Trump indicted again

[Bob Juch]

The indictment, filed by the special counsel Jack Smith in Federal District Court in Washington, accused Trump of a conspiracy to defraud the United States, a conspiracy to threaten the rights of others, a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding before Congress and obstruction of an official proceeding.

[flockofseagulls104]

I'm sure he J-walked, too.

Another piece of absolute bullshit by the corrupt DOJ and Smith.

[Bob78164]

Here's the indictment. Any bets on how many elected Republicans render a verdict before the evidence is presented at trial? --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Here's the indictment. Any bets on how many elected Republicans render a verdict before the evidence is presented at trial? --Bob

If anything, Smith was rather conservative in the number of charges against Trump. He probably went after those charges that seemed to him the most ironclad. I'm just curious if and when his so-far unindicted co-conspirators, including Eastman, Powell, and Giuliani, will be indicted as well.

[tlynn78]

Here's the indictment. Any bets on how many elected Republicans render a verdict before the evidence is presented at trial? --Bob

If anything, Smith was rather conservative in the number of charges against Trump. He probably went after those charges that seemed to him the most ironclad. I'm just curious if and when his so-far unindicted co-conspirators, including Eastman, Powell, and Giuliani, will be indicted as well.

"Ironclad"

[BackInTex]

Here's the indictment. Any bets on how many elected Republicans render a verdict before the evidence is presented at trial? --Bob

Fewer than Democrats.

[flockofseagulls104]

As full of bullshit as the J6 Star chamber.

[silverscreenselect]

Here's the indictment. Any bets on how many elected Republicans render a verdict before the evidence is presented at trial? --Bob

If anything, Smith was rather conservative in the number of charges against Trump. He probably went after those charges that seemed to him the most ironclad. I'm just curious if and when his so-far unindicted co-conspirators, including Eastman, Powell, and Giuliani, will be indicted as well.

"Ironclad"

You can always tell when T-girl is stuck for a decent response in a political thread. She replies with a one-word pun and an emoji.

[flockofseagulls104]

If anything, Smith was rather conservative in the number of charges against Trump. He probably went after those charges that seemed to him the most ironclad. I'm just curious if and when his so-far unindicted co-conspirators, including Eastman, Powell, and Giuliani, will be indicted as well.

"Ironclad"

You can always tell when T-girl is stuck for a decent response in a political thread. She replies with a one-word pun and an emoji.

The decent response is that indictment is a complete piece of shit. Just like the others. Making up 'crimes' left and right. Acting like only they know the 'TRUTH' about everything. When a government acts like they are the only arbiter of what the truth is, and silences (or worse) anyone who speaks otherwise, that government needs to be overthrown. Tell me, anyone here, that you do not agree with that.

God help us, but that is what we are turning into.

It is an unconstitutional attack on free speech. It is making a mockery of equal justice or any kind of justice. It is making disagreeing with the swamp somehow a crime. And it is part of its own conspiracy to fix an election in advance. You assholes better hope it will fail, as it should. It was not designed to be a real indictment of any actual crime. Half, probably more than half, of the country knows this. And if these corrupt prosecutors somehow succeed in preventing Trump from running, you will see the likes of something you have never seen before. You want to turn this country into a third-world dictatorship like Venezuela and what Brazil is turning into? IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN WITHOUT A FIGHT.

[silverscreenselect]

The decent response is that indictment is a complete piece of shit. Just like the others. Making up 'crimes' left and right. Acting like only they know the 'TRUTH' about everything. When a government acts like they are the only arbiter of what the truth is, and silences (or worse) anyone who speaks otherwise, that government needs to be overthrown.

Every one of the crimes that Trump has been indicted for has been on the books for years. Many other people have been prosecuted under those same statutes. Further, everything in the indictment was supported by evidence that the grand juries heard and considered. That includes the testimony of dozens of witnesses. That includes written records of Trump and his associates. That includes photographic and video evidence. Tons of it.

So, are dozens of witnesses lying, including many Republicans and officials all the way up to Mike Pence? Did the "Deep State" forge or manufacture thousands of emails and text messages? Did Joe Biden's tech geeks doctor hours of photographic and video evidence?

