“He is toast”: Legal experts call out Mark Meadows’ “incriminating admission”

Nordberg said:
Mueller made it clear, charging the president for collusion was not allowed in the mandate he was given for investigation. He listed 14 incidents of collusion and said it was up to congress to investigate. For some reason, the Repub congress did not. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489 This is for others to read. You cannot since you are a bot.
Click to expand...

Total fucking lie. He said he found no collusion,,,and the Obama DOJ/FBI/CIA shpuld have been prosecuted for their lie-based conspiracy.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
There is nothing illegal about making a phone call.

This case is going nowhere.

You folks on the left are just setting yourselves up for a huge disappointment just like you did with the Mueller case.
Click to expand...

So it's not illegal for me to call my friend and discuss our plans to track you down and dismember you? Several times? With details of just how we'll do it? Isn't that called "conspiracy"? That's illegal.

So yes, Vlad, some phone calls can get you in legal trouble.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
What are they?
Click to expand...

I have not read his testimony, but he will argue that he was acting within the scope of his duties as Chief of Staff, as Chief of Staff part of his job was to set up all meetings and phone calls for the president, even if they were not business or if they related to his campaign. Because his job was to control access to the President. So, setting up the phone call might have been part of his official duties.

Now it is much murkier when he participated in the call. He will claim that part of his official job was not allowing fraud in elections, but he was clearly acting on behalf of the campaign to me... so that puts him out of immunity for acting within his official duties.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
So it's not illegal for me to call my friend and discuss our plans to track you down and dismember you? Several times? With details of just how we'll do it? Isn't that called "conspiracy"? That's illegal.

So yes, Vlad, some phone calls can get you in legal trouble.
Click to expand...

Talking about killing someone is an actual crime, asking someone to find votes, which could mean to legally find them, is not.

Trump never told them to do anything illegal.

His defense will argue that Trump was asking them to conduct a recount which is perfectly within his rights.
 
Nordberg said:
Mueller made it clear, charging the president for collusion was not allowed in the mandate he was given for investigation. He listed 14 incidents of collusion and said it was up to congress to investigate. For some reason, the Repub congress did not. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489 This is for others to read. You cannot since you are a bot.
Click to expand...

All of those 14 charges were against other people, nothing recommended regarding Trump.
 
Jarod said:
I have not read his testimony, but he will argue that he was acting within the scope of his duties as Chief of Staff, as Chief of Staff part of his job was to set up all meetings and phone calls for the president, even if they were not business or if they related to his campaign. Because his job was to control access to the President. So, setting up the phone call might have been part of his official duties.

Now it is much murkier when he participated in the call. He will claim that part of his official job was not allowing fraud in elections, but he was clearly acting on behalf of the campaign to me... so that puts him out of immunity for acting within his official duties.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's a good explanation and sounds plausible as well.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Talking about killing someone is an actual crime, asking someone to find votes, which could mean to legally find them, is not.

Trump never told them to do anything illegal.

His defense will argue that Trump was asking them to conduct a recount which is perfectly within his rights.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Ivan, but trying to overturn an election by threatening a public official and urging him to "find" votes that do not exist is not legal. He did not mention recount, nor was there any reason to bring that up since it had already been done, and certified. Biden won the state. End of story, except for your #MalignantMango.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Sorry, Ivan, but trying to overturn an election by threatening a public official and urging him to "find" votes that do not exist is not legal. He did not mention recount, nor was there any reason to bring that up since it had already been done, and certified. Biden won the state. End of story, except for your #MalignantMango.
Click to expand...

....and will be proved in court.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Sorry, Ivan, but trying to overturn an election by threatening a public official and urging him to "find" votes that do not exist is not legal. He did not mention recount, nor was there any reason to bring that up since it had already been done, and certified. Biden won the state. End of story, except for your #MalignantMango.
Click to expand...

And how exactly did he threaten him again?

You should know, the whole transcript of the call is available to read so tell us where the threat is.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Talking about killing someone is an actual crime, asking someone to find votes, which could mean to legally find them, is not.

Trump never told them to do anything illegal.

His defense will argue that Trump was asking them to conduct a recount which is perfectly within his rights.
Click to expand...

They had already conducted two hand recounts you fucking moronn. He never, ever mentioned the word recount on that call.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
And how exactly did he threaten him again?

You should know, the whole transcript of the call is available to read so tell us where the threat is.
Click to expand...

With criminal prosecution.

"And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. "

And it gets way worse, but because you are a lazy stupid fuck you won't read it.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html
 
Tinkerpeach said:
All of those 14 charges were against other people, nothing recommended regarding Trump.
Click to expand...

You still cannot understand what is so simple for the rest of us. Mueller was not allowed to go after Trump, who was president at that time So he did not. But in the first chapter of his report, he listed many incidents of Trump's collusion with Russia. He said congress should investigate them. He was not allowed too. No way a Repub congress would ever do that.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
And how exactly did he threaten him again?

You should know, the whole transcript of the call is available to read so tell us where the threat is.
Click to expand...

Poor sad Igor, so ignorant. I explained that to you last week. I even provided you with links to the actual recording of the call, as well as the transcript. I've listened to and read both. Even Mr. Raffensperger and his associates who listened in agree that Trump made threats. Your Moscow-provided opinion is meaningless, like most of your denials of reality and fact.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Poor sad Igor, so ignorant. I explained that to you last week. I even provided you with links to the actual recording of the call, as well as the transcript. I've listened to and read both. Even Mr. Raffensperger and his associates who listened in agree that Trump made threats. Your Moscow-provided opinion is meaningless, like most of your denials of reality and fact.
Click to expand...

No he didn't, you could have listed them it less words than it took you to write this bullshit but you can't because he made none.

I don't think you even know what constitutes a threat in a court of law.
 
Nordberg said:
You still cannot understand what is so simple for the rest of us. Mueller was not allowed to go after Trump, who was president at that time So he did not. But in the first chapter of his report, he listed many incidents of Trump's collusion with Russia. He said congress should investigate them. He was not allowed too. No way a Repub congress would ever do that.
Click to expand...

Congress did go after him with two impeachments but they ultimately found him not guilty.

Mueller could have also filed charges once Trump was out of office, but he simply dropped the case because he knew he didn't have the evidence.

If he had evidence he could have contacted the DOJ to begin charges and while not able to prosecute they could have had the charges waiting and ready to go.
 
1693416097284-png.1365739
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top