Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(10-31-2023, 09:28 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]It's conjecture. It doesn't matter what's "obvious." It's not facts. You and your friends assume intent, which is [BLEEP] impossible to prove. There's more evidence that Joe Biden is on the take than there is that Trump believes he lost that election and was "conning" everyone.

So [BLEEP] weird you keep injecting "intent" when I never say anything about it. 

It doesn't matter what I think about his intent. 

All of that scrambling he does in that phone call to float potential ways for the GA SoS to alter the election outcome - it ALL turned out to be garbage.  None of those straws he grasped at had merit. They were throwing feces at the wall and praying Raffensberger would see a Jackson Pollock masterpiece. 

The Fulton co. ballots accusation - lies
A blatant lie about the number of folks who complained about not being able to vote
(notice on many of these lies he qualifies it with "we have certified accountants working on the actual number" LOL!) 

Then the blatant lie about the 18000 votes in suitcases which has been proven false.

Then more flailing about a water main break??? Are you kidding me??? LOL

On and on and on, LOL



Voting machine fraud falsities - LOL - lawsuits have awarded over a billion dollars in defamation suits about the lies spread concerning those machines from two diff companies - LOL you think that happened because this load of crap was TRUE??

Every single claim at fraud in that "perfect phone call" has been shown to be baseless.

You believe that tripe?

SHOW
ME
ONE
SHRED
OF EVIDENCE

Oh - my -  god, man. Have you never sat through a spiel from a car salesman trying to sell you options and warranties and undercoating?? This is EXACTLY the same.

"We've got 50,000 bad votes here (not really) we've, got 18,000 suit case votes here (not really) we've got machine fraud here (not really) and ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS 11,000 VOTES!!"

"Sir, these premium floor mats, deluxe trunk mounted tool organizer kit, 90'000 mile chassis all weather undercoating, platinum grade mud flaps, and deluxe hi-fi 9-speaker sound system are a $9000 value!! But I'm only adding $2,875 to your sticker today!!" 

Same [BLEEP] cheap hustle. 
People are complete fools to buy it.

"It's not a lie if you believe what you're saying."

So, all that crazy crap that came out of his mouth in that conversation was not a lie, because he actually believed all that stuff.  What an excuse.

(10-31-2023, 11:39 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]"It's not a lie if you believe what you're saying."

So, all that crazy crap that came out of his mouth in that conversation was not a lie, because he actually believed all that stuff.  What an excuse.

That it's true stuff is pretty relevant, too bad it'll never actually get the review it's due. But ya'll keep on believin'!

(10-31-2023, 09:52 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-31-2023, 09:28 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]It's conjecture. It doesn't matter what's "obvious." It's not facts. You and your friends assume intent, which is [BLEEP] impossible to prove. There's more evidence that Joe Biden is on the take than there is that Trump believes he lost that election and was "conning" everyone.

So [BLEEP] weird you keep injecting "intent" when I never say anything about it. 

It doesn't matter what I think about his intent. 

All of that scrambling he does in that phone call to float potential ways for the GA SoS to alter the election outcome - it ALL turned out to be garbage.  None of those straws he grasped at had merit. They were throwing feces at the wall and praying Raffensberger would see a Jackson Pollock masterpiece. 

The Fulton co. ballots accusation - lies
A blatant lie about the number of folks who complained about not being able to vote
(notice on many of these lies he qualifies it with "we have certified accountants working on the actual number" LOL!) 

Then the blatant lie about the 18000 votes in suitcases which has been proven false.

Then more flailing about a water main break??? Are you kidding me??? LOL

On and on and on, LOL

Oh - my -  god, man. Have you never sat through a spiel from a car salesman trying to sell you options and warranties and undercoating?? This is EXACTLY the same.

"We've got 50,000 bad votes here (not really) we've, got 18,000 suit case votes here (not really) we've got machine fraud here (not really) and ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS 11,000 VOTES!!"

"Sir, these premium floor mats, deluxe trunk mounted tool organizer kit, 90'000 mile chassis all weather undercoating, platinum grade mud flaps, and deluxe hi-fi 9-speaker sound system are a $9000 value!! But I'm only adding $2,875 to your sticker today!!" 

Same [BLEEP] cheap hustle. 
People are complete fools to buy it.

