Pending indictment against Trump in Georgia

210,756 Views | 2423 Replies | Last: 14 days ago by aggiehawg
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J. Walter Weatherman said:

txags92 said:



Trump is not the target anymore. The target is any reasonable conservative candidate that might have a chance to defeat a democrat for president. They are making it clear that their henchmen in the DOJ, FBI, and elsewhere will hound any successful republican president, not just while they are in office, but for years afterwards. This is not about Trump anymore, it is about making the cost clear to anybody willing to run against them.


If DeSantis wins the primary and none of this happens to him can you admit that Trump brings a lot of this on himself?
Sure, though not directed at me I can admit it. I mean, the MSM and left treatment during 8 years of Bush 43, followed by 8 years of Obama worship, followed by the last few years of Biden whitewashing shows that they are willing to give credit where credit is due and that all the problems with Trump are his "fault".

Good take. Going to read it again to make sure I understand this concept.
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
J. Walter Weatherman said:

txags92 said:

Hungry Ojos said:

aggie93 said:

fka ftc said:

aggie93 said:

Totally agree this is a hitjob and a witch hunt but Trump definitely is a complete idiot when it comes to asking for more of this stuff. Either that or he just wants more charges. I can't imagine a day in the life of being Trump's attorney.



Pretty sure Trump has a 1st amendment right to share his opinion.

How is what he said intimidating? Trump, a private citizen, can give his opinion on this.

But I am sure Madame Gang-Banger Indicty Pants from Atlanta will claim otherwise.

Anything to silence political opposition.
Of course he has a right to say what he wants. Everyone has a right to be a dumbass. This is just insane from a legal perspective to do this kind of lunacy. Everything he says like this can be used against him in Court. What sounds great sitting on the toilet typing away doesn't sound so great in front of a Judge that probably doesn't like you to begin with.

Look, I don't question that all of this stuff is crap against Trump but this illustrates one of his biggest flaws. Trump is an expert at taking a problem and making it a LOT worse. This is how he ended up not getting so many things done because he played stupid games like this over and over again and he hasn't learned a thing. It just amazes me how people continue to defend his stupidity.


I don't agree with this. The left (which includes all branches of government, media, entertainment, academia, etc) has been on him NON-STOP for over six years now. He has had to face the most partisan, ridiculous, made up nonsense from EVERY front imaginable. I don't believe his "words" caused the attacks. They are just the response.
Trump is not the target anymore. The target is any reasonable conservative candidate that might have a chance to defeat a democrat for president. They are making it clear that their henchmen in the DOJ, FBI, and elsewhere will hound any successful republican president, not just while they are in office, but for years afterwards. This is not about Trump anymore, it is about making the cost clear to anybody willing to run against them.


If DeSantis wins the primary and none of this happens to him can you admit that Trump brings a lot of this on himself?
Trump absolutely brings a lot of this on himself and makes it easy to target him, but you can also see that they are already attempting to get the ball rolling on this kind of stuff against Desantis just in case. I am old enough to remember the media and left attacking Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Romney, and McCain as extremist right wing totalitarians (not to mention racists) that had to be stopped or they would ruin the country, start WWIII, end democracy, (insert your own fantastical accusation here), etc. None of it was true then, but truth never got in the way of what the media or the left (not sure why I am repeating myself there) tell voters.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Turley's take about the expected indictment.

Quote:

Thus far, the focus has been on the controversial call that Trump had with Georgia officials a call widely cited as indisputable evidence of an effort at voting fraud. Yet, the call was similar to a settlement discussion, as state officials and the Trump team hashed out their differences and a Trump demand for a statewide recount. Trump had lost the state by less than 12,000 votes. That might be what he meant when he stated, "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."

While others have portrayed the statement as a raw call for fabricating the votes, it seems more likely that Trump was swatting back claims that there was no value to a statewide recount by pointing out that he wouldn't have to find a statistically high number of votes to change the outcome of the election. It is telling that many politicians and pundits refuse to even acknowledge that obvious alternate meaning.
Seems reasonable within the context of a state wide recount, doesn't it?

