04 Aug 23
@no1marauder saidWords are not illegal. You said this:
By his words and actions, not his thoughts. They demonstrate what we lawyers call "intent".
Stop with Crowdstrike; you've lied about that on this board at least a hundred times. They never said what you claim and you know it and don't bother posting a link to the same article you have done a hundred times and forcing me to post a link to Crowdstrike's refutation and th ...[text shortened]... idence but is simply parroting what his crank conspiracy sites tell him.
It and you are pathetic.
"Trump isn't being charged for his lies about election fraud"
Not his words either. You said so. You cannot prove he knew he lost the election. The very assertion that he knew he lost is impossible to prove. That is why I am calling you out on your silly thought crimes.
Hitlery Clinton knew Trump was not an illegitimate president and knew she lost the election. Is that a fact or an opinion?
04 Aug 23
@metal-brain saidWhat do you mean "how do you know your electors lost"?
So if you know they won it is perfectly legal but if you are wrong you go to prison?
How do you know your electors lost? Now you want opinion crimes to prevent the questioning of election results. What is wrong with you?
The results in all those States had been certified and all court challenges had been invalidated.
It isn't an "opinion" when you file a false instrument; are you claiming all fraud statutes punish "opinions"?
@metal-brain saidWhat you think is "impossible" i.e. someone's state of mind gets proven beyond a reasonable doubt every day in court rooms throughout the nation.
Words are not illegal. You said this:
"Trump isn't being charged for his lies about election fraud"
Not his words either. You said so. You cannot prove he knew he lost the election. The very assertion that he knew he lost is impossible to prove. That is why I am calling you out on your silly thought crimes.
Hitlery Clinton knew Trump was not an illegitimate president and knew she lost the election. Is that a fact or an opinion?
04 Aug 23
@no1marauder saidYou know there is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC too. How do I prove it?
What you think is "impossible" i.e. someone's state of mind gets proven beyond a reasonable doubt every day in court rooms throughout the nation.
Hitlery Clinton knew she lost the 2016 election too. Is that a fact or an opinion?
04 Aug 23
@no1marauder said"The results in all those States had been certified and all court challenges had been invalidated."
What do you mean "how do you know your electors lost"?
The results in all those States had been certified and all court challenges had been invalidated.
It isn't an "opinion" when you file a false instrument; are you claiming all fraud statutes punish "opinions"?
That was the case in Saddam Hussein's Iraq too. Does that prove he won the elections fair and square? Your logic is based on the assumption election fraud cannot be covered up in the USA. That is called faith.
@metal-brain saidYes you little Russian dumbass that’s why Hilary conceded the election, she never once claimed election fraud but she did claim election interference by the Kremlin and collusion with that interference by the Trump election. team.
You know there is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC too. How do I prove it?
Hitlery Clinton knew she lost the 2016 election too. Is that a fact or an opinion?
@metal-brain saidHahaha
Notice what the indictment said Trump is allowed to do. Everything he did.
https://rumble.com/v34b9ec-the-real-reason-for-trumps-latest-indictment-explained.html
04 Aug 23
@kevcvs57 saidShe called him an illegitimate president without evidence. It was a lie and she knew it was a lie.
Yes you little Russian dumbass that’s why Hilary conceded the election, she never once claimed election fraud but she did claim election interference by the Kremlin and collusion with that interference by the Trump election. team.
04 Aug 23
@no1marauder saidFrom the link you didn't read well:
Except you left out the fact that by the time Congress met to certify the election, a judge ordered recount had already been conducted and showed Kennedy the winner in Hawaii. " On December 27, Circuit Judge Ronald B. Jamieson ruled that the presidential election in Hawaii was won by President-elect Kennedy by a 115 vote margin."
http://www.leinsdorf.com/how_kennedy_won_hawaii.htm
So yet another false "whataboutism" on your part.
"The envelope containing the certificates, stamped Dec. 22, 1960, includes another avowal: “We hereby certify that the lists of all the votes of the state of Hawaii given for president … are contained herein.” The documents do not mention the ongoing recount or that Nixon’s Hawaii victory had been certified."
So the election was certified for Nixon when they submitted it, not JFK. And there is this:
"The Hawaii Democrats used virtually the same language that the false Trump electors in five states used in their effort to upend the 2020 race. In those documents — from Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia — the pro-Turmp activists described themselves as “duly elected and qualified.” In two other states, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, Trump allies submitted alternative elector slates but included a caveat: their votes would only be counted if ongoing court battles broke in favor of Trump.
Charlie Gerow, a veteran Pennsylvania Republican strategist who signed one of the pro-Trump elector certificates, said he and several other electors who were lawyers devised the strategy to include a caveat.
“We put in the contingent language quite bluntly because I and several others in the room who were lawyers insisted upon it,” said Gerow, who is currently running for governor. “We inserted that language specifically to avoid some of the charges that are coming from the left.”
So Trump allies submitted alternative elector slates but included a caveat: their votes would only be counted if ongoing court battles broke in favor of Trump. So what is illegal about that? They were not trying to cheat anybody out of votes. 1960 was actually worse because there was no such caveat and they did it while Nixon was still the certified winner, not JFK as you claimed. That happened 5 days later.
04 Aug 23
@metal-brain saidNo that’s an opinion, an opinion I share with Hilary, she did not act on that opinion by telling the then democrat vice president to stop the certification of the election, she didn’t phone state election officials and ask them ‘find’ votes, she did not formulate a conspiracy to send fake electors to the certification.
She called him an illegitimate president without evidence. It was a lie and she knew it was a lie.
Speech is fine but actual criminal enterprise attempting to thwart the will of the people is a crime pure and simple and no amount if illiterate word play by Moscow media mules is going to change that fact.
Lock him up, lock him up, lock him up
04 Aug 23
@shavixmir saidBut what did he do that was illegal?
As a political leader, he constantly tried to undermine the democratic process by repeatedly attempting to overturn the election result.
He’s on tape putting pressure on people overturn election counts.
The man is a narcissist fukk-wad.
That alone should have him locked up and raped repeatedly in the showers.
But, as Nr.1 said: read the indictment (or charges, in ...[text shortened]... edia is pumping you full of.
In fact, in your case, just stop trying to form opinions. Full stop.
04 Aug 23
@averagejoe1 saidIt’s there. You just copy and pasted it.
But what did he do that was illegal?
Oh. Yeah. I remember, when you don’t like an answer, you automatically fail to register it and think people are avoiding your point.
Well, let’s make it simple for you:
READ THE FUKKING CHARGES BEING BROUGHT.
There you go.
04 Aug 23
@no1marauder saidSo the illegal act would be to overthrow the election. Is that what you are saying? That he overthrew an election, which would certainly be a crime.
Conspired to overturn an election he knew he lost by illegal means.
The fake elector scheme was part of it, so was pressuring the DOJ to open election fraud investigations when they had already told him there was no basis to do so, so was trying to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find" him enough votes to change the result in that State and many other acts all spelled out in the indictment (which you refuse to read).
Did he overthrow an election? YOu write like a waffley liberal.
Did he overthrow an election?
04 Aug 23
@metal-brain saidOf course it didn't no matter what your crank conspiracy sites claim.
Notice what the indictment said Trump is allowed to do. Everything he did.
https://rumble.com/v34b9ec-the-real-reason-for-trumps-latest-indictment-explained.html