Scott Adams on Trump Indictments

[Callinectes]

Scott is as crazy a rightys as you people are, The fact is according to over 6 Trump court cases, numerous recounts, and election officials going over the voting again and again, we proved our elections are clean and honest. It also proved that rights do not need any data and facts to make claims. Trump said it, so it must be so. Except he lost every damn case. So instead of being able to process what was shown, rightys turned to conspiracies.
Yeah it is a huge plot, secret and impossible to see. It is so good, that it is invisible, and it has no evidence. But who needs that to believe?

https://youtube.com/shorts/yHqcpSldFEw?feature=share

 

[domer76]

“And we can know for sure that the voting results for 2020 violated historical patterns so drastically any reasonable person would have some questions”

If nothing else, Trump’s attorney should use this in his closing arguments. Nothing eases my suspicions like “the system” assuring me that there is nothing wrong with “the system”.

“And we can know for sure that the voting results for 2020 violated historical patterns so drastically any reasonable person would have some questions”

You’re making the assumption that is a true and accurate statement. It’s not.

Any reasonable person sees the results of the audits, recounts, recounts of recounts, investigations of fraud, the multiple lawsuits, forensic investigations, certification of elections by SOS, cyber experts, etc. and concludes it was a secure and valid election.

Only conspiracists think otherwise.

 

[Port Tack]

The indictments are all bogus anyways, none of it will stick.

It's all just to harass Trump to throw off his campaign.

The only important thing going on is the investigation into Biden's bribery scandal which is ramping up daily.

If the DNC were smart they would already be planning to dump him, they can't yet because he still has a year in office, but they should be looking for a new candidate.

The only way anyone could say something as fucking stupid as this is if they just listen to something such as FOX news. ANYONE else facing the charges that Trump is would be looking at the rest of their lives in prison. If you read the charges and look at the evidence it is obvious the shitbag is guilty. How ANYONE can listen to Trump telling Raffinsberger to find me the votes and threatening him with prosecution if he doesn't and then say "the indictments are bogus" is a fucking dumbshit, and that is putting it mildly.

As far as Biden's bribery there is no evidence whatsoever that he was involved in any such thing. The right has about as much evidence that Joe was involved in any bribery as Trump has that the election was stolen which is fucking nothing. The right has been using Hunter Biden as their only fucking attack and this is the third time they are doing it. REPUBLICANS have twice given up on this investigation because as Bill Barr said, "there is nothing there". It is once agan approaching election time so it's time to bring him up again. I would think any republicans with a few brain cells to rub together would have become embarrassed by now.

 

[Port Tack]

Let's assume for a moment that Scott Adams is right and everything becomes corrupt over time. That proves that the GOP and Trump are corrupt. Case closed!!


But the real problem with Scott Adams argument is that it would not be let into a court room since it is irrelevant to the case. Judges restrict the arguments to the indictment and facts that are directly related to the indictment. If Scott Adams were to make that argument in a court room, the court would ask, "Do you have any actual evidence?" Court rulings are made on evidence alone. That is why Trump and election deniers have lost 60 cases. That is why Rudy and others are losing their law licenses. Lawyers can only present evidence that is factual. Speculation is not evidence and never will be in a court of law.

You hit the nail on the head. Trump totally fights his battles in the court of public opinion and his followers are ignorant so he wins. When it comes to the courtroom his asinine arguments will disappear. When he or his attorneys claim he declassified all those documents or his first amendment right was to threaten Georgia for more votes or any number of other fucking stupid claims of his, the judge will stop things and tell the jury that is bullshit. His attorneys won't bring them up because they know they won't fly and Trump won't because he is too much a chickenshit to testify himself.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

The only way anyone could say something as fucking stupid as this is if they just listen to something such as FOX news. ANYONE else facing the charges that Trump is would be looking at the rest of their lives in prison. If you read the charges and look at the evidence it is obvious the shitbag is guilty. How ANYONE can listen to Trump telling Raffinsberger to find me the votes and threatening him with prosecution if he doesn't and then say "the indictments are bogus" is a fucking dumbshit, and that is putting it mildly.