Now as Coffee County, he continues:

Quote:

There have also been stories indicating that Willis is focusing on connections of Trump team members like Rudy Giuliani to a "breach" of the voting system on Jan. 7, 2021. The team was seeking access to the voting machines to show that they could be compromised or manipulated. Text messages state that the team secured an "invitation" to examine the machines in Coffee County.

That "invitation" was reportedly from a Coffee County elections official, who also reportedly claimed, incorrectly, that votes could be "easily" flipped from Trump to Biden.

Coffee County was also discussed as an example of voting irregularities to justify a proposed draft executive order to seize voting machines. However, that order was never sent out.
Actually, Turley is wrong about the votes being flipped. They can be during the adjudication process. That's a feature not a flaw of Dominion's system supposedly to be used for spoiled or otherwise damaged ballots, Braille and military ballots. Why my jaw dropped when Fulton County election official Barron said 140,000 ballots hade been "adjudicated" during the "recount." That would have been an extraordinary number of spoiled, damaged, etc ballots in one county. Maybe he just misspoke but maybe he didn't.

Also note the date, January 7, 2021, after the Georgia runoff. Noithing was effected by the review. And Coffee County had problems with the tabulators showing a QR CODE FAILURE as a message and jamming them only for ballots that had the Republicans selected in that runoff. How that "glitch" was resolved was very suspicious, indeed and worried the election officials who were present.

Quote:

The problem is that these messages also apparently refer to "voluntary access" and that may have been what was conveyed to Trump. One message reads: "Most immediately, we were just granted access by written invitation! to Coffee County's systems. Yay!"

Yet, the Coffee County allegations highlight another risk in the Georgia prosecution. There are clearly a number of people beyond Trump who are being targeted, including his lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell. Indictments can unnerve associates who lack the money or support of Trump. That can lead to flipping key figures to offer state evidence.

The greatest challenge for Georgia is to offer a discernible limiting principle on when challenges in close elections are permissible and when they are criminal. There is a relatively short period between the presidential election in November and counting of electoral votes in January. That means that challenges are often made on incomplete data or unresolved allegations. Generally, candidates are suing election officials who control the machines, data, and other evidence needed to make a case. They often (as they did in 2020) resist demands for access to evidence.
Quote:

It is important for campaigns to seek judicial review of election challenges without fear of prosecution. Some Democratic lawyers after 2020 made their own controversial (and unsuccessful) allegations of machines flipping or altering election outcomes. No one suggested that they should be criminally charged or disbarred.
LINK
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fka ftc said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:

As the Bible says, "there is a time to speak and a time to be silent."
Trump has always had that problem.

But it is honestly irrelevant. There is nothing Trump could say or could not say to avoid all of this.
This is not a prosecution seeking justice. This is a prosecution seeking vengeance.
This needs to be repeated over and over to the CMs and squishy Rs.

The idea that if Trump has just been nicer in his tweets, that Obamacare would have gone away if only he had been nicer to McCain, that if only he had fired Fauci, if only he had not brought in Sessions, hired Wray, been a better friend to Pence, etc then he would have waltzed to re-election and never been impeached and the world would be all hunky dory.

Truth is that it never mattered what Trump says or does once he beat Hillary and delayed the left's permanent takeover of our government.


So then nominate Desantis and have the best chance of getting eight straight years of having Republican in the White House.

Or, go with Trump, who will be able to do nothing but EOs, if by miracle he doesn't lose again, and have it all be for not the second the political pendulum swings in the next election. Then, like history shows, the moderates put a Dem in the White House after a republican has had their turn, and that dem, like Biden did on day one, wipes away every single one of those "so much winning!" EOs and you're back at life before Trump. That'll also likely be life after Trump is gone from politics.

