So let’s take this one at a time.

Jarod said:
In the first count of the D.C. indictment quoted above... He is guilty of...

“If two or more persons conspire, either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof an any manner for any purpose, and one or more of such a persons do at any act, to affect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned, not more than five years or both.”
18 USC 371

He is one of a group who conspired to defraud the United States, and at least one person took action toward that conspiracy.
Click to expand...

you fail at "defraud".....
 
Jarod said:
No an action. Are you so stupid? They planned to, and did... go to the states and set up fake electors. That is not a lie, but an action.
Click to expand...

They did nothing illegal. There is no such thing as a "fake elector". That's a moronic DNC lie. They have the right to petition and demand a fair election and to look for fraud.

It's stupid to attempt to argue something that isn't true.
 
Jarod said:
Lying is speech, which in one sense could be considered an action, but under the meaning of Conspiracy Law it is not considered an action, an action other than speech is required.

"They" are Trump and his listed co-conspirators as listed in the indictment.
Click to expand...

What a gullible nitwit. You seem to enjoy being gaslighted. :palm:
 
Jarod said:
The Conspiracy does include a lie, but that is just part of the crime. The first part of the indictment points out that Trump had a constitutional right to speech, and a constitutional right to lie; not a constitutional right to engage in a conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Fraud is often a part of illegal activity.

In this case, the lie was an element of a criminal conspiracy. You see, speech can be part of a crime. I understand this is more complex than you are used to, but lets compare it to something more basic.

If I go to a few of my friends and say...

'We all agree Bank of America stole money from me (a lie) and I want it back.'
Then the group and I plan to hack the Bank and extract money, then we have committed FRAUD based on a lie.

Can you see that its still a crime to hack the bank?
Click to expand...

Trying to argue that there was a conspiracy and attempt to commit fraud is laughably loony. Trying to argue that the election was perfect and that everyone knew it and if they didn't, they are committing fraud is about as moronic an argument that can be made by leftist dumbasses like Jack Smith.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
because it can't be proved......he commumicated and planned a protest of an unconstitutional election.......no laws against that......you need to prove he intended something you cannot prove.....
Click to expand...

You conveniently forgot that he communicated and cause a group of fake electors to be slated.

You don’t know that I can’t be proven, you don’t know what the evidence is. I suspect Mike Pence’s testimony is going to be very persuasive.
 
Page 5 paragraph b

“The defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the constitution and other federal and state laws. This included using the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law, on which legitimate electors were to meet, and cast their votes; Cast fraudulent votes for the defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the defendant succeeded in outcome, determined lawsuits with in their state, which the defendant never did. The defendant and co-conspirators, then caused the fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the VicePresident and other government officials to be counted at the certificate proceeding on January 6.”

This is the second description of criminal activity of the conspirators. (Interestingly, Smith could have charged it as a second count, but simply listed it as additional facts that also add up to the same crime.)
 
Jarod said:
Page 5 paragraph b

“The defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the constitution and other federal and state laws. This included using the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law, on which legitimate electors were to meet, and cast their votes; Cast fraudulent votes for the defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the defendant succeeded in outcome, determined lawsuits with in their state, which the defendant never did. The defendant and co-conspirators, then caused the fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the VicePresident and other government officials to be counted at the certificate proceeding on January 6.”

This is the second description of criminal activity of the conspirators. (Interestingly, Smith could have charged it as a second count, but simply listed it as additional facts that also add up to the same crime.)
Click to expand...

fuck Page 5, paragraph B....its Smith's fantasy and your hope for vindication following six years of lies and hate.....you people forget the obvious.....you can't resist releasing stuff to the media......just like Rachel Maddow did with Trump's tax returns......if you idiots had any evidence it would have been published in the NYT by now.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
fuck Page 5, paragraph B....its Smith's fantasy and your hope for vindication following six years of lies and hate.....you people forget the obvious.....you can't resist releasing stuff to the media......just like Rachel Maddow did with Trump's tax returns......if you idiots had any evidence it would have been published in the NYT by now.......
Click to expand...

We will see, but Smith does not strike me as the kinda guy to allege things he does not have a basis for... I suspect he has a few cooperating witnesses.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
fuck Page 5, paragraph B....its Smith's fantasy and your hope for vindication following six years of lies and hate.....you people forget the obvious.....you can't resist releasing stuff to the media......just like Rachel Maddow did with Trump's tax returns......if you idiots had any evidence it would have been published in the NYT by now.......
Click to expand...

Seems like Smith has kept a few...
 
Just paragraph b itself could have been 7 counts, instead its only a sub set to Court 1.
 
Jarod said:
Count 1

Page 5 paragraph 10, section 8.

The defendant and co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election flood to get state, legislatures and election officials to subvert legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the defendants opponent, Joseph R, Biden, Junior, to electoral votes for the defendant. That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the defendant punished pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise, millions of voters; dismiss, legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors, in favor of the defendant.

This is the wording from the indictment, one of three different facts that lead up to a violation of 18 USC 371….
Click to expand...

The battlefield isn't the courtroom Jarod. It's the court of public opinion.
 
Lightbringer said:
The battlefield isn't the courtroom Jarod. It's the court of public opinion.
Click to expand...

I think Trump is going to find out that the Courtroom matters.

Its clear he broke the law and could have been charged in this indictment with 10 counts instead of 3.
 
Jarod said:
We will see, but Smith does not strike me as the kinda guy to allege things he does not have a basis for... I suspect he has a few cooperating witnesses.
Click to expand...

his history of being overturned on appeal says otherwise.....his choice to use a DC grand jury for the Florida indictments says otherwose.....he may have quite a few cooperating witnesses, but that depends on whether they have something other than hearsay testimony.......that's been the problem with all your investigations so far.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top