Trump charged with four counts over 2020 election

[bignok]

All politics

 

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6332267383112

[watthong]

The more we feed (re-act to) the troll, the more he/she will hoard up place from sensible/sensical discussion, and other folks would turn away because they are not interested in the non-sense. In real life meeting/forum, a troll would be called the "agitator." See what is happening in the lower house of US Congress overrun by trolls. In short said troll will succeed in hi-jack (kill) the thread. You can keep feed the thread (keep it alive) by not feeding the troll. Just ignore them like dog turd on your daily walk. 

[OneMoreFarang]

4 hours ago, Tug said:

It’s about time!hopefulley it’s televised so everyone sees the seriousness of his deeds

There was a time when people watched news on TV. And news was just that, news, same news in the news.

 

But now people don't watch the news on TV anymore. News as it is is not reported anymore. Everybody publishes their version of their personal news/truth. 

[watthong]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

But now people don't watch the news on TV anymore. News as it is is not reported anymore. Everybody publishes their version of their personal news/truth. 

Being in Thailand I have to follow news on Youtube. I don't have "personal news/truth." Thank God I still have a mind that is in reasonably state of functioning and can discern right from wrong. 

[ozimoron]

13 minutes ago, bignok said:

All politics

 

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6332267383112

Did those people die of politics? Trump never incited or organized the riot at the Capitol? Watch his poll ratings fall off a cliff now. Georgia is next. That will likely include racketeering charges.

[Danderman123]

I would like to see Trump convicted in one of his cases, but not jailed until after the GOP convention. Conviction will cost Trump some independent votes, but I don't want him to be jailed while the GOP could remove him as Nominee. My preference would be a convicted candidate in the General Election.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

There was a time when people watched news on TV. And news was just that, news, same news in the news.

 

But now people don't watch the news on TV anymore. News as it is is not reported anymore. Everybody publishes their version of their personal news/truth. 

I don't watch TV or read any social networks. I get my news from the online press.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

I would like to see Trump convicted in one of his cases, but not jailed until after the GOP convention. Conviction will cost Trump some independent votes, but I don't want him to be jailed while the GOP could remove him as Nominee. My preference would be a convicted candidate in the General Election.

He won't get the nomination. The RNC will disqualify him now in my opinion. They do have the legal ability.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

"The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

 

Clearly, the first year law student was sleeping in class.

The "first year law student" reference is known as argument ad verecundiam, an appeal to prestige. It's one of the dishonest forms of argument listed by R H Thouless in his book, " Straight and Crooked Thinking".

OTOH, Trump uses argument ad hominem ( attack on the person ) as his favorite form of debate. What surprises me is how many people are still persuaded by it.

[OneMoreFarang]

13 minutes ago, watthong said:

Being in Thailand I have to follow news on Youtube. I don't have "personal news/truth." Thank God I still have a mind that is in reasonably state of functioning and can discern right from wrong. 

Can you?

 

YouTube alone is probably not sufficient.

I look at different news sources, i.e. BBC, Al Jazeera, and others.

But I think it is still difficult to know the truth.

 

Just one example: We see videos and read articles about 6th January 2021. But what do we really see?

The events happened for many hours. Is what we see in "the news" what happed all the time or most of the time? Or do we see just a small part of it and the rest was different?

We don't really know.

 

This is a great demonstration of "news" and which part is reported:

 

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

Can you?

 

YouTube alone is probably not sufficient.

I look at different news sources, i.e. BBC, Al Jazeera, and others.

But I think it is still difficult to know the truth.

 

Just one example: We see videos and read articles about 6th January 2021. But what do we really see?

The events happened for many hours. Is what we see in "the news" what happed all the time or most of the time? Or do we see just a small part of it and the rest was different?

We don't really know.

 

This is a great demonstration of "news" and which part is reported:

You tube is easily sufficient. Al Jazeera have a live stream on it for a start.

[xylophone]

3 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

3 hours ago, bignok said:

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

You have nothing better to do than troll?

Now you can see what level the trumpies operate on.........unbelievable.

[Danderman123]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Can you?

 

YouTube alone is probably not sufficient.

I look at different news sources, i.e. BBC, Al Jazeera, and others.

But I think it is still difficult to know the truth.

 

Just one example: We see videos and read articles about 6th January 2021. But what do we really see?

The events happened for many hours. Is what we see in "the news" what happed all the time or most of the time? Or do we see just a small part of it and the rest was different?

We don't really know.

