|
| GenoDRPh Member since: Aug 24, 2023
Threads: 5
Posts: 2834 | Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: fleaswatter Fanny Willis' lawfare case against President Trump and others just got flushed down the toilet: info here
I blame Willis. There wasn't any lawfare-Donny and his cronies were properly indicted and deserved conviction. But, she didn't follow the rules, appointed her bf as special counsel or whatever, and since the process and means matter in American courtrooms, here we are-Donny and his fellow insurrectionists and traitors now get to go free. Screw them.
Uh…. that’s not what happened, and you know it. They were allowed to go forward with the case with a new prosecutor. THEY JUST COULDN’T find one stupid enough to bring the case that had no chance of reaching a conviction. As I’ve mentioned earlier, when Trump wanted the officials to ‘find Xthousand votes’ he realistically believed those votes EXISTED! Whether YOU believed they existed, or even IF they existed, is IRRELEVANT. I believe Trump truly thought he won, and wanted the officials to find the legally cast votes to prove it. NO PROSECUTOR OTHER THAN SLEAZY Willis felt there was enough evidence to convict Trump, hence, NO TRIAL! Not all ‘lawfare’ prosecutions are successful.
Donny's "realistic" belief in thousands of votes out there to be found was, at best, a reckless disregard for the truth, perhaps a delusion, or a criminal attempt to engage in vote fraud to illegally stay in power. A truth belief in a wrong facts does not absolve someone of their crimes. Screw him and his co-conspirators. And what is this "lawfare" of which you speak? Please define. |
|
| fleaswatter Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 5
Posts: 1755 | THIS is what I voted for. 😆 |
|
| SOOPOO Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 5746 | Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: fleaswatter Fanny Willis' lawfare case against President Trump and others just got flushed down the toilet: info here
I blame Willis. There wasn't any lawfare-Donny and his cronies were properly indicted and deserved conviction. But, she didn't follow the rules, appointed her bf as special counsel or whatever, and since the process and means matter in American courtrooms, here we are-Donny and his fellow insurrectionists and traitors now get to go free. Screw them.
Uh…. that’s not what happened, and you know it. They were allowed to go forward with the case with a new prosecutor. THEY JUST COULDN’T find one stupid enough to bring the case that had no chance of reaching a conviction. As I’ve mentioned earlier, when Trump wanted the officials to ‘find Xthousand votes’ he realistically believed those votes EXISTED! Whether YOU believed they existed, or even IF they existed, is IRRELEVANT. I believe Trump truly thought he won, and wanted the officials to find the legally cast votes to prove it. NO PROSECUTOR OTHER THAN SLEAZY Willis felt there was enough evidence to convict Trump, hence, NO TRIAL! Not all ‘lawfare’ prosecutions are successful.
Donny's "realistic" belief in thousands of votes out there to be found was, at best, a reckless disregard for the truth, perhaps a delusion, or a criminal attempt to engage in vote fraud to illegally stay in power. A truth belief in a wrong facts does not absolve someone of their crimes. Screw him and his co-conspirators. And what is this "lawfare" of which you speak? Please define.
Funny you should ask about ‘lawfare’. It’s a somewhat nebulous term. But I use it to mean a prosecution that would not have happened without political motives. As I just clearly outlined, there are many different interpretations to Trump’s ‘find me X votes’ that there is NO WAY you can get over the bar of reasonable doubt to convict him. So any prosecution is CLEARLY ‘lawfare’. I’d say the prosecution of Letitia James is another example. I believe she is guilty of the crime she is accused of, but is only being prosecuted because of political reasons. Think 100 guys jaywalking but ONLY Trump is cited. Look at Flea’s post right above this one if you want more examples of Lawfare. Trump is not shy to use it. |
|
| GenoDRPh Member since: Aug 24, 2023
Threads: 5
Posts: 2834 | Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: fleaswatter Fanny Willis' lawfare case against President Trump and others just got flushed down the toilet: info here
I blame Willis. There wasn't any lawfare-Donny and his cronies were properly indicted and deserved conviction. But, she didn't follow the rules, appointed her bf as special counsel or whatever, and since the process and means matter in American courtrooms, here we are-Donny and his fellow insurrectionists and traitors now get to go free. Screw them.
Uh…. that’s not what happened, and you know it. They were allowed to go forward with the case with a new prosecutor. THEY JUST COULDN’T find one stupid enough to bring the case that had no chance of reaching a conviction. As I’ve mentioned earlier, when Trump wanted the officials to ‘find Xthousand votes’ he realistically believed those votes EXISTED! Whether YOU believed they existed, or even IF they existed, is IRRELEVANT. I believe Trump truly thought he won, and wanted the officials to find the legally cast votes to prove it. NO PROSECUTOR OTHER THAN SLEAZY Willis felt there was enough evidence to convict Trump, hence, NO TRIAL! Not all ‘lawfare’ prosecutions are successful.
