Trump charged with four counts over 2020 election

[watthong]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

2 hours ago, candide said:

Of course he knows that, he's just trolling.

And apparently a glutton for rebuttal.

No, they got a lot of return for whatever capitql they doled out...For just a line or two, embedded with a few button-pushing choice words, they would usually get back a screenful of logic and facts for rebuttal....which they use to wipe their behind with, then rinse and repeat.

[xylophone]

8 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Sometimes I think I deplore Trump's supporters more than Trump himself.  At least Trump knows he's a lying conman doing what comes natural.  But his supporters....I don't get how their brain works.  

Aha, I don't get how their brain works............an oxymoron on many levels, @Berkshire!!!!!!

[newnative]

3 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Unlike you.

The spiral began when Clinton's supporters refused to accept Trump won. 

 

     With all due respect, I'm not sure how we have progressed from your dissatisfaction with a comment about the reading abilities of Trump's supporters to Clinton's supporters refusing to accept that Trump won in 2016.  Deflection?  Let's review, shall we?

     I posted a very accurate, and I felt very thorough, list of the crimes Clinton committed, and should have been found guilty of, and locked up for.  This was in response to a post asking what crime, singular, she had committed.  You surely remember the list, ending with guilty of being too honest.  

      In that post, I innocently gave a plug to an upcoming book 'by' Trump.  I mistakenly called it The Art of Grifting.   Shortly afterwards, the publisher called me, thanked me for the plug, and clarified that the book was actually titled The Art of the Grift.  

     Setting the record straight, as I'm wont to do, I posted again with an apology about getting the title wrong in the first post; I also like to apologize when I make an error.  After making the apology, I thought it might be interesting if I relayed some information and other tidbits the publisher had passed on to me in our phone conversation.  For example, I found it fascinating that the publisher said Trump hadn't, of course, actually written the book but he might have imagined some of it in his head.  I'm still quite taken (or is it shaken) by that.

     Since the publisher had been so nice and forthcoming, I ended the post by giving the news that the book would go on sale in the Fall, and concluded with the publisher's verbatim quote that the book would make 'a wonderful Christmas gift for all the Trump supporters possessing the ability to read.'

     Perhaps you're familiar with a certain saying, 'Don't shoot the messenger'.   I feel you have unfairly associated me with the reading ability quote from the publisher.  Just the messenger here.  Another saying also springs to mind. 'No good deed goes unpunished.'

    I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, anyway.  The publisher does publish books, with words and sentences, and it seems natural to me that they might mention that the book would make a nice gift for Trump's followers who can read.  People are so quick to take offense about anything these days!  

     The publisher did give me somewhat of an exclusive--I'll throw caution to the winds and pass it along now.  Mind you, as the messenger only, nothing more.  And, here it is.  There will be an audio book read by Donald Trump, himself!   Yes, he can read, according to the publisher, as long as the sentences are short, with no, I quote again, 'big' words.   Expect it out in the Spring, hopefully to benefit from the publicity of likely one or more of his trials.  So, all bases covered, for Trump  readers and non-readers!   Happy?

    

    

[Danderman123]

22 minutes ago, watthong said:

No, they got a lot of return for whatever capitql they doled out...For just a line or two, embedded with a few button-pushing choice words, they would usually get back a screenful of logic and facts for rebuttal....which they use to wipe their behind with, then rinse and repeat.

In other words, they provoke posting of a lot of facts damaging to Trump.  I'm not sure how that help their Dear Leader.

 

Eventually, a lot of these types are going to realize that Trump despises them, and is just using them. 

[ThailandRyan]

7 hours ago, CharlieKo said:

On that basis, Biden also broke the law by having classified documents in his garage. So maybe Biden should be charged under the same law.  

Did Biden not voluntarily give them back to the national archives or did he become deceitful and lie stating he had returned all when he had his subordinates move them to other locations. Your off in the rough hacking away hoping you can take a mulligan if you believe these situations are identical, which they are not.

Edited August 8, 2023 by ThailandRyan

[watthong]

While waiting for Judge Chutkan's "coup de hammer," here's a recap of:

 

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

And now the attention turns again to Georgia on the Trump indictment watch:

 

Georgia set to take over the Trump indictment spotlight 

"All eyes are on Georgia this week, where yet another indictment of former President Trump is expected imminently.

 

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) has been probing Trump’s efforts to interfere in the state’s closely fought 2020 election for more than a year and is widely expected this month to bring the fourth indictment of 2023 against the former president. 

 

“The work is accomplished,” Willis recently told local news outlets in Atlanta."