As far as Biden's bribery there is no evidence whatsoever that he was involved in any such thing. The right has about as much evidence that Joe was involved in any bribery as Trump has that the election was stolen which is fucking nothing. The right has been using Hunter Biden as their only fucking attack and this is the third time they are doing it. REPUBLICANS have twice given up on this investigation because as Bill Barr said, "there is nothing there". It is once agan approaching election time so it's time to bring him up again. I would think any republicans with a few brain cells to rub together would have become embarrassed by now.

So you want to just find people guilty without a trial where they can defend themselves?

Trump said to find the votes, he was probably meaning by holding a recount, he never once suggested anything illegal be done and he never threatened him with prosecution.

The evidence against Biden is overwhelming.

He threatened to withhold funding from Ukraine unless they fired one single guy who he said was corrupt who just happened to be the guy investigating the company where his son worked yet we give billions to nations all over the world who have more than their fair share of corrupt people but Biden never was sent to withhold their funding was he.

Biden said repeatedly he had no knowledge of Hunter's business dealing which we now know is a lie. Even Biden isn't saying that anymore.

We have whistleblowers and eyewitness testimony that says Biden was directly involved.

We have 20 shell corporations that were opened under the Biden's to funnel at least 20 million dollars from Ukraine and China to at least nine family members of the Biden's at which point they were quickly shut down.

And the investigation is still ongoing, it hasn't even reached it's pinnacle yet so expect even more direct evidence to come out soon. The house oversight committee is currently following the money trail.

 

[Port Tack]

Too funny. A guy living in bumfuck Idaho calling ANYONE Jethro!

He is right. Your fucking stupid predictions have all shown to be just that, fucking stupid. Trump lost bigtime when you claimed he was going to win. You claimed we were all in trouble because your tough Trump supporters were going to make us all pay and those pussies have done nothing. Now are you saying Trump will beat Biden in the next election? Because that one will be asinine as well. You are the idiot who posts asinine pictures every time someone responds to you with anything of substance because you have no retort. Now let's see Charlton Heston again.

 

[Port Tack]

“And we can know for sure that the voting results for 2020 violated historical patterns so drastically any reasonable person would have some questions”

If nothing else, Trump’s attorney should use this in his closing arguments. Nothing eases my suspicions like “the system” assuring me that there is nothing wrong with “the system”.

The only reason we might have had some "historical patterns" is because a complete jackass was running on the republican ticket.

 

[Port Tack]

Another intelligent response from the ignorant dumbfuck. Keep em coming to prove you are just that.

 

[Port Tack]

You're barking mad most of the time, sadly you are unaware of that fact.

Don't bother to respond with anything of substance because you have none.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So you want to just find people guilty without a trial where they can defend themselves?

It looks like it's you that wants to find someone guilty without a trial and without evidence.

The evidence against Biden is overwhelming.

He threatened to withhold funding from Ukraine unless they fired one single guy who he said was corrupt who just happened to be the guy investigating the company where his son worked yet we give billions to nations all over the world who have more than their fair share of corrupt people but Biden never was sent to withhold their funding was he.

Biden said repeatedly he had no knowledge of Hunter's business dealing which we now know is a lie. Even Biden isn't saying that anymore.

We have whistleblowers and eyewitness testimony that says Biden was directly involved.

We have 20 shell corporations that were opened under the Biden's to funnel at least 20 million dollars from Ukraine and China to at least nine family members of the Biden's at which point they were quickly shut down.

And the investigation is still ongoing, it hasn't even reached it's pinnacle yet so expect even more direct evidence to come out soon. The house oversight committee is currently following the money trail.

I don't see any overwhelming evidence, I see you making stuff up that isn't supported by the evidence while claiming the person is guilty without letting them defend themselves.

 

[Port Tack]

So you want to just find people guilty without a trial where they can defend themselves?

didn't say that, I said he is guilty and the trial will prove it.

