Criminalizing Politics In The Trump Indictments
The means by which an election is overturned may be criminal, but the end goal in and of itself is not criminal. So much of what is alleged in the D.C. and Georgia cases is non-criminal politics.
I’ve made the point repeatedly that both the D.C. and Georgia indictments of Donald Trump start from a premise that isn’t true – that an attempt to “overturn” an election in and of itself is criminal. The means by which an election is overturned may be criminal, but the end goal is not.
With regard to the D.C. indictment, I questioned Where is the crime?
The indictment may make out a persuasive case that Trump lied in the post-election period about election fraud, and disregarded the warnings of his most trusted and most loyal confidants that what he was saying was not true, but that doesn’t equate to a crime. The core of the alleged crime is disruption of the electoral count, but that took place because of the riot, and Trump has not been indicted (yet) for inciting the riot. What the indictment purports to prove may be a reason not to vote for Trump, but it’s far from clear it’s a reason to criminally charge him.
I raised similar questions with regard to the RICO and other charges against Trump in the Georgia state case, during an interview on NTD’s Capitol Report on August 15. The issue is that the allegedly illegal acts in the indictment (impersonating an official, attempting to gain improper access to a computer system) could have and should have been charged separately. But the RICO and conspiracy counts allege as a purpose overturning the election, but that’s not in itself illegal depending on how it’s done.
NTD has the write up, Georgia Trump Indictment Looks ‘Very Political,’ but Dismissal Unlikely
… “I think it’s an attempt by Georgia to do a shock and awe sort of attack on Donald Trump and his supporters,” William A. Jacobson, a Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School, told NTD News’ “Capitol Report” on Tuesday….
Mr. Jacobson said Ms. Willis’s latest indictment against President Trump is “throwing everything at him, and really replicating what the federal government is already doing in the District of Columbia.”
Mr. Jacobson raised issues with a number of aspects of how Ms. Willis’s office handled the new indictment, such as plans to take and publicize the former Republican president’s arrest photo.
“They’re gonna play this up. I think the prosecution wants, you know, a pound of flesh from Donald Trump,” Mr. Jacobson said. “They want the mug shot, they want him paraded in front of the cameras.” …
“They didn’t do that in the Manhattan indictment. They haven’t done that in the federal indictments. So I think this all smells very political, from the way that prosecution is conducting itself,” Mr. Jacobson said of apparent plans to take arrest photos and televise the former president’s court appearance.
Mr. Jacobson also raised issue with the timing of the indictment.
“I think one of the big concerns that people have is that this is the weaponization of the prosecutorial function for political purposes,” he said. “They waited to bring these charges until we’re in an election year. And that’s the problem—these charges are based on conduct that took place almost three years ago. They could have brought this case a year ago, we would have had the trial, we would have had the result, and it wouldn’t have interfered with the Republican primaries in the general election.” ….
Mr. Jacobson said he doesn’t believe Mr. Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results were criminal, but also expressed doubt that many of the charges can easily be dismissed before a trial.
“I don’t agree with Donald Trump’s conduct after the election, but I also don’t think it was criminal,” Mr. Jacobson told NTD News.
Mr. Jacobson added that Ms. Willis is within her rights to prosecute the former president under the Georgia RICO laws, but he believes she’s missing the specific elements she needs to prove that crime.
“Georgia is entitled to bring charges based on its state RICO statute. I think it will be scrutinized by a judge. I’m not sure they’ve alleged the elements of it,” he said. “I don’t think this is going to go away. Pieces of it might. But I think this is a case that’s probably going to have to go to trial.”
The Cornell Law School professor also expressed doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will get involved in the case, but didn’t rule out the possibility entirely.
“The Supreme Court doesn’t normally micromanage cases as they’re proceeding through trial,” he said. “I think you do have an issue here, which is that you have local prosecutors and the federal government bringing charges that are going to interfere with a federal election. I don’t know if that will move an appeals court or the justices to take action. I don’t think so, but this is a highly unusual circumstance. This has never happened before, that they are going to tie up the most likely nominee of a major political party in an election year.”
Andy McCarthy makes a simlar point in The Flaw In Trump’s Georgia Indictment (emphasis added):
… If prosecutors allege a large-scale conspiracy, various conspirators may play different roles. In a conspiracy to sell cocaine, for example, some people may handle importation; others handle sales or security, and still others, accounting and management of the cash proceeds. But what unites these role-players in a single conspiracy is the criminal objective — in our example, to sell cocaine. If there is no agreement about a crime, there is no conspiracy….
That is what’s so strange about DA Willis’s indictment. She alleges that the 19 people named in her indictment are guilty of conspiracy because they agreed to try to keep Donald Trump in power as president — specifically, to “change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.” Maybe they shared such an aim, maybe their 19 minds met regarding that objective, but in and of itself, trying to reverse the result of an election is not a crime. You may have noticed that neither Al Gore nor Stacey Abrams was ever led away in handcuffs.
To be clear, it’s entirely possible that people can perform criminal acts in the pursuit of a lawful objective. If they do, they may be charged with those crimes — and if the crimes are serious, they should be charged. That, however, does not mean their overarching objective was a crime. And again, if you don’t have two or more people agreeing on an objective that is a crime, you don’t have a conspiracy.