You love to hide behind "Did I say..." 

Do you even realize that's the implication you make? I mean, you have to, right? When I say there's context and you say, "C'mon, we all know Trump is a con artist," you are declaring that what says doesn't matter, because why? Because you know his intent. He was intending to deceive. 

There is no objectivity in that. There is only your interpretation of that data, and it's void of context.

(10-31-2023, 02:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-31-2023, 09:52 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]So [BLEEP] weird you keep injecting "intent" when I never say anything about it. 

It doesn't matter what I think about his intent. 

All of that scrambling he does in that phone call to float potential ways for the GA SoS to alter the election outcome - it ALL turned out to be garbage.  None of those straws he grasped at had merit. They were throwing feces at the wall and praying Raffensberger would see a Jackson Pollock masterpiece. 

The Fulton co. ballots accusation - lies
A blatant lie about the number of folks who complained about not being able to vote
(notice on many of these lies he qualifies it with "we have certified accountants working on the actual number" LOL!) 

Then the blatant lie about the 18000 votes in suitcases which has been proven false.

Then more flailing about a water main break??? Are you kidding me??? LOL

On and on and on, LOL

Oh - my -  god, man. Have you never sat through a spiel from a car salesman trying to sell you options and warranties and undercoating?? This is EXACTLY the same.

"We've got 50,000 bad votes here (not really) we've, got 18,000 suit case votes here (not really) we've got machine fraud here (not really) and ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS 11,000 VOTES!!"

"Sir, these premium floor mats, deluxe trunk mounted tool organizer kit, 90'000 mile chassis all weather undercoating, platinum grade mud flaps, and deluxe hi-fi 9-speaker sound system are a $9000 value!! But I'm only adding $2,875 to your sticker today!!" 

Same [BLEEP] cheap hustle. 
People are complete fools to buy it.

You love to hide behind "Did I say..." 

Do you even realize that's the implication you make? I mean, you have to, right? When I say there's context and you say, "C'mon, we all know Trump is a con artist," you are declaring that what says doesn't matter, because why? Because you know his intent. He was intending to deceive. 

There is no objectivity in that. There is only your interpretation of that data, and it's void of context.

Intent matters if we're trying to judge a man's character.
But we're trying to prove he committed a crime, and in that case intent only matters if the statute says it matters.

No [BLEEP]. Which is why I'm saying that phone call is stupid "proof." He clearly believes from that transcript that the election was stolen. He believes he has examples. That line everyone wants to use is taken out of context, and people who use it knowing the context are relying on intent to condemn him of a crime.

(10-31-2023, 02:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-31-2023, 09:52 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]So [BLEEP] weird you keep injecting "intent" when I never say anything about it. 

It doesn't matter what I think about his intent. 

All of that scrambling he does in that phone call to float potential ways for the GA SoS to alter the election outcome - it ALL turned out to be garbage.  None of those straws he grasped at had merit. They were throwing feces at the wall and praying Raffensberger would see a Jackson Pollock masterpiece. 

The Fulton co. ballots accusation - lies
A blatant lie about the number of folks who complained about not being able to vote
(notice on many of these lies he qualifies it with "we have certified accountants working on the actual number" LOL!) 

Then the blatant lie about the 18000 votes in suitcases which has been proven false.

Then more flailing about a water main break??? Are you kidding me??? LOL

On and on and on, LOL

Oh - my -  god, man. Have you never sat through a spiel from a car salesman trying to sell you options and warranties and undercoating?? This is EXACTLY the same.

"We've got 50,000 bad votes here (not really) we've, got 18,000 suit case votes here (not really) we've got machine fraud here (not really) and ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS 11,000 VOTES!!"

"Sir, these premium floor mats, deluxe trunk mounted tool organizer kit, 90'000 mile chassis all weather undercoating, platinum grade mud flaps, and deluxe hi-fi 9-speaker sound system are a $9000 value!! But I'm only adding $2,875 to your sticker today!!" 

Same [BLEEP] cheap hustle. 
People are complete fools to buy it.

You love to hide behind "Did I say..." 

Do you even realize that's the implication you make? I mean, you have to, right? When I say there's context and you say, "C'mon, we all know Trump is a con artist," you are declaring that what says doesn't matter, because why? Because you know his intent. He was intending to deceive. 

