Trump Indicted for Attempting To Overturn 2020 Presidential Election
Special prosecutor Jack Smith says Trump attempted to "defraud the United States."

Former President Donald Trump has been indicted for a third time.
The latest set of charges, announced Tuesday evening by special prosecutor Jack Smith, are related to Trump's conduct in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, including the attempt on January 6, 2021, to disrupt the certification of the election by Congress.
Specifically, Trump has been charged with four counts related to three criminal conspiracies. Prosecutors say Trump attempted to "defraud the United States" by trying to prevent the lawful process of counting and certifying the results of the presidential election. He's also charged with trying to "obstruct and impede" the vote-certification process in Congress—which includes two separate charges for the obstruction itself and the related conspiracy to obstruct. Finally, he's also charged with "a conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted."
You might think about the three parts of the indictment as a helpful breakdown of the three ways in which Trump and his allies—there are six unnamed and so far uncharged co-conspirators mentioned in the indictment—attempted to subvert the presidential election process.
The first charge is focused on the attempt, allegedly organized within the White House, to have Trump-friendly state lawmakers appoint alternate slates of electors to the Electoral College as part of a scheme that would see Trump named as the winner of states where President Joe Biden received more votes.
The second and third charges are aimed at Trump's (and his allies') behavior on and near January 6, 2021, when Congress was scheduled to certify the election results. That includes the pressure allegedly applied to Vice President Mike Pence, who refused to go along with the Trump-backed plot to discard the electoral votes from some states.
Finally, the third alleged conspiracy includes a civil rights charge that strikes at how Trump's machinations aimed to rob Americans of their right to choose the president.
"Each of these conspiracies—which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud—targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election," prosecutors argue in the indictment.
Taken together, then, Smith's indictment outlines how the plot to overturn the 2020 presidential election harmed voters, the state-level vote-counting process, and the country's democratic process at a high level.
In a statement posted to the Truth Social social media platform, Trump said the charges were "nothing more than the latest corrupt chapter in the continued pathetic attempt" by the Biden administration to "interfere in the 2024 presidential election." He predicted that those "un-American witch hunts will fail."
Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland but is operating independently of the Biden administration. Smith's January 6th investigation included dozens of subpoenas issued to just about everyone in Trump's inner circle on that day, including Vice President Mike Pence, who was a target of the rioters' ire.
The 45-page indictment goes into significant detail about how Trump knew his claims about the presidential election were false. Trump "widely disseminated his false claims of election fraud for months, despite the fact that he knew, and in many cases had been informed directly, that they were not true," the indictment claims, before listing seven examples of times when other officials and aids told Trump he was making false claims.
Tuesday's indictment comes after he was charged in April with 34 counts of business fraud by prosecutors in New York. Those alleged crimes, to which Trump has pleaded not guilty, are related to payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels as part of a nondisclosure agreement.
That was followed in June by a federal indictment for mishandling classified documents. Smith, who is also leading that investigation, brought 37 federal felony charges against the former president, including conspiracy to obstruct justice, willful retention of national defense information (in violation of the Espionage Act), and concealing documents from investigators and a grand jury. In an updated indictment filed this week, Smith tacked on new charges of obstruction of justice relating to Trump allegedly telling a staffer to cover up the attempt to hide boxes of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the Floridian resort where the former president has resided since leaving office. Trump has pleaded not guilty to those charges as well.
And yet another set of charges—perhaps the most serious of the bunch—may be waiting. In Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is investigating Trump's alleged attempts to strong-arm Georgia officials into overturning the results of that state's 2020 presidential vote. Witnesses interviewed by the grand jury included former Trump confidant Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.).
In letters to local law enforcement released in April, Willis said possible criminal charges against Trump and his allies would be announced before September 1.
Trump was already the first president or former president in American history to be charged with a crime. He's now the first to face criminal charges on three different fronts at the same time.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Every time something new is revealed about the Biden crime family, Trump gets a new indictment.
The timing is quite curious isnt it.
The slack-jaws who told us someone was trying to steal the election must be elated by this vindication!
Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit, anyway.
You’ve never met a person who wasn’t better than you your whole miserable life.
He just does this because he works some menial minimum wage job, working for a successful conservative. This is his way of venting his jealousy and feelings of worthlessness.
And he IS worthless. It’s just a shame he hasn’t ended his own life.
Maybe he could donate his body to science.
Science has enough fecal samples already.
Mainly Fauci.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,960 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,960 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link——————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
What denomination are you a Reverend of anyway, the Church of Idiocracy?
You definitely don’t want to take communion as his church.
But it has what plants crave.
Poop?
Reference to the movie Ideocracy where they use an energy drink to water plants because it has electrolytes that plants crave.
Fuck off and die, asshole bigot.
And nothing from Reason about Devon Archer’s testimony before congress……..
If there is, it will be more ‘boaf sidez’ bullshit.
“Local story “
“And nothing from Reason about Devon Archer’s testimony before congress”
They’ll do a hundred breathless articles about frivolous political charges against Trump like they’re somehow legitimate; but diamond hard evidence and a shitload of extremely credible testimony that Biden was peddling influence and taking bribes, and we get crickets.
Even our fifty-centers aren’t pretending it’s not happening like the Reason crew. That’s not even to mention the fact that frivolously charging viable political opponents is against absolutely everything old Reason used to stand for.
Koch money corrupts. Koch and Soros money corrupt absolutely.
I seem to remember a president getting impeached for daring to suggest that some guy’s corruption be looked in to, even though that guy wasn’t even running for president yet.
Didn't happen. Couldn't have happened, I mean, a quality libertarian publication would bring that up often if it did, right?
There was a quid pro quo!!!1!!
Ben Shapiro was pointing this out a few days ago. The problem is that Trump's a mud monster. You throw more mud at him, and he just becomes stronger. The mud is a problem for Biden because of his
dementedgrandfatherly image.trump crime family beats everyone hands down
wingers have been beating this drum with no evidence for years
And yet you ask trolley sockpuppets like this what the "trump crime family" did to earn the moniker, and they ghost the thread or try to redirect to another crazy accusation.
Lying piles of TDS-addled shit tend to do that.
What new was revealed? Last I heard there was nothing to tie the President to anything illegal.
Lawfare is all that matters in our Banana Republic
You mistake the system for the disease.
All that matters is the will to use power unjustly, and the enemies of the American people have it.
Guy who works at Mar-a-Lago allegedly says "Boss wants to delete servers." Indicted for attempting to destroy evidence.
Hunter Biden's e-mails confirmed to say (people can actually view them) "10% of this goes to the big guy." Well, that could mean anything.
I just don't have confidence that a ton of people don't have double standards.
"What new was revealed?"
Demonstrating Biden’s involvement?
There are the bank records, the suspicious activity reports, the wire transfers, the Privat bank transactions, the LLCs, the texts, the emails, the WhatsApp messages, the photos of Joe with Hunter’s business partners, the voicemails to his son, the two business partners saying Joe is the “brand,” the “big guy,” and “the chairman,” the two whistleblowers testimony, the recorded phone calls between Biden and Poroshenko, the video of Joe Biden bragging about firing the Ukrainian prosecutor, and Hunter’s statements that he’s giving his dad half his income.
Implicating Trump?
1. An audio recording about a New York Times piece where Trump tells a guy “confidential info” about how an official is lying. Paper is heard rustling. It must be top secret documents.
