(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...

---