Georgia Indictment

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
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.

Your thought is that because he’s a controversial public figure, the folks on the other side of the docket are willing to break the law to get a conviction? Willing to risk the possibility of a mistrial in what will be one of the most scrutinized and dissected legal battles? Yeah?

a reply to: SparseBounds

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.

There was no need to convolute a simple question. The question was simply a question plainly written, not analog.

If you want to discuss the details in this case, that we can do. Like mens rea, what his duties and privileges are and of course, attorney-client privilege.

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.

Now this is where I am asking for an analog because you claimed that they are many. Find me a source of a president treated in the same manner where it involves speech and duty of office.

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.

I gave you a link to the source. I gave you an explanation of what I see. The rest is on you guy.

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.

No, I'm saying he was highlighting how close the race was while also highlighting the rather large amounts of voting irregularities. You are attempting to interpret this as criminal intent. Which requires proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.

originally posted by: SparseBounds

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
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.

Your thought is that because he’s a controversial public figure, the folks on the other side of the docket are willing to break the law to get a conviction? Willing to risk the possibility of a mistrial in what will be one of the most scrutinized and dissected legal battles? Yeah?

2 failed impeachments based on contrived and fabricated evidence.

...yea, I think they'd do what you describe and more.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: SparseBounds

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
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.

Your thought is that because he’s a controversial public figure, the folks on the other side of the docket are willing to break the law to get a conviction? Willing to risk the possibility of a mistrial in what will be one of the most scrutinized and dissected legal battles? Yeah?

2 failed impeachments based on contrived and fabricated evidence.

...yea, I think they'd do what you describe and more.

They’ve already done that and more.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: SparseBounds

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
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.

Your thought is that because he’s a controversial public figure, the folks on the other side of the docket are willing to break the law to get a conviction? Willing to risk the possibility of a mistrial in what will be one of the most scrutinized and dissected legal battles? Yeah?

2 failed impeachments based on contrived and fabricated evidence.

...yea, I think they'd do what you describe and more.

Failed? He was impeached twice. That’s not really up for debate is it?

a reply to: SparseBounds

Indeed, and the effects desired by that impeachment were not met.

Infact, it's part of how we learned about the contrived and manufactured evidence they used.

I noticed you left the operative part of my statement out of your response.......

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SparseBounds

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.

There was no need to convolute a simple question. The question was simply a question plainly written, not analog.

If you want to discuss the details in this case, that we can do. Like mens rea, what his duties and privileges are and of course, attorney-client privilege.

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.

Now this is where I am asking for an analog because you claimed that they are many. Find me a source of a president treated in the same manner where it involves speech and duty of office.

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.

I gave you a link to the source. I gave you an explanation of what I see. The rest is on you guy.

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.

No, I'm saying he was highlighting how close the race was while also highlighting the rather large amounts of voting irregularities. You are attempting to interpret this as criminal intent. Which requires proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since we’re going back and forth a little, I do want to plainly put it out there that everything I write is meant with polite intention. I respect your thoughts and opinions even when I don’t agree with them. I hope that comes across.

1) You asked a loaded question. It was simple in phrasing, but not in meaning and I think you know that. You can’t use “context” as a tool when you want to (ex: soliciting an election official for votes) and omit it when it’s not convenient.

2) There are no 1A precedents available to cite involving a former president pressuring subordinates to break the law for personal gain. What I said is that there are many precedents that address the limitations of free speech. The president is CiC of the armed forces, but he/she is still a civilian and bound by the same laws as you and I. We’re all free to say whatever we like, but that does not free you from the consequences of what was said.

3) I’ll interpret the inability to clarify what was meant about article 2 as a lack of understanding of the topic. It’s okay, I don’t get how it’s involved either. Not being sarcastic. Since you brought it up, and it’s not something I was aware of as being controversial I do promise to seek out expert opinions on both sides of the issue to educate myself.

4) One of the many purposes of the indictment is to determine whether there was criminal intent in what he said. Neither you nor I have access to the evidence, but I’m sure we’ll both be watching how it is presented and what it reveals.

2 failed impeachments based on contrived and fabricated evidence.

...yea, I think they'd do what you describe and more.

Huh? What was the operative part? I don’t know how to address the thought that you believe ‘they’ would ‘do that and more’. That’s your opinion which you have every right to express. I can’t argue that your opinion is wrong - that’s not how opinions work. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

a reply to: SparseBounds

Since we’re going back and forth a little, I do want to plainly put it out there that everything I write is meant with polite intention. I respect your thoughts and opinions even when I don’t agree with them. I hope that comes across.

