Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

So anyway, I don't believe that Trump lost the election and I believe that the dems cooked the books. Do I have to report to the gulag now or will someone come pick me up?

(08-29-2023, 04:04 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]He doesn't have to believe it. That's the point. It's not a crime to disbelieve an authority. I used cabinet member as a stand in, mistakenly believing you would understand that he doesn't have to take any person or institution at their word. He is not required to believe any information put in front of him.

You have no PROOF he knew he was lying to the American people about what he believed. Sub in any other situation and your tiny little lizard brain might start working again. Let's see.... I was informed there was no proof of aliens by the federal government all through the 80s and 90s. I have also been informed there is unidentified craft that is beyond human capability that's also been recognized by the government. Neither position requires that I believe the other. The accounts exists. I don't need to believe it, regardless of who informs me. If I take a contrary position, it's not evidence that I set out to deceive people.

---

Awww. All you got is your cute little insults I see. 

Pathetic. 

I see you are too lazy to read the indictment that spells this out for you. 

His own Attorney General informed him that investigations found no fraud, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency told him their investigation found no fraud. The state of Georgia informed him via three different agencies/officials including an additional investigation by GBI that there was no fraud. Two private agencies he paid millions to investigate fraud told him there was no fraud. This list goes on for a long time. 

You should just pull up your big boy britches and go read the pertinent section of the indictment:
https://www.jan-6.com/_files/ugd/2cf5f9_...6e7911.pdf

Go to the bottom of page 6 - No.11 heading - and read that plus pg 7 and 8. 

He was informed by a wide, wide scope of different federal and state officials , cabinet members, advisors, lawyers, staffers and legislators that his claims were false. 

This odd little fascination you have with some burden of proof that he "believed" them or not is moot. 

Doesn't matter. 

He was informed of the reality of his situation and opted criminality to alter it over acceptance of his loss.  

You can insult me - you can whine that it isn't that simple - you can flounder about to concoct some way that his criminal actions were justified. None of that matters. 

He lost.
He was told that he lost by a legion of credible officials.
He chose to act criminally in response.

(08-29-2023, 04:30 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-29-2023, 04:04 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]He doesn't have to believe it. That's the point. It's not a crime to disbelieve an authority. I used cabinet member as a stand in, mistakenly believing you would understand that he doesn't have to take any person or institution at their word. He is not required to believe any information put in front of him.

You have no PROOF he knew he was lying to the American people about what he believed. Sub in any other situation and your tiny little lizard brain might start working again. Let's see.... I was informed there was no proof of aliens by the federal government all through the 80s and 90s. I have also been informed there is unidentified craft that is beyond human capability that's also been recognized by the government. Neither position requires that I believe the other. The accounts exists. I don't need to believe it, regardless of who informs me. If I take a contrary position, it's not evidence that I set out to deceive people.

---

Awww. All you got is your cute little insults I see. 

Pathetic. 

I see you are too lazy to read the indictment that spells this out for you. 

His own Attorney General informed him that investigations found no fraud, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency told him their investigation found no fraud. The state of Georgia informed him via three different agencies/officials including an additional investigation by GBI that there was no fraud. Two private agencies he paid millions to investigate fraud told him there was no fraud. This list goes on for a long time. 

You should just pull up your big boy britches and go read the pertinent section of the indictment:
https://www.jan-6.com/_files/ugd/2cf5f9_...6e7911.pdf

Go to the bottom of page 6 - No.11 heading - and read that plus pg 7 and 8. 

He was informed by a wide, wide scope of different federal and state officials , cabinet members, advisors, lawyers, staffers and legislators that his claims were false. 

This odd little fascination you have with some burden of proof that he "believed" them or not is moot. 

Doesn't matter. 

He was informed of the reality of his situation and opted criminality to alter it over acceptance of his loss.  

You can insult me - you can whine that it isn't that simple - you can flounder about to concoct some way that his criminal actions were justified. None of that matters. 

He lost.
He was told that he lost by a legion of credible officials.
He chose to act criminally in response.

I believe this point is far from moot, but is, in fact, critical to the prosecution's case and necessary to prove intent.  Paranoia is not a crime, and wouldn't you agree he certainly displays symptoms?

(08-29-2023, 05:05 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-29-2023, 04:30 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Awww. All you got is your cute little insults I see. 

Pathetic. 

I see you are too lazy to read the indictment that spells this out for you. 

His own Attorney General informed him that investigations found no fraud, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency told him their investigation found no fraud. The state of Georgia informed him via three different agencies/officials including an additional investigation by GBI that there was no fraud. Two private agencies he paid millions to investigate fraud told him there was no fraud. This list goes on for a long time. 

You should just pull up your big boy britches and go read the pertinent section of the indictment:
https://www.jan-6.com/_files/ugd/2cf5f9_...6e7911.pdf

Go to the bottom of page 6 - No.11 heading - and read that plus pg 7 and 8. 

He was informed by a wide, wide scope of different federal and state officials , cabinet members, advisors, lawyers, staffers and legislators that his claims were false. 

This odd little fascination you have with some burden of proof that he "believed" them or not is moot. 

Doesn't matter. 

He was informed of the reality of his situation and opted criminality to alter it over acceptance of his loss.  

You can insult me - you can whine that it isn't that simple - you can flounder about to concoct some way that his criminal actions were justified. None of that matters. 

He lost.
He was told that he lost by a legion of credible officials.
He chose to act criminally in response.

