The Political Prosecution that got old, ugly and self defeating
Link to Quote:
Trump says he expects to be arrested on Tuesday, calls for protests | Reuters
The radical American left has hated Donald Trump since he first announced his candidacy for President. Trump was the chief representative of America's middle/working class, whom every educated Marxist hates. So, you see, the hatred goes beyond Trump. The left tried to prevent him becoming President the first time, resisted all he did when President, tried to remove him as President and finally found a way to defeat him in the 2020 election. Now the left has been completely committed to prosecuting him for something/anything in order to prevent him from ever running again.
In one of the most startling of the many cases against Trump is the case in which a porn star tried to blackmail Trump during an election. However, one stands on this case the important elements are that the case is seven years old and based on questionable "evidence" as well as only amounting to an offense which constitutes a misdemeanor in the state of New York, which these days seldom even convicts violent offenders. Trump really couldn't be imprisoned. There is one more thing: the prosecutor in the case. He happens to be another left-wing Trump hater. A rather unique individual who left a questionable law firm to work full time with no salary, to as he put it in his own words, get Trump.
Alvin Bragg: Soros surrogate, Manhattan DA, activist and Trump-hater
Bragg has even written a book on this case that he has before the New York Grand Jury and if you think that is very unethical, he even writes of his dedication to the cause of getting Trump. On Saturday, Donald Trump told the country that the word is out that he will be arrested on Tuesday. He also called for protests when it happens. Oddly enough the same people who always lie about Trump and never believe Trump suddenly believe him. The other strange thing about the left is that they don't seem to know how bad all this looks to a rational human being. This entire effort to get Trump had devolved into madness. Right now these terrible people are visibly hoping for another Jan 6th demonstration. This is the sad state of affairs in this country. The left has weaponized the law to take out their political opponents, while letting their own walk free. They have also used the law to address social issues and leftist grievances.
If anything, Alvin Bragg has become God's gift to the right. These are the people that we want to run against.
Tags
Who is online
670 visitors
They may finally do this!
Ah, what will our critical thinkers and great wordsmiths say?
All I can say is thanks!
what part of "equal justice for all" is so confusing to trump cultists?
When Hillary gets tried and convicted of her crimes and the biden's do also we can talk about equal justice for all.
“…a Soros-backed POS DA.”
…rending any past, present or future attempt at being relevant moot.
Tis but stale, tired and ignorant parroting.
[deleted]
Nope. Just speaking the obvious.
Such depth and wisdom! They were mud-luscious and puddle-wonderful ...
[apol. to e. e. cummings]
But Hillary and the Bidens are guilty of nothing but being enemies of Putin and the Fascist American far right wing (who for some weird reason love Putin.)
Seems every person who is not a far right wing fascist is Soros.
Soros has become the boogie man for sub 100 IQ fascists.
they only know what they are spoon fed by right wing media
BINGO!
Deleted two days after the fact?
Not saying it was not provocative, but is that not the intent? If we dumb it down…only the deaf, dumb, and blind will have a say.
Hopefully, humbly submitted with ongoing thanks for the venue.
Some moron is wondering on another seed how much money Mr. Soros will receive regarding Bragg's potential indictment of the former 'president'.
I never really pay much attention to the 'articles' themselves' but looking at the description under Bragg's photo I just noticed it says 'Soros surrogate (whatever that means), Manhattan DA, activist and trump-hater'
That's bullshit
How immature - 'trump hater'
I’m wondering if an indictment in a relatively weak case isn’t designed to help Trump win the primary and lose the general.
Exactly, given the comments that you endlessly repeat, reading isn’t necessary.
What does 'they may finally do this' mean?
'Do' what?
If that were a crime Joe Biden, the editors of the New York Times, Washington Post, Maggie Haberman, Don Lemon, Adam Schiff and Conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow would all be doing life in prison.
That is part of the right wing self-delusion.
Another response that is somewhat lacking.
The projection contained in that comment is absolutely earth shattering.
No one in public American history has lied like Trump. We all know that, even you .
Evidently according to your unbiased accounting / S
Trump has been a known serial liar for decades, long before he entered politics. You having never read anything about him, wouldnt know this.
Like I said, somebody hasn't been paying attention.
Do you remember the Soviet newspaper known as Pravda?
They didn't even feel the need to refer to "unnamed sources." They simply made an accusation prefaced with the words "as is well known."
that's like when trump says "everybody knows" ...
Kind of like when you say "if needed."
No one in American history has been scrutinized like the man who had the temerity to beat the chosen one.
No one ....
Can we ever forget the "chosen one?" The woman who walked away from more scandals than just about any human being ever did!
Nope and I also haven’t forgotten that’s the main turd behind the “resistance” movement.
She told the lie that no one can seem to dispose of.
She’s an evil old seahag.
She can now join Nancy Pelosi in the old hag home.
Problem is, it just won’t go away. The SIT (seahag in training) Chelsea with be running for something in 2024.
You watch.
The Clintons are regarded as moderates in democratic circles. The party is firmly in the hands of the left. In 2024 we'll most likely get Biden or Newsom.
She won’t start there. A House seat, maybe Senate. Then maybe she can skeeve a run for the presidency.
She could win a House seat on the Clinton name.
Btw, I have a little prediction. After Bragg takes his feeble shot at Trump, the Georgia DA will follow up with another charge.
They don't do much without coordination.
Just like here.
Yep and they have plenty of useful idiots on the hook to carry out their elitist schemes.
That is a fact
You cant stop parodying yourself, can you?
Un huh!
It is not a crime to pay hush money
Apparently it is if you don't abide by hive think.
Some folk don't seem to care if their god lies to them.
The one time a NY DA enforces prosecuting somebody it's a TDS driven nonsense.
He wrote in his book that not only is he going after Trump without compensation, but that he would pay for the privilege of prosecuting Trump.
Does it seem ethical? Is that how our justice system works?
He's a liberal POS. Nothing he does is ethical.
We had two of them in NY running on getting Trump. In the old days just about NOBODY would have voted for them.
Back in the olde days?
people had common sense then. Now? It's all about feelings. I guess this ONE person hurt the feelings of so many that 6 years later they are still crying.
On a side note, I see you drew out the trolls in force this morning.
He went against everything that was drummed into them in Professor Bell's class.
On a side note, I see you drew out the trolls in force this morning.
They know who to fear.
Beware of The Grandma of Chappaqua...
Are you a teenage girl?
Do you still blame Hillary for Russiagate?
She retired from office over 10 years ago.
Ethical is not even in Bragg's vocabulary!
I think one of the last witnesses on Monday was Robert Costello who used to be a lawyer for Cohan.
The grand jury will be voting on the issue to indict Trump or not. As all they have to do is get 12 yes votes out of the 23 on the grand jury, we should be hearing the actually indictments sooner and that can put an end to all the speculation about what the charges will be. I still don't see how Bragg can bring a felony charge using campaign financing law into play on this, I suspect if that's the route it will backfire on him.
I wonder, is that why the left likes him?
By his account, Costello destroyed Cohen and made sure to let the Grand Jury know that Cohen never told Trump that the payments were made to Daniels.
A case hinging on the testimony of a convicted perjurer is always going to be dicey before an impartial jury.
And the SDNY US Attorneys office also.
It's all about a serial criminal that is finally seeing his day in court.
What criminal acts?
7 years ago he hurt your feelings. You all have been crying about it since and even launched investigation after investigation. 7 years later nothing changed. Your still crying over your hurt feelings, there have been no charges, or court dates. What makes this one any different than all the other TDS driven BS you all have been spewing?
Or the one currently in the White House.
It is called “derangement” for good reason.
"Derangement" accurately describes the condition of idiotic right-wing reactionaries. Many, if not most, of their comments on here prove it.
So what you're claiming is that Trump is not a lifelong serial criminal and liar?
All evidence proves otherwise.
Now try reading what I said instead of what you think I should or what you want me to say.
Still waiting for that. The left and the Democrats have been investigating for 6 years and have come up with absolutely NOTHING.
Actually, Trump's lifetime of committing copious crimes is well documented.
His daddy's money has saved him for many, many, many decades.
A republican senate also ignored the truth due to fear and partisan politics.
Even Capone, Hitler, Dillinger and Manson finally pissed off too many people.
That anyone could claim that the former 'president' is not guilty of anything in his whole criminal enterprise/grift of a life, is mind boggling.
Then by all means name some.
Then you should be able to name something criminal he has been convicted of.
And yet there have been no charges. No convictions, absolutely NOTHING. Just the hurt feelings of the TDS driven left.
Oh look. Pointless comparisons.
All they have are allegations.
Do you consider the allegations to be frivolous? It was my understanding that you, Ed, hold Trump accountable for inexcusable and wrong acts as part of his Big Lie campaign. If that is indeed true, then what is the point of arguing that only allegations exist thus far? Of course we (society) only have allegations until legal forces issue an indictment and a court of law determines guilt.
The lack of those legal measures, however, has no impact on whether or not normal human beings aware of what is in front of our eyes can determine if Trump was in the right or in the wrong (regardless of legality) when he tried to coerce Raffensperger, Bowers, Pence, etc. to commit unconstitutional / illegal acts. Similarly, we can all see that Trump triggered his supporters with false claims of election fraud and false claims of their votes being disenfranchised. And we can see that Trump refused to take any action to mitigate the insurrection for three hours (although he tweeted comments that threw Pence under the bus right in the middle of the violence).
At this point, it is just allegation. Correct. But note how Trump defenders take this fact to imply that Trump might not have engaged in wrongdoing.
Both the Daniels and McDougal allegations were suppressed during the final stages of the 2016 election, one in August and the other just days 10 days or so before the 2016 vote. The motive is obvious.
The payment was made, and Trump admitted he authorized it.
So whats the problem?
The problem is that worship of Donald Trump is a cult and America on the whole has never really come to terms with that fact.
Speaking of lying criminals. Avenatti is a real one that the left had pegged for President when he was going after Trump. Why do leftists love criminals?
