Below is my column in The Messenger on the celebrations after the fourth indictment of former president Donald Trump — and the dismissal of any concerns over the implications of these prosecutions for free speech. Some Democrats are warning that they need to avoid the public displays of joy. The danger is that Democrats just might conga their way into another 2016 backlash against the establishment.
Here is the column:
The great novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that “there is something awe-inspiring in one who has lost all inhibitions.” Fitzgerald’s observation came back to me in watching the media coverage of the latest Trump indictment. As I myself covered the indictment as a legal analyst for Fox, I once again felt a certain longing for the abandon shown by some of my counterparts who dismissed any concern over what are now roughly 100 criminal charges against former President Donald Trump in four different indictments. It was like watching a party through a window that you could not join.
I cannot say that I have ever been much of a party animal. However, there are times when being a legal analyst is like being the designated driver at a rave party. Everyone seems to have lampshades on their heads as you furiously google-map the safest route home.
At MSNBC, host Rachel Maddow interviewed Hillary Clinton in a segment that began with the two liberal figures laughing joyfully. Clinton then regained her composure and solemnly declared her “profound sadness” at this moment. The scene captured the dilemma for press and pundits in attempting to control emotions that seemed at times like the open ecstasy of a thrill kill.
Former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki had earlier pushed book clubs to adopt the indictments for collective reading, and others had suggested that families should read “every word” so as not to miss even a syllable of satisfaction. Nothing allows a Democratic child to sleep more contently at night than the predicate offenses to a Trump racketeering charge.
Former Democratic Senator and MSNBC contributor Claire McCaskill (who previously warned everyone to “back off” Hunter Biden) was in open rapture. She proclaimed “the good news is we finally have Rudy Giuliani indicted. Whoo-hoo! That makes me very happy.”
For her part, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell took a moment to celebrate a “strong black woman standing up to Donald Trump,” adding a race element to the celebratory charging moment.
The celebration got to the point that a leading democratic adviser suggested others should tamp down the public displays.
It did little good. If you watched the last few days of cable programming, you would think that Porn Hub was about to introduce a new fetish category for “Trump Indictments.”
These “Whoo-hoo” moments are not shared by many who fear that these indictments are criminalizing political speech and chilling future challenges to elections. For many, it is hard to get to beyond the name on the caption to consider the downstream implications of these sweeping indictments.
It’s not hard to see the implications: Many of the over 160 individual acts described in the Georgia indictment are political speech ranging from actual speeches to tweets to telephone calls. Some of these crimes could as easily apply to Democrats in past challenges.
Hillary Clinton maintained for years that the 2016 election was stolen by Donald Trump who was an illegitimate president. Her campaign hid the funding of the infamous Steele Dossier and lied to media in denying the funding. It then pushed false claims of Russian collusion.
Stacey Abrams in Georgia refused to concede the election and alleged widespread voter suppression and election irregularities.
Clinton’s former general counsel, Marc Elias, challenged an election in New York on the basis for voting machines changing votes. Sound familiar?
In January 2005, then-Sen. Barbara Boxer joined former Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones to challenge George W. Bush’s victory over Democratic challenger John Kerry in the state of Ohio. Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised Boxer’s challenge as “witnessing Democracy at work … fundamental to our democracy.”
House Jan. 6 Committee chairman, Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), supported the challenge to the certification of the 2004 election results. His fellow committee member, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016.
In both the indictments by Special Counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, the prosecutors simply declare that Trump and his team knew that there was no voting fraud and therefore can be jailed for contesting the election of Joe Biden. No one suggested that the challenges in 2004 and 2016 had merit, but they were celebrated not prosecuted.
As politicians and pundits conga-line around this story, there is little concern over the growing anger and divisions in the country. A recent poll shows the country divided in half on the charges. Among the 53 percent favoring the charges are 85% of Democrats. Less than half of independents and only 16% of Republicans favor the charges. Other polls show 55 percent of the public viewed the earlier indictments as “politically motivated.”
The indictment (let alone the quadruple indictment) of the leading candidate for the presidency should not occur on novel or attenuated claims. That is what is happening in Atlanta, New York, and Washington. (I have previously written that the documents prosecution in Florida is a much stronger case.) As someone who criticized Trump on his election claims as well as his Jan. 6 speech, I find many of these allegations to be legitimately disturbing and deplorable. Yet, that does not justify the criminalization of the claims. It does not excuse the cost to the Constitution or the country in pursuing these cases.
Many pundits are fully aware of the impact these cases (and the public celebrations) are likely to have on the Republican base. They hope that it will secure the nomination for Trump, thereby securing an easy opponent for the general election. Yet, they are also playing a dangerous political game if they overplay (or over-celebrate) this moment.
Trump was swept into power on an anti-establishment movement that took Washington by surprise. The establishment has now given Trump an even greater appeal as a statement of defiance, particularly if Democratic prosecutors seek to jail him. It is the same feeling that I wrote about before the 2016 election. A significant number of those who oppose the indictments in polling are also expressing opposition to Trump as a candidate. That can easily change if the 2024 election becomes another vote against the establishment as opposed to a vote for Donald Trump.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
You need to do a little reading fella.
Go read Comey’s (FBI Director and NOT an “independent IG”) public comments after the FBI completed their investigation when he announced that there would be no charges. That was during Obama’s tenure.
Now after reading that you can ask yourself “did they simply not have enough to implicate?” He did NOT say that at all. In fact, he spoke about carelessness and poor judgement…questions that could be asked about ANY crime but are irrelevant in terms of prosecution. The direct issues of improper use and storage of government documents along with the intentional destruction of evidence were never seriously addressed despite Comey admitting those events happened.
So, at some point YOU have to ask yourself how YOU came up with such a conclusion and what was YOUR motivation?
@Bill,
The above comment is directed to your prior reply.
What roll did the Courts play in the 2020 election results? That was and is my continued question. Were they active in closing any forensic examination of registrations of voters, ballots authentication, paper tabulating machines, electronic voting machine tabulators and software by others. There were lawsuits including at the Supreme Court, in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, North Carolina and New Mexico.
The majority of the lawsuits against the results were denied, the limited Wisconsin favorable ruling being an anomaly. The Supreme Court stood weak kneed refusing to hear or act to quell the concerns of possible fraud. Regarding the Georgia election, there was actual closed-circuit video of election worker taking suitcase of ballots after closing hours to the tabulators; could these tabulators have been forensically examined on date or time standards? This is just one example of a glaring instance of possible fraud. Elections have now divided the country and raised distrust in election results.
George W,
The suitcase story was fake, and the indictment alleges it was a part of the Trump team’s scheme: https://www.ajc.com/politics/smoking-gun-video-now-evidence-against-trump/J6ORVROLMRBPZHK2DYALIZJ624/
Giuliani unveiled the video on Dec. 3, 2020. Giuliani called the video a “powerful smoking gun” and proclaimed there was “more than ample evidence to conclude that this election was a sham.”
