 
     |
| TRUMP 2024 (Page 8/59) |
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 12, 11:33 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Victor Davis Hansen talks about the high profile court cases in which Trump is a defendant, but he omits the federal case against Trump on four criminal charges related to the 2020 presidential election.
To my mind, that's the most important of these cases, and it may be the first to go to trial, comfortably in advance of the 2024 general election date in November.
I wonder what happens if this case goes to trial and Trump is convicted and given a prison sentence. Does he remain free while the case is being appealed? That's what I'd expect, but I'm not an expert.
I expect that Trump will be on the ballot as the Republican candidate for President in all 50 states for the general election in November.
I don't think that Victor Davis Hansen is standing on solid ground when he refers to Jack Smith, who is heading up the two federal cases against Trump, as a "leftist" prosecutor. |
|
This dribble is the result of a horse being led to water and refusing to drink.
Reading is your friend. You should try learning something new occasionally.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 13, 04:31 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
An opinion piece from VDH....
|
|
"Biden ‘Saves’ Democracy by Destroying It"
Victor Davis Hanson for RealClear Politics; January 12, 2024.
https://www.realclearpoliti...oying_it_150317.html
I just returned to this "VDH" to see what I had previously overlooked:
| quote | | He [Biden] has hammered Trump as an insurrectionist and guilty of a number of egregious crimes against democracy—even as Biden's own attorney general has appointed a special counsel to try Trump on just those federal charges concerning the January 6 demonstrations, a dead horse that Biden periodically still beats to death to scare voters. |
|
Kudos to Victor Davis Hanson for mentioning my current favorite prosecution of Donald Trump; namely: United States v. TRUMP, 1:23-cr-00257, (D.D.C.)
Heretofore, I mistakenly thought that VDH had omitted any mention of this case. It's a four-count federal indictment of Donald Trump, and Donald Trump alone. These are the "counts:"
Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.
Count 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2),2 Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.
Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights.
That's a thing of beauty... "Four on the Floor"
This is the complete 45-page indictment of Donald J. Trump:
https://storage.courtlisten...dcd.258149.1.0_8.pdf
A 45-page indictment of the 45th President of the United States or "45" as Trump made himself known at times... how cool is that?
Thanks to VDH, and to "olejoedad" for bringing this to my attention.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-13-2024).]
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 13, 07:52 AM
|
|
It's a shame you have to be cajoled to be curious.
You need wider sources of information.
The leftwing echo chamber you immerse yourself into leaves you blind and manipulated.
A recommended website that gives opinion pieces from both left and right perspectives is Real Clear Politics.
Expand your mind......or don't.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JAN 13, 11:49 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.
Count 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2),2 Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.
Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights.
|
|
Ok, so for these... let's take them one at a time...
Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
... defraud from what? Please explain. And if you say that Trump has been claiming that Democrats cheated in the election, I'll refer you to the four States Supreme Courts that all ruled that Democrats had illegally manipulated and violated election laws in those four swing states. If you need me to repost those links again, let me know. So Trump clearly can state this. Another aspect of course is that all of these things that Trump was saying was "post-election" ... which was for the benefit of his court-cases. Anyone can say anything in a court case, and it has / had no effect on anything in this country at that point. You could TRY to make an argument that he did all this to try to sway Pence... which then we get to these...
Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.
Count 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2),2 Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding.
For both of these, you'd have to directly prove... within not just a preponderance of proof, but in fact totally innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, that in fact Trump told people to storm the Capitol and directly halt the election certification. He very clearly told people to "protest peacefully," and furthermore... he also told them to go home when things started to get out of hand.
Finally...
Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights.
??? What rights of the people were violated?
So you see... this is really all just hand wavey... and like I said... the DOJ will intentionally drag this out past the election and two things will happen:
1 - Trump wins, and the DOJ gets replaced and the Democrats can say that Trump "destroyed democracy" (or some nonsense) and wasn't held accountable.
2 - Biden wins, and the Biden administration pardon's Trump (for whatever nonsense he came up with) to "heal America."
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 13, 11:57 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
It's a shame you have to be cajoled to be curious.
You need wider sources of information. The leftwing echo chamber you immerse yourself into leaves you blind and manipulated. A recommended website that gives opinion pieces from both left and right perspectives is Real Clear Politics.
Expand your mind......or don't. |
|
Maybe I'll pay more attention to RealClearPolitics. This is not the first time that I have read or scrolled through an article on RealClearPolitics.
Victor Davis Hanson:
| quote | Currently, four leftist prosecutors—three state and one federal—have indicted Trump.
They are petitioning courts to accelerate the usually lethargic legal process to ensure Trump is tied up in Atlanta, Miami, New York, and Washington, D.C. courtrooms nonstop during the 2024 election cycle.
Their aim is to keep Trump from campaigning, as he faces four left-wing prosecutors, four liberal judges, and four or five overwhelmingly Democratic jury pools. |
|
"Leftist... liberal... Democrat..." Hanson is just whining. This isn't analysis. It's innuendo. It's especially off target in the case of U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Defendant Trump is not entitled to select the prosecutors and judges, or the jurors. Trump's lawyers will have a hand in selecting the jurors.
The prosecutors and judges are charged with the responsibility and the requirement to conduct the trials without the interference or interjection of politics.
If Trump's lawyers can identify "politics" in any of the proceedings, they can examine that and see if there are any arguments that they can put forward to appeal any verdict that is rendered.