Willis tries to get around this inconvenience in two ways, neither of which works.
The first is a tautology: She conclusively asserts, on page 14 of the indictment, that this was a “conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.” That is, the lawful objective of changing the election outcome somehow becomes unlawful because she invokes the apparently talismanic word “unlawful.” But there is no crime of unlawfully trying to change an election outcome — not in Georgia law nor any other American law….
Willis thus turns to her second artifice, the RICO conspiracy charge. RICO is unique in the criminal law because, instead of targeting crimes, it targets entities — associations of people, referred to as enterprises — that generate revenue through the commission of crimes….
The defendants indicted by Willis did not have an overarching agreement to commit a crime, and they were the antithesis of a RICO enterprise. If, as the DA alleges, they committed discrete crimes in the effort to reverse the election result — such as forgery, false statements, solicitation of others to commit felonies, or hacking into election systems — then they should be prosecuted for those crimes.
But an agreement to do something legal — to reverse the result of an election — is not a conspiracy.
It’s possible prosecutors in either the D.C. or Georgia cases could prove some specific action by Trump that was itself illegal (that’s not clear right now), but otherwise lawful actions towards the purpose of overturning an election do not become criminal. That’s called politics.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The J6 riot didn’t shut down the Senate – the Senate session was ALREADY shut down due to the pipe bombs found at both the RNC and DNC HQ’s about a block away from the Capital.
Also, neither Trump nor any other elected R had anything to do with inciting the riot at the Capital on J6.
Trump, and his supporters, in DC on J6 were at the Ellipse to hear Trump – and several others – give speeches. Half hour’s walk from the Capital. The riot was in full swing before Trump took the stage, he spoke for about 45 minutes and made his comment to “peacefully and patriotically” make our voices heard at the very end of that speech.
The entire Democrat and media (BIRM) narrative about that day is a complete fiction.
The inaction of the GOP to push back against the blatant political prosecution of the J6 protesters who committed no violent acts or property damage encouraged the regime to engage in these blatant persecutions of Trump and his advisers.
If the GOP would have fought for the hundreds of citizens whose rights and freedoms were trampled on rather than sitting on their hands on in some cases cheering it on the political climate mate would have made this lawlessness harder and riskier.
The Pipe Bombs were planted in case the riots failed to stop the Senate from meeting.
By the Feds. Notice how the Secret Service missed those bombs when Kamala was brought to the DNC??
“About an hour before Karlin found the pipe bomb, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris traveled to the DNC to use its recording studio to tape messages to send to political supporters. Prior to her arrival, the Secret Service conducted a security sweep and did not find a bomb. Had they done so, Harris never would have been brought to the DNC and word of the explosive device would have been made public.” https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/09/january_6_pipe_bombs_get_curiouser_and_curiouser.html
I believe that
The democrats may very well succeed in this unconstitutional power grab. The opposition seems to be surprisingly wane. But there is some consolation in knowing that the political trials won’t end when republican opponents are eliminated. Sooner or later, in some future hell of a warped America, 2 or more democrat goon thugs will vie for power and then they turn on themselves.
Robspierre
“AOC” for short.
In time they will turn on each other, it is their nature, be they communists, Marxists, socialists or any kind of Democrat today. The Dem party is a fighting party while the Rep party is not. We want order and our opposition wants power. This collision is only warming up…
If Willis’ case is largely a copy of the federal DC case, then does double jeopardy apply? And how flexible are court dates? Can different courts require Trump be present before them on the same date?
Just wondering how much could be lawfare with the goal of curtailing the democratic process as opposed to genuine legal action by devout Democrats.
No. Wouldn’t apply even if identical. You can get charged and convicted of the exact same crime at the State and Federal level because, per SCOTUS, they are “Separate Sovereignties”.
Prest Trump on Kudlow
https://rumble.com/v38n9un-president-trump-part-2.html
“The indictment may make out a persuasive case that Trump lied”
The professor keeps making the same basic mistake in continuing the treat these indictments as a rational action being carried out by the DoJ.
These indictments are anything but rational and should absolutely be treated as such by every man, dog and beast!
BUT LI keeps talking about these indictments as if they are anything but irrational. They keep posting article after article about these indictments as if cool, rational discourse can change anything now that Democrats have gone full banana republic.
The contributors here need to wake up and smell the coffee. America is fucked and stop talking as if these indictments can be rectified by cool, calm, discussion between rational adults. Because they cant. Democrats aren’t interested in intellectual discourse. They are interested in locking anyone up that gets in their way.
Excellent analysis. How can you expect a trial to operate normally, when so many rule books were thrown out the window in order to get an indictment. Kangaroo courts only pretend to follow the Law.
Exactly. People can’t see it because they can’t believe it’s happening.
“Most people don’t believe something can happen until it already has. That’s not stupidity or weakness, that’s just human nature.”
Jurgen Warmbrunn (character in Max Brooks’ World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War)
No. A lot of people wilfully don’t care because it’s happening to someone they hate.
The J6 prosecutions were the test case. When they started rounding up and prosecuting people who just walked into the capitol building and no other “crime” (some even waved in by the police) with no push back from GOP Congressmembers they knew that they could target ANY political enemy.