But none of it was true.
Investigators with the FBI, the GBI and the secretary of state’s office watched all 14 hours of surveillance video — not just the snippets Giuliani played. They also interviewed election workers and the Republican observers. They concluded nothing improper happened.
The investigators found the “suitcases” were official ballot containers. They weren’t placed under the table in secret, but with the observers and the news media present.
Most importantly, Giuliani recently acknowledged that the suitcase story was fabricated. In a defamation lawsuit brought by the two election workers, Giuliani recently said he does not contest the plaintiffs’ claim that he made false statements about them.
PLEASE, start getting your news from more reputable sources. And maybe actually read the indictment.
“PLEASE, start getting your news from more reputable sources. And maybe actually read the indictment.”
You mean like NBC news, who claimed that Texas makes their electricity with crude oil?
OK Smeagol, you can cover your eyes back now. Good boy!
Investigators with the FBI, the GBI and the secretary of state’s office watched all 14 hours of surveillance video
The women gymnasts have a strong opinion about the quality of FBI investigations, and the State investigating the State, is the fox protecting the hen house.
That’s what corruption looks like.
By crack’y yu’ve made a point, your counter was to inflate the issue by adding Giuliani to the equation. I asked a specific question, were the tabulators examined for verification. It seemed strange that the two parties counting ballots were the only workers present at the time, all the rest had been released for the day, unless you have other documentation supporting that conclusion. Mr. Giuliani made specific accusations of fraudulent actions thus his plea, but that in itself does not assure that the ballots were legitimate.
“The suitcase story was fake.”
Apropos of nothing. The person you responded to didn’t mention a suitcase.
This has gone beyond a clown show, Constitutionally speaking. I really, really think it may be time we started asking hard questions of blue voters. To delight in this sh** show is pretty much to abandon higher brain function in a free U.S. This goes back to the voters and their mentality. Stop thinking we are in good enough shape. We are NOT. WAKE UP.
This type of stuff is what the Deep State/CIA/State Dept/UN/Administrative State/American Hating Globalist Banking Trash does not what normal US people seeing of Americans of different races & religions getting along & agreeing.
They want you to keep setting on your arses & comply with taking the next round of Bio-Chem Weapons Main Line Shots. All they need this next again is your Blind, Obedient Constant & then they can forever destroy your family’s DNA.
Last time Billions complied with the Govt/Med Lunatics & now Billions are Injured & Dying from those Injections. Maybe your families don’t getting the Saline Lot Jabs this time. Feeling Lucky this time? LOL;)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/watch-people-all-different-backgrounds-react-emotionally-impact/
*******
I’ll likely be posting the below link again, but people should see/consider what this one Doc of 1000’s of other Docs are claiming W/cites.
Dr Judy Mikovits:
http://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=64dbf6d44258a36c0b6a3fde
A term that President Reagan used to describe his past beliefs may be appropriate in characterizing the swaddled media of today: Hemophilic Liberals.
The media of 2023 bows to the Lord of the Manor (The Party) and is bound (required) to contribute Frankpledge. Those wandering or not tithing are reported to the Shire. The Shire (The Party) reviews their pledges and oaths (towing the party line) an awards them accordingly. The Medias Frankpledge is dispersed to the serfs and tenets for consumption. Those not interested in the consumables’ can face a trial in the court leet as heretics. The Court of Leet has now surpassed the authority of United States Supreme Court that’s surrendered the interpretation of law to media option.
As Robert Barnes claims, that I agree with on this, if the Supreme Courts wishes to remain relevant they are now forced to shut down this latest Insult/Fraud/Lawfare against the US Citizens/US & Trump asap.
*****
btw, is everyone ready for another round of a Bio-Chem Gene-Of Function Weapon being released for full lock-down again?
Let’s stop their Democide, (Geneocide), right now, spread the links.
*******
Featured
Emergency Broadcast: Federal Officials Raise Alarm That Biden Admin Reimplementing Covid Restrictions Mid-September! Alex Jones Breaks EXCLUSIVE Intel! Tune In!
The Alex Jones Show
August 18th 2023, 10:40 am
https://www.infowars.com/posts/get-ready-world-premiere-of-new-alex-jones-show-starts-friday/
******
A fresh link will show up here on the link below within about an hour. Ck out the Maui articles this week from these news sources.
http://madmaxworld.tv/
I am surprised you are so anti the Georgia indictment as a whole; the phone call is at least something on which a jury could decide what it felt, and I, for one, having both listened to it on January 5 and read the transcript think that you are falling over backwards to find that it might be “innocent.” I believe Pelosi left that out of the January 6 related impeachment because she did not want to risk Trump’s actually being convicted — which would have removed him from consideration in 2024. Of course, the cowardice of my party’s (Republican Party’s) members in the US Senate insured that conviction would not happen.
The grand jury didn’t decide crap!!!
The county indictment was filed about 8 hours before the Grand Jury came back with a claimed indictment!
Does it actually matter how this indictiment for legal acts took place ?
I was surprised to learn from Derschowitz recently that the courts previously RULED that alternate slates of electors is a constititional means to challenge an election – and that is Exactly what Tribe told Hillary to do. that it has occured before.
All the GA and DC indictments prove is that democrats will abuse law enforcement powers for political purposes
And that is NOT news.
What we are seeing is Democrats doing what Nixon WISHED he could do.
Of course, the cowardice of my party’s (Democrat Party’s) members in the US Senate insured that conviction of Bill Clinton would not happen.
Why anti the GA indictment ? Because there must be a CRIME.
A phone call that is not speech that is in that very narrow catagory of unprotected speech is NOT EVER a crime.
If Trump excercised actual govenrment power over Raffensberger AND he asked for something that is outside of legitimat govenrment powers – that would be a crime.
But Raffensberger is a State employee and not answerable to the president and the request was for something inside Raffensbergers legitimate powers. That is TWO separate points in which the call is NOT a crime.
You can not like the phone call. You can think it is wrong, or immoral or unethical.
But that does not change the FACT that it is not a crime. It is first amendment protected speech.
The breadth to which political speech in particular is and MUST be protected is enormous.
To be a Crime – Trump would have had to have attempted to bribe raffensbergber or delivered a credible criminal threat.
Being angry is not enough.
I am annoyed with Turley and other pundits who keep claiming the prosecution must prove Trump was lying about the election.
That is not even CLOSE to enough. Frankly it is irrelevant whether Trump was lying or not – though Turley and others are correct you are never proving Trump was lying.
You can beleive you lost an election and STILL LEGALLY call up the sec state and demand that they find enough votes to flip the election. . To be a crime you must either:
Offer a bribe,
Deliver a criminal threat,
Deliver a threat to use the power of your office illegitimately over someone subordinate to you without a legitimate government purpose.