It's surprising that a man (VDH) whose Curriculum Vitae is replete with such a remarkable and oecumenical track record of accomplishments would be spouting this kind of nonsense.
PS: That's not a misspelling... oecumenical. But it's the first time I've ever used that word. I stumbled across it in a list of synonyms for "ecumenical," which I think has unwanted religious overtones in this context.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-13-2024).]
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
JAN 13, 12:02 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Ok, so for these... let's take them one at a time...
Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
... defraud from what? Please explain. And if you say that Trump has been claiming that Democrats cheated in the election, I'll refer you to the four States Supreme Courts that all ruled that Democrats had illegally manipulated and violated election laws in those four swing states. If you need me to repost those links again, let me know
|
|
Changing a law that was later ruled improper by the Supreme Court is not "fraud". If so then every single legislature controlled by EITHER PARTY has committed fraud many times. Also the laws were changed but they still applied EQUALLY TO BOTH SIDES. There was no fraud and no unfair benefit to either side.
What Trump did was organize fraudulent panels of delegates to cast fraudulent votes for Donald Trump as President when he had lost the election in those states.
I don't know enough about the law to comment on the other charges against him, but those seem pretty clear to me.[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 01-13-2024).]
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
JAN 13, 12:13 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Maybe I'll pay more attention to RealClearPolitics. This is not the first time that I have read or scrolled through an article on RealClearPolitics.
|
|
RealClearPolitics claims that they provide "political diversity" which means that they post articles from both sides. It does not mean that every individual article they post is centrist or unbiased.
The one quoted here has a clear right-wing bias. How else can you claim that no courts are legitimate unless they are controlled by conservatives/Republicans? That is pretty much the definition of bias.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 13, 12:53 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
"Leftist... liberal... Democrat..." Hanson is just whining. This isn't analysis. It's innuendo. It's especially off target in the case of U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Defendant Trump is not entitled to select the prosecutors and judges, or the jurors. Trump's lawyers will have a hand in selecting the jurors.
The prosecutors and judges are charged with the responsibility and the requirement to conduct the trials without the interference or interjection of politics.
If Trump's lawyers can identify "politics" in any of the proceedings, they can examine that and see if there are any arguments that they can put forward to appeal any verdict that is rendered.
It's surprising that a man (VDH) whose Curriculum Vitae is replete with such a remarkable and oecumenical track record of accomplishments would be spouting this kind of nonsense.
PS: That's not a misspelling... oecumenical. But it's the first time I've ever used that word. I stumbled across it in a list of synonyms for "ecumenical," which I think has unwanted religious overtones in this context.
|
|
You must have missed where I posted the video as 'opinion', not analysis.
There is a difference.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 13, 12:58 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
I don't know enough about the law to comment on the other charges against him, but those seem pretty clear to me.
|
|
May I ask then, why are you arguing fine points of the law with a Forum member that has at least one law degree?
The Democrat lawyers sidestepped the voting procedures in some States. Would you call that 'fraudulent intent' or just 'illegal activity' on the part of the lawyers?
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JAN 13, 01:26 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:Changing a law that was later ruled improper by the Supreme Court is not "fraud". If so then every single legislature controlled by EITHER PARTY has committed fraud many times. Also the laws were changed but they still applied EQUALLY TO BOTH SIDES. There was no fraud and no unfair benefit to either side.
What Trump did was organize fraudulent panels of delegates to cast fraudulent votes for Donald Trump as President when he had lost the election in those states.
I don't know enough about the law to comment on the other charges against him, but those seem pretty clear to me. |
|
I think you are confused. This isn't one of those "everyone is bad," situations.
I'm talking about the Democrat-led PACs and election commissions that intentionally violated local state election laws, AGAINST the will of the state legislatures. I'll repost what I said again, because I think either you're confused, or you are intentionally misrepresenting this. I have it saved in a text file so I can easily copy/paste any time I need to for situations just like this.
- - -
In all of the major swing states, Democrats got into the elections departments and... using COVID-19 as an excuse, wantonly violated state election laws to perform the following:
- Mass mail-in voting... in some cases, just sending out a ballot to literally everyone who was registered to vote.
- Ballot harvesting, as in... allowing people to go door to door and collect ballots on behalf of the political party.
- Ballot drop-boxes... allowing people from anywhere to be able to deliver ballots, without any verification.
- Waiving registration deadlines
- Waiving signature verification
- Waiving proof of identity verification
This allowed rampant and mass voting violations. I've gone through this whole thing before, and people say... "show me the proof, you have no proof!!!" so here it is... state Supreme Courts literally ruling that Democrats violated and illegally changed the state's election laws without the consent of the legislature. Go ahead, click the links:
Michigan:
- https://www.washingtonexami...-law-absentee-ballot
- https://www.detroitnews.com...-invalid/4699927001/
- https://trendingpolitics.co...e-ballot-order-knab/
Pennsylvania:
- https://www.cbsnews.com/pit...voting-law-decision/
- https://thefederalist.com/2...were-broken-in-2020/
Wisconsin:
- https://www.reuters.com/wor...lections-2022-07-08/
- https://www.breitbart.com/p...s-violate-state-law/
Georgia:
- https://www.gpb.org/news/20...ke-da-race-will-move
- https://thefederalist.com/2...ection-laws-in-2020/
There have been some other recent court rulings, but these are really the only ones I remember off hand. I can't remember the other states. I think maybe North Carolina, and a few others...
|
|
|
|