Team Trump v/s Everyone

[houndawg]

J6 political prisoners… :roflmao:

If trump has immunity for everything he did while President then biden could shoot trump dead and claim immunity. That is not a precedent anyone (Republican, Democrat or independent) should want the courts to set.

Lol Biden couldn’t hold a gun steady enough..

Wouldn't need to, no one could miss an ass that size. Wherever he goes he has to make two trips - I heard they're even talking about making him an honorary Kardashian.

[UNI88]

A Wisconsin rightwinger’s fall from conservative grace: ‘The Maga crowd despises him’

In early December, a rightwing Wisconsin organization called HOT Government sent out a breathless email: Mike Lindell, the pillow salesman turned election conspiracy theorist and staunch Donald Trump ally, had nominated an important Wisconsin politician for a dubious award.

The prize would go to the person who exemplifies “leadership in BEING AN OBSTACLE TO STOPPING ELECTION CRIME”, the email declared.

Lindell’s target wasn’t a Democrat, nonpartisan election official or even a moderate Republican – it was Robin Vos, the powerful Wisconsin Republican assembly speaker.
...
He was in all respects a loyal rightwinger. But Vos has drawn a line at embracing Trump’s false claim that he actually won Wisconsin in 2020 and refused to join colleagues who suggested overturning the 2020 election. His unwillingness to cross that line has turned him into a pariah on the far right, a target of Lindell, an enemy of Trump and a symbol of the current state of the Republican party where loyalty to Trump is the key litmus test.

100% loyalty is required. Thou will not deviate even one iota or thou shall be cast out to live among the liberals and RINOs until we cleanse the Sodom and Gomorrah that they have created and continue to attempt to force upon us.

The new Republican Party pledge:
"I swear to you, donald trump,
as Leader and President of the American Realm,
that I will be loyal and brave.
I pledge obedience unto death to you and those you appoint to lead.
So help me God."

[SeattleGriz]

Exposed again. Bro, it came about in 2002 because the Enron case. Evidentiary material was destroyed, and hence, obstructing an official proceeding.

You keep getting your talking points from "Mueller She Wrote" as well apparently. Twitter Lawyer to the rescue. Not an original thought in your response.

Lazy ass.

WTF are you even talking about? It sure as shit wasn’t anything in my post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You didn't answer my question on how they have distorted "obstruction of an official proceeding". I asked it right after pointing out Biden couldn't shoot Trump.

You replied with Hannity esque hyperbole.

Merry Christmas by the way!

[UNI88]

WTF are you even talking about? It sure as shit wasn’t anything in my post.

You didn't answer my question on how they have distorted "obstruction of an official proceeding". I asked it right after pointing out Biden couldn't shoot Trump.

You replied with Hannity esque hyperbole.

Merry Christmas by the way!

Why don't you tell me how they've distorted "obstruction of an official proceeding"?

And you have yet to explain how trump's actions following the election were part of his official duties as President.

Tell me how:
- Continuously pushing fake news about a stolen election on your gullible followers is ensuring election integrity.
- Inciting a seditious riot is ensuring election integrity.
- Putting together slates of fraudulent electors is ensuring election integrity.
- Calling elected officials and attempting to bully them into not certifying results without proof of fraud is ensuring election integrity.

If those are the actions of a President fulfilling his or her official duties then shooting trump (who was the greatest threat to election integrity in 2020 and likely will be again in 2024) also falls under "ensuring election integrity".

Merry Christmas you filthy animal!

[SeattleGriz]

You didn't answer my question on how they have distorted "obstruction of an official proceeding". I asked it right after pointing out Biden couldn't shoot Trump.

You replied with Hannity esque hyperbole.

Merry Christmas by the way!

Why don't you tell me how they've distorted "obstruction of an official proceeding"?

And you have yet to explain how trump's actions following the election were part of his official duties as President.

Tell me how:
- Continuously pushing fake news about a stolen election on your gullible followers is ensuring election integrity.
- Inciting a seditious riot is ensuring election integrity.
- Putting together slates of fraudulent electors is ensuring election integrity.
- Calling elected officials and attempting to bully them into not certifying results without proof of fraud is ensuring election integrity.

If those are the actions of a President fulfilling his or her official duties then shooting trump (who was the greatest threat to election integrity in 2020 and likely will be again in 2024) also falls under "ensuring election integrity".

Merry Christmas you filthy animal!

The charge they are using was created in 2002 due to Enron officials shredding requested documents and thus obstructing an official proceeding.

