Right.
The indictment cites several comments by Trump and others that demonstrate he knew the election wasn't stolen and that there were not enough improper votes to change the outcome. Why not just read it?
He’s not fit to hold office
No, it's a perfect example of two entirely unrelated things.
Never has a group of politicians relied more heavily on gullibility than the fringe right of the GOP.
As I asked you several days ago, are you personally knowledgeable about deposits and withdrawals to/from bank accounts belonging to your own relatives? I daresay that would be unusual if you did.
That's not what the indictment is about.
I've seen you complain about people making up things you've supposedly thought or said. So why are you doing that here? I never said I "know more than the DOJ."
I'm slogging through it. I'm on page 15 and, so far, it's accusations that Trump knew the election was legit, but very few names and dates, as you claim. It was all covered in the Jan 6 committee.
If what is in it is the equivalent of my wife's side of the argument, that can be proven wrong at a trial, what does it matter if he's read it or not. It's all "fact's" of what Dem's saw in a dream and it's their husbands fault.
I didn't say/do any of those things. Infer what you want, but you're wrong.
That's proof to proceed. I didn't specify how. It's clearly not to the extent some would like or deem necessary.
If you think that's gibberish, you really don't want to read the indictment.
I must say, I'm very disappointed in the font styles and formatting choices of the DC DOJ office in that indictment.
Page 33 of the indictment listed by Brad. What do you think of that entry?
I haven't read that many indictments, nor do I read much leagalize. But this seems like at attempt to convince by sheer volume. Like if they throw enough shit in it, it's more believable. And, as I said, it could all have been written 2 years ago. I've seen nothing, so far, that would indicate they've found anything new since then.
Well, you shamed me into it. Don't expect me to get through all of it today.
I'm actually not joking. Poking fun at myself, sure, but I'm serious about the style of that document. It's horrid.Lawyer jokes
If you don't understand the indictment, you won't understand anyone you ask, either.
I think it's old news that Trump tried to get Pence to not accept the electors - or try not to.
That’s not how this board works. Brad. Escalate!!!!
Forget it.
I am not defending Trump. No one should be above the law. It’s obvious there’s different rules for different people.
Those who we are "not aligned with" here, in WW2 would have said, Patton, just let Germany have it, stop fighting even if you know you are correct, just give it to them.
The indictment shows that the advice he was getting was that he had no basis for his claims yet he continued on
I realize that. But others were telling him other things.
I first thought you said antichrist. Same thing, I guess.
Waht does " no basis" mean? It's not true, no court has the balls to hear it? There's some legal **president (not) that means you can't even ask after CNN says you lost? What is basis that proves anyone wrong?
No, there are different rules for different situations. The rules that apply to Congressmen speaking in Congress are different from the rules for non-members of Congress seeking to obstruct the performance of Constitutionally-mandated Congressional duties.
And there are different rules for trying to intimidate conservative members of the Supreme Court. i.e. even though the law says it's illegal, there are no charges.
Look Ace, your hero is up to his fat orange golf-cheating ass in his own shit.
This is the crux no? The advice that Hunstman, Giuliani and Powell were giving him was completely contrary to that of most of the people in his administration and state officials.
I understand the indictment.