There is no objectivity in that. There is only your interpretation of that data, and it's void of context.

They're not only void of context, you can also add brains and balls to that list.

(10-31-2023, 02:59 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-31-2023, 02:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You love to hide behind "Did I say..." 

Do you even realize that's the implication you make? I mean, you have to, right? When I say there's context and you say, "C'mon, we all know Trump is a con artist," you are declaring that what says doesn't matter, because why? Because you know his intent. He was intending to deceive. 

There is no objectivity in that. There is only your interpretation of that data, and it's void of context.

They're not only void of context, you can also add brains and balls to that list.

Big brass ones, Nancy 

Figures the pervy one always obsessed with pedophilles here is now all about my balls

---

(10-31-2023, 02:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-31-2023, 09:52 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]So [BLEEP] weird you keep injecting "intent" when I never say anything about it. 

It doesn't matter what I think about his intent. 

All of that scrambling he does in that phone call to float potential ways for the GA SoS to alter the election outcome - it ALL turned out to be garbage.  None of those straws he grasped at had merit. They were throwing feces at the wall and praying Raffensberger would see a Jackson Pollock masterpiece. 

The Fulton co. ballots accusation - lies
A blatant lie about the number of folks who complained about not being able to vote
(notice on many of these lies he qualifies it with "we have certified accountants working on the actual number" LOL!) 

Then the blatant lie about the 18000 votes in suitcases which has been proven false.

Then more flailing about a water main break??? Are you kidding me??? LOL

On and on and on, LOL

Oh - my -  god, man. Have you never sat through a spiel from a car salesman trying to sell you options and warranties and undercoating?? This is EXACTLY the same.

"We've got 50,000 bad votes here (not really) we've, got 18,000 suit case votes here (not really) we've got machine fraud here (not really) and ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS 11,000 VOTES!!"

"Sir, these premium floor mats, deluxe trunk mounted tool organizer kit, 90'000 mile chassis all weather undercoating, platinum grade mud flaps, and deluxe hi-fi 9-speaker sound system are a $9000 value!! But I'm only adding $2,875 to your sticker today!!" 

Same [BLEEP] cheap hustle. 
People are complete fools to buy it.

You love to hide behind "Did I say..." 

Do you even realize that's the implication you make? I mean, you have to, right? When I say there's context and you say, "C'mon, we all know Trump is a con artist," you are declaring that what says doesn't matter, because why? Because you know his intent. He was intending to deceive. 

There is no objectivity in that. There is only your interpretation of that data, and it's void of context.

I didn't hide behind ONE [BLEEP] THING

You are hiding now it would appear since you've got no actual rebuttal to the post 

Just some hollow attack of me making a sidebar about your misinterpretation of implication 

figures

(10-31-2023, 03:12 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-31-2023, 02:59 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]They're not only void of context, you can also add brains and balls to that list.

Big brass ones, Nancy 

Figures the pervy one always obsessed with pedophilles here is now all about my balls

---

(10-31-2023, 02:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You love to hide behind "Did I say..." 

Do you even realize that's the implication you make? I mean, you have to, right? When I say there's context and you say, "C'mon, we all know Trump is a con artist," you are declaring that what says doesn't matter, because why? Because you know his intent. He was intending to deceive. 

There is no objectivity in that. There is only your interpretation of that data, and it's void of context.

I didn't hide behind ONE [BLEEP] THING

You are hiding now it would appear since you've got no actual rebuttal to the post 

Just some hollow attack of me making a sidebar about your misinterpretation of implication 

figures

You gotta have balls first before someone can talk about em..

And seriously? You're going to accuse me of an infatuation with catching and eliminating pedophiles? I would hope everyone would have that same mentality.. Unless of course, they're either on the FDLE site or they like to shop at Baby Gap.

(10-31-2023, 03:27 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-31-2023, 03:12 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Big brass ones, Nancy 

Figures the pervy one always obsessed with pedophilles here is now all about my balls

---

I didn't hide behind ONE [BLEEP] THING

You are hiding now it would appear since you've got no actual rebuttal to the post 

Just some hollow attack of me making a sidebar about your misinterpretation of implication 

figures

You gotta have balls first before someone can talk about em..