Ask that the other party commit a crime.
I would note that even the last is NOT ordinarily sufficient. If you conspire with others to commit a crime, but on your own chose not to go ahead, there is no crime.
A criminal conspiracy requires:
prior agreement AND the commission of a criminal act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
There is no such thing as a conspiracy to commit a crime – if what was conspired is not a crime or if nothing was ever done to go forward with the crime.
There is good reasons for all of this – We make it very deliberately hard to commit a crime SOLELY through speech.
Especially political speech.
All of these indictments are complete garbage.
Further they are a desparate and stupid move.
Those on the left seem to forget that turnabout is fair play.
It would be incredibly unwise for the left to set a precident here.
It is also incredibly stupid to push a massively expansive interpretation fo the law and then hope that some appellate court will stop your madness.
Smith has been caught repeatedly lying – in court documents. Lies far more consequential than claims that a very dirty election was rigged. Byu Smith’s own legal theory he can be prosecuted by the next administration.
As can the DA in GA.
If you think that any of Trump’s remarks are unprotected criminal speech – then YOU are the serious danger.
As Derschowitz recently noted – his efforts, and those of other leading democrat attorney’s in challenging the 2000 BushvGore election would be a criminal conspiracy based on these indictments.
In your rush to “get Trump” are you prepared to jail every democrat past, present and future that claims their election was stolen ?
Further if you are going to criminalize lies that attempt to alter an election -why isn’t Joe Biden in Jail ?
AS Jake Tapper has finally admitted – in the Debate Joe Biden LIED to the american people to win an election and Donald Trump was telling the Truth. And YOU and the Press protected him – so YOU are complicit in that lie.
Further Unlike Trump – Joe Biden KNEW he was lying.
Which is more serious – Telling hundreds of millions of voters you are NOT bent and that those spreading the TRUTH that you are are lying – in order to win an election ?
Or challenging an election that your opponent won only through a long list of lies, conspiracies, unethical an illegal conduct ?
Or is your position that it is OK to Lie to the entire country to win an election.
But NOT ok to try to overturn a crooked election ?
The phone call is non-criminal as a matter of law. Asking the government for a redress of grievances is a fundamental right. It’s right there in the First Amendment.
I find the fact that this DA Fanni Willis lauched a national fundraising appeal for any future campaigns she is planning, simultaneously to indicting Trump and 18 others – for made up crimes – to be almost unbelievable. The ethics of doing that – indicting and then fundrasing off of it (monetizing the indictment!), is so low you cannot go lower that that. The indictment standing alone is slimy politics at it’s worst, fundraising off the indictment set’s almost a new standard for slimy behavior by a politician. Fanni Willis is no hero, she is an irresponsible politician-hack who is mis-using her office, wasting taxpayer dollars, and engaging in the worst sort of gutter politics . Yet Andre Mitchell notices none of this, she just points out that Fanni Willis is a “strong women”. There is nothng laudable about an irresponsible elected DA indicting for political reasons – to get attention – and to raise funds – and to interfere with an election. There is no merrit whatsoever to these indictments, Willis is charging 19 people with pretend “made up crimes”. Legal commentators like Professor Turley or McCarthy who appears on Fox News a lot – I like both these commentarors quite a bit – give more credance to these indictments of Trump than deserved, I think. All of these indictments of Trump are gutter politics at it’s worst, the prosecutors doing the indictments are all slime (Jack Smith, Fanne Willis, Alvin Bragg). I think all three of these prosecutors deserve to be disbarred for thier behavior. Presecutors must have a good faith basis to indict, It would be a good thing for our Democracy that these prosecutors be disbarred, if they were state bar officials would be putting an end to this new “trend” of local prosecutors interfering with elections to get attention, to fundraise, and to interfere with elections.
Upvote — however I’d caution you about making statements such as “… so low you cannot go lower that that,” because in my experience, every time someone says or thinks something like that, the low-goers miraculously break through and find an even lower low somewhere miles beneath the previous bottom of the barrel.
“There is no merit whatsoever to these indictments”
The left doesn’t do merit anymore, it’s what gets them where they are going, the Detroitization of the entire nation.
Democrats castrate their little boys, then groom them for their own, cut the breasts off of little girls, then groom them for their own, decapitate new born babies, then sell their body parts, and kill their elderly so as not to be burdened with their infirmities.
Democrats are a death cult
The anti-establishment movement is alive and well. As soon as a leader with an even keeled temperament emerges to take the helm, it will take off leaving the statists to again wonder what happened.
Ron,
I do hope so.
I gotta say, its why I am liking Ramaswamy more and more…
Tom,
Ah, I was just about to OT comment,
Vivek Ramaswamy Reveals His ’10 Commandments’ For 2024 Presidential Campaign
“1. God is real.
2. There are two genders.
3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels.
4. Reverse racism is racism.
5. An open border is no border.
6. Parents determine the education of their children.
7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind.
8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty.
9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four.
10. The U.S. Constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history.”
As I have stated I am not religious, I am not outside the consideration of a higher being.
The rest, yeah, I agree with him.
I feel the same way. I believe with my entire being that the “god” known as Jehovah is a sick joke. Evangelicals believe that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same, and their bible says that their god is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Jehovah sent “his people” to crush their enemies, killing them all down to their livestock. Jesus said “love your enemies”. Doesnt sound the same to me. Nevertheless, the basic tenants of the Christian faith (not the horsesh!t that lunatic Paul preached) are a great way to live. The world would be a much better place if everyone did.
I think the rest is a winning message.
I feel the same way.
You do Tom? Which way is that? By the way, one of the “basic tenets of the Christian faith” is The Holy Bible is the Inspired and Infallible Word of God. That includes the writings of the apostle Paul. You’re not likely to find the world a better place to live in by attempting to trash the most prolific writer in the New Testament.
Olly
“I feel the same way” was in reference to “I am not outside the consideration of a higher being”.
Instead of decrying my opinion of Paul (who by the way told woman to be subserviant to men and servants should obey their masters (which of those do you subscribe to?), why didn’t you adress my assertion for why the King James version of “God’s word” is horse hockey? Do you know much about the people who cannonized the 66 books and what their criteria was??? Might shed some light on why Paul got the lion’s share of the new testament. The red letters are a great way to live. Paul’s way, not so much, in my opinion. You are welcome to your own.
I am not outside the consideration of a higher being.
Good.
why didn’t you adress my assertion for why the King James version of “God’s word” is horse hockey?
Because you didn’t say that. And you’re welcome to your own opinion.
I didn’t use those exact words, that is true, but it is precisely what I said. Jehovah and Jesus Christ cannot possibly be the same being. And I explained why.
Care to address my other questions?
Do you believe women should be subserviant to men?
Do you believe slaves should obey their masters?
