the charge for Tweeting. Reproduce the allegation that says he violated the law by Tweeting. You said it. You can support it.

Additionally, the indictments (all of them in multiple jurisdictions) are matters of public record and available for you to read online. As with any criminal complaint, they detail specific actions the defendant took and tie those actions to specific and real criminal codes. 

Please stop with childish bullshit like claiming they want to put him in prison for Tweeting. Holy shit, that’s stupid.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
7.3  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    9 months ago
"Fulton County leaked the indictment before it was voted on

False. As has been reported time and time again now, this was a dummy document to make sure that when the real thing was posted, it would be seen. I used to make websites for people, this is what could be called a, "placeholder", or, "test document", to make sure the real documents are placed in the correct spot in the file tree. Sorry, total nothingburger. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.3.1  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @7.3    9 months ago

geez, way to flush that promising conspiracy theory down the toilet.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.3.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @7.3    9 months ago

It was not reported that way "time and time again.  It was first reported to be fictitious.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.4  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    9 months ago
then forgot to redact the names of the grand jurors trying to imprison Trump for tweeting

That's actually the law in Georgia.  It's all public record.

After a grand jury votes to charge someone with a crime, the presiding judge then reveals the indictment in open court. When an indictment becomes public, jurors’ names will appear on the document.

Georgia   code   provides a form specifying the format of indictments, including a line to list grand juror names. That’s not the case in federal indictments, which sometimes include just the name of the grand jury foreperson.

In Georgia, grand jurors who are not present for a vote are crossed out. How each grand juror voted is not listed.

Why Georgia grand jurors’ names are made public and what else to know as Trump investigation comes to a head – WABE

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Snuffy @7.4    9 months ago

The key phrase there is:

After a grand jury votes to charge someone with a crime

The jury didn't vote until hours after their names were published on the County clerk's website.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.4.2  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.4.1    9 months ago

Why do you think any of this is important?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.4.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @7.4.2    9 months ago

At the very least it will add to the perception of corruption.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.4.4  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.4.1    9 months ago

Yeah, I know.  But I was responding to the part where the jurors names were published and that is not illegal under Georgia law.  I didn't care all that much about a "test" document coming out accidently.  And I see now that a clerk has come forward admitting to the mistake.  IMO it's not that big a deal and I doubt if it will have any real impact on the trial.  But then again, I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong.  Just my opinion.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.4.5  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.4.3    9 months ago

Only if you’re willing to accept literally anything as evidence of corruption.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.4.6  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @7.4.5    9 months ago

Funny how easily some find evidence for a desirable result while ignoring an abundance of evidence for an undesirable result.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.4.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @7.4.5    9 months ago

Here is the latest:

"Fulton County clerk who leaked Trump charges says she accidentally hit ‘send’ instead of ‘save’"

X1d1ZuLa?format=webp&name=small

Fulton County clerk who leaked Trump charges says she accidentally hit 'send' instead of 'save' | The Post Millennial | thepostmillennial.com

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
7.4.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.4.7    9 months ago

That's gonna leave a mark LMAO. Does a mistake make it any less illegal? And it was STILL before they voted was it not?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.4.9  devangelical  replied to  Snuffy @7.4.4    9 months ago
I see now that a clerk has come forward admitting to the mistake

bfd, that certainly proves she's not a republican...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.4.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.4.8    9 months ago

I'm not sure. Does one have to be inept to work for Fulton County?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.4.11  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.4.10    9 months ago
Does one have to be inept

it certainly helped open the door to the white house from 2017-2021.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.4.12  Tacos!  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.4.8    9 months ago
Does a mistake make it any less illegal?

Most of the time. Yes. Intent is a core element of most crimes.

And it was STILL before they voted was it not?

There’s no reason that would have mattered. Perhaps if it had been released days before and discussed in the media, that might have some influence on the jury. But these people seem to have been in court when this happened, and they were already hearing the list of charges from the prosecutor, along with his evidence and arguments in support.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8  author  Vic Eldred    9 months ago

"GOP Rep. Ogles moves to defund salary for special counsel Jack Smith."

puL6EYsV?format=webp&name=small

GOP Rep. Ogles moves to defund salary for special counsel Jack Smith | Just The News

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
8.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @8    9 months ago
GOP Rep. Ogles

Has Ogles figured out what kind of degree he has yet? Sheesh Vic!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @8.1    9 months ago

Oh ya, Wikipedia. Do you read Wiki or write for them?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @8.1    9 months ago

newt does his thinking so he doesn't need to...