I believe this point is far from moot, but is, in fact, critical to the prosecution's case and necessary to prove intent.  Paranoia is not a crime, and wouldn't you agree he certainly displays symptoms?

The federal case does not hinge on whether or not Trump believed the results were credible. 
The case asserts that notion, but does not require it to make the vast majority of its charges punishable. 

There are existing debates amongst legal experts elsewhere on which charges may or may not require that to be proven. I do not pretend to be fluent enough in legalese to disseminate the finer points of those debates, so I'll let the legal experts have that bit. It is obviously not uncommon for prosecutors to add charges that may or may not be provable to their indictments, so we'll see as it plays out which they are able to validate. I believe we'll find the vast majority of the charges will not require any semblance of proof concerning what he believed to be true concerning election results. Only that he was informed by a host of officials about the certified outcome. 

It should be relatively easy to understand that "I did this crime because I didn't believe something to be true even though it was true" is not a valid defense in a court of law. The election results were scrutinized and investigated in a dozen of the states wherein fraud accusations were levied. All of that resulted in a certification of the win for Biden. So - whether he thought it to be true or not, the ballot count was proven to be true - and he was informed in official capacity that it was true.

Yes, he displays plenty of symptoms of paranoia and other mental disorders, but that also will not exonerate him from choosing to conspire in criminal behavior. If he was deemed well enough to govern our nation for four years then he was well enough to accept the results of a free and fair election -  instead of attempting to block our nation from its rightfully elected leader.

(08-29-2023, 05:05 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-29-2023, 04:30 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Awww. All you got is your cute little insults I see. 

Pathetic. 

I see you are too lazy to read the indictment that spells this out for you. 

His own Attorney General informed him that investigations found no fraud, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency told him their investigation found no fraud. The state of Georgia informed him via three different agencies/officials including an additional investigation by GBI that there was no fraud. Two private agencies he paid millions to investigate fraud told him there was no fraud. This list goes on for a long time. 

You should just pull up your big boy britches and go read the pertinent section of the indictment:
https://www.jan-6.com/_files/ugd/2cf5f9_...6e7911.pdf

Go to the bottom of page 6 - No.11 heading - and read that plus pg 7 and 8. 

He was informed by a wide, wide scope of different federal and state officials , cabinet members, advisors, lawyers, staffers and legislators that his claims were false. 

This odd little fascination you have with some burden of proof that he "believed" them or not is moot. 

Doesn't matter. 

He was informed of the reality of his situation and opted criminality to alter it over acceptance of his loss.  

You can insult me - you can whine that it isn't that simple - you can flounder about to concoct some way that his criminal actions were justified. None of that matters. 

He lost.
He was told that he lost by a legion of credible officials.
He chose to act criminally in response.

I believe this point is far from moot, but is, in fact, critical to the prosecution's case and necessary to prove intent.  Paranoia is not a crime, and wouldn't you agree he certainly displays symptoms?

Do you really think he's mentally ill? You would never vote for a mentally ill person would you? How would you feel if most of your neighbors were about to vote for a mentally ill person?

In any case, in federal court the burden is on the defense to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence. In Georgia the burden is also on the defense to prove insanity by a preponderance of evidence, which is a lower standard, but still the defense has to assert it and show the evidence.

Is a man who is running for office going to assert that he was insane while in office previously?

(08-29-2023, 04:06 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-29-2023, 03:58 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]My statement wasn’t about Trump at all.

Have you noticed the title of the thread at all? LOL

A fisherman cast his net where he can catch the most fish.  And really, avoiding my point because I took a segway?  We’re all guilty of drifting off topic.

(08-29-2023, 03:58 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-29-2023, 03:27 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]It's OK to prosecute criminal action by politicians. 

If the investigations into Biden and his son find evidence of criminal action, they should be prosecuted too. 
100%. Given how “investigations” against establishment politicians in general and democrats in particular have gone in the past nothing will come of it.  He is guilty as are most career politicians but there will be no real investigation and you know it.

You are attempting to inject a bias into my statements that I have in no way stated or expressed. You are biased.

Do you believe in our legal system?  Nope.  I used to but there is a multiple tier system of justice and it turns a blind eye against those in the inner circle.

Is there a reason you don't trust a jury of normal American citizens to give Trump a fair trial?  See above.

My statement wasn’t about Trump at all.

(08-29-2023, 07:33 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-29-2023, 04:06 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Have you noticed the title of the thread at all? LOL

A fisherman cast his net where he can catch the most fish.  And really, avoiding my point because I took a segway?  We’re all guilty of drifting off topic.

I wasn't avoiding anything. What would you like me to address? 

The blue text above? 

1. You make an assumption of guilt by Biden and another assumption that nothing will come of it.
OK. Maybe you're wrong - maybe you're right. But you don't know. You accused me of being biased about which politicians are held accountable. I'm not. Indict all of them that break the law. Please. I'm here for it. 

2. Next. You call me biased again. Fine. Whatever - we all have our opinions. I'm not treating this topic in a biased fashion. I keep telling you I'm good with all politicians being held accountable. That's not enough for you, not much I can do about that. 

3. You express a distrust of our legal system. OK. Did you feel the same way when Trump was president or only since he lost?  When and how did it become multi-tiered? Who is controlling it? How do we fix it? 
I haven't witnessed any change in it at all. 
I've only witnessed a high degree of criminality by a former president that has led to conservatives attacking the justice system who are doing their jobs instead of recognizing the severity of his crimes. 


Is there something else you'd like me to clarify or address?

(08-29-2023, 07:46 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-29-2023, 03:58 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]My statement wasn’t about Trump at all.