And seriously? You're going to accuse me of an infatuation with catching and eliminating pedophiles? I would hope everyone would have that same mentality.. Unless of course, they're either on the FDLE site or they like to shop at Baby Gap.

spout sophomoric insults and get them back in return 

figure it out

(10-31-2023, 03:34 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-31-2023, 03:27 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]You gotta have balls first before someone can talk about em..

And seriously? You're going to accuse me of an infatuation with catching and eliminating pedophiles? I would hope everyone would have that same mentality.. Unless of course, they're either on the FDLE site or they like to shop at Baby Gap.

spout sophomoric insults and get them back in return 

figure it out

Chris Hanson says "Have a seat"..

(10-31-2023, 03:12 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-31-2023, 02:59 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]They're not only void of context, you can also add brains and balls to that list.

Big brass ones, Nancy 

Figures the pervy one always obsessed with pedophilles here is now all about my balls

---

(10-31-2023, 02:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You love to hide behind "Did I say..." 

Do you even realize that's the implication you make? I mean, you have to, right? When I say there's context and you say, "C'mon, we all know Trump is a con artist," you are declaring that what says doesn't matter, because why? Because you know his intent. He was intending to deceive. 

There is no objectivity in that. There is only your interpretation of that data, and it's void of context.

I didn't hide behind ONE [BLEEP] THING

You are hiding now it would appear since you've got no actual rebuttal to the post 

Just some hollow attack of me making a sidebar about your misinterpretation of implication 

figures

Here's an idea. If you think I've misinterpreted you, why don't you try to explain yourself? I'm sorry you seem to be struggling with how language works.

(10-31-2023, 05:50 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-31-2023, 03:12 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Big brass ones, Nancy 

Figures the pervy one always obsessed with pedophilles here is now all about my balls

---

I didn't hide behind ONE [BLEEP] THING

You are hiding now it would appear since you've got no actual rebuttal to the post 

Just some hollow attack of me making a sidebar about your misinterpretation of implication 

figures

Here's an idea. If you think I've misinterpreted you, why don't you try to explain yourself? I'm sorry you seem to be struggling with how language works.

LOL

I've explained this multiple times when we've gone on about this subject.

What Trump believed to be true or not doesn't matter in the end. You keep trying to inject that and it is pointless. 

The steps he took are going to be proven to have been illegal - and it does not matter if he believed his own trash "reasons" for taking those steps or not. 

I realize that my post a page and a half ago said that the election fraud was a lie manufactured by a loser who couldn't accept defeat.  
And Mike said something about everyone knew there weren't 11,000 votes from dead ppl ready to flip the GA election for Trump. 

When Trump lost in Georgia on November 19 officially - FORTY days passed before that phone call you've posted. 
At this point - they'd had lots of time to scramble for anything to save their skin in GA. 
The best they could come up with was the crap in that phone call, of which they had no proof, and of which they had no real numbers. 

If YOU believe that those people, including Trump, really thought that these stories of fraud were true. That's your bad judgement to bear. I think they'd had AMPLE time in forty days to figure out they'd lost legitimately - which they did. And I believe they knew they were full of it when they called Raffensberger. 

Furthermore - back to the topic we were on before the "who believed what and when" diversion - I think that the testimony coming from some of these plea deal co-defendants is going to illustrate exactly what I've stated about who believed what. 

There is already a ton of testimony from the Jan6 hearings wherein multiple witnesses go on and on about Trump being informed repeatedly he was telling lies about fraud. 

He knew.

(11-01-2023, 01:13 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-31-2023, 05:50 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Here's an idea. If you think I've misinterpreted you, why don't you try to explain yourself? I'm sorry you seem to be struggling with how language works.

LOL

I've explained this multiple times when we've gone on about this subject.

What Trump believed to be true or not doesn't matter in the end. You keep trying to inject that and it is pointless. 

The steps he took are going to be proven to have been illegal - and it does not matter if he believed his own trash "reasons" for taking those steps or not. 

I realize that my post a page and a half ago said that the election fraud was a lie manufactured by a loser who couldn't accept defeat.  
And Mike said something about everyone knew there weren't 11,000 votes from dead ppl ready to flip the GA election for Trump. 

