Jump to content

Trump charged with four counts over 2020 election


Recommended Posts

Posted
12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Pick me! Donald Trump. He's the only one who's been charged with trying to foment an insurrection.

Actually if you read the indictment. Trump hasn't actually been charged with insurrection in specific terms! 

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, CharlieKo said:

Actually if you read the indictment. Trump hasn't actually been charged with insurrection in specific terms! 

In specific terms. Smith chose not to charge Trump with inciting riot because discussion about first amendment rights would blur the waters and be harder to prove than the less spectacular charges that have been laid. Most of us won't be fooled by semantics, though, insurrection is what it was.

 

edit: Harder to prove because it goes to Trumps mindset. It is possible Trump is so wacky that he could get a physician to say he was out to lunch on the comprehension scale. There have been some clangers which lean in this direction like security briefings which had to get down the level of winners and losers to get through.

 

Internal Memo Shows Donald Trump's Daily Intelligence Briefings Are, Um, Very Dumbed Down

No dissenting opinions. Very few words.

 

https://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-daily-intel-briefings-are-dumb

Edited by ozimoron
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's very risky for Smith to charge Trump on the basis of his state of mind or intent.

 

When Donald Trump was elected president, it quickly became obvious that the traditional national-security briefing a person in his position receives daily would be well beyond his zone of proximal development. The briefings were slimmed down in length, chopped up into easy-to-digest bullet points, and decorated with lots of graphs and pictures. Alas, the Washington Post reports, even the kiddie version of the presidential brief has proven too challenging.

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/02/dumbed-down-security-briefings-still-too-difficult-for-trump.html

Why is an Aussie living in Pattaya obsessed with US politics?

  • Love It 1
Posted
1 minute ago, bignok said:

Why is an Aussie living in Pattaya obsessed with US politics?

I not obsessed with US politics. That said it's also often said in Australia that when the US sneezes, Australia catches a cold. That's what gives me the right to comment when I'm not a US citizen, contrary to the inferences of some around here.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

In specific terms. Smith chose not to charge Trump with inciting riot because discussion about first amendment rights would blur the waters and be harder to prove than the less spectacular charges that have been laid. Most of us won't be fooled by semantics, though, insurrection is what it was.

You edited that quite a bit? I think what you mean is, Smith knows he can't prove a case of Insurrection, but thinks he can on those other less than spectacular charges. Charges which seem more related to slavery and how slaves should be treated etc.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

And Russian interference 555. Were they ever called out on  that?

No, because it was proved to be true. What wasn't proved so far was collusion.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, CharlieKo said:

You edited that quite a bit? I think what you mean is, Smith knows he can't prove a case of Insurrection, but thinks he can on those other less than spectacular charges. Charges which seem more related to slavery and how slaves should be treated etc.

I'd lay off the putting words into my mouth bit. A charge dating from times of slavery isn't necessarily about slavery. Slaves didn't commit insurrection that I'm aware of.

 

hint: Try writing "Do you mean" instead of "I think you mean". Can you spot the difference?

Edited by ozimoron
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
Just now, ozimoron said:

I didn't edit one word. The first sentence was my own.

So your post pre edit didn't say. Jack Smith said it was trumps first amendment right to lie? Or words to that effect. Knowing it would stop Trumps Lawyers from arguing amendment rights? It must have been another poster? lol

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, CharlieKo said:

So your post pre edit didn't say. Jack Smith said it was trumps first amendment right to lie? Or words to that effect. Knowing it would stop Trumps Lawyers from arguing amendment rights? It must have been another poster? lol

I've edited my post. I thought you were referring to another post.

Posted
8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

No, because it was proved to be true. What wasn't proved so far was collusion.

No it wasnt. Nothing is proven unless something goes to all courts.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I'd lay off the putting words into my mouth bit. A charge dating from times of slavery isn't necessarily about slavery. Slaves didn't commit insurrection that I'm aware of.

How that is putting words in your mouth, I have no idea. But hay if the cap fits wear it! 

 

You are aware that the fraudulent charge against Trump, comes from a law dated 1870 used against the KKK. And had everything to do with how slaves could or could not be treated. 

Edited by CharlieKo
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, bignok said:

Using laws from 1870 sums up how weak, pathetic and political these charges are. Really nasty stuff from left to keep power.

Indeed.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Russians aren't subject to U.S. courts. Russian interference in U.S. elections favoring Trump is a FACT. 

link?

  • Thanks 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I not obsessed with US politics. That said it's also often said in Australia that when the US sneezes, Australia catches a cold. That's what gives me the right to comment when I'm not a US citizen, contrary to the inferences of some around here.

You don't need an excuse.

I'm interested in the politics of numerous countries.

Namely: the U.S. obviously, Thailand, China, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, U.K., Phillipines, India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Russians aren't subject to U.S. courts. Russian interference in U.S. elections favoring Trump is a FACT. 

Russian Victor Bout. If memory serves, extradited from Thailand to USA for arms dealing. Later exchanged for a Trans athlete!

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...