FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

BS. Dems look at the Constitution as a suggestion. They look at folks like you who post tripe like the above as useful idiots. Here's the most recent example:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...ash-rcna104500



I got sick of his show after his first year. That said, I've always believed, unlike you and others, that many of the charges against him were political in nature. I never believed the Russian collusion crap. but we were treated to years of it by a willing media. Hell, there are still some folks here who believe the pee tape really existed.

When I've stated my opinions on the topic, you and others paint my comments as a "defense" of Trump. I don't have to like the guy to opine that some of the stuff that happened to him was political theater, which has now morphed into something out of control.

So are the charges brought against by Jack Smith (and I will make it very neutral) for impeding peaceful transfer of power political? In other words, is Jack Smith trying to help Biden's candidacy by 'picking' on Trump?

How about the stolen documents case? If that too is political, how do you explain this to those who are languish in jail for committing the very same crime? Executive privileges since he was the POTUS when he illegally took some documents home with him.

I sincerely doubt that you can have any supporting arguments for Trump in the indictments handed by DA Fani Willis.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Bullshit.

Surely you don't consider that because he defends tRump and attacks all criticisms of tRump that he actually supports tRump? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck
... maybe it's a goose?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

BS. Dems look at the Constitution as a suggestion. They look at folks like you who post tripe like the above as useful idiots.

If you actually think that today's Trumpian GOP has greater fealty to the Constitution that the Democrats, you're absolutely delusional. After trying (and failing) to steal the election, Trump publicly called for "terminating" the Constitution. Yet, the majority of Republicans still support him.

I got sick of his show after his first year. That said, I've always believed, unlike you and others, that many of the charges against him were political in nature... I never believed the Russian collusion crap. but we were treated to years of it by a willing media...

Trump was never charged in the Russia case, despite ample, clear evidence of obstruction of justice, complicity of his campaign staff with Russian intelligence operatives, and his public solicitation of and subsequent acceptance of assistance from Russia (all very worthy of press coverage).

As for the actual criminal charges he currently faces, explain how these are political in nature. The charges in NY, DC and GA as well as both of his impeachments result from actions he took to illegally undermine/influence the democratic process and the classified documents charges in FL result exclusively from his own ham-handed obstruction of the investigation. The state charges in NY are the closest to being "political," but his own lawyer served time for the same crimes which were perpetrated in an effort to derail a story detrimental to his own political ambitions through the use of fraudulent financial transactions.

Despite your protestations, Trump is not a victim and is not being persecuted. He is, for the first time in his life, being held accountable for his life-long contempt for the rule of law. Furthermore, all the charges he faces (other than the documents case) and his two impeachments are from him consciously and illegally attempting to undermine democracy.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I was wondering when the NM governor's ban on open carry was going to show up here.

The 2nd amendment is a suicide pact in it's present state.

Vote blue to change the SCOTUS.

Does that, in your opinion, provide justification for a state governor to unilaterally suspend a constitutional right?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Does that, in your opinion, provide justification for a state governor to unilaterally suspend a constitutional right?

First, it has not been established that open or concealed carry is a constitutional right. Indeed both are regulated at a state level and both are currently prohibited by a number of states.

That said, plenty of Democrats have opposed the Governors position.

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/11/new...rder-democrats

This is very weak tea when used by you to counter accusations of anti-constitutionalism by the GOP. The courts will sort this out and the NM Governor will abide with the ultimate decision of the courts, something Trump did not do after ~60 courts ruled against his Big Lie. Instead he launched a coup attempt.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

So are the charges brought against by Jack Smith (and I will make it very neutral) for impeding peaceful transfer of power political? In other words, is Jack Smith trying to help Biden's candidacy by 'picking' on Trump?

How about the stolen documents case? If that too is political, how do you explain this to those who are languish in jail for committing the very same crime? Executive privileges since he was the POTUS when he illegally took some documents home with him.

I sincerely doubt that you can have any supporting arguments for Trump in the indictments handed by DA Fani Willis.

1) Smith was hired to prosecute, so he's prosecuting. Smith's case relies heavily on the assertion that "Trump knew it was a lie". I seriously doubt that assertion. I think Trump has been pretty clear that he believes the election process was flawed and his story hasn't changed, and there are myriad statements in the public record where he has made it clear what he believes. Smith will need to prove his assertion beyond a reasonable doubt. We'll see.

2) Please tell me which current of former US presidents are "languishing in jail"?

You guys need to notice a key element to these charges, particularly as some loons on the left want to try to invoke the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot:

There is no evidence, despite nearly three years of investigation, that Trump conspired with groups or individuals who assaulted attacked Capitol. He did not incite a riot or an insurrection, though his statements got some folks fired up. The a riot outside the Capitol on January 6th was a mob that got way out of control. But you can conjure all the circumstantial and inferential stuff you want. Most of the stuff and Smith's and Willis' indictments also bump into First Amendment protections.

If there were such evidence of conspiracy, things would be easy for prosecutors. The First Amendment’s protection of speech (particularly political speech), association, the petitioning of government officials, and the pursuit of lawful remedies, would be beside the point if Trump had engaged in or willfully abetted violence. There is no defense under the First Amendment against federal crimes of insurrection, seditious conspiracy, forcible attacks on government facilities, etc.