The "government" isn't the arbiter of what the truth is. The grand jury was the initial arbiter and the trial jury will be the final arbiter. It's ironic that you claim that the US is turning into a version of Brazil or Venezuela, because THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP TRIED TO DO. Governments in those types of countries invent ways to stay in power when they lose elections. The gist of the indictment is that Trump, Giuliani, and the others knew he had lost the election and came up with schemes to try to force various swing states to declare him the winner. Trump actually began making those plans before the election (just what you accuse the Democrats of doing now.)

You've already decided what the "facts" are and anything else is a political stunt by the Democrats and the deep state. You're so convinced about the "evidence" of the Biden crime family that in one sentence you tout the testimony of Hunter Biden's business partner and then in the next sentence ask us not to believe that testimony.

[silverscreenselect]

Looks like the Deep State was working overtime to rig the selection of a judge in Trump's Jan 6 case:

The judge assigned to Trump’s Jan. 6 case is a tough punisher of Capitol rioters

The federal judge assigned to the election fraud case against former President Donald Trump has stood out as one of the toughest punishers of rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attack fueled by Trump’s baseless claims of a stolen election. She has also ruled against him before. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, a former assistant public defender who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, will oversee the case accusing Trump of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss in the two months leading up to the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters. Chutkan has often has handed down prison sentences in Jan. 6, 2021, riot cases that are harsher than Justice Department prosecutors recommended.

Chutkan has also ruled against Trump before in a separate Jan. 6 case. In November 2021, she refused his request to block the release of documents to the U.S. House’s Jan. 6 committee by asserting executive privilege. She rejected his arguments that he could hold privilege over documents from his administration even after President Joe Biden had cleared the way for the National Archives to turn the papers over. She wrote that Trump could not claim his privilege “exists in perpetuity.” In a memorable line from her ruling, Chutkan wrote, “Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.”

Chutkan has sentenced at least 38 people convicted of Capitol riot-related crimes. All 38 received prison terms, ranging from 10 days to over five years, according to an Associated Press analysis of court records. She is one of two dozen judges in Washington, D.C., who collectively have sentenced nearly 600 defendants for their roles in the Jan. 6 siege. More than one third of them avoided sentences that included incarceration. Other judges typically have handed down sentences that are more lenient than those requested by prosecutors. Chutkan, however, has matched or exceeded prosecutors’ recommendations in 19 of her 38 sentences. In four of those cases, prosecutors weren’t seeking any jail time at all.

Chutkan has said prison can be a powerful deterrent against the threat of another insurrection. “Every day we’re hearing about reports of anti-democratic factions of people plotting violence, the potential threat of violence, in 2024,” she said in December 2021 before sentencing a Florida man who attacked police officers to more than five years behind bars. At the time, that sentence was the longest for a Jan. 6 case. “It has to be made clear that trying to violently overthrow the government, trying to stop the peaceful transition of power and assaulting law enforcement officers in that effort is going to be met with absolutely certain punishment,” she said.

I could probably write Flock's response for him. The only question is just what words I would have to write in ALL CAPS.

[tlynn78]

If anything, Smith was rather conservative in the number of charges against Trump. He probably went after those charges that seemed to him the most ironclad. I'm just curious if and when his so-far unindicted co-conspirators, including Eastman, Powell, and Giuliani, will be indicted as well.

"Ironclad"

You can always tell when T-girl is stuck for a decent response in a political thread. She replies with a one-word pun and an emoji.

Or, ..just not stupid enough to think there's any point. Y'all are beyond rational discussion, simply too far gone to bother with.

[Weyoun]

Hey, is there an argument against the indictment?

Something like the fact pattern does not fit it?

Or that it’s an exaggeration and misapplication of the law?

The usual crowd is all “bless your heart” and “it’s the swamp!!!!” How long should I wait before any of them will come up with a factually-based argument against the indictment?

[flockofseagulls104]

Hey, is there an argument against the indictment?

Something like the fact pattern does not fit it?

Or that it’s an exaggeration and misapplication of the law?

The usual crowd is all “bless your heart” and “it’s the swamp!!!!” How long should I wait before any of them will come up with a factually-based argument against the indictment?

It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. Look it up.

Secondly, the indictment is based on the idea that the prosecutor is the sole possessor of the 'TRUTH' and that Trump was lying. Um, who has determined without question from on high what the 'truth' is on this matter? I firmly believe, from the evidence that I have seen and examined, that it is very likely that the 2020 election was interfered with and the results were not correct. Just the FACT of the Biden Laptop censorship conspiracy is proof of that. But I have seen many other things. Should I be thrown in jail? Should I be prosecuted?