(08-29-2023, 07:33 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]A fisherman cast his net where he can catch the most fish.  And really, avoiding my point because I took a segway?  We’re all guilty of drifting off topic.

I wasn't avoiding anything. What would you like me to address? 

The blue text above? 

1. You make an assumption of guilt by Biden and another assumption that nothing will come of it.
OK. Maybe you're wrong - maybe you're right. But you don't know. You accused me of being biased about which politicians are held accountable. I'm not. Indict all of them that break the law. Please. I'm here for it. 

2. Next. You call me biased again. Fine. Whatever - we all have our opinions. I'm not treating this topic in a biased fashion. I keep telling you I'm good with all politicians being held accountable. That's not enough for you, not much I can do about that. 

3. You express a distrust of our legal system. OK. Did you feel the same way when Trump was president or only since he lost?  When and how did it become multi-tiered? Who is controlling it? How do we fix it? 
I haven't witnessed any change in it at all. 
I've only witnessed a high degree of criminality by a former president that has led to conservatives attacking the justice system who are doing their jobs instead of recognizing the severity of his crimes. 


Is there something else you'd like me to clarify or address?

I can pretty much address all 3 with one answer.  I lost all faith in our federal government, judicial system and federal law enforcement when the FBI openly admitted that the Hillary Clinton campaign broke the law in regards to her private server and subsequent destruction of evidence but they were not going to pursue it.  Again my point of view has nothing to do with Trump directly.  I know it seems that way but only because I see the left do exactly what they accuse Trump of doing and crickets.  It’s right there in the open for anyone willing to see it.

As for who is controlling it, the very “swamp” Trump railed against.  Career politicians, unelected bureaucrats and corporate lobbyists.  How do we fix it?  Abandon party politics and re-elect no one.  Vote 3rd party.  Give stacked choice voting a try.  Limit bills to single issue items.  The middle class is shrinking and until we quit fighting each other and start fighting them, they win.

(08-29-2023, 08:21 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-29-2023, 07:46 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't avoiding anything. What would you like me to address? 

The blue text above? 

1. You make an assumption of guilt by Biden and another assumption that nothing will come of it.
OK. Maybe you're wrong - maybe you're right. But you don't know. You accused me of being biased about which politicians are held accountable. I'm not. Indict all of them that break the law. Please. I'm here for it. 

2. Next. You call me biased again. Fine. Whatever - we all have our opinions. I'm not treating this topic in a biased fashion. I keep telling you I'm good with all politicians being held accountable. That's not enough for you, not much I can do about that. 

3. You express a distrust of our legal system. OK. Did you feel the same way when Trump was president or only since he lost?  When and how did it become multi-tiered? Who is controlling it? How do we fix it? 
I haven't witnessed any change in it at all. 
I've only witnessed a high degree of criminality by a former president that has led to conservatives attacking the justice system who are doing their jobs instead of recognizing the severity of his crimes. 


Is there something else you'd like me to clarify or address?

I can pretty much address all 3 with one answer.  I lost all faith in our federal government, judicial system and federal law enforcement when the FBI openly admitted that the Hillary Clinton campaign broke the law in regards to her private server and subsequent destruction of evidence but they were not going to pursue it.  Again my point of view has nothing to do with Trump directly.  I know it seems that way but only because I see the left do exactly what they accuse Trump of doing and crickets.  It’s right there in the open for anyone willing to see it.

As for who is controlling it, the very “swamp” Trump railed against.  Career politicians, unelected bureaucrats and corporate lobbyists.  How do we fix it?  Abandon party politics and re-elect no one.  Vote 3rd party.  Give stacked choice voting a try.  Limit bills to single issue items.  The middle class is shrinking and until we quit fighting each other and start fighting them, they win.

It was indeed a puzzling decision.  A questionable decision.  It didn't make me lose any faith personally, but if it did, I would certainly blame the man who made the decision.  

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/...index.html

It's called ranked choice voting, by the way.

(08-29-2023, 08:21 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-29-2023, 07:46 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't avoiding anything. What would you like me to address? 

The blue text above? 

1. You make an assumption of guilt by Biden and another assumption that nothing will come of it.
OK. Maybe you're wrong - maybe you're right. But you don't know. You accused me of being biased about which politicians are held accountable. I'm not. Indict all of them that break the law. Please. I'm here for it. 

2. Next. You call me biased again. Fine. Whatever - we all have our opinions. I'm not treating this topic in a biased fashion. I keep telling you I'm good with all politicians being held accountable. That's not enough for you, not much I can do about that. 

3. You express a distrust of our legal system. OK. Did you feel the same way when Trump was president or only since he lost?  When and how did it become multi-tiered? Who is controlling it? How do we fix it? 
I haven't witnessed any change in it at all. 
I've only witnessed a high degree of criminality by a former president that has led to conservatives attacking the justice system who are doing their jobs instead of recognizing the severity of his crimes. 


Is there something else you'd like me to clarify or address?

I can pretty much address all 3 with one answer.  I lost all faith in our federal government, judicial system and federal law enforcement when the FBI openly admitted that the Hillary Clinton campaign broke the law in regards to her private server and subsequent destruction of evidence but they were not going to pursue it.  Again my point of view has nothing to do with Trump directly.  I know it seems that way but only because I see the left do exactly what they accuse Trump of doing and crickets.  It’s right there in the open for anyone willing to see it.