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
TheTruthsLastHope
How long do you want to ignore this user?
txags92 said:

TheTruthsLastHope said:

txags92 said:

TheTruthsLastHope said:

Kvetch said:

Wow! A political prosecution that has no basis in fact! Who would've seen that coming?


Except there is seemingly evidence of fact that will be presented to a grand jury and again to a jury if indicted. Are you confused on what "fact" means?
Is this the same grand jury that already had the foreman go on TV to talk about the case and expose her biases before the indictments were ever voted on? If so, seems like Trump's attorneys would have a legit beef about anything done by that GJ after that point.


Not sure if the grand jury members have been made public in regards to this reported upcoming indictment. I'm not familiar with any exposing of biases, and as far as I know acknowledging facts is far from exposing biases. Nevermind I see you ended with "if so", you just wanted to discuss fantasy or fiction for the sake of discussing.
Maybe you missed the earlier TV interview with the GJ foreman that Aggiehawg pointed out was for an earlier version of the work by this prosecutor? I asked a simple question about whether it was the same GJ or not. There was no fantasy or fiction involved.


I responded saying this op is about a report of an indictment coming now. It hasn't happened yet so I'm not sure how a grand jury members would be released or made public before an actual indictment that confirms a grand jury was even had for this specific op.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No Spin Ag said:




So then nominate Desantis and have the best chance of getting eight straight years of having Republican in the White House.

Or, go with Trump, who will be able to do nothing but EOs, if by miracle he doesn't lose again, and have it all be for not the second the political pendulum swings in the next election. Then, like history shows, the moderates put a Dem in the White House after a republican has had their turn, and that dem, like Biden did on day one, wipes away every single one of those "so much winning!" EOs and you're back at life before Trump. That'll also likely be life after Trump is gone from politics.


How does DeSantis get things done that Trump could not? Hell, he is sputtering just getting any support in the primary but he is going to magically unite all of Washington behind him?
J. Walter Weatherman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fka ftc said:

J. Walter Weatherman said:

txags92 said:



Trump is not the target anymore. The target is any reasonable conservative candidate that might have a chance to defeat a democrat for president. They are making it clear that their henchmen in the DOJ, FBI, and elsewhere will hound any successful republican president, not just while they are in office, but for years afterwards. This is not about Trump anymore, it is about making the cost clear to anybody willing to run against them.


If DeSantis wins the primary and none of this happens to him can you admit that Trump brings a lot of this on himself?
Sure, though not directed at me I can admit it. I mean, the MSM and left treatment during 8 years of Bush 43, followed by 8 years of Obama worship, followed by the last few years of Biden whitewashing shows that they are willing to give credit where credit is due and that all the problems with Trump are his "fault".

Good take. Going to read it again to make sure I understand this concept.


The question was specifically regarding the legal cases being brought against him. No one denies the media, etc are generally against Republicans.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This real?


I'm Gipper
TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ags77 said:

I hope Rudy will also be indicted with Trump in Georgia.

FIFY
StandUpforAmerica
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J. Walter Weatherman said:





The question was specifically regarding the legal cases being brought against him. No one denies the media, etc are generally against Republicans.
Oh, well then yes I fully expect the legal process will be fair and just and only based on direct evidence that Trump has indeed committed the crimes he is being accused of and that since DeSantis is the epitome of all-american boy scout it will be unpossible for them to cobble together legal theories, vague accusations and misleading "evidence" to bring indictments on them. Thanks for clearing that up.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But it started a discussion.

Total. Banana. Republic.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
charging RICO is going to make this even dumber than anyone imagined. if trump is reelected, this case won't be tried until he is out of office again
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Im Gipper said:

This real?


WTH?
Houstonag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The judicial system has failed this country. There must be a check against a rogue prosecutor and I blame the SC. The Jan 6th prosecution of many people is due to a judge who is racially biased. Wake up America.
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fka ftc said:

No Spin Ag said:




So then nominate Desantis and have the best chance of getting eight straight years of having Republican in the White House.