 

(more)

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4142054-georgia-set-to-take-over-the-trump-indictment-spotlight/

 

[Neeranam]

6 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Ah, the old absolutely meaningless "republic" vs "democracy" !

 

Please tell me what you are implying, because if you think "Republic" is a valid excuse for trying to overthrow American democracy, then....

 

 

....you're a trumper

 

The Electoral College, anachronism that it is, is an entity that takes the tallies votes from each State, where DEMOCRACY means the one with the most votes takes that State and all of its electors. Each State electors' votes are then tallied to produce a winner.

 

Biden gained the most Electoral Votes, and thus a brave and patriotic VP Pence did his ceremonial duty and certified the results, ignoring trump's demands Pence break the law, or as un-indicted co-conspirator #2 said, "it's only a minor violation' of the law. Biden wins, trump loses.

 

Incidentally, Biden crushed trump in the nationwide popular vote. HRC womped his behind, too, but the electoral college awarded the victory to trump.

How childish not using a T for Trump. 

[Walker88]

40 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

How childish not using a T for Trump. 

How childish of a 77 year old to call his adversaries Sleepy Joe, Pocahontas Warren, Ron Sanctimonious, Crooked HIllary, Cryin Chuck Schumer, Low IQ Maxine Waters, Shifty Schiff/Pencil Neck Schiff, Deranged Jack Smith, Evan McMuffin (McMullin), Coco Chow, Evita (AOC), Nervous Nancy, Crazy Bernie, Little Marco Rubio, Wacky Jacky Rosen, Lyin' Ted Cruz, etc.

 

Why do you worship that twice impeached, thrice indicted, convicted sex offender, convicted charity fraudster who spews out such nicknames? Do you trumpers find that 'Presidential'?

 

Goose and gander.

[jerrymahoney]

The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences
Aug. 8, 2023

 

(Opinion) It may be satisfying now to see the special counsel Jack Smith indict Donald Trump for his reprehensible and possibly criminal actions in connection with the 2020 presidential election. But the prosecution, which might be justified, reflects a tragic choice that will compound the harms to the nation from Mr. Trump’s many transgressions.

 

Mr. Smith’s indictment outlines a factually compelling but far from legally airtight case against Mr. Trump. The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, his freedom of speech and the contours of presidential power. If the prosecution fails (especially if the trial concludes after a general election that Mr. Trump loses), it will be a historic disaster.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/opinion/trump-indictment-cost-danger.html

 

https://archive.is/nMJ04

 

[earlinclaifornia]

34 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

The Prosecution of Trump May Have Terrible Consequences
Aug. 8, 2023

 

(Opinion) It may be satisfying now to see the special counsel Jack Smith indict Donald Trump for his reprehensible and possibly criminal actions in connection with the 2020 presidential election. But the prosecution, which might be justified, reflects a tragic choice that will compound the harms to the nation from Mr. Trump’s many transgressions.

 

Mr. Smith’s indictment outlines a factually compelling but far from legally airtight case against Mr. Trump. The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, his freedom of speech and the contours of presidential power. If the prosecution fails (especially if the trial concludes after a general election that Mr. Trump loses), it will be a historic disaster.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/opinion/trump-indictment-cost-danger.html

 

https://archive.is/nMJ04

 

(Opinion) 

[jerrymahoney]

5 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

(Opinion) 

That's right. Opinion. As is just about everything else posted on here. And this is the opinion of a conservative Hoover Institution senior staffer. And in his opinion, given his credentials, the operative point here is that:

 

The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, his freedom of speech and the contours of presidential power.

 

[earlinclaifornia]

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

That's right. Opinion. As is just about everything else posted on here. And this is the opinion of a conservative Hoover Institution senior staffer. And in his opinion, given his credentials, the operative point here is that:

 

The case involves novel applications of three criminal laws and raises tricky issues of Mr. Trump’s intent, his freedom of speech and the contours of presidential power.

 

I take exception to that. Many and I mean many of us post links to avoid the "everybody has opinions"!

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

I take exception to that. Many and I mean many of us post links to avoid the "everybody has opinions"!

The link is posted above and to which you replied.

[earlinclaifornia]

17 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

The link is posted above and to which you replied.

Take the time to also read his other opinions.

I don't ever want to be charged with denying anyone reaching for help. 

[earlinclaifornia]

Former Trump White House lawyer knocks ‘aspirational’ defense in Jan. 6 case (yahoo.com)

[jerrymahoney]

Some think this is a slam-dunk case. Some don't. Either way, what is main concern to me is that Trump is not re-elected in 2024. All the rest to me including the extent and possible  criminal cases is side show.