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
8.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.1    9 months ago

Oh dear, you also suffer from Wikiphobia? The article has 59 references, are you going to condemn them also?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @8.1.3    9 months ago

Factophobia . . . lol

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
8.1.5  Hallux  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.4    9 months ago

Hey, they're having a tough day.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.4    9 months ago

Such a shame

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.2  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @8    9 months ago
"GOP Rep. Ogles moves to defund salary for special counsel Jack Smith."

Don't like or want the truth? Hide it... The GoP playbook. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9  devangelical    9 months ago

I'm looking forward to watching the low speed golf cart chase at bedminster prior to his televised trial in atlanta...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @9    9 months ago

If I was you, I'd be a little concerned....


Vy2g4vGO?format=webp&name=small

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    9 months ago
If I was you, I'd be a little concerned....

I'm not. I don't see anybody convicted of insurrection charges getting on the ballot in many blue states.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @9.1.1    9 months ago
I don't see anybody convicted of insurrection charges getting on the ballot in many blue states.

That would make for an interesting wager!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.2    9 months ago

you're the one that's willing to bet on a lame plug...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @9.1.3    9 months ago

Don't talk about yourself that way. You said blue states won't put Trump on the ballot.  I CALL.  HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT TO BET?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
9.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  devangelical @9.1.1    9 months ago

But there was no insurrection, let alone a conviction.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @9.1.5    9 months ago

tick, tock, tick, tock...

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
9.1.7  George  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.4    9 months ago

It seems he doesn’t have the willingness to actually put any support to his beliefs. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  George @9.1.7    9 months ago

It does!

He's hoping nobody will notice.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.8    9 months ago

14th amendment, section 3. legal precedent already set in new mexico.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @9.1.9    9 months ago

Trump joined the Confederacy?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.11  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.10    9 months ago

he's the leader of the white supremacists, same thing...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @9.1.11    9 months ago

That's very slanderous narrative of yours.

How about one that's accurate?

Try this on:  Fani Willis is the daughter of one of the infamous Black Panthers.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @9.1.11    9 months ago

the truth isn't slander

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.12    9 months ago

Prove it!

Also, the former 'president' lied and said she slept with 'a gang leader or a gang member' (he's so specific jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif in his SLANDER AND DEFAMATION OF MS. WILLIS).

I don't think she is going to sue him though she should.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.12    9 months ago

Even if she is, even if you have proof, so what?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    9 months ago

Why would I be concerned - what are you trying to say with this photo?

I'd be concerned if he fell on me, other than that?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  George @9.1.7    9 months ago

It's not dev who doesn't have facts and truth and reality to support his 'beliefs'.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.18  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.14    9 months ago
Also, the former 'president' lied and said she slept with 'a gang leader or a gang member' (he's so specific in his SLANDER AND DEFAMATION OF MS. WILLIS).

Being the daughter of a Black Panther, the probability exists wouldn't you say?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.16    9 months ago
Why would I be concerned - what are you trying to say with this photo?

It wasn't addressed to you. Hmmmm.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.21  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.15    9 months ago
so what?

It gives us an idea of what went into the making of an individual. Don't you think?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.22  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.12    9 months ago
Fani Willis is the daughter of one of the infamous Black Panthers.

 cool, I hope she humiliates your POS seditious and racist hero on national TV for all to see.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.23  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @9.1.22    9 months ago

I'm well aware of your sentiments.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.24  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.23    9 months ago

not fully...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.18    9 months ago

The former 'president' turd lied - this was someone she was prosecuting - EVERYONE KNOWS that everytime the former 'president' opens his big fat lying mouth more lies fall out.