When Trump lost in Georgia on November 19 officially - FORTY days passed before that phone call you've posted. 
At this point - they'd had lots of time to scramble for anything to save their skin in GA. 
The best they could come up with was the crap in that phone call, of which they had no proof, and of which they had no real numbers. 

If YOU believe that those people, including Trump, really thought that these stories of fraud were true. That's your bad judgement to bear. I think they'd had AMPLE time in forty days to figure out they'd lost legitimately - which they did. And I believe they knew they were full of it when they called Raffensberger. 

Furthermore - back to the topic we were on before the "who believed what and when" diversion - I think that the testimony coming from some of these plea deal co-defendants is going to illustrate exactly what I've stated about who believed what. 

There is already a ton of testimony from the Jan6 hearings wherein multiple witnesses go on and on about Trump being informed repeatedly he was telling lies about fraud. 

He knew.

The bolded illustrates my point, and I'm glad we are having a real discussion now. I have no problems with you believing that about Trump. My only qualm is taking that belief and making if fact. Moreover, expecting others to unquestionably believe the same notion. Furthermore, when we are talking about law, I think it's wise to use the law to determine guilt, and intent has to be proved to ignore free speech rights. 

From the context of that phone call, it is clear that Trump laid the groundwork that he doesn't believe the agencies are doing an adequate job of investigating the matter and lists several areas where he things their numbers are off. It's obvious that Trump said that if they were to investigate further, they would find the numbers are not accurate, which would give him the votes to win. That's not a crime, and it's wholly different than asking a person to manufacture votes. Context matters. Building a legal case around one line taken out of context and a belief that Trump is a con artist is not sufficient for prosecution. 

I believe the election was stolen. I don't believe the information that is being presented as truth. I don't think the authorities thoroughly investigated this issue. I have a right to repeat that. I have a right to challenge authority. Can I go to jail for stating that? If I had millions of followers, could I go to jail? 

I also await testimony from people who are going on record against Trump and reserve the right to change my mind depending on what information comes forth. I doubt it will be any different than anything else we've been promised since Trump was in office. Just lots of lies, plastered across the airways to win the trial of public opinion before any facts come out. But, hey, maybe these corrupt DAs will surprise me.

(11-01-2023, 02:27 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-01-2023, 01:13 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]LOL

I've explained this multiple times when we've gone on about this subject.

What Trump believed to be true or not doesn't matter in the end. You keep trying to inject that and it is pointless. 

The steps he took are going to be proven to have been illegal - and it does not matter if he believed his own trash "reasons" for taking those steps or not. 

I realize that my post a page and a half ago said that the election fraud was a lie manufactured by a loser who couldn't accept defeat.  
And Mike said something about everyone knew there weren't 11,000 votes from dead ppl ready to flip the GA election for Trump. 

When Trump lost in Georgia on November 19 officially - FORTY days passed before that phone call you've posted. 
At this point - they'd had lots of time to scramble for anything to save their skin in GA. 
The best they could come up with was the crap in that phone call, of which they had no proof, and of which they had no real numbers. 

If YOU believe that those people, including Trump, really thought that these stories of fraud were true. That's your bad judgement to bear. I think they'd had AMPLE time in forty days to figure out they'd lost legitimately - which they did. And I believe they knew they were full of it when they called Raffensberger. 

Furthermore - back to the topic we were on before the "who believed what and when" diversion - I think that the testimony coming from some of these plea deal co-defendants is going to illustrate exactly what I've stated about who believed what. 

There is already a ton of testimony from the Jan6 hearings wherein multiple witnesses go on and on about Trump being informed repeatedly he was telling lies about fraud. 

He knew.

The bolded illustrates my point, and I'm glad we are having a real discussion now. I have no problems with you believing that about Trump. My only qualm is taking that belief and making if fact. Moreover, expecting others to unquestionably believe the same notion. Furthermore, when we are talking about law, I think it's wise to use the law to determine guilt, and intent has to be proved to ignore free speech rights. 

From the context of that phone call, it is clear that Trump laid the groundwork that he doesn't believe the agencies are doing an adequate job of investigating the matter and lists several areas where he things their numbers are off. It's obvious that Trump said that if they were to investigate further, they would find the numbers are not accurate, which would give him the votes to win. That's not a crime, and it's wholly different than asking a person to manufacture votes. Context matters. Building a legal case around one line taken out of context and a belief that Trump is a con artist is not sufficient for prosecution. 