Just the two facts that Trump offered the National Guard to protect DC that day and Pelosi and Bowser refused it, and that Trump called for a 'patriotic and peaceful' protest if the crowd went to the Capitol exonerates him from all of the bullshit in this indictment.

If lying is now a crime, pretty much everyone in Washington DC would currently be in jail.

And quit the obsequious request for facts. You ignore facts that are biting you in the ass if you don't want to face them. As proof, you will ignore or give someone's lame excuses to ignore the facts I've listed above. You won't acknowledge them even though you know they are true.

[silverscreenselect]

Hey, is there an argument against the indictment?

Something like the fact pattern does not fit it?

Or that it’s an exaggeration and misapplication of the law?

The usual crowd is all “bless your heart” and “it’s the swamp!!!!” How long should I wait before any of them will come up with a factually-based argument against the indictment?

It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. Look it up.

Trump is free to express his opinion about the 2020 election. He is even free to lie about it by making statements he knows are false. He is not free to conspire with others (Rudy Giuliani et al) to overturn the results of that election. The indictment contains 45 pages of actions that Trump and the others took to overturn the results of the election and remain in power. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said over 100 years ago, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Trump is accused of actions, not words.

[silverscreenselect]

I firmly believe, from the evidence that I have seen and examined, that it is very likely that the 2020 election was interfered with and the results were not correct.

Are you by chance referring to all the "evidence" that was contained in Operation Dumbo Drop that you "saw and examined" and then entered into your carefully prepared spreadsheets and analyzed to prove the existence of election interference?

[Weyoun]

Ok, still no facts. Just references to the Kraken - where is that info btw? - and an admission that Trump said terrible things, but that is okay because incitement to riot is First Amendment protected

[Bob78164]

Ok, still no facts. Just references to the Kraken - where is that info btw? - and an admission that Trump said terrible things, but that is okay because incitement to riot is First Amendment protected

And ignoring the allegations that Donny knew full well there was no election fraud, so that he had actual knowledge that all of his efforts (both his legal efforts in the courthouse and his incitement of an insurrection) were baseless. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

What is your proof that there was no election fraud? Spokesidiots on your side keep saying it was the most secure election ever held. You all keep saying garbage like that and act like it's from the mouth of God, but I have not seen one shred of evidence or proof to back up those statements.

Without that blind faith, you have nothing. And a vast number of us see through the charade. And there will be hell to pay.

[silverscreenselect]

What is your proof that there was no election fraud?

60 courts said there was no fraud as did two firms hired by Trump. And his own Attorney General, Bill Barr. And lots of other people who were mentioned in the 45 page indictment. And someone alleging fraud, as Trump did, has to prove there was fraud. Trump introduced no credible evidence of fraud in those 60 court cases.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-hired-so ... se-1797178

[Bob78164]

60 courts said there was no fraud as did two firms hired by Trump. And his own Attorney General, Bill Barr. And lots of other people who were mentioned in the 45 page indictment. And someone alleging fraud, as Trump did, has to prove there was fraud. Trump introduced no credible evidence of fraud in those 60 court cases.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-hired-so ... se-1797178

You're giving this argument FAR too much credit. Before anyone is entitled to take the enormously consequential (and profoundly anti-democratic) step of interfering in any way with the certification of an election, it's up to them to PROVE that there was result-changing fraud. Uncertainty isn't remotely close to enough.

Donny couldn't prove result-changing fraud. He couldn't come close (because there wasn't any). Other than a very small handful of people who cast multiple votes for Donny, as far as I know, no fraud at all (even of the non-result-changing variety) has been proven. Attempting to interfere with the certification of an election without PROOF of fraud is profoundly wrong. Attempting to do so by inciting a violent mob to march on Congress is an act of insurrection. --Bob

[tlynn78]

60 courts said there was no fraud as did two firms hired by Trump. And his own Attorney General, Bill Barr. And lots of other people who were mentioned in the 45 page indictment. And someone alleging fraud, as Trump did, has to prove there was fraud. Trump introduced no credible evidence of fraud in those 60 court cases.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-hired-so ... se-1797178

You're giving this argument FAR too much credit. Before anyone is entitled to take the enormously consequential (and profoundly anti-democratic) step of interfering in any way with the certification of an election, it's up to them to PROVE that there was result-changing fraud. Uncertainty isn't remotely close to enough.