As for who is controlling it, the very “swamp” Trump railed against.  Career politicians, unelected bureaucrats and corporate lobbyists.  How do we fix it?  Abandon party politics and re-elect no one.  Vote 3rd party.  Give stacked choice voting a try.  Limit bills to single issue items.  The middle class is shrinking and until we quit fighting each other and start fighting them, they win.

If only Trump had been serious about draining the swamp instead of bringing along his own army of alligators and snakes to fill it with. 

Aside from that, I am right there with you on that whole second paragraph. I can't espouse all of the changes you suggest only because I haven't done a deep dive on their potential effect, but I know we need change and it is indeed that last sentence of yours that hits closest to home for me on why we need change. 

Backing up to your first paragraph - I was never convinced from what I saw on the Hillary scandal and she wasn't elected, so... I never really invested much concern. It would seem she mishandled confidential information at least. Fast forward to current day and we now are seeing that trend present itself with multiple politicians, so I wonder if it's practically par for the course. I think it is also important to put into perspective that every time Trump is accused of something, the pundits on the right leap eagerly to compare it to a seemingly similar action by someone on the left - and they are not always apples to apples comparisons.

(08-29-2023, 04:30 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-29-2023, 04:04 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]He doesn't have to believe it. That's the point. It's not a crime to disbelieve an authority. I used cabinet member as a stand in, mistakenly believing you would understand that he doesn't have to take any person or institution at their word. He is not required to believe any information put in front of him.

You have no PROOF he knew he was lying to the American people about what he believed. Sub in any other situation and your tiny little lizard brain might start working again. Let's see.... I was informed there was no proof of aliens by the federal government all through the 80s and 90s. I have also been informed there is unidentified craft that is beyond human capability that's also been recognized by the government. Neither position requires that I believe the other. The accounts exists. I don't need to believe it, regardless of who informs me. If I take a contrary position, it's not evidence that I set out to deceive people.

---

Awww. All you got is your cute little insults I see. 

Pathetic. 

I see you are too lazy to read the indictment that spells this out for you. 

His own Attorney General informed him that investigations found no fraud, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency told him their investigation found no fraud. The state of Georgia informed him via three different agencies/officials including an additional investigation by GBI that there was no fraud. Two private agencies he paid millions to investigate fraud told him there was no fraud. This list goes on for a long time. 

You should just pull up your big boy britches and go read the pertinent section of the indictment:
https://www.jan-6.com/_files/ugd/2cf5f9_...6e7911.pdf

Go to the bottom of page 6 - No.11 heading - and read that plus pg 7 and 8. 

He was informed by a wide, wide scope of different federal and state officials , cabinet members, advisors, lawyers, staffers and legislators that his claims were false. 

This odd little fascination you have with some burden of proof that he "believed" them or not is moot. 

Doesn't matter. 

He was informed of the reality of his situation and opted criminality to alter it over acceptance of his loss.  

You can insult me - you can whine that it isn't that simple - you can flounder about to concoct some way that his criminal actions were justified. None of that matters. 

He lost.
He was told that he lost by a legion of credible officials.
He chose to act criminally in response.

Pathetic he says.... lol. You know this is selective enforcement of the law. You know these dates set for his trials aren't coincidental. You celebrate them. You just don't care because you don't like Trump. Likewise, you cite partisan DA's like they are entirely forthright and credible. This indictment is one sided, and again, does not PROVE he was lying or trying to defraud the United States. Only that he is not in agreement with his advisors and other election officials. It even acknowledges he has the right to say these things. 

Stacey Abrams did this for YEARS and was never indicted. She claimed the vote was suppressed despite record turnout (even among blacks). This type of dispute has NEVER been uncommon. The veracity with which Trump fought back was uncommon, sure, as was the veracity with which the media and establishment came down on him for doing so. Not only that, you act like he only received advice from one group of people, because that's how the indictment was framed. He received multiple conflicting reports, which is why he's even got co-conspirators in the first place. He had lawyers making alternate recommendations. He did not trust the election officials in the swing states, OBVIOUSLY, and he thought that many people in his own cabinet were corrupt, which is prototypical behavior of a narcissist. No matter how you want to read that indictment, which I have read, none of it is PROOF. It's open to interpretation. You just want to interpret a certain way because you're close-minded. I know you want to believe you're above it, but you're not. 

The charges in GA are serious, but specious. The charges in Florida are the worst for Trump. The charges in NY are garbage. The point is, you don't have PROOF of [BLEEP]. It's just more TDS. Can he get convicted? Probably. It will be a judgement call. It won't be because of proof.

(08-30-2023, 01:14 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-29-2023, 04:30 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Awww. All you got is your cute little insults I see. 

Pathetic. 

I see you are too lazy to read the indictment that spells this out for you. 

His own Attorney General informed him that investigations found no fraud, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency told him their investigation found no fraud. The state of Georgia informed him via three different agencies/officials including an additional investigation by GBI that there was no fraud. Two private agencies he paid millions to investigate fraud told him there was no fraud. This list goes on for a long time. 

You should just pull up your big boy britches and go read the pertinent section of the indictment:
https://www.jan-6.com/_files/ugd/2cf5f9_...6e7911.pdf

Go to the bottom of page 6 - No.11 heading - and read that plus pg 7 and 8. 

He was informed by a wide, wide scope of different federal and state officials , cabinet members, advisors, lawyers, staffers and legislators that his claims were false. 

This odd little fascination you have with some burden of proof that he "believed" them or not is moot. 

Doesn't matter. 

He was informed of the reality of his situation and opted criminality to alter it over acceptance of his loss.  