Do you know much about King James and his cannon?
I kknow this gets sticky for modern Evangelicals, but if you are going to make the statement that Paul’s beliefs make the world a better place, you should be willing to back that up. I will grant you that he had his good moments, but infallible? Hardly.
“The Holy Bible is the Inspired and Infallible Word of God”
Spoken like someone who deosn’t know the history of the bible. Might want to do a little open minded research. Warning—-the truth is a little scary to the indoctrinated.
Hint—-why are there 66 books in the KJV? After all, we all know that 7 is the perfect number and that Jehovah hates the number 6 in all of it’s forms. 666 is the mark of the beast for this very reason.
“one of the “basic tenets of the Christian faith” is The Holy Bible is the Inspired and Infallible Word of God.”
An interesting basic tenet, since there was no “Holy Bible” for the first 1600 years of Christianity.
This is a basic tenet of modern day Evangelicals, who sound a lot like modern day liberals…”Shut up and believe”.
This is a basic tenet of modern day Evangelicals, who sound a lot like modern day liberals…”Shut up and believe”.
Don’t look now, but your hostility towards Evangelicals makes you sound like a modern day liberal. But hey, you do you.
My apologies if that sounded hostile. My point was that if I want someone to accept what is not plausible, the easiest way is to tell them they aren’t allowed to question it.
And as if to prove my point, you didn’t address the factual point I was making, but instead hoped to silence me by claiming I was being hostile to Evangelicals. Maybe the left didn’t write this playbook after all.
Good list. I don’t know if God is real (I gave up trying to figure that out about 50 years ago) but I do know that human goodness (kindness, honesty, humor, etc.) is real and believe that teaching and nourishing that goodness has always been the traditional mission of most religions.
Regarding #9, I must have missed something—what is being touted as the fourth branch of government?
I believe that is the unelected beurocracies, created by Congress or the Executive, in absolute violation of the Constitution.
With everything Democrats are throwing at influencing the 2024 election, perhaps that’s an indication they haven’t “yet” figured out a foolproof strategy to rig the outcome.
True Olly. Biden was essentially an unkown commodity to those who don’t watch the news everyday and who’s minds can still be swayed. Now, what he is capable of (and incapable of) has been on display (not full display because they do a really good job of hiding him). And that scares the crap out of them, because he won’t step aside (probably his fear of ending up right where Trump is).
And that scares the crap out of them, because he won’t step aside (probably his fear of ending up right where Trump is).
Tom, I suspect what they fear the most is losing control over the Biden crime family narrative. After 50 years in politics, I’m certain he and his family knows where a lot of bodies are buried and who put them there. He won’t be prosecuted or impeached. They’ll find a way to end his political life, but it will have to come with the certainty he and the rest of his crime family will not pay any meaningful price.
“I think….”—Smeagol
Another lie.
Olly, you are always on target, but I would break their strategy into two parts.
1) Win the election
2) Create some type of autocratic state where they are in charge with all the power.
S. Meyer
Thats why they want to
pack the supreme court
add two states
abolish the filibuster
S. Meyer,
Agreed.
I would not put it past them.
When they tell you they are authoritarian, believe them.
SM, I doubt after the 2016 election that they will risk trying to “win” the election. Whatever their election strategy is, it most certainly will include some form of an “insurance policy.” Regarding an autocracy, isn’t that to some degree what they have now? They control the administrative state, have a propaganda machine in the corporate media and stop at nothing to impose disastrous foreign and domestic policies that aren’t always checked by the courts.
Olly, I agree. How much risk are they willing to take, and how much force and deception they will use to mitigate damages when discovered?
Additionally, they are using intimidation which has been quite successful and is something we see on the blog. If one says something about Biden’s corruption, they have trained people through peer pressure to say something negative about Trump. That negative statement might be correct, but it enhances their attack, so people forget about the destruction the left has created.
Note how many blog members feel it necessary to say they don’t like Trump whenever they criticize the left. Do you ever hear leftists do the same?
Each time someone does that, they create more peer pressure for others to do the same. The left is deadly, so everyone against the left has to focus with laser vision to keep the left out of power.
It’s Your THINKING.
Some of you are Thinking ‘Inside the Box’
Some of you are Thinking ‘Outside the Box’
But you are Thinking ‘Inside the Cover Up’.
For the past 10 years They have been ‘Pulling the wool over Someone’s eyes’ and continue to get away with it.
This/The Era-of-Guise is Epic.
Everyone is horrified by the feckless “insurrection” on January 6. What about the total disregard for the rule of law and the democratic process we’re seeing in Virginia now? Perhaps it’s time for Virginia, like many states, to split between the left and the right. The citizens of Loudon and Fairfax counties have more in common with the disastrous Beltway politicos than the do with the rest of Virginia. Same goes for Oregon, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, Arizona, California, Colorado and so on. The densely populated regions (usually deep blue) are outvoting the rest of the states.
“Same goes for Oregon, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, Arizona, California, Colorado and so on.”
You wrote “Colorado” twice. I don’t know if that was a accident or a Comedy-Friday homage to the dialog from Blazing Saddles, where the bad guy was applying for a job and listing his qualifications, and said something like “Rape, murder, robbery, rape …” and the guy taking job applications responded, “You already said rape” and the bad guy replied “I LIKE rape.”
LOL – thanks for that reference.
Not sure, but I think that line has subsequently been deleted from the film — at least when it plays on TV — because, of course, while genuinely funny, it’s a little beyond being merely politically incorrect.
It could be, but I could have sworn that line was there when I last saw the film on television, which wasn’t long ago.
I hope I’m right, and if they ever deleted it they now don’t. Because having a villain say that is okay, IMO, and the line is indeed very funny. I type this as someone who has actually been raped, so . . .
Maybe it depends on which TV network plays it. I’m quite certain that the scene was cut the last time I saw it on TV.
I should think it is heavily edited for TV…
“The sheriff’s a GOOOONG”….
Ralph,
Thank you for the laugh!
I, of course, own Blazing Saddles. Pure comic gold right there!
When Blazing Saddles first hit the movie theaters, I was visiting my sister who had moved from Cleveland to Houston, and we went to see it in a Houston movie theater. I suspect that there was something about that film that brought out the Texas in Texans, because people in the audience were hootin’ an’ hollerin’ all through the movie. Kind of an unforgettable experience when that is one’s ONLY visit to Texas. It’s as if that movie got stomped into my brain by someone wearing cowboy boots.
Attitudes to the indictment depend largely on how people answer the following:
1. Is it a crime to make false statements when trying to persuade officials and legislators that the recorded election results are wrong and accordingly that they should investigate or take action based on that?;
2. Is it a crime to ask officials and legislators to reconsider the appointment of one set of electors and to appoint another instead?;
3. Is it a crime for Trump electors to state that they are the duly appointed electors so that their claim can be considered and if a determination is later made that this is correct their votes can be counted?; and
4. Is it a crime to propose to the VP certain actions based on a weak legal theory?
Leaving aside discrete allegations of witness intimidation and data theft, these are the allegations that form the core of the charges. I do not think they should be considered crimes.