Donny's "realistic" belief in thousands of votes out there to be found was, at best, a reckless disregard for the truth, perhaps a delusion, or a criminal attempt to engage in vote fraud to illegally stay in power. A truth belief in a wrong facts does not absolve someone of their crimes. Screw him and his co-conspirators. And what is this "lawfare" of which you speak? Please define.
Funny you should ask about ‘lawfare’. It’s a somewhat nebulous term. But I use it to mean a prosecution that would not have happened without political motives. As I just clearly outlined, there are many different interpretations to Trump’s ‘find me X votes’ that there is NO WAY you can get over the bar of reasonable doubt to convict him. So any prosecution is CLEARLY ‘lawfare’. I’d say the prosecution of Letitia James is another example. I believe she is guilty of the crime she is accused of, but is only being prosecuted because of political reasons. Think 100 guys jaywalking but ONLY Trump is cited. Look at Flea’s post right above this one if you want more examples of Lawfare. Trump is not shy to use it.
If she handled it right, Fani Willis would;ve cleaned Donny's clock with the "I just want to find 11,780 votes" quote. A self-snitch if there ever was one. A reckless disregard for the truth and an attempt to illegally stay in power by overturning the results of an election properly conducted by GA. Because she screwed it up, here we are. Prosecutorial discretion isn't lawfare. Otherwise nobody would ever be prosecuted, or everyone would be. |
|
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 217
Posts: 22939 | It would be the weight of other evidence that can make a statement like that damning for a jury or clear Trump. It seems like people calling it "lawfare" are missing that possibility. For instance, Trump's chief of staff was indicted in that case. We'll never know what he might have said under pressure. "Trumpsplain (def.) explaining absolute nonsense said by TRUMP. |
|
| GenoDRPh Member since: Aug 24, 2023
Threads: 5
Posts: 2834 | Quote: rxwine It would be the weight of other evidence that can make a statement like that damning for a jury or clear Trump.
It seems like people calling it "lawfare" are missing that possibility.
For instance, Trump's chief of staff was indicted in that case. We'll never know what he might have said under pressure.
We know that Sidney Powell, Kenneth Cheseboro and Jenna Ellis took plea deals. If Donny went to trial, they would be singing like canaries. One more, and they'd have a barber shop quartet! |
|
| SOOPOO Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 5746 | Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: fleaswatter Fanny Willis' lawfare case against President Trump and others just got flushed down the toilet: info here
I blame Willis. There wasn't any lawfare-Donny and his cronies were properly indicted and deserved conviction. But, she didn't follow the rules, appointed her bf as special counsel or whatever, and since the process and means matter in American courtrooms, here we are-Donny and his fellow insurrectionists and traitors now get to go free. Screw them.
Uh…. that’s not what happened, and you know it. They were allowed to go forward with the case with a new prosecutor. THEY JUST COULDN’T find one stupid enough to bring the case that had no chance of reaching a conviction. As I’ve mentioned earlier, when Trump wanted the officials to ‘find Xthousand votes’ he realistically believed those votes EXISTED! Whether YOU believed they existed, or even IF they existed, is IRRELEVANT. I believe Trump truly thought he won, and wanted the officials to find the legally cast votes to prove it. NO PROSECUTOR OTHER THAN SLEAZY Willis felt there was enough evidence to convict Trump, hence, NO TRIAL! Not all ‘lawfare’ prosecutions are successful.
Donny's "realistic" belief in thousands of votes out there to be found was, at best, a reckless disregard for the truth, perhaps a delusion, or a criminal attempt to engage in vote fraud to illegally stay in power. A truth belief in a wrong facts does not absolve someone of their crimes. Screw him and his co-conspirators. And what is this "lawfare" of which you speak? Please define.
Funny you should ask about ‘lawfare’. It’s a somewhat nebulous term. But I use it to mean a prosecution that would not have happened without political motives. As I just clearly outlined, there are many different interpretations to Trump’s ‘find me X votes’ that there is NO WAY you can get over the bar of reasonable doubt to convict him. So any prosecution is CLEARLY ‘lawfare’. I’d say the prosecution of Letitia James is another example. I believe she is guilty of the crime she is accused of, but is only being prosecuted because of political reasons. Think 100 guys jaywalking but ONLY Trump is cited. Look at Flea’s post right above this one if you want more examples of Lawfare. Trump is not shy to use it.
If she handled it right, Fani Willis would;ve cleaned Donny's clock with the "I just want to find 11,780 votes" quote. A self-snitch if there ever was one. A reckless disregard for the truth and an attempt to illegally stay in power by overturning the results of an election properly conducted by GA. Because she screwed it up, here we are. Prosecutorial discretion isn't lawfare. Otherwise nobody would ever be prosecuted, or everyone would be.