Trump said to find the votes, he was probably meaning by holding a recount, he never once suggested anything illegal be done and he never threatened him with prosecution.

Trump: 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. you can’t let it happen, and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen.
Trump: Well, under law, you’re not allowed to give faulty election results, okay? You’re not allowed to do that. And that’s what you done.

That is insinuating that Raffensberger was doing something illegal and he was notifying him of that. That is a threat telling him he was breaking the law.

The evidence against Biden is overwhelming.

What is it?

He threatened to withhold funding from Ukraine unless they fired one single guy who he said was corrupt who just happened to be the guy investigating the company where his son worked yet we give billions to nations all over the world who have more than their fair share of corrupt people but Biden never was sent to withhold their funding was he.

So what is your charge? And Biden did not withold jack shit, the vice president doesn't control that and that one single guy was corrupt and no republican or demnocrat doubted it.

Biden said repeatedly he had no knowledge of Hunter's business dealing which we now know is a lie. Even Biden isn't saying that anymore.

If biden perchance had some knowledge of his son's business dealing what law would he have broken by having that knowledge? None. I have plenty of knowledge of my son's business dealings, should I be worried?

We have whistleblowers and eyewitness testimony that says Biden was directly involved.

Bullshit, what is this whistleblowers name? The right makes this bullshit up and it's nothing but heresay.

We have 20 shell corporations that were opened under the Biden's to funnel at least 20 million dollars from Ukraine and China to at least nine family members of the Biden's at which point they were quickly shut down.

Trump has hundreds of them. What is illegal about it and what fucking evidence do you have that Joe was involved or recieved a dime from any of them? Nothing

And the investigation is still ongoing, it hasn't even reached it's pinnacle yet so expect even more direct evidence to come out soon. The house oversight committee is currently following the money trail.

The investigation was ongoing 6 years ago too and it was dropped then as well.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

It looks like it's you that wants to find someone guilty without a trial and without evidence.


I don't see any overwhelming evidence, I see you making stuff up that isn't supported by the evidence while claiming the person is guilty without letting them defend themselves.

I am all for letting Biden defend himself in court.

I was just laying out the evidence against him.

The courts will decide if he is guilty or not of it.

I haven't assigned any guilt to him yet.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

didn't say that, I said he is guilty and the trial will prove it.


Trump: 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. you can’t let it happen, and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen.
Trump: Well, under law, you’re not allowed to give faulty election results, okay? You’re not allowed to do that. And that’s what you done.

That is insinuating that Raffensberger was doing something illegal and he was notifying him of that. That is a threat telling him he was breaking the law.


What is it?



So what is your charge? And Biden did not withold jack shit, the vice president doesn't control that and that one single guy was corrupt and no republican or demnocrat doubted it.


If biden perchance had some knowledge of his son's business dealing what law would he have broken by having that knowledge? None. I have plenty of knowledge of my son's business dealings, should I be worried?


Bullshit, what is this whistleblowers name? The right makes this bullshit up and it's nothing but heresay.


Trump has hundreds of them. What is illegal about it and what fucking evidence do you have that Joe was involved or recieved a dime from any of them? Nothing


The investigation was ongoing 6 years ago too and it was dropped then as well.

This is hilarious.

Trump: 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. you can’t let it happen, and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen.
Trump: Well, under law, you’re not allowed to give faulty election results, okay? You’re not allowed to do that. And that’s what you done.

That is insinuating that Raffensberger was doing something illegal and he was notifying him of that. That is a threat telling him he was breaking the law.

First of all cite the law that was broken here, secondly, insinuation is not illegal.

Thirdly, nothing he said was incorrect.

If you folks are going to try and prosecute Trump on this, which they haven't yet, you will never win. No laws were broken.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I am all for letting Biden defend himself in court.

I was just laying out the evidence against him.

The courts will decide if he is guilty or not of it.

I haven't assigned any guilt to him yet.

What evidence did you lay out?
Let's start with the simple part. Cite the law you think was broken.


