Noyankee wrote:
If you do the crime, be willing to do the time!
-
80
-
Kokinho wrote:
This is the important one wrote:
1. Conspiracy to defraud the United States
2. Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding
3. Obstruction or attempt to obstruct an official proceeding
4. Conspiracy against rights
I wasn't old enough to vote for or against him so I say this as someone who is just watching from the sidelines, but these all sound way too vague to take seriously. Bottom line is he has free speech rights to claim he won the election regardless of what the correct vote count is.
I urge you (and everyone else) to read the actual indictment. (It's really not that long.) President Trump is not being prosecuted for simply lying about the election results.
111 -
Ivyguy wrote:
Kokinho wrote:
I wasn't old enough to vote for or against him so I say this as someone who is just watching from the sidelines, but these all sound way too vague to take seriously. Bottom line is he has free speech rights to claim he won the election regardless of what the correct vote count is.
I urge you (and everyone else) to read the actual indictment. (It's really not that long.) President Trump is not being prosecuted for simply lying about the election results.
The New York Times has an annotated version. I thought it was helpful in pointing out the most important things to notice as you read the indictment.
21 -
Commode flusher wrote:
charges read serious but ... wrote:
Criminal charges against D.J.T. read serious but law makers write all charges to read serious. Spitting on sidewalk can be read as a serious charge.
* Many or all presidents take documents. How else do you believe they have material for their post-president library.
* Many former government employees take documents.
* I see nothing serious. Where are the names of C.I.A. &/or O.N.I. employees and human assets?
* Where are illegal weapon and munition transactions?
* I don't see any evidence of selling specs for most modern weapon systems.
So many former presidents engage in graft and corruption. Interesting how B.H.O. was near broke 15 or 16 years ago but he has 70 million dollars now from a $400,000/yr. job. W. Clinton sure got rich after he left office. Could it be D.J.T. would have told Jackie Speier and the rest of warmongers in d.n.c. no to ukraine conflict?
The primary defense being discussed on Fox and Twitter is that there is a First Amendment right to discuss conspiracies with co-conspirators. Freedom of speech and all.
Try claiming your plan to kill the president is a protected First Amendment freedom of speech right, see how that goes.
61 -
GWT wrote:
RossiCheated wrote:
Reasons that everybody on this thread who is defending Trump can and should be ignored:
1) They have almost certainly not read the indictments and won't. They are not qualified to comment on this one or the two indictments prior to this.
2) If you replaced the name Donald Trump in the indictments with the name Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama or Joseph Biden, they would be back to "Lock 'em up!" chants, and they know it. They are not capable of being impartial.
3) They very well could be Russian bots from a troll farm trying to foment trouble in America to undermine democracy. Ask yourself, "Can anyone really be this stupid?" If the answer is "No," then you might be responding to a bot.
If I didn't know so many Trumpers myself I'd believe these are 'bots, but unfortunately there are a LOT of Americans who refuse to do any real investigating when it comes to their beloved Trump. He brought them what they wanted as President and they're willing to look past Anything and Everything in hopes of having him back in power. I'd guarantee none of them listened to the 1/6 Investigation interviews. The ones that described what DJT was doing as folks were storming the capital that day. They don't want to hear what actually happened, and what he was and wasn't doing. It's a sad state of affairs on the right currently. Hopefully they'll move past this grifter as he hopefully ends up serving some much deserved time.
Yeah. Some "could be" bots, but "useful idiots" is the much higher probability for all of them.
You're talking about people who specifically scour video only for the most calm and rule-abiding among the J6 throng but neglect the smashed windows, zip ties, and cries of "hang Mike Pence." Confirming their priors, they're absolutely certain that any malfeasance could only and always be the result of agent provocateurs, the great Antifa peril.
They listen to the guy who changes his story nine times, pick their favorite version, and say, "See? He's telling the truth. Prove to me what's wrong about what he says here."
These are people who would say, "I don't see what the problem is. These guys specifically said that you have a nice place here and that it would be a shame if something happened to it."
121 -
land of enchantment wrote:
Noyankee wrote:
If you do the crime, be willing to do the time!
That’s one BIG if. your diseased laden counterpart in NY still trying to explain.
07 -
Commode flusher wrote:
charges read serious but ... wrote:
Criminal charges against D.J.T. read serious but law makers write all charges to read serious. Spitting on sidewalk can be read as a serious charge.
* Many or all presidents take documents. How else do you believe they have material for their post-president library.
* Many former government employees take documents.
* I see nothing serious. Where are the names of C.I.A. &/or O.N.I. employees and human assets?
* Where are illegal weapon and munition transactions?
* I don't see any evidence of selling specs for most modern weapon systems.
So many former presidents engage in graft and corruption. Interesting how B.H.O. was near broke 15 or 16 years ago but he has 70 million dollars now from a $400,000/yr. job. W. Clinton sure got rich after he left office. Could it be D.J.T. would have told Jackie Speier and the rest of warmongers in d.n.c. no to ukraine conflict?