2. When the pool flooded they moved boxes from one room to another. They might have maybe perhaps contained top secret documents. Perhaps the pool was flooded on purpose to hide them?
3. A Mar-a-Lago worker supposedly says “Boss wants to delete servers.” This is an attempt to destroy evidence. Important Note: It doesn’t count if you destroy 33,000 subpoenaed emails, smash phones, and take SIM cards. Only this.
4. If your accountant places income on one line and the IRS says it’s correct and it passes an audit, but a witch-hunting DA insists it’s wrong, you’re a fraudster. Sure you paid more tax than the other way, but you’re still a fraudster.
5. You think that the election was stolen by an obviously decrepit guy who campaigned in his basement, reversed a 150 year electoral trend and got 20% more votes than Obama, even though you got a record number of votes yourself? Nothing suspicious there, you’re obviously trying to overthrow democracy.
Important Note: This only counts for 2020. It doesn’t count for similar complaints in 1988, 2000, 2004 and 2016.
What new was revealed? Last I heard there was nothing to tie the President to anything illegal.
That's correct, they CAN'T tie the President to anything illegal --- but we're not talking about him, we're talking about Joe Biden, who is easily attached to hundreds of illegal and politically corrupt things.
From blackmail to money laundering to influence peddling and election fraud.
Why are the powers-that-be so terrified of DJT?
Does anyone think they’re acting in the people’s best interest?
Only the educated, accomplished, skilled, modern, reasoning people.
educated, accomplished, skilled, modern, reasoning people.
You know, the baristas who make coffee for other people.
And cat ladies.
...wine moms, vodka aunts, luvvies and male "feminists".
Then it’s a shame you flunked out of high school.
Yeah, even the army wouldn’t take him.
Has he tried the coast guard?
You mean the people so worried about potential attacks on democracy that they've tried for seven years to sideline a popular opposition candidate?
That’s (D)ifferent.
Fuck off and die, asshole bigot.
"Why are the powers-that-be so terrified of DJT?"
He showed that a non-swamp critter could end their cushy rent-seeking existence and make no mistake, there are billions of dollars ending up in pockets. The mob never had such a source of income and it scares the shit out of them; no surprise. They are united in making Trump an example to scare anyone else from doing so.
No, there is no organized conspiracy, merely several thousand people doing their level best to keep the gravy train running.
"Does anyone think they’re acting in the people’s best interest?"
Ha and ha!
And don’t forget the parking tickets. There are to be felony parking tickets. Probably a presidential limo blocking handicapped access to a polling place.
Amazing seeing Eric portray this as a real charge even after the USSC is having the primary statute regarding disruption of congress sent to them.
This is an unserious charge and it requires in all the indictment statements knowledge that trump knew he had lost. Yet we have so many examples of democrats fighting elections in courts, planning electors to switch their votes, etc. Yet no other indictment.
What is the real reason for this indictment? The jury is in D.C. and the case should be there as well. Unlike the prior being in Florida. This is solely to get a case in front of a highly politicized jury. Full stop. It is filled with novel readings of the law never attempted prior. It is a political prosecution. And the fact Reason ignores this obvious fact shows they are unserious about writing from a libertarian perspective.
. . . according to Half-Educated, Unqualified Online Opining, Inc.
Not sure why you pick on yourself so much Artie, but to each his own.
It's because he hates himself even more than we hate him.
You're uneducated, not "Half-Educated", Kirkland.
Fuck off and die, asshole bigot.
Well I'm pretty sure Sullum will be here tomorrow to prove you correct about Reason's libertarian perspective.
He’ll be here to parrot the BlueAnon narrative.
He rally has no argument, or thoughts on his own. Just inane ravings about how he thinks that all the pussy wokies are the future. When really, they’re just one watershed moment from the beginning of their cleansing.
I have never seen a Republican deploy these kinds of arguments in favor of any other accused person.
Take shoplifting. There are lots of shoplifters who are caught, on camera, and yet are never prosecuted. Should people accused of shoplifting be able to avoid consequences for their own behavior, because others were also able to avoid consequences?
Let's make this into a rule and apply it to everyone. Maybe we can say that, legally speaking, two wrongs make a right?
Is shoplifting a clear and concise crime or a novel interpretation of a law to go after a political opponent? Is it selectively enforced depending on the person? Are you retarded?
The rationalizations you morons attempt to try to justify selective prosecutions and going after a man to search for a crime is amazing. You know you’re on a libertarian site right? Then again the editors here may confuse you.
Are you aware that Jack Smith has already been overturned by the USSC in a unanimous decision for similar prosecutions in the past? It is called a pattern dumdum.
Plus, most of what Trump has been charged with thus far aren’t even crimes. Like the alleged NARA violations. If any of this phony shit sticks, then it’s time for the democrats to be removed by a grassroots movement.
How about the allegations that he made false representations to the FBI, when he said he had given them all his classified documents that he had in his possession and he hadn't, in fact, done that?
Martha Stewart went to jail under the same statute. Why didn't we revolt then?
Well this proves how ignorant and uneducated you are in your boy like rage bones over the indictments... husblawyers signed the statement you referred to, not him.
So let's slow down. Is it a crime to lie to the FBI?
Did you even process the words in my comment?
Who signed the statement you referenced? Trump or his lawyers?
The fact you know so little about the actual facts shows you dont want a rational discussion dumdum. You want to preen your partisan rage boner lol.
Is it a crime to lie to congress? That's half of Bidens cabinet. Is it illegal to destroy evidence? Hillary. Is it illegal to take classified documents home? That's 30 years of Biden. 7 years of Obama and many others.
Youre justifying a political prosecution because that's what your team wants to do, lock up a political opponent. Just like all good little authoritarians.
Trump's lawyers signed it. I've answered your question, you won't answer mine.
So I'll ask it again - is it a crime to lie to the FBI?
For a standalone crime libertarians dont support process crimes numbnuts. In fact they are generally against process crimes. Especially when the crime is one sided where the government can lie to a target but not in reverse.
The fact you are retreating to process crimes shows how little understanding of libertarian thought you have.
Progressives know so much that is simply not true. You can’t provide them with facts, or even reason with them, because they have no critical thinking skills. (Speaking of “Reason”, I often wonder why this site is named such when very little reasoning goes into their daily publications).
The best thing to do is wait for this cold war to go hot and watch them run for their bunkers while demanding the hated LEO’s protect them from their own actions. For sooner or later they are going to get their street fighters so convinced that conservatives are out to do away with them all, chaos in those streets is going to reign. I'm going to just sit back and watch as the various leftist factions fight each other while the progressive politicians hope the alligators at leave them for dessert.
She shouldn’t have gone to jail either. You realize we’re libertarians right? Oh, no you don’t.
I'm not asking about whether she should have gone to jail. I'm asking about whether we overthrew the government when she did go to jail. We didn't.
In fact, Republicans had full control of all three branches of government, with Trump at the head, and yet they didn't get rid of this law.
Suddenly, we want to overthrow the government for operating as it always has. Is that because we're unhappy about what the law is, or because we're unhappy with who's being held to that law?
What government was overthrown? How dumb one must be to think the US government can be overthrown without weapons is mesmerizing.
But you've hit all your MSNBC talking points. So you can move along now.
No government was overthrown. I'm responding to this statement from another commenter: "If any of this phony shit sticks, then it’s time for the democrats to be removed by a grassroots movement."
Did that happen when Martha Stewart was convicted and sentenced?
