Trump and 18 allies charged in Georgia election meddling as former president faces 4th criminal case

submitted by neolib from apnews.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

let's not start at the top. I don't need to read any of it, though I did.

Is there anything you can say to support your view that its' bullshit?

If it weren't political it wouldn't have been timed to "hurt' him during the primaries.

That's your evidence. That the investigation took time?

The wheels of justice do turn slowly. But they're going as fast as they can because the american people have a right to know before the primaries.

It won't hurt trump in the primaries. He fundraisers off these things.

The fun part comes in discovery, if it gets as far as that.

The prosecution has all the evidence that they have laid out in the indictment. What do you think happens in criminal discovery?

You're gonna feel pretty stupid when you realize there's no ham in your ham sammich hahaha

Is there any of those points making up count 1 that didn't happen?

I can't see it, and there's 40 other counts.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You're asking me to debunk the number of times they stirred your orangemanbad flavored kool-aid bro it's literally only worth the effort to poke at you for being a retard on this subject, not actually engage in counting stirs of the orangemanbad spoon

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

No, I'm asking you to point out anything in this indictment that's "bullshit".

I'm asking you because it's all well above-board, and you've claimed that it's bullshit.

So I would expect you to avoid answering, because you've got nothing if you're intentionally lying. Or if you really think that it's bullshit, I would expect you to take a look at any of it and discover how legitimate it is, and change your position.

I guess we're landing of the former?

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

bullshit

it's all well above-board

they indicted him for telling people to watch the news. that's not a meme, that's the persecution in Georgia in %currentyear%

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

they indicted him for telling people to watch the news.

I missed the one about telling people to watch the news. Could tell me which page it's on?

There were a lot of allegations in all the crimes and all the details of those crimes in the indictments. So he may that may well have been amongst the allegations. An act committed in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy is illegal, whether or not the act itself is illegal.

It's not illegal to buy a gun, but if you make a plan to kill someone with a gun, and that you will buy a gun for that purpose, then buying a gun is illlegal.

It's not illegal to drive a car, but if you make a plan to drive a getaway vehicle after your colleagues rob a bank, then driving that car in furtherance of that plan is illegal.

It's not illegal to tell people to watch the news of itself. But point me to the part in the Georgia indictment that mentions that, and we can discuss why the prosecution thought that it was illegal. If indeed it is amongst the acts enumerated in the indictment.

Edit: I just searched the indictment for the word "news", and come up with one hit.

Act 100.

On or about the 30th day of December 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP caused to be tweeted from the Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump, "Hearings from Atlanta on the Georgia Election overturn now being broadcast. Check it out. @OANN @newsmax and many more. @BrianKempGA should resign from office. He is an obstructionist who refuses to admit that we won Georgia, BIG! Also won the other Swing States." This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Is this the one you mean?

It appears that Trump is repeating knowingly false claims about the election in order to recruit people for the insurgency.

But it's also one of 161 acts in furtherance of a conspiracy that any one of would prove the first charge against at least some of the people charged. And that's only the first of the 41 counts brought in the indictment.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If one of your acts is "he tried to change the outcome of an election by telling people to watch the news" then the rest of the acts are, necessarily, worth less than toilet paper. This is lawfare and you are a victim of it.

And you like it.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If one of your acts is "he tried to change the outcome of an election by telling people to watch the news" then the rest of the acts are, necessarily, worth less than toilet paper.

No that doesn't follow. You can only make conclusions about that one act.

And the conclusion by the prosecutor is it was an over act in the furtherance of the conspiracy. I tend to agree. This wasn't legal lying about the outcome of the election. It was lying with a view to bringing people to the capital on Jan 6 to disrupt the process of accepting the electoral college votes, and to threaten Mike Pence and the members of the house of representatives.

This is lawfare and you are a victim of it.

It's illegal to try to overthrow the election. If you've made a conspiracy to overthrow the election, acts in furtherance of that conspiracy are also illegal.

And you like it.

I like to see the law applied. I especially like to see state law applied, because it is beyond the reach of the presidential power of pardon.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I make conclusions about all of it because it is a partisan hatchet job but you can't see it through your haterade-fueled nonsense.

If you like to see the law applied then you'll be happy to see the Georgia DA impeached and removed from office for malicious persecution

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I make conclusions about all of it because it is a partisan hatchet job but you can't see it through your haterade-fueled nonsense.

Then your motivation is as patchy as your logic.

Faking electors and forging the documents is obviously an illegal way to try to win an election. Trump also breached voting machines, pressured officials and election workers in an attempt to get them to make false statements that would bring into question the results, and pressured officials in an attempt to get them to change the votes tallies.

I don't understand why you think those things are legal, they're not.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My logic is unassailable, and this is a partisan hatchet job