The primary defense being discussed on Fox and Twitter is that there is a First Amendment right to discuss conspiracies with co-conspirators. Freedom of speech and all.
They are going to learn that the First Amendment does not extend to:
1) Planning to commit a crime (interfering with government activity)
2) Sending thousands of people to attack other people
3) Moving beyond speech to commit fraud/forgery (the fake electors scam)
They know that is a talking point to get them through the news cycle.
The "real" defense that they will try is spoken in more hushed tones. "Donald Trump isn't a lawyer. He was acting on the advice of lawyers."
In other words, they are going to say that it was somehow normal to ignore all the paid, official White House lawyers in favor of the lunatics, and then they are going to throw all the lunatics under the bus to try to save Trump.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.110 -
Noyankee wrote:
They are going to say you are a dead on communist who has tried writing these indictments since 2016, daily I might add, and that it will be a cold day in h*LL before we allow communists to take America. Simply writing up indictments to satisfy your disease, and further taking down attorneys who dare to represent one of your opposition leader targets, means little other than exposing you for what and who you are, someone afraid of the vote and afraid to live in a World where not every single person shares your opinion.
we would also say…and wait for it.,..wait for it….
We have the Supreme Court.
Darned straight! COMMIES, I tell you! Every single one of 'em COMMIES!!!
10 -
ceaselessly baffled wrote:
GWT wrote:
If I didn't know so many Trumpers myself I'd believe these are 'bots, but unfortunately there are a LOT of Americans who refuse to do any real investigating when it comes to their beloved Trump. He brought them what they wanted as President and they're willing to look past Anything and Everything in hopes of having him back in power. I'd guarantee none of them listened to the 1/6 Investigation interviews. The ones that described what DJT was doing as folks were storming the capital that day. They don't want to hear what actually happened, and what he was and wasn't doing. It's a sad state of affairs on the right currently. Hopefully they'll move past this grifter as he hopefully ends up serving some much deserved time.
They listen to the guy who changes his story nine times, pick their favorite version, and say, "See? He's telling the truth. Prove to me what's wrong about what he says here."
This is how nuts people can get over Trump. They contradict every principle and logical thought they ever had when it comes to Trump.
DeSantis said: "While I’ve seen reports, I have not read the indictment. I do, though, believe we need to enact reforms so that Americans have the right to remove cases from Washington, DC to their home districts.”
DeSantis is an intelligent man and a trained lawyer. But right now, solely because of the Trump Indictment, he is advocating that CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS should be allowed to engage in forum/court shopping and have their CRIMINAL cases tried in their home district rather than where they committed their crimes if they so desire. It's too demented a proposal to even really address.
81 -
not american wrote:
Kokinho wrote:
I wasn't old enough to vote for or against him so I say this as someone who is just watching from the sidelines, but these all sound way too vague to take seriously. Bottom line is he has free speech rights to claim he won the election regardless of what the correct vote count is.
I'm not from the US, but it seems increasingly to be a country similar to Turkey or Russia where the political opposition use criminal law as a tool to get into power, or to deter applicants standing for the opposition. Isn't Clinton supposed to have done far worse? Is Obama squeaky clean? How about the people behind Biden?
I agree with you that these charges are worryingly vague and all encompassing. I would expect to see charges much more specifically created as offences in a first world country. The nature of those charges mean that they are open to abuse by political opponents.
Exactly man and thanks for adding your perspective
21 -
Remind me if they indicted Gore, Hillary, Waters, etc. for challenging the legitimacy of an election.
211 -
Ivyguy wrote:
Kokinho wrote:
I wasn't old enough to vote for or against him so I say this as someone who is just watching from the sidelines, but these all sound way too vague to take seriously. Bottom line is he has free speech rights to claim he won the election regardless of what the correct vote count is.
I urge you (and everyone else) to read the actual indictment. (It's really not that long.) President Trump is not being prosecuted for simply lying about the election results.
Sorry but that's essentially what it boils down to. You can use more formal scarier sounding language like "defraud" and "conspiracy" but it essentially boils down to a thoughtcrime and therefore will not hold up outside of a banana republic.
33 -
Kokinho wrote:
not american wrote:
I'm not from the US, but it seems increasingly to be a country similar to Turkey or Russia where the political opposition use criminal law as a tool to get into power, or to deter applicants standing for the opposition. Isn't Clinton supposed to have done far worse? Is Obama squeaky clean? How about the people behind Biden?
I agree with you that these charges are worryingly vague and all encompassing. I would expect to see charges much more specifically created as offences in a first world country. The nature of those charges mean that they are open to abuse by political opponents.
Exactly man and thanks for adding your perspective
The indictment is not vague - read it.
The 'abuse' was by Trump and his attempt as a sitting president to manipulate an fair/legal election.
The reason this type of case is unprecedented is because Trump's attempt to overturn a fair/legal election is unprecedented.
41 -
Kokinho wrote:
Ivyguy wrote:
I urge you (and everyone else) to read the actual indictment. (It's really not that long.) President Trump is not being prosecuted for simply lying about the election results.
