ChiGoose

He should be prosecuted in accordance with the law. But there is a tendency to look for someone to "save us" from Trump that seems to try to downplay the reality that the only sure thing that can prevent him from winning is voters. Mueller was lionized as the guy who was going to get Trump even though it was known he wouldn't recommend prosecution no matter what because it would be against DOJ policy. So instead of doing things like investigating emoluments issues, money laundering and other Trump crimes, the Dems in Congress just sat back and assumed Mueller would take care of it. When he instead gave them an impeachment roadmap, they just shrugged and ignored it Remember freaking Avenatti? The scumbag lawyer that people thought was a hero when he was just a grifter? The second impeachment was rushed because the Dems wanted to act immediately, which lead to a lot of evidence not being included. Though I suppose that doesn't matter because there wouldn't be enough GOP senators to convict if Trump had murdered Mitch McConnell on the senate floor With the indictments, people hope he'll be convicted before the election. He may be. He might not be. It's not something that should be counted on and he can run from prison if he wants to anyway. Even if there is merit to the 14th Amendment claim (and there might be), it's not going to happen. It's just not. And it wouldn't be accepted by about half the country if it did The only thing that's going to stop Trump is the voters. Or maybe a Filet O'Fish sandwich

I remain skeptical of "one weird trick" ploys to beat Trump. Gotta do it at the ballot box. Can't count on stuff like this.

Maybe you should try reading primary sources and, in areas that aren’t in your wheelhouse, listening to experts.

I guess your arse is fraud then. Not sure what else you would call having people sign documents falsely claiming to be officials in order to subvert an election.

This isn’t a bid. It isn’t a contract. It isn’t an allegation of fraud in a bidding. This is a conspiracy to commit fraud after the fact. Maybe talk to someone who actually knows anything about this before calling someone else clueless because you’re completely off base here.

None of this is relevant to this case. He is not being indicted for complaining. He is being indicted for fraud.

Shhh... The adults are talking.

This is a gross misstatement of the facts. Where in the world are you getting your information? But in any case, did Hillary Clinton conspire to have people act as fraudulent electors to change the election outcome in any state? Did she pressure state officials to change the voting tallies? Was she told time and time again that she lost but despite this, act to overturn the outcome of the election? This isn't even in the same ballpark as the Steele Dossier. Why are you all so obsessed with it?

So we should just let former presidents commit serious crimes? Try to overturn elections? Defraud the country? Other democracies prosecute politicians who commit crimes. Do you think politicians should be immune to prosecution for crimes?

I don’t think you understand the facts and merits of the case.

It's not that I "trust the government." It's that I looked at the facts of the case and the law. Trump's campaign told him the election claims were false. His DoJ told them they were false. We have testimony of Trump admitting he lost. Trump hired investigators who found that the claims were false. Many of the states in question, like Georgia, had audits that confirmed the original outcome. Trump either knew or should have known, that his claims of fraud were baseless. But Trump just kept going from person to person until he found people like Eastman who knew the claims were false but was willing to commit crimes anyway, and Powell, who is a moron. If 99 people told him he was wrong, he was going to find that 1 person who might agree with him. And then they decided, having exhausted their legal avenues, that they would commit crimes. Al Gore may have thought there was a chance that he won the 2000 election (he probably didn't but there are some studies that show he may have), but when he ran out of legal avenues, he accepted the decision even if he didn't disagree with it. He was never prosecuted because he didn't reject the legal system in favor of enlisting people in a criminal scheme to commit fraud. If Dem lawyers decided to commit crimes, they should be prosecuted too. I absolutely want the judicial system to indict people who commit crimes.

I can’t tell if you’re being a troll or a moron. In either case, I’d appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Lawyers don’t have a right to help their clients facilitate a crime. Creating and signing fake documents is a crime. Defrauding the US is a crime. I don’t know why this is so hard. But maybe you’re just trying to deflect because you know your position is idiotic.

Well, I'm not doing that, so I guess I'll continue to call it poor reading comprehension on your part. Or maybe it's a strawman. In any case, it's bad faith and incorrect. There's no problem with disagreeing with the government. Trump is not indicted for saying he won the election. Just as Al Gore was not indicted for saying he didn't like the outcome of Bush v. Gore. But there is no world in which Trump, or anyone, believed that the fraudulent electors were anything other than fraudulent. It's not a reasonable claim. Especially when you have emails calling them "fake electors." John Eastman, one of the architects of the plan, admitted that they would lose 8-1 or 9-0 if it ever went to SCOTUS.