They upped the stakes by incarcerating some of the protestors for over a year with no trials.
Then they started seizing phones and evidence from Trump allies including lawyers and even sitting members of Congress.
At this point unless states like Georgia move the trials out of the Atlanta Kangaroo Courts and the appeals courts and Supreme Court step in to overturn unjust verdicts then expect the persecutions to rapidly escalate to financially ruin and incarcerate Democrat political enemies.
Prominent lawyers such as Jonathan Turley, Andy McCarthy, and Professor Jacobson should raise the stakes by filing ethics complaints against Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg, and Fani Willis to the American Bar Association.
We know that liberal groups would not hesitate to make complaints for similar situations. If we want this to stop, there has to be a level of pain inflicted on the main players.
Otherwise, the TV appearances and click-bait blogs appear to be nothing more than self promotion.
Point of clarification: I refer above only to “political” pain to be inflicted. Nothing else.
The professor clearly hates President Trump, it’s unnerving actually
The writers on this site like those of Powerline are trying to take an analytical view of all these political prosecutions. But much like Matt Tabbi they will find that if the current trend continues, they will find their turn in the cross hairs of the judicial/administrative regime.
Trump’s personality and the loyalty of his supporters makes it difficult for establishment types to have mush empathy for either.
I am sure that they feel they are trying to be objective but not calling tyranny for what it is it simply means that their turn to face ruin or bend the knee is further down the road.
I think this is a conservative problem, we don’t want to appear unfair.
However so much shit has taken place these last 6-7 years that I no longer give a fuck about appearing unfair:
it’s time conservatives took the gloves off and started to metaphorically, or otherwise, start throwing haymakers about like a 17yo white female antifa member attacking someone who isn’t looking.
These political attacks against democrats political enemies do not deserve objectivity. They deserve abject scorn and people like to prof and co need to grow some balls and start calling these acts out for what they are.
The time for rational discourse and understanding is long gone.
The purpose of the indictments is to disrupt the election and prevent Trump from winning. An actual conviction that survives appeals would be a bonus for them.
And then the contributors here keep banging on about how supposedly 54% of something would never vote for Trump as the reason he should not run but conveniently ignore the fact that same 54% of something would never vote for DesthSantis or any other person with an R next to their name.
F88king clown show 😂😂
“…but conveniently ignore the fact that same 54% of something would never vote for DesthSantis or any other person with an R next to their name.”
People ignore it, because it isn’t true. Like it or not, most of the strong feelings for Trump – positive and negative – are directed solely and personally at Trump.
Yes, there are people who would never vote for a Republican, and about an equal number that would never vote for a Democrat. But neither number is close to 54%.
Yes it’s a made up number but those who truly would never vote for Trump will in reality never vote for anyone with an R after their name.
Any rational adult who looks at how their lives were between 2016-2020 and 2020-2024 and votes Democrat deserves every bit of political persecution that will eventually come there way for they will eventually think the wrong thing.
No, they really want convictions and prison time. In the worst possible way.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
— modern Dem’s philosophical leader
Georgia legislature could promptly end the misbegotten political prosecution under their RICO statute by amending it.
Of these very selective prosecutions are politically motivated. No one, apart from the kool aid drinking d/prog hacks, disputes that. They are however very real obstacles for Trump and his candidacy. Each of these four indictments faced by Trump will divert time, attention, resources and money from his campaign. In fact the latest FEC filing shows 80% of campaign contributions to Trump have been spent on legal services.
We can all bemoan the unfairness of the legal system being used as political weapon till the cows come home. It doesn’t change the reality that these indictments exist and will impact the Trump campaign. As we get into the meat of primary season this will become more of an impediment to Trump. Attempts to brush them off as no big deal is foolish.
No matter the outcome in the GoP primary we must support the eventual nominee no matter who is chosen by the GoP primary voters. That’s the only option we have to slow down much less stop the ideological bureaucracy which control Federal agencies being used as weapons against their political opposition; you and me.
There is no voting our way out of this mess. The Democrats already have rigged the 2024 Election. Even here in supposedly Conservative Texas, the blue cesspools of Harris, Bexar, Travis, Dallas, El Paso and Tarrant Counties will have “miraculous” ballot counts sometime early in the morning of November 5th, 2024 that will fix the problem and make Texas Blue for federal offices. The destruction of the United States is inevitable. What arises out of the “ashes” is to be seen.
So what does that imply? Just roll over and take it instead of working to defeat the d/prog? Should we just ‘lay back and think of Reagan’ as we get forcibly boned by the d/prog?
Nothing is certain in this world but death and taxes….and of course that the d/prog will attempt shenanigans at election time. It’s not new just on a different scale. The scheme depends upon ballots. Those ballots come from the voter registration list. Clean up the lists, remove the deceased, those who moved and other legally insufficient registrations and the universe of ‘bad registrations’ available for d/prog shenanigans to turn into ‘bad ballots’ shrinks dramatically. Be willing to become the lead plaintiff in a suit to force compliance with the Motor Voter provisions that REQUIRE oversight and maintenance of the voter registration lists if/when your County registrar refuses.
