Seven Subpoenaed in Fulton County Grand Jury Investigation Investigating Trump's Attempts to Overturn the 2020 Election

[Tommy Callahan]

I thought the goal was to have him waiting for the date, to maintain the story, through election.

 

An acquittal that soon wouldn't help at all

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, Chris farley said:

I thought the goal was to have him waiting for the date, to maintain the story, through election.

 

An acquittal that soon wouldn't help at all

 

 

It sounds like the DA's entire case against Trump in Georgia depends on an interpretation of the transcript of a phone call where Trump "demanded" a second recount where he stated "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state." 

 

The idea is the DA needs to convince the jury this is a command from the former President to direct others to commit fraud and falsify the election results rather than merely a statement of the objective and mathematically the number of votes required to gain a majority of the vote.

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

It sounds like the DA's entire case against Trump in Georgia depends on an interpretation of the transcript of a phone call where Trump "demanded" a second recount where he stated "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state." 

 

The idea is the DA needs to convince the jury this is a command from the former President to direct others to commit fraud and falsify the election results rather than merely a statement of the objective and mathematically the number of votes required to gain a majority of the vote.

 

 

 

 

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

[All_Pro_Bills]

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

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

It's a bit tedious and redundant.  161 acts referenced.  90% of it references making various false statements and conspiracy about election fraud.  Like that hasn't happened before.  

 

Here's an example.  People made phone calls.   These are serious crimes.  Friggin' comedy.     

 

Act 122.

 

On or about the 4th day of January 2021, STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE, HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD, and TREVIAN C. KUTTI placed multiple telephone calls and sent text messages to each other and to other individuals involved in the conspiracy. They include the following: l.

At 9:41 a.m., STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE placed telephone call to HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD.

At 11:24 a.m., HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD placed telephone call to DAVID JAMES SHAFER.

At 12:25 p.m., STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE placed telephone call to HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD.

At 12:32 p.m., STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE sent text message to HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD.

At 8:10 p.m., HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD placed telephone call to DAVID JAMES SHAFER.

At 10:00 p.m., HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD placed telephone call to STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE.

At 10:19 p.m., HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD placed telephone call to TREVIAN C. KUTTI.

At 10:43 p.m., TREVIAN C. KUTTI placed telephone call to HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD.

At 11:10 p.m., TREVIAN C. KUTTI placed telephone call to HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD. 10.

At 12:12 a.m. on January 5, 2021', TREVIAN C. KUTTI placed telephone call to HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD.

 

These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.  

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[ChiGoose]

11 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

It's a bit tedious and redundant.  161 acts referenced.  90% of it references making various false statements and conspiracy about election fraud.  Like that hasn't happened before.  

 

Here's an example.  People made phone calls.   These are serious crimes.  Friggin' comedy.     

 

Act 122.

 

On or about the 4th day of January 2021, STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE, HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD, and TREVIAN C. KUTTI placed multiple telephone calls and sent text messages to each other and to other individuals involved in the conspiracy. They include the following: l.

At 9:41 a.m., STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE placed telephone call to HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD.

At 11:24 a.m., HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD placed telephone call to DAVID JAMES SHAFER.

At 12:25 p.m., STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE placed telephone call to HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD.

At 12:32 p.m., STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE sent text message to HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD.

At 8:10 p.m., HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD placed telephone call to DAVID JAMES SHAFER.

At 10:00 p.m., HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD placed telephone call to STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE.

At 10:19 p.m., HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD placed telephone call to TREVIAN C. KUTTI.

At 10:43 p.m., TREVIAN C. KUTTI placed telephone call to HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD.

At 11:10 p.m., TREVIAN C. KUTTI placed telephone call to HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD. 10.

At 12:12 a.m. on January 5, 2021', TREVIAN C. KUTTI placed telephone call to HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD.

 

These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.  

 

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. 
 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by ChiGoose

[BillsFanNC]

36 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

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. 
 

 

 

 

Blah blah blah...

 

The King keeps puking on the board.

[All_Pro_Bills]

9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

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. 
 

 

But they didn't discuss robbing the bank.  They went inside and sat down with the bank manager and wanted to discuss their account balance and some issues they had with it.  When the manager said he already checked the balance and it was correct they continued to protest.  

Then they again asked the manager to check for missing funds.  They said "finding" $11K would be good enough.  The bank said no, they're not looking again.

Then they raised questions of possible bank fraud.  Went to court with those claims and got nowhere.  But persisted.  

Then started trying to contact other bank employees.  But got nowhere.  Then they started snooping around the bank.  Then the bank got annoyed and had the arrested for saying the bank was crooked. 

 

The problem is none of the actions or statement claiming fraud or interference by Trump's team appear unique to activities around election result challenges.  We"ve seen it all before.  Like people reaching out to have conversations with election officials.  Nobody attempted to do or say lets make up 12,000 fake votes, insert them into the re-count, and claim victory.

 

My point of saying that is to suggest if the main character in this show was somebody else we wouldn't be going back and forth pointing and counter-pointing about charges of conspiracy and such in Georgia because there wouldn't be any.

