Update on Trump Legal Cases

[Bob78164]

In other words, Biden arrested more than three times as many people in his first two years than Trump did in his last two years and deported a higher percentage of those arrested.

Where are you getting your facts from? Donald Trump rallies where they hand out cute little bracelets don't count.

Personally, I'm saddened to see calls on this Bored for a return to the days when the United States government (at the behest of the White House) was forcibly ripping children from their mothers' arms. And I'm bemused by calls to return to executive orders that the courts repeatedly held were illegal. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

In other words, Biden arrested more than three times as many people in his first two years than Trump did in his last two years and deported a higher percentage of those arrested.

Where are you getting your facts from? Donald Trump rallies where they hand out cute little bracelets don't count.

Personally, I'm saddened to see calls on this Bored for a return to the days when the United States government (at the behest of the White House) was forcibly ripping children from their mothers' arms. And I'm bemused by calls to return to executive orders that the courts repeatedly held were illegal. --Bob

No one has responded to the question at hand. Not surprisingly they have brought up numbers that are disputable, and old partisan talking points.
Is it OK to let in 1.8 million poorly or non-vetted persons into this country every year? In addition to those who sneak over in areas that are not secured?

[silverscreenselect]

Not surprisingly they have brought up numbers that are disputable, and old partisan talking points.

As opposed to you, who brings up no numbers at all, even though you blithely assert, the facts are there.

And the immigration bill that Biden is trying to get through includes increased funding for border patrols and processing of arriving migrants. But Republicans don't want an immigration bill. They want to keep raising the spectre of thousands of terrorists and gang bangers bringing tons of fentanyl into the country. In other words, they don't want to solve the problem (which Trump couldn't solve in four years). They want to have an issue to campaign on.

[tlynn78]

Not surprisingly they have brought up numbers that are disputable, and old partisan talking points.

As opposed to you, who brings up no numbers at all, even though you blithely assert, the facts are there.

And the immigration bill that Biden is trying to get through includes increased funding for border patrols and processing of arriving migrants. But Republicans don't want an immigration bill. They want to keep raising the spectre of thousands of terrorists and gang bangers bringing tons of fentanyl into the country. In other words, they don't want to solve the problem (which Trump couldn't solve in four years). They want to have an issue to campaign on.

Gee, you mean if you open the floodgates, the raw numbers go up?
Tell me genius, how many thousands If terrorists did it take to pull off 9/11?

[silverscreenselect]

Tell me genius, how many thousands If terrorists did it take to pull off 9/11?

Nineteen, and they all entered this country legally through various types of visas. The planners behind 9/11 didn't want to take the chance on sneaking people over the border and having them caught or ratted out.

Trump doesn't want border security. He wants to have it available to use as a campaign issue.

[tlynn78]

Tell me genius, how many thousands If terrorists did it take to pull off 9/11?

Nineteen, and they all entered this country legally through various types of visas. The planners behind 9/11 didn't want to take the chance on sneaking people over the border and having them caught or ratted out.

Trump doesn't want border security. He wants to have it available to use as a campaign issue.

And thanks to Biden's policies and idiot enablers like you, they don't have to bother with legals means.

[flockofseagulls104]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/329 ... er-patrol/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -7-charts/

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles ... nuary-lull

[flockofseagulls104]

Tell me genius, how many thousands If terrorists did it take to pull off 9/11?

Nineteen, and they all entered this country legally through various types of visas. The planners behind 9/11 didn't want to take the chance on sneaking people over the border and having them caught or ratted out.

Trump doesn't want border security. He wants to have it available to use as a campaign issue.

Trump has been about border security from day one. All day every day. But just keep repeating what you're told. TDS.

[silverscreenselect]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/329 ... er-patrol/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -7-charts/

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles ... nuary-lull

Border crossings increased steadily under Trump vs. Obama until 2019 when they doubled. That number decreased in 2020 because of the COVID epidemic, but if you look at his last full pre-COVID year, he wasn't solving the problem. And a lot of people that Trump expelled just kept coming back.

