(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.