You raise a good point. While people like to talk about corrupt politicians, there is the issue of the corrupt voter too. Voters keep putting these same corrupt politicians in office.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
I have said this before but as much as Trump would like to believe its all about him, he is just another symptom of a bigger disease that is killing this country, I call it "the rules dont apply to me" disease and its obvious Trump has it, he believes he can do whatever he wants and expects to get away with it.
Biden is doing that very same thing now, and especially since he took office as Obama's VP.
Right now it appears that voters will be forced to choose between two bad candidates in 2024. Many are low info voters who rely on Facebook or other online media to get their "news". The mainstream media is so biased that there are no readily available sources for factual information. This upcoming election is going to be a mess. We shouldn't be surprised if a 3rd party candidate emerges in the near future.
Being a presidential candidate confers no special rights or privileges regarding criminal court. Numerous men running large organizations have been in court, and they get no special consideration because they are important or really busy. If being a presidential candidate did confer special consideration, every common criminal arrested would declare his candidacy to obtain those advantages.
I'm busy. I'm important. This is costly. This is inconvenient. This is embarrassing. While these may all be true of Trump, none of them are legitimate excuses to be exempted from or treated special in the legal process.
Judge Cannon tried to give him special consideration because of the special status Trump claimed. She was harshly rebuked by the court of appeals and her ruling was reversed.
Trump recently called, via Truth Social, for the Supreme Court to intervene on his behalf and give him the special status he seeks. But the funny thing is, he is not actually asking the Supreme Court to do this. He can file a motion at any time. Why does he not do so? I think it is because he already knows the Supreme Court will stop that nonsense. But it's politically helpful to him to cry like a baby about it as long and loud as he can. So that's what he does.
Last edited:
Do you understand that the DOJ exists for the sole purpose of enforcing OUR laws? Does not matter which party you belong to, do the crime, do the time!!!
That’s why it should go to the Supreme Court.
Also, comparing a business owner of a company with the leading candidate of the opposition party who is being targeted by the current regimes full arsenal of resources and coordinating with partisan local entities( and giving them resources) to try to destroy him are
TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
On that, you and I agree. How do we get Trump to actually ask the Supreme Court to take this up? Nothing stops him from submitting the paperwork. Why does he not move on this, even as he says he wants this?
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
Well you did elect biden.....we don't want him a second term.
You need to add in every Democrat ever.
When the Biden regime’s DOJ and FBI go out of their way to bury crimes committed by Hunter and Joe and concoct untested legal theories and dust off 150 year old rarely used laws that don’t even fit or apply by try to get Trump, then that’s just a cute little clown slogan.
Another Loss for Trump in Court
"A federal judge on Thursday decided to give the Manhattan District Attorney exactly what he wants: a video copy of former President Donald Trump’s damning testimony in an unrelated rape and defamation case that was decided earlier this year." (Source)
I'm not sure why Bragg wants this video. I am sure Trump did not want him to have it. He sent his attorneys to court to try to keep the tape out of Bragg's hands. They lost. The judge ruled Bragg gets the tape.
"A federal judge on Thursday decided to give the Manhattan District Attorney exactly what he wants: a video copy of former President Donald Trump’s damning testimony in an unrelated rape and defamation case that was decided earlier this year." (Source)
I'm not sure why Bragg wants this video. I am sure Trump did not want him to have it. He sent his attorneys to court to try to keep the tape out of Bragg's hands. They lost. The judge ruled Bragg gets the tape.
Last edited:
I didnt vote for Biden and there are plenty on both sides of the political spectrum.
Here's a great point from Jonathan Turley about the not-so-unintended consequences of all these Biden DOJ indictments:
"It would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections."
"It would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections."
Last edited:
There are two fatal flaws in Trump's free-speech defense.
1. The right to free speech is not absolute. While you can tell as many lies in public as you wish, you cannot use speech to commit crimes. Example, if I tell you I'm raising money to help buy Thanksgiving dinners for people in need and you give me money for that purpose, and if I then pocket the money and spend it on myself, it is speech. But it is also fraud, and I am not exempt from prosecution for fraud because I used speech to lie for the purpose of tricking you out of your money.
2. It is off point. Nothing in the indictment charges Trump with a speech violation. His free speech is not an issue here. Even if he was fully convicted on all counts, Trump would remain free then, as he is now, to say whatever he wishes. He is not, however, and he has never been free to commit crimes. The Washington Post puts it succinctly:
"Trump is not being prosecuted for his repeated lies about a stolen election. He is being prosecuted for the efforts he made, the actions he took to operationalize that contention and prevent the clear will of the voters from being realized, or what the indictment calls 'unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.'”