 

This is a great demonstration of "news" and which part is reported:

 

 

 

 

The New York Times produced a video showing the January 6 events in a minute by minute timeline.

 

Also the Justice Department has offered detailed timelines into evidence. No defendent has successfully contested these facts over 100s of trials.

 

"we don't really know" = "you aren't paying attention to known facts".

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, bignok said:

Bunch of he said fluff. Sad sad US these days.

Pointless wasting time trying to converse with trumpies like this because, quite simply:-

 

Rational arguments don't usually work on trump/MAGA supporters.

If they did there would be no trump/MAGA supporters.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, xylophone said:

Pointless wasting time trying to converse with trumpies like this because, quite simply:-

 

Rational arguments don't usually work on trump/MAGA supporters.

If they did there would be no trump/MAGA supporters.

Precisely, he was probably one of those interviewed in this piece.....lol

 

'It's a hoax': New charges cannot shake Trump supporters' loyalty

"Well it's a hoax," he says, when I ask about allegations that Trump subverted the will of the American people in attempting to overturn the result of the 2020 election.

Deflecting attention to the legal travails of the president's second son is a common refrain of the Trump faithful and you hear it a lot around here.

https://news.sky.com/story/its-a-hoax-new-charges-cannot-shake-trump-supporters-loyalty-12932141

[Walker88]

4 hours 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.

 

 

One really has to wonder what you would consider a crime.

 

The scumball traitor tried to overthrow 250 years of American democracy.

 

Ideally he is charged with Sedition, a capital offense.

 

Sit him down on Sparky, throw the switch, and watch the traitor sizzle like Sunday morning bacon.

[Walker88]

40 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Can you?

 

YouTube alone is probably not sufficient.

I look at different news sources, i.e. BBC, Al Jazeera, and others.

But I think it is still difficult to know the truth.

 

Just one example: We see videos and read articles about 6th January 2021. But what do we really see?

The events happened for many hours. Is what we see in "the news" what happed all the time or most of the time? Or do we see just a small part of it and the rest was different?

We don't really know.

 

This is a great demonstration of "news" and which part is reported:

 

 

 

 

Hundreds of wide angle videos of the terrorists on that day leave no doubt among rational people what happened and what their intent was. The chants of "Hang Mike Pence", which could be heard on newscasts real time, and which trump watched (and did nothing for 180 minutes) are another 'hint'.

 

Those terrorists did not decide to 'visit the Capitol to buy souvenirs'.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

There was a time when people watched news on TV. And news was just that, news, same news in the news.

 

But now people don't watch the news on TV anymore. News as it is is not reported anymore. Everybody publishes their version of their personal news/truth. 

It was always that way a bit - maybe you agreed with the status quo of how news had been reported in the past.

 

But don't say Fox or other silly right wing sites are the same as others that may have an opinion but fact check and have editorial standards.

 

My take is that Trump was so dumb that he managed to hit the sweet spot of not being smart enough to actually have a chance of overturning the government but being dumb enough to do enough to face serious charges that have a realistic chance of a guilty verdict.  

Edited August 2, 2023 by Fat is a type of crazy

[ThailandRyan]

1 hour ago, bignok said:

I don't think he did anything of the sort. He whinged for a few months about a rigged election. Whinging isnt illegal otherwise the English cricket team would be locked up.

 

The election wasnt over turned by him.

 

He simply asked questions.

 

Asking questions and whinging isnt illegal.

 

 

He simply asked questions? Really.  Dude your hiding in the weeds if you believe what you just wrote.  He planned and plotted to overthrow the election by placing fake electors in position to overturn the true electoral college vote.  He then asked Pence to rescind the EC vote, which thankfully he did not.  He then encouraged the crowd gathering with his rhetoric and here we are Indicted and soon to be prosecuted and all of those who tried to assist him in his endeavor will be eventually prosecuted as well.  

Edited August 2, 2023 by ThailandRyan

[watthong]

37 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The New York Times produced a video showing the January 6 events in a minute by minute timeline.

 

Also the Justice Department has offered detailed timelines into evidence. No defendent has successfully contested these facts over 100s of trials.

 

"we don't really know" = "you aren't paying attention to known facts".

Exactly, all that available on youtube.  At one time I subscribed to the NY Times, it didn't take long for me to realize it's still one voice. And I need to listen to many.  As I said before, discerning is a personal action, whether it's guided by right or wrong is another matter. 

[animalmagic]

3 hours ago, bignok said:

Name 1 US president who never told lies.

George Washington - I cannot tell a lie, it was me that chopped down the cherry tree?