Using 18 U.S. § 1512(c)(2) in the manner they have for J6 is brand new, thus novel legal theory.

If this is going to be the new norm, BDKJMU is correct to point out any time you have Leftist protestor obstruct any sort of "official proceeding", they need to be hit with charges, but for some reason, we never saw that happen until Biden was President.

[UNI88]

Why don't you tell me how they've distorted "obstruction of an official proceeding"?

And you have yet to explain how trump's actions following the election were part of his official duties as President.

Tell me how:
- Continuously pushing fake news about a stolen election on your gullible followers is ensuring election integrity.
- Inciting a seditious riot is ensuring election integrity.
- Putting together slates of fraudulent electors is ensuring election integrity.
- Calling elected officials and attempting to bully them into not certifying results without proof of fraud is ensuring election integrity.

If those are the actions of a President fulfilling his or her official duties then shooting trump (who was the greatest threat to election integrity in 2020 and likely will be again in 2024) also falls under "ensuring election integrity".

Merry Christmas you filthy animal!

The charge they are using was created in 2002 due to Enron officials shredding requested documents and thus obstructing an official proceeding.

Using 18 U.S. § 1512(c)(2) in the manner they have for J6 is brand new, thus novel legal theory.

If this is going to be the new norm, BDKJMU is correct to point out any time you have Leftist protestor obstruct any sort of "official proceeding", they need to be hit with charges, but for some reason, we never saw that happen until Biden was President.

Questions:
1) Wouldn't (c)(1) apply to Enron and (c)(2) to the January 6 riot?
2) Have laws never been used in brand new, thus novel, ways?

I have no problem with protesters who obstruct an official proceeding being fined or imprisoned but I think the gravity of the proceeding should be a factor in determining the penalty. Temporarily obstructing a Congressional hearing (that can be rescheduled) is not nearly as bad as attempting to permanently obstruct the peaceful transfer of power (which could be considered an attempt to overthrow the rightful incoming government). Give the Congressional hearing protesters a fine and give the January 6 defendants prison time.

Your turn, how were trump's actions following the election part of his official duties as President?

[SeattleGriz]

The charge they are using was created in 2002 due to Enron officials shredding requested documents and thus obstructing an official proceeding.

Using 18 U.S. § 1512(c)(2) in the manner they have for J6 is brand new, thus novel legal theory.

If this is going to be the new norm, BDKJMU is correct to point out any time you have Leftist protestor obstruct any sort of "official proceeding", they need to be hit with charges, but for some reason, we never saw that happen until Biden was President.

Questions:
1) Wouldn't (c)(1) apply to Enron and (c)(2) to the January 6 riot?
2) Have laws never been used in brand new, thus novel, ways?

I have no problem with protesters who obstruct an official proceeding being fined or imprisoned but I think the gravity of the proceeding should be a factor in determining the penalty. Temporarily obstructing a Congressional hearing (that can be rescheduled) is not nearly as bad as attempting to permanently obstruct the peaceful transfer of power (which could be considered an attempt to overthrow the rightful incoming government). Give the Congressional hearing protesters a fine and give the January 6 defendants prison time.

Your turn, how were trump's actions following the election part of his official duties as President?

His responsibility was to oversee fair elections. Everyone who was paying attention to election admits there were many new wrinkles due to COVID. Multiple laws being changed without proper approval, signature matching requirements not met, past data points not being met with the election, tabulating centers being closed and counting allowed to continue without proper oversight, etc.

You'd think states would want to prove they were on the up and up, but they've fought outside validation the whole ways.

For example, did you know that in Fulton county, GA, there has been a lawsuit running since the election in which they still have not been able to corroborate ballot images with the tally? In that big Arizona audit, they were denied going to individual houses and asking why they upwards of 20 ballots come out of that address. Getting to the root cause has been denied for no apparent reason. That's just the surface of those inquiring for validation being prevented.

[SeattleGriz]

The charge they are using was created in 2002 due to Enron officials shredding requested documents and thus obstructing an official proceeding.

Using 18 U.S. § 1512(c)(2) in the manner they have for J6 is brand new, thus novel legal theory.

If this is going to be the new norm, BDKJMU is correct to point out any time you have Leftist protestor obstruct any sort of "official proceeding", they need to be hit with charges, but for some reason, we never saw that happen until Biden was President.

Questions:
1) Wouldn't (c)(1) apply to Enron and (c)(2) to the January 6 riot?
2) Have laws never been used in brand new, thus novel, ways?

