The Walls be Closing

[Kemp]

5 hours ago, Chris farley said:

So now its "did he stir up a riot"

 

bar keeps going down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're correct. Stir isn't the best way of putting it.

Trump told his supporters hundreds of times that in reality he won and that his supporters votes were stolen.

They believed him or at least wanted to and decided to help their guy out and storm the Capitol.

So, it's inarguable that Trump was directly responsible for causing them to react in anger. He wanted them angry.

Once it started, instead of trying to stop it, he watched TV of it all with great glee.

When he was finally convinced to make a statement, he called the rioters great people.

That's a lot more than stirring. 

[Kemp]

4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

No, I'm channeling reality.  Things don't happen in a vacuum, and if you don't want to talk about things the make you uncomfortable, tarry forth little soldier. 

 

If Trump is found guilty as previously detailed, sure, he tried to destroy faith and confidence in our system post 2021, though the Putin thing is an old wives tale best suited for book clubs and conspiracy talk at the local coffee shop.  That doesn't change anything about the dems actions, but see paragraph 1.  

 

Hunter Biden has never been accused of impersonating anything but a brother's-widow-bangin-deadbeat-dad-bribe-takin-influence-peddlin-joe-partnerin meth head who's been described as the smartest man alive (and that must be considered given how all you folks love the man)  but if you've got some news on that front, share!

 

As for faith in government, that's  a  problem generally, and you had no issues with just 1,292 days ago.  Let's take a look at how the US govt fares generally:

 

Spoiler alert...YIKES for Joe. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/

 

Clean up your own house, friend. 

 

 

 

Which Democrat said they take Putin's word over the U.S. government?

Trump did that, right?

Isn't that as good an example as one could find of one party saying don't trust your own government?

What's the Biden comparable?

1 hour ago, Wacka said:

To go and express their opinion  (guarantee under the 1st Amendment) in fro t of the capitol.

 

If that's all he wanted, why did he wait hours to say a word about it?

Why did he call them great people?

Do you think the rioters are great people?

Edited July 21, 2023 by Kemp

[TSOL]

7 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Which Democrat said they take Putin's word over the U.S. government?

Trump did that, right?

Isn't that as good an example as one could find of one party saying don't trust your own government?i

What's the Biden comparable?

 

If that's all he wanted, why did he wait hours to say a word about it?

Why did he call them great people?

Do you think the rioters are great people?

 

 

I feel really sad for you that you live in a country where people have the right to protest. 

[John from Riverside]

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

Delayed walls closing...

 

 

Ha ha
You do realize that this court date is going to be right in the middle of the primary presidential campaign

 

You’re going to have a president who is trying to be elected while he is on trial and evidence is being presented on the fact that he can’t be trusted as president

 

Except for right this very second, they could not have found a better date for this

30 minutes ago, Kemp said:

In which country are fake electors legal?

I was wondering that myself fake electors are not legal. In fact, there are people about to go to jail for this.

[Irv]

16 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Which Democrat said they take Putin's word over the U.S. government?

Trump did that, right?

Isn't that as good an example as one could find of one party saying don't trust your own government?

What's the Biden comparable?

 

If that's all he wanted, why did he wait hours to say a word about it?

Why did he call them great people?

Do you think the rioters are great people?

 

The sand called.  It misses your head.  You didn't see the "peaceful" protests in Seattle, Portland, NYC, Atlanta, Minneapolis, San Francisco, LA?  What a joke.  What a mess! 

[John from Riverside]

5 minutes ago, Irv said:

 

The sand called.  It misses your head.  You didn't see the "peaceful" protests in Seattle, Portland, NYC, Atlanta, Minneapolis, San Francisco, LA?  What a joke.  What a mess! 

Way to not answer his question at all

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Which Democrat said they take Putin's word over the U.S. government?

Trump did that, right?
Isn't that as good an example as one could find of one party saying don't trust your own government?

What's the Biden comparable?

 

If that's all he wanted, why did he wait hours to say a word about it?

Why did he call them great people?

Do you think the rioters are great people?