Donny couldn't prove result-changing fraud. He couldn't come close (because there wasn't any). Other than a very small handful of people who cast multiple votes for Donny, as far as I know, no fraud at all (even of the non-result-changing variety) has been proven. Attempting to interfere with the certification of an election without PROOF of fraud is profoundly wrong. Attempting to do so by inciting a violent mob to march on Congress is an act of insurrection. --Bob

Don't quit your day job.

[kroxquo]

What is your proof that there was no election fraud? Spokesidiots on your side keep saying it was the most secure election ever held. You all keep saying garbage like that and act like it's from the mouth of God, but I have not seen one shred of evidence or proof to back up those statements.

Without that blind faith, you have nothing. And a vast number of us see through the charade. And there will be hell to pay.

You can't prove a negative. In the American court system, the accuser has the burden of proof and no one on the side of election denialism has come close to presenting any evidence that even warrants a hearing in court, let alone proving their case. Let Occam's Razor fall- either there was a clean election that the 45th President lost or there was a vast conspiracy of tens of thousands of people of both parties across numerous states, the federal government, law enforcement, and private industry - none of whom has come forward - to rig the election.

[flockofseagulls104]

What is your proof that there was no election fraud? Spokesidiots on your side keep saying it was the most secure election ever held. You all keep saying garbage like that and act like it's from the mouth of God, but I have not seen one shred of evidence or proof to back up those statements.

Without that blind faith, you have nothing. And a vast number of us see through the charade. And there will be hell to pay.

You can't prove a negative. In the American court system, the accuser has the burden of proof and no one on the side of election denialism has come close to presenting any evidence that even warrants a hearing in court, let alone proving their case. Let Occam's Razor fall- either there was a clean election that the 45th President lost or there was a vast conspiracy of tens of thousands of people of both parties across numerous states, the federal government, law enforcement, and private industry - none of whom has come forward - to rig the election.

Thank you for that. YES, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove that 2020 was the most secure election ever held. You cannot prove that the election wasn't stolen. Show me what proof you have of what the partisan hacks have been proclaiming for 3 years, canceling and censoring people who disagree with that proclamation and destroying the fabric of our country about.

What you have is the OPINION of mostly partisan judges and lawyers who do not understand or care to examine the evidence presented to them, or do not want to jeopardize their careers by ruling on a controversial subject. And of the partisan hacks in power that do not want to lose any of it. That is ALL you have to support your claims that Trump was wrong. And to base an indictment on what you THINK Trump knew or didn't know? That is completely bonkers. No one can possibly know that.

What should have been the response of any responsible person to the allegations and evidence presented to show that the elections are questionable is to examine what can be fixed to make the elections more secure and restore the confidence of Americans that their elections are fair and accurate. Instead, they attack, censor and prosecute those who don't agree with their OPINIONS, and continue to support and enact laws, statutes and schemes to further erode the election process so we can NEVER be sure of the election results. That is what we are dealing with.

[wbtravis007]

Hey, is there an argument against the indictment?

Something like the fact pattern does not fit it?

Or that it’s an exaggeration and misapplication of the law?

The usual crowd is all “bless your heart” and “it’s the swamp!!!!” How long should I wait before any of them will come up with a factually-based argument against the indictment?

It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. Look it up.

Secondly, the indictment is based on the idea that the prosecutor is the sole possessor of the 'TRUTH' and that Trump was lying. Um, who has determined without question from on high what the 'truth' is on this matter? I firmly believe, from the evidence that I have seen and examined, that it is very likely that the 2020 election was interfered with and the results were not correct. Just the FACT of the Biden Laptop censorship conspiracy is proof of that. But I have seen many other things. Should I be thrown in jail? Should I be prosecuted?

Just the two facts that Trump offered the National Guard to protect DC that day and Pelosi and Bowser refused it, and that Trump called for a 'patriotic and peaceful' protest if the crowd went to the Capitol exonerates him from all of the bullshit in this indictment.

If lying is now a crime, pretty much everyone in Washington DC would currently be in jail.

And quit the obsequious request for facts. You ignore facts that are biting you in the ass if you don't want to face them. As proof, you will ignore or give someone's lame excuses to ignore the facts I've listed above. You won't acknowledge them even though you know they are true.

Might want to stay away from some of the big words until you’re more like Trump and can say you know all the best words.

Like obsequious.