The act of casting a ballot isn’t gonna be enough. No one is gonna save us. We have to be willing to do the hard work for ourselves. Volunteer as an election observer or poll watcher. Join a campaign and volunteer to canvass for votes. Make phone calls and put up campaign signs. Make donations if you can. All of those things move the ball forward.
No they don’t
Ballot harvesting is still in effect
The ballots come from the voter registration list and when we remove the bogus voter registrations it becomes harder to cheat.
Very risky to use a legit voter name and impersonate them v using a bogus voter registration name.
If you want to focus your personal efforts on getting rid of ballot harvesting be sure to let us know when you have accomplished that task. Which jurisdiction are you going to start in?
We are living in a psychotic tyranny that we can’t vote our way out of.
Then you need to organize fellow right-minded citizens to petition your governor to clean that crap up. Our governor (in Florida) did it, no reason yours can’t, right? Sit and wail or get off your couch and work to get this fixed. Your choice.
He’s full of it. Texas actually has very little electoral fraud, mostly centered in the Houston and Austin areas. We actively fight it, and prosecute the few people who are caught, mostly very small potatoes. Doesn’t mean they won’t try, try again, but we’ll still fight, investigate and prosecute. Meanwhile, contrary to the dire predictions of certain former commenters, Texas is becoming redder, mostly driven by illegal immigration. I don’t know what will happen if the left manages to give 30 million illegals amnesty, but that’s out of our hands at the moment. My big concern is Paxton. We need the Senate to throw this bogus impeachment out the window (and since they’re not controlled by bogus Republicans like Phelan [pronounced felon, and he should be treated like one]), it hopefully will be.
“It doesn’t change the reality that these indictments exist and will impact the Trump campaign. As we get into the meat of primary season this will become more of an impediment to Trump. Attempts to brush them off as no big deal is foolish.”
But the Professor(TM) and all the big brains at LI told us that the left WANTS Trump to be the nominee, why would they impede that?
Or is this like the standard lefty double think thing? Like when they say that gender and sex are so fluid that anyone can be anything at any time but are also so fixed that one can have the mind of one sex in the body of another?
One theory is that by hitting Trump with all the charges it turns him into a martyr. This further motivates all the Only Trump folks to become even more messianic in their zeal to have him become the nominee. This seems to play out every day on the comments here so it may hold some grain of truth.
The theory then holds that since Biden and the d/prog were ‘successful’ in ’20 with this matchup they are confident in a rerun. Considering the state of the polling which show Trump behind or at best ahead of Biden by less than a single point their theory may be accurate. Even with +8 d/prog bias in the samples how the Heck is Biden not getting crushed? Maybe some voters really do hate Trump/’mean tweets’ enough to re-elect Biden. Sad but probably true for some voters.
IMO, it seems too risky a strategy, especially with Biden low poll # (though he is either leading or tied with Trump despite how scrappy his Presidency has been) It’s similar to the media manipulation in ’16 where media did give Trump lots of free exposure and air time b/c he was good for ratings. That bit them in the as in Nov as we all recall from the delicious lefty tears as the States were called for Trump.
Personally I think the Hunter Biden stuff will be ‘allowed’ to spill over onto Joe Biden to remove him from a re-election campaign. He will say he needs to focus on his family. They will find Harris a cushy position on several boards and end up with Newsom as the d/prog nominee.
See? This is bizarre to me. Why on earth would you (or anyone else making similar complaints) continue to read our work if you think so little of it? I can’t even begin to imagine continuing to read (much less spend my valuable time to comment on) a site I find so very wrong and stupid and blah blah.
There is a whole list of right-leaning sites that I would never dream of visiting much less reading because I deem their work to be either too neocon/rightwing progressive or too crazy/full of crap. I can understand wanting to understand the opposition’s arguments, etc., but why subject yourself to daily outrage like this? What special kind of masochism would make you want to read things that you know you don’t like or agree with? I’m asking in all seriousness. It’s very odd to me.
Fuzzy, we can tell you don’t like venturing away from places where everyone agrees with you. That’s why you can’t understand people who try to get and grasp all sides.
Or why we try to show you the error of your ways by posting the things YOU say that contradict the stances you profess to hold.
If the Dems want Trump to be the nominee so bad, why are they scheduling things to keep him from campaigning?
To make him MORE of a martyr?
Listen to yourselves. you’re flailing.
The Democrats actions aren’t lining up with the ideas the nevertrumpers are pushing. Why?
Because the Dems are worried that they won’t be able to cheat enough.
In 2016 they didn’t cheat enough. States they thought were solid turned out to not be. So there weren’t any fake votes ready for them.
The Dems are looking at polling that isn’t released for general consumption –and it’s scaring the hell out of them..
In 2016 they were doing exactly what you all claim they’re doing now –trying to get Trump to be the very beatable nominee.
In 2020 it took open treachery to beat him.
And if you think that made them MORE sanguine about 2024, you’re crazy..
If you want a real picture, Fuzzy, you’ve got to look at EVERYTHING. You’ve got to try to grasp EVERYTHING –even points you don’t like. THEN you can see what’s in front of you.