Why are you doing this to yourself, Kemp?   You get yourself all twisted in an emotional pretzel, dream up some unanswerable questions and when I respond, you stew about like the angry clown in IT.  

 

Choosing this hill to plant your flag is moronic.  Literally every political campaign, ever, includes word tracks and cautionary tales about trusting government.  Every one.  Let's see, off the top of my head, just your people:

• Democrat party nominee, 40,000,000 Trumpians are deplorable and beyond redemption;
• Democrat party 2016-2020, the Trump presidency was illegitimate, the election stolen, illegitimate, Trump acted treasonously; (Biden comp)
• Democrat party, 2016-2023...the Impeachment years; (Biden comp)
• Democrat party, basically forever...the SC is corrupt and can't be trusted; (Biden comp)
• Democrat party, 2020---don't trust the vaccine developed under the government watch of the wrong guy; (Biden comp)
• Democrat party, don't trust SC nominee Brett Kavanaugh, he's  serial sex abuser; (Biden comp)
• Democrat party, don't trust SC nominee Clarence Thomas, he's a serial sex predator; (Biden comp)
• Joe Biden, R politicians gonna put y'all in chains; (Biden comp)

 

I'll ask you my question now:

 

Did democrat leadership foster an air of trust and respect when Trump shocked the world and lawfully defeated Hillary Clinton in the election of 2016?  

 

You won't answer. I'll do it for you:  No, Leh-nerd,  they did not.  You're right, the dems enflamed their base with fabricated tales of stolen elections, treason and KGB agents sleeping in yarangy on the White House lawn. I still hate Trump, but you're right on dems sowing seeds of mistrust of government among the populace, and I'm lucky to call you friend.   

 

 

 

[Irv]

48 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Way to not answer his question at all

 

Yes.  We agree.  He's confused.  But you don't need to insert yourself here.  The pronoun is a big boy/girl/trans/whatever.  I'll tell you when it's OK to chime in with your blathering nonsense. OK?  Glad we got that straight.  

 

What a mess.  

 

P.S. - Riverside?  Is that like a van down by the river?  How's your steady dose of government cheese?  Too funny.    

 

 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by Irv

[John from Riverside]

38 minutes ago, Irv said:

 

Yes.  We agree.  He's confused.  But you don't need to insert yourself here.  The pronoun is a big boy/girl/trans/whatever.  I'll tell you when it's OK to chime in with your blathering nonsense. OK?  Glad we got that straight.  

 

What a mess.  

 

P.S. - Riverside?  Is that like a van down by the river?  How's your steady dose of government cheese?  Too funny.    

 

 

 

 

Don’t knock government cheese I lived on that as a kid makes pretty good grilled cheese sandwiches

[Kemp]

14 hours ago, TSOL said:

 

 

I feel really sad for you that you live in a country where people have the right to protest. 

 

Apparently you don't know the difference between protesting and rioting, but if you support Trump, I can't really expect more from you.

14 hours ago, Irv said:

 

The sand called.  It misses your head.  You didn't see the "peaceful" protests in Seattle, Portland, NYC, Atlanta, Minneapolis, San Francisco, LA?  What a joke.  What a mess! 

 

The sand called?

Yikes.

Another one who screams look over there instead of dealing with the topic.

A new clown for the clown show.

[Kemp]

14 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Why are you doing this to yourself, Kemp?   You get yourself all twisted in an emotional pretzel, dream up some unanswerable questions and when I respond, you stew about like the angry clown in IT.  

 

Choosing this hill to plant your flag is moronic.  Literally every political campaign, ever, includes word tracks and cautionary tales about trusting government.  Every one.  Let's see, off the top of my head, just your people:

• Democrat party nominee, 40,000,000 Trumpians are deplorable and beyond redemption;
• Democrat party 2016-2020, the Trump presidency was illegitimate, the election stolen, illegitimate, Trump acted treasonously; (Biden comp)
• Democrat party, 2016-2023...the Impeachment years; (Biden comp)
• Democrat party, basically forever...the SC is corrupt and can't be trusted; (Biden comp)
• Democrat party, 2020---don't trust the vaccine developed under the government watch of the wrong guy; (Biden comp)
• Democrat party, don't trust SC nominee Brett Kavanaugh, he's  serial sex abuser; (Biden comp)
• Democrat party, don't trust SC nominee Clarence Thomas, he's a serial sex predator; (Biden comp)
• Joe Biden, R politicians gonna put y'all in chains; (Biden comp)

 

I'll ask you my question now:

 

Did democrat leadership foster an air of trust and respect when Trump shocked the world and lawfully defeated Hillary Clinton in the election of 2016?  

