- This topic has 17 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 months, 1 week ago by .
-
Posts
-
Just curious:
The prosecution accuses him of trying to tamper with the election. If the election was indeed rigged/stolen, then seemingly there is no crime in trying to–for argument’s sake–steal it back. Hence, the prosecution should first have to prove that the election was legitimate.
I personally would love if all of Trump’s arguments came, once and for all, to a courtroom, and properly analyzed and judged. Unfortunately this is Georgia and not Michigan, but, once and for all, I think everyone wants the case proven one way or the other.So, what is the facts about this? Does Georgia have to first prove it was a legitimate election?
We have laws in this country.
If the election was stolen, the only way to legally overturn it is to turn to the court system.
If you have no success with the legal system, then anything you do after that is a crime. It is a crime even if you have the biggest lawyers and the most influential senators and congressmen together with you.
And even if you have 70 million Americans that support you.Not a legal expert nor am I following this very closely.
However, I believe that they do not need to prove that the elections were legitimate, this has been confirmed by those that certify the elections.
I believe it will boil down to the intent of the former president. The actions are not debatable, they are what they are, it is what he was attempting to do with his actions.
Jackk,
Apparently, he believed that there are other mechanisms in the system that would prevent the elections from being certified and he wanted to utilize them. I cannot speak for his intentions, or if those mechanisms are truly there or not.
The funniest pleading so far is Mark Meadlow’s petition lst night to have the case against him moved to federal court. He claims that traveling down to Atlanta to “observe” the vote counts, twice attempting to gain access to counting rooms where NO entry is allowed except authorized elections staff, multiple telephone calls related to approving a phony slate of electors etc. etc. all in connection with a STATE election process where Trump’s own Attorney General and FBI director found no evidence of widespread fraud, were nonetheless all done “under the color of his duties as a federal official” rather than as an agent of a political candidate seeking to overturn legitimate election results. Transferring a case to federal court requires that the actions were undertaken pursuant to his duties as a federal official; engaging in private “investigative” work on behalf of a losing candidate and aiding and abetting a conspiracy is NOT part of his job description.
Participant: Jack and 2cents are correct. You are not allowed to be a vigilante even if the election was crooked. Hopefully the law itself gives a route to challenge or verify an election. And it does. In this case, Rudy, Trump, & Co. pursued numerous legal avenues to challenge and verify the elections. They introduced testimony and eveidence, ALL of which has been discredited. This includes bogus claims of shutting down voting centers due to a pipe break (untrue), lots of dead people voting (not true) and accusations that poll workers were tampering with votes (which Rudy is in big trouble for now). The State, including Trump-appointed officials failed to find any irregularities, and certified the vote after 2 recounts.
So that’s where the vigilantism comes in: the alledged crimes all occured AFTER Trump had already exhausted all legal avenues for both verifying and challenging the vote count, and after Georgia officials (as well as Trump-appointees and his own election security team) all said there’s no evidence of fraud and nothing even suspicious. One can always blow up reality and play with our minds by repeating accusations and consiracy theories. I am looking forward to a fair trial before the election as any true “law and order” president should want as well.
Democrats contest every midterm and presidential election they lose.
A Public Service Announcement.
If you ever think that you are ” allowed ” to do something illegal because of A,B or C, do not be surprised when the Government arrests you for doing A, B or C.
If you ever think that you are simply helping another person do something illegal, do not be surprised when the Government arrests you too.There are nebach too many Yidden who were and are currently in jail because of the above 2 mistakes.
lakewhut: Anybody is within their legal right to contest an election. But when all legal avenues are exhausted, that’s when you have to be a true American leader and show people you play by the rules and concede. Otherwise you are an anarchist. Gore effectively lost in court and backed down. Same thing with Stacey Abrams. I heard there was a democrat who tried not to certify Trump in 2016. Shame on them, but at least they tried to do it through legal route, unlike what is alledged against Trump.
For those of you who might not know how overwhelming the evidence may be indicating conspiracy, here’s just 1 text gathered in evidence, taken from a defedant involved with the fake elector effort:
“I must ask for your complete discretion in this process,” Sinners wrote. “Your duties are imperative to ensure the end result – a win in Georgia for President Trump – but will be hampered unless we have complete secrecy and discretion.”For all of you who say there was nothing illegal with having fake electors, note the secrecy. We also have Trump’s lawyer’s memo to Trump telling him the fake elector plan won’t pass legal scrutiny. So here you have the fact that Trump knew of the plan, knowledge that it probably wasnt legal, and the coordinated efforts to do it anyway on the behalf of Trump’s behalf (lawyers by definition work on the clients behalf) and campaign. So the ‘just following lawyer’s bad advice’ defense isn’t available to Trump. This is a big reason why it’ll be legally relatively straightford to prove conspiracy to commit a crime. This is way bigger than watergate, folks.
Good morning participant,
If it was clear Trump lost the election due to fraud, then yes, I’d feel bad for him if the law couldn’t help him. The same way I’d feel for a murder victim’s family if the murderer was caught on video but the court was for some reason unable to convict. But it still doesn’t give the victim’s family the right to kill the murderer on their own. In our instance case, however, I saw enough of the evidence to feel comfortable that there was no fraud, and the courts got it right by rejecting Trump’s arguments of fraud.I wasn’t saying that Jack and 2cents were saying the same thing. Just that I agreed with them both. btw, as for 2cents, I was going on his 1st post, not the one right after.
Dear Participant,
I think you are suggesting a very novel defense. That of course it is illegal to tamper with or access election results. But once they were already ‘stolen’, then it no longer reflects the results of an election and it would not be a crime. But then the defense would have to prove that it was ‘stolen’ in the first place. This is the only way I imagine that the proceedings would get bogged down in all the silly stuff.
It seems like the prosecution expects that the defense will be each one pointing fingers at the other and saying not me.
Trump may believe that he won and is president just as there are people in the streets claiming to be Moshiach or have other delusions. That doesn’t give them authority to do as they want, they are usually ignored, laughed at or sent for psych evaluations.
“Either way, if there is no way to overturn a stolen election, other than fighting it in court systems which all turn it down due to technical reasons…”
Participant: Whatever you are smoking, I hope you are in a jurisdiction where it is legal. Of the 65 to 70 court proceedings dealing with challenges to the voting, certifications, electors, etc., at least half or more were MERITS cases and not procedural. Even those cases that were arguably “procedural”, many dealt with standing and late filings or were summarily dismissed because Trump’s lawyers never followed up an initial “complaint” with the require evidence or showings. When Trump’s own Attorney General, FBI Director, head of the election monitoring office at DHS etc. along with at least 17 Trump appointed federal judges all say conclusively there was no evidence of election irregularities that would have changed the outcome, its more than “procedural”.
Participant,
There is no defense of walking into a bank and using your freedom of speech to mention to the teller that she should hand over all the money in her cash box because you believe the bank stole money from you.
The prosecutors do not have to prove anything except show the jury the video and they go right to jail. No passing mar-a-lago.Same here. The background of why Trump committed crimes is irrelevant.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.