Georgia Indictment

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: underpass61

By gaining unauthorized access to the county's election headquarters where the equipment was stored. The perpetrators are on surveillance video committing the act.

Link?

He seems to be going around just posting the MSM talking points and not responding to queries.

I'll help. Courtesy of umm..CNN

On January 1, 2021 – days ahead of the January 7 voting systems breach – Katherine Friess, an attorney working with Giuliani, Sidney Powell and other Trump allies, shared a “written invitation” to examine voting systems in Coffee County with a group of Trump allies.

That group included members of Sullivan Strickler, a firm hired by Trump’s attorneys to examine voting systems in the small, heavily Republican Georgia county, according to text messages obtained by CNN.

That same day, Friess sent a “Letter of invitation to Coffee County, Georgia” to former NYPD Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik, who was working with Giuliani to find evidence that would back up their baseless claims of potential widespread voter fraud, according to court documents filed as part of an ongoing civil case.

Looks plenty authorized to me. How about you?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: underpass61

By gaining unauthorized access to the county's election headquarters where the equipment was stored. The perpetrators are on surveillance video committing the act.

Link?

He seems to be going around just posting the MSM talking points and not responding to queries.

Figures. There was another member (long gone) whose posts were of a similar calibur.

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: underpass61

By gaining unauthorized access to the county's election headquarters where the equipment was stored. The perpetrators are on surveillance video committing the act.

Link?

He seems to be going around just posting the MSM talking points and not responding to queries.

Figures. There was another member (long gone) whose posts were of a similar calibur.

Xcellent point.

I'm not a fan of bannings for "wrongthink" of any kind.

But I guess when your postings are all habitual MSM talking points, perhaps there's a case to be made.

originally posted by: IndieA

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: IndieA

originally posted by: 3000Hard

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: frogs453
Lord help them if he gets elected.

Is this implying that trump will enact some level of retribution?

Will it be on par the with sn!t storm that he promised his crowds he would bring down upon Hillary Clinton?

I imagine that it will be on par with all the recent precedents.

Sure, but can you answer the question from a few post back pertaining to standing or lack of.

Why should those parties be granted any extra rights?

Nobody is being granted extra rights. Courts previously determined that there was not enough standing for them to hear cases about election irregularities, maleficence, and fraud.

Now, we have criminal charges, brought by a grand jury, and defendants that have a right to defend themselves and prove their innocence.

If as you say, “Nobody should be granted extra rights,” is your position, how then is your earlier statement valid.

Your statement:
That's factually incorrect. There were not 63 lost court cases. Something like 60 of those cases were never tried for lack of standing. Something that's been repeatedly pointed out, yet ignored.

If those parties should not have been granted extra rights, then shouldn’t this excuse/rebuttal of yours be ignored?

a reply to: JinMI

Under what authority does Trump's lawyer, who has no ties to the Coffee County election headquarters, let alone Georgia in general, have to invite other Trump allies to come to poke around election equipment in Coffee County?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

Under what authority does Trump's lawyer, who has no ties to the Coffee County election headquarters, let alone Georgia in general, have to invite other Trump allies to come to poke around election equipment in Coffee County?

Article II of the US Constitution.

a reply to: JinMI

How does that apply? Friess was not a federal employee, she was not acting with the authority of the President, she was acting as Trump's personal lawyer. Just like Giuliani, Powell, Wood, etc.

And if Trump's lawyers do try to go with your interpretation of Article II for their defense, I don't see it going well for them. The courts have historically gone with state autonomy when it comes to election matters.

a reply to: Threadbare

You want more? Ok:

Then, on Jan. 1, 2021, six days before the breach and days ahead of the Jan. 6 insurrection, Coffee County elections official Misty Hampton wrote a letter to attorneys working for Trump. In texts, Trump allies referred to the letter as a “written invitation” to access the county’s voting systems, according to documents obtained by CNN.

Link

And if Trump's lawyers do try to go with your interpretation of Article II for their defense, I don't see it going well for them. The courts have historically gone with state autonomy when it comes to election matters.

Georgias autonomy wasn't breached. Meanwhile it's under the purview of the POTUS to ensure legal elections.

The fact that it benefits him is immaterial while he's in office serving as POTUS.

a reply to: 3000Hard

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Nobody is being granted "extra rights" nor am I advocating for such.

US and State courts have authority over US and State elections on one hand, and people have a right to defend themselves on the other.

The US may decide that they have a right to shut down investigations into election irregularities, malfeasance, and fraud, but that doesn't usurp or negate a defendants right to defend themselves in court.

It sounds like you are trying to dream up a point.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

Under what authority does Trump's lawyer, who has no ties to the Coffee County election headquarters, let alone Georgia in general, have to invite other Trump allies to come to poke around election equipment in Coffee County?

See, that's part of the problem, but Trump and all of his lawyers have a right to defend themselves in court now that there is a criminal case.

They just couldn't prove standing before.

a reply to: IndieA

You guys realize the actual election falls outside the scope of this case, right? Even if there was voting fraud it doesn't give Trump and his co-conspirators the right to break the law.