 

You won't answer. I'll do it for you:  No, Leh-nerd,  they did not.  You're right, the dems enflamed their base with fabricated tales of stolen elections, treason and KGB agents sleeping in yarangy on the White House lawn. I still hate Trump, but you're right on dems sowing seeds of mistrust of government among the populace, and I'm lucky to call you friend.   

 

 

 

 

Who said Putin should be trusted over the American government?

You always write lots of words but never about the topic.

I'll ask another, fully realizing that you can't answer.

If a Dem had bowed before Putin at a summit, what would Republicans have done?

Would that be a disqualifier for you?

14 hours ago, Irv said:

 

Yes.  We agree.  He's confused.  But you don't need to insert yourself here.  The pronoun is a big boy/girl/trans/whatever.  I'll tell you when it's OK to chime in with your blathering nonsense. OK?  Glad we got that straight.  

 

What a mess.  

 

P.S. - Riverside?  Is that like a van down by the river?  How's your steady dose of government cheese?  Too funny.    

 

 

 

 

 

You're making Farley look bright.

[Tiberius]

The case against Trump for inciting a riot is pretty easy to make 

 

First he spread a lie he knew was not true 

Then he called a rally based on that lie, the “Stop the Steal” rally

The rally he called for and planned was on the day of the certification of his defeat 

He then pumped the crowd up with more lies about how they were being cheated 

After enflaming them with lies and violent rhetoric he had them march on the capital

He then refused for hours to stop the violence, a clear dereliction of duty. 

People died as a result of his “stop the steal” riot, that’s manslaughter at the very least 

18 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

People are being held accountable, Tibsy, just check the news.  You keep mentioning this 'stirred up' thing, are you advocating creating an addendum to the criminal code for Stirred Up Sh8t?  Stirred up in the third degree?  Misdemeanor Stirrage?  Whatever is on your mind, stop speaking in riddles.  

 

I've respectfully responded to your question and accept you don't like my answer.  You want to rush head long into lynch-mob mode, that's just not my game.  

There is no way you did not know this, more willful ignorance on your part 

 

The law includes threats of violence if those involved have the ability to immediately act on the threat. Inciting a riot, according to federal law, is defined as the acts of "organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in a riot" and urging others to riot.

 

Rioting and Inciting to Riot - FindLaw

 

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/rioting-and-inciting-riots.html#:~:text=The law includes threats of,and urging others to riot.

[Tommy Callahan]

40 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The case against Trump for inciting a riot is pretty easy to make 

 

First he spread a lie he knew was not true 

Then he called a rally based on that lie, the “Stop the Steal” rally

The rally he called for and planned was on the day of the certification of his defeat 

He then pumped the crowd up with more lies about how they were being cheated 

After enflaming them with lies and violent rhetoric he had them march on the capital

He then refused for hours to stop the violence, a clear dereliction of duty. 

People died as a result of his “stop the steal” riot, that’s manslaughter at the very least 

There is no way you did not know this, more willful ignorance on your part 

 

The law includes threats of violence if those involved have the ability to immediately act on the threat. Inciting a riot, according to federal law, is defined as the acts of "organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in a riot" and urging others to riot.

 

Rioting and Inciting to Riot - FindLaw

 

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/rioting-and-inciting-riots.html#:~:text=The law includes threats of,and urging others to riot.

Ray Epps?

[Kemp]

3 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Ray Epps?

 

Maybe I undervalued Irv.

Dead heat?