Then there is the left's love affair of Stormy Daniels- who even admits she blackmailed Trump in her tell all book. Guess leftists love porn stars as well so long as they are taking down Trump- when they aren't degrading them for destroying Democrats for actual affairs.
Also, there is this nasty little problem that the NY DA is a fucking moron. But at least he is a partisan fucking moron that is out to get Trump- which makes him a leftist icon.
But this time Democrats really have Trump. To hell with the fact Democrats have destroyed our legal system. What are leftists going to do when people decide to take the law into their own hands?
Except we are not speaking of Avenatti, we're speaking of Trump paying off a porn star to kill a damaging story days before the 2016 presidential election.
I know what I'll be doing, and with a great amount of satisfaction....
Tell us, we want to know. The FBI may have to be informed.
... according to you, they're already on the side of leftists.
Yes they are, but at least NT gets to warn them.
Now how about telling us what you'd like to do?
Come on be a man for once.
... if needed, I'll be defending the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Like hell you will.
It's nice to see you come back and add "if needed." Like a critical thinker you saved yourself!
thanks for coming back and fixing that misquote you attributed to me...
Don't thank me yet
Don’t forget to pack a lunch .... you’ll need it.
Badly .....
[removed]
Lol ... our resident badass is such tough talker online. Face to face? Not a chance in hell.
I’ve changed my mind. No need to pack a lunch, all internet badasses will be too busy running away like the little bitches they are or hiding in grandmas basement.
She’ll warm up a can of Spaghetti-O’s for ya .....
Paying hushmoney is not a crime.
More than likely it has something to do with his left hand, a penis and a picture of both Donald Trump and Avenatti.
Probably decide who are people and who are not.
Far right wing fascists are not people in my book.
Once again, not a punishable crime!
There is no problem. Consensual agreements are made every day, especially for people in politics. Sometimes the blackmailer is not interested in money. A prime example would be the SCOTUS. There the objective was to get Conservatives to withdraw their nomination. We all recall the false allegations made against Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh. Oh yes, the democrats will stoop to those levels.
Sorry don't recall any false allegations.
Trump is guilty of every wrongdoing he's ever been accused of.
That's just the greedy, idiotic asshole he's always been.
And when were those criminal trials and convictions? Oh, that's right there haven't been any!
There were no false allegations against TT-Token Thomas or Whiny Bitch Kavanaugh either, all true.
NDA's with renumeration are not illegal. Even the FEC declined to go after Trump for this issue because they new there was no real crime under federal law. So what local law was impacted here that gives the Manhattan DA the ability to indict and charge?
Once far right wingers learn to spell, we educated folk might pay attention.
Why is it that Trump supporters can't spell?
I wonder why they always defend the indefensible.
Please see post #12.1.46 below and then tell us what a solid legal case Bragg has against Trump. In actuality, Bragg is on pretty shaky ground legally.
This is psycho.
Notice the American flag "war paint", lol.
I'd say Trump nailed it again. There is nothing to feel self-conscious about.
Thats the problem in a nutshell. The right wing enjoys Trumps childish "performance" totally unbefitting an American leader. Fortunately you are digging your own grave for 2024.
That's too bad John. Actions define people.
Nailed what? Public insanity?
Me too!
When fascism comes to America it will be wearing a flag and carrying a bible.
Meanwhile...
Ah a picture always does it for those lacking a response!
Hush money, tax evasion and January 6th. Oh My!
Don't forget treason and obstruction of congress.
Lions, tigers and bears in Trumps future.
If and when he gets tried and convicted of either in a real court of law with a real judge and jury instead of the court of public opinion, do please let us know.
Can anyone imagine any other American president in history carrying on with such hysterics? Trump is clearly mentally impaired, yet his cult following is only growing more devoted. On social media there have been calls for armed "protectors" of Trump to encircle Maralago and try and prevent his arrest. It sounds like the plot for a National Lampoon style political satire.
I can't imagine any rational human being thinking that Alvin Bragg should be a DA anywhere.
Coming from a MAGA, that is just too rich!
Coming from a left-wing Marxist, it's just what I'd expect.
Post some more pictures up so I can make an issue out of it in a few hours.
[removed]
And I couldn't believe that Ken Starr was ever an Independent Counsel, but hey, there you have it.
Are you labeling JBB a Marxist?
I’m not into labels, but if pressed, I would label him a Bronxist.
That works even better.
Anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a marxist to fascists.
And anyone to the right of Mao Tse Tung or Joe Stalin or Karl Marx is a fascist to the liberals progressives
Ex presidential Vacation from reality?
the democrats war on norms continues apace, and then they’ll be shocked and outraged when their own tactics are used against them.
When politicians are prosecuted as part of partisan vendettas, as this prosecution is, republics have a hard time functioning.
Should that day come, we'll be hearing how different it is.
And how unfair it is.
Words are hard!
Pow, zing, zoom
Capt Meme strikes again .....zowie!
Far right words are hollow.
Poor Trump! Everybody treats him so bad.
When far right wing hate and fascism become the norm, the world has a huge problem.
What the hell does that even mean?
Do we all drive covered wagons again?
And when this attempt to "Get Trump" fails, what will the leftists say then?
They'll circle back to one of their many failed attempts and try it again. Why do you think Stormy Daniels is being brought up again.
The Fed chose not to pursue charges so a much more radical NY state DA had to.
The triggered, TDS ridden liberal playbook demands it.
That really gets me on this one. The Manhattan DA (Bragg is not a NY State DA) is looking into did Trump mislabel a hush money payment reimbursement which is a misdemeanor charge and is he trying to upgrade the charge to a felony by saying it was a campaign violation? As federal law supercedes local law here and the FEC declined to pursue charges for this, I'm at a loss as to how the DA can expect to win.
And an outside question on this, wasn't Bragg the DA who while campaigning vowed to go after Trump? Or was that someone else?
There was a hanging chad called 'Individual number 1'?
I don’t know. So many TDS ridden haters, so little time.
... and each one balanced out by 'so many' lacking imagination. It's simply amazing! ... /S
Trump has definitely triggered everybody who believes in justice.
Trump is a lifelong criminal personified!
Proud to be smarter than far-right wing republicans and know that Trump is one of the worst people on the planet.
some people cant see what is right in front of their face
for someone who claims not to care about donald trump you sure expend a lot of energy having his back
[deleted]
Still butthurt over Trump's ass whoopin?
Better buckle up. It's fixing to get worse!
Trump has so many crimes to atone for.
Stormy is just one of many of Trump's lies.
Those who still support him are complaisant about his life of crime.
Those who still support Trump likely have sub 100 IQs.
You may be giving MAGA too much credit
And after 6 years of investigation you all have what? A misdemeanor that is in question because of the ethical problems conducted by the "prosecutor"?
Speaking of Stormy, did she ever pay that $300,000 she owes him?
What "crimes" has he been charged with? I'm talking actual crimes not your hurt feelings.
Dissecting Charges That Could Arise From the Trump Investigations - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
WASHINGTON — Prosecutors like to say that they investigate crimes, not people. The looming decision by the Manhattan district attorney about whether to indict former President Donald J. Trump on charges related to an alleged hush money payment to a porn actress is highlighting the complexity of the legal calculations being made by prosecutors in New York, Georgia and the Justice Department as they examine Mr. Trump’s conduct on a number of fronts.
The investigations — which also focus on Mr. Trump’s efforts to cling to power after the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents after leaving office — are confronting prosecutors with tough choices. They must decide whether and how to charge not just Mr. Trump, but also associates who could face jeopardy for actions to which he was not a direct party, like mail or wire fraud for communications that he did not participate in.
The publicly known understanding of the evidence is incomplete. It is not clear, for example, in several instances what facts investigators have been able to gather about Mr. Trump’s personal knowledge, directions and intentions related to several of the matters.
Here is a look at some of the criminal laws that different prosecutors appear to be weighing and how they might apply to Mr. Trump’s actions.
The Stormy Daniels Hush Money Payment
Overview
Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, appears to be nearing a decision about whether to charge Mr. Trump with a crime related to his $130,000 hush money payment just before the 2016 election to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who has said they had an extramarital affair. Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, sent the money to Ms. Daniels, and the Trump Organization reimbursed him over the course of 2017, according to a 2018 federal court filing in Mr. Cohen’s case . Mr. Trump’s business concealed the true purpose of the payments, the filing said, by recording them as having been for a legal retainer that did not exist.
Potential charge: Bookkeeping fraud
The New York Times has reported that the case may include a potential charge of falsifying business records under Article 175 of the New York Penal Law . A conviction for a felony version of bookkeeping fraud carries a sentence of up to four years.
To prove that Mr. Trump committed that offense, prosecutors would seemingly need evidence showing that he had knowingly caused subordinates to make a false entry in his company’s records “with intent to defraud.” For the action to be a felony rather than a misdemeanor, prosecutors would also need to show that Mr. Trump falsified the business records with the intention of committing, aiding or concealing a second crime.
The public understanding of Mr. Bragg’s theory of the case remains murky and incomplete. The district attorney’s office has reportedly weighed invoking alleged campaign-finance violations as that intended second crime, which could raise complications. Among other things, presidential elections are governed by federal law, and it is not clear whether Mr. Bragg has found a theory by which a state campaign law covered Mr. Trump’s actions, or if a state prosecutor can cite a law over which he lacks jurisdiction. It remains possible that Mr. Bragg has obtained nonpublic evidence of some other intended offense, like if there was any initial intention to deduct the payments as a business expense on state tax returns.
Bookkeeping fraud has a two-year statute of limitations as a misdemeanor and a five-year one as a felony, both of which would normally have expired for payments made to Mr. Cohen in 2017. But New York law extends those limits to cover periods when a defendant was continuously out of state, as Mr. Trump was while living in the White House or at his home in Florida. In addition, during the pandemic, New York’s statute of limitations was extended by more than a year.