The answer to your question is NO FUCKING WAY, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT'S NOT TRUE

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.20    9 months ago

You seem to forget, constantly, how forums like this work, Hmmmm

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.21    9 months ago

No, thinking people don't think such things.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.19    9 months ago

From your own article - the last sentence states that 'last week the former 'president' BASELESSLY ACCUSED HER of sleeping with 'the leader of a gang' or a 'gang member' she was prosecuting'

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.29  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.25    9 months ago

Were you perhaps pointing to yourself when you posted this?

Looks like you should have been. You cannot POSSIBLY know what "everyone" knows or doesn't know, says or doesn't say.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.30  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.26    9 months ago

Just using your own form of comments where others don't belong according to you. Sucks doesn't it.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
9.1.31  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.12    9 months ago

Try this on:  Fani Willis is the daughter of one of the infamous Black Panthers.

Yea, she should have picked better parents. /eye roll/

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.18    9 months ago

To discredit the indictment you need to go to the content.   Attempts to impugn the integrity of the agents is feeble.

Which charges are without merit?   Why are they without merit in terms of facts, evidence, logic, and the law?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.33  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.32    9 months ago

What the hell are you babbling about. Perhaps you need to look at 9.1.18 again?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.34  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.33    9 months ago

So, now when you have no arguments or excuses you pretend you cannot read?

TiG's comment is written in plain English!  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.33    9 months ago

Not sure how to change my English so that you understand it.   My comment seems perfectly clear.

You were piling on trying to discredit Fani Willis.   Surely you recognize that.

My comment is that these attempts to discredit Fani Willis are wrong-headed.   Instead focus on the content of her indictment.   If there is something wrong with the indictment then that is where you go.

Thus:   Which charges are without merit?   Why are they without merit in terms of facts, evidence, logic, and the law?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.36  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @9.1.34    9 months ago

Perhaps BOTH of you should reread the comment he responded to..........here let me help. Had not a fucking thing to do with any agents of anything.

Also, the former 'president' lied and said she slept with 'a gang leader or a gang member' (he's so specific in his SLANDER AND DEFAMATION OF MS. WILLIS).
Being the daughter of a Black Panther, the probability exists wouldn't you say?

And here was his...................

To discredit the indictment you need to go to the content.   Attempts to impugn the integrity of the agents is feeble.

Which charges are without merit?   Why are they without merit in terms of facts, evidence, logic, and the law?

Now you were saying? Get off my fucking porch....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.36    9 months ago

Do you not connect comments in a thread?   A comment followed by a reply followed by a reply?

A string of comments are an exchange which produces a context.   The context, in this case, is discrediting Willis to argue that her indictment is without merit (a mere political prosecution).

See?    It all ties in with the thread and the seed.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.38  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.35    9 months ago
You were piling on trying to discredit Fani Willis.   Surely you recognize that.

And you said nothing about my comment concerning discrediting in your comment or I would have recognized it. I don't read minds my friend

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.39  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.37    9 months ago

Thanks but no thanks professor. Join jbb in the yard.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.40  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.38    9 months ago

You do not need to be a mind reader to follow the very clear, very easy-to-follow context at play.

So do you hold that this indictment has merit or is without merit?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
9.1.41  1stwarrior  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.32    9 months ago

I'm still waiting for the Dems to start indictment proceedings against Trump for tying his left shoe first instead of his right shoe in the mornings, or for putting his left leg into his pants first instead of putting the right leg in, or for not eating as much ice cream as their faulty leader, or using an ink pen versus a ballpoint pen with an eraser.

I tell ya - it's gotta happen. Those are some pretty damning crimes - purely 'cause Trump does them?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  1stwarrior @9.1.41    9 months ago

Your comment suggests that you think the indictments are without merit.   You compare the serious charges in these indictments with tying shoe laces improperly.   That type of hyperbole accomplishes nothing.

Make a case 1st.   It gets old watching people make vacuous, hyperbolic claims.

Illustrate based on the contents of the indictments, facts that are publicly known, evidence publicly known, and the ties in the indictment to US code that the indictments are, predominantly, without merit.

If you cannot do that, your eating ice cream level comments just illustrate that you are making emotional rather than factual claims.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
9.1.43  MrFrost  replied to  1stwarrior @9.1.41    9 months ago
I'm still waiting for the Dems to start indictment proceedings against Trump for tying his left shoe first instead of his right shoe in the mornings

Funny, the repubs went after Hillary for 25 years for far less. Never even came up so much as a parking ticket. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.1.44  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  MrFrost @9.1.43    9 months ago
Never even came up so much as a parking ticket. 