After you cite the specific law then we can examine your evidence in relation to the actual law. Made up bullshit isn't evidence as Trump and his lawyers found out when they went to court.
1. All testimony shows that the prosecutor that "Biden wanted fired" was not investigating Burisma and Burisma didn't want them fired because a new prosecutor might investigate them.
2. Whether Biden lied about talking business is irrelevant since there would be no crime for lying.
3. What eyewitness testimony do you have? Devon Archer testified that he never heard Joe Biden talk business with Hunter when they were having lunch with business people.
4. The 20 million dollars went to companies that Biden was involved with. Either Devon Archer lied about being a business partner with Hunter or you are lying about 20 million dollars going to the Bidens. (Or Devon Archer is really a Biden.)

Let's see. We have 4 instances of you lying about what the evidence shows while demanding the investigation continue. That certainly looks to me like you are claiming he is guilty by manufacturing evidence that doesn't exist.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

This is hilarious.



First of all cite the law that was broken here, secondly, insinuation is not illegal.

Thirdly, nothing he said was incorrect.

If you folks are going to try and prosecute Trump on this, which they haven't yet, you will never win. No laws were broken.

The law Trump likely broke in GA.
Chapter 2 Article 15 § 21-2-604.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-21/chapter-2/article-15/section-21-2-604/

Any request to change the vote total from the official total could be seen as violating this law.
Trump's statement could be seen as a threat. You may not think it is but others see it as one. It would be up to a jury to decide.

If nothing Trump said was incorrect then tell us why did Raffensberger have to correct him?

Are these statements factually true?
you’ll find at least a couple of hundred thousand of forged signatures of people who have been forged.

We’re going to have an accurate number over the next two days with certified accountants. But an accurate number will be given, but it’s in the 50s of thousands — and that’s people that went to vote and they were told they can’t vote because they’ve already been voted for. And it’s a very sad thing. They walked out complaining. But the number’s large. We’ll have it for you. But it’s much more than the number of 11,779

you also have a substantial numbers of people, thousands and thousands, who went to the voting place on November 3, were told they couldn’t vote, were told they couldn’t vote because a ballot had been put on their name.

We had, I believe it’s about 4,502 voters who voted but who weren’t on the voter registration list, so it’s 4,502 who voted, but they weren’t on the voter registration roll,

You had 18,325 vacant address voters. The address was vacant, and they’re not allowed to be counted. That’s 18,325.

You had out-of-state voters. They voted in Georgia, but they were from out of state, of 4,925.

I don’t know if you saw the hearings, but you have dropboxes where the box was picked up but not delivered for three days.

The other thing, dead people. So dead people voted, and I think the number is close to 5,000 people.

The bottom line is, when you add it all up and then you start adding, you know, 300,000 fake ballots.

In Pennsylvania, they had well over 200,000 more votes than they had people voting.

The fact is every one of those statements by Trump was incorrect. By using false claims to try to get the election results changed he likely broke the law.

 

[Nomad]

So tell us, what exactly are your credentials that gives you the authority to just dismiss what Adams is saying. Your years of working at LOWES? Im betting you arent in the same galaxy as Adams when it comes to what you know or have done with your life. Just another ignorant partisan loud mouth on a soap box.

Well by your standard, you shouldn't be expressing opinions here either.

Nor should anyone else.

Pretty lame attempt at de-legitimizing anything you don't agree with.

Just sayin'....

 

[Tinkerpeach]

What evidence did you lay out?
Let's start with the simple part. Cite the law you think was broken.


After you cite the specific law then we can examine your evidence in relation to the actual law. Made up bullshit isn't evidence as Trump and his lawyers found out when they went to court.
1. All testimony shows that the prosecutor that "Biden wanted fired" was not investigating Burisma and Burisma didn't want them fired because a new prosecutor might investigate them.
2. Whether Biden lied about talking business is irrelevant since there would be no crime for lying.
3. What eyewitness testimony do you have? Devon Archer testified that he never heard Joe Biden talk business with Hunter when they were having lunch with business people.
4. The 20 million dollars went to companies that Biden was involved with. Either Devon Archer lied about being a business partner with Hunter or you are lying about 20 million dollars going to the Bidens. (Or Devon Archer is really a Biden.)