The Mar-a-Lago Documents
Overview
Jack Smith, a special counsel for the federal Justice Department, is investigating matters related to Mr. Trump’s handling of several hundred documents marked as classified that he kept at his Florida club and home, Mar-a-Lago, after leaving office, and how Mr. Trump resisted efforts by the government to retrieve all of those files. After the Justice Department obtained a subpoena for all remaining files marked as classified, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, M. Evan Corcoran, turned over some while helping to draft a statement falsely saying those were all that remained. In August, the F.B.I. executed a search warrant and found 103 more, including in Mr. Trump’s desk.
Prosecutors last week persuaded a federal judge that Mr. Corcoran should be compelled to answer more questions from a grand jury investigating the documents matter, notwithstanding attorney-client privilege. That means the judge agreed with prosecutors that the situation met the threshold for an exception for lawyer communications or work that apparently helped further a crime.
Potential charge: Unauthorized retention of national security documents
One of the charges the F.B.I. listed in its affidavit for the Mar-a-Lago search warrant was Section 793(e) of Title 18 , a provision of the Espionage Act. Prosecutors would have to show that Mr. Trump knew he was still in possession of the documents after leaving the White House and failed to comply when the government asked him to return them and then subpoenaed him. The theoretical penalty is up to 10 years per such document.
Prosecutors would also have to show that the documents related to the national defense, that they were closely held and that their disclosure could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary. Although Mr. Trump has claimed — without evidence — that he declassified all the files taken to Mar-a-Lago, prosecutors would not need to prove that they were still classified because the Espionage Act predates the classification system and does not refer to it as an element.
How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.
Potential charge: Obstruction
Another charge in the F.B.I. affidavit was Section 1519 of Title 18 , which makes it a crime to conceal records to obstruct an official effort. Prosecutors would need to show that Mr. Trump knew he still had files that were responsive to the National Archives’ efforts to take custody of presidential records and the Justice Department’s subpoena for files marked as classified, and that he intentionally caused his subordinates to fail to turn them all over while leading officials to believe they had complied. The penalty is up to 20 years per offense.
Potential charge: Mishandling official documents
A third charge in the affidavit was Section 2071 of Title 18 , which criminalizes the concealment or destruction of official documents, whether or not they were related to national security. Among other things, former aides to Mr. Trump have recounted how he sometimes ripped up official documents, and the National Archives has said that some of the Trump White House paper records transferred to it had been torn up — some of which were taped back together and some of which were not reconstructed. The penalty is up to three years per offense plus a ban on holding federal office, although the latter is most likely unconstitutional , legal experts say.
Potential charge: Contempt of court
Section 402 of Title 18 makes it a crime to willfully disobey a court order, like the grand jury subpoena Mr. Trump received in May 2022 requiring him to turn over all documents with classification markings remaining in his possession. It carries a penalty of a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in prison. To bring this charge, prosecutors would need evidence showing he knew that he was still holding onto other files with classification markings during and after his representatives purported to comply with the subpoena.
Potential charge: Conspiracy to make a false statement
Section 1001 of Title 18 makes it a crime to make a false statement to a law enforcement officer about a fact material to the officer’s investigation, and Section 371 makes it a crime to conspire with another person to break that or any other law. It carries a penalty of up to five years. Prosecutors would need to be able to show that Mr. Trump and Mr. Corcoran knew and agreed that the lawyer should lie to the Justice Department about there being no further documents responsive to the subpoena.
The Georgia Election Law Investigation
Overview
Fani T. Willis, the district attorney for Fulton County, Ga., is investigating events related to Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn President Biden’s narrow victory in that state in the 2020 election. Among other things, in a phone call that was recorded and leaked, Mr. Trump called Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and pressured him to “find” enough additional votes for him to flip the outcome.
Ms. Willis is also investigating Trump associates’ efforts to get 16 of his supporters to falsely declare themselves to be an alternative slate of electors from Georgia, which helped lay the groundwork for Mr. Trump’s push to get Vice President Mike Pence to reject the true results when Congress met to certify the election on Jan. 6, 2021.
Potential charges: Election code violations
Most elections offenses in Georgia’s code are misdemeanors, but there are several felony charges that Ms. Willis may be considering, based on the same basic set of facts. These include Section 21-2-603 , which makes it a crime to conspire with another person to violate a provision of the election code, and Section 21-2-604 , which makes it a crime to solicit another person to commit election fraud.
To bring such a charge against Mr. Trump, prosecutors would need to cite another election law whose violation was his alleged goal. It is possible, for example, that they might be considering contending that Mr. Trump’s pushing Mr. Raffensperger to “find” additional votes amounted to implicitly asking him to violate a provision that makes it a felony for the secretary of state to alter official election records, but Mr. Trump’s language was not explicit.
Potential charge: Racketeering
Ms. Willis has indicated that she is considering bringing charges under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. So-called RICO laws are tools that were developed to make it easier to go after organized criminal enterprises, and can be used against members of any group that engaged in a pattern of criminal activities with a common purpose. A conviction would carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison .
To convict Mr. Trump under Georgia’s RICO law, Section 16-14-4 , prosecutors would need to show that as part of his efforts with associates to overturn Georgia’s election results, he conspired with others or engaged in two or more offenses from a list of several dozen offenses , most of which are violent crimes but which include things like solicitation, forgery and making materially false statements to state officials.
The 2020 Election and Jan. 6
Overview
Mr. Smith, the special counsel, is also conducting a broader federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election results and the events of Jan. 6. The House committee that carried out the investigation into the riot last year made a criminal referral of Mr. Trump and others to the Justice Department. While that was of largely symbolic value — the department already had an investigation open and Congress has no authority to prosecute — the analysis in the panel’s final report sets out possible charges that Mr. Smith could also consider.
Potential charge: Obstruction of an official proceeding
One criminal accusation the Jan. 6 committee leveled against Mr. Trump was the attempted corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, under Section 1512(c) of Title 18 . It is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Prosecutors have used this law to charge about 300 ordinary Jan. 6 defendants — people who rioted — and an appeals court is currently weighing whether that charge has been appropriately applied in those cases . But even if the judiciary upholds use of the charge, such a case against Mr. Trump would be very different since he did not physically participate in the riot.
The Jan. 6 committee argued that he could be charged with it based on two sets of actions. First, it argued that his summoning of supporters to Washington and urging them to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell” violated that law. Mr. Trump’s defense team would surely seek to raise doubt about whether he intended for his supporters to riot, including because he also told them to protest “peacefully.”
Second, the committee portrayed as criminal obstruction the scheme to recruit so-called fake electors from various states and pressuring Mr. Pence to cite their existence as a basis to delay certifying the election. The panel stressed how Mr. Trump had been told that there was no truth to his claims of a stolen election, which it said proved his intentions were corrupt. Among other things, Mr. Trump’s defense team would surely argue that because a lawyer, John Eastman, advised him to take those steps, there is no proof he understood that doing so was illegal.
Potential charge: Conspiracy to defraud the United States
A second criminal accusation leveled by the Jan. 6 committee was Section 371 of Title 18 , which makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conspire with another person to defraud the government. The panel cited an array of evidence about Mr. Trump’s interactions with various lawyers and aides in pursuit of his effort to prevent the certification of Mr. Biden’s electoral victory. The committee also argued that prosecutors could prove Mr. Trump intended to be deceitful via evidence that he was repeatedly told that his allegations of widespread voter fraud were baseless.
Potential charge: Conspiracy to make a false statement
The Jan. 6 committee highlighted the efforts to submit slates of fake electors to Congress and to the National Archives. As with other such potential charges, a key challenge for prosecutors would be proving Mr. Trump’s intentions and understanding beyond a reasonable doubt.
Potential charge: Insurrection
The committee also pointed to Section 2383 of Title 18 , which makes it a crime to incite, assist or “aid and comfort” an insurrection against the authority and laws of the federal government. The panel emphasized in particular how Mr. Trump refused for hours to take steps to call off the rioters despite being implored by aides to do so, and an inflammatory tweet he sent about Mr. Pence in the midst of the violence.
While the committee said the events of Jan. 6 met the standard for an insurrection, it is notable that prosecutors have not accused any of the Jan. 6 defendants to date of that offense — even those they charged with seditious conspiracy.
None of the trumpsters ever see the bigger picture. No other president than Trump has ever been involved in such an array of questionable (to say the least) conduct. All of the allegations are credible, whether or not they ultimately end in conviction at criminal trials.
In and of itself such an array of misconduct should prevent Trump from ever again being a credible or acceptable candidate for public office.
So he HASN'T been charged with a crime. It's laughable that after 6 years all you have are "potential charge". Those must be some incompetent investigators to only come up with that after all that time..
You are a hopeless case.
A great number of criminals are never convicted. That does not mean they didnt commit a crime.
Even so, Trumps legal problems are probably only beginning. Your support of him on the narrow basis that he hasnt been "convicted" is absurd.
It's amazing to see the same people who made that exact same argument in defense of Hillary Clinton now act like its beyond the pale when applied to Donald Trump.
Its amazing to see people compare the misconduct of Hillary Clinton to the misconduct of Donald trump. They are on two entirely different scales. Did Hillary Clinton ask her followers to come by the tens of thousands and protest the election she lost and tell them it "would be wild'? And on and on. You guys really are shameless.
That's hilarious coming from you of all people. Mr. "Smoking Gun" come up empty again so you lash out.
Then prove a crime was committed. All you've given me is a wish list.
We've been hearing that for 6 years now. And it all amounted to NOTHING.
You haven't provided anything to convict him of. Just more of the same TDS driven nonsense. I'm sure if you really had something more than your hurt feelings there are a few hundred TDS Driven lawyers that would take a shot.
You dont have an actual answer or explanation for ANY of Trumps misconduct. All you have is the lame mantra "he hasnt been convicted of a crime''. For years Al Capone was never convicted of a crime either although everyone knew he was a crime lord who killed people. By your "logic" Al Capone was qualified to be mayor of Chicago until the day he was eventually convicted on income tax charges.
I need to remind myself it is a waste of time to reply to you.