Trump has been about talking tough on immigration, but like his border fence, his policies were full of holes.

[flockofseagulls104]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/329 ... er-patrol/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -7-charts/

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles ... nuary-lull

Border crossings increased steadily under Trump vs. Obama until 2019 when they doubled. That number decreased in 2020 because of the COVID epidemic, but if you look at his last full pre-COVID year, he wasn't solving the problem. And a lot of people that Trump expelled just kept coming back.

Trump has been about talking tough on immigration, but like his border fence, his policies were full of holes.

I guess biden has solved it?

[silverscreenselect]

There was no official announcement, but it appears that the Trump January 6 case in Washington, which had been set for March 5 has been removed from the court calendar for that date. Instead, Judge Chutkin is scheduling other matters in March and April. That would indicate a May start date for the trial. The delay is a result of the delay in the DC Circuit ruling on Trump's claim of immunity (which Judge Chutkin denied). The case is officially on hold until that issue is resolved. This means that the hush money case in New York, scheduled for late March, will be the first Trump case to actually go to trial.

Even though the DC case won't take place in March, authorities are making plans for increased security, including installing fencing around the courthouse prior to the trial.

[silverscreenselect]

Fani Willis filed 176 page response today to the allegations against her. She admitted a personal relationship with Wade but denied ever living with him or sharing accounts with him. She said that she and Wade were friends before he was named special prosecutor, but their romantic relationship did not begin until later. She said he never used funds her office paid him to finance personal trips for the two of them and that they were both financially independent individuals. On the trips they took, she said they tried to split the expenses evenly, each paying with individual personal funds. She also justified Wade's payments because he did much more work than the other special prosecutors on the case.

[flockofseagulls104]

Fani Willis filed 176 page response today to the allegations against her. She admitted a personal relationship with Wade but denied ever living with him or sharing accounts with him. She said that she and Wade were friends before he was named special prosecutor, but their romantic relationship did not begin until later. She said he never used funds her office paid him to finance personal trips for the two of them and that they were both financially independent individuals. On the trips they took, she said they tried to split the expenses evenly, each paying with individual personal funds. She also justified Wade's payments because he did much more work than the other special prosecutors on the case.

I guess that explains it. No need to go any further. Case Closed. Let's get Trump.

[flockofseagulls104]

Wait a minute, why should we care if this is true or false? It's just lawfare. Either way we win, right?

[flockofseagulls104]

Our election system is secure? Well, of course it is. Brad Raffensperger says so. And he's no 'election denier'!

This guy is just lying through his teeth. Brad knows more than he does, and besides, he's just in it to sell pillows for his pal, right lefties?

Some more? Nah, all bull. I just want to see trollboy tell me about 60 court cases again.

[silverscreenselect]

Nah, all bull. I just want to see trollboy tell me about 60 court cases again.

The reason I mention the 60 court cases is because that's how we establish facts in this country. Anyone who's taken a couple of computer classes can get up in front of a crowd of gullible yahoos like you and sound intelligent for a two-minute video clip. Do you know the credentials and qualifications of those people? Do you know that their claims are accurate? You believed a coroner from Alabama over the top medical and scientific minds in this country, so your track record for making reasoned decisions isn't very good.

[flockofseagulls104]

The reason I mention the 60 court cases is because that's how we establish facts in this country.

So, you believe that 1 individual or a group of individual people whose expertise led them to be appointed or elected judges, or 12 random citizens have the innate ability to refute this person's testimony? You believe that you do?

Suppose, for example, Colonel Smith is correct about any one of the dozens of examples he gave in his short presentation. Pick one, trollboy. Have you, or any of the 60 court cases drilled down on anything to determine its veracity? And have you pondered the consequences if what he is saying is true? That would be the logical thing to do, wouldn't you think? Why wouldn't that occur?