[Kwaibill]

5 hours 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.

 

 

“None so blind as those who will not see.”

[Walker88]

When I see how people turn themselves into a Mobius Strip trying to justify trump's many crimes, it becomes clear such people are losers trying to live vicariously though what they mistakenly define as an alpha male. It is no wonder trump's base is made up of poorly educated, low wage, unsuccessful, way left-of-the-mean on the IQ Bell Curve types. It's also little wonder trump owns the Incel vote, the Neo Nazi vote, the white supremacist vote and other miscreants and losers.

[Bangkok Barry]

5 hours 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.

 

 

You forgot that he urged his supporters to "fight like hell". He lit the flames to begin the riots. Not that I expect the blind like you to remember an inconvenient truth.

[watthong]

I hope sensible folks will keep this in mind that arguing with a troll is like arguing with an asylum inmate. You walk by their barricaded window, they shout out a few incendiary words, "you're mother is a b-ch" or "Trump won!" - that's enough to stop in your track and have you spend next 10 minutes arguing with the crazies. But ask yourself what good does that do? Is it going to enlighten them? Nope, and you have just wasted 10 minutes of your critical thinking. Keep your blood pressure down and keep on walking. The more you feed the troll the more people will stay away from the topic at hand, thus thread hi-jacked.

[Unify]

The indictment itself explains the Trump had the right to challenge the election, and even a first amendment right to lie about it.

 

So he is not being indicted for 'having an opinion'. Indicting him is not a violation of free speech. 

 

The indicted Trump for “conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted and certified by the government; “conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified”; and “conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted.” 

 

The indictment was from a grand jury of citizens who were presented the evidence. 

[jerrymahoney]

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN CONGRESS MEETS IN JANUARY?

Published 6:13 AM GMT+7, December 16, 2020

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The congressional joint session to count electoral votes is generally a routine, ceremonious affair.

 

But President Donald Trump’s repeated, baseless efforts to challenge Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential victory will bring more attention than usual to the Jan. 6 joint session of the Senate and the House.

https://apnews.com/article/congress-count-electoral-college-vote-5605532631a251ac8f902d1d1ca55428

 

So as to what is usually a boring perfunctory formality:

 

(Indictment) 87. On December 19, 2020, after cultivating widespread anger and resentment for weeks with his knowingly false claims of election fraud, the Defendant urged his supporters to travel to Washington on the day of the certification proceeding, tweeting, "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild " Throughout late December, he repeatedly urged his supporters to come to Washington for January 6.

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

59 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The New York Times produced a video showing the January 6 events in a minute by minute timeline.

 

Also the Justice Department has offered detailed timelines into evidence. No defendent has successfully contested these facts over 100s of trials.

 

"we don't really know" = "you aren't paying attention to known facts".

I follow "the news" and I think I have a good idea what is going on.

But then, those 70,000,000 Trump supporters will likely also follow some news. Maybe fox news, maybe TRUTH (or whatever Trump's version of Twitter is called), etc.

Are they all stupid? I am sure some of them are stupid. But likely there will be also a lot of people who think they know "the truth" but it is another version of what I think is the truth.

 

A local example is what happened in Bangkok in 2010. I was here, maybe 3km away from the events, and I think I know what happened. But other people, who also live in Bangkok, disagree with me. And then there were the news reports from media organizations all over the world. Somehow many of them had differnt versions of the truth. So who is right? Obviously I think that I know what I saw. But then, I wasn't 100% of the time everywhere, and I don't really know what happened all the time everywhere.

It's complicated. 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I follow "the news" and I think I have a good idea what is going on.

But then, those 70,000,000 Trump supporters will likely also follow some news. Maybe fox news, maybe TRUTH (or whatever Trump's version of Twitter is called), etc.

Are they all stupid? I am sure some of them are stupid. But likely there will be also a lot of people who think they know "the truth" but it is another version of what I think is the truth.

 

A local example is what happened in Bangkok in 2010. I was here, maybe 3km away from the events, and I think I know what happened. But other people, who also live in Bangkok, disagree with me. And then there were the news reports from media organizations all over the world. Somehow many of them had differnt versions of the truth. So who is right? Obviously I think that I know what I saw. But then, I wasn't 100% of the time everywhere, and I don't really know what happened all the time everywhere.

It's complicated. 

 

 

The important thing here is that the grand jury saw the evidence and believe it compelling enough to issue the indictments. The indictment no matter which media its reported from remains the same.

[Chomper Higgot]

Wonderful news.