Just as you don't have a goddamn thing to back up any of your claims. You have been asked time again to back up your claims. And you fail. Every. Single. Time. You would think that after 6 years of falling on your face you would learn.
I need to remind myself it is a waste of time to reply to you.
This is the indication that you don't have a damn thing. Every time, you fail you resort to personal attacks such as this. And you actually expect to be treated as somebody other than a petulant 3 year old?
You have had the evidence shown to you for six years and you refuse to open your eyes.
get lost.
You have had the evidence shown to you
You mean all those "Possible Charges" you listed?
That's a wish list. Something you send to Santa Clause. As you've been told time and again by serveral people - You. Haven't. Proven. Shit.
Anyone who refuses to even acknowledge that Trump has engaged in any wrongdoing is going to just play trollish games endlessly. And if Trump is ever convicted on a charge, a person like this will likely claim the trial was rigged.
You are again just making up ridiculous exaggerations. A perfect example of actual trolling.
Always defending the indefensible.
Isn’t that statement a non sequitur?
What some folks here are very good at.
Then the produce a list of "possible charges". Is that supposed to mean something? Hell we all face "possible charges"
Look at how they acted when that very statement was made against the rioters after George Floyd overdosed.
Lol .... keep telling yourself that. Trump has been owning liberal worker drones since 2016.
And it continues today. Hilarious!
So that explain Trump getting whooped?
How did you miss it? You guys are funny!
The gop has been losing votes since '16...
[Deleted]
They’ll deny that as well. Denial is like a cooling salve they apply liberally to their butthurt psyches.
It’s all those poor lost souls have ....
Hey, full time victimhood and butthurt is tough on the little buggers.
Notice that the only source he can quote is a known blatantly leftist liberally biased publication that is known for being anti-Trump. Loads of balanced and fair reporting and credibility there.
I saw that, then looked at how quoted it and realized how laughable the accusations really are.
Desperation usually is.
Not to mention that Trump is just a seriously evil narcissistic asshole.
With all of the defense of Trump here it should be noted that he LOST THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN 2020. If he was such a great President why did he lose?
He is a one-term loser.
So true. So many here are always defending the indefensible - endlessly.
What's hilarious is those same drones worshiped Trump when he was on the Apprentice. They tuned in every week, picked the liberal they loved the most to win, then......
He beat Hillary
Then the triggering and need for safe spaces began
And continue today.
Yet Trump never came close to winning a popular vote...
Well since we don't elect the president by the national popular vote and never have your comment is completely and utterly meaningless.
And they’ve been doing Hillary’s bidding ever since.
Yeah, we want to 'get him'. He's done nothing wrong in his entire thug life.
The defense of the indefensible is indefensible.
That's right. He has done nothing wrong.
Was it wrong for Trump to try to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution?
Was it wrong for Trump to:
Only totally blind partisanship could prevent a normal mind from recognizing the above obvious wrongs .
" Trump has done nothing wrong. " = delusion
Many of your wrongs were the same things Hillary and her supporters tried in 2016. In fact I don't think she has condemned any of the riots across the country or any of the protest in her name that happened. She also tried to get electors to change their vote even attempting bribery.
As far as cheating with fraudulent votes, that has been a long standing tactic of democrats since at least the Kennedy/Nixon election.
So was Hillary wrong to or are you going to be delusional about that?
I didn't say that. Tessylo did. I only agreed with her
but, but, but, what about...
Yes yes I know. It's ok for you lefties to do that but no one else.
I have heard a five year old mount a better defense for biting!
LOL!
Did you get away with biting someone then?
Sometimes I cringe for these righties. They don't know any better!
Amazing, you even deny what you just wrote. This is NOT Tessylo writing "He has done nothing wrong.": ↓
Why is it so difficult for you, et. al. to acknowledge the wrongdoings of Trump? What do you think is accomplished by foolishly denying what is obviously true?
See comment 10.2.
I want actual convictions and actual charges he has. I don't want any made up liberal fantasy BS. You claim there are all these wrong doings but when asked to name some you all just clam up and kep quiet or complain that people are defending him.
There are no formal charges and thus no convictions. Why ask for something that does not (yet) exist?
You are denying reality and labeling it "made up liberal fantasy"; this is like conversing with a flat-earther.
It takes no special mental abilities to recognize that these are wrongdoings.
I just listed the wrongdoings @10.2.2 and here you are pretending they were not listed. Your game is truly pathetic. How can you possibly think you are fooling anyone?
Here is the content of @10.2.2 again:
Was it wrong for Trump to try to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution?
Was it wrong for Trump to:
Only totally blind partisanship could prevent a normal mind from recognizing the above obvious wrongs .
Why claim things that does not exist. The left has consistently called him a criminal yet there are no convictions. There have been more investigations onto over the past seven years and still no credible charges have been filed.
As for what you call wrong doings, many if not all of them were things Hillary had done in 2016. Do you want her charged tried and convicted too?
You continue this absurd obtuseness game. The wrongdoings by Trump (as listed) clearly exists. Deflecting to Hillary and not acknowledging the wrongdoings by Trump shows blind partisan bias. Pathetic.
Not holding Hillary to the same standards that you have for Trump show nothing but partisanship on your part.
You continue to invent your own personal reality.
I have not excused Hillary from anything. And I am not a D nor am I or ever was a Hillary supporter, so you are completely off base. That is what happens when you invent your own 'facts' instead of engaging honestly like an adult.
The topic is Trump, not Hillary. Your deflection illustrates blind partisanship and denial of the obvious.
What is pathetic is you demanding we answer your question the way you want us to, but refuse to answer any of the questions posed to you., especially when those questions are directly related by what you have dreamed up.
Pathetic.
You are a heavy D
Your posts show it.
You illustrate that you have no concept of political independence. It is common among partisans — the inability to conceive of anything other than D or R. To a blind partisan, if one veers from strict R positions they must be a D. Utterly naive.
And, of course, you are dead wrong.
Bullshit Bugsy. Avoiding answering direct, clear and obvious questions is simply a cowardly act. (And it likely does not fool anyone.) Playing these stupid games of deflection and offering nonsense claims like "must answer question as I want" just illustrates that you, et. al. have no argument.
And then you resort to the Pee Wee Herman, childish parroting of my exclamation.
You are far from independent.
You are a heavy D and your posts show it.
OK tell you what...
I think that yes, Trump did some of things and are wrong for doing them. if it is found that what he did was illegal, then he should be charged for those illegalities. Fr left liberal feelings do not constitute illegality.
Now, answer the question posed to you in 10.2.15.
Like I said, blind partisans cannot conceive of an independent. To them, if one does not follow the party line they must be a member of the other party.
Get a clue, bugsy, political positions are far more complex than a binary D and R.
I never said you were just a D.
I said you were a far left D.
That says I am not binary in my description of you and political positions.
Hillary absolutely did NOT do the things I listed. So arkpdx is wrong.
This should be obvious to you. And if you need it spelled out, then here is my list with Hillary instead of Trump. Do the math.
Was it wrong for Hillary to try to overturn the results of the election using the authority of her office and against the Constitution?
Was it wrong for Hillary to:
What Hillary has done is claim that the election was stolen from her. She did not claim the US electoral system was rigged or fraudulent. Further, she made her poor loser comments after conceding the election and did so only sporadically as opposed to Trump who has never conceded the election and has claimed a rigged election continuously. There is no comparing Hillary's response to the incessant lies, actions and inaction from Trump.
If you think that the above list is true then I will continue to conclude that you are hopelessly in a partisan quagmire.
Then you are even more out of touch than I thought.
Never said she did all of the things you claim Trump did. arlpdx said "most, if not all".
Hillary tried to get her electors to change their vote. Do you think that is wrong. Not very dissimilar to what you claim Trump did.
Hillary blamed everybody but herself for losing the election, sending her supporters into a frenzied triggered rage, where many of them rioted across the country for several days after the 2016 election. Not very dissimilar to what you claim Trump did with Jan 6. She never told those rioters to stand down....ever.
As for what else you claim Trump did, why has he not been indicted and charged for any of those things?
[deleted, sweeping generalization]
[deleted, TiG is not the topic]
You think she did most of those things?
Anyone who tries to defraud the system is engaging in wrongdoing.
For you to think the scale of Hillary's poor loser is even in the same league as Trump's you demonstrate blind partisanship.
Why ask me ... I am not in charge of indictments. I would like to know why the delay too; like everyone else.
You are denying that Trump did what I listed? You are indeed blinded by partisanship.
And since you keep writing this, it is obvious you are just trolling. What prompts grown men to engage in such childish behavior?
OK now we are getting somewhere.
Do you think she should be charged with this crime?
"For you to think the scale of Hillary's poor loser is even in the same league as Trump's you demonstrate blind partisanship."
So nanny nanny boo boo. Your hero is not as much a sore loser, so that makes her better.
"Why ask me ... I am not in charge of indictments."
Sorry, forgot you have already designated him guilty by your feelings.
"You are denying that Trump did what I listed?"
Maybe you need to read 10.2.24 again.
Here...I'll help you..
"I think that yes, Trump did some of things and are wrong for doing them. if it is found that what he did was illegal, then he should be charged for those illegalities."
Your far left partisanship does not allow for you to accept that someone on the opposite political scale can actually agree with you. It is well known that most liberals thrive on arguing, and it sucks for them when their "enemy" agrees with them.
"What prompts grown men to engage in such childish behavior?"
[Deleted]
What crime do you have in mind? Be specific.
(ignoring the balance of your trolling post)
Don't know but I just decided to play the left game and accuse a crime without knowing what crime. Most leftists do so with their feelings.
"(ignoring the balance of your trolling post)"
Nice insult, however, i posted to you the same exact way you post to us. Point by point.
Do you admit you do nothing but troll?
Sure looks like it.
They are not sending their best.
To be fair, there is not much of an argument for them to make. Trump's actions (and inaction) are there for the world to see and what he did is entirely unique (in both act and scale) in USA history. Trump's Big Lie behavior is indefensible thus we see incessant deflection, fabrication and faux obtuseness.