The logical thing to do, IMO, is to pick any one or two of his examples at random and tell him to PROVE to me, in language I can understand, that what he is alleging is true. Example: Bring me a computer that has one of those small power couplers that you say is really a data relay. Show me the chain of custody verified by someone I can trust. Then show me that component and how it is supposed to be a mere power coupler and then show me that it is actually a data relay. Give me examples on how this can compromise an election by a bad actor. And, if you can, show me examples of how it has been used to compromise an election. Do this and have documentation that can be peer-reviewed and verified. You are making this accusation, Colonel. I can only assume you already have evidence for this. Can you do this for me? How long will it take you to do this Colonel?

Name me one of these courts that has taken this course of action. Show me the proof that they did. Maybe it has happened in some of these cases, I don't know. But I doubt it. Because on the other side of the equation is the enormous pressure by the established powers that be, of which the judge is a part of, not to rock the boat. And who have many 'experts' available on a 'he said, she said' basis, whose livelihood depends on the status quo going forward.

If, what he is saying about the thousands of vulnerabilities there are in the electronic election systems is true, doesn't that give you even a glimmer of trepidation? What sparks fear in me is there are many people like you who give it no thought at all.

[silverscreenselect]

The reason I mention the 60 court cases is because that's how we establish facts in this country.

So, you believe that 1 individual or a group of individual people whose expertise led them to be appointed or elected judges, or 12 random citizens have the innate ability to refute this person's testimony? You believe that you do?

You misunderstand the court system. The judge or jury evaluates what one expert has to say on both direct and cross-examination, where the other side gets to challenge any of the statements he makes. Then they evaluate the testimony and evidence, both direct and cross-examination of what the other side has to say and finally make a decision.

Juries do that all the time. They decide whether doctors performed competently in malpractice suits, although they aren't doctors. They decide whether products are designed safely, although they aren't engineers. That's how the justice system works. Is it perfect? No. But it's a lot better than blindly falling for whatever someone who talks smoothly says because it's what you want to hear.

60 courts heard what "experts" like Colonel Smith had to say and what experts on the other side had to say. They all came to the same conclusion.

[flockofseagulls104]

The reason I mention the 60 court cases is because that's how we establish facts in this country.

So, you believe that 1 individual or a group of individual people whose expertise led them to be appointed or elected judges, or 12 random citizens have the innate ability to refute this person's testimony? You believe that you do?

You misunderstand the court system. The judge or jury evaluates what one expert has to say on both direct and cross-examination, where the other side gets to challenge any of the statements he makes. Then they evaluate the testimony and evidence, both direct and cross-examination of what the other side has to say and finally make a decision.

Juries do that all the time. They decide whether doctors performed competently in malpractice suits, although they aren't doctors. They decide whether products are designed safely, although they aren't engineers. That's how the justice system works. Is it perfect? No. But it's a lot better than blindly falling for whatever someone who talks smoothly says because it's what you want to hear.

60 courts heard what "experts" like Colonel Smith had to say and what experts on the other side had to say. They all came to the same conclusion.

Of course, I misunderstand the court system. Just like I misunderstand everything. It is so fortunate we have people like yourself who know everything and can explain to us the error of our ways. And who never tire of patronizing us in assuming we don't know anything.

Perhaps now that you've gotten that bullshit out of the way, perhaps you can address the real point of my post. Not that I expect you will.

[silverscreenselect]

Perhaps now that you've gotten that bullshit out of the way, perhaps you can address the real point of my post. Not that I expect you will.

Because on the other side of the equation is the enormous pressure by the established powers that be, of which the judge is a part of, not to rock the boat.

That second quote of yours shows why people can't successfully address the real point of your post. Because you live in paranoid conspiracy land.

[flockofseagulls104]

Perhaps now that you've gotten that bullshit out of the way, perhaps you can address the real point of my post. Not that I expect you will.

