Trump charged with four counts over 2020 election

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, ThailandRyan said:

Enlighten us Lou. Please tell us about indictments made without facts or evidence to back them up.

Ask the DOJ, they're the experts and if you really don't know that, my explaining it to you will not help!

[Liverpool Lou]

8 hours ago, pomchop said:

23 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You don't seem to realise that an indictment is not a statement of facts, it's just an accusation!

Do you really think that jack smith would just make up a bunch of testimony from republicans and put them in quotation marks if he did not have that testimony nailed down with video and texts of the actual testimony?  Do you think he would be stupid enough to make any allegation without having the receipts to back it up in court?  Do you think the grand jury would have indicted on a bunch of theories?  Do you think jack smith or the DOJ would go forward with something that they were not almost 100% sure can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that would make it all look like a hit job?

 

Take a look at Jack Smith. Does he appear to be a guy that just pulls stuff out of his rear end like the defendant?   Read the indictment which does not even include all of the evidence he has, just the highlights.

"Do you really think that jack smith would just make up..."

Yes, absolutely right I do, to all of that. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Liverpool Lou

[ozimoron]

The chances of Pence not being called as a witness in trial after testifying to a grand jury - nil.

 

Donald Trump’s defense attorney says the former president never asked Mike Pence to overturn the will of the voters in the 2020 election, but only wanted the former vice president to “pause” the certification of votes to allow states to investigate his claims of election fraud. Those baseless claims had already been rejected by numerous courts.

 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-pence-jan-6-christie-2024-election-ca1f049328ad8f240c6bf72cce97026e

Edited August 7, 2023 by ozimoron

[ThailandRyan]

It gets even more dire for Trump

 

Trump Acted Illegally to Keep Office, Most Americans Say in Poll

 

 More than half of Americans say former President Donald Trump tried to stay in office through illegal means, a CBS News/YouGov poll shows. 

 

In the survey released Sunday, 51% of those polled said they believe Trump tried to stay in office by illegal means, while 29% viewed his efforts as legal. The remaining 20% said they think Trump didn’t intend to remain in office after the 2020 election. 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-acted-illegally-to-keep-office-most-americans-say-in-poll/ar-AA1eS3bU?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=2c6d52b6f335444aabe2970129d8fc8f&ei=12

Edited August 7, 2023 by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy.

[Liverpool Lou]

9 hours ago, Tug said:

Well let’s put it this way then with facts as to citizen trump #1 he is a New York City trust fund baby (fact) he was a good looking young man in his youth (I’d say yes) ok here we go with the facts of what he did with those incredible gifts that life has given him.he robbed his charity (fact)he insults pows and disparaged people who served (fact) separated little kids from their parents (fact)stabbed our Allie’s in the guts over nato issues (fact)possibly emboldened puten to invade Ukraine .scam university ( fact) mis managed the covid response costing  thousands of American lives (fact) exploded the deficit (fact) continues to undermine the country our institutions and democracy (fact)he’s finally at long last going to face consequences for his actions based on FACTS and yes he is indeed of the lowest character possible backed up by what he has done with the incredible gifts given him

Unfortunately, those "facts" have sod-all to do with the indictments in this thread.   That's a fact.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Liverpool Lou

[ThailandRyan]

16 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Ask the DOJ, they're the experts and if you really don't know that, my explaining it to you will not help!

So your post was just a personal opinion without facts or links to prove your point.  I was truly hoping you would actually post a link to back up the claim you made.

[Liverpool Lou]

13 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Thankfully, your opinion doesn't count as fact.

Has Donald Trump ever told a lie?

Even if he has, what's that got to do with my comment, it's still just your opinion, isn't it?  Have you ever told a lie?

[ThailandRyan]

15 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"Do you really think that jack smith would just make up..."

Yes, absolutely right I do, to all of that. 