But the most bizarre aspect of this is that by continuing to carry Trump's water (by supporting or by defending / excusing him), GOP members are shooting themselves in the foot. They are making it possible for Trump to win the nomination and since he will almost certainly lose the general, they are taking themselves out of the running in 2024. And if Trump fails to secure the nomination, by virtue of the GOP NOT eroding his power base, he might have enough political power left to be a GOP spoiler. Either way, the support / defense of Trump harms the GOP.
How stupid is it then for GOP members to support / defend Trump?
John, to be fair, our worst easily handles you day in and day out.
There is no competition.
That the serial criminal Trump has many more court dates to come.
For what? Those "possible charges" listed in 10.1.15 ?
All I have is the truth. Trump is currently facing many charges.
You know the the charges as well as I do.
[Deleted]
I noticed you never give any charges or convictions when asked. Could it be because you don't have any?
John laid out all the charges against him quite thoroughly in comment 10.1.15 yet you all ignore it and ask endlessly what the charges are against him, like you all don't know in the first place.
The rest of this thread was removed for trolling. Trolling is defined by calling out a member and then slamming them over and over. It was also removed for meta. This is a discussion group, not a gossip clutch. Stop. Only warning.
All I see in 10.1.15 is a plethora of wet dream "Potential Charges" but the left want to hang their hats on that. Doesn't cut it........at least at this point and those are all they are going on. Pretty damned weak.
Try, try again maybe?
It is truly unbelievable that anyone outside New York where Trump was born and raised ever fell for his lies and schtick but then New Yorkers know the score. New York hates him, he stiffed so many lawyers, builders, construction companies, small businesses and then skipped out on his financial responsibilities with multiple bankruptcies and the right wing adores him. He pals around with so many people that have been arrested and convicted or even pled guilty to a variety of financial crimes or failing to register as "foreign agents", yet still the right wing loves him. He openly was a notorious womanizer even bragging about sexual assault but still the right wing loves him. He openly loves dictators and embraces their methods over America and over Democracy but still the right wing loves him. He has one of the biggest global empires and makes no pretense over cozying up to China, Russia, Iran or anywhere he can get land for a golf course or hotel putting America last but still the right wing loves him. He doesn't love them but they only return the love he cares nothing for just because he gave them the okay to express more hatred of those he hates too. Hate never moves anyone forward, hate is a trap and far too many people have fallen for it and Trump knew they all would. Hate the left, blame anyone or anything, pretend truth isn't real with "alternative facts" and expect them all to go to jail on his behalf when just like all the sports teams invited to the White House that got a gourmet treat like McDonalds they never accept that a "Big Mac" is most they deserve in return for their devotion.
But that and KFC is gourmet fare to trump.
Anyone who has even basic understanding of partisan politics (nowadays) knows that one side 'hates' the PotUS of the other side. (Just note the daily emotionally-based attacks on 'Brandon' in our microcosm.) The radical portion of the left will of course have a more refined 'hatred' since they are at the extreme.
If one understood what Marx was talking about, one would understand that the working class is that which is elevated by Marx' philosophy. It is aristocracy (the ruling class) that is harmed by the principles espoused by Marx and Engles.
Again, of course 'the left' (by your extreme definition) 'hates' (by your definition) Trump and a minority of same will of course seek to 'get back at him'. You are clearly trying to paint everyone on whatever you consider 'the left' as out to get Trump no matter what. That is cynical and silly. Get a grip.
This case, while probably valid from a judicial perspective, is unfortunate. From a political perspective, it makes it more difficult for the DoJ to move forward on the Big Lie issues and those are what should be front and center regarding Trump. The Big Lie set a horrible precedent for what a sitting PotUS could do while in office. Nothing like that has ever happened in our nation and the nation needs to hold Trump accountable so that the precedent withers and dies. By going after Trump on a charge unrelated to his presidency the state of New York (via Bragg) is motivating Trump supporters (and even a percentage of non-Trump supporters) to consider Trump a victim. This works great (politically) for Trump and puts the DoJ in a worse position with respect to public sentiment should they indict Trump (properly) for the Big Lie campaign.
Personally, I would rather see the DoJ indictments emerge first to have a chance to ruin the horrible precedent of presidential behavior set by Trump. The Bragg indictment will compromise the ability to hold Trump accountable for his Big Lie actions (and inaction) and could allow his horrible precedent to live on.
This is all irrelevant. I would like to see him prosecuted for everything he did that is against the law. The NY case doesnt make later indictments less likely, it sets the table and establishes the precedent. In other words it gives the DOJ "cover".
I disagree. Most people do not pay attention to details. Many will see this literally as "oh I see they are going after Trump again ... something about paying off a prostitute". They will see this as: "going after Trump".
If the DoJ pursues an indictment, this will be diluted by those with the "just going after Trump" mentality. This is not just the current (irrational and emotional) Trump supporters but to others as well.
If the state of New York wins, the above damage is still done.
If the state of New York loses, the above damage is exacerbated.
This is NOT the right order. The first indictment should be for the Big Lie campaign. That is the one that matters since it deals with the health of our nation and the constitution. That is where the political capital should be spent ... not on a case involving Trump personally which does not in any way deal with the nation as a whole.
“…establishes the precedent.”
A good thing. But expect months if not years of appeals all the way to the top…a bad thing. He’ll use any indictment as fodder for his fact-starved hordes, raise money in their ignorance, and continue to debase everything he touches…the worst thing.
I agree, but the only good precedent that could come out of this is if the state of New York wins and establishes the precedent that Trump can be and has been convicted of doing something illegal. To establish this precedent it will consume political capital that is MUCH better suited to holding Trump accountable for his Big Lie campaign (and all that ensued as a result).
Consider this the 'warm-up-band'
Georgia will bury him.
Georgia is at least dealing with Trump's actions as PotUS during his Big Lie campaign. That would be a much better initial case. The DoJ case is what I believe the nation needs most.
That will be a tall order. Not only does Bragg have to convince a Grand Jury to indict a former President of a dubious misdemeanor that occurred 7 years ago, he may have been delt a mortal blow via the recent revelation that his prime witness, Michael Cohen once admitted that he would do or say anything to stay out of jail. At this point, putting Cohen on the stand with that bit of information puts Bragg in legal jeopardy. Why don't we just admit that it always has been the case of trying to get Trump without a crime.
Donald Trump is, easily, the most unfit and corrupt person we have ever seen in high office. The refusal of "conservatives" to admit this is destroying the social fabric of our country.
It is certainly not the case that one would want to start with. If this is done for mostly partisan reasons, it is counterproductive for the Ds.
I think most people (those who are capable of not having their emotions drive their thoughts) realize that Trump lies and cheats for a living. Your language is trying to (gently) paint Trump as some innocent victim. This sort of continued defense of a scoundrel is despicable. Trump might not be found guilty in the Bragg case ... that will be decided (maybe) in court. But surely you can see the State of Georgia might have very good legal reasons to hold Trump accountable for his Big Lie actions wrto their state. And likewise, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone who can reason that Trump's Big Lie behavior could result in DoJ indictments. You (we all) have mountains of video evidence that clearly shows wrongdoing. The question is if this wrongdoing justifies a criminal indictment and if the indicting agent has the motivation to carry it out.
I am against going after anyone for purely partisan reasons. No indictments should be filed unless there is sound evidence of a crime. In contrast, I routinely see people fighting every action against Trump with embarrassingly weak arguments and objections. Why this (albeit flaccid) defense of Trump continues seems to be a refusal to acknowledge that the GoP's last PotUS was a miserable piece of shit. Refusal to acknowledge the stain on the GoP. Maybe some irrational hope that if Trump is never found guilty that this will cause people to believe the GoP was right to continue to stick with him as the defacto leader.
The GoP is very likely going to lose the next election because of Trump ... one way or another. Will this be the straw that breaks the camel's back? Amazingly, it does not seem as though the GoP will ever remove its Trump parasite.
Based on what? Certainly not on his performance as President. His four years was stellar in comparison with the radicalism that surrounded it.
The refusal of "conservatives" to admit this is destroying the social fabric of our country.
No John, the left has done that.
Then he would have been in jail log ago.
Your language is trying to (gently) paint Trump as some innocent victim.
No, the Trump haters painted him thus.
This sort of continued defense of a scoundrel is despicable. Trump might not be found guilty in the Bragg case ... that will be decided (maybe) in court.
You mean if Bragg were to bring the case he has to trial. In that case it might be Bragg who goes to jail. There is a law about prosecutors putting people they know to be lying on the stand. There is now evidence that Michel Cohen told his former lawyers that he would do anything to stay out of jail.
But surely you can see the State of Georgia might have very good legal reasons to hold Trump accountable for his Big Lie actions wrto their state.
As good as the FBI had to investigate Trump twice for "Russian collusion?" Or Robert Mueller had to investigate Trump for supposedly the same unsubstantiated claim for over two years? Or as good a reason as another prosecutor had to think there was something nefarious about Trump's taxes? Or that Nancy Pelosi had when impeaching Trump twice (even when he was no longer President) for absurd reasons? You keep emphasizing this "big lie" nonsense. You may recall that it's the same thing that Hillary Clinton & Stacey Abrams alleged. I don't blame anyone for wondering about an election that had so much democrat interference and ended up with a senile old man hiding in his basement receiving a US record number of votes. Especially after what has been done to Trump.
I am against going after anyone for purely partisan reasons. No indictments should be filed unless there is sound evidence of a crime. In contrast, I routinely see people fighting every action against Trump with embarrassingly weak arguments and objections.
In my case, I must point out that justice must be fair and equally administered. It clearly has not been.
Why this (albeit flaccid) defense of Trump continues seems to be a refusal to acknowledge that the GoP's last PotUS was a miserable piece of shit. Refusal to acknowledge the stain on the GoP. Maybe some irrational hope that if Trump is never found guilty that this will cause people to believe the GoP was right to continue to stick with him as the defacto leader.
