Because Democrat Voter Fraud

[Josh]

12 minutes ago, Murph said:

When are Stacy Abrams, Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, et al going to be indicted?  Same rules, same precident.

At what point did they take any action to overturn an election? No one is saying that Trump should be charged because he's a lying sack of shit. He's being charged because he attempted to overturn state EC votes. At no point did anyone you list attempt that - just whining that you should not of lost isn't in and of itself any type of crime, and the Jan 6th Fed indictment explicitly states that in its opening. In fact Gore behaved exactly as Pence did once the SCOTUS ruled on that election; he approved the EC votes in his purely ceremonial role, confirming that he lost.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Josh

[Murph]

Same rules, same logic, same legal theory.  They should also be indicted.  I hope I live long enough to see the left pay under the same rules as they are playing with now.

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

As already mentioned you can compare this with Gore's challenge in '20.  When the USSC ruled against him Gore conceded the very next day.  Everyone from state courts to the USSC ruled against Trump, zero evidence of fraud was ever found or presented, and yet he persisted (with illegal efforts per Fed and GA prosecutors)... and that's why these charges are being brought.

Doesn't the Ga Fulton County case argue that the mere ACT of presenting the legal contest of the election results constitutes a fraud and criminal acts? 

If so, doesn't the mere ACT of challenging the election on the part of Stacy Abrams present as a criminal act? 

[sunday]

First news the USSC ruled anything in relation with the 2020 election. I only remember the USSC not accepting the case because the people that presented the case to the USSC has no legal standing, or something like that, to do so.

Like this. I am not aware of more rulings of the USSC on the matter, but I have no exhaustive archive on that.

Edited August 28, 2023 by sunday

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

What he is saying is in order to prove there was fraud in the first place, some proof of fraud must be provided.

Trump's defense will be that he believed that large numbers of his legitimate votes were mishandled.  This does not require Trump to prove that fraud actually took place, only that his belief as such informed his actions, why he was asking for people to find votes. 

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

At what point did they take any action to overturn an election? 

The Washington case against Trump appears at this time to be, if anything, even a bigger steaming pile of shit.  CNN talking heads have been telling us for 3 years that Trump committed insurrection, then the charges come down and noticeably lacking is any charge of insurrection.

Still, the Democrats have brought the charges in the states and counties where they can make the glove fit. 

Edited August 28, 2023 by glenn239

[Josh]

2 hours ago, Murph said:

Same rules, same logic, same legal theory.  They should also be indicted.  I hope I live long enough to see the left pay under the same rules as they are playing with now.

I'd perhaps give you Hillary for her unsecured emails, though the difference there is that she didn't leave enough evidence to give the DoJ a 100% slam dunk case. Trump's attempts to cover up the fact he was hoarding clearly labeled classified documents were almost comical.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Doesn't the Ga Fulton County case argue that the mere ACT of presenting the legal contest of the election results constitutes a fraud and criminal acts? 

If so, doesn't the mere ACT of challenging the election on the part of Stacy Abrams present as a criminal act? 

The act of challenging vote counts in court is not part of the indictment from the summaries I've read; the meat of the indictment is the false electors. There are some other charges concerning other irregularities as well, but none of them have to do with opening cases to protest/question the count in GA.

[Josh]

48 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Trump's defense will be that he believed that large numbers of his legitimate votes were mishandled.  This does not require Trump to prove that fraud actually took place, only that his belief as such informed his actions, why he was asking for people to find votes. 

My comments were directed at the allegations of voter fraud on the part of the state of GA, not Trump's defense of his own attempt at voter fraud. Yes, that will be Trump's defense, that he truly thought fraud had occurred.

[Josh]

47 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The Washington case against Trump appears at this time to be, if anything, even a bigger steaming pile of shit.  CNN talking heads have been telling us for 3 years that Trump committed insurrection, then the charges come down and noticeably lacking is any charge of insurrection.

Still, the Democrats have brought the charges in the states and counties where they can make the glove fit. 

Insurrection as a federal charge apparently involves physical violence. So any attempt to overtake the government that doesn't involve force technically isn't an insurrection. The riot at the Capitol was clearly caused by Trump, but it would be impossible to prove he intended it to happen and that the goal of the riot was specifically to prevent Biden from being instated. So no charge was added related to that. The Jan 6th indictment is very streamlined, likely to ensure that it is brought to trial pre election. IMO it is the only indictment with any chance of seeing court before 2025.

[Detonable]

On 8/19/2023 at 12:20 PM, Skywalkre said:

Let's look here in AZ.  They spent thousands of hours looking into every 'lead' they came across.  When those all came up negative why would there have been a need to do what you're stating? 

Uh, didn’t they discover that some of the evidence was withheld from the investigation?