Be clear. What crime that is consistent and concise do you believe occurred here. Be specific.
Do you know the term fruit of the poisoned tree and do you excuse bad acts by a prosecutor?
And yet, no one here has advocated for overthrowing the entire US government because of this.
Go back to Reddit.
You could see how one could interpret the phrase "If any of this phony shit sticks, then it’s time for the democrats to be removed by a grassroots movement" as calling for a revolution.
Here, how about this, if Trump gets let off the hook, it's time for the republicans to be removed by a grassroots movement. Sound good?
You know what, it’s not even worth it.
I'm at the not worth it point as well. He is a retarded love child of Jeff and shrike.
Are you being retarded on purpose, "Zach"?
"You could see how one could interpret the phrase “If any of this phony shit sticks, then it’s time for the democrats to be removed by a grassroots movement” as calling for a revolution."
And TDS-addled lefty shits (you) would ignore A1.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
"In fact, Republicans had full control of all three branches of government, with Trump at the head, and yet they didn’t get rid of this law."
I see you're confused' please explain the Twitter files, or admit that you are full of shit.
When did Martha Stewart have classified documents? She did go to jail over taxes, but that example would be more applicable to Hunter Biden than Donald Trump.
But okay, why was it wrong for former President Trump to have documents, but it was okay for Biden to have documents going back to when he was a senator?
Trump wasn't just indicted for having classified documents. He was also indicted for lying to the FBI about turning over all those documents. As another commenter pointed out, Trump's attorney was the one who signed the document that contained the lie.
Martha Stewart, strangely, did not go to jail for tax evasion. She went to jail for lying about tax evasion. Her tax scheme was actually totally legal.
Finally, this two-wrongs-make-a-right argument really isn't persuasive. But I'm unusually persuadable. I'm only too happy to say that every person who has ever broken that law should be investigated, tried and sentenced without leniency. Can we agree on that?
"Trump wasn’t just indicted for having classified documents. He was also indicted for lying to the FBI about turning over all those documents...."
And Biden, who as VP had no right to same, has not been indicted. And TDS-addled lefty shits like you are fine with that.
As I've stated previously, Factio Democratica delenda est.
And let me guess, you're not talking about voting them out.
As far as I can tell, this indictment has been as isolated as possible from political considerations. I'm not sure what process could possibly make it less political. But here, let's apply the same logic - black people are disproportionately stopped for shoplifting. If a black person gets caught shoplifting while some white shoplifter has gone free, is that racist?
Because that's about how persuasive the contention of politically-motivated charges is.
As to novel interpretations of law, I'm fine with discarding those, but they underpin most of Trump's legal defenses - like his defense that he can mentally declassify a document without any notice to anyone. So if we want to discard novel interpretations of law and stick to settled precedent, I'm 100% fine with that.
Finally, as for Jack Smith's previous cases, I'm well aware. The Supreme Court said that Bob McDonnell couldn't be charged with bribery for selling meetings with government officials, because that wasn't an official act. Is that the kind of thing that libertarians promote? Pay-to-play in government?
"As far as I can tell, this indictment has been as isolated as possible from political considerations."
Oh fucking wow! Just wow.
What process would you recommend to further isolate this from political considerations?
Well step one is not investigating a man for a crime. Step two is not novel interpretation of the law to get those indictments. Step 3 is not choose a lawyer who has a long past for political prosecutions such as Jack Smith case overturned by the unanimous Supreme Court. Step 4 is to not criminalize someone and break legal privilege because someone asked a lawyer what the legal bounds are. Step 5 is not to be an obvious liberal retard that has worse arguments than even shrike.
The democrats literally already impeached him over J6. They have lied about J6 since.
The crimes you are rage bonering on were committed even more flagrantly by prominent democrats. Hillary destroyed evidence with fucking hammers. Biden, pence, Obama, Clinton all had classified documents.
You realize how dumb you sound right?
So the only fair process is no process at all. Makes total sense.
I'm sure you'd be fine with this applying to shoplifters as well? If the prosecutor charging a shoplifter has had a case overturned, that means that prosecutor's convictions all get thrown out and they can never work again?
Or is it only if it's overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court. Or maybe, just maybe, do these rules only apply when the defendant is Donald Trump?
You already tried the retarded shoplifting talking point. It was retarded the first time.
Do you not understand what a novel interpretation of the law is?
The fact you have zero fucks that Garland chose a prosecutor with a long and sordid history of prosecutorial abuses shows you are in fact one of the dumbest Act Blue employees to grace these threads.
So you still can't recommend a different process, you just want a different special prosecutor.
Would you support William Barr, chosen by Trump to lead the Justice Department, being appointed special prosecutor? William Barr has said "What is unjust is not prosecuting Trump at this stage."
Seems like choosing a Trump-appointed AG to prosecute Trump would be more than virtually any defendant has ever received. Is it enough for you? And are we going to give shoplifters the right to choose their prosecutor too?
Do you know what the Nirvana fallacy is? I just listed everything wrong with the process set up and your question is to provide only the perfect solution. This is a means of excusing bad acts.
The correct process is to have clear and concise laws. But we are well past that. The next is to have truly unbiased prosecutors who prosecute crimes and not prosecute a person to find a crime.
Again your authoritarian impulse is loud and clear. Chavez, Stalin, Hitler, et al love your type. Ends justify the means to you. Even when all the means are clearly wrong.
Shrike sock. Nobody else is this retarded while claiming no political bias. Lol.
So what process would you recommend to further isolate any investigation or prosecution from charges of political bias?
I stated above.
But the first step is to not investigate a man for crimes but investigate crimes. The entire legal system that is set up.
You are advocating for authoritarian show trials for politics. Again, I'm sorry you're this dumb and ignorant.
I'm not sure I understand that process. Investigating a crime and investigating a person for a crime are pretty similar.
Take Joe Biden. The Republicans have spent an awful lot of time investigating him. It would raise the question about whether you think he should be investigated for crimes.
Are you willing to apply your process to Joe and Hunter Biden? And to say that we shouldn't be investigating them and looking for criminal activity?
You keep retreating to the nirvana fallacy. Dismissing bad acts by asking for perfection. It is obvious you have a political bias and not a rational one.
When was the special prosecutor for Biden created? When was he indicted? What charges is he facing? Is the money laundering and racketeering shown by the SARs reports and wire transfers a novel interpretation of the law or a standard interpretation. Has the DoJ turned a blind eye to those laws for other politicians?
Again your arguments are sophomoric and ignorant.
I'm not asking for perfection. If you can suggest a better process, I'm 100% open to it. In fact, I even suggested appointing William Barr. Is that so utopian that it is beyond possibility?
The crux of your complaint seems to be that you don't like the prosecutor. I'm asking if you would accept the same process for anyone else. Why not use the same rules for disqualification that we use for every other prosecutor?
Finally, Biden can't be indicted by the DoJ. In fact, Trump's lawyers argued that the President can't even be investigated. Moreover, you've said that no person should be investigated, only crimes should be investigated. So talking about a "special prosecutor for Biden" seems a bit strange, no?
No you are excusing the listed bad acts by asking for a perfect solution. Instead if admitting to the bad acts. Fruit of a poisoned tree is a term you should look up. Go read why Jack Smith was overturned unanimously already.
No, the issue is that the prosecutor sed novel interpretations of criminal law to prosecute constitutionally protected speech.