That is on the Trump haters. As I have said before I think he was a fine President, in sharp contrast to the two lefties that preceded and followed him.
The GoP is very likely going to lose the next election because of Trump ... one way or another.
If he gets the nomination, he is sure to once again energize & mobilize all the anti-Trump forces who have defeated him and a return to normalcy in the past two national elections. I think the most important thing going into the next Presidential election is for the RNC to learn and master the vote-by-mail voting system that the democrats imposed on battleground states in the past two elections. Those early voting days need to be countered by new Republican voters sending in ballots rather than depending on election day results to overcome all the early voting, which is basically a multitude of ballots being churned out by democrats.
There is nothing objective about your conclusion, it is simply the position of the far right. Trump NEVER reached 50% approval from the American people. Just as many people didnt like his "performance" or his policies at all.
It doesnt matter to you, at all, that Trump is a pathological liar. You will say Biden lies as much, which is complete nonsense.
Trump has brought disgrace to his country more than any other president ever has or probably ever will.
This summation would be laughed out of any deliberation of these matters. You are in effect saying that Trump is innocent because Biden won the election.
He should have been in jail (or at least harsh consequences) long ago, IMO. But life is not fair and justice is far from perfect ... especially when one has the means to hire potent law firms.
You are implying against overwhelming evidence that Trump is not a routine liar and cheater. Why do you still defend this miserable human being?
Well of course this all depends on Bragg actually bringing the case to trial. Most people do not need every little detail spelled out for them.
A case that hinges on Cohen seems doomed from the start, IMO. If Bragg is too dependent on Cohen he will likely fail.
Stay focused, Vic. You have had the opportunity to listen to the Raffensperger conversation. That is pretty substantial evidence that Trump was attempting to coerce the SoS of Georgia to commit election fraud. And then compare that with the Rusty Bowers testimony where Trump allegedly tried to get Speaker Bowers to submit false electors. And then compare that with his attempt to suborn Pence to commit an unconstitutional act of tabling votes to, in effect, disenfranchise voters in key states he lost. Again, why do you constantly defend Trump?
Wondering about an election is very different from falsely claiming election fraud / incompetence and trying to coerce real election fraud through lies and pressure using the office of the PotUS.
Well let's both hope then that justice will prevail for these pending Trump cases.
I am not speaking of his policies; I am speaking of his abysmal character and his behavior in his Big Lie campaign. Amazing that you can actually label Trump a " fine president " after he attempted to steal a US presidential election through fraud and coercion. No PotUS in our history has done anything even remotely close to the despicable Big Lie campaign. Such a " fine president ".
You have already stated that, if Trump is nominated, you will cave and vote for that miserable human being for PotUS. I find that to be irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
Trump lost because his popularity was critically tied to the economy. Fair or not, when the economy rose, Trump benefited and when it tanked, he suffered the consequences. The bad economy coupled with Trump's horrible handling of the pandemic (downplaying the severity, inaction in early stages) are the two major negative factors (other than his personality and character) that caused him to lose. His role in developing the vaccine was insufficient to salvage his chances to win reelection.
They dont know any of that because all they listen to or read is right wing media.
He had nothing to do with 'developing the vaccine'
Of course he did. Merely by being PotUS, he gains credit for an accelerated production of the vaccine. That is how politics works. All he had to do to receive credit is take an action that makes it easier to develop and/or get the vaccine to the public. If one is going to credit/blame a PotUS for a rising/falling economy simply because he was in office, one must also allow credit (directly deserved or not) to a PotUS for the production of a successful vaccine in the middle of a pandemic.
if he'd been listening to the scientists at the beginning, he probably would've been re-elected... ha ha ha, too bad...
No. I disagree.
He would have been misled as much as Joe, the Easter Bunny keeps me from talking out of turn, Biden was.
The midterms proved that old election norm is no longer true.
The midterms illustrated the damage that the GOP has allowed Trump to inflict on it. And it is clear that the GOP to this day has not figured out (collectively) that Trump is a poisonous parasite to it.
Do you really think that people suffering through inflation, kids at home and mandates would put their loathing of any individual over their own welfare?
I still don't know what the midterm voting meant, but that can't be it.
I am confident that Biden and the Ds got a substantial amount of blame for inflation, illegal immigration, Afghanistan, continued discomfort due to the pandemic, etc. Biden and the Ds clearly were not knocking the ball out of the park. It was a decent bet that the GOP would roll all over them in November.
Yet somehow the electorate was not motivated towards the natural 'changing of the guard' that occurs in a midterm election. I submit that the strange dynamic that flipped the normal, predictable equation is Trump's debilitating effect on the GOP.
Do you recognize that Trump has and continues to damage the GOP?
I will say that he is more negative than positive and I doubt they could win with him as the nominee. My hopes were that the haters who have weaponized the justice system would take him out of the Presidential race. I guess that's the weird part of it all. The left has been so successful at just about everything in Biden's first two years and the only thing I wanted them to do, they have failed at.
I suppose that is a start. I agree, Trump has essentially no chance in the general.
You deem those in opposition to Trump as 'haters'. If the state of Georgia brings charges against Trump is that for cause or is that just 'haters'?
I too want Trump out of the picture, but I see very few options for how that will actually take place.
With Trump out of the picture, there will be more pressure on the Ds to nominate a candidate stronger than Biden (assuming there is one to be found). Further, it allows the GOP to nominate someone who is at least a marginally decent human being. That would be a nice change.
We have agreed on that many times.
If the state of Georgia brings charges against Trump is that for cause or is that just 'haters'?
I would have to see the charges and the facts of the case. For example, Bragg in Manhatten was about to make a frivolous charge which lacked a necessary ingredient: Trump using campaign funds. As you like to say, let us see the facts. That being said, let's face it, all of this is generated by politics and it is a bad place to have taken us.
I too want Trump out of the picture, but I see very few options for how that will actually take place.
He has to be taken out somehow. There is the 74 million voters, let us not forget. I will say DeSantis has handled himself well thus far. He might be the most followed yet to be a candidate in history.
With Trump out of the picture, there will be more pressure on the Ds to nominate a candidate stronger than Biden (assuming there is one to be found).
We always hear that Biden is the only one to beat Trump. I think it may be the other way around. Trump might be the only one he can beat.
Further, it allows the GOP to nominate someone who is at least a marginally decent human being.
I only care about policy.
Do yourself a favor and read a little US history. Most presidential historians agree that title goes to Andrew Johnson followed by James Buchanan. Trump rates at #3 or #4 depending on which list you go by. And he was a Southern Democrat by the way.
This is all moot though since he hasn't been indicted on anything yet. How come no one has said anything about that? He said it would be on Tuesday and yet again, he lied.
Trump attempted to coerce Raffensperger to find votes for him ... to commit election fraud. You can listen to the entire phone conversation. Surely you can see that it is wrong for a PotUS to attempt to strong arm election fraud. It should not be that much of a stretch to see how the State of GA could bring charges against Trump.
The PotUS is the face and personality of our nation on the world stage. S/he is also in a very powerful position. It is irrational to place a malignant narcissist and pathological liar who has proven that he will trash even our electoral system and his own V.P. in a futile attempt to get what HE wants. To put someone like Trump in the presidency is irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic.
Frankly I do not care if he is ever indicted on his Stormy Daniels problem. I am far more concerned about holding him accountable for what he did while PotUS.
Yes, and I am sure J Edgar Hoover would have much preferred that Al Capone had been convicted of murder and violent crimes, but it was mere tax evasion that finally neutralized him. Such is life...
My point is that I do not care about 'getting' Trump. I care about holding him accountable for what he did as PotUS. Trump, as in individual, is irrelevant, but what he is allowed to get away with as PotUS is a terrible precedent for the nation.
Our system makes it harder to prosecute former Presidents for what they did while in office, than before or after. My concern is that Trump is running, is the frontrunner and he still has a chance of regaining the Presidency. By whatever means he must be thwarted. Not gotten, stopped from ever regaining power...
Trump has no chance of winning the general election. Do not be concerned about that.
That is what I said, and believed, in 2016.
And just what did he do ad POTUS? Well among other good things:
Moved our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem
Nominated and got approved three excellent justices on the Supreme Court and not one chose just be a use of her color and sex.
Started building the wall on the southern border
Slowed the number of illegal aliens entering the country
Deported many illegals that already had their day in court and were told to leave
Made the US self reliant in energy and a net exporter of oil.
Ended the worthless nuclear treaty with Iran
Got other NATO nations to start paying their share
Got the vaccine for COVID-19 put on a fast track with operation warp speed
Had the highest minority employment in years
Had the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years
The last two points were way laid by the COVID pandemic and the panic from mostly blue states that cause many lay offs and business closures. Those jobs are the same ones that Biden is now falsely claiming credit for creating.
I think the things in 12.1.37 were pretty good thing and better than anything Biden even though of or will think up
I have listened to it. Once again, one has to interpret what he said to reach that conclusion. I'm sure one can find a jury to reach that conclusion. We both want him out of the Presidential race, so, what is taking so damn long?
It is irrational to place a malignant narcissist and pathological liar who has proven that he will trash even our electoral system and his own V.P. in a futile attempt to get what HE wants. To put someone like Trump in the presidency is irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic.
What is irresponsible and unpatriotic is to choose a vessel who represents the most heinous radical fanatics in the universe as well as the interests of the CCP over somebody that one finds offensive. Even if Donald Trump was al you claim him to be, after 2 years of experiencing what Joe Biden did to this country, one would have to be an absolute anti-American, anti-Constitutional leftist or an ignorant fool to choose Biden oven Trump, or Biden over anyone for that matter in the next election. From what I can see, however, democrats & their allies in the media have found the formula to get "voters" to vote for whomever they want. To put it mildly, I'm not very optimistic about the future of this country.
I don't see why he can't be held accountable for everything he has done while trying to become 'president' and during his 'presidency' and after his incitement of his failed insurrection/coup and strong arming Georgia and including the documents he stole and failed to return even after his attorney said they were all returned - ALL OF IT
Absolutely no reason the hush money payments should undo everything else, no reason at all.