Geno is a moron. If Trump said ‘make up 11,780 votes’ that would be one thing. He wanted votes that he believed were cast to be found. If I didn’t think something existed, I’d ask you to MAKE THEM UP, not FIND something. You can only FIND something that exists. Geno does not understand that a REASONABLE person could infer Trump actually thought he had enough votes. Heck, he’s said that about most of the states he lost. Being delusional is not a crime. Being wrong is not a crime. I’ll change my tune if you can find ONE piece of evidence that Trump instructed someone to MAKE UP votes that weren’t cast. I won’t hold my breath. |
|
| GenoDRPh Member since: Aug 24, 2023
Threads: 5
Posts: 2834 | Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: SOOPOO Quote: GenoDRPh Quote: fleaswatter Fanny Willis' lawfare case against President Trump and others just got flushed down the toilet: info here
I blame Willis. There wasn't any lawfare-Donny and his cronies were properly indicted and deserved conviction. But, she didn't follow the rules, appointed her bf as special counsel or whatever, and since the process and means matter in American courtrooms, here we are-Donny and his fellow insurrectionists and traitors now get to go free. Screw them.
Uh…. that’s not what happened, and you know it. They were allowed to go forward with the case with a new prosecutor. THEY JUST COULDN’T find one stupid enough to bring the case that had no chance of reaching a conviction. As I’ve mentioned earlier, when Trump wanted the officials to ‘find Xthousand votes’ he realistically believed those votes EXISTED! Whether YOU believed they existed, or even IF they existed, is IRRELEVANT. I believe Trump truly thought he won, and wanted the officials to find the legally cast votes to prove it. NO PROSECUTOR OTHER THAN SLEAZY Willis felt there was enough evidence to convict Trump, hence, NO TRIAL! Not all ‘lawfare’ prosecutions are successful.
Donny's "realistic" belief in thousands of votes out there to be found was, at best, a reckless disregard for the truth, perhaps a delusion, or a criminal attempt to engage in vote fraud to illegally stay in power. A truth belief in a wrong facts does not absolve someone of their crimes. Screw him and his co-conspirators. And what is this "lawfare" of which you speak? Please define.
Funny you should ask about ‘lawfare’. It’s a somewhat nebulous term. But I use it to mean a prosecution that would not have happened without political motives. As I just clearly outlined, there are many different interpretations to Trump’s ‘find me X votes’ that there is NO WAY you can get over the bar of reasonable doubt to convict him. So any prosecution is CLEARLY ‘lawfare’. I’d say the prosecution of Letitia James is another example. I believe she is guilty of the crime she is accused of, but is only being prosecuted because of political reasons. Think 100 guys jaywalking but ONLY Trump is cited. Look at Flea’s post right above this one if you want more examples of Lawfare. Trump is not shy to use it.
If she handled it right, Fani Willis would;ve cleaned Donny's clock with the "I just want to find 11,780 votes" quote. A self-snitch if there ever was one. A reckless disregard for the truth and an attempt to illegally stay in power by overturning the results of an election properly conducted by GA. Because she screwed it up, here we are. Prosecutorial discretion isn't lawfare. Otherwise nobody would ever be prosecuted, or everyone would be.
Geno is a moron. If Trump said ‘make up 11,780 votes’ that would be one thing. He wanted votes that he believed were cast to be found. If I didn’t think something existed, I’d ask you to MAKE THEM UP, not FIND something. You can only FIND something that exists. Geno does not understand that a REASONABLE person could infer Trump actually thought he had enough votes. Heck, he’s said that about most of the states he lost. Being delusional is not a crime. Being wrong is not a crime. I’ll change my tune if you can find ONE piece of evidence that Trump instructed someone to MAKE UP votes that weren’t cast. I won’t hold my breath.
He had no reason to believe there were any uncounted votes let alone Xthousand or whatever he said. His statements were an attempt to change valid election results. Being delusional is not a crime. Committing a crime based on delusions is. COmmitting a crime bad faith belief is a crime. And election fraud is a crime. Why do you continue to support his attempts at election fraud? WHy do you believe in the election fraud lies? If I'm a moron, you get the seat wearing a dunce cap right next to me, amigo. |
|
| rxwine Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 217
Posts: 22939 | Who can explain how ordering 500 more guard to Washington DC prevents a shooting where two guardsmen getting surprised and shot on the street by someone obviously willing to die to do so. Trump, stupid as ever. Why, it's almost like he's using every excuse to call military power into use. (tinpot dictator) "Trumpsplain (def.) explaining absolute nonsense said by TRUMP. |
|
| SOOPOO Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 5746 | Quote: rxwine Who can explain how ordering 500 more guard to Washington DC prevents a shooting where two guardsmen getting surprised and shot on the street by someone obviously willing to die to do so.
Trump, stupid as ever.
Why, it's almost like he's using every excuse to call military power into use. (tinpot dictator)
Of course the show of force cannot stop this type of targeted assassination from someone who hates our country. But it certainly can help in deterring ‘regular’ criminals. This case will probably end up being complicated. We have a duty to help those who helped us in shitholes like Afghanistan, and would be at risk once we abandoned them. But the vetting process must be more rigorous than it’s been. I’m not sure how we accomplish both. |