There's a lot of problems with this process. The first is charging Trump with crimes for disputing election results. While we value a seamless transfer of power, there's nothing illegal about refusing to concede, or believing that there was fraud in the vote and trying to get people to investigate it.
I disagree with a lot of Trump's post-election actions, but I do not consider them to be criminal. I don't think the VP has the authority to dispute the validity of electors. He has a Constitutional role, but it's not actionable. He opens the envelopes. There is a role for contesting the validity of electors, but that challenge has to come from the Senate itself. They do have the authority to pause the counting of the electors in order to perform an emergency audit. This is what Trump was trying to do-he didn't have the votes in the Senate GOP to pause the certification, but he was trying to say Pence had the authority by refusing to accept the ballots.
That's not a conspiracy to overturn the election. It's a different attempt at going through legal avenues. It's a flawed legal theory, in my opinion, but it's basically filing a lawsuit with a strange theory of liability. The lawsuit either gets upheld or dismissed, but it's not criminal to file a frivolous lawsuit (though it may bring civil penalties).
And in the event of a state where elections are disputed, trying to send an alternate slate of electors is also not illegal. It's not attempting to have them sneak their votes into the count, it's simply having them on hand. This has happened before, with Hawaii, in 1960. Nobody was charged with a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election. This is likely where Trump and his legal team got this idea.
So all these latest charges are extremely suspect. There are tons of elections that get challenged, where the results are disputed by the losers. Believing or claiming the election was fraudulent is not an attempt to defraud the United States, no more than claiming Russia stole the election was a crime when Hillary continued saying that post 2016.
I totally concur. The aqct of trying to overturn an election is no crime, although specific acts may do so, like bribery or perjury.
Of course, there is no law that excuses bribery or perjury merely because the cause is "just".
I am going with jeffy sock. 'Zach' is using the same tactic I used against him with the whole drag queens demanding a auidence of children. Though he is doing it poorly. Mike steals my stuff too, he often uses the voices in your head aren't sources I leveled against him.
Yeah His sophistry was definitely approaching jeff levels of inanity.
You spend enough time here that you know other commenters by name? At that point, why not just become IRL friends?
Off topic - how do the comment threads decide when to stop letting you reply? Are there moderators here? Or just like a post timer?
And do you get notifications when I comment, or do you just have to keep refreshing the page? Seems like a pretty weird way to design a website if you have to keep refreshing the page.
Moderator? HAHAHAHA! The only real moderation this place gets is when SPB (Shrike) decided, in his typical idiocy, to post CP a few years ago and got his original handle banned. Of course, he lies about it all. the. fucking. time.
Bro, you guys have lore here? Why don't you all just make a Discord or hang out IRL?
That enraged him. Definitely a jeff sock.
Imagine going to a libertarian site and asking for censorship lol. Jeff/Zach is a retard.
There are no moderators.
This website is so small you know each other by name?
I'm here because Reddit (functionally) banned 3rd party apps and I think Eugene Volokh is interesting. But man are the commenters here something else.
I tried Slate Star Codex (or whatever it's called now) and I thought they were pretty off beat. But you guys take the cake.
“I’m here because Reddit…”
Ha, called it.
Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.
But real talk, is there actually no notification system to this website? Do you guys just like, refresh the page and check for comments?
Reddit is a cesspool of barely literate MSNBC liberals who can’t foment a rational argument, see Zach.
Zach,
Are you a member of r/sealion?
Reddit is a website. This is also a website. Unreal to be flexing about what website you comment on.
But this comment section is W I L D. You all know each other, and like also know and remember people who aren't here? I can count on zero fingers the number of people I remember from Reddit. If you're going to talk to someone that much, why not talk to your friends or family?
“Mike steals my stuff too, he often uses the voices in your head aren’t sources I leveled against him.”
Huh? Can that sentence even be diagramed?
Don’t flatter yourself that I would want to steal anything from you.
Wait so if a non white person enters a store, they are to be arrested for shoplifting right? The demographics show the intent was there, are we getting you right yet?
Eat a dick and choke on it, Soviet faggot
I love how you edited this comment. Like this had a rough draft. What did it say before?
Poor commie POS, don't want your standards used in ways you don't like? Fuck off cunt.
Trump and Biden are tied. That's why this has to happen, at all costs.
Approval/Disapproval Ratings
Approve Disapprove Difference
Joe Biden 41.0 54.6 -13.6
Donald Trump 39.3 56.9 -17.6
Ron DeSantis 37.3 46.1 -8.8
Kamala Harris 37.3 53.3 -16.0
Kevin McCarthy 34.5 39.0 -4.5
Hakeem Jeffries 25.8 26.0 -0.2
Chuck Schumer 29.4 41.6 -12.2
Mitch McConnell 21.0 55.8 -34.8
Only McConnell has a worse net approval than Trump.
People don't vote for a candidate, they vote against one. The Dems know that no one will vote for Biden, only against Trump.
And that is why Trump lost in 2020. He underperformed with his own members of his party. Trump has a commanding lead in the nomination for the Republican party, but will the party fall in behind him? DeSantis voter likely will, and I am not sure about the rest.
Except he didn’t:
Trump’s consistent appeals to his base bore fruit. His campaign for reelection was supported by 94% of Republicans, up from 92% in 2016;
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-2020-voter-data-how-biden-won-how-trump-kept-the-race-close-and-what-it-tells-us-about-the-future/
"His campaign for reelection was supported by 94% of Republicans"
Trump's support came almost solely because he presented himself as someone who could defeat the Left and didn't care what they thought of him. Rank and file Republicans were fed up with compromising phonies like Bush, McCain and Romney, none of whom ever displayed any guts in dealing with Democrats. After the crushing defeat of the Tea Party by the elite Rs pretending to support the Tea party, and elite Ds with their media supplicants, Republicans were more than ready to abandon the party.
Trump became the instrument of revenge against the elites. He was the tool to manifest the fully legitimate hatred that Republicans felt towards those who betrayed them in both parties.
I was responding to the specific claim that Trump somehow bled Republicans, thus leading to his defeat. It’s simply not true.
He also increased his overall totals and a lot of individual demographics. Maybe he legitimately lost, maybe not, but the idea that it was because he was universally hated just doesn’t bear out in the numbers.
In regards to the numbers you posted, I suspect if that poll is to be believed, people are just dog ass tired of all these assholes.
Newsweek posted an article the morning after the election about how he did with the Black vote.
All of Saddam Hussein’s opponents lost too.
He gained almost 10 million votes..
You’re a fucking moron, old engineer.
Completely ignorant of basic human psychology and history.
Look at the ratings. Every single person there had overall negative ratings. Not one was positive.
Trump vs Hillary was a question of who was more despised. Trump vs Biden was the same. Biden simply hid and won because he wasn't exposed long enough for the hated to grow.
How else can you explain a lifetime crook like Biden winning by hiding in his basement?
Fraud.
I might fisk this later; here is Michael Tracey.
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1686506620233146369?s=19
Jack Smith is even praising the cop "heros" that killed 2 unarmed people and had agents in the crowd inciting a reaction.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/special-counsel-jack-smith-jan-6-fueled-lies-trump-praises-heroes-defended-capitol
liar
they should have shot them all
the real failure is not opening fire when the started breaking windows
So kill everyone who marched during the BLM riots?
You're going to receive a reckoning
They would lost too many feds if they did that.
Somehow I bet you didn’t share that sentiment when motherfuckers were trying to set a federal courthouse on fire, with people inside, during the summer of love in Portland.