We don't want to 'get him' either. We want him held responsible and held accountable for all the charges against him. Don't see why what he did before, during and after that he cannot be held accountable for that too. We want to see actual justice for his multitude of crimes.
I did not state that we should hold him accountable for normal, constitutional, proper acts while PotUS.
I stated that we need to hold him accountable for his wrongdoings.
Everything must be interpreted, that is part of the communication process. The key is to suppress partisan bias and objectively view the situation. Here is a method that will help you. Pretend that this was Biden instead of Trump and that Biden was trying to coerce Raffensperger into committing election fraud by coming up with sufficient votes to give Biden the win in GA.
You think Biden is "represents the most heinous radical fanatics in the universe". Could we ease the drama just a tad, Vic? If you really have that image in your head of Biden then I would deem that irrational. But enough of the deflection, we are discussing Trump.
Imagine Biden losing the election and then engaging in a two-month campaign of lying to the world that the US electoral system is rigged and that Democratic votes have been disenfranchised. Imagine Biden on the phone trying to coerce secretaries of state, state Speakers, etc. to engage in election fraud. Imagine Biden suborning the V.P. to engage in an unconstitutional act of tabling certified votes from states Biden lost so as to win the election by plurality.
Imagine Biden working up his supporters with constant lies of rigged election and encouraging them to take back their country. Imagine that Biden supporters (Democrats) marched on the Capitol to protest the final tallying of certified votes and that they then acted to disrupt the proceedings of Congress by violently breaking and entering the Capitol building.
And then imagine Biden NOT calling for them to cease and desist for three hours.
Would you, just with the above (since I did not list all of the wrongdoings), find it irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic to allow Biden (had he done this) the power of the presidency?
My point is straightforward. Trump the individual is not relevant in the big picture. Trump the PotUS IS relevant in the big picture. I care far more about killing the terrible precedent established by Trump the PotUS than justice of an individual. I want Trump the PotUS held accountable. If Trump the individual is held accountable for things he did outside of the office then great ... but that is NOT my priority.
I am done explaining my position.
'I am done explaining my position'
THANK YOU
SO AM I
According to "Section 3282 of Title 18, United States Code, is the statute of general application. It states that, "except as otherwise expressly provided by law," a prosecution for a non-capital offense shall be instituted within five years after the offense was committed".
As the alleged crime took place 7 years ago, seems the statute of limitations has expired and that puts Bragg on very shaky legal ground there.
So agree with your critique on this 'article'. It is quite immature like all of them IMHO.
If you want to know how this whole thing got started, all you have to do is look at the witch hunt Ken Starr had, and can anyone say, Monica Lewinsky?
Remember, be careful for what you wish for.
I kind of think that his whole thing started with Murdoch and Fox anti-news.
Is it too late to have that asshole deported?
The "Leaks" came from Trump!
This strategy isn't new for Trump. Here's how it works: Post something provocative. Generate attention and headlines. Use said headlines to raise money. Pound the table. Trigger liberals. Send the right into a protective rage.
Rinse. Repeat.
It's nice to see you. Quite a rarity.
He's the only alleged billionaire I've ever heard of always asking for money. Always has his little fat hands out and his sucker supporters gladly get fleeced.
TRUMP MUST BE IMMEDIATELY CHARGED WITH … • Making terroristic threats • Incitement • Risking a catastrophe • Accessory before the fact to the MURDER of OFFICER Brian Sicknick • Any/all acts of "death & destruction" to the legal community involved in investigations of Trump
So now we can charge people with murder even though the coroner ruled it as natural causes from a stroke?
Facts have no place in the TDS world.
Your sarcasm manifests your ignorance. Brian Sicknick's stroke resulted from injuries incurred the previous day when assaulted by Trump's insurrectionists!
" Jan 7, 2021 — Sicknick passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty. Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the ...
Jan. 6 rioter who assaulted Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick sentenced to over 6 years in jail
When an AGGRAVATED ASSAULT ( an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury) is followed shortly thereafter in the death of the assaulted individual, that is murder.
"All that transpired played a role in his condition," Diaz (coroner) told the newspaper.
Capitol Police have said that Sicknick returned to his office after the riot and collapsed and that he died at a hospital about eight hours later.
NOTE: THE AUTOPSY WAS PERFORMED WHILE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS Donald J. Trump!
I hope the Sicknick family will pursue the details of the autopsy … if they have not already done so.
FYI: Sicknick was cremated … Multiple media outlets reported Sicknick's death was due to injuries he sustained, but months later the Washington D.C. medical examiner reported there were no injuries to Sicknick. [3] Within a day after his death, the U.S. Capitol Police and the U.S. Justice Department each said that his death was due to injuries from the riot. [6] [7] [8]
It took more than 100 days to release these results from the January autopsy. [26] The full autopsy report was not released to the public. [32]
The chief medical examiner, Dr. Francisco J. Diaz, told The Washington Post that there was no evidence that Sicknick was injured or had an allergic reaction to chemical irritants. Due to privacy laws, he declined to say whether Sicknick had a preexisting medical condition. Diaz noted that Sicknick had engaged the rioters and said “all that transpired played a role in his condition. ” [1]
According to CNN, some neurologists did not think that the strokes were natural. Stress and traumatic events can lead to a stroke. Based on media accounts, a forensic pathologist thought that Sicknick's manner of death could have been classified better as homicide, accident, or undetermined. [c] [33]
And what does it tell you that no one was charged with causing his death?
Risk factors for the kind of clot that Sicknick had include:
What do you think caused the clot?
It matters not! If an aggravated assault is the event that triggers the death of an individual who was ill or not, IT'S THE EVENT that triggered the death.
Consider a patient in a hospital on a respirator who is assaulted in his bed and dies, or a pedestrian with a heart condition run down and killed by a drunk driver, or shot while in a store being robbed … are you seriously going to argue that his pre-existing condition was the event that caused his death?
I argued nothing. I provided medical information. I googled arterial blood clot and found no reference to aggravated assault.
Well, you call him whatever, just recognize that he wasn't charged with causing Sicknick's death. No one was, because no one did.
If those aggravated assaults had caused his death, they would have been charged with murder.
You do know that the medical examiner declared that Sicknick died of natural causes and was not murdered right? In fact the only person to be killed on the I/6 protest was an unarmed protester, Ashli Bobbit. Her murderer has never been brought to justice.
According to CNN, some neurologists did not think that the strokes were natural. Stress and traumatic events can lead to a stroke. Based on media accounts, a forensic pathologist thought that Sicknick's manner of death could have been classified better as homicide, accident, or undetermined. [c] [33]
Babbitt died while in the commission of a crime.
Trayvon Martin died while committing a crime .
Michael Brown died while committing a crime.
George Floyd died while committing a crime.
No one rioted when Ashli was killed.
So if what you say is true and they were all committing a crime did they deserve to die for whatever that crime was? That makes those cops judge, jury, and executioner.
You're comparing apples to oranges with ashli and actually deflecting because she was a traitor and was breaking into a place she shouldn't have been in the first place and was warned not to come any further. All the other insurrectionists were lucky they didn't suffer the same consequences.
Maybe maybe not. When you assault someone like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown did or when you resist arrest like Michael Brown did and George Floyd and the guy who was selling "loosies"cigarettes in new your (Eric somebody I don't remember) getting killed is a possibility . Did all those people that had their property stolen or destroyed in the riot afterword deserve what they got?
There also was no insurrection either. It was a protest that went bad. It was over in hours with minimal damage. The riots in 2016 after Hillary lost were closer to being an insurrection than 1/6. It is just what the liberals media called it to make it look worse than it was.
All you have there is bullshit and ignorance and lies and deflections. Extreme projection and unreal denial of the events of the failed coup/insurrection.
Trayvon Martin - I can't believe you said he committed a crime, he was committing no crime.
Neither was Michael Brown - that cop is a racist lying killer.
The guy was selling loosies and the killer racist cop kneeled on his neck for 9 minutes.
Again no real crimes being committed when you get right down to it - these men were killed by racist cops except for Trayvon killed by a neighborhood watch/police wannabee
Always defending the indefensible. Sickening
[deleted]
“Based on this investigation, the Department has concluded that Darren Wilson’s actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits uses of deadly force that are “objectively unreasonable,” as defined by the United States Supreme Court. The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. Accordingly, under the governing federal law and relevant standards set forth in the USAM, it is not appropriate to present this matter to a federal grand jury for indictment, and it should therefore be closed without prosecution.”
Defending the indefensible now?
I defended nothing, I gave you Obama’s DoJ report.
I didn't ask you and it was the DOJ - not President' Obama's DOJ
President Obama didn't use them as his own firm of personal attorneys or consigliere like the former 'president' did.
Who nominated Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch?
Travon Martin was killed by a vigilante neighborhood watch volunteer for "being suspicious" and armed with a bag of Skittles, possible racism but not a crime.
Brown had stolen cigars from a convenience store and was stopped for jay walking, absolute justification for emptying a gun into the perp /S
Floyd was restrained for suspicion of using a counterfeit $20 bill and died while being "restrained" with an officer kneeling on his neck until he went into heart failure, that officer was convicted of murder2, murder3 and manslaughter2.
Babbit was killed in the commission of a crime, surrounded by fellow rioters, the same people who might have rioted for her later if they weren't all hiding or being arrested. 1,000 down, supposedly 1000 more to be charged with lesser charges. Total damages to the Capitol of your country, $2.73 million and counting.
Words and how you use them, matter.
A more dishonest post might never be seen.
You think the Angel Michael Brown trying to take the Officer's gun might be the tiniest bit important? Or do you think it's accurate to claim he just shot him for jaywalking?
It's like blaming the feds for killing John Wilkes booth just because he was a confederate sympathizer.
The actual details remain in question. But he was pulled over because of where he was walking and in the end the officer put 6 rounds into Brown's body after firing 12.