[Kemp]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66272655

Trump has always said that he never settles legal cases:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS1047US1047&sxsrf=AB5stBg6D5NuSwjYiBPmWai7b-CB77OcHQ:1690040250719&q=trump+never+settles+legal+cases&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5-LLG0qKAAxX1M1kFHUeuCjwQ0pQJegQICxAB&biw=1536&bih=714&dpr=1.25

[BillStime]

No way - Trump associated with dirty tricksters?

 

Seriously, ETTD

 

 

[Andy1]

Trump, his aides and other Rs who conspired with his illegal schemes are in a world of legal s#@t. Jack Smith and state prosecutors are flipping people moving up the food chain. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they are turning and Trump can’t stop it. Trump is running for President on the chance that he wins so he can pardon himself, or step down and have his VP pardon him.

[John from Riverside]

19 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

Trump, his aides and other Rs who conspired with his illegal schemes are in a world of legal s#@t. Jack Smith and state prosecutors are flipping people moving up the food chain. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they are turning and Trump can’t stop it. Trump is running for President on the chance that he wins so he can pardon himself, or step down and have his VP pardon him.

I will say this, and are Republicans friends here will get a chuckle out of this
 

When I first saw Jack Smith, the first thing I thought was this guy reminds me of back in the days whenever they were hunting, witches and he is one of those old-school Puritan inquisitors or something no nonsense doesn’t know how to crack a smile actually kind of scary as ***** whenever it comes to legal stuff

 

Just thought that was kind of funny since the term witchhunt comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth about every three seconds

[Westside]

1 minute ago, John from Riverside said:

I will say this, and are Republicans friends here will get a chuckle out of this
 

When I first saw Jack Smith, the first thing I thought was this guy reminds me of back in the days whenever they were hunting, witches and he is one of those old-school Puritan inquisitors or something no nonsense doesn’t know how to crack a smile actually kind of scary as ***** whenever it comes to legal stuff

 

Just thought that was kind of funny since the term witchhunt comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth about every three seconds

How many times do you have to try to arrest someone (unsuccessfully) before it becomes a witch-hunt?

[John from Riverside]

1 minute ago, Westside said:

How many times do you have to try to arrest someone (unsuccessfully) before it becomes a witch-hunt?

No president has ever been arrested. Whenever there been an office that was about impeachment and it was valid every time that they did it.
 

The Russian collusion thing I am not a conspiracy theorist, and the Mueller report says that there was no collusion. Therefore it is what it is.

 

How about this if Trump would just stop doing dirty ***** maybe they would stop going after him for it Trump is the problem they’re not people that are trying to hold him accountable

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, Westside said:

How many times do you have to try to arrest someone (unsuccessfully) before it becomes a witch-hunt?

Ask Trump - there is a reason why he has been sued over 3,000 times 

[Westside]

Just now, John from Riverside said:

No president has ever been arrested. Whenever there been an office that was about impeachment and it was valid every time that they did it.
 

The Russian collusion thing I am not a conspiracy theorist, and the Mueller report says that there was no collusion. Therefore it is what it is.

 

How about this if Trump would just stop doing dirty ***** maybe they would stop going after him for it Trump is the problem they’re not people that are trying to hold him accountable

I’m not defending Trump, I just want equality when arresting and charging people with crimes. To say there is no proof biden committed any crimes then turning around and saying trump is guilty sounds like a political partisan to me. You would have to be blind or willfully ignorant to think biden is innocent. He even bragged on video how he quid pro quo Ukraine for firing the prosecutor who was investigating burisma. It’s literally in video! Yet you ignore or down play it. Explain to me how’s that not partisan politics.

[John from Riverside]

3 minutes ago, Westside said:

I’m not defending Trump, I just want equality when arresting and charging people with crimes. To say there is no proof biden committed any crimes then turning around and saying trump is guilty sounds like a political partisan to me. You would have to be blind or willfully ignorant to think biden is innocent. He even bragged on video how he quid pro quo Ukraine for firing the prosecutor who was investigating burisma. It’s literally in video! Yet you ignore or down play it. Explain to me how’s that not partisan politics.

There are literally audio video and actual classified evidence of trumps crimes. It’s not equal you can’t do. What about it I’m here.
 