I have no problem with protesters who obstruct an official proceeding being fined or imprisoned but I think the gravity of the proceeding should be a factor in determining the penalty. Temporarily obstructing a Congressional hearing (that can be rescheduled) is not nearly as bad as attempting to permanently obstruct the peaceful transfer of power (which could be considered an attempt to overthrow the rightful incoming government). Give the Congressional hearing protesters a fine and give the January 6 defendants prison time.

Your turn, how were trump's actions following the election part of his official duties as President?

Had to reply in two posts.

In regards to your question #1, because the law was designed to prevent destruction of evidence. Stopping a meeting is not the same.

This is just like the NY lawsuit against Trump and his claims to the banks. That law was designed to be used against predatory lending institutions, not the person getting the loan.

This is simple Lawfare in which they hope to tie Trump's hands before the election. Much like Russia collusion. The vast majority is made up bullshit. BDKJMU also raised a good point in which you take into account where the charges originated from.

The documents case is a civil disagreement, not a felony like they are trying to charge. More made up shit. The "law" in all these cases has been stretched exceedingly thin.

[kalm]

Questions:
1) Wouldn't (c)(1) apply to Enron and (c)(2) to the January 6 riot?
2) Have laws never been used in brand new, thus novel, ways?

I have no problem with protesters who obstruct an official proceeding being fined or imprisoned but I think the gravity of the proceeding should be a factor in determining the penalty. Temporarily obstructing a Congressional hearing (that can be rescheduled) is not nearly as bad as attempting to permanently obstruct the peaceful transfer of power (which could be considered an attempt to overthrow the rightful incoming government). Give the Congressional hearing protesters a fine and give the January 6 defendants prison time.

Your turn, how were trump's actions following the election part of his official duties as President?

His responsibility was to oversee fair elections. Everyone who was paying attention to election admits there were many new wrinkles due to COVID. Multiple laws being changed without proper approval, signature matching requirements not met, past data points not being met with the election, tabulating centers being closed and counting allowed to continue without proper oversight, etc.

You'd think states would want to prove they were on the up and up, but they've fought outside validation the whole ways.

For example, did you know that in Fulton county, GA, there has been a lawsuit running since the election in which they still have not been able to corroborate ballot images with the tally? In that big Arizona audit, they were denied going to individual houses and asking why they upwards of 20 ballots come out of that address. Getting to the root cause has been denied for no apparent reason. That's just the surface of those inquiring for validation being prevented.

Aside from all of the various ways you attempted to flood the zone here, elections oversight is the responsibility of all branches of government. At the very least, don’t you think those within the executive who are involved are free to act independently of POTUS similar to the DOJ? Or that since…you know…he had skin in the game, he might want to remove himself from the process?

Of course you don’t. His “responsibility was to oversees fair elections.”

[houndawg]

Questions:
1) Wouldn't (c)(1) apply to Enron and (c)(2) to the January 6 riot?
2) Have laws never been used in brand new, thus novel, ways?

I have no problem with protesters who obstruct an official proceeding being fined or imprisoned but I think the gravity of the proceeding should be a factor in determining the penalty. Temporarily obstructing a Congressional hearing (that can be rescheduled) is not nearly as bad as attempting to permanently obstruct the peaceful transfer of power (which could be considered an attempt to overthrow the rightful incoming government). Give the Congressional hearing protesters a fine and give the January 6 defendants prison time.

Your turn, how were trump's actions following the election part of his official duties as President?

Had to reply in two posts.

In regards to your question #1, because the law was designed to prevent destruction of evidence. Stopping a meeting is not the same.

This is just like the NY lawsuit against Trump and his claims to the banks. That law was designed to be used against predatory lending institutions, not the person getting the loan.

This is simple Lawfare in which they hope to tie Trump's hands before the election. Much like Russia collusion. The vast majority is made up bullshit. BDKJMU also raised a good point in which you take into account where the charges originated from.

The documents case is a civil disagreement, not a felony like they are trying to charge. More made up shit. The "law" in all these cases has been stretched exceedingly thin.

Poor Donald, everybody is out to get him. Its a vast conspiracy

[UNI88]

Questions:
1) Wouldn't (c)(1) apply to Enron and (c)(2) to the January 6 riot?
2) Have laws never been used in brand new, thus novel, ways?

I have no problem with protesters who obstruct an official proceeding being fined or imprisoned but I think the gravity of the proceeding should be a factor in determining the penalty. Temporarily obstructing a Congressional hearing (that can be rescheduled) is not nearly as bad as attempting to permanently obstruct the peaceful transfer of power (which could be considered an attempt to overthrow the rightful incoming government). Give the Congressional hearing protesters a fine and give the January 6 defendants prison time.