Let's see. We have 4 instances of you lying about what the evidence shows while demanding the investigation continue. That certainly looks to me like you are claiming he is guilty by manufacturing evidence that doesn't exist.

1. Testimony from who?

2. It shows Biden is a known liar. What else is he lying about.

3. Archer also testified that Biden was aware of the business dealings further corroborated by text messages from Hunters laptop. Who do you think Bursima was referring to when they mentioned the "Big dog"

4. The 20 million went through LLC's that were simply registered, there was no actual business there, it was all on paper. Why would foreign nations be given money to companies that don't exist if not to launder it?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

The law Trump likely broke in GA.
Chapter 2 Article 15 § 21-2-604.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-21/chapter-2/article-15/section-21-2-604/

Any request to change the vote total from the official total could be seen as violating this law.
Trump's statement could be seen as a threat. You may not think it is but others see it as one. It would be up to a jury to decide.

If nothing Trump said was incorrect then tell us why did Raffensberger have to correct him?

Are these statements factually true?
you’ll find at least a couple of hundred thousand of forged signatures of people who have been forged.

We’re going to have an accurate number over the next two days with certified accountants. But an accurate number will be given, but it’s in the 50s of thousands — and that’s people that went to vote and they were told they can’t vote because they’ve already been voted for. And it’s a very sad thing. They walked out complaining. But the number’s large. We’ll have it for you. But it’s much more than the number of 11,779

you also have a substantial numbers of people, thousands and thousands, who went to the voting place on November 3, were told they couldn’t vote, were told they couldn’t vote because a ballot had been put on their name.

We had, I believe it’s about 4,502 voters who voted but who weren’t on the voter registration list, so it’s 4,502 who voted, but they weren’t on the voter registration roll,

You had 18,325 vacant address voters. The address was vacant, and they’re not allowed to be counted. That’s 18,325.

You had out-of-state voters. They voted in Georgia, but they were from out of state, of 4,925.

I don’t know if you saw the hearings, but you have dropboxes where the box was picked up but not delivered for three days.

The other thing, dead people. So dead people voted, and I think the number is close to 5,000 people.

The bottom line is, when you add it all up and then you start adding, you know, 300,000 fake ballots.

In Pennsylvania, they had well over 200,000 more votes than they had people voting.

The fact is every one of those statements by Trump was incorrect. By using false claims to try to get the election results changed he likely broke the law.

And here is the problem with your argument.


Any request to change the vote total from the official total could be seen as violating this law.


Trump's statement could be seen as a threat. You may not think it is but others see it as one. It would be up to a jury to decide.

"could be seen as" is not breaking the law. That's purely opinion. Georgia needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump actually broke that law which they can't.

Juries can't rule based on opinion. A clear violation of a law must be established otherwise the case would be overturned on opinion.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

And here is the problem with your argument.


Any request to change the vote total from the official total could be seen as violating this law.


Trump's statement could be seen as a threat. You may not think it is but others see it as one. It would be up to a jury to decide.

"could be seen as" is not breaking the law. That's purely opinion. Georgia needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump actually broke that law which they can't.

Juries can't rule based on opinion. A clear violation of a law must be established otherwise the case would be overturned on opinion.

LOL.
And anyone going in and demanding money from the bank while waving a gun could be seen as violating the law.
Congratulations. You just proved that assuming innocence proves there was no crime.
Georgia needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to do that they only need to convince a jury to see it as violating the law. So it could be seen as a violation of law by the jury.

Now apply your standard to the Bidens.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

LOL.
And anyone going in and demanding money from the bank while waving a gun could be seen as violating the law.
Congratulations. You just proved that assuming innocence proves there was no crime.
Georgia needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to do that they only need to convince a jury to see it as violating the law. So it could be seen as a violation of law by the jury.

Now apply your standard to the Bidens.

No, that would be violating an actual law.