I think that January 6 was a riot. I think that there were a lot of people that went to the Capitol planning on protesting, and it turned into something else there were people that did not intend for violence to happen they were in the crowd they were people in that crowd that it at every intention of committing violence, it was a riot. I am not comfortable with calling it an insurrection. 

 

The documents case, however, is entirely different to me, because I spent so many years of my life dealing with it everything that Trump is saying about the documents is false if anyone other than him tried to do what he did, it’s Leavenworth baby your average Air Force sergeant making a mistake that’s anywhere close to that can just kiss his ass. Goodbye.  To me that is the worst thing he has done.  Donald Trump is like a kid that has been given the keys to the Candy store and can’t help himself.

[Westside]

8 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

There are literally audio video and actual classified evidence of trumps crimes. It’s not equal you can’t do. What about it I’m here.
 

I think that January 6 was a riot. I think that there were a lot of people that went to the Capitol planning on protesting, and it turned into something else there were people that did not intend for violence to happen they were in the crowd they were people in that crowd that it at every intention of committing violence, it was a riot. I am not comfortable with calling it an insurrection. 

 

The documents case, however, is entirely different to me, because I spent so many years of my life dealing with it everything that Trump is saying about the documents is false if anyone other than him tried to do what he did, it’s Leavenworth baby your average Air Force sergeant making a mistake that’s anywhere close to that can just kiss his ass. Goodbye.  To me that is the worst thing he has done.  Donald Trump is like a kid that has been given the keys to the Candy store and can’t help himself.

How do You feel about a senator or vice president stealing classified documents? Since senators and vice presidents have No security clearance to possess or take classified documents then that is stealing. They have found classified documents he took while he was a senator! How is he not held accountable for that? If Trump is guilty, lock him up. I have no problem with that. But to act like biden is squeaky clean is ludicrous.

[John from Riverside]

14 minutes ago, Westside said:

How do You feel about a senator or vice president stealing classified documents? Since senators and vice presidents have No security clearance to possess or take classified documents then that is stealing. They have found classified documents he took while he was a senator! How is he not held accountable for that? If Trump is guilty, lock him up. I have no problem with that. But to act like biden is squeaky clean is ludicrous.

To be clear, I am not a fan of anyone handling classified documents outside of a skiff
 

That’s how I had to do it

[Westside]

1 minute ago, John from Riverside said:

To be clear, I am not a fan of anyone handling classified documents outside of a skiff
 

That’s how I had to do it

Then be fair in your criticism of trump. Like I said early, they all are guilty of this, but they are only going after trump. That is what I have a problem with, not who they’re going after.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

He knew, they knew, they know.  They all fooled millions of Americans in a ridiculous lie

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/before-jan-6-mark-meadows-joked-about-trump-s-election-claims/ar-AA1ecAyZ

 

In a text message that has been scrutinized by federal prosecutors, Meadows wrote to a White House lawyer that his son, Atlanta-area attorney Blake Meadows, had been probing possible fraud and had found only a handful of possible votes cast in dead voters’ names, far short of what Trump was alleging. The lawyer teasingly responded that perhaps Meadows’s son could locate the thousands of votes Trump would need to win the election. The text was described by multiple people familiar with the exchange. 

The jocular text message, which has not been previously reported, is one of many exchanges from the time in which Trump aides and other Republican officials expressed deep skepticism or even openly mocked the election claims being made publicly by Trump

Edited July 23, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Kemp]

13 hours ago, Westside said:

How many times do you have to try to arrest someone (unsuccessfully) before it becomes a witch-hunt?

 

How many times did the government try and arrest Gotti?

No doubt you would view that as a witch hunt, based on your stated logic.

13 hours ago, Westside said:

I’m not defending Trump, I just want equality when arresting and charging people with crimes. To say there is no proof biden committed any crimes then turning around and saying trump is guilty sounds like a political partisan to me. You would have to be blind or willfully ignorant to think biden is innocent. He even bragged on video how he quid pro quo Ukraine for firing the prosecutor who was investigating burisma. It’s literally in video! Yet you ignore or down play it. Explain to me how’s that not partisan politics.

 

The difference is that Trump has been found guilty of a few crimes already.