I recall several Reason authors actually reporting uncritically on claims that protesters were being kidnapped and placed in uNmArKeD vAnS.
Did you ever wonder why it was OK for a Capitol cop to shoot an unarmed person breaking into the Capitol, but not OK for a store owner to shoot an unarmed person breaking into his store?
The store owner doesn’t have a badge?
one is backed by a totalitarian regime and the other is not.
This indictment is critical, my hometown hack rag is shocked... SHOCKED that Trump and Biden are tied. Take him out, and anything... anything is justified.
“Anything “ was always justified to them.
Yes! Put this dirtbag grifter away.
Suck it Trumpers. You're as bad as the Wokesters. Cut from the same cloth.
You make sarc look good.
Act Blue does not send their best.
It could be a Sarc sock. Sounds as dumb and as drunk.
That had occurred to me.
Is Sarc even conscious this time of day? By 8pm he's usually drunk enough to stun a draft horse.
Sarc does drunk post. Rather badly too, from what I've noticed.
This has to be a joke - you guys know each others' names and daily routines? It's an anonymous messaging board - if you're going to be that familiar with the other posters, why not just get on Discord or something?
Hang around for a while dude.
I'm killing time right now, so you've got me for a minute, but how are you supposed to keep track of who is talking to you? There doesn't seem to be any notification system.
With the exception of the fifty-center's sockpuppet's and the marvelous Mr. Tulpa, most people here have kept the same names for years, some decades, Some since the days of Usenet.
That's a revealing question. You have used the internet before 2020 right?
No faggot, on,y regarded cunts like you buy into these bullshit prosecutions. It will be good when you and your fellow travelers are deposited into landfills and paved over.
So, are you Sarc's left sock, right sock, or fap sock?
Trick question. They're all the same thing.
Let’s just say in a hypothetical alternate universe a president running for reelection was the victim of an opposition that was cheating at the polls. If he challenged them, exactly what would they be doing differently in our universe?
Is that cheating opposition capable of feeling shame?
In our universe, the opposition is winning in court. In their universe, the opposition would be losing in court.
Unless we want to say that the conspiracy is so total that it reaches even that president's own appointees. In which case, in the other universe there's about 5 minutes before Rod Serling does the closing narration.
In our universe, your leaving people with no choices that result in you continuing to exist, zach
Man, libertarians are wild. You've literally never met me.
Whatever happened to just "Hello"?
There are very few libertarians here. The site is infested with a bunch of right-wing commenters who hang out here because it is one of the few Internet forums with zero moderation of asshole behavior.
I'm noticing! But hey, it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. Hope you're not suffering too much from the heat.
Reminder. Mike can call anyone else a conservative for destroying his arguments but don't you dare call him or his friends a leftist. That is out of line.
using the power of the Presidency to try to change a legal election
announcing
planning
paying for
a riot that tried to overturn an election
so there is that
Zach, dear. This is how you come across with your sophistry.
I do like how you use another person's comment to dunk on mine. I'd be almost insulted if it were the reverse.
Anyway, if you want to point out what I'm saying wrong, go for it. But I'm not into the insult stuff, just seems like a waste of time.
Hahahahahahahahahaha
This is how we should be talking about Wikipedia, not the Jimmy Wales tongue bath from Nick Gillespie.
Gillespie can play hardball if someone is threatening the establishment. His unhinged tirade against RFK Jr. during his interview is with him is proof of that.
That's why when he interviewed Reason contributor, Brendan O'Neill on his book, "A Heretic's Manifesto" they spent at least 40 minutes of the hour-long interview on the title of the first chapter.
Yo, Nick, it's a Heretic's Manifesto, therefore expect some heretical things in it. Things that might deviate slightly from 90s era center-left politics.
Everything about him is 1990's. His whole worldview and perception of what is going on is still stuck there. The last twenty-five years have done nothing to inform his opinions.
Good link to the downfall of Wikipedia. Trampled under "the march through the institutions". Even the science entries are corrupted.
Trump indicted for exercising his 1st amendment rights. I pity Eric Boehm. It's clear he's a victim of the Democrat propaganda.
What else can that schlub do?
He's no victim, he's one of the perp's.
What in this indictment is about first amendment rights? The indictment seems to focus on actions taken by the former President and some associated conspirators.
By petitioning the government for perceived wrongs?
No by taking actions to prevent the certification of the election results. He did much more than petition.
Please enlighten us as to what actions he took.
What actions were executed that threatened certification? Difficulty. Be explicit.
Not that you can show.
A reminder - the FBI lied to place surveillance on Carter Page and tried to charge Flynn on a treason level crime despite having heard his conversation with Russians. And Durham concluded that the Russian was politically motivated, that fiasco being based on a fraudulent dossier,
This is sad. The indictment in NY is a joke, and this is equally weak. The obstruction charges concerning the classified documents are perhaps the most serious, except no footage was ever deleted and the guy who moved boxes around apparently failed to "hide them". I supposed when a man wants to secretly delete CCTV footage, he would order his closest aide, not hold him to secrecy and have him and at least one other person as a witness to his criminal scheme.
Trump faces over 100 years of prison time on mostly trumped up charges. Trump certainly shoots himself on the foot and invites suspicions with his erratic behavior. But judgment on that is on the voters. Given that earlier bombshells (like Trump putting on a karate move on a limo driver) turned out to be bunk, I'll wait for more info to see if this ISN'T a political witch hunt, which it surely is.
None of it is a joke
trump is a traitor to the nation
he has always been a crook
if convicted, I anticipate a magnanimous Biden will pardon him in his second term
And a new retard is born.
He told Zach to hold his beer.
This website rocks. Do you just do this all day?
How can you tell when people move on to a new article?
You sound kinda employee-ish. Are you the Reason summer intern?
Give the new guy a break, even if I disagree with him, his wide eyed sense of wonderment at discovering us is adorable.
Wait until he finds the few establishment-Democrat ideological allies here consist mainly of a retarded wife-beating drunk, a pretentious sealion, a pedophile, an obese Nazi, an insane cannibalistic copraphiliac and a prominent UK almost-lawyer.
Sounds to me more like someone just bought new socks and is trying them on.
Retard like that isn’t born, it’s made through hard work and dedication.
Trump will face a Washington DC jury that will not wait for the trial to judge the case. Seconds after the jury is impaneled, they will pronounce guilt on all charges along with Trump being the second gunman on the grassy knoll and having murdered and hid the body of Jimmy Hoffa.
This is only a slight exaggeration.
Trump a traitor?
for which country do you allege that he is betraying America for?
Israel?
Mars?
Zeta Reticuli?
Saudi Arabia?
Jared Kushner just got a $2,000,000,000 investment from Saudi Arabia's public investment fund. The panel assigned to screen the deal did not recommend it, but the board (led by Mohammed bin Salman) overruled the panel and agreed to give billions to Jared Kushner.
Kinda weird when the son of a President gets money from a foreign country, don't you think?
It would be if he didn't have a legitimate job (the same job he did before his father-in-law was president), and if he got the money personally instead of the company he partners with handling it on behalf of the Saudis.
Now this happened almost three years after his father-in-law left the presidency, the political establishment hates him, and are doing their level best to destroy him. He's got zero influence to peddle.
Now that we've got that out of the way, why don't you explain how this is indicative of some sort of "betrayal", you disingenuous shill.