It is very difficult to argue that firing 12 rounds (6 hits) into the body of an unarmed man is justified without some very convincing additional details.
Now, that could be considered a dishonest off topic deflection,
a piss poor analogy at best,
lol.
Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist! But, no they aren't. The evidence is overwhelming and presented by the Obama DOJ in an indepth report.
Luckily, the DOJ, grand jury etc all have access to those details and evidence. Simply making up claims about missing details isn't an honest response.
But I'll ask again since you avoided answering it. Do you think the Angel Michael Brown trying to take the Officer's gun might be the tiniest bit important in describing what happened to him?
[deleted]
Now being very precise, please point out to everyone where anyone besides you said:
A Brown was an Angel
B Brown was shot for jaywalking.
Thanks for playing...
Please provide the citation where you are quoting from
Brown was an Angel
Did the left wing throwing a hissy fit because Brown was described as "not an angel", or did that flushed down the memory hole?
rown was shot for jaywalking.
Do you not understand your own post, where you mentioned jaywalking as a justification for his shooting but somehow managed to complete ignored the actual reason he was shot? But by all means, point out where you accurately said that Brown was shot because after attacking a police officer and trying to steal his gun, Brown had turned and was charging him again when shot.
You immediately leap to childish trolling. Noting the fact that many details were missing is the polar opposite of conspiracy theory. Noting the existence of unknowns is not conspiracy theory, it is the filling in the blanks of unknowns with wild assumptions that causes something to be a conspiracy theory.
The lack of credible, consistent eyewitness testimony is a fact (read the report). It is a fact that Brown was unarmed. It is a fact that he was killed by a shot fired by Wilson in pursuit (not during the vehicle altercation). Declaring that I made up claims is intellectual dishonesty.
Who said anything about an 'angel'? More theatrics from you. Of course Brown trying to take Wilson's gun (and punching Wilson) factors in. All sorts of evidence and claims factor in. The fact that Brown was unarmed and that six rounds (8 wounds) were in his body factors in. In the end, there was insufficient evidence to charge officer Wilson with unnecessary force. That does not mean, in any way, that we have a clear understanding of what actually took place (a very common situation in these matters) but we do have confidence in the facts I stated upfront.
Trayvon Martin was killed after he assaulted someone who had a right to be there. The person he assaulted was acquitted of any wrong doing because he was acting in self defense
Michael Brown assaulted the police officer in his car and was threatening to atta ck him again.
George Floyd was killed while resisting arrest.
And of the thousands of rioters after Hillary's loss and the deaths mentioned above the charges have been dismissed, even those charged with looting and arson. They didn't even try to use facial recognition to identify them. Even the leaders of ond instigators that were known were never charged
I have always thought that Wilson was enraged about the altercation in the car. When he got out of that car he was thinking about taking Brown out.
The DOJ declined to take action against Wilson, so he is innocent. But of what?
No one knows who threw the first punch between Zimmerman and Martin. There were no witnesses and no video. We know that Zimmerman was losing the fight and feared or knew that Martin was trying to bang his head into the pavement, so he pulled his gun and shot and killed Martin.
Zimmerman stalked Martin as Martin walked home from a convenience store. Not only did Zimmerman stalk Martin on a dark and rainy night, he did it in plain sight, trailing behind Martin as Martin walked, but still visible to Martin. Zimmerman could have called out to Martin and identified himself as community watch at any point, but didnt , because he wanted to catch Martin in an act of burglary. At best, Zimmerman was a reckless buffoon that night.
Maybe the most ridiculous thing we have seen here in quite a while. George Floyd was restrained , by three cops, laying flat on the street, while his neck was knelt on for nine minutes. Is it your opinion that he was still resisting for all, or for that matter for any, of those nine minutes?
I imagine Wilson knew by then that Brown was unarmed. Twelve bullets fired, six hits to the body. That's outta control.
As a cop you are 100% wrong on that one. It is actually not possible for you to be more wrong.
A "protest" would have stayed outside the police barriers. There is video of "protesters" scaling the walls of the Capitol outer staircases in order to get around the police lines. What the hell kind of "protest" is that?
You guys are an embarrassment.
It was determined by an analysis of eyewitness testimony (credibility judgment calls, etc.), forensics (powder burns on Brown's hand), DNA (Brown's DNA on Wilson's collar), etc. that Brown was aggressive with Wilson (while Wilson was in his vehicle) and that correlates with officer Wilson's testimony.
When it comes to the actual killing shots, there was all sorts of conflicting eyewitness testimony and no video to resolve the disparity. In the end, they pieced together the evidence they had (as is normally done) and concluded that there was not enough evidence to deem officer Wilson's testimony to be wrong.
He was not deemed innocent (in a legal sense) but rather they do not consider him to have acted with unnecessary force.
These kinds of cases are tough. Whenever an unarmed individual is shot repeatedly and killed questions will naturally be raised. Note also that firing multiple rounds is a common part of many police training programs.
It takes quite a bit more than a single witness when there are other witnesses who say the opposite. Eyewitness testimony is a tough thing to navigate.
Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Your whole comment is meaningless
A better one than one where the "protesters" break windows, damage other property , loot stores and commit arson like the ones liberals seem to engage in
And yet the City settled with the parents in Civil Court?
Go figure.
Yes, the vigilante who was told by the police to stay in his SUV and observe. They specifically told him not to approach or engage the suspect. They gave him all of the instructions and tools to avoid this but he did it anyway.
Well you know what they say about " I assume"
I would appreciate it if you just left me out of your assumptions,
thanks in advance.
My apologies, the HOA settled with the parents of Travon Martin for a wrongful death suit.
Michael Browns parents settled with the City of Fergusson in a similar civil suit.
Doesn't matter. Zimmerman had every right to get out of his car. Martin attacked him, Zimmerman defended himself, Martin now 6 feet under, Zimmerman not.
I think "dumbfuckery"is a more apt description.
They weren't attacking the Capital while 535 Congress people were trying to certify an election.
Context matters.
A decent officer?
No, but many of them tried to set a police precinct on fire with officers inside.......AFTER barricading them in.
But I guess that's OK to the left.
You should stop guessing.
4 of the 8 people arrested during that riot were from out of state.
Portland Rioters Barricade Precinct Then Try To Burn It Down, Attempt To Run Cops Down With Truck - The Police Tribune
but thanks for the continued deflection.
I don't know why you posted this failed deflection. I never stated anything about where anyone was from or how many arrests were made
'I stated that rioters barricaded police inside a precinct, then set the precinct on fire.
A direct response to your 16.1.46
Try again
And he didn't. Trayvon approached him.
And that matters how?
Simply a deflection.
Zimmerman didnt want to prevent a crime,he wanted to interrupt a crime. He was in a car and martin was walking. Zimmerman followed Martin, at slow speed , for about a quarter of a mile. At any point he could have pulled alongside Martin, and said to him "Hi, I'm neighborhood watch, how you doing? Have you seen anything suspicious?" By stalking Martin , and especially following him on foot, he raised Martins anger about being followed in the dark and rain by a stranger.
Funny how it is neglected that Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the pavement before Zimmerman shot him.
Were you an eyewitness? Did you testify to that effect?
Zimmerman was told to stay in the car, he didn't.
A position that Zimmerman should not have been in.
I was "volunteered" for NW on base. We signed agreements to obey the Local police or base security or lose the radio and credit for the job.
Report, report, report, never carry a weapon and never engage a suspect. Period.
It was reported that martin confronted Zimmerman about following him. As I said before it does not really matter at this point. Zimmerman was found not guilty by reason of self defense. Do you understand that or do you need it explained.
Noting the fact that many details were missing is the polar opposite of conspiracy theory.
Except there aren't any relevant missing details. Wilson's version is corroborated by eyewitness and forensic evidence.
Claiming "all the facts aren't really known yet" when there is overwhelming evidence of available is what ivermectin defenders do.
e lack of credible, consistent eyewitness testimony is a fact (read the repor
There's plenty of credible, consistent eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence supporting the Officer's testimony. . You should read the DOJ report.
Yet again, you disingenuously avoid the point that that started this whole discussion that SP cited jaywalking as a reason he was shot, while omitting the attempt to murder the police officer.
It was also countered by eyewitnesses.
I did and, as noted, there are eyewitnesses supporting and countering officer Wilson. Forensics support Wilson's testimony and it seems to me that is what made the difference. Had there been a video of the incident there would have been substantially better evidence than the conflicting eyewitnesses which clouded the story.
As for SP, you take that up with him. My reply was in response to your theatric declaration that SP's post was the most dishonest post ever:
In response I quoted an article illustrating the differing accounts:
My point (implied) was that the details were not cut and dried so your over-the-top exaggeration was uncalled for.
It was also countered by eyewitnesses
From the DOJ Report:
There are no witnesses who fall under this category.
n response I quoted an article illustrating the differing accounts:
Let's cut the deflections.
Yes or no. Do you admit that Brown tried to take the Officer's gun?
Because if the answer is yes, which it has to be, nothing else is relevant to this discussion. Of course, you can lose all credibility and say "we don't know", but I hope you will acknowledge reality and Brown's attempt to take the weapon from Wilson.
y reply was in response to your theatric declaration that SP's post was the most dishonest post ever:
It was. No honest argument can be made that Brown's jaywalking is more relevant to why he was shot than his attempt to murder the Officer. It's beyond the boundaries of good faith.
So unless you want to claim (1) that Brown didn't try to take his gun or (2) that his attempt to take an officer's gun is more relevant than jaywalking in explaining why Brown was shot, you have to agree SP's post is incredibly dishonest.
Admit is the wrong word. I have declared it. You clearly have not read my posts in this thread.
For example:
Deal with what I actually write. Deal with SP on what he writes.
I objected to your over-the-top theatrics. I still do, for the same reason.
I honestly think we are WAY past caring.
And yet again you repeat the same lie, over and over again.
Read what I wrote out loud to yourself.
Words matter.
Your bickering & trolling over your own misstatements are what is disingenuous.