Actually, the indictment includes reference to Trump himself making comments that suggest he didn't really believe what he was spouting. His behavior (specifically the timing) is also suggestive of him not truly believing it.
Yes. Rich people are used to doing what they want with no regard for the law.
It’s funny when you throw out allegations that prove you’re wrong. Orange this and orange. I didn’t twist anyone’s words. You just didn’t like how you would need to respond. Therefore, you took your ball and went home.
I agree Trump would probably have to take the stand. The indictment quotes Trump saying things like "Let's save this for the next guy."
I don’t need to look for Ordy, he finds me wherever I am
For the Bidens there are different rules for tax fraud and gun violations.
Several states, somehow, changed their voting laws to accept votes that had not been of an approved process by the state legislature, but their State constitution required, and subsequent legislation has been enacted to FIX THAT SHTUFF. There are at lease a few states, that per their own laws, submitted votes that were obviously illegal. Right?
Yep, what’s amazing is how politicians become millionaires on their salaries.
Can you just stay in one place? You dance from Schiff to Biden? Please respond to what I said about the difference between Schiff and Trump before you move on to the Bidens (yet again).
If he follows you here I'm banning both your asses.
Joe. No. There is no evidence at all that any appreciable illegal votes were counted.
Could you elaborate on the specific operation of the advice of counsel defense? I assume Trump may claim his lawyers told him that what he did was OK.
Good question. I don't think there is a nationwide standard for this defense, so we'd have to look at the precedent in the various jurisdictions where Trump might raise it, but generally, courts have construed it rather narrowly in a criminal context, limiting the types of crimes where it might be raised to those where a genuine question as to competing rights might exist in the mind of the defendant. For example, if a defendant was going through an ugly divorce, and stole "his" car from his wife's driveway, he might be able to raise the defense if his lawyer advised him that the car was his as a matter of law. However, a defendant would not be allowed to raise the defense in case of, say, battery, no matter how many lawyers he could line up who told him that he absolutely had a legal right to beat that guy's ass.Could you elaborate on the specific operation of the advice of counsel defense? I assume Trump may claim his lawyers told him that what he did was OK.
The below article says, "Pleading an "advice of counsel" defense normally waives privilege protection for the client's communications with any lawyers providing advice on the pertinent matter, and usually also extends to the client's communication of facts to such lawyers that preceded the advice."
This sounds a lot like (1) Trump himself would have to raise it, (2) all attorney client privilege is waived for all lawyers providing advice to Trump on that point (not just the wackos), and (3) Trump himself might have to testify about "the client's communication of facts to such lawyers that preceded the advice."
Is that how it works?
"Those" states constitutions say, "you must do xyz to change the voting rules", and then "XYZ" was NOT done when they changed the voting laws.
Even if various states violated the law in changing voting procedures, that doesn't make the votes themselves invalid. If eligible voters followed the procedures in place at the time they voted, then their votes are valid.
That makes sense. Doesn't make the new procedures legal though, right? How many votes were cast with the "new" illegal process? What is ever allowed to be investigated and publicly published?
And do you have any evidence at all that votes were changed in a way that altered the results? I think not. I’ve voted absentee since 1986, by the way. I continued to vote by mail in Ohio after I retired. This was pro-Republican before Trump. He’s killing the Republican Party.
Beats me. I don't really care that much. My point is simply that the elections themselves were still valid. So even if you make the case that State X screwed the pooch and shit all over their own constitution, that still doesn't change any result at all.
You're no Trumpster, but Court sees any rational explanation of the case as a defense for him.
I saw you post before you changed it. I'm headed back to Indiana Friday. You free Sat or Sunday? I looked and I think that little airport east of Xienia (Green county?) looks like a good place to fly into.
Even the indictment says that 'elections aren't perfect'. Well, no shit.
Biden only wins in a massive turnout election. Some democrats see this as a good thing. The more people voting the better. I don’t.
It doesn't change anything ESPECIALLY if the courts won't allow the evidence to be argued in a public court. We have proven that. Without that we simply don't know. Also I am not saying that it would have or would not have. But the examination was denied during the small window of time that it COULD have made any difference. That only allows for people (Trump) to speculate that it was intentional, and no one can say otherwise. H e was denied his self defense (is that lawyer speak?).
Yep. Wanna go up? I'm around 400 hours and have walked away from every landing so far.
His death isn't as likely as Biden's.
Fly up to whatever airport is close to the Michigan International Speedway and join us. It’s not sold out.
No, what I mean is it doesn't matter, because the election is over. Trump lost, and even if you prove that all these states violated their constitutions, he still lost. There's no mechanism for a do-over, and there's no mechanism to throw out votes that were made by eligible voters according to the procedures put in place at the time, even if those procedures were put in place erroneously. The result is the result. End of story.
Oh hell, and I can get some good old fashion Legal swag. That's only about 2 1/2 hours flight from B'town.
Once again, I have not invited you. I have no interest in meeting you “, and no interest in hurting an old man like you if you showed up and spoke like you post here.
That would be cozy with you, me, and Aloha. Maybe we could fit Goat in there!