[Kemp]

12 hours ago, Westside said:

Then be fair in your criticism of trump. Like I said early, they all are guilty of this, but they are only going after trump. That is what I have a problem with, not who they’re going after.

 

Trump would have zero legal issues in regards to the docs  if he had returned them when the government first requested them.

You didn't hear about that part?

The idiot brought it upon himself.

[The Frankish Reich]

15 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

I am not comfortable with calling it an insurrection. 

 

Same here. I refer to it as a riot for that reason. But as I've explained here before, it wasn't just a riot. The riot was part of a larger plan to intimidate Pence and Congress in order to delay certification and to allow the diabolical Eastman plan a chance of succeeding. 

Edited July 23, 2023 by The Frankish Reich

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 7/22/2023 at 8:41 AM, Kemp said:

 

Who said Putin should be trusted over the American government?

You always write lots of words but never about the topic.

I'll ask another, fully realizing that you can't answer.

If a Dem had bowed before Putin at a summit, what would Republicans have done? 

Would this be a disqualifier for you? 

You inquire about trust in government but don’t want to talk about trust in government. Weird.
 

Anyway…I’ll forgo linking body language analysis in the meeting below.  International politics in a very complicated game, but one thing seems certain—this interaction reflects mutual respect, deference and friendship: 
 

 

 

Obviously, Dems sent a message to Barrack about partnering with a notorious foreign adversary.  It’s quite likely ten, maybe twenty Dems nationally stayed home on Election Day to protest this partnership:

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/245803/preliminary-results-of-the-popular-vote-of-the-2012-presidential-election/

 

 

President Obama has won the election with about 65.9 million votes from the population. His opponent Mitt Romney could gather about 60.9 million votes.

Then, a short time later, of course, Putin annexed Crimea.  Perhaps this was the flexibility promised by BO and approved by 65,900,000 supporters: 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-annexes-crimea-away-from-ukraine-with-signature-from-vladimir-putin/

 

 

Was all this a disqualifier for you?  

🤷🏼‍♂️

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 7/22/2023 at 10:49 AM, Tiberius said:

The case against Trump for inciting a riot is pretty easy to make 

 

First he spread a lie he knew was not true 

Then he called a rally based on that lie, the “Stop the Steal” rally

The rally he called for and planned was on the day of the certification of his defeat 

He then pumped the crowd up with more lies about how they were being cheated 

After enflaming them with lies and violent rhetoric he had them march on the capital

He then refused for hours to stop the violence, a clear dereliction of duty. 

People died as a result of his “stop the steal” riot, that’s manslaughter at the very least 

There is no way you did not know this, more willful ignorance on your part 

 

The law includes threats of violence if those involved have the ability to immediately act on the threat. Inciting a riot, according to federal law, is defined as the acts of "organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in a riot" and urging others to riot.

 

Rioting and Inciting to Riot - FindLaw

 

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/rioting-and-inciting-riots.html#:~:text=The law includes threats of,and urging others to riot.

I understand how you feel, mostly because you keep repeating yourself.  
 

Should be a slam dunk per find law dot com.  That’s ok. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

18 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

Should be a slam dunk per find law dot com.  

And for the defense if you're rooting for the Don...cuz that's where he's getting them.  Now, judges are a different story.

Edited July 24, 2023 by redtail hawk

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

And for the defense if you're rooting for the Don...cuz that's where he's getting them.  Now, judges are a different story.

Right.  What?  

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Right.  What?  

trump is getting bottom feeder lawyers.  He has been for some time...Legal eagles?  agree?  They never seem to weigh in x section C3,  Are they demurring or disagree?  I can't tell.  I'm not gonna explain the judges comment.  You seem to have at least avg intelligence.

Edited July 24, 2023 by redtail hawk

[ChiGoose]

35 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I understand how you feel, mostly because you keep repeating yourself.  
 

Should be a slam dunk per find law dot com.  That’s ok. 

There’s certainly an argument for incitement. And if it wasn’t the President of the United States, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was charged. 
 