LOL. I said I can understand reading to see what the opposition is thinking in this comment, and have long said it here at LI (including linking to actual leftist sites like the Jacobin, the Atlantic, and various leftwing writers like Andrew Sullivan and Freddie deBoer). I also will pop into the nuthouse now and then to find out what the latest nutter ramblings are or to National Review to see what the latest neocon crazy is.
Yes, there are great sites out there that share the opposition’s viewpoint, but unlike you, I don’t read them every single day nor spend hours complaining in their comment section that they are writing what they think and believe. That’s WHY I am reading them, to find out what they think and to try to understand why they think it. Complaining that they don’t think like me would be rather stupid, no? And not accomplish anything but stoke anger and outrage. Why would I want to do that in their own “home”? I wouldn’t.
So what is it? You are reading here to learn what we think and why we think as we do or you are parked here for hours every day to stir up discord? It can’t really be both, right?
Fuzzy: You know what it is. These people are fanatics. They’re obsessed with the idea that everybody MUST agree with them, and they will spare no effort in arguing, whining, browbeating or bullying to get you to either agree, or just stop posting so they have an unobstructed field to spread their manure. A commenter on another website described it as “crybullying”. (I promised the commenter that I was going to steal the term because it describes Trump cultists so perfectly.)
txvet,
I don’t think this describes crybullying. Crybullies barely feign the offensive at all. They prefer to be at least 50% more passive aggressive than the Trumpets (and they work hard to get people cancelled, criminalized, etc.). They constantly moan about being unsafe or try to say people are dying from the rhetoric of their opposition. This is their weapon to get people deplatformed. They are also huge misinformation czars (used sarcastically) and proponents of leftist fact checks. Trumpets, on the other hand, just make up their facts based on whatever tenuous link they can find to support their position no matter how many other sources contradict their source.
While the trumpets work hard to alienate everyone who doesn’t tow their cult line and often mirror the crazy left, they are in their own category IMO.
These various locations and multiple indictments in each continue to reveal that the Democrat Party goal is power and control by any means necessary. In this they are aided by the MSM. The Dem-MSM define happiness as absence of opposition and that opposition is Trump and by extension Us.
There will be convictions in each of the four locations because, simply put, there has to be…
They are also aided by the GOP and Republicans like the contributors here at LI, whose personal animus toward Trump overcomes their ability to see what is happening.
We conservatives and America First folks have voted Republican since the Dark Ages, and to what point? Marxists have fully engulfed every institution in this country, and R passivity helped them do it.
Republicans in national office have proven to be easily corrupted and fully willing to go along with the Democrat’s Marxist agenda. There is no putting on the brakes at this point, and voting for DeSantis or Ramaswamy will make no difference, even if we pretend all the election issue that created 2020 have been fixed and the 2024 election will be clean and legal.
Even those who have never had any personal animus toward Trump can be forgiven for starting to develop some today.
Now we hear that the “irrefutable evidence” that Trump was going to present at a rally is not going to happen after all.
This morning, I asked myself whether the Kraken and the Snuffleupagus might actually be the same animal. Then I realized, It could not be… because the Snuffleupagus eventually did show up.
He is following his lawyers recommendations
Duh!
I don’t think anyone here at LI has personal animus toward Trump (I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen it). Not supporting Trump for the nomination because of his long list of failings and failures and/or because one believes he is too toxic to win a general is not personal animus. Trump is a politician, and that’s it. He did good things, but he did more bad things (or good things that didn’t last because he “ruled” by fiat–executive orders). On balance, that’s not a good record. Nothing personal about it.
Or do you find it offensive that we don’t see Trump as some kind of national hero/savior and think that anyone who doesn’t see him that way must “hate” him or hold “personal animus” toward him? I don’t see ANY politician as a national hero or savior, so my not seeing Trump that way doesn’t mean a thing.
I’ll vote for him in 2024 (just as I did in 2020 and 2016) if he wins the nomination, but it won’t be because I suddenly personally love him. That’s crazy. And do you honestly believe Trump won’t take my vote because I don’t love love love him and think he’s the most perfectest human being to walk the earth since Jesus Christ? Because you’re wrong. He’s smart enough to know that my vote means the exact same thing yours does (no matter how much personal adoration you ooze into it).
Lol you do for sure
I do what for sure? It would be nice if you were as articulate in your own voice as you are in those you plagiarize from other sites. But I guess that’s why you rely so much on using other people’s words and ideas; you have none of your own.
Fuzzy: She’s claiming that you’re lying about having a personal animus towards Trump, the way she does toward DeSantis. Projection.
Ah, okay. So she thinks that normal people actually invest “personal” emotional energy into politicians? How strange is that (to normal people, anyway)? I can’t think of a single politician that I had any “personal” investment in. They are our public servants not our gods. Who on earth would endow any of them with some sort of godlike status? What American would? That is SO NOT what America is or has ever been about.
“Bill Mitchell, one of Ron DeSantis’ top online influencers, is threatening to mobilize fellow DeSantis supporters to help Joe Biden win the 2024 election if Trump is the nominee.”
Typical. And so utterly predictable.
I wonder what DeSantis will do. Publicly disavow Mitchell? Disavow him in public but take his money in private? Say nothing at all?