When did she have to drive?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
9.1.45  sandy-2021492  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.18    9 months ago

How very misogynistic that comment was.  You can't attack her actual competency at her job, so you go after what you would like to imagine is her sexual history.  Pathetic, and misogynistic.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.46  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.1.45    9 months ago

I didn't "go after" a fucking thing. I said it was a possibility FFS since her dad was a black panther. Anything to argue eh?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
9.1.47  sandy-2021492  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.46    9 months ago

Oh, sure you did.  You piled on to a misogynistic line of speculation.  If you don't like being called out for it, don't do it.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.48  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.1.47    9 months ago

How was Vic's comment misogynistic?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
9.1.49  sandy-2021492  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.48    9 months ago

You tagged along on Trump's misogynistic rumormongering. Attacking a woman based on who you think she might have had sex with is misogynistic

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.50  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.18    9 months ago
Being the daughter of a Black Panther, the probability exists wouldn't you say?

I guess we can assume then that Ivanka Trump paid to have sex with porn stars.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
9.1.51  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.50    9 months ago

You can assume whatever you like. Misogynistic or not..

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10  author  Vic Eldred    9 months ago

The judge shall be:

?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmediadc-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F59%2Fe4%2Ffbf72b854fd2b4a172b4114cc9d5%2Fjudge-mcafee-full-length-with-robes.jpg
Judge Scott McAfee

Superior Court of Fulton County

"McAfee was appointed to the court by Gov.   Brian Kemp   (R-GA) this year after serving as inspector general in the Georgia Office of the State Inspector General,   according to   the county court's website. He has experience as a prosecutor and in the county where the case resides, having served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia and a senior assistant district attorney in Fulton County in the Atlanta Judicial Circuit.

The Georgia judge will play a prominent role in the racketeering case, notably by picking the date when it will begin. Fulton County District Attorney   Fani Willis   said in a Monday night press conference she is seeking a trial "within the next six months," but it will ultimately be McAfee's decision. Trump has already   slammed a proposal   by special counsel Jack Smith in a separate case against him for that trial to begin early next year, stating it would interfere with the 2024 Republican presidential primary."

Donald Trump indicted: Who is Scott McAfee, the judge presiding over ex-president's Fulton County case? | Washington Examiner

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
10.1  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @10    9 months ago
Trump has already   slammed a proposal   by special counsel Jack Smith in a separate case against him for that trial to begin early next year, stating it would interfere with the 2024 Republican presidential primary."

Trump always had the option of not being a criminal, then these dates and times wouldn't be an issue. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @10.1    9 months ago
Trump always had the option of not being a criminal

He is a convicted criminal?

Where?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
10.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.1    9 months ago
He is a convicted criminal?

Do you really think the feds would indict that asshole 3 times with ZERO proof? Um, no. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.2    9 months ago

They investigated him twice without a pretext. They spied on his campaign and lied about it. They lied to the FISA Court in order to get a FISA Warrant.

At this point they are like the "little bot who cried wolf:" They could be right but nobody believes them anymore.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10.1.4  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.3    9 months ago

The witnesses against Trump are Trump insiders who worked with or for Trump...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @10.1.4    9 months ago

Does any of it matter at this point?

Although Willis may not have been a party to all the politically motivated attempts to first remove Trump from his elected office and later to prevent him from running for a second term, those inappropriate and unprofessional acts of malfeasance have taken their toll.


 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.5    9 months ago

with enough evidence put before 6 different grand juries to compel 4 separate indictments and 91 charges between them, how many of those charges do you think trump may be guilty of?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @10.1.6    9 months ago

You're singing to the choir. You could get a thousand indictments out of DC alone.

You've lost the public's trust.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.8  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.7    9 months ago

again, how many of those charges do you think trump may be guilty?

the rat is cornered and the broomsticks are coming soon ...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @10.1.8    9 months ago

Careful what you wish for..

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.10  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.9    9 months ago

the demise of all trump articles? again, answer the question...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.7    9 months ago
You could get a thousand indictments out of DC alone.

