(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).

---