The “lock her up” crowd…

Jarod said:
You are delusional. It’s basically how prosecution works. Charge em with everything they did!

Lying about drinking or where you were drinking is not a crime!
Click to expand...

lol....prosecutors charge with everything they MIGHT be able to prove, in hopes the jury believes at least one indictment......
 
Jarod said:
Wrong, I suspect you have not read the indictment. There are three very specific crimes he is charged with, none of them are lying.
Click to expand...

I never said lying.

I said the documents, conspiracy and obstruction.

Every charge in the Washington case fits under those three categories.

But yes, lying is a major part of Smith's case which is stupid because the Supreme Court has already ruled that a politician is allowed to lie.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
I never said lying.

I said the documents, conspiracy and obstruction.

Every charge in the Washington case fits under those three categories.

But yes, lying is a major part of Smith's case which is stupid because the Supreme Court has already ruled that a politician is allowed to lie.
Click to expand...

Nyet, comrade Tink. The reason why you want to try this in public instead of a courtroom is because you already know Pedo Don is guilty.
 
Jarod said:
Wrong, I suspect you have not read the indictment. There are three very specific crimes he is charged with, none of them are lying.
Click to expand...

you're right......in Florida three specific crimes (which the prosecutor has very little chance of proving) for each of ten pieces of paper out of what, 25 boxes? of documents that Trump (obviously correctly) said were his......do you really think that someone will go to prison for ten pieces of paper packed in 25 boxes of documents that were originally packed, moved and stored by someone else?......THIS is why the indictments increase Trump's popularity.....

on the other hand the entire DC case hinges on what he said.....that is why they are so keen on finding evidence he didn't actually believe what he said.....literally charging him with lying.....
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Oh they definitely would.

The Robert's court loves to set precedent and how to charge a former president would be something they would definitely want to rule on.

You only need four justices to agree to hear a case and I guarantee you that at least four would love to take on this one.

Considering it's essentially Trumps court don't expect any conviction to stick.
Click to expand...

Your prediction is noted. Trumps picks have stood up to him in the past, most notably refusing to hear his “election challenges “.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you're right......in Florida three specific crimes (which the prosecutor has very little chance of proving) for each of ten pieces of paper out of what, 25 boxes? of documents that Trump (obviously correctly) said were his......do you really think that someone will go to prison for ten pieces of paper packed in 25 boxes of documents that were originally packed, moved and stored by someone else?......THIS is why the indictments increase Trump's popularity.....

on the other hand the entire DC case hinges on what he said.....that is why they are so keen on finding evidence he didn't actually believe what he said.....literally charging him with lying.....
Click to expand...

While letting Biden go with keeping classified documents also, don't forget that part.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
That is kind of the point, he hasn't, they are lumping them on him on purpose.

If you want to charge him for conspiracy then fine but instead they make it into 30 separate charges, the same thing with the documents, instead of charging him with simply having the documents they file 10 charges against him.

It's a hit job by the left.

I imagine that once Georgia files their stupid batch of lawsuits the charges will be way over 100 and that's not counting other crap that Smith is likely to pile on.

It's insane and unprecedented what they are going.

No prosecutors ever do crap like this.

Imagine you get pulled over for a DUI you would expect a DUI charge right?

Now imagine the prosecutor lays out an insane number of other charges like endangering the public, speeding, weaaving, not using your turn signal, resisting arrest, trying to cover up the fact that you were drinking, lying about where you were drinking, lying about how much you had to drink, conspiracy to hide your drunkeness from the police, causing harm to the environment, causing harm to the state, threatening the well being of others.

Now do you see what Smith is doing?
Click to expand...

“Now imagine……”

LOL
 
Tinkerpeach said:
While letting Biden go with keeping classified documents also, don't forget that part.
Click to expand...
...and Pence.

Why wasn't Pence arrested, comrade Tink? Is it because both Pence and Biden cooperated while Trump gave the good guys the runaround for over a year?

What Would Putin Do (WWPD)? Execute anyone who kept classified material? Throw them out of a 10th story window?
 
Tinkerpeach said:
I never said lying.

I said the documents, conspiracy and obstruction.

Every charge in the Washington case fits under those three categories.

But yes, lying is a major part of Smith's case which is stupid because the Supreme Court has already ruled that a politician is allowed to lie.
Click to expand...

Yes, but each time it happens, it’s a new count. If you poison a buffet killing three people, how many counts of murder?
 
Jarod said:
Yes, but each time it happens, it’s a new count. If you poison a buffet killing three people, how many counts of murder?
Click to expand...

Well that is a good point.

However, if you are found not guilty of poisoning the buffet then you aren't convicted of any counts of murder.

That is the key to Trumps defense here.

All of these counts are not completely separate actions, they all fall under a heading so if Trump is found not guilty of taking the documents then all those charges go away.

If Trump is not found guilty for violating the espionage act then all those counts go away.

In my opinion, if I were Smith, I would have focused on the one two or three counts most likely to stick because by filing all these charges all he is doing is extending the trial date.

Now he has to prove each one individually which is going to extend the trial who knows how long and this was my point. He is not satisfied with Trump being convicted of one charge and getting five or ten years, he want's him to get hundreds of years in prison and this is something prosecutors do not do unless they have bias.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Well that is a good point.

However, if you are found not guilty of poisoning the buffet then you aren't convicted of any counts of murder.

That is the key to Trumps defense here.

All of these counts are not completely separate actions, they all fall under a heading so if Trump is found not guilty of taking the documents then all those charges go away.

If Trump is not found guilty for violating the espionage act then all those counts go away.

In my opinion, if I were Smith, I would have focused on the one two or three counts most likely to stick because by filing all these charges all he is doing is extending the trial date.

Now he has to prove each one individually which is going to extend the trial who knows how long and this was my point. He is not satisfied with Trump being convicted of one charge and getting five or ten years, he want's him to get hundreds of years in prison and this is something prosecutors do not do unless they have bias.
Click to expand...

They are not all dependent on violations of the espionage act, some are, I’d have to look closely to find out how many, I’d say about 10 of them.

You make a lot of over broad statements then casually amend later, your concern for being accurate is very casual. You lack credibility when you do that.

I feel like I’m educating you!
 
Jarod said:
They are not all dependent on violations of the espionage act, some are, I’d have to look closely to find out how many, I’d say about 10 of them.

You make a lot of over broad statements then casually amend later, your concern for being accurate is very casual. You lack credibility when you do that.

I feel like I’m educating you!
Click to expand...

31 of them are, 6 are not.

And as I have stated before, the espionage act is a very specific law, it is not broad whatsoever so the burden of proof becomes even higher for Smith.

Although I can see why he used it because filing charges under the PRA would have gotten him nowhere.

Now what is interesting is that according to precedent new laws override existing laws and what Trump is charged with does fall under PRA rules meaning that it will overrule the espionage act.

Smith is going to have to prove in a court of law that the records Trump had were not only used to try and damage the nation but that they actually did.

About 10 of the charges are going to rely on Trumps intent to use them to hurt the nation, the others are going to have to be proven to actually have harmed the nation in some way.

That is a tough thing to prove in a court of law.

Showing a document to a friend isn't really going to cut it.

So these 31 charges are essentially meaningless, they won't stand up, it's the other six that are going to be problematic for Trump. Trump's defense has to prove that he had a legal right to them, Smith has to prove he didn't.

Whatever the jury decides will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top