Your turn, how were trump's actions following the election part of his official duties as President?

His responsibility was to oversee fair elections. Everyone who was paying attention to election admits there were many new wrinkles due to COVID. Multiple laws being changed without proper approval, signature matching requirements not met, past data points not being met with the election, tabulating centers being closed and counting allowed to continue without proper oversight, etc.

You'd think states would want to prove they were on the up and up, but they've fought outside validation the whole ways.

For example, did you know that in Fulton county, GA, there has been a lawsuit running since the election in which they still have not been able to corroborate ballot images with the tally? In that big Arizona audit, they were denied going to individual houses and asking why they upwards of 20 ballots come out of that address. Getting to the root cause has been denied for no apparent reason. That's just the surface of those inquiring for validation being prevented.

You’re giving the President more responsibility than s/he actually has in order to defend trump’s actions.

Show me where in the Constitution the President has primary responsibility to oversee fair elections.

Then tell me how inciting a seditious riot, arranging for slates of fraudulent electors and attempting to bully state officials (many from his own party) into not certifying results is part of overseeing fair elections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

His responsibility was to oversee fair elections. Everyone who was paying attention to election admits there were many new wrinkles due to COVID. Multiple laws being changed without proper approval, signature matching requirements not met, past data points not being met with the election, tabulating centers being closed and counting allowed to continue without proper oversight, etc.

You'd think states would want to prove they were on the up and up, but they've fought outside validation the whole ways.

For example, did you know that in Fulton county, GA, there has been a lawsuit running since the election in which they still have not been able to corroborate ballot images with the tally? In that big Arizona audit, they were denied going to individual houses and asking why they upwards of 20 ballots come out of that address. Getting to the root cause has been denied for no apparent reason. That's just the surface of those inquiring for validation being prevented.

Aside from all of the various ways you attempted to flood the zone here, elections oversight is the responsibility of all branches of government. At the very least, don’t you think those within the executive who are involved are free to act independently of POTUS similar to the DOJ? Or that since…you know…he had skin in the game, he might want to remove himself from the process?

Of course you don’t. His “responsibility was to oversees fair elections.”

Of course you misconstrue what I said.

Trump didn't personally oversee the election, but he had every right and a duty to ensure there wasn't interference.

You'd be howling today if the roles were reversed.

[SeattleGriz]

Had to reply in two posts.

In regards to your question #1, because the law was designed to prevent destruction of evidence. Stopping a meeting is not the same.

This is just like the NY lawsuit against Trump and his claims to the banks. That law was designed to be used against predatory lending institutions, not the person getting the loan.

This is simple Lawfare in which they hope to tie Trump's hands before the election. Much like Russia collusion. The vast majority is made up bullshit. BDKJMU also raised a good point in which you take into account where the charges originated from.

The documents case is a civil disagreement, not a felony like they are trying to charge. More made up shit. The "law" in all these cases has been stretched exceedingly thin.

Poor Donald, everybody is out to get him. Its a vast conspiracy

Not everyone, just those that are a part of the status quo establishment and don't like their money/power flow interrupted.

[SeattleGriz]

His responsibility was to oversee fair elections. Everyone who was paying attention to election admits there were many new wrinkles due to COVID. Multiple laws being changed without proper approval, signature matching requirements not met, past data points not being met with the election, tabulating centers being closed and counting allowed to continue without proper oversight, etc.

You'd think states would want to prove they were on the up and up, but they've fought outside validation the whole ways.

For example, did you know that in Fulton county, GA, there has been a lawsuit running since the election in which they still have not been able to corroborate ballot images with the tally? In that big Arizona audit, they were denied going to individual houses and asking why they upwards of 20 ballots come out of that address. Getting to the root cause has been denied for no apparent reason. That's just the surface of those inquiring for validation being prevented.

You’re giving the President more responsibility than s/he actually has in order to defend trump’s actions.

Show me where in the Constitution the President has primary responsibility to oversee fair elections.

Then tell me how inciting a seditious riot, arranging for slates of fraudulent electors and attempting to bully state officials (many from his own party) into not certifying results is part of overseeing fair elections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bro. I'm not going down your silly Hannity style talking points. It's the same game over and over. Hide behind the fact the cases against the election are being stalled by those at risk and then keep repeating that there is no proof.