The scope of the case is the actions Trump and his co-conspirators took after the election to change the results of the election and whether those sons violated the law. Any evidence that doesn't fit within that scope will be tossed.

a reply to: Threadbare

You guys realize the actual election falls outside the scope of this case, right? Even if there was voting fraud it doesn't give Trump and his co-conspirators the right to break the law.

What is the purpose and function of the DoJ please?

he scope of the case is the actions Trump and his co-conspirators took after the election to change the results of the election and whether those sons violated the law. Any evidence that doesn't fit within that scope will be tossed.

What is the purpose and function of the DoJ please?


You're going to have a difficult time separating Trump from POTUS.

a reply to: JinMI

The fact that Trump didn't go through any of the White House counsels and instead did all of this through his personal lawyers is going to make it very hard to claim he was acting as President.

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: 3000Hard

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Nobody is being granted "extra rights" nor am I advocating for such.

US and State courts have authority over US and State elections on one hand, and people have a right to defend themselves on the other.

The US may decide that they have a right to shut down investigations into election irregularities, malfeasance, and fraud, but that doesn't usurp or negate a defendants right to defend themselves in court.

It sounds like you are trying to dream up a point.

I think I am making a pretty simple point.

If cases were tossed for lack of standing

And lack of standing means a party has no legal right to initiate a lawsuit

Your excuse was 60 cases were tossed for lack of standing (which you may not have agreed with…tough)

I wanted to know why, in your opinion, should those parties have been granted the right to initiate a lawsuit without standing.

You and I agree no one should have an extra right

So your whole position of evidence being ignored is bunk.

Unless you ignore the constitution when it is convenient for you to do so.

My point is you should lose the argument that:

“ If the evidence gets looked at, it won't be because the court wanted to look at it, it will be because they had to by law. ”

It would be unlawful to do so without standing.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

The fact that Trump didn't go through any of the White House counsels and instead did all of this through his personal lawyers is going to make it very hard to claim he was acting as President.

Point being the answer to your question of "under what authority."

And again, because it benefits Trump in the case of the election doesn't at all dismiss his duty as POTUS.

a reply to: 3000Hard

I wanted to know why, in your opinion, should those parties have been granted the right to initiate a lawsuit without standing.

If you followed the cases you'd realize why. Since you're not citing any specific case, I'll be overly broad. They brought cases before the date of the election, denied for standing or latches. Brought them after, same thing.

So the question actually is, when is the right time because before and after were not correct in the courts view?

Next question is where do they have standing if not in their own state and not in the supreme court.?

a reply to: Threadbare

You guys realize the actual election falls outside the scope of this case, right?

No, I don't think it is.

Even if there was voting fraud it doesn't give Trump and his co-conspirators the right to break the law.

That's debatable.

They could have been operating for the greater good, and otherwise could have been viewed as complicit in what sure seemed like a coup to me.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Threadbare

What illegal channels. He called the Governor. He did not call some Chinese Hacker Group and try to STEAL anything. The way to do it was with Faithless electors. For some reason I do not hear this in the media.

The only time in modern history an election has actually progressed to people trying to overturn is 2016. Those electors were fined. No one who they changed it for was charged. A good precedence came from this as there are state rights for electors but Federal Law has to be followed. It went to the Supreme Court.

10 of them. 10 faithless electors. There was even a group called the Hamilton electors who were against Trump. They even posted in the media HOW they could get Trump to not be elected.

This entire thing is BS.

APPARENTLY the grand jury was given DOCTORED AUDIO of the phone call. They cut out words that would had made the charge dissapear they want to nail him on.

HERE is a QUOTE from scott adams on twitter explaining it below

"SCOTT ADAMS@ScottAdamsSays
It took me until today to realize Trump's "find votes" audio is a Rupar!

A "Rupar" is a video/audio in which removing one part reverses its meaning.

Trump: “So look, all I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is more than we have because we won the state.”

If you leave out "...we won the state" -- as the media normally does -- it looks like he is asking for fraud. If you include it, he says a recount or better count would find him to be the legitimate winner."

So what does this mean? Means the Grand jury was using false evidence.In short this is going to be TOSSED on appeal prolly.

It also proves that Trump did believe he won (which he did, imo).

So, with audio evidence of Trump believing he did win, it makes all the rest of the charges moot.

a reply to: 3000Hard

I wanted to know why, in your opinion, should those parties have been granted the right to initiate a lawsuit without standing.

Being told in one case (or more), that you don't have standing, doesn't negate a defendants right to defend themselves.

If the election evidence that was ignored by the courts before, pertains to the defendants now, then they now have standing to present it.

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: underpass61

By gaining unauthorized access to the county's election headquarters where the equipment was stored. The perpetrators are on surveillance video committing the act.

Link?

He seems to be going around just posting the MSM talking points and not responding to queries.

Figures. There was another member (long gone) whose posts were of a similar calibur.

"Calibur", I see what you did there. 😉

No talking points = no argument, just blank stares.

MSM will re-up their TP later tonight. Stay tuned!

Fani should be disbarred.