You can insult me - you can whine that it isn't that simple - you can flounder about to concoct some way that his criminal actions were justified. None of that matters. 

He lost.
He was told that he lost by a legion of credible officials.
He chose to act criminally in response.

Pathetic he says.... lol. You know this is selective enforcement of the law. You know these dates set for his trials aren't coincidental. You celebrate them. You just don't care because you don't like Trump. Likewise, you cite partisan DA's like they are entirely forthright and credible. This indictment is one sided, and again, does not PROVE he was lying or trying to defraud the United States. Only that he is not in agreement with his advisors and other election officials. It even acknowledges he has the right to say these things. 

Stacey Abrams did this for YEARS and was never indicted. She claimed the vote was suppressed despite record turnout (even among blacks). This type of dispute has NEVER been uncommon. The veracity with which Trump fought back was uncommon, sure, as was the veracity with which the media and establishment came down on him for doing so. Not only that, you act like he only received advice from one group of people, because that's how the indictment was framed. He received multiple conflicting reports, which is why he's even got co-conspirators in the first place. He had lawyers making alternate recommendations. He did not trust the election officials in the swing states, OBVIOUSLY, and he thought that many people in his own cabinet were corrupt, which is prototypical behavior of a narcissist. No matter how you want to read that indictment, which I have read, none of it is PROOF. It's open to interpretation. You just want to interpret a certain way because you're close-minded. I know you want to believe you're above it, but you're not. 

The charges in GA are serious, but specious. The charges in Florida are the worst for Trump. The charges in NY are garbage. The point is, you don't have PROOF of [BLEEP]. It's just more TDS. Can he get convicted? Probably. It will be a judgement call. It won't be because of proof.

1) Stacy Abrams did not say that votes had been misplaced or that any votes should be thrown out.  She said that not enough Black people had been allowed to register.
2) Did Stacy Abrams personally call up Brian Kemp and give him false information? Or write him a letter with false information? I don't think she did.

(08-30-2023, 01:14 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-29-2023, 04:30 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Awww. All you got is your cute little insults I see. 

Pathetic. 

I see you are too lazy to read the indictment that spells this out for you. 

His own Attorney General informed him that investigations found no fraud, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency told him their investigation found no fraud. The state of Georgia informed him via three different agencies/officials including an additional investigation by GBI that there was no fraud. Two private agencies he paid millions to investigate fraud told him there was no fraud. This list goes on for a long time. 

You should just pull up your big boy britches and go read the pertinent section of the indictment:
https://www.jan-6.com/_files/ugd/2cf5f9_...6e7911.pdf

Go to the bottom of page 6 - No.11 heading - and read that plus pg 7 and 8. 

He was informed by a wide, wide scope of different federal and state officials , cabinet members, advisors, lawyers, staffers and legislators that his claims were false. 

This odd little fascination you have with some burden of proof that he "believed" them or not is moot. 

Doesn't matter. 

He was informed of the reality of his situation and opted criminality to alter it over acceptance of his loss.  

You can insult me - you can whine that it isn't that simple - you can flounder about to concoct some way that his criminal actions were justified. None of that matters. 

He lost.
He was told that he lost by a legion of credible officials.
He chose to act criminally in response.

Pathetic he says.... lol. You know this is selective enforcement of the law. You know these dates set for his trials aren't coincidental. You celebrate them. You just don't care because you don't like Trump. Likewise, you cite partisan DA's like they are entirely forthright and credible. This indictment is one sided, and again, does not PROVE he was lying or trying to defraud the United States. Only that he is not in agreement with his advisors and other election officials. It even acknowledges he has the right to say these things. 

Stacey Abrams did this for YEARS and was never indicted. She claimed the vote was suppressed despite record turnout (even among blacks). This type of dispute has NEVER been uncommon. The veracity with which Trump fought back was uncommon, sure, as was the veracity with which the media and establishment came down on him for doing so. Not only that, you act like he only received advice from one group of people, because that's how the indictment was framed. He received multiple conflicting reports, which is why he's even got co-conspirators in the first place. He had lawyers making alternate recommendations. He did not trust the election officials in the swing states, OBVIOUSLY, and he thought that many people in his own cabinet were corrupt, which is prototypical behavior of a narcissist. No matter how you want to read that indictment, which I have read, none of it is PROOF. It's open to interpretation. You just want to interpret a certain way because you're close-minded. I know you want to believe you're above it, but you're not. 

The charges in GA are serious, but specious. The charges in Florida are the worst for Trump. The charges in NY are garbage. The point is, you don't have PROOF of [BLEEP]. It's just more TDS. Can he get convicted? Probably. It will be a judgement call. It won't be because of proof.

"Selective enforcement of the law"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

That's cute. 

Law broken
Crime charged.

It is just hilarious how every time something is simple and black and white, you feel the need to twist it into a pretzel and assign it a special little fictional term or word. 
Good luck with that. 

I must have asked you a hundred times not to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. 
Don't ever presume to tell me what I "know" - especially when it's followed by some horse [BLEEP] you've decided to believe because of your own paranoia. 

These dates need to be expedient so that the American people are not subject to another of this clown's criminal power grab attempts. Couldn't be easier to sort out.  If he is indeed guilty, then expedience is paramount to protect our nation from him. Precedent exists nearly everywhere you look in the legal world for an expedient trial.