We saw this same game with COVID, only everything was labeled a conspiracy and truthful dissenting opinions were supressed, only to now come out that the large majority was lied to. Hell, we still haven't seen the patient level data that was promised. Why is that?

Why has no one been able to get down to the individual votes and corroborate?

How about Russia collusion? Why did the government stall on documents Trump ordered to be declassified, only to them have Biden say they couldn't be released? It's the same with the election documents.

[UNI88]

You’re giving the President more responsibility than s/he actually has in order to defend trump’s actions.

Show me where in the Constitution the President has primary responsibility to oversee fair elections.

Then tell me how inciting a seditious riot, arranging for slates of fraudulent electors and attempting to bully state officials (many from his own party) into not certifying results is part of overseeing fair elections.

Bro. I'm not going down your silly Hannity style talking points. It's the same game over and over. Hide behind the fact the cases against the election are being stalked by those at risk and then keep repeating that there is no proof.

We saw this same game with COVID, only everything was labeled a conspiracy and truthful dissenting opinions were supressed, only to now come out that the large majority was lied to. Hell, we still haven't seen the patient level data that was promised. Why is that? Why has no one been able to get down to the individual votes and corroborate?

Cop out.

You can't show me where in the Constitution the President has primary responsibility to oversee fair elections because s/he doesn't. Elections are primarily the responsibility of the states. Much of the executive branch's responsibility is through the Federal Election Commission which is an independent agency.

A President who is serious about overseeing fair elections suspects that they weren't fair s/he works through DHS and their Attorney General. They don't speak to their followers, that is something a candidate does and isn't an "official duty". They don't arrange for slates of fraudulent electors and they don't try to bully state officials into not certifying the results. If his claims had merit, Republican officials in swing states would have stopped the certification. The fact that people like Raffensberger and Robin Vos wouldn't tells you all you need to know about trump's claims.

Tell me how I'm wrong?

You added to your post while I was responding so I'll include those as well ...

Getting down to the individual votes and corroborating is the role of the states. If they don't want to do it and there is a no court order forcing them to do it then they don't have to do it. trump has had nearly 3 years to provide evidence that would give the courts reason to step in and has failed to do so.

russia collusion? How is that relevant? Do you think the "deep state" is withholding proof of election fraud? There are thousands of bureaucrats working for the federal government, some of them are trump supporters. If the "deep state" were withholding proof, someone would spill the beans.

[SeattleGriz]

Bro. I'm not going down your silly Hannity style talking points. It's the same game over and over. Hide behind the fact the cases against the election are being stalked by those at risk and then keep repeating that there is no proof.

We saw this same game with COVID, only everything was labeled a conspiracy and truthful dissenting opinions were supressed, only to now come out that the large majority was lied to. Hell, we still haven't seen the patient level data that was promised. Why is that? Why has no one been able to get down to the individual votes and corroborate?

Cop out.

You can't show me where in the Constitution the President has primary responsibility to oversee fair elections because s/he doesn't. Elections are primarily the responsibility of the states. Much of the executive branch's responsibility is through the Federal Election Commission which is an independent agency.

A President who is serious about overseeing fair elections suspects that they weren't fair s/he works through DHS and their Attorney General. They don't speak to their followers, that is something a candidate does and isn't an "official duty". They don't arrange for slates of fraudulent electors and they don't try to bully state officials into not certifying the results. If his claims had merit, Republican officials in swing states would have stopped the certification. The fact that people like Raffensberger and Robin Vos wouldn't tells you all you need to know about trump's claims.

Tell me how I'm wrong?

Raffensberger? Are you kidding me? Why hasn't he stepped in and resolved the ballot images, vote count case in his own state then?

He's allowing a court case to languish under his watch. Why won't he settle it once and for all?

I agree it's up to the states, but when there is so much evidence and nothing is done, I'd expect the President to weigh in like he did.

And please, Bill Barr couldn't even keep Epstein alive. He's a piece of shit who knows where his next paycheck comes from.

[houndawg]

Cop out.

You can't show me where in the Constitution the President has primary responsibility to oversee fair elections because s/he doesn't. Elections are primarily the responsibility of the states. Much of the executive branch's responsibility is through the Federal Election Commission which is an independent agency.

A President who is serious about overseeing fair elections suspects that they weren't fair s/he works through DHS and their Attorney General. They don't speak to their followers, that is something a candidate does and isn't an "official duty". They don't arrange for slates of fraudulent electors and they don't try to bully state officials into not certifying the results. If his claims had merit, Republican officials in swing states would have stopped the certification. The fact that people like Raffensberger and Robin Vos wouldn't tells you all you need to know about trump's claims.