It’s generally a crime to knowingly and willfully make materially false statements (i.e., material lies) to the government:
18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
Gee Smeagol
Thanks you so much for that law lesson of the day.
You must be the smartest person you know.
We are so blessed to have you here. Turley is a hack and you know it all!
That’s why he has his own website and you have…well, you have Wally!!
You can cover your eyes back now. Good Boy.
Daniel is apparently unconcerned with pesky details like the actual text of criminal legal statutes.
His response seems to be: “I do not think they should be crimes.” This is the power that is Fox News, Turley, and the like have over a significant chunk of the US electorate.
The theme seems to be: “Let’s emphasize ‘law and order’ when it comes to others, but wax poetic about our attitudes towards fairness when its our guy in the crosshairs of a prosecutor.”
Why don’t you school him on the law, Smeagol the Legal Beagle.
After all, you’re the smartest guy you know.
We are so blessed to have you here. Turley is a hack and doesn’t deserve his own blog.
You only pretend to read the law because you are unable. Go chase your tail.
LOL, dang, I am missing bug already. At least he gave an honest attempt at trash talking.
I think…”—Smeagol
Lie!
Cover your eyes back. good boy!
Daniel:
1. When Trump and Meadows called Raffensberger–the results had been checked 3 times (one of which was a hand recount) and a court challenge had already failed. Yet, they kept trying to hammer him to “find” votes–to do something, anything, to deliver a “win” for Trump. He kept refusing. And, directly contacting the SOS AFTER the votes had been recounted and a court challenge failed, is exactly how Trump works–behind the scenes, off the record–pound and bully until you get what you want. But, Raffensberger couldn’t be persuaded. So your premise is faulty–there were no grounds to believe that recorded election results were wrong, and every reason to believe they were true.
2. Electors swear, under oath, that they truly represent the actual vote of the citizens of that state. No one was asking for the appointment of true electors to be “reconsidered”–Team Trump was demanding fake electors falsify Electoral College documents, which was part of the scheme to get Raffensberger and other Secretaries of State to “find” votes for him. See, with a “reconsidered” vote count and fake electors–Trump wins Georgia, even though he lost. If this doesn’t bother you, you should reconsider your values. .
3. Yes–see #2. And, just HOW was there going to be a later determination, after 3 recounts, including one hand recount?
4. It wasn’t a “weak legal theory”–Pence had no discretion–the duty to tabulate the results is ministerial–not discretionary.
Whatever you think should or shouldn’t be considered crimes is irrelevant–Trump did everything possible to subvert the will of the American people who chose Biden over him by attempting to get Secretaries of State to falsify election results and to get fake electors to falsify Electoral College documents, which are executed under oath.
Welcom back, Gigi the liar.
Do you still think Texas makes electricity with crude oil?
How many oil fired power plants still exist in the US?
“I know you proved its false, but I still believe it because I saw it on NBC news”—Gigi
“Facts are just your way of distracting us. Our democracy is at stake!”—-Gigi
“gigi and I are not the same trolls”—Dennis
There’s that word again. Trump tried to “get”…
Juvenile.
There is absolutely ZERO evidence that Trump did anything illegal.
See how easy that is, Gigi?
Thats exactly what i did, thank you for reiterating. Felt like she needs that. You do to.
You must be the smartest guy you know, Smeagol.
Hands back over your eyes now…good boy!
These questions demonstrate why Turley’s failure to properly identify what the indictment actually alleges is dangerous because it greatly misinforms his readers.
For example, the false electors did not “state that they are the duly appointed electors so that their claim can can be considered and if a determination is later made that this is correct their votes can be counted?” The indictment alleges FORGERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE because the fake electors forged a document that “purports to have been made by authority of the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the State of Georgia.” There was no qualification or contingent language in this document as you falsely assert in your questions above.
OCGA 16-9-1(b) clearly makes this allegation a crime: “A person commits the offense of forgery in the first degree when with the intent to defraud he or she knowingly makes, alters, or possesses any writing, other than a check, in a fictitious name or in such manner that the writing as made or altered purports to have been made by another person, at another time, with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority and utters or delivers such writing.”
Relatedly, unlike your false assertion above, the indictment alleges that the fake electors committed the felony offense of FILING FALSE DOCUMENTS by “placing in the United States mail a document titled CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTESOF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROMG EORGIA, addressed to Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, 2188 Richard D. Russell Federal Office Building and U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive, SW, Atlanta, GA30303, with intent to knowingly file, enter, and record said document in a court of the United States, having reason to know that said document contained the materially false statement, WE, THEUNDERSIGNED, being the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Georgia, do hereby certify the following.” Nowhere in the way you framed the questions above does it clarify that FORGED FILINGS are alleged. It is one thing to SAY something that is false. It is completely another to FILE an official document with false certifications.
ACT 160 also involves PERJURY, allegedly by Cathleen Latham for making false statements in a DEPOSITION. It is absolutely a crime to lie under oath. That is not simply making a “false statement.” You know this, yet you have either not read the indictment or do not care to accurately portray what is actually included in it.
Finally, the way you casually push to aside 2 types of predicate offenses, which ALONE (WITHOUT ANY OF THE OTHER ACTS) would be sufficient to satisfy the RICO claim demonstrates a lack of understanding of RICO law. First, Trump’s associates have been charged with INFLUENCING WITNESSES by attempting to influence Ruby Freeman’s testimony in an official proceeding in Fulton County GA, concerning events in State Farm Arena. Second, the charges you seem to loosely consider as “data theft” (as if this wasn’t a serious charge?!) actually include several offenses, including CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COMPUTER THEFT, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT COMPUTER TRESPASS, and CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE STATE. These are serious alleged crimes pertaining to Trump’s alleged attempts to unlawfully gain access to voter data in Coffee County.
But unless these lapses in understanding are intentional, it is likely is Turley’s fault for erroneously framing everything as “political speech” issue. There is so much in the indictment that has absolutely nothing to do with speech, let alone some loosely conceived protection for “political speech,” but Professor Turley fails to acknowledge it.
Turley has nothing but to feed the rage.
Don’t bother asking yourself where the rage came from, Fishlips.
You think Trump created MAGA and not the other way around. That’s why you don’t get it.
You need look no further than Kindergarten Cop.
“Boys have a penis, and girls have a vagina.”