I'm wondering where all of the hate toward DAs in America was before these indictments? I sure don't remember this being a problem until orange [BLEEP] got indicted. LOL It's just more grasping at straws to protect a blatant criminal from his blatant crimes.
  Let's not act like it has to be some agenda just because some folks involved in these cases don't like Trump.
60-70% of America doesn't like Trump depending on which poll you believe. 
The odds are in favor of these DAs being anti Trump, pal.
 I know that rubs against your default setting of everything under the sun being wrapped in a shroud of mystery and guided by boogeymen controlled by a secret code word only accessed by capturing an Alex Jones fart in a mason-jar and delivering it to one of Rupert Murdoch's Vietnamese sex-slaves with a blood offering, but that is indeed the simple reality. MOST people, including many prosecutors, and, gasp!, even some judges, do not like the guy. 

WITCH HUNT!  LOL 

Criminal does crime. 
Criminal gets prosecuted.

Next...

(08-30-2023, 08:43 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-30-2023, 01:14 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Pathetic he says.... lol. You know this is selective enforcement of the law. You know these dates set for his trials aren't coincidental. You celebrate them. You just don't care because you don't like Trump. Likewise, you cite partisan DA's like they are entirely forthright and credible. This indictment is one sided, and again, does not PROVE he was lying or trying to defraud the United States. Only that he is not in agreement with his advisors and other election officials. It even acknowledges he has the right to say these things. 

Stacey Abrams did this for YEARS and was never indicted. She claimed the vote was suppressed despite record turnout (even among blacks). This type of dispute has NEVER been uncommon. The veracity with which Trump fought back was uncommon, sure, as was the veracity with which the media and establishment came down on him for doing so. Not only that, you act like he only received advice from one group of people, because that's how the indictment was framed. He received multiple conflicting reports, which is why he's even got co-conspirators in the first place. He had lawyers making alternate recommendations. He did not trust the election officials in the swing states, OBVIOUSLY, and he thought that many people in his own cabinet were corrupt, which is prototypical behavior of a narcissist. No matter how you want to read that indictment, which I have read, none of it is PROOF. It's open to interpretation. You just want to interpret a certain way because you're close-minded. I know you want to believe you're above it, but you're not. 

The charges in GA are serious, but specious. The charges in Florida are the worst for Trump. The charges in NY are garbage. The point is, you don't have PROOF of [BLEEP]. It's just more TDS. Can he get convicted? Probably. It will be a judgement call. It won't be because of proof.

"Selective enforcement of the law"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

That's cute. 

Law broken
Crime charged.

It is just hilarious how every time something is simple and black and white, you feel the need to twist it into a pretzel and assign it a special little fictional term or word. 
Good luck with that. 

I must have asked you a hundred times not to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. 
Don't ever presume to tell me what I "know" - especially when it's followed by some horse [BLEEP] you've decided to believe because of your own paranoia. 

These dates need to be expedient so that the American people are not subject to another of this clown's criminal power grab attempts. Couldn't be easier to sort out.  If he is indeed guilty, then expedience is paramount to protect our nation from him. Precedent exists nearly everywhere you look in the legal world for an expedient trial.

I'm wondering where all of the hate toward DAs in America was before these indictments? I sure don't remember this being a problem until orange [BLEEP] got indicted. LOL It's just more grasping at straws to protect a blatant criminal from his blatant crimes.
  Let's not act like it has to be some agenda just because some folks involved in these cases don't like Trump.
60-70% of America doesn't like Trump depending on which poll you believe. 
The odds are in favor of these DAs being anti Trump, pal.
 I know that rubs against your default setting of everything under the sun being wrapped in a shroud of mystery and guided by boogeymen controlled by a secret code word only accessed by capturing an Alex Jones fart in a mason-jar and delivering it to one of Rupert Murdoch's Vietnamese sex-slaves with a blood offering, but that is indeed the simple reality. MOST people, including many prosecutors, and, gasp!, even some judges, do not like the guy. 

WITCH HUNT!  LOL 

Criminal does crime. 
Criminal gets prosecuted.

Next...

People hate DAs because Soros bought a ton of them and has, as we see with Trump, weaponized them against America. I know that rubs against your default setting that anything Trump does is criminal, but it's the simple reality that the only thing that really pisses you off is that he won. Ever since that day all those years ago the left has done everything in their power to singularly focus on destroying Donald Trump. Now we are at the culmination of all those efforts and, at the end, he'll be the Republican candidate anyway.

(08-30-2023, 10:53 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-30-2023, 08:43 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]"Selective enforcement of the law"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

That's cute. 

Law broken
Crime charged.

It is just hilarious how every time something is simple and black and white, you feel the need to twist it into a pretzel and assign it a special little fictional term or word. 
Good luck with that. 

I must have asked you a hundred times not to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. 
Don't ever presume to tell me what I "know" - especially when it's followed by some horse [BLEEP] you've decided to believe because of your own paranoia. 

These dates need to be expedient so that the American people are not subject to another of this clown's criminal power grab attempts. Couldn't be easier to sort out.  If he is indeed guilty, then expedience is paramount to protect our nation from him. Precedent exists nearly everywhere you look in the legal world for an expedient trial.

I'm wondering where all of the hate toward DAs in America was before these indictments? I sure don't remember this being a problem until orange [BLEEP] got indicted. LOL It's just more grasping at straws to protect a blatant criminal from his blatant crimes.
  Let's not act like it has to be some agenda just because some folks involved in these cases don't like Trump.
60-70% of America doesn't like Trump depending on which poll you believe. 
The odds are in favor of these DAs being anti Trump, pal.
 I know that rubs against your default setting of everything under the sun being wrapped in a shroud of mystery and guided by boogeymen controlled by a secret code word only accessed by capturing an Alex Jones fart in a mason-jar and delivering it to one of Rupert Murdoch's Vietnamese sex-slaves with a blood offering, but that is indeed the simple reality. MOST people, including many prosecutors, and, gasp!, even some judges, do not like the guy. 