So all the evidence, such as testimony of republicans before the grand jury and anything else was all fake?  Come on Lou, lets be honest here, no one would ever file a case without any substantiate evidence leading to probable cause in order to make the case before a grand jury.  A grand jury would never, without the probable cause and evidence and testimony before them vote for an indictment.  Your being disingenuous.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Even if he has, what's that got to do with my comment, it's still just your opinion, isn't it?  Have you ever told a lie?

Pretty sure this topic is about Trump. Trump has told 30,000 lies using his presidential bully pulpit.

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, traveller101 said:

Once again for starting the bleeding obvious - it is a satirical, acerbic, acid or caustic comment of the highest order.

For every fair-minded individual in possession of his mental faculties -

the one and only Real POTUS 45 is 

An abominal man, dishonest to the core, only concerned with himself, having at best scant regard to democratic principles and the Constitution.

 

I too have been caught out by the satirical comments, and I think it's because the trumpies are capable of such abject stupidity and comments, that when someone (like you for example) posts satire, it's hard to differentiate between what's been made up what those goombas have said. 

 

That's why I was caught out when someone quoted from a publication called "The Onion", because I'd never heard of it before and it was only when I got onto the website and Google that I realised it was a complete spoof, and a funny one at that.

[earlinclaifornia]

I saw an interesting point made just now online. That all of the candidate's poll numbers added together do not add up to Trump's total.

The only way to shake that up is for all of them to attack him now before it is too late.

Additionally, all need to be willing to say they will not vote Trump and will vote Joe instead.

Actually that is the only way to untrack a certain nomination win for Donald Trump!

 

[Danderman123]

52 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Unfortunately, those "facts" have sod-all to do with the indictments in this thread.   That's a fact.

You lost the plot.

 

The comment you responded to were a response to the question of Trump's sordid history before the current indictments.

 

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"Do you really think that jack smith would just make up..."

Yes, absolutely right I do, to all of that. 

Do you think that Jack Smith misquoted the Republicans who testified against Trump? If so, why aren't they complaining? Why aren't the Grand Jurors complaining?

 

Or, did the Republicans testifying against Trump simply make stuff up? If so, why are you blaming Jack Smith?

 

Ypu really haven't thought this through, have you?

[Danderman123]

Oh wait, Trump just committed "technical violations" of the Constitution, per his soon-to-be-fired lawyer.

 

 

[Danderman123]

33 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

I saw an interesting point made just now online. That all of the candidate's poll numbers added together do not add up to Trump's total.

The only way to shake that up is for all of them to attack him now before it is too late.

Additionally, all need to be willing to say they will not vote Trump and will vote Joe instead.

Actually that is the only way to untrack a certain nomination win for Donald Trump!

 

It's early in the campaign still. Wait until January to worry about poll numbers.

 

This leads to the inevitable question of whether American media is stupid or evil. Because .....

 

When a political candidate gets caught doing something wrong, their poll numbers bump up. For a while. And then drop like a rock. Because early polls over-rely on name recognition. But that wears off if the name is tarnished.

 

For an example, see Gary Hart, 1988.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Danderman123

[pomchop]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"Do you really think that jack smith would just make up..."

Yes, absolutely right I do, to all of that. 

Believe what you like...will not prevent smith from continuing to provide real evidence backed up by a mountain of testimony, texts, emails, audio and video  to the jury. 

 

In spite of what a lot of cult members spew over and over with zero evidence the courts deal in hard evidence, not a bunch of BS from people who refuse to accept that the emperor has no clothes.

[pomchop]

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

The burden of proof for grand juries is "probable cause". "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the burden of proof at trial.

 

The possible defendant submits no claims or evidence at a grand jury hearing.

Ok fair enough.  Now let's see what happens when it goes to trial and goes to the next stage of reasonable doubt.

[earlinclaifornia]

13 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

It's early in the campaign still. Wait until January to worry about poll numbers.

 

This leads to the inevitable question of whether American media is stupid or evil. Because .....

 

When a political candidate gets caught doing something wrong, their poll numbers bump up. For a while. And then drop like a rock. Because early polls over-rely on name recognition. But that wears off if the name is tarnished.

 

For an example, see Gary Hart, 1988.

