So lying about Russian collusion doesn’t count as evidence? The FBI telling the media what not to report on during an election doesn’t count?
It all started with George Washington. This cat had us fight a war to literally install a new government.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ITZ-Al-Gore-2000-Donald-Trump-indictment.html per Alan Dershowitz: …The Georgia indictment hinges on the allegation that Trump was lying in order to corruptly prevent the inauguration of the candidate who won the election fair and square. Conspiracy and RICO violations are specific 'intent' crimes. In order to secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove a personalized agreement to join a criminal activity. That will be an incredibly difficult case to make, especially regarding Trump himself who — to my knowledge – has never wavered from his belief that the election was stolen…
1960 has precedent where Kennedy did the exact same thing with establishing alternate electors in the event that the lawsuit holds. This is yet another nothing burger from the left, in fact every single one of the 4 cases will lose on appeal and they know it because the appeals will take place after the election is over. THIS is election interference at its finest.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...ge-certificates-false-trump-electors-00006186 See the 1960 Electoral College certificates that the false Trump electors say justify their gambit Their explanation relied heavily on the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, who was vice president at the time. The certificates describe the three Democrats as the “duly and legally appointed and qualified” members of the Electoral College. The envelope containing the certificates, stamped Dec. 22, 1960, includes another avowal: “We hereby certify that the lists of all the votes of the state of Hawaii given for president … are contained herein.” The documents do not mention the ongoing recount or that Nixon’s Hawaii victory had been certified. Instead, the Hawaii Democrats used virtually the same language that the false Trump electors in five states used in their effort to upend the 2020 race. In those documents — from Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia — the pro-Turmp activists described themselves as “duly elected and qualified.” In two other states, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, Trump allies submitted alternative elector slates but included a caveat: their votes would only be counted if ongoing court battles broke in favor of Trump. Charlie Gerow, a veteran Pennsylvania Republican strategist who signed one of the pro-Trump elector certificates, said he and several other electors who were lawyers devised the strategy to include a caveat. “We put in the contingent language quite bluntly because I and several others in the room who were lawyers insisted upon it,” said Gerow, who is currently running for governor. “We inserted that language specifically to avoid some of the charges that are coming from the left.” Gerow said the Trump allies met at the offices of his firm, Quantum Communications, to sign the Pennsylvania certificates. At that time, several of Trump’s long shot court challenges were still pending, he noted, and the Trump electors in those states wanted to be ready in the off-chance a court handed Trump a win. Why Hawaii 1960 isn’t the same as Trump 2020 Although the three Democratic electors in Hawaii took the same action — signing false certificates — it does not appear they ever faced similar scrutiny, in part because of what happened next. Namely, that Hawaii’s recount ultimately did reverse the state’s election outcome.
That's rich coming from the King of Dishonesty and False Equivalence. That's rich coming from somebody who has insisted that Republican-backed election interference by Russia is no big deal. That's rich coming from somebody who has insisted that trump did nothing technically illegal on January 6. I'm about to just give up and say "awwwww, ain't that shame!" This "election interference", as you now label the principle that nobody is above the law, is all quite legal. So suck it up, buttercup.... deal with it.
Media Matters debunks that false equivalence: https://www.mediamatters.org/januar...e-disputed-1960-election-outcome-defend-trump The big difference is that the Democratic electors in 1960 met during on ongoing recount where the outcome was very much in doubt, whereas trump's fake electors had no legitimate reason to believe their own slate was needed except after an extortion attempt upon Mike Pence. In Georgia, two vote counts and an audit had already determined that Biden won, without question. From trump's own lawyer: "[the plan] was not to use the fraudulent electors only in the circumstance that the Defendant’s litigation was successful in one of the targeted states... the plan was to falsely present the fraudulent slates as an alternative to the legitimate slates at Congress’s certification proceeding.’”
This is not the first time Dershowitz has been wrong. I am pretty sure that Jack Smith has testimony from trump associates that he admitted to a loss in private while saying something completely different in public, but even ignoring that there's a concept in law called "willful ignorance", where selfishly denying a preponderance of evidence in pursuit of your own goals is treated exactly the same as intent.
Hillory maintained that Trump was not a real president for 4 years and that the election was stolen. This isnt illegal to say these things. Stacy BigFoot Abrams says the same shit. Its not illegal to say such things.
Correct. It's a good thing, ain't it then, that Jack Smith and Fani Willis have indicted him for criminal deeds and not legal words.