So while I remain skeptical that Trump will actually be charged with incitement, here is what the argument would look like:

 

1. Trump’s team claimed that they won the election despite reality. 
2. Trump’s team hired consultants to find election fraud but they could not find evidence that he had won

3. Trump was told that he lost by his advisors 

4. Trump pushed the idiotic theory that the VP can decide an election 

5. Pence proved that he has like two brain cells to rub together and the idea that the VP decides elections is stupid as hell. 
6. Upon learning this, Trump tells his followers to come out because it “will be wild”

7. When Pence does his actual job, Trump tweets that he failed and the terrorists decide that they want to hang Pence and sack the Capitol. 

8. During the terrorist attack on the Capitol, the only person who potentially has the power to stop it is Trump and he refuses to do so for hours. 
 

So the proposed case is that Trump fomented a situation to create violence in the hopes that the violence would end to his benefit. 
 

It’s probably factually true but fairly difficult to prove in a court of law. It is definitely not a slam dunk. The documents case is the definition of a slam dunk. Incitement is a very different story. 

[John from Riverside]

4 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

trump is getting bottom feeder lawyers.  He has been for some time...Legal eagles?  agree?  They never seem to weigh in x section C3,  Are they demurring or disagree?  I can't tell.  I'm not gonna explain the judges comment.  You seem to have at least avg intelligence.

Ditch problem with the arguments that come out of trumps mouth is that they play well with his bass but they don’t work well in court. He is now hiring lawyers that just go on to Fox News and repeat what he says. These are not arguments that are going to work in court. 
Trump and his team tried so hard to push the documents case pass the election and that is not even going his way with a judge that he selected

That trail is going to go on right in the middle of Trump trying to run for election and his base will come out for him and vote twice if they could but that’s not gonna work with the rest of the country

Fast forward to 2023 and Trump will be complaining that he didn’t get a fair shot at being elected because of the trial

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

There’s certainly an argument for incitement. And if it wasn’t the President of the United States, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was charged. 
 

So while I remain skeptical that Trump will actually be charged with incitement, here is what the argument would look like:

 

1. Trump’s team claimed that they won the election despite reality. 
2. Trump’s team hired consultants to find election fraud but they could not find evidence that he had won

3. Trump was told that he lost by his advisors 

4. Trump pushed the idiotic theory that the VP can decide an election 

5. Pence proved that he has like two brain cells to rub together and the idea that the VP decides elections is stupid as hell. 
6. Upon learning this, Trump tells his followers to come out because it “will be wild”

7. When Pence does his actual job, Trump tweets that he failed and the terrorists decide that they want to hang Pence and sack the Capitol. 

8. During the terrorist attack on the Capitol, the only person who potentially has the power to stop it is Trump and he refuses to do so for hours. 
 

So the proposed case is that Trump fomented a situation to create violence in the hopes that the violence would end to his benefit. 
 

It’s probably factually true but fairly difficult to prove in a court of law. It is definitely not a slam dunk. The documents case is the definition of a slam dunk. Incitement is a very different story. 

You’re doing your heavy lifting for the wrong poster.  @Tiberius is the legal zoom guy.  Good stuff tho. 

[BillsFanNC]

@ChiGoose , the King,  sure has his democrat masters talking points down pat.

 

You can't be THE KING without it.

[SectionC3]

8 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

trump is getting bottom feeder lawyers.  He has been for some time...Legal eagles?  agree?  They never seem to weigh in x section C3,  Are they demurring or disagree?  I can't tell.  I'm not gonna explain the judges comment.  You seem to have at least avg intelligence.

It's hard to say.  The reputation of his attorneys does not seem to be all that great.  Then again, I've had cases with people with sterling reputations who left me utterly unimpressed after dealing with them on papers and in person.  

 

The reality is that nobody with a future wants to deal with this guy because he's toxic, America will likely awaken to the fact that he's toxic in the somewhat near future, the cases are dogs, and this fool probably will burn them when they inevitably either lose or get an 11-1 hung jury because of some bozo MAGA who makes them repeat the endeavor once or twice.  Aside from the immediate infusion of cash and instant notoriety (all press is good press, I guess?), there's nothing to be gained by working with this guy.