Do you think the US should hold Trump accountable for trying to steal a US presidential election through coercion, filing false documents, etc.?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.11    9 months ago

I already gave you an answer. The past actions of the DOJ and FBI should nullify the merits of the case.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.12    9 months ago

Throw out all the indictments because they are all bogus?   All the charges are made up and do not reflect reality?   Trump did nothing wrong?

Is that your position, Vic?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.14  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.13    9 months ago

Why did Bill Ayers walk?

In this case it isn't just that the FBI did something wrong, it is also that you have Biden's AG handling cases involving Biden.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.14    9 months ago
Why did Bill Ayers walk?

Good grief, Vic, going back to Ayers?    I am not entertaining deflection.   We are talking about Trump.

In this case it isn't just that the FBI did something wrong, it is also that you have Biden's AG handling cases involving Biden.

Note that I am not arguing that our government is pure and clean.   I am telling you that your view of corruption in the FBI and DOJ is irrational in its extreme.

You are categorically dismissing Trump's wrongdoing (it appears) based on an irrational, extreme position that the FBI and DOJ are thoroughly corrupt.

1520100343188?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=8-45wFFcKogDeymMZkw19xEgqoBJw43EdLrj0R_YgvE

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.16  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.15    9 months ago
going back to Ayers?

That is my argument. When the government does something wrong it nullifies their case and in the past 6 years the government has done A LOT wrong and have acted with malice.


I am telling you that your view of corruption in the FBI and DOJ is irrational in its extreme

I realize that. You think they are just a little rough around the edges. Do you really think it is ok for Garland to be handling cases involving both Biden's political opponents and his son?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.2    9 months ago

4 TIMES AND COUNTING

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.16    9 months ago
When the government does something wrong it nullifies their case ...

Okay, Vic, you have it in your head that once the government does something wrong they always are wrong.

No reasoning with someone who thinks like that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @10.1.8    9 months ago

That big fat cornered filthy festering rat covered in filthy pestilent fleas and ticks who are deserting the sinking ship.

I mean who do they think all these testimonies are coming from?

JFC!

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
10.1.20  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.16    9 months ago
Do you really think it is ok for Garland to be handling cases...

You seem not to understand how government works. No AG actually handles cases. The investigation and litigation of cases go to others. It's up the the Oversite Committee to find any fault and they haven't done so yet. Neither has the new weaponized Committee looking into how democrats supposedly weaponized government. Though to be truthful, I'm not sure Jim Jordan could find his asshole with a map app and a flashlight if it didn't donate to his election campaigned first.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.21  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.13    9 months ago

he can't/won't answer a direct question about trump...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @10.1.21    9 months ago

I fully expect to see that same behavior from all GOP partisans given they are likely realizing that they will be voting for Trump.   They are stuck with defending an indefensible choice and the result will be irrational arguments and boatloads of intellectual dishonesty.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @10.1.21    9 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.24  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.1    9 months ago

For the hundredth time,  someone is a criminal because of what they do, not because of whether or not they were caught and convicted.  Someone who burglarizes your house but never gets caught is still a criminal. 

Trump being criminal is not solely based on if he has been convicted. 

criminal


noun

1
:   one who has committed a   crime
2
:   a person who has been convicted of a crime
 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
10.1.25  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.3    9 months ago
They spied on his campaign and lied about it.

Jack Smith has 87 witnesses, not one of them are Democrats. Might as well accept the fact that the GoP is responsible sinking the trump ship. 

Oh sure, you can point fingers all ya want, but at the end of the day, trump did this to himself because his ego told him he is above the law and he cannot be touched... He's fucked.... He knows it, the GoP knows it and you know it. Being obtuse just shows your desperation. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
10.1.26  1stwarrior  replied to  MrFrost @10.1.2    9 months ago

The "Feds" didn't - the Dems/Libs did with joyful glee and a lot of malice and tons of false claims.

Just ask Schlitz and his "I've got all the evidence against him" (which never showed up) or Nodder/Nodler with the same idiotic statement over and over and over and over - and none ever showed up.

However, the hate, malice, jealousy, intimidation, tons of innuendo and pure lies got the indictments the Dems/Libs are so livid for.