Tell me how I'm wrong?

Raffensberger? Are you kidding me? Why hasn't he stepped in and resolved the ballot images, vote count case in his own state then?

He's allowing a court case to languish under his watch. Why won't he settle it once and for all?

I agree it's up to the states, but when there is so much evidence and nothing is done, I'd expect the President to weigh in like he did.

And please, Bill Barr couldn't even keep Epstein alive. He's a piece of shit who knows where his next paycheck comes from.

Go get some sleep kid, you've taken enough punishment for one day..

[SeattleGriz]

Raffensberger? Are you kidding me? Why hasn't he stepped in and resolved the ballot images, vote count case in his own state then?

He's allowing a court case to languish under his watch. Why won't he settle it once and for all?

I agree it's up to the states, but when there is so much evidence and nothing is done, I'd expect the President to weigh in like he did.

And please, Bill Barr couldn't even keep Epstein alive. He's a piece of shit who knows where his next paycheck comes from.

Go get some sleep kid, you've taken enough punishment for one day..

You get sleep!

Seriously though. Almost three years after the election and multiple cases, but no one has been able to actually do a truly forensic audit?

If all these states claims are on the up and up, they should be itching to prove people wrong, but they won't. In Georgia, it's been something like the presiding judge has changed three times and the states lawyers have been swapped out twice, with each time, them asking for a delay to fulfill the ballots and images.

[UNI88]

Questions:
1) Wouldn't (c)(1) apply to Enron and (c)(2) to the January 6 riot?
2) Have laws never been used in brand new, thus novel, ways?

I have no problem with protesters who obstruct an official proceeding being fined or imprisoned but I think the gravity of the proceeding should be a factor in determining the penalty. Temporarily obstructing a Congressional hearing (that can be rescheduled) is not nearly as bad as attempting to permanently obstruct the peaceful transfer of power (which could be considered an attempt to overthrow the rightful incoming government). Give the Congressional hearing protesters a fine and give the January 6 defendants prison time.

Your turn, how were trump's actions following the election part of his official duties as President?

Had to reply in two posts.

In regards to your question #1, because the law was designed to prevent destruction of evidence. Stopping a meeting is not the same.

This is just like the NY lawsuit against Trump and his claims to the banks. That law was designed to be used against predatory lending institutions, not the person getting the loan.

This is simple Lawfare in which they hope to tie Trump's hands before the election. Much like Russia collusion. The vast majority is made up bullshit. BDKJMU also raised a good point in which you take into account where the charges originated from.

The documents case is a civil disagreement, not a felony like they are trying to charge. More made up shit. The "law" in all these cases has been stretched exceedingly thin.

The law states:

(c)Whoever corruptly—
(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(c)(1) would seem to apply to the Enron case and (c)(2) to the January 6 seditious attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Maybe that wasn't the original intent but I'll ask again - "have laws never been used in brand new, thus novel, ways?"

trump's might have had little chance to succeed but his actions on and around Janury 6 were serious and should be treated so. Those actions are not "made up bullshit". They were a greater threat to our elections then anything else that happened during the election. You want to dismiss the charges because of where they originated from but continue to trot out MAGAt yahoo echo chamber bullshit with no real proof.

The documents case probably would have been a civil disagreement if trump had returned the documents when requested. Instead, he obstructed their return, forcing the government to issue a subpoena. My understanding is that he then returned some documents and certified that he had returned them all when he hadn't. He continued to lie and obstruct the return of all the documents until the government had to get a warrant to search for them.

Defending/deflecting for this kind of behavior is mind-boggling.


You keep arguing that the President is responsible but you have yet to show me where in the Constitution s/he is given that responsibility.

You also continue to avoid responding to my request to state how the following are Presidential duties:
- speaking to your followers who go on to riot and break into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election.
- arranging for slates of fraudulent electors.
- how calling state officials and asking them to not certify election results without providing proof to justify the requests.

[SeattleGriz]

Had to reply in two posts.

In regards to your question #1, because the law was designed to prevent destruction of evidence. Stopping a meeting is not the same.

This is just like the NY lawsuit against Trump and his claims to the banks. That law was designed to be used against predatory lending institutions, not the person getting the loan.

This is simple Lawfare in which they hope to tie Trump's hands before the election. Much like Russia collusion. The vast majority is made up bullshit. BDKJMU also raised a good point in which you take into account where the charges originated from.

