- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 3 questions about Trump J6 case that don't make sense
Posted on 8/9/23 at 7:53 am to burger bearcat
Posted on 8/9/23 at 7:53 am to burger bearcat
he hired experts to find FRAUD. they found none.
experts told him and his staff he lost.
AG Barr was tasked to look into every story.
AG Barr says there was
none. he took the 2000 mules story himself.
nothing there either.
trump was told.
fox told him he lost Arizona and he whined.
et tu bruté?!
experts told him and his staff he lost.
AG Barr was tasked to look into every story.
AG Barr says there was
none. he took the 2000 mules story himself.
nothing there either.
trump was told.
fox told him he lost Arizona and he whined.
et tu bruté?!
0
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:02 am to burger bearcat
quote:
How does Jack Smith prove what Trump was thinking?
no one can.
apparently his words to a few witnesses show he knew.
experts told him.
fox told him .
the tv lawyers say "wilfull ignorance" is not a defense ie the "na na na na beans in my ears"defense is not valid.
it comes down to common sense. absent a trump fanboi juror trump loses.
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:11 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
I didn't mind some of the legal challenges,
I don't think anyone should.
Criminalizing novel legal theories is also scary. Nobody should be defending these prosecutions, on the same note.
quote:
But, he should have called off the dogs by Christmas or so.
Like I said earlier, they hadn't uncovered real evidence by that point, which is the big issue with his defense in this case.
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:14 am to burger bearcat
quote:
How does Jack Smith prove what Trump was thinking? What level if burden of proof would he need to show to say Trump was lying intentionally with the direct purpose of defrauding or inciting a riot?
Not a legal expert but what I have heard it makes no difference what he believed or didn’t believe. If a candidate feels there are issues with an election, there are legal ways to remedy the issue. You can ask for recounts, you can request an audit and you can go to court. He exercised all these avenues and lost. He is being charged with exercising steps outside the legal realm which is illegal.
To answer your question, to prove what he was truly thinking, he would have to take the stand and no half way competent lawyer is going to let him anywhere near the stand.
This post was edited on 8/9/23 at 8:15 am
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:22 am to burger bearcat
It's like no one actually read the indictment.
Paragraph 3 of page two of the indictment:
quote:
A) In the scenario, an election was either stolen or rigged (let's just say it was), how should a canidate attempt to adjudicate or correct this? Not say anything at all? Republican or Democrat, what is the proper process for challenging an election if it was indeed fraudulent? (Again, just pretend it was even if you don't think it was)
B) Did Trump believe the election was stolen? This seems pretty important, if he "believes" it was stolen, then shouldn't we say all the principles for point A should apply to point B. (Whether he was right or wrong, if that is his belief)
C) How does Jack Smith prove what Trump was thinking? What level if burden of proof would he need to show to say Trump was lying intentionally with the direct purpose of defrauding or inciting a riot?
Paragraph 3 of page two of the indictment:
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:22 am to woody1984
Admittedly not fluent in discovery practice under fed criminal procedure but I wonder to what extent Trump can ask for all of the votes in Arizon/ Maricopa with voting role's to determine the extent of improper voting.
Unlike a civil action, this is a man's life at stake.
Would you request? Is it even within the power of a fed judge to allow if so inclined?
I don't know these answers
Unlike a civil action, this is a man's life at stake.
Would you request? Is it even within the power of a fed judge to allow if so inclined?
I don't know these answers
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:26 am to dafif
quote:
but I wonder to what extent Trump can ask for all of the votes in Arizon/ Maricopa with voting role's to determine the extent of improper voting.
Highly doubt he'd be permitted to do so. In a civil proceeding? Probably. I'm not an expert on federal discovery law either, but the standard is usually related to evidence/allegations of the prosecution pretty specifically. Criminal discovery isn't there to offer widespread fishing expeditions.
Here is a lawyer's SEO page discussing it
quote:
n criminal cases, by contrast, discovery is much more limited. Typically, criminal discovery is limited to materials that are intended to be used directly at trial, as well as evidence that materially exonerates the defendant. The rationale for a more limited right of discovery in criminal cases is that the government cannot force the defendant to produce evidence against himself, therefore, the defendant should be limited in what he can discover from the government.
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:27 am to SlowFlowPro
Time article about what happened
His opposition did not go after votes. They went after the system. They had the delusional cause that Trump was a dictator.
Should he and his administration have seen it coming. I don’t think reasonable people expected a bioweapon to coincidentally release during an election season and a plot to rapidly change our election system to “fight” Trump coincide with it.
The very thing they “state” they were trying to prevent is the exact doubt and potential “corruption” they created with their actions.