Sorry but that's essentially what it boils down to. You can use more formal scarier sounding language like "defraud" and "conspiracy" but it essentially boils down to a thoughtcrime and therefore will not hold up outside of a banana republic.
^
This person has not read the indictment. Don’t be like him.81 -
comedyreIeaf wrote:
Remind me if they indicted Gore, Hillary, Waters, etc. for challenging the legitimacy of an election.
Challenging the legitimacy of an election can be a reasonable action (although I don't personally see the same degree of reasonableness in each of your examples).
There are many such reasonable actions. Some of Former President Trump's actions were reasonable, some were not very reasonable but legal, and some were (apparently and allegedly) neither. I don't think filing lawsuits (and losing nearly all of them) was one of the counts in the indictment. Former President Trump had every right to do that.
60 -
jonesy22 wrote:
This is the worst indictment ever. Why is he not charged with incitement? The co-conspirators are all lawyers giving legal advice? What a fing joke, motion to dismiss, I wanna see how this joke of a "prosecutor" is going to show intent.
You mad bro???
12 -
ceaselessly baffled wrote:
GWT wrote:
If I didn't know so many Trumpers myself I'd believe these are 'bots, but unfortunately there are a LOT of Americans who refuse to do any real investigating when it comes to their beloved Trump. He brought them what they wanted as President and they're willing to look past Anything and Everything in hopes of having him back in power. I'd guarantee none of them listened to the 1/6 Investigation interviews. The ones that described what DJT was doing as folks were storming the capital that day. They don't want to hear what actually happened, and what he was and wasn't doing. It's a sad state of affairs on the right currently. Hopefully they'll move past this grifter as he hopefully ends up serving some much deserved time.
Yeah. Some "could be" bots, but "useful idiots" is the much higher probability for all of them.
You're talking about people who specifically scour video only for the most calm and rule-abiding among the J6 throng but neglect the smashed windows, zip ties, and cries of "hang Mike Pence." Confirming their priors, they're absolutely certain that any malfeasance could only and always be the result of agent provocateurs, the great Antifa peril.
They listen to the guy who changes his story nine times, pick their favorite version, and say, "See? He's telling the truth. Prove to me what's wrong about what he says here."
These are people who would say, "I don't see what the problem is. These guys specifically said that you have a nice place here and that it would be a shame if something happened to it."
I think what it really shows is the extent to which Trump had successfully isolated these people from credible sources of information. They don’t trust news reporters, so they have no way to piece together the gravity of what’s taken place. You see it in the global warming thread going on right now too: people trying to piece together an opinion on complicated science without trusting the science community. It ends up as nonsense, which is just what someone (Trump) wants whose goal is to warp the truth.
51 -
I remember when Dr. Timothy Snyder was making the rounds on the political talks shows in 2017 warning about the impending fascism of Trump. I remember thinking at that time that Trump was too dumb and incompetent to actually be a fascist. When Jan 6 came around, everyone was lauded Dr. Snyder claiming that he predicted it. But the decisive moment came when Trump capitulated and went on TV calling for the Jan 6 riot to end. If Trump was really a fascist, he would have called on the military to seize Congress and made a naked grab for power. But he didn't.
Trump is not a fascist. Trump is a capitalist who comes from a long line of CEOs and powerful capitalists who see the world as a competition where the rules are for suckers. Trump's stop the steal was nothing like Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch or Pinochet shelling the presidential palace. It was more like Phillip Morris claiming for decades that cigarette do not cause cancer or Exxon Mobil knowing that CO2 emissions causes climate change but spending millions on PR campaigns claiming the exact opposite. Trump was formed in a capitalist economy where wrongdoers regularly win and rarely are held accountable. Trump business career has from the beginning been all about winning at any costs and to hell with the rules. So, stop the steal was not an attempt to subvert democracy and implement fascism. It was a marketing ploy to try to turn a bad loss into a win. It came out of a business ethic (or lack thereof) that says you do whatever it takes to win and those who follow the rules are weak losers.
With that in mind, the criminal charges around January 6 are necessary not because our democracy depends on it. They are necessary because there is an ongoing battle in our society between those who believe like Trump that life is just a game where you do whatever it takes to win no matter who gets hurt in the process and all the regular people who get hurt. Trump is just on a continuum from asbestos to black lung to the S&L crisis to 2008 housing crash to Enron to FTX and so on.
52 -
But he built a big beautiful wall and Mexico paid for it. He limited the trump-covid virus to his promised 6 people and personally cured them all with bleach and Lysol. He had perfect phone calls. His love letters to Kim Jong Un were magnificent, the best letters ever.
41 -
comedyreIeaf wrote:
Remind me if they indicted Gore, Hillary, Waters, etc. for challenging the legitimacy of an election.
^
This person has ALSO not read the indictment. Don’t be like him either.61
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
Of General Interest
-
Parker Valby makes Barstool Sports' list of hottest athletes at the Olympics
-
Australian coach hates on his own gold medalist for her mild anti-wokery
-
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
-
Cole Hocker: "If I stay healthy, I don’t think anyone can beat me. Definitely not in America,”