Fanni Willis has constructed a sprawling case that will hinge on proving that there was a criminal organization or enterprise under the state's RICO laws. That really was her only chargeable option, and she'll need to prove that there was this (fictional) organization in court. I think this is far from easy for the protection.

But all that really isn't the point. The point is the indictments and their impact in the political arena. At least where this all started (back when the myriad investigations were going on as early as 2015), convictions, if any, would be a bonus. The objective was to deflate a candidate and a political party in the polls by leveraging the DOJ/FBI/etc.

Human nature being what it is, and the polls being what they are currently, it wouldn't surprise me if the point is now the need for at least one conviction.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

First, it has not been established that open or concealed carry is a constitutional right. Indeed both are regulated at a state level and both are currently prohibited by a number of states.

That said, plenty of Democrats have opposed the Governors position.

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/11/new...rder-democrats

This is very weak tea when used by you to counter accusations of anti-constitutionalism by the GOP. The courts will sort this out and the NM Governor will abide with the ultimate decision of the courts, something Trump did not do after ~60 courts ruled against his Big Lie. Instead he launched a coup attempt.

Bullshit. At the very least, circumvented the state legislature and over-road an existing state law. The point here is the abuse of the governor's executive power.

And screw your attempt at deflections and whataboutism.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Bullshit. At the very least, circumvented the state legislature and over-road an existing state law. The point here is the abuse of the governor's executive power.

And screw your attempt at deflections and whataboutism.

Proven wrong, once again you move the goalposts. I responded to you using the NM example as an illustrative example that "Dems look at the Constitution as a suggestion" by saying that neither open or concealed carry are adjudicated constitutional rights.

And is was indeed a lame attempt of whataboutism to use this example to counter my assertion that Trump's GOP no longer supports democracy (for which shitloads of evidence has been revealed in Congressional, Federal and State investigations, mostly from the mouths of Republicans).

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

1) Smith was hired to prosecute, so he's prosecuting. Smith's case relies heavily on the assertion that "Trump knew it was a lie". I seriously doubt that assertion. I think Trump has been pretty clear that he believes the election process was flawed and his story hasn't changed, and there are myriad statements in the public record where he has made it clear what he believes.

There is considerable evidence that Trump was told, by those in the know (and responsible for investigating any such allegations), that he lost. Also, there is sworn testimony that he stated that he knew he lost. Furthermore, he lost ~60 court cases that explored his allegations.

2) Please tell me which current of former US presidents are "languishing in jail"?

He made no such assertion. There are plenty of people in jail for doing far less with classified materials and obstructing their recovery.

You guys need to notice a key element to these charges, particularly as some loons on the left want to try to invoke the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot:
There is no evidence, despite nearly three years of investigation, that Trump conspired with groups or individuals who assaulted attacked Capitol. He did not incite a riot or an insurrection, though his statements got some folks fired up...

Judge Luttig and Professor Tribe are hardly "loons on the left." Read their position on this matter here. Also, a Republican election lawyer with ties to three of former president Donald Trump’s GOP primary opponents has joined a crowded field of individuals and groups exploring whether the former president can be kept off the ballot for his role in fomenting the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The 14th Amendment also cites "providing aid or comfort" to the insurrection which it appears he has done (and continues to do). The more salient point is that the 14th Amendment establishes a qualification for federal office, not a punishment. Therefore, a guilty verdict is not a prerequisite. What is a prerequisite is a 2/3 vote of Congress to put him on the ballot.

Fanni Willis has constructed a sprawling case that will hinge on proving that there was a criminal organization or enterprise under the state's RICO laws. That really was her only chargeable option, and she'll need to prove that there was this (fictional) organization in court. I think this is far from easy for the protection.

But all that really isn't the point. The point is the indictments and their impact in the political arena...

The Trump presidential campaign in Georgia was not a fictional organization. And no, it was not her only charging option. Indeed, all 19 defendants were charged with specific crimes in addition to the RICO charge.

For a guy who just finished insisting that he neither a Trump supporter nor defender, you sure seem willing to grasp at straws to defend Trump's attempt to steal the election (while destroying the lives of hundreds of people in the process). My good faith willingness to accept your denial of being a Trump supporter and/or defender has now lasted less than 24 hours. Accordingly, IMO you are again the reflexive Trump defender that I've always claimed you were.

In any event, you should be proud that Vladimir Putin agrees with you. He recently stated, "“What’s happening with Trump is a persecution of a political rival for political motives. This shows the whole rottenness of the American political system, which cannot claim to teach others about democracy.” Congratulations.

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/put...ution-1736c591

[finnbow]

New York City’s pension funds sued the Fox Corporation and its board on Tuesday, accusing the company of neglecting its duty to shareholders by opening itself up to defamation lawsuits from the persistent broadcasting of falsehoods about the 2020 presidential election.

The lawsuit, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, is the most significant shareholder action since Fox settled a blockbuster defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems in April for $787.5 million. The city’s five pension funds represent nearly 800,000 current and retired workers and are worth $253 billion.

“We are shareholders at a company that, unfortunately, has a longstanding practice of allowing conspiracy theories that its executives and its board know are false to be repeated over and over and over again, despite the very clear and present risk of defamation lawsuits eroding shareholder value,” said Brad Lander, New York City’s comptroller, who oversees the pension funds. “And there has been no effort to make governance reforms.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/12/b...r-lawsuit.html

Losing their ass for deliberately and knowingly perpetuating Trump's lies.