I disagree but wish you were right, and I am wrong. Trump supporters will not ever abandon him even if he killed somebody right on the WH stairs.

 

[pomchop]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Oh wait, Trump just committed "technical violations" of the Constitution, per his soon-to-be-fired lawyer.

 

 

Oh sorry I just beat my wife a "little bit" and I only broke into the business but i did not steal very much, just a "little bit" and  I was only speeding just a "little bit" and the kid i hit i only hit a "little bit".

So technically i only broke the law a "little bit". 

 

Great defense, if you are a high paid lawyer trying to defend trump. I agree that lawyer will soon enough get fired or quit.  Then he will write a book and do the rounds on Fox and right wing media to see if he can make more $$.  And of course trump will call him incompetent and an idiot and worse and later try to claim incompetent lawyers require him to get the trial delayed while his "new" lawyers get up to speed.  I hope his current lawyer at least got paid up front in cash or he can line up with the dozens of other lawyers, and various workers, still waiting to get paid by the man who is "really really rich" but needs for the cult to send him more $$.

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 8/6/2023 at 10:43 AM, Liverpool Lou said:

You need to get out a bit more, then. How could you know what areas of the indictment will be confirmed to be "facts"?

Well, can one ever "know" anything? 

 

However I rather suspect that those parts that are based on actual documentary evidence in the possession of the prosecutors, and verbatim quotes given by witnesses under oath before the grand jury will indeed turn out to be facts.

Edited August 7, 2023 by GroveHillWanderer

[Danderman123]

On 8/6/2023 at 10:43 AM, Liverpool Lou said:

You need to get out a bit more, then.   How could you know what areas of the indictment will be confirmed to be "facts"?

Have the Trump lawyers found any facts in the indictment that are false? They have had a week to go over it.

 

A reasonable person would conclude that uncontested allegations are probably true. 

[Danderman123]

Speaking of contested allegations, remember when Trump's lawyers came out of the gate in response to the search of Mar-A-Lago claiming that the documents were declassified by Trump and planted by the FBI? Or Trump was allowed classified documents by the Presidential Records Act....

 

whatever happened to those defenses?

[Liverpool Lou]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Have the Trump lawyers found any facts in the indictment that are false? They have had a week to go over it.

I'm sure that they will announce that to me at the same time they announce it to you!   I'd bet that they wouldn't have needed as long as a week, though.

[Walker88]

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Ask the DOJ, they're the experts and if you really don't know that, my explaining it to you will not help!

You make blanket statements with absolutely nothing to back them up.

 

When confronted, you resort to pabulum and weakness like "my explaining it to you will not help!"

 

Though you're deep in the fever swamp of the cult, READ THE INDICTMENT. Note all of the videos, emails, messages and multiple witness testimonies (under oath) by people trump hired or appointed.

[Liverpool Lou]

51 minutes ago, pomchop said:

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"Do you really think that jack smith would just make up..."

Yes, absolutely right I do, to all of that. 

Believe what you like...

Thank you, I appreciate getting your permission...you too!

[Danderman123]

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I'm sure that they will announce that to me at the same time they announce it to you!   I'd bet that they wouldn't have needed as long as a week, though.

As noted above, Trump's lawyers quickly responded to the Mar-a-Lago search with defenses. Not this time, though.

 

Did you find anything false in this latest indictment?

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Ypu really haven't thought this through, have you?

I don't think you have.

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Oh wait, Trump just committed "technical violations" of the Constitution, per his soon-to-be-fired lawyer.

 

 

"Technically" maybe I shot the gun, but the bullet was what killed the deceased, not me"

 

According to the indictment, when trump and eastman were trying to force VP Pence to decertify the election results, eastman said, "it's only a minor violation of the ECA".

 

When the SC's evidence indicates the bad guys knowingly broke the law, that's not good.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Walker88

[Liverpool Lou]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Did you find anything false in this latest indictment?

I've commented on that already.

[Walker88]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I don't think you have.

You either haven't read the indictment, or you are unable to understand it.

 

I have to believe you're just trolling.