As for the betrayal, it's not hard to see a pretty direct line between Trump's investments in Saudi Arabia and his response to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. I mean, Biden's unwavering support for Ukraine raises some pretty big questions, so I don't see why the same calculus doesn't apply to Trump.
As for being three years after a Presidential election, Trump was recently indicted three years after a Presidential election. That's enough time to dissipate any appearance of a political connection, isn't it?
Or do we also look forward to the next political election? Or maybe we do that sometimes and not other times?
"As for the betrayal, it’s not hard to see a pretty direct line between Trump’s investments in Saudi Arabia and his response to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi."
Not only is it hard to see a direct line between Trump’s investments in Saudi Arabia and his response to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, it sounds insane. Anyone could think up a million better reasons than that.
Take a step back and listen to yourself for a second.
Biden's support for Ukraine makes sense in light of the bank records, emails and testimony, the wire transfers, the Privat bank transactions, the LLCs, the texts, the emails, the WhatsApp messages. There's something to hide.
What's to hide with Khashoggi's murder? That Trump didn't give a shit, and refused to do anything about it? That the Saudis did it? That's no secret and it wasn't illegal or even wrong of Trump. It wasn't the US's business. At all.
Trump's no more relevant as to who's to blame than you are. And if you're looking to argue in favor of some sort of sanctions, an ostensibly libertarian website isn't the place.
And besides, it was the Biden administration who provided a legal opinion that Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman holds immunity over his alleged role in the assassination of Khashoggi. Not the Trump administration.
So what the fuck is the connection between Kushner's company getting to handle Saudi investments and Khashoggi's execution? Kushner is getting a reward for the Biden administration's immunity decision? How fucking stupid.
I haven't seen the bank records. Can you direct me to where you're looking at those? As for the testimony, Devon Archer just said that Hunter Biden was selling the "illusion of access" to Joe Biden. And he further testified that Joe Biden wasn't involved in Hunter's business dealings. Same thing with the wire transfers - is there some foreign government depositing money into Joe Biden's checking account or something?
As for Jamal Khashoggi, the guy had a green card here. He worked for a newspaper in the U.S. That typically would be something the federal government cares about. Moreover, it was a state-sponsored assassination. That raises huge questions about our support for that country. If we want to say that we'll have no dealings with Saudi Arabia one way or the other, that's fine, but overlooking the murder of an American green card holder?
As for Mohammed bin Salman having immunity from a lawsuit, so would Ayatollah Khomeini. Trump was pretty harsh on Iran even though he couldn't sue the leader of a country for actions undertaken as the leader of that country. It's not like foreign policy is limited to lawsuits against sitting heads of government.
Finally, Saudi Arabia is paying back Trump for his support during his first term, and is gearing up for further support in his second term.
If Zelensky cut Hunter Biden a check for 2 billion dollars, would you have any trouble connecting that to the current support for Ukraine's government during the war?
When you put your money in the bank, is that a gift to the bank? Or when you go to a broker to get some of your money invested, are you giving your money to the broker? Of course not. It's still your money, you're just giving the broker license to invest it on your behalf. Every Leftie I hear talk about Jared Kushner acts like the Saudis just sent him pallets of cash like Obama and Biden did the Iranians.
When I hire a consultant, I'm also getting value from that transaction. Does that persuade you that Hunter Biden's business dealings were above board? After all, I've never met a consultant who works for free.
It's always projection with these people....
Jack Smith asserted without proof that Trump knew he was lying. I have never heard Trump ever say anything that would suggest that the election wasn't "stolen". Trump may be delusional, but he believes that nonsense. If he believes it, he didn't commit fraud. He merely stated his belief. That is protected speech.
Why doesn't Reason mention these things?
I consider Trump to be little better than pond scum, but these indictments are completely without any rational basis. If there is something worse than pond scum, it's Jack Smith
Smith is known for stretching the law to absurd lengths. His case against Bob McDonnell was ruled against by a unanimous Supreme Court. If Smith's definition of "fraud" is accepted, there will be no such thing as protected speech. Anything contradicting "official" truth will be a fraudulent attempt to influence an election.
Again, the former President took actions. The actions are the basis of the indictment. I think you summed it up well the former President could be lying, or he could be delusional. Both would yield a conviction, the circumstance of the later could be mitigated by a claim or judgement of mental incompetency. I doubt this will happen.
What action? Speaking? The charge in the indictment is fraud not inciting a riot. Trump was not charged with trespassing or destruction of private property. He was charged with lying to influence an election outcome. Most people call that politics.
If I believe that a particular bank cheated me and someone hears me say "I think this bank is run by thieves!" so they rob the bank. Should I be charged with fraud, bank robbery, slander or being an idiot who believes stupid things?
I somewhat agree with you, but that’s why they will have a trial, and at that trial Jack Smith will have to present evidence to prove the charges.
If you are right about the bogosity of the charges, Smith will fail.
The alleged acts have to constitute a crime first.
This looks like the prosecution of Rick Perry, who was indicted for completely legal acts.
Have you heard of Maraxus?
https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3857654&sid=a3267c817b2b54dde4e2105fac06c61d#p3857654
It seems we are playing by Maraxus's rules now.
It is well established that Old Engineer is no Trump supporter, so if he can acknowledge the bogosity (not sure that’s a real word, but let’s roll with it) of these charges, wouldn’t logic dictate that there shouldn’t even be a trial as it should be self evident that no crime was committed?
Have you heard of Maraxus?
https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3857654&sid=a3267c817b2b54dde4e2105fac06c61d#p3857654
Sadly, we are playing by Maraxus's rules now.
I had not.
They’re not wrong in regards to how Democrats in Texas think, especially in Travis County.
And LOL at the idea that Republicans have run roughshod over Democrats historically. This state was solidly Democrat till the mid/late 90’s when W got elected governor.
You know M4E, Kack Smith literally said in each charge Trump knew the truth as a condition. Each one required a state if mind. So you didn't read the indictment. It is getting pillaged even by leftist attorneys.
M4E is really phoning it in tonight.
This calls to question all of Jack Smith's prosecutions, just not those of Trump.
Appellate attorneys for those convicted via a prosecution by Jack Smith are getting busy.
To paraphrase the Orange One:
LOCK HIM UP.
For what?
In the aftermath of the 2020 election many claims were made of election fraud. Some of these were settled in courts, most were too outlandish to make it to court. This indictment will give the former President and his lawyers the opportunity to introduce many of the fraud claims that never made it to court. I like to see if they can make the case now?
nope
You never tire of lying do you?
He does not.
traitortrumps was a cheat and criminal 25 years before he was a politician
why do whackos support him?
Example:
Doug Flutie
USFL collapse[due to trump]
ooh ooh where will Flutie play
Not so fast, Flutie had a personal service contract with trump
trump could have him drive his car...
cheating back in 1985
and sank the USFL
just like he has sunk the Republican party
Team blue isn’t sending their best.
I dont mind these types. At least they are honest unlike jeff and Mike.
Sometimes the Rachel Maddow show regulars make their way over here.
Sitting in Civics class, those many decades ago, I could never have predicted the 2024 presidential election would feature two unsavory characters as these.
Not giving a shit about the quality of the products one puts out is a hallmark of a monopoly (or, in this case, a duopoly).
"Sitting in Civics class, those many decades ago, I could never have predicted the 2024 presidential election would feature two unsavory characters as these."
Is your TDS really that difficult to deal with? Well, then stuff your TDS up your ass, and fuck off and die.