Even more succinctly, Trump is not being prosecuted for what he said. Trump is being prosecuted for the illegal acts he did.
Trump's spokespeople are all over the news hollering about free speech and the MAGA base is following that lead. That's fine. They are free to say whatever they wish. But if they want to criticize the indictment, they are shooting at the wrong target.
Related: There is reason to believe Trump used false statements to raise money for his various political committees and PACs. That's called fraud; more specifically, wire fraud. No charges of wire fraud have yet been leveled, but it would not surprise me a bit to see Trump and/or his surrogates charged with wire fraud soon. A grand jury is known to be investigating this.
Pattern of Behavior: Making false statements in furtherance of a crime seems to come quite naturally to Trump. From Google Bard:
- Trump University: In 2016, Trump University was forced to settle a class-action lawsuit for $25 million after being accused of defrauding students by making false promises about the educational value of its courses.
- Trump Foundation: In 2018, the Trump Foundation was dissolved after being accused of using its charitable funds for personal and political purposes. The New York Attorney General's office filed a lawsuit against the foundation, alleging that it had engaged in "persistent illegality" and "a pattern of self-dealing."
- Trump Organization: The Trump Organization is currently under investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney's office for possible financial fraud. The investigation is focused on whether the Trump Organization inflated the value of its assets in order to obtain loans and other financial benefits.
- Trump Taj Mahal: In 1991, Trump Taj Mahal was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for making false and misleading statements to investors about the casino's financial condition. The SEC alleged that Trump and his associates had inflated the casino's revenues and understated its debts in order to attract investors. Trump settled the case without admitting or denying wrongdoing.
- Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts: In 2004, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts was sued by the SEC for making false and misleading statements to investors about the company's financial condition. The SEC alleged that Trump and his associates had overstated the company's revenues and understated its debts in order to attract investors. Trump settled the case without admitting or denying wrongdoing.
- Trump SoHo: In 2016, Trump SoHo was sued by a group of investors who alleged that they had been defrauded by the project's developers. The investors alleged that the developers had misrepresented the project's financial prospects and failed to disclose material information about the project's risks. The case is still pending.
- Trump International Hotel and Tower Chicago: In 2017, a group of investors filed a lawsuit against Trump International Hotel and Tower Chicago, alleging that they had been defrauded by the project's developers. The investors alleged that the developers had misrepresented the project's financial prospects and failed to disclose material information about the project's risks. The case is still pending.
Last edited:
Read the indictment - it's linked in the article. In spite of what the WaPo opinion may say, Turley knows what he's talking about, and he's right.
I have read the indictment (skimming the highly detailed parts of it). I posted a link to it here in this thread soon after it became available. The indictment anticipated Trump's free speech defense and effectively neutralized it.
Pertinent excerpts are below (emphasis mine). Notice how the indictment itself carefully upholds Trump's free speech rights while also highlighting his illegal acts.
From the Indictment Page 2
3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the
election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the
election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election
through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote
in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the
Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the
outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.
4. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of
discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. In so doing, the Defendant
perpetrated three criminal conspiracies: ...
-----------------------------
In addition to the indictment, I also read the Turley piece to which you provided a link. Contrary to what you said, Turley is not right. He is wrong. He is wrong because he blurs the distinction between words and deeds that the indictment makes clear. While he cites a number of cases in support of his view, they are off point because he blurs the distinction.
If there is anything valid in Turley's view, we can be sure Trump's attorney's will press his points in court. While they may do that very thing, I don't think the points will hold up in the judge's view or on appeal. We'll learn more about all of this as the case proceeds.
Last edited:
Here is the full transcript of the phone call.
It’s clear in the whole conversation that Trump didn’t want illegal votes counted.
It’s clear in the whole conversation that Trump didn’t want illegal votes counted.
A different slate of electors were used in the 1960 Hawaii presidential election and sent by Dems after the election results were certified .When they sent their “duly and legally appointed and qualified” electors they didn’t even used the term “alternate electors”. But in essence they were because the Republican slate of electors were the only ones legally submitted by the deadline.
thefederalist.com
en.wikipedia.org
The Left's 2020 ‘Fake Electors’ Narrative Is Fake News
The 2020 Georgia situation mirrors events of 60 years ago in Hawaii, revealing everything the media have said about 'fake electors' is wrong.
thefederalist.com
1960 United States presidential election in Hawaii - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Once again, you raise a single point that exists among many and unconvincingly argue that your point alone should carry the day. Also, there were few if any illegal votes to be counted.
Smith has Trump cold. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear and we have not even seen the trump-card evidence (pun intended) he will reveal later. Trump is going to lose this case.