Or, go with Trump, who will be able to do nothing but EOs, if by miracle he doesn't lose again, and have it all be for not the second the political pendulum swings in the next election. Then, like history shows, the moderates put a Dem in the White House after a republican has had their turn, and that dem, like Biden did on day one, wipes away every single one of those "so much winning!" EOs and you're back at life before Trump. That'll also likely be life after Trump is gone from politics.


How does DeSantis get things done that Trump could not? Hell, he is sputtering just getting any support in the primary but he is going to magically unite all of Washington behind him?


Since he isn't hated by so many people in Washington already, he has a better chance of getting more people to support him.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RICO charge beginning the day after the election, when Georgia had not even finished counting due to water leak then charges for filing legal challenges in the days after the election.

That racist **** is just plain stupid. She needs to go back to banging gang members and finding the baby daddy for her kids before they need momma to run cover for them.
J. Walter Weatherman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fka ftc said:

J. Walter Weatherman said:





The question was specifically regarding the legal cases being brought against him. No one denies the media, etc are generally against Republicans.
Oh, well then yes I fully expect the legal process will be fair and just and only based on direct evidence that Trump has indeed committed the crimes he is being accused of and that since DeSantis is the epitome of all-american boy scout it will be unpossible for them to cobble together legal theories, vague accusations and misleading "evidence" to bring indictments on them. Thanks for clearing that up.


Great, glad you agree this is uniquely a Trump problem..
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No Spin Ag said:

fka ftc said:


How does DeSantis get things done that Trump could not? Hell, he is sputtering just getting any support in the primary but he is going to magically unite all of Washington behind him?


Since he isn't hated by so many people in Washington already, he has a better chance of getting more people to support him.
You think DeSantis, who is claiming total reform of the alphabet agencies, is going to be welcomed open arms in DC?

You cannot possibly think that. The sooner you stop underestimating how evil and maniacal the left and swamp creatures are the better you will be able to prepare yourself for the fight ahead.
Funky Winkerbean
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Trump wasn't hated, he was politically toxic thanks to the FBI "warning " them that Trump was being investigated as a possible Russian operative.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Satire. It is indeed lost on some folk.
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Funky Winkerbean said:

Trump wasn't hated, he was politically toxic thanks to the FBI "warning " them that Trump was being investigated as a possible Russian operative.


I'm talking about right now. He's hated by non-maga right now.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
AggieVictor10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Banana republic
hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. good times create weak men. and weak men create hard times.

less virtue signaling, more vice signaling.

Birds aren’t real
Lol,lmao
Fjb
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fka ftc said:

No Spin Ag said:

fka ftc said:


How does DeSantis get things done that Trump could not? Hell, he is sputtering just getting any support in the primary but he is going to magically unite all of Washington behind him?


Since he isn't hated by so many people in Washington already, he has a better chance of getting more people to support him.
You think DeSantis, who is claiming total reform of the alphabet agencies, is going to be welcomed open arms in DC?

You cannot possibly think that. The sooner you stop underestimating how evil and maniacal the left and swamp creatures are the better you will be able to prepare yourself for the fight ahead.


I think he has a better chance. Why not go with the better odds, and on top of that, someone who can actually be there four years longer.

You have Trump for one term, that's it, nothing more. Why waste an opportunity for damaged and limited goods.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheTruthsLastHope said:

txags92 said:

TheTruthsLastHope said:

txags92 said:

TheTruthsLastHope said:

Kvetch said:

Wow! A political prosecution that has no basis in fact! Who would've seen that coming?


Except there is seemingly evidence of fact that will be presented to a grand jury and again to a jury if indicted. Are you confused on what "fact" means?
Is this the same grand jury that already had the foreman go on TV to talk about the case and expose her biases before the indictments were ever voted on? If so, seems like Trump's attorneys would have a legit beef about anything done by that GJ after that point.