You know which way I bet”
Aceofspadeshq
Comment
Well, that’s not exactly what he said, now is it? Mitchell is completely wrong, of course, but that’s not what he said.
As long as you are using our comment section to spread lies you swiped from other sites (and post out of context. Because of course), let’s look at what he actually said:
And apart from the responses to that tweet (which everyone can read for themselves), even DeSantis supporters reject that crazy idea. As Matt says over at PJMedia in his post “I Don’t Care Who You’re Backing in the GOP Primary, Don’t Pull This Crap”:
And he’s right. Only Trumpers, including you gonzo, have repeatedly said you will do EXACTLY this if Trump doesn’t win the nomination. NOT vote for the winner and let Biden (Newsom) win. That’s YOUR plan, not anyone else’s (except Mitchell’s, and let’s face it, he’s a former Trump worshiper of the worst sort, so he comes by this kind of thinking honestly).
And according to your copied and pasted comment from Ace, you think Trump should publicly disavow YOU and ALL your fellow Only Trumpers who have spent months (years?) saying you will vote ONLY for Trump. Why aren’t you demanding the same treatment of Trump’s crazies as you are of DeSantis’? Oh, right. Never mind.
Ahh called the real President a prick
Better than a bought for traitor
Why even bother posting a comment if it is unintelligible and nonsensical. I have no idea what this even means. Who is “Ahh”? Who is the “real President”? Why would this “Ahh” call anyone a “prick”? What is a “bought for traitor”? Or maybe I should ask “who”? Your weirdo haiku is just . . . weird. And a complete waste of time since even your fellow Only Trumpers cannot possibly make sense of this gibberish.
Oh, I just looked, and yes, former Trump swooner Mitchell said Trump is being a “prick” to DeSantis. So there’s that part cleared up.
So I guess that means that you think/believe/fantasize that Trump is the “real president.” He’s doing a truly crappy job if he is since the economy sucks, people are struggling, the Green New Deal is killing our country’s energy and economic sectors, we’re fighting some dumb proxy war in Ukraine to either prop up the Ukraine nazis or to cover for Biden family corruption (maybe both?), and a zillion other things this “real president” is seriously screwing up. I have to say, very clearly, that I very much disapprove of the job the “real president” is doing. But you keep drooling. It’s . . . weird enough to be watchable.
Actually, I’m ready to concede her point that Trump is the “real” president, which would make him term limited in 2024. That would solve everybody’s problem and we could get on with the primaries with “real” candidates.
LOL!
Do I have to post that link again? Sooner or later you’re going to actually read it. I can’t believe that a Trumper like yourself knows so very little about him.
I was just showing you that all 10 of little d’s voters will vote for biden
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?
Nor is polling.
Remember, no arguing with Gonzo. No down-voting Gonzo. She will get bored and either go away or start conducting herself with more respect for others and not try to monopolize the conversation and parry every negative comment made about Trump.
sorry but Gonzo is correct
What would we do without hall monitors? As if only one person here is a serial comment or disrespects others.
Was Al Franken a felon for getting the Minnesota Senate Certified Results overturned by challenging the election in court and trying to change the outcome?
He actually was successful?
He had been guilty of felony impersonation of a comedian for years.
He snd his partner Davis had been guilty of felony impersonation of a comedian for years.
Oops, sorry. The system told me the first time failed to post.
October 2000, Bush on Gore at the Al Smith dinner:
“Like me, he married up. This is clearly a man who respects and loves his wife and his family. You also learn to see his strengths, and my opponent has many. He is a person of amazing energy and skill and determination. I can’t wish him success, but I do wish him well.”
There’s a tradition of this on the right. Or used to be.
what utter crap
It was called ‘comity’ way back then.
That’s not necessarily the case. Consider three people who run a business who believe that the bank has kept $211.43 from them. They go to court and lose. They keep filing petitions, but the court laughs them out of court and threatens sanctions for frivolous filings. So, the owners decide to rob the bank. They demand exactly $211.43 at gunpoint.
Even though trying to get their money back was legal, the conspiracy to rob the bank was not. This is true even if afterwards evidence is found that the bank really did steal their money and covered it up.
CHTruth: Was Al Franken a felon for getting the Minnesota Senate Certified Results overturned by challenging the election in court and trying to change the outcome?
No, because he used the proper legal channels to challenge the result. If he had, instead, accessed an election computer system without authorization, then that would have been a crime.
You do understand the difference of privilege of Franken being afforded that right to challenge in court. None of the challenges to the 2020 election (which should have had grounds solely on the unprecedented changes to election procedures) were allowed to proceed.
This does not conflict with what you are saying, but your collective should at least acknowledge that distinction if you wish to be intellectually honest about it.
healthguyfsu: None of the challenges to the 2020 election (which should have had grounds solely on the unprecedented changes to election procedures) were allowed to proceed.
The Trump campaign filed in many different courts, state and federal, but most of the cases were frivolous. Perhaps you could point to a specific case.
I would merely point you to this review as it makes my point well and does so in a way that anyone with a college degree can understand.
