Trump charged with four counts over 2020 election

[bignok]

2 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

However, once it has been proven that the election wasn't rigged, saying it was rigged is no longer an opinion, its then a lie.

How is an election 100% proven right? That is a lie in itself.

 

 

 

 

[bamnutsak]

5 minutes ago, bignok said:

Judge is a black woman appointed by Obama.

 

No bias here.

 

I think you meant "No bias there." Ironically pressumably.

 

Seems to be quite a bit of bias "here", though.

 

 

 

 

[tilaceer]

6 minutes ago, bignok said:

Judge is a black woman appointed by Obama.

 

No bias here.

Judge Cannon: White woman appointed by Trump. You gonna b!tch about that as well ?

[bignok]

1 minute ago, tilaceer said:

Judge Cannon: White woman appointed by Trump. You gonna b!tch about that as well ?

What?

[bignok]

Trump's case has been assigned to US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was appointed by former president Barack Obama in 2014.

The judge has already ruled against Trump in the past when he tried to use executive privilege to block access to records from his time in the White House connected to the 6 January riot.

“Presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president,” Chutkan said in that ruling

[Woof999]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

If he is found guilty, put him in prison. I have no problem with that.  Just do it in time for the GOP to have a fair chance at selecting another nominee for the 2024 election.

Does the majority of GOP believe he's innocent? If not, select another nominee now.

[Rimmer]

Some off topic posts attempting to deflect the topic have been removed, here is the topic title again:

 

Trump charged with four counts over 2020 election

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, Woof999 said:

Does the majority of GOP believe he's innocent? If not, select another nominee now.

I'm not sure.  I would prefer another nominee anyway, the sooner the better.  Almost any other one would be fine.

[Bkk Brian]

18 minutes ago, bignok said:

Judge is a black woman appointed by Obama.

 

No bias here.

She's American, the color of her skin has nothing to do with this, interesting why you bring this up. Sounds like you have a bias.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Bkk Brian

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

why are they unindicted?

Most likely to speed up the trial so it gets finished before the election.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, bignok said:

I don't anything real here. All fake trumped up charges. He didn't cause the riots. All he did was question the election results.

 

 

He's not being charged with causing the riots.

[Woof999]

15 minutes ago, bignok said:

Trump's case has been assigned to US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was appointed by former president Barack Obama in 2014.

The judge has already ruled against Trump in the past when he tried to use executive privilege to block access to records from his time in the White House connected to the 6 January riot.

“Presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president,” Chutkan said in that ruling

Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as dictated by the Constitution. The last President not affiliated with either Dems or GOP was in office more than 150 years ago.

 

Maybe Judge Judy is available?

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, bignok said:

Trump's case has been assigned to US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was appointed by former president Barack Obama in 2014.

The judge has already ruled against Trump in the past when he tried to use executive privilege to block access to records from his time in the White House connected to the 6 January riot.

“Presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president,” Chutkan said in that ruling

Is there any judgewho, when presented with the opportunity hasn't  ruled against Trump except maybe Aileen Cannon?

[placeholder]

38 minutes ago, bignok said:

Just facts. Millions of people tell lies. Why arent they in jail? 99.9% of people lie.

Maybe because 99.9% of lies aren't crimes?

[Woof999]

16 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I'm not sure.  I would prefer another nominee anyway, the sooner the better.  Almost any other one would be fine.

In full agreement here. I'd say the same for Biden too. That a senile old man and a clear fraudster are the current front-runners for next President of the "land of the free" is simply stunning.

 

Guilty or not on this latest indictment, one thing the replies here does prove is that Trump is a first class mind controller.

[theshu25]

Hope the conman gets 20years jail.

[bignok]

7 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as dictated by the Constitution. The last President not affiliated with either Dems or GOP was in office more than 150 years ago.

 

Maybe Judge Judy is available?

She might be good.

[bignok]

Just now, theshu25 said:

Hope the conman gets 20years jail.

What for? He didnt do anything.

[Woof999]

Just now, bignok said:

What for? He didnt do anything.

Are you seriously still of the belief that he didn't try to overturn an election, even after being told by the majority of his staff that the results were real and that he'd lost? Even after the revelations and fallout from Fox News. Even after numerous attempts in court and promises that loads of damning evidence was about to be presented, but never was. Even using your own common sense?

[Ralf001]

1 hour ago, stoner said:

nope.

<deleted>.

[earlinclaifornia]

1 minute ago, Woof999 said:

Are you seriously still of the belief that he didn't try to overturn an election, even after being told by the majority of his staff that the results were real and that he'd lost? Even after the revelations and fallout from Fox News. Even after numerous attempts in court and promises that loads of damning evidence was about to be presented, but never was. Even using your own common sense?

Even using your own common sense?

Do you read his postings? LOL

[Woof999]

Just now, earlinclaifornia said:

Even using your own common sense?

Do you read his postings? LOL

To be 100% transparent, I was smiling to myself when I wrote that bit.

[bignok]

6 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Are you seriously still of the belief that he didn't try to overturn an election, even after being told by the majority of his staff that the results were real and that he'd lost? Even after the revelations and fallout from Fox News. Even after numerous attempts in court and promises that loads of damning evidence was about to be presented, but never was. Even using your own common sense?

Just expressed his opinion. The election wasnt overturned.

 

Free speech is no longer in the USA.

[bignok]

1 hour ago, Peterw42 said:

There is a big difference between questioning the results, and lying about the results. He isn't being charged with causing the riots, he is being charged with trying to overturn an election.

The same as you are free to question these charges, but you are not free to say its fake, when its not fake.

One is free speech, the other is lying.

What is lying? If you believe something to be true it isnt a lie. Lack of evidence of vote rigging doesnt prove 100% fair. Thats all it is. A lack of evidence. Then thugs rioted. 

 

 

[FritsSikkink]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

If he is found guilty, put him in prison. I have no problem with that.  Just do it in time for the GOP to have a fair chance at selecting another nominee for the 2024 election.

The GOP has seen this coming for a long time. Should never kept backing a criminal.

[Woof999]

5 minutes ago, bignok said:

Just expressed his opinion. The election wasnt overturned.

 

Free speech is no longer in the USA.

You might want to remind yourself of what free speech actually is and what restrictions exist.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment/Permissible-restrictions-on-expression

 

Trump failed on incitement, defamation, fraud, plus potentially fighting words and threats. In fact the only one of the main exception categories that I've not witnessed him doing is child pornography.

[Thailand]

9 minutes ago, bignok said:

Just expressed his opinion. The election wasnt overturned.

 

Free speech is no longer in the USA.

I believe it is.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

What is lying? If you believe something to be true it isnt a lie. Lack of evidence of vote rigging doesnt prove 100% fair. Thats all it is. A lack of evidence. Then thugs rioted. 

 

 

First off, there's plenty of evidence that his advisors told them the election wasn't rigged. In addition, the Trump campaign hired two teams of investigators to look for voter fraud. They found nothing. A defendant is not allowed unlimited benefit of the doubt if the facts clearly show any rational person shouldn't have continued to believe something that was patently false. I guess Trump could try to plead insanity but, in a legal sense, it's dubious he would qualify.

[Thailand]

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The operative word in this sentence is fact. There were no facts only wilde allegations .  The attorney can say whatever he wants to affect public opinion, but Jack Smith and the people he has working with him are dummies. 

I think that Trump will soon find that to be otherwise. Did you read the indictment?

[sirineou]

Just now, Thailand said:

I think that Trump will soon find that to be otherwise. Did you read the indictment?

What? to be otherwise.