Turley could feed paid trolls like you to us but you should pray he does not. It would be far better for you to be dropped in the middle of Kabul, Afghanistan, as a lily white, left wing female/trans American for the Taliban, than patriots in America. And don’t bother asking your brain dead president to help you in Afghanistan, seeing how the Taliban parade the raping, torturing and beheading of their own women
Smeagol
Damn it, life is so unfair. Turley gets to have this blog, and a professorship, and paid commentary on Fox, and all you get is rambling on ad nauseum with posts nobody reads past the first line. You should demand equity!!
On the other hand, you have Wally and Fishlips!
Applying the crimes of forgery and impersonating a public official to the submissions of the Trump electors is a big stretch. The indictment focuses on their certification that they were the duly appointed electors. The entire world was aware that the formal processes had resulted in the appointment of Biden electors. There was no intent or possibility of deceit, given that the officials to whom the submissions were made knew how the formal processes had come out. These submissions were made only to preserve the possibility of counting votes for Trump if those with authority to count the votes determined that those were the votes that should be counted.
Yet, again, your comment is littered with incorrect statements.
INCORRECT STATEMENT 1: “The indictment focuses on their certification that they were duly appointed electors.”
THE TRUTH: As stated above, the indictment focuses, in part, on the alleged crimes that STEM from their certification as duly appointed electors, including, the FACT that they FILED these certifications in court. Their certification is not the only issue with these forged documents.
INCORRECT STATEMENT 2: “There was no intent or possibility of deceit, given that the officials to whom the submissions were made knew how the formal processes had come out.” Paraphrased, your contention appears to be that a defendant cannot demonstrate intent to deceive if the victim is aware of the deceit.
THE TRUTH: Whether a defendant has criminal intent – Means rea, or a “guilty mind” – has NOTHING to do with the victim’s state of mind. For example, if I rob a bank, but told the bank teller the day before that I was going to rob the bank – it does not somehow make my robbery not a crime. It just makes you a bad criminal.
INCORRECT STATEMENT 3: “These submissions were made only to preserve the possibility of counting votes for Trump if those with authority to count the votes determined that those were the votes that should be counted.”
THE TRUTH: The GA submissions include no contingent language, clarifying that the duly elected status was dependent upon a subsequent determination that their votes should be counted. Further, the filings were made without any similar contingent effective language.
Anything else you need to be cleared up?
Daniel – as a dissenting opinion to mine, I think it’s well thought out and is exactly a legitimate argument/counterpoint. And it will be presented this way in court IMO.
This is what the juries will decide.
I would counter that Trump had his own inquiry to GA – where he spent $500K – only to have that organization tell him there was no fraud. But Trump forged ahead with all the above and yes you can ultimately say Trump toed the line of criminality.
Thanks Bill. It seems to me that it was not a crime for Trump to continue to pursue his challenge, even if he was advised he could not prove his point. Moreover, the claims he made about unlawful votes in his Georgia case were not resolved in court. Research described by Margot Cleveland has now documented that a number of votes in excess of the margin were cast in districts where the voters were not entitled to vote because they had moved out before the relevant date. Though not evidence of fraud, that is sufficient under Georgia law for the election to be rerun. Those votes were unlawful.
Leaving aside discrete allegations against a few individuals for seeking to speak with a Fulton county election official and data theft, everything else in the indictment involves statements made, orally or in writing, to persuade authorised officials and legislators in a challenge to an election and to preserve the option for votes to be counted if the effort did persuade. Wrapping this all up in a RICO charge involving a nation-wide criminal conspiracy seems over the top to me.
You are on a roll today with your misinformation. You have repeatedly referenced Margot Cleveland’s “research” regarding movement of Georgians from one county to another. So that you will stop misleading Turley’s readers, here is what you are referencing:
Mark Davis of Data Productions, Inc. identified more than 100K Georgians who filed a NCOA form with the US Postal Service more than a month before the election, changing the delivery of their mail to an address in another county in the state. Davis matched that list to voting data from the Georgia secretary of state’s office and concluded about 35,000 of those people voted from their initial address.
According to Georgia law, “No person shall vote in any county or municipality other than the county or municipality of such person’s residence” unless they moved later than “the fifth Monday prior” to the election. (See Georgia Code 21-2-218.)
Georgia election law also states, “If a person removes to another county or municipality within this state with the intention of remaining there an indefinite time and making such other county or municipality such person’s place of residence, such person shall be considered to have lost such person’s residence in the former county or municipality.” (See Georgia Code Title 21-2-217 (6).)
However, Georgia law is not specific about what constitutes a residence or living in a county of the state. For example, some voters may have several residences in the State (e.g., vacation homes) but only register to vote in one of these locations. Therefore changing a mailing address is NOT evidence of a change in residence, only the desire to receive one’s mail at a different location.
In fact, Georgia courts have ruled that an NCOA alone is insufficient to challenge a voter’s eligibility. Using NCOA lists to purge names from voter rolls takes years, as residents are given two election cycles to respond to election officials’ notices.
See Forward v. Ben Hill Cnty. Bd. of Elections: https://casetext.com/case/forward-v-ben-hill-cnty-bd-of-elections
In addition, the Georgia secretary of state’s office said federal law largely prevents officials from purging voter rolls in a presidential election year.
PERHAPS, MOST IMPORTANTLY, this claim has ALREADY been litigated: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.285271/gov.uscourts.gand.285271.1.0_2.pdf
Page 5 of Trump’s Complaint in Trump v. Kemp alleged that “Georgia elections officials . . . allowed individuals to vote who had moved across county lines.” But, as you know, he LOST this argument in district court. Before you say, “but wait, he lacked standing!” please note that the actual case (please Google, as I passed the 2 link limit) actually looks at the substance anyway and deems that “Plaintiff fails to establish a substantial likelihood of success” on this claim.
They were resolved in court: https://casetext.com/case/trump-v-kemp
See argument on Page 5 of Complaint ==? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.285271/gov.uscourts.gand.285271.1.0_2.pdf
The decision you link to says nothing about the claim relating to unlawful votes in one county by voters who had moved to another before the relevant date.
Count 1 includes the claim. Look at the Complaint. Count 1 is addressed in the Opinion.
Just because it is not specifically referenced does not mean it was not considered. In fact it is more likely evidence of its triviality.
You are not trustworthy and have never been trustworthy. You always leave out important facts relying on leftist media hacks.
He says after a post link to the complaint and Judge’s order…
That makes sense.
ATS’s links seldom pan out. Sometimes they even prove him wrong. It is good you aren’t a lawyer.
So Daniel does any of this make you wonder whether Margot Cleveland and the Federalist might not be the best sources for your information. Her “research” failed to mention how limited NCOA data is.
The main goal is to amplify the baseless claim rather than to portray information accurately.
Since most of your sources have been wrong almost all the time with some of them blatantly lying, doesn’t this make you wonder why you bother to post, since most of your sources have been wrong on the major issues?
If one plays the odds, and without any knowledge about what ATS says, he is likely to win if he says the opposite of ATS. All anyone has to do is look at the older posts and see most of his responses are wrong.
