That's exactly what will happen, and that's why so much of this is bullshit. It's all for show. The media will run the numbers and no one will look any deeper.
Trump Investigations Thread
- Thread starter Rocinante
- Start date
DarthOne
☦️
Yeah it’s very much a situation where I hope we’re wrong about the result of this.
Bigking321
Well-known member
Nah. We're full banana republic now.
Time to throw your political opponents in jail on made up charges.
And questioning if the election was legitimate is now a conspiracy charge.
No wonder Biden doesn't give a crap about trying to run. Why bother?
Time to throw your political opponents in jail on made up charges.
And questioning if the election was legitimate is now a conspiracy charge.
No wonder Biden doesn't give a crap about trying to run. Why bother?
Last edited:
The problem is when you play by banana republic rules sooner or later the other guy does the same thing and Biden has far more in his closet
The GOP or at least the three or four who aren't massively cucked need to begin reciprocating against anyone vaguely affiliated with the uniparty.
Megadeath
Well-known member
I haven't seen a single article discussing the number of acts. There's a lot because it takes a lot to describe a complicated and widespread plot. I believe Trump has been hit with 13 actual charges. That isn't actually a huge number, and easily could have been inflated to several times that if that was their real goal.
Neither of those is actually close to describing this or any of the other cases.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Punish the child for the sins of the father... You just can't help yourself can you? You watch but you are blind.
When a child thinks that their parents sins are virtue incarnate it might be wise to keep them away from power.
Megadeath
Well-known member
Undoubtedly that's true. Because that's appropriately punishing someone for thinking the wrong thing. 😉
That's not what @The Immortal Watch Dog suggested though, and certainly no evidence has been given that your description would apply in this case.
Exactly
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
If you're taking the position that Democrats are ipso facto literally communists, I'm going to just disagree and dip out. If this woman specifically is a communist, I have no reason to resist the idea, but I would ask you for evidence instead of just taking your word for it.
Megadeath
Well-known member
When you say "her parents", didn't someone already correct you that it was one of her grandparents? It doesn't really come across as you actually knowing what you're talking about, so much as just spewing ignorant hate.
🙄 <-My surprised face
Airedale260
Well-known member
To #1, the charges aren’t actually made up. Some of them (most notably the Manhattan charges, which can probably be tossed on summary judgment) are basically a prosecutor contorting the law to make something stick. Ironically, charges related to “bad legal advice” could well be used against the current prosecutors, but I’m not sure that that could even withstand a constitutional challenge.
To #2, in this case it isn’t “questioning the election” so much as it is Trump trying to apparently* browbeat a Georgia election official into overturning the results. The “perfect phone call” was anything but, although the real question that’s going to be put before a jury is “Did Trump actually try to force Raffensperger to overturn the election, or is he just a complete idiot who doesn’t understand that he shouldn’t rely on third hand information from dubious sources?”
Unlike the federal charges, though, election law violations are clearly spelled out at the state level so this isn’t a stretch like the last round of federal indictments. Except for the RICO bit, which definitely is a reach.
No, but I think the RICO charge (which by itself takes up a whole 71 pages) is excessive, and doesn’t really fit. As far as listing the “acts” I think that just stems from the fact that most people aren’t familiar with legal proceedings and don’t understand that every important fact has to be spelled out before drawing conclusions based on them.
As to why Willis didn’t just charge conspiracy instead of RICO, I don’t know, especially since the bar for proving that would be a lot lower.
I was referring to you two tearing at each other. Looking at both of your posts, you both made some valid points.
It's doubtful anyone here doesn't believe the system is insanely corrupt- the only question is just how and by how much?
Vyor
My influence grows!
They literally listed Trump asking his lawyers advice on how to pursue election fraud cases as an act.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
So hypothetically: if said cases are bullshit, and he knows they're bullshit, and his reason for wanting to pursue the cases despite that is as a smokescreen for some criminal conspiracy, that would be a reason to list the otherwise innocent behavior of "asking lawyers for advice on how to pursue a case"
Bigking321
Well-known member
But that just happens to look exactly like doing the completely normal and legal stuff involved in contesting a election?
What happens anytime a republican contests anything now? Charged for conspiracy because they actually knew they lost?
Bullshit. Even if someone actually thinks they lost they still have the right to contest it. Elections have flipped before because of various reasons.
"They called it and I think I may have actually lost." is a bad reason not to contest a election if it's close.
What happens anytime a republican contests anything now? Charged for conspiracy because they actually knew they lost?
Bullshit. Even if someone actually thinks they lost they still have the right to contest it. Elections have flipped before because of various reasons.
"They called it and I think I may have actually lost." is a bad reason not to contest a election if it's close.
Vyor
My influence grows!
A lot of people pursue cases they are told they can't win, you realize that right?