Fair enough.

1) You asked a loaded question. It was simple in phrasing, but not in meaning and I think you know that. You can’t use “context” as a tool when you want to (ex: soliciting an election official for votes) and omit it when it’s not convenient.

A simple question, even asking to do a crime, does not a crime make without the criminal mind. That was the intent of asking the question. it wasn't loaded although I can see how it may look analogous. The context wasn't really relevant to the statement/question.

2) There are no 1A precedents available to cite involving a former president pressuring subordinates to break the law for personal gain. What I said is that there are many precedents that address the limitations of free speech. The president is CiC of the armed forces, but he/she is still a civilian and bound by the same laws as you and I. We’re all free to say whatever we like, but that does not free you from the consequences of what was said.

The POTUS has a duty under article II to run the executive branch. Under that branch is the DoJ. Just to draw a direct line on what is under the POTUS' purview. In this case, they are going to need to provide evidence that Trump not only did not believe what he was talking about but that he also meant to defraud someone. And so far, it's neither here nor there unless you've got something to share.

3) I’ll interpret the inability to clarify what was meant about article 2 as a lack of understanding of the topic. It’s okay, I don’t get how it’s involved either. Not being sarcastic. Since you brought it up, and it’s not something I was aware of as being controversial I do promise to seek out expert opinions on both sides of the issue to educate myself.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can articulate to you that under article II that the POTUS has a duty to ensure election integrity.

Question: Do you think there was irregularities during the 2020 election?

4) One of the many purposes of the indictment is to determine whether there was criminal intent in what he said. Neither you nor I have access to the evidence, but I’m sure we’ll both be watching how it is presented and what it reveals.

You think that "the indictment is to determine whether there was criminal intent?" That's not how law is supposed to work. In order to bring these charges they need to establish that. At least convince the grand jury that it is there as it is an element of the crime.

Let me tell you what I see happening. They have been investigating Trump for 8 years trying to find any crime to attach to him.

originally posted by: SparseBounds

2 failed impeachments based on contrived and fabricated evidence.

...yea, I think they'd do what you describe and more.

Huh? What was the operative part? I don’t know how to address the thought that you believe ‘they’ would ‘do that and more’. That’s your opinion which you have every right to express. I can’t argue that your opinion is wrong - that’s not how opinions work. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Which was all predicated on "contrived and manufactured evidence."

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: SparseBounds

2 failed impeachments based on contrived and fabricated evidence.

...yea, I think they'd do what you describe and more.

Huh? What was the operative part? I don’t know how to address the thought that you believe ‘they’ would ‘do that and more’. That’s your opinion which you have every right to express. I can’t argue that your opinion is wrong - that’s not how opinions work. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Which was all predicated on "contrived and manufactured evidence."

But…he *was* in fact impeached. The only thing that kept him from getting the boot was blind loyalty along party lines. What bit(s) of his two historic impeachments were manufactured?

(Note: I’m aware that democrats also often stupidly toe party lines too. The dysfunction is certainly not unilateral.)

a reply to: SparseBounds

The first impeachment was over the Russian interference hoax.

The second was over incitement of J6 insurrection. Which no charge for such a thing has been brought fourth even amidst the 100 or so charges he currently faces.

a reply to: SparseBounds

Yes, my thought is that a corrupt government and judicial system full of corrupt officials and administrators are willing to break the law because they do it all the time. That's what they normally do. It's their MO. I fail to see why this case should be any different. Who's going to declare a mistrial?

Your thought is that Trump flagrantly broke laws while espousing innocence and got away with it because we have a two-tiered justice system. You also believe the system is corrupted and corrupt officials chose to ignore Trump's transgressions because of his level of power.

Who's wrong?

a reply to: JinMI

I've seen deference to the judicial system by you if anything.

You must have me confused with someone else. Completely confused.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
a reply to: JinMI

I've seen deference to the judicial system by you if anything.

You must have me confused with someone else. Completely confused.

Yep, you're right. I completely did.

Mea culpa.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SparseBounds

Fair enough.

How magnanimous of you.

A simple question, even asking to do a crime, does not a crime make without the criminal mind. That was the intent of asking the question. it wasn't loaded although I can see how it may look analogous. The context wasn't really relevant to the statement/question.