It's gonna crumble - as are the Dems/Libs.  It's gonna crumble.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.27  devangelical  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.26    9 months ago
tons of false claims

list them.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
10.1.28  MrFrost  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.26    9 months ago
Just ask Schlitz and his "I've got all the evidence against him" (which never showed up) or Nodder/Nodler with the same idiotic statement over and over and over and over - and none ever showed up.

Signed, 

The My Pillow guy...

Who had proof of all kinds of election interference, voter fraud, (in the HUNDREDS MILLIONS), fake electors, etc.. Never showed up with even a shred of evidence. 

However, the hate, malice, jealousy, intimidation, tons of innuendo and pure lies got the indictments the Dems/Libs are so livid for.

The repubs/cons are convinced that Jan. 6th never happened, the phone call was really "perfect" and there was no fake elector scheme and trump never ever suggested that voting machines be seized so they could be, "independently verified".. <wink wink, nudge nudge>...

You go ahead and sit in that echo chamber while the rest of us watch trump implode under the weight of the law. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
10.1.29  MrFrost  replied to  devangelical @10.1.27    9 months ago

list them.

Boy are in for a long wait. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
10.1.30  1stwarrior  replied to  devangelical @10.1.27    9 months ago

Not my job - that belongs to the Dem prosecution squad.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11  author  Vic Eldred    9 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
11.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    9 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
11.1.1  George  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.1    9 months ago

I see no evidence of that.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1.2  devangelical  replied to  George @11.1.1    9 months ago

evidence of what?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
12  Tacos!    9 months ago
On Monday afternoon, the Fulton County Court’s website posted a document listing the same charges included in the indictment released late Monday night.

Well, sure. Of course. Grand jurors are not the authors of the indictment. The prosecutor is. So, of course, the document existed before the grand jury voted on it. The prosecutor writes out the charges, and the grand jury votes on it. 

Unless this somehow corrupted the grand jury process - and I’ve heard of no evidence that it did - this is really a non-issue. Honestly, I don’t even know how this could corrupt the process. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13  TᵢG    9 months ago
Last night the nation was treated to another bit of theatre from those who are part of the political prosecution of Donald Trump. 

Do you think this indictment is without merit?

Do you think the documents and Jan 6th indictments are without merit?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1  TᵢG  replied to  TᵢG @13    9 months ago

( Addendum given no reply )

Very straightforward question that goes to the heart of this article yet no thoughtful reply.

One can argue that this and other indictments are strictly politically motivated.   But to do that one must establish that the indictments are without merit.  

Can you show that the charges in these indictments have no basis in evidence?   That they are frivolous?

If so, let's hear your sound argument.

If not, your claim of political prosecution is bullshit.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
14  MrFrost    9 months ago
"It's just the next chapter in a book of lies with the purpose of framing President Donald Trump and anyone willing to take on the ruling regime.

So the phone call, where trump asked for 11,780 votes to, "be found", never happened? Interesting LOL 

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
14.1  Hallux  replied to  MrFrost @14    9 months ago

Off course it never happened, it was perfect.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
15  MrFrost    9 months ago
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz

And Jeffery Epstein lawyer and confidant. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
16  JBB    9 months ago

original

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
16.1  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @16    9 months ago

Ah yes, the architect of all of this.    The resist movement.

Only thing she wins is the “biggest piece of shit” contest …. And it isn’t even close.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
16.1.1  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @16.1    9 months ago

Nope...

original

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
16.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @16.1.1    9 months ago

See 16.1, apply liberally, lather, rinse and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and …..

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
16.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sparty On @16.1.2    9 months ago

I like that "never pleaded the fifth" part. Got around that with "I don't recall". Same damned thing.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17  Sparty On    9 months ago

The premise of this article is spot on.

A political prosecution in prime time.    If Trumps actions were so heinous why did it take this long?    The timing of this is suspect at best.    Now the Arizona governor is testing the TDS waters.   Wouldn’t surprise me if Michigan follows.

It’s political “resist” politics plain and simple.    History will see it that way regardless of this trials outcome.   The left has opened this Pandora’s box in a time when it’s the last thing we need.    Any hope for compromise is gone.   Next up Bidens impeachment …. and Republicans have the excuse to just keep digging into Pandora’s box.