WITCH HUNT!  LOL 

Criminal does crime. 
Criminal gets prosecuted.

Next...

People hate DAs because Soros bought a ton of them and has, as we see with Trump, weaponized them against America. I know that rubs against your default setting that anything Trump does is criminal, but it's the simple reality that the only thing that really pisses you off is that he won. Ever since that day all those years ago the left has done everything in their power to singularly focus on destroying Donald Trump. Now we are at the culmination of all those efforts and, at the end, he'll be the Republican candidate anyway.

Most prosecutors/DAs are elected. 
But, of course in your world, they are purchased by the boogeyman. 

Trump has systematically destroyed himself by opening his mouth and saying words. The left didn't need to do much in that regard. Their main mistake was not taking his candidacy seriously enough the first time around. 

He may be the candidate anyway, but he'll simply lose by a wider margin than the last failed effort. 
62% of America believes he committed crimes to alter the election result. (because he did) 
Good luck getting that [BLEEP] elected.

(08-30-2023, 11:09 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-30-2023, 10:53 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]People hate DAs because Soros bought a ton of them and has, as we see with Trump, weaponized them against America. I know that rubs against your default setting that anything Trump does is criminal, but it's the simple reality that the only thing that really pisses you off is that he won. Ever since that day all those years ago the left has done everything in their power to singularly focus on destroying Donald Trump. Now we are at the culmination of all those efforts and, at the end, he'll be the Republican candidate anyway.

Most prosecutors/DAs are elected. 
But, of course in your world, they are purchased by the boogeyman. 

Trump has systematically destroyed himself by opening his mouth and saying words. The left didn't need to do much in that regard. Their main mistake was not taking his candidacy seriously enough the first time around. 

He may be the candidate anyway, but he'll simply lose by a wider margin than the last failed effort. 
62% of America believes he committed crimes to alter the election result. (because he did) 
Good luck getting that [BLEEP] elected.

Well, of course they're elected, that's why I'm so adamant about eliminating election corruption. You're so close to connecting the dots here!

And 62% of the big city liberals they asked think that, so you should probably be concerned that the percentage isn't higher.

(08-30-2023, 11:16 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-30-2023, 11:09 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Most prosecutors/DAs are elected. 
But, of course in your world, they are purchased by the boogeyman. 

Trump has systematically destroyed himself by opening his mouth and saying words. The left didn't need to do much in that regard. Their main mistake was not taking his candidacy seriously enough the first time around. 

He may be the candidate anyway, but he'll simply lose by a wider margin than the last failed effort. 
62% of America believes he committed crimes to alter the election result. (because he did) 
Good luck getting that [BLEEP] elected.

Well, of course they're elected, that's why I'm so adamant about eliminating election corruption. You're so close to connecting the dots here!

And 62% of the big city liberals they asked think that, so you should probably be concerned that the percentage isn't higher.

You guys love "connecting dots." The problem is - all you're doing is adopting garbage conspiracy theory. Not actually connecting the dots. You just decided to believe an unprovable narrative that feels good to your political sensibility. 
Every thread and every debate here seems to arrive at this impasse. You believe some [BLEEP] you can't prove. 

Elections of all types are influenced with money from all sorts of places. Some of it is shady, some of is standard politics. It's everywhere though, not just behind the lefties elected that you want to cherry pick.  Trying to claim Trump's prosecutors are all "bought" by Soros is laughable. I know YOU believe it. I find it silly. 

All these people amongst our justice system out there doing their jobs with no upheaval from the right about their biases or their ability to fairly execute their duties as duly elected officials. Then as soon as they are assigned to a Trump case BOOM!!! "Biased, paid-for, shady, agenda-fueled, assassins!!" LOL 
C'mon. 

Where is your demo information from that poll you think you know so much about? Post it. 

OK - I'll do it for you:

Global Strategy Group conducted public opinion surveys among a sample of 1,000 registered voters from
August 17-August 21, 2023. 105 additional interviews were conducted among Hispanic voters. 75 additional
interviews were conducted among Asian American and Pacific Islander voters. 103 additional interviews were
conducted among African American voters. 100 additional interviews were conducted among independent
voters. 100 additional interviews were conducted among those living in households with at least one union
member. The survey was conducted online, recruiting respondents from an opt-in online panel vendor.
Nationwide surveys of registered voters; Each wave represents approximately 1,000 interviews taken over the prior three-five days. Latest wave conducted August 17-August 21, 2023. For more info, visit navigatorresearch.org.
Respondents were verified against a voter file and special care was taken to ensure the demographic composition of our sample matched that of the national registered voter population across a variety of demographic variables.

(08-30-2023, 11:36 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-30-2023, 11:16 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Well, of course they're elected, that's why I'm so adamant about eliminating election corruption. You're so close to connecting the dots here!

And 62% of the big city liberals they asked think that, so you should probably be concerned that the percentage isn't higher.

You guys love "connecting dots." The problem is - all you're doing is adopting garbage conspiracy theory. Not actually connecting the dots. You just decided to believe an unprovable narrative that feels good to your political sensibility. 
Every thread and every debate here seems to arrive at this impasse. You believe some [BLEEP] you can't prove. 