Not sure if the grand jury members have been made public in regards to this reported upcoming indictment. I'm not familiar with any exposing of biases, and as far as I know acknowledging facts is far from exposing biases. Nevermind I see you ended with "if so", you just wanted to discuss fantasy or fiction for the sake of discussing.
Maybe you missed the earlier TV interview with the GJ foreman that Aggiehawg pointed out was for an earlier version of the work by this prosecutor? I asked a simple question about whether it was the same GJ or not. There was no fantasy or fiction involved.


I responded saying this op is about a report of an indictment coming now. It hasn't happened yet so I'm not sure how a grand jury members would be released or made public before an actual indictment that confirms a grand jury was even had for this specific op.
Exactly. Having a GJ foreman talking about the case before the indictments came down would be serious misconduct. Which is why I asked whether the GJ foreman who was going out and giving interviews was from the GJ doing the indictments and suggested Trump's lawyers might object if so. I wasn't asking a rhetorical question to make a point. I was asking an actual question, to which AH gave a helpful answer.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No Spin Ag said:





I think he has a better chance. Why not go with the better odds, and on top of that, someone who can actually be there four years longer.

You have Trump for one term, that's it, nothing more. Why waste an opportunity for damaged and limited goods.
Absolute ZERO indication DeSantis has better odds at being better equipped to deal with the attacks.

I'll buy the 2 terms aspect of DeSantis or Vivek or another person not named Trump.

But the Ds have to be otherwise defeated outside of election day. Election days as it stands now are permanently lost, particularly with federal indictments and forthcoming state indictments persecuting people for questioning election results.
annie88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
These people are ****ing insane.

It's truly disgusting.

They can all go to hell.

They're trying so desperately to have another J6, which wasn't what they've said it is, but they're trying. Look for more fake FBI and Antifa people to descend on the capitol.
annie88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So when do they indict Stacey Abrams?
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dont see a "Computer trespass" on that leaked document
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fka ftc said:

No Spin Ag said:





I think he has a better chance. Why not go with the better odds, and on top of that, someone who can actually be there four years longer.

You have Trump for one term, that's it, nothing more. Why waste an opportunity for damaged and limited goods.
Absolute ZERO indication DeSantis has better odds at being better equipped to deal with the attacks.

I'll buy the 2 terms aspect of DeSantis or Vivek or another person not named Trump.

But the Ds have to be otherwise defeated outside of election day. Election days as it stands now are permanently lost, particularly with federal indictments and forthcoming state indictments persecuting people for questioning election results.


The attacks happen from each side always regardless of who gets in. Handing them means nothing if you can't get anything lasting done. EOs mean nothing of they're gone the second the person is gone.

Having Washington politicians who don't already hate you means they'll be less likely to not be helpful to get things done.

If Trump gets in all they have to wait is four years. That's nothing to career politicians in the Senate, so they have no problem doing nothing to help. But if they can get someone they wouldn't mind working with, then things look much better for everyone.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
annie88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
txags92 said:

TheTruthsLastHope said:

txags92 said:

TheTruthsLastHope said:

txags92 said:

TheTruthsLastHope said:

Kvetch said:

Wow! A political prosecution that has no basis in fact! Who would've seen that coming?


Except there is seemingly evidence of fact that will be presented to a grand jury and again to a jury if indicted. Are you confused on what "fact" means?
Is this the same grand jury that already had the foreman go on TV to talk about the case and expose her biases before the indictments were ever voted on? If so, seems like Trump's attorneys would have a legit beef about anything done by that GJ after that point.


Not sure if the grand jury members have been made public in regards to this reported upcoming indictment. I'm not familiar with any exposing of biases, and as far as I know acknowledging facts is far from exposing biases. Nevermind I see you ended with "if so", you just wanted to discuss fantasy or fiction for the sake of discussing.
Maybe you missed the earlier TV interview with the GJ foreman that Aggiehawg pointed out was for an earlier version of the work by this prosecutor? I asked a simple question about whether it was the same GJ or not. There was no fantasy or fiction involved.