[stevenl]

Good explanation on Friday 's proceedings here 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/08/politics/trump-protective-order-hearing/index.html

[Neeranam]

7 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Why do you worship that twice impeached, thrice indicted, convicted sex offender, convicted charity fraudster who spews out such nicknames? Do you trumpers find that 'Presidential'?

 

Goose and gander.

I don't, and don't really like the guy, but I stand up for the persecuted. I don't like anti Trump supremacists. 

I would vote for him, unless the Dems came up with a guy who might make it through the term. The current one wouldn’t, which is bizarre. 

Pencil neck, mcmuffin ????????

 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

I don't, and don't really like the guy, but I stand up for the persecuted. I don't like anti Trump supremacists. 

I would vote for him, unless the Dems came up with a guy who might make it through the term. The current one wouldn’t, which is bizarre. 

Pencil neck, mcmuffin ????????

 

Another amateur gerontologist.

[Neeranam]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

Either way, what is main concern to me is that Trump is not re-elected in 2024.

The reason for the indictment, nothing else. Shown by there desparation to proceed so quickly. 

The DoJ, the government, are so corrupt it's pathetic. 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

The reason for the indictment, nothing else. Shown by there desparation to proceed so quickly. 

The DoJ, the government, are so corrupt it's pathetic. 

It's not like the right to a speedy trial is guaranteed in the Constitution...oh wait a minute...

The Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...".^[1] The Clause protects the defendant from delay between the presentation of the indictment or similar charging instrument and the beginning of trial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Clause#:~:text=The Speedy Trial Clause of,public trial...".

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

The reason for the indictment, nothing else. Shown by there desparation to proceed so quickly. 

The DoJ, the government, are so corrupt it's pathetic. 

You really think that DOJ is corrupt? 

 

Are you that deep down in the rabbit hole?

 

Rather than casting aspersions on the prosecutor, how about criticizing the content of the 45 page indictment? Can you tell us if any of the alleged facts are false?

 

If you can't, then you are telling us that the indictment is valid.

 

And if the indictment is valid, then its Trump who is corrupt, not the DOJ.

 

Thanks for playing.

[ThailandRyan]

17 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

The reason for the indictment, nothing else. Shown by there desparation to proceed so quickly. 

The DoJ, the government, are so corrupt it's pathetic. 

You think they are proceeding quickly. Trumps supporters keep asking why it's taken 2.5 years to prosecute him.  Your out of touch with the Trumpers views.

[Neeranam]

43 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

You think they are proceeding quickly. Trumps supporters keep asking why it's taken 2.5 years to prosecute him.  Your out of touch with the Trumpers views.

Simple really, would they be trying to proceed so quickly if he wasn't running for president? 

Of course not. Therefore........ 

[Neeranam]

51 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Rather than casting aspersions on the prosecutor, how about criticizing the content of the 45 page indictment? Can you tell us if any of the alleged facts are false?

An 'alleged fact' sounds like an oxymoron to me. 

I'm sure Trump is corrupt, as all politicians are, I'm standing up for fair treatment of both sides of the Great US divide, which is obvious to an impartial bystander like me. 

There us a witch hunt against Trump, and the instigators are using this for their political advantage.

 

 

[Berkshire]

2 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

An 'alleged fact' sounds like an oxymoron to me. 

I'm sure Trump is corrupt, as all politicians are, I'm standing up for fair treatment of both sides of the Great US divide, which is obvious to an impartial bystander like me. 

 

From all of your posts, you have proven beyond doubt that you are absolutely NOT an impartial bystander.  At least be honest about that. 

[Danderman123]

11 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

An 'alleged fact' sounds like an oxymoron to me. 

I'm sure Trump is corrupt, as all politicians are, I'm standing up for fair treatment of both sides of the Great US divide, which is obvious to an impartial bystander like me. 

There us a witch hunt against Trump, and the instigators are using this for their political advantage.

 

 

Please provide any information that contradicts the alleged facts in the indictment. 

 

To the extent that you bloviate rather than address the content of the indictment, you admit the facts are true. And, if the facts are true, Trump is guilty.

 

Have a nice day.

[Danderman123]

21 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Simple really, would they be trying to proceed so quickly if he wasn't running for president? 

Of course not. Therefore........ 

2.5 years to indict for January 6, but you think they are proceeding quickly?

Edited August 9, 2023 by Danderman123

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

The reason for the indictment, nothing else. Shown by there desparation to proceed so quickly. 

The DoJ, the government, are so corrupt it's pathetic. 

Empty allegations like yours are made all the time. For instance about the Russian-Trump campaign investigation.. William Barr dispatched his boy John Durham to prove that the FBI behaved corruptly. Durham came up empty.