I believe the election was stolen. I don't believe the information that is being presented as truth. I don't think the authorities thoroughly investigated this issue. I have a right to repeat that. I have a right to challenge authority. Can I go to jail for stating that? If I had millions of followers, could I go to jail? 

I also await testimony from people who are going on record against Trump and reserve the right to change my mind depending on what information comes forth. I doubt it will be any different than anything else we've been promised since Trump was in office. Just lots of lies, plastered across the airways to win the trial of public opinion before any facts come out. But, hey, maybe these corrupt DAs will surprise me.

Tell me this is a comedy bit, please. The bold is some really thick hypocrisy. LOL
I mean - you spent pages telling me there was no way random Jan 6 riot guy wasn't an FBI agent. 
Of course he isn't. But you "believe" he is - don't you? 
Wow. Real discussion, my [BLEEP]. 

To the green:
Yes context matters. It's a shame you are completely not seeing the context of that phone call. He had no proof of any of those cockamamy accusations of fraud or we wouldn't be here right now discussing his indictment aftermath.
DUH! 

If you want to believe a grifter, and you want to accept a conspiracy theory about election fraud, and you want to challenge authority, great. You're a fool for two of those three - but you have every right to be one. 

What you can't do is falsify federal documents and create false electors for states based on some "belief" you can't prove.  What you can't do - is try to influence a government official to go against his oath to alter an election you "believe" didn't work out fairly without any proof of your "belief." 

That's where orange clown [BLEEP] up. 
Now he's finding out.

(11-01-2023, 02:27 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-01-2023, 01:13 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]LOL

I've explained this multiple times when we've gone on about this subject.

What Trump believed to be true or not doesn't matter in the end. You keep trying to inject that and it is pointless. 

The steps he took are going to be proven to have been illegal - and it does not matter if he believed his own trash "reasons" for taking those steps or not. 

I realize that my post a page and a half ago said that the election fraud was a lie manufactured by a loser who couldn't accept defeat.  
And Mike said something about everyone knew there weren't 11,000 votes from dead ppl ready to flip the GA election for Trump. 

When Trump lost in Georgia on November 19 officially - FORTY days passed before that phone call you've posted. 
At this point - they'd had lots of time to scramble for anything to save their skin in GA. 
The best they could come up with was the crap in that phone call, of which they had no proof, and of which they had no real numbers. 

If YOU believe that those people, including Trump, really thought that these stories of fraud were true. That's your bad judgement to bear. I think they'd had AMPLE time in forty days to figure out they'd lost legitimately - which they did. And I believe they knew they were full of it when they called Raffensberger. 

Furthermore - back to the topic we were on before the "who believed what and when" diversion - I think that the testimony coming from some of these plea deal co-defendants is going to illustrate exactly what I've stated about who believed what. 

There is already a ton of testimony from the Jan6 hearings wherein multiple witnesses go on and on about Trump being informed repeatedly he was telling lies about fraud. 

He knew.

The bolded illustrates my point, and I'm glad we are having a real discussion now. I have no problems with you believing that about Trump. My only qualm is taking that belief and making if fact. Moreover, expecting others to unquestionably believe the same notion. Furthermore, when we are talking about law, I think it's wise to use the law to determine guilt, and intent has to be proved to ignore free speech rights. 

From the context of that phone call, it is clear that Trump laid the groundwork that he doesn't believe the agencies are doing an adequate job of investigating the matter and lists several areas where he things their numbers are off. It's obvious that Trump said that if they were to investigate further, they would find the numbers are not accurate, which would give him the votes to win. That's not a crime, and it's wholly different than asking a person to manufacture votes. Context matters. Building a legal case around one line taken out of context and a belief that Trump is a con artist is not sufficient for prosecution. 

I believe the election was stolen. I don't believe the information that is being presented as truth. I don't think the authorities thoroughly investigated this issue. I have a right to repeat that. I have a right to challenge authority. Can I go to jail for stating that? If I had millions of followers, could I go to jail? 