The sweeping dismissal of any related cases due to some (and often large clusters) of frivolous pellets is not due diligence under the law.
https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlr/vol126/iss1/4/
Surely, you wouldn’t ridiculously suggest that one needs proof of enough voter fraud to change the outcome just to file a suit for discovery. That negates the process of discovery and assumes that plaintiffs have powers not granted by the laws of the land. The only way that would work is if the plaintiffs were themselves or were closely tied to insiders privy to the corruption that could essentially “steal” the evidence. Very few legal, anti-corruption initiatives would be effective if that were the case…unless your point is to allow corruption to fester if it can weave its way to a political hive with similar interests.
healthguyfsu: I would merely point you to this review as it makes my point well and does so in a way that anyone with a college degree can understand.
The abstract says that the cases were “almost completely meritless.” Further on, the author notes that “There is no probative evidence of widespread fraud or election irregularities.”
healthguyfsu: Surely, you wouldn’t ridiculously suggest that one needs proof of enough voter fraud to change the outcome just to file a suit for discovery.
Not all cases were dismissed for standing. And such dismissals can be *appealed*.
You didn’t provide a specific case, so we’ll provide one: The appeals court ruled in Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar, “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
Actually, I provided multiple cases. They are just embedded in the citations.
Again…almost all is not all. It’s not justice to throw the baby out with the bathwater as the article implies.
The article is intended as a neutral indication of issues surrounding the legal matters of the election, not a confirmation of your hive’s biases. But of course, you dropped right into that trap anyways.
By the way, the cases cited in this article barely even acknowledge all of the cases that were thrown out by a sloppy judge saying it was “just too late to file” (paraphrasing laches), which is absurd considering you can’t file before the fraud happens and they came quickly following said fraud (prior to the inauguration of the next POTUS).
No case thrown out on laches is thrown out on its merits. Anyone with a semblance of neutrality can plainly see that such dismissal does nothing to quell the appearance of impropriety and bad actors amongst the political elite. That erodes faith in elections from all but the most dogmatic, willfully ignorant progressives whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
healthguyfsu: Estimates of economic implications of climate policy are important inputs into policy-making.
We asked for a specific case. Your own citation said the cases were “almost completely meritless.”
healthguyfsu: “just too late to file”
Again, you are confused, which is why we asked for a specific case, rather than you handwaving in the general direction. More particularly, the time to contest the rules is *before* the election. The time to contest whether the rules were followed is *after* the election.
The “time to challenge election rules” is not a written policy in any of the legal procedures in the entire country.
Furthermore, since when do Democrats care about rules in the same vein as a statute of limitations?
I never said anything about climate policy. It is your hive mind that is confused.
“Almost completely meritless” is one cherry picked line from an article about why standing shouldn’t be used to throw out the baby with the bathwater on those cases. And again, you fell right into the trap of running to your biases as soon as you found that line. You have demonstrated your purpose and flaw once again.
healthyguyfsu: The “time to challenge election rules” is not a written policy in any of the legal procedures in the entire country.
That is, again, incorrect. See, for instance, Purcell v. Gonzalez where the Supreme Court said that “the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed, without an injunction”.
healthyguyfsu: “Almost completely meritless” is one cherry picked line from an article about why standing shouldn’t be used to throw out the baby with the bathwater on those cases.
It’s your citation! We merely read it.
Perhaps some cases were been dismissed in error, but those dismissals were subject to appeal. Meanwhile, other courts did look at the evidence and found it wanting.
We asked for a specific case for discussion. When you repeatedly failed to do so, we provided a specific case where the evidence provided was considered, found wanting, appealed, then slammed by the appeals court for lack of specific allegations much less proof, a case you ignored.
“Consider three people who run a business who believe that the bank has kept $211.43 from them. They go to court and lose. They keep filing petitions, but the court laughs them out of court and threatens sanctions for frivolous filings. So, the owners decide to rob the bank. They demand exactly $211.43 at gunpoint.”
Except the Trump admin never robbed the bank. Or tried to. They’re being charged with crimes over the legal avenues they’ve been pursuing –and for simply complaining that the bank is holding on to their money wrongly.
Azathoth: Except the Trump admin never robbed the bank.
The original question was general: A criminal conspiracy can include illegal means to attain what would otherwise be a legal goal.
As for Trump, among the allegations (they have video) is that the Trump camp illegally accessed election computer systems. They are also accused of creating fake electors after the states had already certified the official electors.
Every freaking state has 2 slates of electors
It’s actually the law
Look it up
Um, no, they don’t. Look it up.
Hillary did the same thing in 2016 by petitioning states to send alternative electors/appointing electors to her in spite of the state voting Republican.
No, she didn’t do the same thing. Trump didn’t just petition states to send electors supporting him; when that failed he tried to have congress count electors that the states didn’t certify and send. That may have been legal, but it’s nothing like what Clinton did.
gonzotx: Every freaking state has 2 slates of electors
It’s actually the law
Well, no. While states have various procedures, under the U.S. Constitution, none of them can arbitrarily limit the number of electoral slates. Each party nominates a slate of electors who stand for election. For instance, in Texas, four parties qualified for the ballot. They aren’t electors unless they have won the election under the rules set by the state. Regardless, under the Electoral Count Act and the U.S. Constitution, the fake electors were, well, fake.
mailman: Hillary did the same thing in 2016 by petitioning states to send alternative electors/appointing electors to her in spite of the state voting Republican.