Because on the other side of the equation is the enormous pressure by the established powers that be, of which the judge is a part of, not to rock the boat.

That second quote of yours shows why people can't successfully address the real point of your post. Because you live in paranoid conspiracy land.

So because I stated my opinion, which is being demonstrated all over the country with the outbreak of lawfare, you cannot say whether you are concerned about the thousands of election system vulnerabilities?

I guess that makes sense in your strange, uncomplicated mind. The only thing that occupies it is TDS.

[silverscreenselect]

So because I stated my opinion, which is being demonstrated all over the country with the outbreak of lawfare, you cannot say whether you are concerned about the thousands of election system vulnerabilities?

I don't know if there are thousands of election system vulnerabilities. I do know that the people claiming this have an extremely poor record in proving their claims in an objective forum. That includes the 60 court cases and the $750+ million settlement Dominion won from Fox News for peddling these exact types of charges. A second voting machine company, Smartmatic, has its defamation suit against Fox heading to trial as well.

What I don't know but strongly suspect is that the people peddling these claims are laying the groundwork for another massive round of groundless election fraud claims should Trump lose the 2024 election. Which will result in 60 more unsuccessful court cases. Hopefully, it will not result in massive rioting and attempts at insurrections.

[flockofseagulls104]

So because I stated my opinion, which is being demonstrated all over the country with the outbreak of lawfare, you cannot say whether you are concerned about the thousands of election system vulnerabilities?

I don't know if there are thousands of election system vulnerabilities. I do know that the people claiming this have an extremely poor record in proving their claims in an objective forum. That includes the 60 court cases and the $750+ million settlement Dominion won from Fox News for peddling these exact types of charges. A second voting machine company, Smartmatic, has its defamation suit against Fox heading to trial as well.

What I don't know but strongly suspect is that the people peddling these claims are laying the groundwork for another massive round of groundless election fraud claims should Trump lose the 2024 election. Which will result in 60 more unsuccessful court cases. Hopefully, it will not result in massive rioting and attempts at insurrections.

The election fraud claims are anything but groundless. The correct venue to examine and address these problems is in Congress, not in the courts. But, as even you agree, Congress is broken. The powers that be in Washington are doing everything they can to sweep any question of election integrity under the rug, with the willing help of their media conglomerate. They have done NOTHING to even look at the most obvious issues of election interference. The
Washington swamp has pushed the notion that everything is fine, and that those who even question that are enemies of the state.

It's down to the individual state level. And in my state, we have people like Brad Raffensperger, who has repeatedly and unquestionably lied to the citizens of his state and has resisted doing anything to make the system more secure. And we have an innocuous and powerless State Election Board, which is reluctant to do anything that might be effective. So we are limited to putting bandaids on a gunshot wound through a divided legislature.

So, yes, there will be questions if the same thing that happened in 2020 happens again. The difference this time is that there are thousands of people like me that are looking at everything we can think of, and trying to do what we can to close the vulnerabilities we know of. And if it does happen again, I cannot predict what the reaction will be. But it will not be pretty.

[silverscreenselect]

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity in the federal election interference case. The court said: “We conclude that the interest in criminal accountability, held by both the public and the Executive Branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation... For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution." The ruling was unanimous.

Trump now has two options. He can request the entire DC circuit to review the case en banc or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. If the entire circuit accepts the case and rules against him, he could appeal that decision to the Supreme Court as well. However, there is no guarantee that either the DC Circuit or Supreme Court will hear the case.

The DC panel that issued its decision addressed Trump's possible appeals. If he appeals to the entire DC court for review, the current stay will be lifted and the proceedings in the trial court resume. Trump has until this coming Monday to file a notice of appeal with the US Supreme Court or the stay will be lifted as well. So the DC court is trying to limit Trump's options for delaying the proceedings.

[Bob78164]

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity in the federal election interference case.

Here's the opinion. --Bob