[Detonable]

On 8/19/2023 at 2:17 PM, rmgill said:

No, it's evidence of a security risk in thes system. It directly refutes the "secure" contention that was made for decades about the voting system in Georgia wrt both IDs and in person voting AND wrt to absentee ballots cast in absentia. 

To FIND evidence, one would have to either have direct confessions or conduct investigations that had a high likelihood of turning up such issues. If one never searches for it int he right place, one will never find it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

Did a couple of dead people vote?

[Skywalkre]

6 hours ago, sunday said:

First news the USSC ruled anything in relation with the 2020 election. I only remember the USSC not accepting the case because the people that presented the case to the USSC has no legal standing, or something like that, to do so.

Like this. I am not aware of more rulings of the USSC on the matter, but I have no exhaustive archive on that.

Not taking cases is ruling on them.

[Skywalkre]

30 minutes ago, Detonable said:

Uh, didn’t they discover that some of the evidence was withheld from the investigation?

The only thing withheld was the AG's report on 2020 that he hid because he was a Trump supporter and had political ambitions of his own.  Releasing a report highlighting they found nothing would hurt those ambitions.  It wasn't released til his replacement took office and found it.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Skywalkre

[Skywalkre]

Murph... still waiting for you to articulate why Gore should be prosecuted.  You can do that, right?  Make an argument?  Or are you only capable of regurgitating clickbait headlines with no factual base?

[rmgill]

4 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Not taking cases is ruling on them.

But its not ruling on the merits as you and others assert. 
 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by rmgill

[rmgill]

2 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Murph... still waiting for you to articulate why Gore should be prosecuted.  You can do that, right?  Make an argument?  Or are you only capable of regurgitating clickbait headlines with no factual base?

Fraudulent lawsuit that was unfounded.  Same as Trump. Conspiracy. Fraud on the voters of Florida, etc etc etc. 

[Murph]

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

Fraudulent lawsuit that was unfounded.  Same as Trump. Conspiracy. Fraud on the voters of Florida, etc etc etc. 

This.  Same as above.  I know that you thought Al Gore got his chance to be Supreme Leader stolen from him, but as rmgill said, it was 100% the same.  Why are Democrats not going to prison?  

[Murph]

8 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Murph... still waiting for you to articulate why Gore should be prosecuted.  You can do that, right?  Make an argument?  Or are you only capable of regurgitating clickbait headlines with no factual base?

See below.  Same as Trump.  But alas in todays America only the Left is allowed to commit crimes and get away with them.

[Josh]

10 hours ago, rmgill said:

Fraudulent lawsuit that was unfounded.  Same as Trump. Conspiracy. Fraud on the voters of Florida, etc etc etc. 

Trump isn't being indicted for opening lawsuits. In fact I've not heard them mentioned in any of the indictment summaries I've read, though I admit to not reading the entire indictment(s) end to end. The primary focus of the GA and Jan6th fed indictment are the fake electors and an attempt to have Pence substitute them, or at least use them as an excuse to ignore all electors from that state to avoid Biden getting to 270.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

This.  Same as above.  I know that you thought Al Gore got his chance to be Supreme Leader stolen from him, but as rmgill said, it was 100% the same.  Why are Democrats not going to prison?  

This isn't about the law suits, it is about attempts to change state's certified counts and their slate of global electors. Gore ultimately certified the EC votes. It is clear that if Trump could have stopped the EC certification or pushed it to certify himself instead, he would have. 

[glenn239]

15 hours ago, Josh said:

My comments were directed at the allegations of voter fraud on the part of the state of GA, not Trump's defense of his own attempt at voter fraud. Yes, that will be Trump's defense, that he truly thought fraud had occurred.

Right, and if he did think so, then your statement that he was "attempting" voter fraud is false.  

[glenn239]

15 hours ago, Josh said:

Insurrection as a federal charge apparently involves physical violence. So any attempt to overtake the government that doesn't involve force technically isn't an insurrection. 

For 3 years the MsM told us that Trump had committed insurrection, and when time to shit or get off the pot, no charges of insurrection were brought.

[Josh]

4 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

For 3 years the MsM told us that Trump had committed insurrection, and when time to shit or get off the pot, no charges of insurrection were brought.

I don't speak for the MSM nor does most any media outlet concern itself with using strictly legal language to describe criminal cases. I personally use the word "overturn" because it is a non legal term that I don't have to get into a semantic side battle over, though I think coup also applies. Insurrection does imply physical violence, so using that word depends on whether instigating the riot was an intentional step or just a biproduct of Trump's efforts to cause as much chaos as possible to stop the EC count. I don't particularly have an opinion on that so I don't use that word.

[Josh]

9 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Right, and if he did think so, then your statement that he was "attempting" voter fraud is false.  

My mind is rather settled on what he believed and was setting out to do, and I'm not required to use legally accurate language in every post I make to the internet. Technically OJ didn't murder anyone either.