No, she did not. Some Democrats wanted Trump electors to vote for Clinton, which some states do allow.
They were not “fake” until the Congress decided not to count them. Had Congress decided to count them they would, by definition, not have been fake.
And Eastman makes a very good point, that nothing in the constitution gives Congress the power to decide that. The Electoral Count Act was simply Congress arrogating that power to itself with no basis in the constitution, which makes it invalid. It had no authority to pass such a “law”, and doing so had no effect.
Unfortunately the exact same argument works against his contention that the VP has that power instead. The constitution doesn’t say that either. The reality is that the 12th amendment is very sloppily written, and it just doesn’t say what should happen when there is a dispute over who a state’s electors are.
Milhouse: They were not “fake” until the Congress decided not to count them.
According to the U.S. Constitution, the states decide their electors, not Congress.
According to the US constitution the state legislatures decide the rules according to which the electors are to be chosen. The question is, when there is a dispute over which electors were legitimately chosen according to those rules, who decides? In 1877 the VP claimed he had that power, and Congress claimed it did. Congress passed the Electoral Count Act, enshrining its view as “law”, but I think Eastman is probably correct that it had no authority to do that and the ECA is invalid. But as to his additional claim that the VP in 1877 was correct, and the VP does have the power to decide, that isn’t supported by the constitution either. The text gives no clue to resolve this question. Whoever drafted that text back in 1803 should have been severely chastised. And the mistake should have been corrected in 1877.
Milhouse: The question is, when there is a dispute over which electors were legitimately chosen according to those rules, who decides?
The state courts interpret the state constitution and laws, while the federal courts interpret the federal constitution and laws. In this case, there was no legitimate dispute.
Dude, you are getting your butt beat by kiddie trolls. That’s just sad.
What an extraordinarily stupid analogy, even from you. Nobody ever tried to stage a coup and seize the presidency for Trump. Certainly Trump was not involved in any plan to do anything like that. In your hypothetical, the worst Trump is charged with is lobbying the bank’s directors to recognize and correct the error, and give you your $211.43 back.
Milhouse: What an extraordinarily stupid analogy, even from you. Nobody ever tried to stage a coup and seize the presidency for Trump.
It’s an *example* of the ends being legal, but the means criminal. That contradicts the claim that an “agreement to do something legal” (recovering one’s own property) precludes a criminal conspiracy. OJ Simpson learned this the hard way.
Milhouse: Certainly Trump was not involved in any plan to do anything like that. In your hypothetical, the worst Trump is charged with is lobbying the bank’s directors to recognize and correct the error, and give you your $211.43 back.
Trump and his cronies are charged with using illegal means to get what he claimed was his.
No, they’re not. None of the means alleged were illegal.
Milhouse: None of the means alleged were illegal.
The allegation, according to the indictment, is that Trump and others constituted “a criminal organization whose members and associates engaged in various related criminal activities including, but not limited to, false statements and writings, impersonating a public officer, forgery, filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and perjury.”
The position of District Attorney or US Attorney is now one of the most powerful in the land. It has been said that a prosecutor can get a grand juryt to indict a ham sandwich. But prosecutors are supposed to deal with crimes brought to them not to search for crimes to prosecute and to administer justice in an even handed manner. These indictments against Trump appear to be politically motivated, weak, and sham prosecutions to impede his presidential run. This is banana republic justice. These indictments are terrible precedents and someday may come back to haunt the very people who spawned them.
I don’t understand lawyers. They can never look beyond the weeds of the words to see the clear picture.
The only way to “overturn” a presidential election is if the state Electors change their votes — or the legislature appoints an alternate slate of Electors — and then the House certifies those votes. No matter what Trump and his supposed band of conspirators did cannot change an election in and of itself. Unless maybe they threaten to take hostages until the Legislators give in.
Did the Trump Crew conspire to fabricate phony ballots?
Did the Trump Crew threaten bodily harm to any election official?
Did the Trump Crew conspire to destroy legitimate ballots?
Did the Trump Crew attempt to counterfeit vote tallies?
Did the Trump Crew forge affidavits or other evidence?
Or did they simply demand answers to what appeared to be a crooked election (water pipes, yeah right).
We are a lawless country run by real Nazis
What?
Doesn’t she sound an awful lot like a prog troll?
It’s hard to tell the difference these days.
The damage caused by Obama and his acolytes will be hard to fix. Aside from criminalizing politics, they have destroyed Executive privilege and the attorney-client privilege. Good luck to those in the future, seeking to give or get legal advice. Not to mention the totalitarian approach that is now the new norm.
I certainly hope the defendants can get this rubbish cleared up without going bankrupt. That’s their aim. They pride themselves in financially crushing an entire family for political points.
Trust the government’ said no founding father ever.
CHTruth: Was Al Franken a felon for getting the Minnesota Senate Certified Results overturned by challenging the election in court and trying to change the outcome?
No, because he used the proper legal channels to challenge the result. If he had, instead, accessed an election computer system without authorization, then that would have been a crime.
Dear God it was Minnesota, the land of deep blue
Of course he was allowed to, he was encouraged and directed to!!!