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

But they didn't discuss robbing the bank.  They went inside and sat down with the bank manager and wanted to discuss their account balance and some issues they had with it.  When the manager said he already checked the balance and it was correct they continued to protest.  

Then they again asked the manager to check for missing funds.  They said "finding" $11K would be good enough.  The bank said no, they're not looking again.

Then they raised questions of possible bank fraud.  Went to court with those claims and got nowhere.  But persisted.  

Then started trying to contact other bank employees.  But got nowhere.  Then they started snooping around the bank.  Then the bank got annoyed and had the arrested for saying the bank was crooked. 

 

The problem is none of the actions or statement claiming fraud or interference by Trump's team appear unique to activities around election result challenges.  We"ve seen it all before.  Like people reaching out to have conversations with election officials.  Nobody attempted to do or say lets make up 12,000 fake votes, insert them into the re-count, and claim victory.

 

My point of saying that is to suggest if the main character in this show was somebody else we wouldn't be going back and forth pointing and counter-pointing about charges of conspiracy and such in Georgia because there wouldn't be any.

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. 

[Tommy Callahan]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

They literally had people create fraudulent documents in an attempt to change the outcome of the election. 

 

The Fisa warrant, the dossier being published?  

 

 

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

 

The Fisa warrant, the dossier being published?  

 

 

Solid whataboutism right there. Keep up the good work!

[BillsFanNC]

11 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

 

The Fisa warrant, the dossier being published?  

 

 

 

Don't worry. The King has already told us that the egregious trampling on the rights of private citizens has been fixed going forward. The FBI said so.

 

 

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Solid whataboutism right there. Keep up the good work!

 

From the guy who doesn't even acknowledge that the what in this case is a problem in the first place. And the about is all hand waving bloviating.

 

The King baby!

 

[Tommy Callahan]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

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. 

you brought up using false documents to attempt to change the outcome of the election.

 

and understand why you wouldn't like that answer as the left has been doing exactly what you said is a crime, for 5 years now with full support from you all.

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

9 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

you brought up using false documents to attempt to change the outcome of the election.

 

and understand why you wouldn't like that answer as the left has been doing exactly what you said is a crime, for 5 years now with full support from you all.

 

 

 

 

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:

Edited August 29, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Tommy Callahan]

FISA warrant or the leaking of oppo research.

 

The dossier was a false document created to????  change the outcome of the election?

 

Carter Page was CIA.  And the FBI still tapped his phone.

 

 

 

 

So, what was the goal of that?

 

LOL, BAD? on a side note, I remember when the left was solidly against using post 9/11 laws to spy on Americans.

 

but here we are.

 

and I reply to BS, strawmen and blue anon with eye roll.

it fits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Chris farley

[ChiGoose]

8 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

FISA warrant or the leaking of oppo research.

 

The dossier was a false document created to????  change the outcome of the election?

 

Carter Page was CIA.  And the FBI still tapped his phone.

 

 

 

 

So, what was the goal of that?

 

LOL, BAD? on a side note, I remember when the left was solidly against using post 9/11 laws to spy on Americans.

 

but here we are.

 

and I reply to BS, strawmen and blue anon with eye roll.

it fits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[All_Pro_Bills]

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

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. 

I'm willing to take a closer look from an objective perspective.  Many of these charges revolve around the conclusion that statements are "false".  Such as these.  How is the Georgia DA going to prove they're false statements without opening up the voting record for scrutiny by the defense or some independent auditor?  This should be interesting.

 

1. That 2,506 felons voted illegally in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in
Georgia.
2. That 66,248 underage people illegally registered to vote before their seventeenth birthday
prior to the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia;
3. That at least 2,423 people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in
Georgia who were not listed as registered to vote;
4. That 1,043 people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia who
had illegally registered to vote using a post office box;
5. That 10,315 or more dead people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in
Georgia;
6. That Fulton County election workers at State Farm Arena ordered poll watchers and
members of the media to leave the tabulation area on the night of November 3, 2020, and
continued to operate after ordering everyone to leave;The DA better be damn sure that the case because I'd expect those charges create an opportunity for the defense to submit numerous discovery motions and call rebuttal witnesses. 

[ChiGoose]

18 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I'm willing to take a closer look from an objective perspective.  Many of these charges revolve around the conclusion that statements are "false".  Such as these.  How is the Georgia DA going to prove they're false statements without opening up the voting record for scrutiny by the defense or some independent auditor?  This should be interesting.

 

1. That 2,506 felons voted illegally in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in
Georgia.
2. That 66,248 underage people illegally registered to vote before their seventeenth birthday
prior to the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia;
3. That at least 2,423 people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in
Georgia who were not listed as registered to vote;
4. That 1,043 people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia who
had illegally registered to vote using a post office box;
5. That 10,315 or more dead people voted in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in
Georgia;
6. That Fulton County election workers at State Farm Arena ordered poll watchers and
members of the media to leave the tabulation area on the night of November 3, 2020, and
continued to operate after ordering everyone to leave;The DA better be damn sure that the case because I'd expect those charges create an opportunity for the defense to submit numerous discovery motions and call rebuttal witnesses. 

