Georgia Indictment

a reply to: SparseBounds

I'm not a good teacher. Yet I can provide you the tools to educate yourself.

1st amendment

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Article II

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Which includes the entirety of the DoJ and the powers of investigation.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SparseBounds

I'm not a good teacher. Yet I can provide you the tools to educate yourself.

1st amendment

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Article II

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Which includes the entirety of the DoJ and the powers of investigation.

I’m familiar with the language of the amendment. I don’t understand where the the constitutional issue you alluded to resides.

a reply to: SparseBounds

Be it Trump the private citizen or Trump the POTUS, being able to speak and redress the govt is his right.

On the topic of Article II, under his purview as POTUS he can do what's he deems necessary to ensure that elections are fair, transparent and legal.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

In reality we're only one gender therapy away from a prophetic precognition that went sideways.

LOCK HER UP, anyone?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SparseBounds

Be it Trump the private citizen or Trump the POTUS, being able to speak and redress the govt is his right.

On the topic of Article II, under his purview as POTUS he can do what's he deems necessary to ensure that elections are fair, transparent and legal.

The freedom to speak his mind is does not mean he has the freedom to implore others to break the law or their oath of office. There are volumes upon volumes of legal precedent establishing that bedrock.

I continue to not understand how Article II is involved.

Edit: Asking a State official to “find” 11k votes is neither fair, transparent, nor legal. Separately, he was of course allowed (as he should have been) to bring legal challenges in multiple states as to the veracity of the vote. He lost *every* challenge. All 63 individual suits.

a reply to: SparseBounds

The freedom to speak his mind is does not mean he has the freedom to implore others to break the law or their oath of office.

Hey man, will go you rob a bank for me? I'll give you 60% of the take.

Did I just commit a crime?

There are volumes upon volumes of legal precedent establishing that bedrock.

So providing just one here as a source should be an easy task eh?

I continue to not understand how Article II is involved.

Sorry but that's not my problem.

Edit: Asking a State official to “find” 11k votes is neither fair, transparent, nor legal.

Within the context of listing a litany of voting discrepancies and informing Kemp of the margins, I believe it is.

a reply to: SparseBounds

Well.."this one time" was my own interjection. We are talking about a two-tiered, crooked system that's been corrupted for a very long time. Maybe from the beginning. Corruption is the foundation. I don't know what the percentage is for trials that are actually fair and by the book but I'm speculating the number must be quite low. You're saying this is one of the most important cases within the last two hundred years, also the only time we've tried an ex-president. You're expecting it to be fair even though no one has a clue if any of the people involved have ever done anything 'by the book' within the entirety of their careers. Not to mention it coincidentally precedes a very crucial upcoming election. I'm thinking the odds for this heated, highly intense and emotionally charged debacle to be conducted 100% free of any duplicity are pretty slim.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: nugget1

They stayed late for this one.

What was so important that it couldnt wait until tomorrow?

No #z!! They cut off the last of my Wheel of Fortune for their stinkin' announcement that everybody already knew was coming!

A Big Distraction

Responding to the Georgia Fulton County Trump Indictment as a local resident

Chaos and Division - the same old Game

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SparseBounds

The freedom to speak his mind is does not mean he has the freedom to implore others to break the law or their oath of office.

Hey man, will go you rob a bank for me? I'll give you 60% of the take.

Did I just commit a crime?

There are volumes upon volumes of legal precedent establishing that bedrock.

So providing just one here as a source should be an easy task eh?

I continue to not understand how Article II is involved.

Sorry but that's not my problem.

Edit: Asking a State official to “find” 11k votes is neither fair, transparent, nor legal.

Within the context of listing a litany of voting discrepancies and informing Kemp of the margins, I believe it is.

1) If you were the holder of the highest office in the country, and had discussed a plan about the banks you wanted to rob, and then asked me to rob a bank and said you’d give me 60% of the take? Yes, yes you would have committed a crime. Because: context.

2) If you’re asking me to find you examples of legal precedent that establishes the 1st amendment doesn’t give a person the ability to say what they want without he expectation of consequence, I can do that. However, you really should have had a fundamental understanding of that concept before getting into the weeds of this thread.

3) You brought up Article II as a “constitutional issue” within this case, so, yes, it is your problem to back up that claim. Even if only superficially.

4) So, you’re saying that Trump was only ‘hypothetically’ asking a state official to give him exactly enough votes to win? That’s the context you’re relying upon? I want to make sure I clearly understand your position.