Elections of all types are influenced with money from all sorts of places. Some of it is shady, some of is standard politics. It's everywhere though, not just behind the lefties elected that you want to cherry pick.  Trying to claim Trump's prosecutors are all "bought" by Soros is laughable. I know YOU believe it. I find it silly. 

All these people amongst our justice system out there doing their jobs with no upheaval from the right about their biases or their ability to fairly execute their duties as duly elected officials. Then as soon as they are assigned to a Trump case BOOM!!! "Biased, paid-for, shady, agenda-fueled, assassins!!" LOL 
C'mon. 

Where is your demo information from that poll you think you know so much about? Post it. 

OK - I'll do it for you:

Global Strategy Group conducted public opinion surveys among a sample of 1,000 registered voters from
August 17-August 21, 2023. 105 additional interviews were conducted among Hispanic voters. 75 additional
interviews were conducted among Asian American and Pacific Islander voters. 103 additional interviews were
conducted among African American voters. 100 additional interviews were conducted among independent
voters. 100 additional interviews were conducted among those living in households with at least one union
member. The survey was conducted online, recruiting respondents from an opt-in online panel vendor.
Nationwide surveys of registered voters; Each wave represents approximately 1,000 interviews taken over the prior three-five days. Latest wave conducted August 17-August 21, 2023. For more info, visit navigatorresearch.org.
Respondents were verified against a voter file and special care was taken to ensure the demographic composition of our sample matched that of the national registered voter population across a variety of demographic variables.

Lol, yep, you answered the question for yourself right in your own Copy Pasta. All you need to know about that survey is "Global Strategy Group" to know that it's biased and not worth the bits used to put it on the internet.

Meanwhile, the Soros dots are connected by millions of traceable dollars and 20% of the DAs in this country being directly beholden to him. And we see the results in the crime rates in our cities.

https://www.policedefense.org/wp-content...report.pdf

(08-30-2023, 12:00 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-30-2023, 11:36 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]You guys love "connecting dots." The problem is - all you're doing is adopting garbage conspiracy theory. Not actually connecting the dots. You just decided to believe an unprovable narrative that feels good to your political sensibility. 
Every thread and every debate here seems to arrive at this impasse. You believe some [BLEEP] you can't prove. 

Elections of all types are influenced with money from all sorts of places. Some of it is shady, some of is standard politics. It's everywhere though, not just behind the lefties elected that you want to cherry pick.  Trying to claim Trump's prosecutors are all "bought" by Soros is laughable. I know YOU believe it. I find it silly. 

All these people amongst our justice system out there doing their jobs with no upheaval from the right about their biases or their ability to fairly execute their duties as duly elected officials. Then as soon as they are assigned to a Trump case BOOM!!! "Biased, paid-for, shady, agenda-fueled, assassins!!" LOL 
C'mon. 

Where is your demo information from that poll you think you know so much about? Post it. 

OK - I'll do it for you:

Global Strategy Group conducted public opinion surveys among a sample of 1,000 registered voters from
August 17-August 21, 2023. 105 additional interviews were conducted among Hispanic voters. 75 additional
interviews were conducted among Asian American and Pacific Islander voters. 103 additional interviews were
conducted among African American voters. 100 additional interviews were conducted among independent
voters. 100 additional interviews were conducted among those living in households with at least one union
member. The survey was conducted online, recruiting respondents from an opt-in online panel vendor.
Nationwide surveys of registered voters; Each wave represents approximately 1,000 interviews taken over the prior three-five days. Latest wave conducted August 17-August 21, 2023. For more info, visit navigatorresearch.org.
Respondents were verified against a voter file and special care was taken to ensure the demographic composition of our sample matched that of the national registered voter population across a variety of demographic variables.

Lol, yep, you answered the question for yourself right in your own Copy Pasta. All you need to know about that survey is "Global Strategy Group" to know that it's biased and not worth the bits used to put it on the internet.

Meanwhile, the Soros dots are connected by millions of traceable dollars and 20% of the DAs in this country being directly beholden to him. And we see the results in the crime rates in our cities.

https://www.policedefense.org/wp-content...report.pdf

A. You waive off a poll because of a source even thought the demo information staring you in the face says it was spread amongst a matched sample of the voter population 
OK - your choice - I bet it's a pretty accurate assessment of American's temperature on the matter

B. You seem to think that campaign contributions mean that the contributor controls the elected official. 
Taking money for a campaign does not make an official "directly beholden" to anyone. LOL - If you tried to apply that "logic" to everyone holding office, you'd very rapidly see how horribly stupid it is to make that ridiculous assumption.

(08-30-2023, 12:16 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-30-2023, 12:00 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, yep, you answered the question for yourself right in your own Copy Pasta. All you need to know about that survey is "Global Strategy Group" to know that it's biased and not worth the bits used to put it on the internet.

Meanwhile, the Soros dots are connected by millions of traceable dollars and 20% of the DAs in this country being directly beholden to him. And we see the results in the crime rates in our cities.

https://www.policedefense.org/wp-content...report.pdf

A. You waive off a poll because of a source even thought the demo information staring you in the face says it was spread amongst a matched sample of the voter population 
OK - your choice - I bet it's a pretty accurate assessment of American's temperature on the matter

B. You seem to think that campaign contributions mean that the contributor controls the elected official. 
Taking money for a campaign does not make an official "directly beholden" to anyone. LOL - If you tried to apply that "logic" to everyone holding office, you'd very rapidly see how horribly stupid it is to make that ridiculous assumption.

I don't know, I think you could argue that is why we're in the mess we're in...