 

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.

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

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.

So you’re saying it’s a crime to not believe the government? I’ll have to remember that. 

[BillStime]

37 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

How someone could possibly think these three things are exactly the same is beyond me. Your information diet must be absolutely awful.

 

All they have is their scripts, their PSYOPs, and their recycled talking points downloaded from their keepers.

 

They can't counter the ACTUAL EVIDENCE, so they fall back on what they have been told.

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So you’re saying it’s a crime to not believe the government? I’ll have to remember that. 

I'm obviously not saying that. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

I'm obviously not saying that. 

Sure sounds an awful lot like it Goose. And be careful there because you just might be a closet fascist. 😉

[BillsFanNC]

 

[ChiGoose]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Sure sounds an awful lot like it Goose. And be careful there because you just might be a closet fascist. 😉

 

Only if you struggle with reading comprehension.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

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:

 

Tag notifications and post reactions really trigger you, don't they King?

 

[SoCal Deek]

20 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Only if you struggle with reading comprehension.

You call it what whatever you want, but if you routinely argue against the rights of people to disagree with the government…don’t look now…you’re an actual fascist. 😉

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

You call it what whatever you want, but if you routinely argue against the rights of people to disagree with the government…don’t look now…you’re an actual fascist. 😉

 

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.

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

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.

So it’s your position that lawyers don’t have a right to argue a case that helps their client if it’s in disagreement with the government? That also sounds an awful lot like fascism. 😉

[ChiGoose]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So it’s your position that lawyers don’t have a right to argue a case that helps their client if it’s in disagreement with the government? That also sounds an awful lot like fascism. 😉

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. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

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.

We're getting to the root of a point of contention.  Governments also make false statements.  And lie and cover up and withhold the truth.  And issue propaganda and misonformation when it suits their needs. 

Given the politicized nature of the environment an independent third party review would restore faith in the process.  Assuming they've got nothing to hide.  And if such an audit performed under the supervision of the court proves the State of Georgia's contentions so be it.

 

I think our differences can be summed up that you trust the government and I do not.

Edited August 29, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[TSOL]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

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. 

 

 

I agree with Deek, it's bad enough precedent to indict a former president but I feel that it's totally over the top to go after the lawyers as well. Maybe in this case, that pleases the liberal left, you're happy they are going after Trump and his lawyers, but what if it was you or your friends or colleagues? Do we really want the American judicial system poised to indict lawyers too? 

 

That seems to be pushing the boundaries to authoritarianism 

[ChiGoose]

36 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

We're getting to the root of a point of contention.  Governments also make false statements.  And lie and cover up and withhold the truth.  And issue propaganda and misonformation when it suits their needs. 

Given the politicized nature of the environment an independent third party review would restore faith in the process.  Assuming they've got nothing to hide.  And if such an audit performed under the supervision of the court proves the State of Georgia's contentions so be it.

 

I think our differences can be summed up that you trust the government and I do not.

 

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.

 

 

3 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

I agree with Deek, it's bad enough precedent to indict a former president but I feel that it's totally over the top to go after the lawyers as well. Maybe in this case, that pleases the liberal left, you're happy they are going after Trump and his lawyers, but what if it was you or your friends or colleagues? Do we really want the American judicial system poised to indict lawyers too? 

 

That seems to be pushing the boundaries to authoritarianism 

 

If Dem lawyers decided to commit crimes, they should be prosecuted too. I absolutely want the judicial system to indict people who commit crimes.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

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. 

Lighten up Counselor. You guys REALLY need to get a sense of humor. Your rabid thirst to ‘get Trump’ has sucked out any last remaining bits of your souls. 

[TSOL]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

.

 

 

 

If Dem lawyers decided to commit crimes, they should be prosecuted too. I absolutely want the judicial system to indict people who commit crimes.

 

 

You know exactly what I'm saying about setting legal precedent with this case. 

 

And I'm going to leave it at that 

[ChiGoose]

11 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

You know exactly what I'm saying about setting legal precedent with this case. 

 

And I'm going to leave it at that 

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

[TSOL]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

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

 

 

I say the same to you 

 

This is a road, we as a democratic and free society, are best left untraveled 

Edited August 29, 2023 by TSOL

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

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

The facts are Trump is guilty….yaadaa, yaadaa, yaadaa. 😂

[TSOL]

It's an abomination. It's their airing of our countries dirty laundry for the world to see.

 

It's a petty grievance and it's an embarrassment that my fellow Americans would support such a pathetic display 

 

I'm ashamed of you Dems for supporting such a grotesque miscarriage of justice 

[ChiGoose]

23 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

I say the same to you 

 

This is a road, we as a democratic and free society, are best left untraveled 

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?

[TSOL]

13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

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?

Sh1t happens quit acting like an old lady. The constitution was written so that the American public can do WAY more than just what happened happened J6. F'in bill of rights baby

 

I say that not just to you but to the whole pearl clutching crowd