Or, you might redeem yourself and suggest which POTUS in the last century did more to increase freedom and limit government.
Or, fuck you with a running, rusty chainsaw, asshole.
What a corrupt piece of shit.
The mask is totally off now.
https://twitter.com/RonDeSantis/status/1686494955420692480?t=O9SMHglcZ_bjF02y0cWTnw&s=19
As President, I will end the weaponization of government, replace the FBI Director, and ensure a single standard of justice for all Americans.
While I’ve seen reports, I have not read the indictment. I do, though, believe we need to enact reforms so that Americans have the right to remove cases from Washington, DC to their home districts.
Washington, DC is a “swamp” and it is unfair to have to stand trial before a jury that is reflective of the swamp mentality.
One of the reasons our country is in decline is the politicization of the rule of law. No more excuses—I will end the weaponization of the federal government.
Good to see GOPe got their treasonous talking points out
https://twitter.com/Mike_Pence/status/1686529371685658625?t=XpR_TAm6ycHml_v0SnMrNQ&s=19
Today's indictment serves as an important reminder: anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be President of the United States.
Uhh, weren't people with MAGA hats chanting "Hang Mike Pence" while entering the Capitol, searching for Mike Pence? And Trump took hours to even say anything about it - even to be like "Please don't kill my vice president"?
I think that guy has more than enough reason to be anti-Trump.
"Uhh, weren’t people with MAGA hats chanting “Hang Mike Pence” while entering the Capitol, searching for Mike Pence? And Trump took hours to even say anything about it – even to be like “Please don’t kill my vice president”?"
OMG! Saying things this steaming pile of shit doesn't like! Round 'em up, right, fuck face?
Zach, stuff your ignorant TDS up your ass. Your head is begging for company. And then, make the world a better place: fuck off and die, asshole.
If someone started chanting that they wanted to kill you, while entering your place of work, how would you react?
Gee, I'd suggest steaming piles of TDS addled piles of lefty shit take a look at A-1, asshole.
Yeah, so you can't answer the question. Looks like it's back to ol' reliable - more of the same insults.
What an unusual way to spend your time.
Ray Epps certainly was, but we're not allowed to talk about that. Something, something a good man being harassed.
I love the dichotomy. One person says that it's freedom of speech, another person insinuates that the whole thing was a set up by the government.
It's the classic Narcissist's Prayer: That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
And a TDS-addled shit pile like you tries to suggest that saying something is illegal.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Ignoring your redirection attempt for a second, so Ray Epps wasn't the only one caught on video leading the chant to hang Pence and urging the people to storm the Capitol?
I have no idea. I hear a couple voices on the video, but I have no idea who those people are. There was also the guy who brought a mannequin with "traitor" written on it and a noose around its neck. The people who set up a gallows. Tons of people who brought zipties.
Regardless, I'm really not getting the argument. Let's say I go to a BLM rally and see someone torch a building. Can I join in? After all, if the guy is a fed, I'm off the hook, yeah?
I am not sure who the mask is off of? DeSantis? His recommendation seems exceptionally sound to me.
Mind you, I think the Feds should just name the government buildings and the National Mall as federal property and ship the rest of DC off to MD.
DeSantis implies the charges may be legit, and that the right should completely disarm itself in the face of tyrannical illegitimacy.
Can't wait to vote our way out of this.
Especially if the Rs nominate a respectable republican!
So Nardz wants a 'respectable republican'? A return to 'normalcy, right, shit for brains? Up yours.
Trump was the best POTUS in a century*because* he wasn't a "respectable republican"; he was willing to run the swamp critters out of town.
Check your sarc meter. Nardz has been saying that voting was pointless since after 2020.
It's not pointless, it's just not going to lead to legitimate results.
But the more ridiculous they have to make it look, such as they had to in 2020, the better.
Let's not delude ourselves to where we're at and what time it is.
There is no nice way to defeat totalitarianism.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Fuck you Republicans! So many Trump fans crying....
There is nothing radically individualist about you!
TIME TO CHARGE TRUMP WITH THE ENTIRE US CODE, JEFFY!
If you charge him with everything then he's bound to be found guilty of something. You'll get him yet.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-lefts-elections-fortification-in-2024/
This would be a great moment for a third party, which all the Dems are shitting their pants about.(No Labels).
They’re going to look pretty weird wearing suits with no lapels.
What’s that? Oh… Never mind.
I know, let’s nominate a Republican who left the party and then tacitly endorses either the Democrat platform or their nominee.
Anything that keeps RFK Jr. away from the nomination.
Today in Herpetologist Handshake news, Lizzo accused of sexual harassment and weight-shaming.
There is no evidence Trump did anything to do these things.
Of course, would not the whole "Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" propaganda campaign constitute fraud against the United States. Would not the Cunt®™ (legally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton) and Adam Schiff be guilty of fraud against the United States?
There is no law criminalizing alternate slates of electors. The alternate slate may be rejected, but presenting an alternate slate is no crime.
Trying to overturn the 2020 election was no crime.
Again, the Durham Report exposed a scheme by the Department of Justice who, working with the Cunt®™ delegitimized Trump through the Russian Collusion®™ hoax. That was a scheme that demanded jail time for the Cunt®™, and via the Park docvtrine, Robert Mueller.
Strong-arming is not a crime. Bribery and extortion are crimes, but these prosecutors never said they were investigating acts of bribery or extortion.
All on bullshit charges!
I'll never understand this idea - if Joe Biden wants to do the same trick and have Kamala Harris "count" the votes so that Biden wins reelection, is anyone going to be okay with that?
Like if we want to say that the Eastman memo is good law, then the Democrats will just never leave office and we'll never have another election again. Because the Vice President can "count" the votes however they want.
Doesn't that seem even the least bit fishy to you?
Law and ethics do not always coincide.
Absent bribery or extortion, I fail to see how that would be a crime.
A legally erroneous memo can not be a crime.
What is a crime is perjury. That is what Kevin Clinesmith did, to further the "Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" propaganda campaign.
Of course, what Clinesmith did far more fits the definition of "fraud against the United States".
If Trump's AG wanted to charge people for the crimes they committed, he had plenty of time to do so. I don't really recognize the legal principle of "two wrongs make a right".
As for a legally erroneous memo not being a crime, this is akin to the Monopoly Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card. If I write a "legally erroneous memo" advising a client to rob a bank and give me the money, that can't be a crime, right?
If you want to run a criminal enterprise, just pass the bar and start writing some memos!
Eastman has not been alleged to have written a memo advising Trump to commit, bribery, perjury, or extortion.
So we're walking back the claim that a legally erroneous memo cannot be a crime. Progress!
But the crux of the claim is that Trump wanted electors to say that they were legitimate electors, when Trump knew they weren't legitimate electors. Most straightforward analogue would be impersonating a police officer.
Could I advise someone to pretend to be a police officer and pull over cars for speeding? Would it matter if I really thought that they should be a police officer, or that the government had wrongfully prevented them from becoming a police officer?
"So we’re walking back the claim that a legally erroneous memo cannot be a crime. Progress!"
Care to define a "legally erroneous memo", asshole?
A memo that misstates the law?
TDS-addled lefty shit makes un-supported claim! How
Boring.
Fuck off and die, shit-for-brains.
... what is the claim you think I'm making?
What law would an alternate slate of electors allegedly violate?
Note that there are specific laws against impersonating a police officer.