By the time it occurred it was too late to expose what was really going on. Reflect on the article and think about how crazy it sounds that all of these people united and worked to “change” the system questionably because they “believed” they were fighting the bogeyman. Many people in this country think our elections were not secure enough already and these groups are stating they are “securing” an election with changes that oppose the weakness in many people’s minds of our system.
His opposition did not go after votes. They went after the system. They had the delusional cause that Trump was a dictator.
Should he and his administration have seen it coming. I don’t think reasonable people expected a bioweapon to coincidentally release during an election season and a plot to rapidly change our election system to “fight” Trump coincide with it.
The very thing they “state” they were trying to prevent is the exact doubt and potential “corruption” they created with their actions.
By the time it occurred it was too late to expose what was really going on. Reflect on the article and think about how crazy it sounds that all of these people united and worked to “change” the system questionably because they “believed” they were fighting the bogeyman. Many people in this country think our elections were not secure enough already and these groups are stating they are “securing” an election with changes that oppose the weakness in many people’s minds of our system.
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:30 am to Colonel Flagg
quote:
I don’t think reasonable people expected a bioweapon to coincidentally release during an election
quote:
His opposition did not go after votes. They went after the system.
quote:
In March, activists appealed to Congress to steer COVID relief money to election administration. Led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, more than 150 organizations signed a letter to every member of Congress seeking $2 billion in election funding. It was somewhat successful: the CARES Act, passed later that month, contained $400 million in grants to state election administrators.
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:33 am to SlowFlowPro
I am not disagreeing with the release of money.
How is it getting weird? I just think it is funny that people organized under a crazy idea that created a self fulfilling prophecy.
How is it getting weird? I just think it is funny that people organized under a crazy idea that created a self fulfilling prophecy.
This post was edited on 8/9/23 at 8:35 am
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:43 am to CollegeFBRules
quote:
There is zero evidence that the election was stolen
if you paid any attention to 2020 and have an IQ above room temp you saw plenty frickery. issue is you are a pos loser hack commie and/or you have zero critical thinking skills.
you thought all those trucker affadavits were made up about votes trucked into PA and MI?
3AM vote dumps wiping out a 300k and 800k lead by orange man were legit? water main burst in fulton county? counting stoppages all over? you really believe all that was legit?
you really think orange man was first POTUS to garner more votes and lose? first to win ohio, florida and iowa and lose? to win 18 of 19 bellwhethers like obama and yet lose? GTFO.
LINK
LINK
when you debunk all those links.....hundreds......get back with us retard.
This post was edited on 8/9/23 at 8:45 am
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:43 am to burger bearcat
quote:Makes no difference. If we're going to start prosecuting politicians for lying... we'll have no politicians left.
Did Trump believe the election was stolen? This seems pretty important, if he "believes" it was stolen, then shouldn't we say all the principles for point A should apply to point B. (Whether he was right or wrong, if that is his belief)
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:44 am to Colonel Flagg
quote:
How is it getting weird?
the term "bioweapon" and the implication the release was intentional.
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:45 am to Fat Bastard
Now post your link to the election litigation wins and self-own yourself again 
This post was edited on 8/9/23 at 8:45 am
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:46 am to burger bearcat
quote:
C) How does Jack Smith prove what Trump was thinking? What level if burden of proof would he need to show to say Trump was lying intentionally with the direct purpose of defrauding or inciting a riot?
If criminal charge, beyond a reasonable doubt. Problem for Trump is venue.
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:47 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:48 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:This. And the legal approach was goofy. The few challanges they mounted... They concentrated on: "well this or that could have happened" rather than "this is the stuff that did happen". Showing that illegal votes could have happened proves nothing. No judge is going to throw out an election because something might have happened. It was an idiotic strategy.
I didn't mind some of the legal challenges, mainly the one that states weren't supposed to be able to change their voting procedures administratively. But, he should have called off the dogs by Christmas or so. His legacy would be totally different.
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Criminalizing novel legal theories is also scary.
Are you telling me I can try to impede/impair a federal official proceeding as long as I come up with a novel legal theory?
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:52 am to LSUROXS
quote:
If criminal charge, beyond a reasonable doubt. Problem for Trump is venue.
Along with evidence and what is reported as testimony from over 80 people.
Posted on 8/9/23 at 8:53 am to Decatur
quote:
Are you telling me I can try to impede/impair a federal official proceeding as long as I come up with a novel legal theory?
You've never heard of unsuccessful lawsuits challenging administrative procedures? The constitutionality of Congressional laws? Etc.?
I mean hell, sometimes they are successful. See; Brown v. Board of Education, Rowe v. Wade, etc.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News