I also await testimony from people who are going on record against Trump and reserve the right to change my mind depending on what information comes forth. I doubt it will be any different than anything else we've been promised since Trump was in office. Just lots of lies, plastered across the airways to win the trial of public opinion before any facts come out. But, hey, maybe these corrupt DAs will surprise me.

Regardless of whether Trump thought he had actually won Georgia or not, if Raffensperger came out and stated that he had found 11,000 votes for Trump, when he had not actually done so, that would be fraud.  So Trump was asking Raffensperger to commit fraud.  He was clearly asking Raffensperger to lie.  

It is not a valid defense to say that Trump believed he had won.  It's fraud to say you had found the votes, when you had not found the votes.

He failed to convince Raffensperger the election was unfair, so he asks him to lie about it.  

“The people of Georgia are angry. The people of the country are angry, and there's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you've recalculated,” Trump said on the call. "All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have... Fellas, I need 11,000 votes, give me a break."

This is why these people are considered clowns and are never taken seriously..

(11-01-2023, 03:01 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-01-2023, 02:27 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]The bolded illustrates my point, and I'm glad we are having a real discussion now. I have no problems with you believing that about Trump. My only qualm is taking that belief and making if fact. Moreover, expecting others to unquestionably believe the same notion. Furthermore, when we are talking about law, I think it's wise to use the law to determine guilt, and intent has to be proved to ignore free speech rights. 

From the context of that phone call, it is clear that Trump laid the groundwork that he doesn't believe the agencies are doing an adequate job of investigating the matter and lists several areas where he things their numbers are off. It's obvious that Trump said that if they were to investigate further, they would find the numbers are not accurate, which would give him the votes to win. That's not a crime, and it's wholly different than asking a person to manufacture votes. Context matters. Building a legal case around one line taken out of context and a belief that Trump is a con artist is not sufficient for prosecution. 

I believe the election was stolen. I don't believe the information that is being presented as truth. I don't think the authorities thoroughly investigated this issue. I have a right to repeat that. I have a right to challenge authority. Can I go to jail for stating that? If I had millions of followers, could I go to jail? 

I also await testimony from people who are going on record against Trump and reserve the right to change my mind depending on what information comes forth. I doubt it will be any different than anything else we've been promised since Trump was in office. Just lots of lies, plastered across the airways to win the trial of public opinion before any facts come out. But, hey, maybe these corrupt DAs will surprise me.

Tell me this is a comedy bit, please. The bold is some really thick hypocrisy. LOL
I mean - you spent pages telling me there was no way random Jan 6 riot guy wasn't an FBI agent. 
Of course he isn't. But you "believe" he is - don't you? 
Wow. Real discussion, my [BLEEP]. 

To the green:
Yes context matters. It's a shame you are completely not seeing the context of that phone call. He had no proof of any of those cockamamy accusations of fraud or we wouldn't be here right now discussing his indictment aftermath.
DUH! 

If you want to believe a grifter, and you want to accept a conspiracy theory about election fraud, and you want to challenge authority, great. You're a fool for two of those three - but you have every right to be one. 

What you can't do is falsify federal documents and create false electors for states based on some "belief" you can't prove.  What you can't do - is try to influence a government official to go against his oath to alter an election you "believe" didn't work out fairly without any proof of your "belief." 

That's where orange clown [BLEEP] up. 
Now he's finding out.

First of all, I didn't spend pages telling you there is no way he wasn't an agent. I said it was perfectly plausible, and you can't seem to make a distinction between those two ideas. You struggled with it then, and you struggled with it now, because you're the type of person that just "knows." Secondly, the context of that phone call is a guy who is incredulous that people can't see what he sees... kind of like another New Yorker I've been dealing with. Must be something in the water. 

It's perfectly plausible Trump wanted Raffensberger to investigate the election more thoroughly. It's that simple. He never said make up votes. with what we KNOW now, it's a huge stretch to say he falsified federal documents. If you want to look up the word plausible and understand what that means, we could probably have a discussion about that in good faith. But you seem incapable of entertaining any other ideas but your own. Have fun "knowing." I look forward to the testimony that's going to "expose" Trump. If there is anything tangible, I'll change my tune. I doubt it. At best, you're going to end up with hearsay, which I'm sure will be perfectly fine in this case (but definitely not others when it's convenient).