The documents case is a civil disagreement, not a felony like they are trying to charge. More made up shit. The "law" in all these cases has been stretched exceedingly thin.

The law states:

(c)Whoever corruptly—
(1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2)otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(c)(1) would seem to apply to the Enron case and (c)(2) to the January 6 seditious attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Maybe that wasn't the original intent but I'll ask again - "have laws never been used in brand new, thus novel, ways?"

trump's might have had little chance to succeed but his actions on and around Janury 6 were serious and should be treated so. Those actions are not "made up bullshit". They were a greater threat to our elections then anything else that happened during the election. You want to dismiss the charges because of where they originated from but continue to trot out MAGAt yahoo echo chamber bullshit with no real proof.

The documents case probably would have been a civil disagreement if trump had returned the documents when requested. Instead, he obstructed their return, forcing the government to issue a subpoena. My understanding is that he then returned some documents and certified that he had returned them all when he hadn't. He continued to lie and obstruct the return of all the documents until the government had to get a warrant to search for them.

Defending/deflecting for this kind of behavior is mind-boggling.


You keep arguing that the President is responsible but you have yet to show me where in the Constitution s/he is given that responsibility.

You also continue to avoid responding to my request to state how the following are Presidential duties:
- speaking to your followers who go on to riot and break into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election.
- arranging for slates of fraudulent electors.
- how calling state officials and asking them to not certify election results without providing proof to justify the requests.

Trump was acquitted of "insurrection" during the second impeachment. Your first talking point down.

Alternate electors were first devised by Democrats in Hawaii back in 1960. The critics keep trying to claim its different because Hawaii was decided by less than 140 votes, but as I've pointed out, in Fulton county alone, there are more votes in question than Biden's victory and Fulton county still won't release the ballots and images.

In regards to your last point, I assume that's also Georgia, which I answered.

Now I'll ask you a question. Why haven't they allowed ANYONE to inspect the ballots and images in Georgia even though the Supreme Court of Georgia says they are entitled? The ballots in question are greater than the margin of victory and that's ONE county in Georgia.

[UNI88]

The law states: (c)(1) would seem to apply to the Enron case and (c)(2) to the January 6 seditious attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Maybe that wasn't the original intent but I'll ask again - "have laws never been used in brand new, thus novel, ways?"

trump's might have had little chance to succeed but his actions on and around Janury 6 were serious and should be treated so. Those actions are not "made up bullshit". They were a greater threat to our elections then anything else that happened during the election. You want to dismiss the charges because of where they originated from but continue to trot out MAGAt yahoo echo chamber bullshit with no real proof.

The documents case probably would have been a civil disagreement if trump had returned the documents when requested. Instead, he obstructed their return, forcing the government to issue a subpoena. My understanding is that he then returned some documents and certified that he had returned them all when he hadn't. He continued to lie and obstruct the return of all the documents until the government had to get a warrant to search for them.

Defending/deflecting for this kind of behavior is mind-boggling.


You keep arguing that the President is responsible but you have yet to show me where in the Constitution s/he is given that responsibility.

You also continue to avoid responding to my request to state how the following are Presidential duties:
- speaking to your followers who go on to riot and break into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election.
- arranging for slates of fraudulent electors.
- how calling state officials and asking them to not certify election results without providing proof to justify the requests.

Trump was acquitted of "insurrection" during the second impeachment. Your first talking point down.

Alternate electors were first devised by Democrats in Hawaii back in 1960. The critics keep trying to claim its different because Hawaii was decided by less than 140 votes, but as I've pointed out, in Fulton county alone, there are more votes in question than Biden's victory and Fulton county still won't release the ballots and images.

In regards to your last point, I assume that's also Georgia, which I answered.

Now I'll ask you a question. Why haven't they allowed ANYONE to inspect the ballots and images in Georgia even though the Supreme Court of Georgia says they are entitled? The ballots in question are greater than the margin of victory and that's ONE county in Georgia.

Cherry picking my post and what you respond to and keep trotting out weak arguments that a guilty person would use to try and avoid responsibility for their actions.

An impeachment is not a trial. Double jeopardy doesn’t apply.