That was a loaded question my friend. You’re attempting to divorce asking someone to commit a crime from the context in which it was asked - which isn’t possible. There’s a reason why “Conspiracy to Commit a Crime” is illegal and punishable as a felony. You simply cannot ask or compel someone to break the law on your behalf. DJT wasn’t anonymously talking to a stranger on an internet forum.

The POTUS has a duty under article II to run the executive branch. Under that branch is the DoJ. Just to draw a direct line on what is under the POTUS' purview. In this case, they are going to need to provide evidence that Trump not only did not believe what he was talking about but that he also meant to defraud someone. And so far, it's neither here nor there unless you've got something to share.

Well, 63 separate lawsuits in unrelated districts came up empty and yet he continued to claim that he won. If your favorite sports team had a record of 0-63 but said they won the World Series and Super Bowl, would you believe they honestly thought that?

However, you’re absolutely right, the prosecutors have the very heavy burden of trying to prove that.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can articulate to you that under article II that the POTUS has a duty to ensure election integrity.

Question: Do you think there was irregularities during the 2020 election?

After 63 failed election integrity lawsuits and a $1 billion dollar settlement against Fox, no, I honestly do not think there were any significant irregularities. If anyone actually had that kind of power or influence, don’t you think HRC would have won in 2016 instead of suffering an absolutely shocking defeat?

You think that "the indictment is to determine whether there was criminal intent?" That's not how law is supposed to work. In order to bring these charges they need to establish that. At least convince the grand jury that it is there as it is an element of the crime.

Let me tell you what I see happening. They have been investigating Trump for 8 years trying to find any crime to attach to him.

The purpose of a Grand Jury is to determine whether there is probable cause that an individual has committed a crime and should be put on trial (via indictment) so that prosecutors can then present the evidence in criminal court. It is up to the prosecutors to prove during trial that there was indeed criminal intent or actions, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury of the accused’s peers.

The fact that an indictment was issued at all indicates that the grand jury believes there is probable cause for trial.




Honestly, in my heart of hearts, I think Trump will die of natural causes well before a verdict is ever reached. He just has that kind of luck.

a reply to: SparseBounds

That was a loaded question my friend. You’re attempting to divorce asking someone to commit a crime from the context in which it was asked - which isn’t possible. There’s a reason why “Conspiracy to Commit a Crime” is illegal and punishable as a felony. You simply cannot ask or compel someone to break the law on your behalf. DJT wasn’t anonymously talking to a stranger on an internet forum.

I'm not sure how you aren't understanding that asking a question that specifies a crime sans the criminal intent can't be a crime because it's protected speech. Conspiracy to commit crime includes the criminal intent, the mens rea.

Trump was speaking to a governor of a state that had a very close race with lots of voting irregularities.

Well, 63 separate lawsuits in unrelated districts came up empty and yet he continued to claim that he won. If your favorite sports team had a record of 0-63 but said they won the World Series and Super Bowl, would you believe they honestly thought that?

However, you’re absolutely right, the prosecutors have the very heavy burden of trying to prove that.

Sports analogies don't work in this instance. I think a better one would be Trump happened upon a what he thinks is a crime scene.

The purpose of a Grand Jury is to determine whether there is probable cause that an individual has committed a crime and should be put on trial (via indictment) so that prosecutors can then present the evidence in criminal court. It is up to the prosecutors to prove during trial that there was indeed criminal intent or actions, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury of the accused’s peers.

The fact that an indictment was issued at all indicates that the grand jury believes there is probable cause for trial.

I've sat on a grand jury. I believe the Gj thinks exactly what the prosecutors wanted them to believe.

Honestly, in my heart of hearts, I think Trump will die of natural causes well before a verdict is ever reached. He just has that kind of luck.

K. So where does that leave justice?

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
a reply to: SparseBounds

Your thought is that Trump flagrantly broke laws while espousing innocence and got away with it because we have a two-tiered justice system. You also believe the system is corrupted and corrupt officials chose to ignore Trump's transgressions because of his level of power.

Who's wrong?

I never said or implied that trump “got away” with anything because of a two-tiered justice system. I did say that throwing an ex-president in the clink without bail while awaiting trial is not likely to happen because of the aforementioned. He is clearly not getting away with things, as his multiple pending trials indicate. The wheels of justice aren’t known for moving swiftly.

Please show my words the same level of respect that you would if you agreed with me.