Yippie ky yay Hillary resist acolytes ….. get some ……

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
17.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @17    9 months ago
If Trumps actions were so heinous why did it take this long?

Investigations take time, and they stared long before Trump said he was running. 

The timing of this is suspect at best.

No more suspect than Comey announcing a new investigation involving Clinton literally days before the election... But I am sure you were totally fine with that...

Yippie ky yay Hillary resist acolytes ….. get some ……

CDS. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @17.1    9 months ago

Comey did not announce any new investigation, it was a continuation of the old one.

And besides, Comey cleared Hillary.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
17.1.2  bccrane  replied to  MrFrost @17.1    9 months ago

What Comey did wasn't "done to" candidate Hillary it was "done for" president Hillary.  Comey knew the material on that laptop existed since the end of August or early September that year, he waited on it to keep it from doing too much damage to Hillary's campaign and then exonerated her again before the election to keep president Hillary from facing possible impeachment hearings from a then hostile congress.  Comey was in the bag for Hillary and using his position in the FBI he did what he could do to protect her AND everything he could do to harm Trump.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @17.1    9 months ago
Investigations take time, and they stared long before Trump said he was running. 

Frosty, if that’s all you think is at play here.    You aren’t as smart as I’ve given you credit for.

No more suspect than Comey announcing a new investigation involving Clinton literally days before the election... But I am sure you were totally fine with that...

You would be wrong.   Comey was a complete failure leading the FBI.    On more than one level.

CDS.

Wow …. very original. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
17.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sparty On @17    9 months ago

You would be totally fine if Biden behaved exactly as Trump did, and would be just as outraged if Biden were being accused?

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
17.2.1  GregTx  replied to  Thrawn 31 @17.2    9 months ago

512

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
17.2.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  GregTx @17.2.1    9 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
17.2.3  GregTx  replied to  Thrawn 31 @17.2.2    9 months ago

Are you?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
17.2.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  GregTx @17.2.3    9 months ago

Just as we all knew, just a bit too much brain power required.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
17.2.5  GregTx  replied to  Thrawn 31 @17.2.4    9 months ago
Just as we all knew, just a bit too much brain power required

Sure but don't go beating yourself up over it....

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  Thrawn 31 @17.2    9 months ago

Biden was a lying politician long before Trump.    For decades.   A serial liar by definition.

And you know precisely jackshit about what I would or wouldn’t do so stop acting the fool and thinking you do.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
17.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.6    9 months ago

No comparison.   Biden is a liar on the scale of most politicians.   Trump is an order of magnitude worse.

And you know precisely jackshit about what I would or wouldn’t do...

True, one cannot know for certain.   But we can all engage in a thought experiment:

If Trump was a D and Biden an R, would Sparty, et. al. support Biden and be critical of Trump — for example, view the indictments to be based on good evidence, solid reasoning and have merit?

Hmmmm.    Interesting.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
18  Thrawn 31    9 months ago

So I am wondering if conservatives think Donald trump actually broke the law or if everything he did was perfectly fine. And would they be totally cool with Joe Biden doing the exact same shit?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
18.1  TᵢG  replied to  Thrawn 31 @18    9 months ago
So I am wondering if conservatives think Donald trump actually broke the law or if everything he did was perfectly fine. 
  • Some live in their own reality and firmly believe that Trump did nothing wrong and they will not let facts change their minds.   Confirmation Bias.
  • Others cannot admit Trump did wrong because they feel the need to defend the GOP.   Dysfunctional partisanship.
  • Others know Trump did wrong but cannot admit it because they are going to vote for him (as the most likely GOP nominee) because they cannot vote for a D.   Blind partisanship.
And would they be totally cool with Joe Biden doing the exact same shit?

We all know that their views on Trump would be 180° opposite if Trump was a D.   Look at how they rail on Biden for even the most petty of items.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
18.2  devangelical  replied to  Thrawn 31 @18    9 months ago

there's a commercial in the middle that runs from 3:07 to 5:21 if you want to >>> thru it.

 
 

Who is online

devangelical
Snuffy


33 visitors