Gimme a break. The different personalities presented in this article themselves demonstrate the duplicity of the situation and if they represent a “Whoo-Hoo” moment we should all be afraid.
1. Hillary Clinton (without authorization or Executive Privilege) maintained and destroyed government documents on a private server AND the Obama DOJ did NOT pursue violation of the Espionage Act.
2. Rachel Maddow pushed the Russia conspiracy hoax against a sitting president.
3. Claire McCaskill, a former prosecutor (?), warned people to “back off” Hunter Biden, a known druggie, an admitted tax evader, an admitted falsifier of government documents, a probable FARA offender, a probable interstate user of prostitutes and a probable bag-man for an influence pedaling operation.
4. Stacey Abrams, without proof (one wonders if she knew it was a lie) for years claimed an election was stolen from her.
5. Jen Psaki, a blatant partisan to the point that even her providing the time of day should be suspect.
6. Marc Elias, apparently deeply involved in the discredited Steele Dossier and in BLM, carried out efforts to challenge elections.
8. Bennie Thompson and Jamie Raskin were both on the J6 Committee that wasted government resources, came to no conclusions (after years of work) and apparently destroyed documents related to that Committee (how Hillary Clintonish can you get?). And they voted to impeach a sitting president without hearings?
9. Andrea Mitchell has been nothing more than a Hiilary Clinton groupie for many years and as such provides nothing more than a biased and usually irrelevant view.
“… Hunter Biden, a known druggie, an admitted tax evader, an admitted falsifier of government documents, a probable FARA offender, a probable interstate user of prostitutes and a probable bag-man for an influence pedaling operation.”
Upvote — and yeah, it looks bad, but on the positive side, Hunter also shacked up with his dead brother’s grieving widow and denied the paternity of his own child with another woman, forcing the mother to go to court and require DNA testing to prove that which a decent human would have simply acknowledged.
When it comes to moral character, Hunter Biden is what Archie Bunker referred to as “a chimp off the old block.”
You guys stop picking on Hunter. After all, his loving dad used him at the heights of his drug addiction to bag millions of dollars for himself. He watched for years as his dad successfully abused his position for personal gain, what did you expect him to learn?
Hunter is the smartest person Joe knows.
Kamala is the smartest person she knows.
Which is more dangerous?
“Hillary Clinton (without authorization or Executive Privilege) maintained and destroyed government documents on a private server AND the Obama DOJ did NOT pursue violation of the Espionage Act.”
Nor did an independent IG recommend charges nor did Trump’s own DOJ /Bill Barr. At some point you have to ask yourself, did they simply not have enough to implicate?
Comey’s exact words were “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
It’s possibly the only intelligent thing he’s ever said. If he wasn’t a hack, he could say the same thing about the cases against Trump.
His reasoning was (regardless of what he says) that it would fail in court. Not on the merits, not on technicalities. But because there is no way you would have found 12 jurors to agree that she was guilty. And that, because some would have seen it as a political persecution. Same goes for Trump. Come back and see me when you libtards wake up from your wet dreams, and Trump is a free man.
1. HIllary Clinton should not have had classified information on her home server–it was a mistake. She had no criminal intent. She was investigated, and it was determined that she was negligent, but didn’t intend to break the law. She used BleachBit to prevent unauthorized access by hackers–not to cover up a crime. She never denied having the server, which has been blown out of all semblance of proportion, just like the ‘Hunter Biden Scandal”. Trump, on the other hand, deliberately stole classified documents after being told he couldn’t take them, stored them in unsecure locations, lied about returning them, flashed them around to impress people, and then forced a search warrant that he used for fundraising purposes. Then, he tried to have security footage destroyed to cover up moving the boxes to other locations before his lawyer was scheduled to take possession of the documents he still had. All of this is criminal.
2. No, she didn’t. Read the US Senate Committee report–Russia DID help Trump cheat.
3. Claire McCaskill, a former US Senator, has been out of office for years. She has no authority to command anyone in law enforcement to “back off”.
4. Stacey Abrams hasn’t been in the public spotlight for a long time.
5. Jen Psaki is thoughtful, intelligent and doesn’t lie like the “hosts” on Fox.
6. The Steele Dossier ;is irrelevant to the Mueller Investigation.
8. Niether Representative Thompson nor Raskin, destroyed documents.
9. You’re even going after Andrea Mitchell? How desperate can you get?
Trump should have been arrested before he was forced out of Washington DC in January, 2021.
.
You can hide but you can’t run, Gigi.
Do you still believe Texas makes their electricity from crude oil?
How many oil fired power plants remain in the US?
Factual lie of the day #2
Hillary absolutely intended to break the law. You don’t “accidently” send classified emails on an unsecure server. The handling of classified material statutes make it a violation to mishandle them, period. Intent does not factor in “whether” its a crime, only on “which” crime you are guilty of. Ask the career Navy Submariner who was jailed for taking a selfie in a classified area of a submarine. Most areas of a submarine are classifed CONFIDENTIAL-NOFORN. This classification is peanuts compared to TOP SECRET or SPECIAL ACCESS. Again, you have no clue what you are talking about and should leave the discussion to those that do.
Also, BleachBit is not an anti-virus or a firewall. If she wanted to prevent unauthorized hacking, all she had to do was unplug that little thing called a modem. Geez, what an idiot. And if she had concerns about hacking, WTF was she doing storing and sending classified info on it? Your circular reasoning takes the cake.
And this is exactly why I am going to contine to sh!t all over every post you make. Becasue you keep coming in here and repeating the same lies, even after you’ve had the truth shoved in your face. These are not mistakes, any more than Hillary’s crimes were. They are lies. And you are a liar.
JT writes: “If you watched the last few days of cable programming, you would think that Porn Hub was about to introduce a new fetish category for ‘Trump Indictments.’ ”
That fetish has been evident in the comments on this blog for quite some time.
edwardmahl,
“That fetish has been evident in the comments on this blog for quite some time.”
Thank you for the laugh!
We are now in a post Constitutional Republic. The only question is how far down the road to a totalitarian one-party regime will we travel unless there is a true uprising of the masses against these fascist elites. Sadly they are too engrossed in the Barbie movie to comprehend what is happening.
Honestly, why does what Trump actually thought even matter? Furthermore, let’s say there actually was voter fraud.
A case can easily be made that despite that – the law/courts ruled against him. His only recourse is to keep fighting LEGALLY (which by my perspective is not happening).
Over the centuries, we have seen people ruled against unfairly- but you still have to accept the outcome and can’t circumvent the law despite it. Now, sometimes these people eventually do get vindication BUT you can’t break the law in the interim.