(11-01-2023, 03:27 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-01-2023, 02:27 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]The bolded illustrates my point, and I'm glad we are having a real discussion now. I have no problems with you believing that about Trump. My only qualm is taking that belief and making if fact. Moreover, expecting others to unquestionably believe the same notion. Furthermore, when we are talking about law, I think it's wise to use the law to determine guilt, and intent has to be proved to ignore free speech rights. 

From the context of that phone call, it is clear that Trump laid the groundwork that he doesn't believe the agencies are doing an adequate job of investigating the matter and lists several areas where he things their numbers are off. It's obvious that Trump said that if they were to investigate further, they would find the numbers are not accurate, which would give him the votes to win. That's not a crime, and it's wholly different than asking a person to manufacture votes. Context matters. Building a legal case around one line taken out of context and a belief that Trump is a con artist is not sufficient for prosecution. 

I believe the election was stolen. I don't believe the information that is being presented as truth. I don't think the authorities thoroughly investigated this issue. I have a right to repeat that. I have a right to challenge authority. Can I go to jail for stating that? If I had millions of followers, could I go to jail? 

I also await testimony from people who are going on record against Trump and reserve the right to change my mind depending on what information comes forth. I doubt it will be any different than anything else we've been promised since Trump was in office. Just lots of lies, plastered across the airways to win the trial of public opinion before any facts come out. But, hey, maybe these corrupt DAs will surprise me.

Regardless of whether Trump thought he had actually won Georgia or not, if Raffensperger came out and stated that he had found 11,000 votes for Trump, when he had not actually done so, that would be fraud.  So Trump was asking Raffensperger to commit fraud.  He was clearly asking Raffensperger to lie.  

It is not a valid defense to say that Trump believed he had won.  It's fraud to say you had found the votes, when you had not found the votes.

He failed to convince Raffensperger the election was unfair, so he asks him to lie about it.  

“The people of Georgia are angry. The people of the country are angry, and there's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you've recalculated,” Trump said on the call. "All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have... Fellas, I need 11,000 votes, give me a break."

That's one way of interpreting it. That's not how I interpret it. I think he thinks Raffensberger is a coward and is trying to get him a rationale to come forward with the truth. That's another way to interpret it. Imo, my interpretation fits better both with Trump being inarticulate AND the fact that he is incredulous that fraud has not been investigated appropriately. Oh, and obviously if Raffensberger committed fraud, it would be fraud. It's not obvious. This is just another case of people honing in on one part of an inarticulate person's 30 minute conversation and spinning it in ways to discredit him. The media loathes him and has spun and outright LIED about Trump for the last 8 years, but that never seems to factor in the brains of folks like you, Mikey, and NYC. No. Just Trump. Always Trump.

(11-01-2023, 06:52 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-01-2023, 03:27 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of whether Trump thought he had actually won Georgia or not, if Raffensperger came out and stated that he had found 11,000 votes for Trump, when he had not actually done so, that would be fraud.  So Trump was asking Raffensperger to commit fraud.  He was clearly asking Raffensperger to lie.  

It is not a valid defense to say that Trump believed he had won.  It's fraud to say you had found the votes, when you had not found the votes.

He failed to convince Raffensperger the election was unfair, so he asks him to lie about it.  

“The people of Georgia are angry. The people of the country are angry, and there's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you've recalculated,” Trump said on the call. "All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have... Fellas, I need 11,000 votes, give me a break."

That's one way of interpreting it. That's not how I interpret it. I think he thinks Raffensberger is a coward and is trying to get him a rationale to come forward with the truth. That's another way to interpret it. Imo, my interpretation fits better both with Trump being inarticulate AND the fact that he is incredulous that fraud has not been investigated appropriately. Oh, and obviously if Raffensberger committed fraud, it would be fraud. It's not obvious. This is just another case of people honing in on one part of an inarticulate person's 30 minute conversation and spinning it in ways to discredit him. The media loathes him and has spun and outright LIED about Trump for the last 8 years, but that never seems to factor in the brains of folks like you, Mikey, and NYC. No. Just Trump. Always Trump.

Gosh if only some large group of educated people had warned the masses against putting an "inarticulate" person in a position where every minutiae of what they say has legal consequences.  If only.