Did they attempt to seat the Hawaii electors? Were they part of a concerted effort to overturn an election? The fraudulent electors did not happen in a vacuum and should be considered in the context of all of trumps efforts to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

It wasn’t just Georgia. trump tried to bully Wisconsin (see the article above about Robin Vos), Michigan, and I’m sure there are others. Raffensberger has more integrity in his pinky than trump has in his entire body and Brian Kemp is 1 million times a better leader than trump but anyone who isn’t 100% loyal and support every baseless claim trump makes is a RINO, neocon or similar (again see Vos article). So while you might have provided MAGAt yahoo echo chamber talking points, you only answered the question in your wet trump dreams.

Links to reputable sites on the Georgia ballot inspection claims? You have a tendency to push MAGAt yahoo tinfoil hat conspiracy bullshit as truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

The moon landing was filmed in Southern Idaho!

[houndawg]

Go get some sleep kid, you've taken enough punishment for one day..

You get sleep!

Seriously though. Almost three years after the election and multiple cases, but no one has been able to actually do a truly forensic audit?

If all these states claims are on the up and up, they should be itching to prove people wrong, but they won't. In Georgia, it's been something like the presiding judge has changed three times and the states lawyers have been swapped out twice, with each time, them asking for a delay to fulfill the ballots and images.

They have the fat prick on tape demanding somebody find him 11,780 votes. Jesus what a dumb cunt....MarjorieTaylorGriz.

[houndawg]

Cop out.

You can't show me where in the Constitution the President has primary responsibility to oversee fair elections because s/he doesn't. Elections are primarily the responsibility of the states. Much of the executive branch's responsibility is through the Federal Election Commission which is an independent agency.

A President who is serious about overseeing fair elections suspects that they weren't fair s/he works through DHS and their Attorney General. They don't speak to their followers, that is something a candidate does and isn't an "official duty". They don't arrange for slates of fraudulent electors and they don't try to bully state officials into not certifying the results. If his claims had merit, Republican officials in swing states would have stopped the certification. The fact that people like Raffensberger and Robin Vos wouldn't tells you all you need to know about trump's claims.

Tell me how I'm wrong?

Raffensberger? Are you kidding me? Why hasn't he stepped in and resolved the ballot images, vote count case in his own state then?

He's allowing a court case to languish under his watch. Why won't he settle it once and for all?

I agree it's up to the states, but when there is so much evidence and nothing is done, I'd expect the President to weigh in like he did.

And please, Bill Barr couldn't even keep Epstein alive. He's a piece of shit who knows where his next paycheck comes from.

Republicans are instictively criminal. Its in their DNA. Same way you drop to your knees at the mention of Putin, you can't help yourself you just do it

[SeattleGriz]

Trump was acquitted of "insurrection" during the second impeachment. Your first talking point down.

Alternate electors were first devised by Democrats in Hawaii back in 1960. The critics keep trying to claim its different because Hawaii was decided by less than 140 votes, but as I've pointed out, in Fulton county alone, there are more votes in question than Biden's victory and Fulton county still won't release the ballots and images.

In regards to your last point, I assume that's also Georgia, which I answered.

Now I'll ask you a question. Why haven't they allowed ANYONE to inspect the ballots and images in Georgia even though the Supreme Court of Georgia says they are entitled? The ballots in question are greater than the margin of victory and that's ONE county in Georgia.

Cherry picking my post and what you respond to and keep trotting out weak arguments that a guilty person would use to try and avoid responsibility for their actions.

An impeachment is not a trial. Double jeopardy doesn’t apply.

Did they attempt to seat the Hawaii electors? Were they part of a concerted effort to overturn an election? The fraudulent electors did not happen in a vacuum and should be considered in the context of all of trumps efforts to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

It wasn’t just Georgia. trump tried to bully Wisconsin (see the article above about Robin Vos), Michigan, and I’m sure there are others. Raffensberger has more integrity in his pinky than trump has in his entire body and Brian Kemp is 1 million times a better leader than trump but anyone who isn’t 100% loyal and support every baseless claim trump makes is a RINO, neocon or similar (again see Vos article). So while you might have provided MAGAt yahoo echo chamber talking points, you only answered the question in your wet trump dreams.

Links to reputable sites on the Georgia ballot inspection claims? You have a tendency to push MAGAt yahoo tinfoil hat conspiracy bullshit as truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm only cherry picking because I'm on my phone. It's a total pain to try and answer 4 or 5 points in a reply, so I've got to choose which ones. Limit the questions to one or two and I'll try to answer in one post.

Here's your link to the case. A little background. The case was initially dismissed for the usual "lack of standing", then was overturned when the Supreme Court said there was a right to see the ballots.

The state's attorneys recently stepped down from the case and have to be replaced.

This has been going on since 2020. That's an insane amount of time.