Only if you struggle with reading comprehension.

I'm obviously not saying that.

These claims were investigated and audited and found to be false. Trump was told by those who looked into them that they were false. She can present evidence to this fact. The voter roll was also audited multiple times. While it wouldn't be necessary for this case, allowing yet another audit wouldn't change anything.

Remember that not all of the FISAs for Carter Page were found to be problematic. They were initially approved because he was working with foreign actors. The issue is that when it became apparent that he was just a moron and not a spy, they should have stopped. This was covered in the IG report and reforms have since been implemented. The Steele Dossier originally began at the request of a GOP politician. Eventually, the Clinton campaign took over payments for it. Steele collected raw intelligence and rumors and, without vetting it, presented to the Clinton campaign. They declined to do anything with it. Upset about this, Steele began shopping it around, even bringing it to the FBI. The FBI looked into it and found it to be not credible. Steele then got someone (John McCain?) to leak it to the press. Most outlets sat on it. Since the information was not vetted or verified, they wanted to fact check before publishing. Buzzfeed made the stupid decision to make it public anyway because it was "newsworthy." Since it was published by a "news" organization, much of the public thought the information was vetted when it wasn't. Upon losing the 2020 election, Trump decided he wanted to remain in power. To that end, he and his conspirators put together a scheme to have people fraudulently declare themselves electors, even signing documents to that effect and filing them to the government, so that they could switch states from Biden to Trump and fraudulently re-elect Trump. How someone could possibly think these three things are exactly the same is beyond me. Your information diet must be absolutely awful.

Because you’re comparing apples to oranges and then somehow being confused that people don’t agree that they are the same thing. You clearly don’t have a grasp of reality, which makes sense since you tend to react to facts with eye rolls. If you think that a plot to attack use fake electors to overturn the election is the same as a bad FISA warrant or the leaking of oppo research, then you’re just living in a fantasy world. If you’re upset about the Steele Dossier being leaked, I assume you’re furious about the 1023 form about Hunter Biden was made public. It’s pretty cool that the forum created a feature to let you know that you posted something factual:

Solid whataboutism right there. Keep up the good work!

They literally had people create fraudulent documents in an attempt to change the outcome of the election. That’s a crime. It just is. There’s no getting around it.

It is not a crime for me to give you a ride to the bank. But if you and I agreed to rob the bank, then my giving you a ride to the bank would be an overt act of a conspiracy to rob the bank. Trump can complain that the election was rigged. He can file suits to try to change the outcome. None of that it what he’s being charged for. But when he ran out of legal avenues, he tried to change the outcome via fraud. And by enlisting others into the conspiracy, they created a web of actions in furtherance of their goal. Think if, after Bush v. Gore, Al Gore and his team pressured people in Florida, New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, and Nevada to fraudulently claim they were the official electors and that Gore had won their state. And then if he also pressured the secretaries of state for those states to abandon their codified procedures and find a way to declare him the winner. In that instance, he would be committing crimes. That’s the difference.

Trump’s indicted chief of staff wants Georgia election charges in federal court “In a motion filed earlier this month, Meadows argued that his case in the racketeering indictment should be removed from state to federal court because he was acting in his capacity as a government official at the time. State prosecutors argued in response on Friday that Meadows' indictment in the case "results directly from his disregard for the lawful scope of his official duties," and that "federal law forbids any employee of the executive branch from 'us[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.'”” *** I’m not going to make predictions on whether the Georgia defendants will succeed in their motions to move their cases to federal court. However, I am skeptical of claims like Meadows’s. The Hatch Act prohibits federal officials from using their office for electioneering. The President has no authority in how elections are run. So how can someone working for the president have overseeing elections as part of their job? If Meadows was acting in his capacity as CoS, how is that not a violation of the Hatch Act?

Of the announced candidates: Top 3: Biden Scott Christie Bottom 3: Trump DeSantis RFK Unannounced: JB Pritzker Whitmer Buttigieg

This is only true if you ignore most of the indictment.

He’s an impossible client. Good attorneys won’t want to deal with his crap so he’s mostly just going to have bad lawyers and people who are more concerned about being famous than being good at their jobs. Just like his administration ground down and chased out anyone competent until only the dregs remained, his approach to legal strategy does the same for his attorneys.