Apparently 18 USC 371, which prevents conspiracies to defraud the government. Apparently, defrauding doesn't mean what you would otherwise think, according to some old case law: "....it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane, or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention."
That means the whole "Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" propaganda campaign. A whole lot of people, not just the Cunt®™, John Podesta, and Adam Schiff, would be guilty, but a whole host of media personalities would be guilty as well.
The law is this. Lying, however unethical it is, is generally protected by the First Amendment, even if its purpose is to influence "legitimate government action". This old case law would in fact mean that the statute prohibiting defrauding the United States is overbroad.
It never occurred to me at the time that merely promoting the whole Russian Collusion®™ narrative was a crime. Only some specific actions, such as Kevin Clinemsith's perjury, or presenting a forged dossier to the FBI, could be crimes.
Look, I don't know what else to tell you. I've cited a federal statute and a Supreme Court case that's still good law. In response you've written "The law is this" and then just freestyled your own interpretation.
And that's awesome! I appreciate that you have your own interpretation of the law. But I can't look your opinions up in the US Code. Nor do they get published on the SCOTUSBlog website. So by necessity I have to stick with those things, because those are the sources that I'm limited to.
If you want to just start writing down your thoughts in a place where other people can see them, I'm sure they'll dismiss this case in light of what the law is.
"If Trump’s AG wanted to charge people for the crimes they committed, he had plenty of time to do so. I don’t really recognize the legal principle of “two wrongs make a right”."
As a steaming pile of TDS-addled shit, you've made it very clear that the law is only to be applied to those who with whom you don't agree.
Biden's selling political access? Ah, well, who cares? Trump asking for a vote count? TREASON!
Yes, we are well aware of both your idiocy and your bias, steaming pile of TDS addled shit.
Fuck off and die.
Nothing makes me happier than having lived to see a day where conservatives don't mention Hillary Clinton when doing their laundry list of grievances.
Did you have a point there other than hoping lefty shits like HRC skate?
It's just indicative of progress that you didn't include her. I had to hear about the Clinton crime family forever. Now I can hear about the Biden crime family. Pretty soon, it'll be someone new, maybe the Beto O'Rourke crime family.
Every election, Republicans discover that the most recently Democratic nominee is the leader of a crime family! And they forget about two elections ago. It's a tale as old as time.
Your tin-foil hat is on special, Aisle #6.
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of TDS-addles shit; make your family proud and your dog happy.
Who was the last Democratic President who wasn't connected to a crime family?
I don’t think Obamas family was much help in his criminal enterprise.
Whoever his family actually is.
"Doesn’t that seem even the least bit fishy to you?"
OH, OH, steaming pile of TDS-addled lefty shit hopes "fishy" comments are somehow not A1 excused.
How stupid are you, shit-pile? Scale of 1-10? I'm guessing 11.
Fuck off and die; make the world a better place.
Edgy
Stupid, steaming pile of lefty shit,
How's the weather?
Far better than the count of your brain cells, steaming pile of TDS-addled shit.
Did you see Oppenheimer?
Did you grow a brain cell, TDS-addled steaming pile of lefty shit?
Guess not
Seems not; brain cell count = 0
BTW, shit-for-brains, it seems that your most recent responses are attempts to divert attention from the obvious observation that you are a lefty ignoramus.
Keep it up fuckface;
I wanted to see what it'd be like to attempt a regular conversation with you. I picked the most banal stuff I could think of.
Oppenheimer's supposed to be pretty good though.
TDS-addled lefty shit makes un-supported claim! How
Boring.
Fuck off and die, shit-for-brains.
“I wanted to see what it’d be like to attempt a regular conversation with you. I picked the most banal stuff I could think of. Oppenheimer’s supposed to be pretty good though.”
Why in the world would an intelligent person opt to engage in any sort of conversation with a TDS addled steaming pile of shit like you?
Your obvious confusion is not surprising; fuck off and die, asshole.
I’ll never understand this idea – if Joe Biden wants to do the same trick and have Kamala Harris “count” the votes so that Biden wins reelection, is anyone going to be okay with that?
That’s not what the goal was. The idea was to force an emergency audit by having Pence refuse to acknowledge them, essentially creating a challenge. It’s a novel legal mechanism, it’s not a conspiracy.
There is a mechanism to force an emergency audit, but the Senate has to vote on it, with the challenge coming from a senator. Trump was wrong, the VP almost certainly, can’t do this, but considering it as a tactic is no more illegal than crafting a novel theory for a lawsuit.
If the Eastman memo was good law, though, it would not do what you claim. Even assuming a permanent deadlock on the contested electors, in an utter worst case scenario of political division, the election goes to state delegations in Congress. The Eastman ploy was never about having a VP selectively count ballots to make the numbers add up differently.
That's the end goal, but the intermediate step is for Mike Pence to declare Trump the winner:
"At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment – is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected."
There's no deadlock because Pence doesn't count those votes. He just puts them aside.
It wasn't long ago that we were told that pursuing criminal charges against losing Presidential candidates was a terrible idea and would create a horrendous precedent. Of course, that was in response to Trump supporters chanting "Lock Her Up" in reference to Hilary Clinton. Really hoping Biden supporters chant "Lock Him Up" and now it's cool, because "Orange Man Bad".
We had two competing visions for the future of America, and Trump's vision won. He beat Hillary Clinton - voters rewarded the candidate who promised to jail his opponent.
So I still think it's a terrible idea to bring criminal charges against people running for President. But my views lost in the marketplace of ideas. Trump's ideas won.
I wonder if Trump is tired of winning.
voters rewarded the candidate who promised to jail his opponent.
Because she committed actual serious crimes that resulted in human suffering and death.
I really despise being forced to defend Trump. There is a double standard at play and Trump although severely flawed is being charged with nonsense.
It is interesting that every time that Biden comes under scrutiny another Trump indictment occurs and sucks all the oxygen from the room. It has occurred far too many time to be a simple consequence.
Personally, I don't like Trump and feel that he was a mediocre president and while Biden is a complete and utter disaster that is no reason to vote for Trump. Neither is there any sane reason to justify a vote for Biden even if Trump was guilty of everything the Democrats claim.
Democrats have a tendency to accuse other political parties of actions that the Democrat party is guilty of. The Democrat party ruling elite is 100% full of dishonest snakes. The Republican party ruling elite is 75% full of dishonest snakes. 95% of corporate media is in bed with the Democrat party.
Neither party should be trusted, but the corporate media deserves even less as they are truly evil and despicable. The citizens and voters deserve far better than this lot of trash.
Glad I missed this party.
>>You might think about the three parts of the indictment as a helpful breakdown of the three ways in which Trump and his allies—there are six unnamed and so far uncharged co-conspirators mentioned in the indictment—attempted to subvert the presidential election process.
I might, but my initial thought was did Eric write this or did Mike?
Are you referring to me?
absolutely but not in an I'm being a jerk way. totally your syntax. whole paragraph reads like Eric is your biggest fan.
I do use en dashes.
PROJECTION 101; Defraud the citizens by fiat-ballots and then pretend the defrauding was by the one person who questioned the election.
why it's as predictable as rain during a thunderstorm.
So WHEN those pesky IP logs be investigated. WHEN will mail-in voting end since it was self-validated by matching In-Person votes. WHEN will D'Souza's video feed be found to be acted by actors? I guess there's just no need to pursue election integrity when the Nazi-Empire can just start hanging witches.