I responded saying this op is about a report of an indictment coming now. It hasn't happened yet so I'm not sure how a grand jury members would be released or made public before an actual indictment that confirms a grand jury was even had for this specific op.
Exactly. Having a GJ foreman talking about the case before the indictments came down would be serious misconduct. Which is why I asked whether the GJ foreman who was going out and giving interviews was from the GJ doing the indictments and suggested Trump's lawyers might object if so. I wasn't asking a rhetorical question to make a point. I was asking an actual question, to which AH gave a helpful answer.
The confusion arose because of the weird nature of the orginal "special grand jury" under Georgia law. Normally, the judge overseeing that "special grand jury" would have instructed the grand jurors not to discuss the matters put before them. But since that gal went around making the interview circuit and never appeared to have been slapped down a court, gave a false impression of the legal process and were the case actually stood.

But if those are indeed the charges, where are the charges for Zuckerberg and CTCL? They bribed election officilals in 2020.
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

txags92 said:

TheTruthsLastHope said:

txags92 said:

TheTruthsLastHope said:

txags92 said:

TheTruthsLastHope said:

Kvetch said:

Wow! A political prosecution that has no basis in fact! Who would've seen that coming?


Except there is seemingly evidence of fact that will be presented to a grand jury and again to a jury if indicted. Are you confused on what "fact" means?
Is this the same grand jury that already had the foreman go on TV to talk about the case and expose her biases before the indictments were ever voted on? If so, seems like Trump's attorneys would have a legit beef about anything done by that GJ after that point.


Not sure if the grand jury members have been made public in regards to this reported upcoming indictment. I'm not familiar with any exposing of biases, and as far as I know acknowledging facts is far from exposing biases. Nevermind I see you ended with "if so", you just wanted to discuss fantasy or fiction for the sake of discussing.
Maybe you missed the earlier TV interview with the GJ foreman that Aggiehawg pointed out was for an earlier version of the work by this prosecutor? I asked a simple question about whether it was the same GJ or not. There was no fantasy or fiction involved.


I responded saying this op is about a report of an indictment coming now. It hasn't happened yet so I'm not sure how a grand jury members would be released or made public before an actual indictment that confirms a grand jury was even had for this specific op.
Exactly. Having a GJ foreman talking about the case before the indictments came down would be serious misconduct. Which is why I asked whether the GJ foreman who was going out and giving interviews was from the GJ doing the indictments and suggested Trump's lawyers might object if so. I wasn't asking a rhetorical question to make a point. I was asking an actual question, to which AH gave a helpful answer.
The confusion arose because of the weird nature of the orginal "special grand jury" under Georgia law. Normally, the judge overseeing that "special grand jury" would have instructed the grand jurors not to discuss the matters put before them. But since that gal went around making the interview circuit and never appeared to have been slapped down a court, gave a false impression of the legal process and were the case actually stood.

But if those are indeed the charges, where are the charges for Zuckerberg and CTCL? They bribed election officilals in 2020.
That is (D)ifferent.
Watermelon Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:

As the Bible says, "there is a time to speak and a time to be silent."
Trump has always had that problem.

But it is honestly irrelevant. There is nothing Trump could say or could not say to avoid all of this.
This is not a prosecution seeking justice. This is a prosecution seeking vengeance.
I can think of a few things he could have said, but didn't.

How about, "My opponent waged a strong campaign and won. I concede." Or, how about, "I'm sorry, here is where I store all the documents I took with me when I left office. Perhaps you might want to send some people down and go through them to see if there are any there that I should not have."

As for things he said that might have helped if he hadn't, "Big protest in D.C. on January 6," and, "Be there, will be wild."
It is much easier to fool someone than it is to convince someone that he has been fooled.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.