In Trump’s specific case, we know the plan was to declare victory from the start – we see this documented. Where Trump made his mistake was to continue the plan of staying in power throughout the entire period from Nov 3 thru Jan 6 – despite being turned away at every legal challenge. That was his mistake. Once he was out of legal options – he continued on and that’s where he got himself in trouble hence the indictments.
The defense that Trump really believed it and was thus allowed to go to extreme circumstances will not hold up in court IMO. But, they do realize they just need one juror to agree.
Having said that, Trump is IMO is lying and simply can’t admit he lost. Or, he’s actually indeed deranged. Either way – it’s not a good look for the former President.
“Having said that, Trump is IMO is lying and simply can’t admit he lost. Or, he’s actually indeed deranged.”
Thanks for your unbiased opinion, Hillary, but this is what VOTER GA says happened, and they have the receipts to prove it:
WHAT WE FOUND IN GEORGIA
Six sworn affidavits of Fulton counterfeit ballots; (10s of thousands est.)
17,724 more votes than in person recount ballot images required to tabulate votes in Fulton
Drop box video surveillance representing 181,507 ballots destroyed in 102 counties
Improper Chain of Custody forms for 107,000 ballots statewide
Estimated Chain of Custody forms missing for 355,000 ballots statewide (Georgia Star)
86,860 voters in 2020 have false registration date prior to 2017 but were not on 2017 history file
Over 1.7 million original ballot images are lost or destroyed in 70 counties despite state, federal law
https://voterga.org/
And this is the inherent problem with Trump sycophants – and those who believe in this type of election fraud.
First, that’s not a legitimate site yet you put your trust in it because it supports your case.
It’s an argument I could never win.
I could tell you the earth is round and you say it’s flat, then have you point to various sources that deem it flat.
There was no election fraud deep enough to change the outcome. Trump’s OWN paid for consultants agreed, he spent nearly half a million dollars on it.
If your upset about mail in voting and voter laws, you need to fight in in the courts and thru legislation.
Your naked assertion that Voter Ga is not a legitimate site doesn’t mean ANYTHING, especially coming from you, Hillary. They have the receipts and you don’t.
My receipts include what the courts say, and the people in charge of the elections.
Your receipts? Fairytales. Go put a tooth under your pillow while you’re at it.
It’s sad to see so many people pulled into Trump’s pool.
In the end, we’re all going to drown. He’s done quite a number on this country and we won’t exit from it for years. Because the torch will be passed.
The torch that is being passed down sadly is, a Tiki torch. Ya know, the very fine people.
hard to tell from the video, but was this your Daddy or your Grandad in the white hood? Democrats never change for they still wear white hoods
What receipts? None of those claims have any support on the site.
Methinks Bill and Bob are the same guy. We’ll call them “they”
No matter, but the statement “If your upset about mail in voting and voter laws, you need to fight in in the courts and thru legislation.” is rich. Is that how it worked when they violated their own laws in several states, under the guise of the “Covid emergency”?
You lost me at “methinks”……..
That figures.
It’s like bowling around this place. They just set ’em up, and ya knock ’em down. And they never see it coming LMAO.
Agreed – The cure would be to limit the Presidency to 1-Term only. That would eliminate Candidate’s focusing on a 2-Term Presidency from the on-set (as Trump and all the Others before him have done) . The 2-Party system is the bigger problem because it induces Multi-Term Presidencies.
This thread was a tough slog to read. I can’t believe that the national tantrum over Donald Trump has now gone on eight years without any moderation. My thinking is that no group of people can maintain a tantrum at fever pitch for eight years without becoming permanently unbalanced.
Much of the fighting here results from people swearing absolute knowledge of things they cannot possibly know, or that they are objectively wrong about. For example, a character who posted excessively many comments on the WSJ site eight years ago maintained adamantly that the FBI was originally constructed to be, and had to be, independent of the Executive branch because they may be called upon to investigate the President — i.e. the FBI was conceived as a force to police the Presidency.
A lot of evil in the world is perpetrated by people who are convinced they know the truth of something that is either unknowable, such as what is in the mind of someone else or what is in the minds of some group of people, or are utterly wrong in their claim, like the person who would post inanities about the Constitution at the WSJ. Every tyrant I know of exhibits these dangerous congitive infirmaties — excessive certainty.
Kevin T Kilty,
Well said.
We see how Trump broke so many here on the good professor’s blog on a daily basis.
Pointing out their belief in their own certainty is spot on.
“Excessive certainty” is the danger of mixing criminal law with politics, because the demand of criminal law is to find guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” — aka locating “excessive certainty” in a world where even moderate certainty is in very short supply — even less so in the political world.
Hey Smeagol
Just to set the record straight, I don’t troll “liberal commenters”. Just the self righteous, arrogant, smug, know-it-all, whiny a$$ little beotches.
Then why did you mention them Smeagol??
You’re right. All they care about is watching you get your dumb a$$ handed to ya.
Hands back over your eyes now Smeagol. Good boy.
Now now Smeagol, no need to get kitchy.
In case you don’t get the reference, Smeagol liked to talk to himself.
“Do you spank the kid to visions of Smeagol? I’d have pictured you..”
Sounds like you’re the one with a fantasy, Smeagol. Just sayin’…
Tom,
Not going to lie, kinda nice to see bug have to dish in what he dishes out and then whine and cry about it.
Keep up the good work!
I look forward to my comment getting deleted.
We can do this if you want, Smeagol. Best just to take your medicine and move on to your next lie, but I am game, cuz you got none.
And I don’t care if your name is ATS, ATT, bug, or any other anonymous. If you wont pick a name so we know which idiot we’re speaking to, your name is Smeagol. Don’t like it, pick one, but don’t cry about it.
“So we know you have two talents: masturbating to Smeagol..”
There’s that fantasy again. Ease up, or your keyboard is liable to get sticky.
The name is Smeagol as long as you post as Anonymous.
Dear Prof Turley,
Nirvana – My blue-check coastal elite friends have positively died and gone to heaven over this latest ‘shock and awe’ 4th indictment. Dancing in the streets.
This is it. The Big one. RICO. And to be honest, I’ve long thought both the Democrat and Republican political organizations operate like criminal gangs. .. witness the latest RNC ‘loyalty pledge’ they’re pushing on the Trump monkey Apostle to participate in the debates. pfft.
(note. it would be a cold day in hell before I would sign a loyalty pledge to either of these criminal organizations.)
It better be it. MSNBC is running out of things to charge Trump with. Espionage, treason, RICO and talking out of the side of his mouth on X. .. what’s left to charge Trump with?
*it wouldn’t surprise me if 51 top intelligence officials, including the last five CIA directors, write another letter to the editor. ..
These prosecutors all deserve to be disbarred; a prosecutor cannot make up crimes and then charge a politician they don’t like for political reasons. Prosecuting anybody to interfere with an election should be a transgression that leads to disbarment. These prosecutors are mis-using the criminal justice system. One of them is even fundraising off the indictment