The Walls be Closing

[49er Fan]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That’s exactly my point! Nobody is trying to ‘subvert’ anything! Not on either side. They’re just focused on advancing their political agenda by any means they can justify to themselves. Where we differ is that you’ve come to the ridiculous conclusion that one side of the aisle is good, and the other is bad. Professional and personal experience has shown me that there are no such absolutes in the field of politics. 

What you need to understand is the difference between “politics” and “laws.”

 

Politics is dozens of Republican lawmakers objecting to the certification of votes on 1/6/2021.  Procedurally they were absolutely within their Constitutional rights to debate and challenge the electoral votes.  Many did, it failed, and Biden was certified.  None of that is being litigated by Jack Smith, and no Republican Congressman or Congresswoman is being charged with any crimes to that end.  
 

You are conflating Congressional procedures with Trump’ contesting the election results - which he also has the right to do - until the point that he is breaking laws - such as:

 

—Attempting to lean on state officials to subvert their respective states’ votes.

 

—Scheming  to organize fraudulent slates of electors.

 

—Attempting  to recruit the DOJ to conduct sham investigations of voter fraud.

 

—Trying to convince Mike Pence to obstruct the electoral vote certification.

 

—Attempting to exploit the violence of the 1/6 attack on the Capitol to disrupt and delay the certification.

 

When you do all of these things, after repeatedly being told by state and Federal judges, DOJ officials, FBI Director, Director of Cybersecurity, Attorney General, Vice President, and others that there is no evidence to support your claims, then your actions become illegal because you are knowingly and willfully obstructing the electoral process.

 

The crime is not lying or “believing” the election was stolen, or whatever you want to say or tweet publicly - even if your lawyers agree with you. 
 

The crime is  spreading the lies with the intent to prevent the lawful functioning of the electoral certification process. The crime is the unlawful intention.

[BillsFanNC]

12 minutes ago, 49er Fan said:

What you need to understand is the difference between “politics” and “laws.”

 

Politics is dozens of Republican lawmakers objecting to the certification of votes on 1/6/2021.  Procedurally they were absolutely within their Constitutional rights to debate and challenge the electoral votes.  Many did, it failed, and Biden was certified.  None of that is being litigated by Jack Smith, and no Republican Congressman or Congresswoman is being charged with any crimes to that end.  
 

You are conflating Congressional procedures with Trump’ contesting the election results - which he also has the right to do - until the point that he is breaking laws - such as:

 

—Attempting to lean on state officials to subvert their respective states’ votes.

 

—Scheming  to organize fraudulent slates of electors.

 

—Attempting  to recruit the DOJ to conduct sham investigations of voter fraud.

 

—Trying to convince Mike Pence to obstruct the electoral vote certification.

 

—Attempting to exploit the violence of the 1/6 attack on the Capitol to disrupt and delay the certification.

 

When you do all of these things, after repeatedly being told by state and Federal judges, DOJ officials, FBI Director, Director of Cybersecurity, Attorney General, Vice President, and others that there is no evidence to support your claims, then your actions become illegal because you are knowingly and willfully obstructing the electoral process.

 

The crime is not lying or “believing” the election was stolen, or whatever you want to say or tweet publicly - even if your lawyers agree with you. 
 

The crime is  spreading the lies with the intent to prevent the lawful functioning of the electoral certification process. The crime is the unlawful intention.

 

@ChiGoose you forgot to log out of your other account.

[SoCal Deek]

43 minutes ago, 49er Fan said:

What you need to understand is the difference between “politics” and “laws.”

 

Politics is dozens of Republican lawmakers objecting to the certification of votes on 1/6/2021.  Procedurally they were absolutely within their Constitutional rights to debate and challenge the electoral votes.  Many did, it failed, and Biden was certified.  None of that is being litigated by Jack Smith, and no Republican Congressman or Congresswoman is being charged with any crimes to that end.  
 

You are conflating Congressional procedures with Trump’ contesting the election results - which he also has the right to do - until the point that he is breaking laws - such as:

 

—Attempting to lean on state officials to subvert their respective states’ votes.

 

—Scheming  to organize fraudulent slates of electors.

 

—Attempting  to recruit the DOJ to conduct sham investigations of voter fraud.

 

—Trying to convince Mike Pence to obstruct the electoral vote certification.

 

—Attempting to exploit the violence of the 1/6 attack on the Capitol to disrupt and delay the certification.

 

When you do all of these things, after repeatedly being told by state and Federal judges, DOJ officials, FBI Director, Director of Cybersecurity, Attorney General, Vice President, and others that there is no evidence to support your claims, then your actions become illegal because you are knowingly and willfully obstructing the electoral process.

 

The crime is not lying or “believing” the election was stolen, or whatever you want to say or tweet publicly - even if your lawyers agree with you. 
 

The crime is  spreading the lies with the intent to prevent the lawful functioning of the electoral certification process. The crime is the unlawful intention.

Aha! So knowingly and intentionally lying to impact an election or official proceeding is a crime. You’re SURE about that? That’s the hill you want to die on? The line that can’t be crossed? Hmmmm?

Edited August 3, 2023 by SoCal Deek

[Unforgiven]

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2023%2F08%2F03%2Fjack-smiths-latest-indictment-is-legally-flawed-and-politically-suspect%2F

 

 

6 Ways Jack Smith’s Latest Indictment Is Legally Flawed And Politically Shady

 

 

Not so fast morons

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, 49er Fan said:

What you need to understand is the difference between “politics” and “laws.”

 

Politics is dozens of Republican lawmakers objecting to the certification of votes on 1/6/2021.  Procedurally they were absolutely within their Constitutional rights to debate and challenge the electoral votes.  Many did, it failed, and Biden was certified.  None of that is being litigated by Jack Smith, and no Republican Congressman or Congresswoman is being charged with any crimes to that end.  
 

You are conflating Congressional procedures with Trump’ contesting the election results - which he also has the right to do - until the point that he is breaking laws - such as:

 

—Attempting to lean on state officials to subvert their respective states’ votes.

 

—Scheming  to organize fraudulent slates of electors.

 

—Attempting  to recruit the DOJ to conduct sham investigations of voter fraud.

 

—Trying to convince Mike Pence to obstruct the electoral vote certification.

 

—Attempting to exploit the violence of the 1/6 attack on the Capitol to disrupt and delay the certification.

 

When you do all of these things, after repeatedly being told by state and Federal judges, DOJ officials, FBI Director, Director of Cybersecurity, Attorney General, Vice President, and others that there is no evidence to support your claims, then your actions become illegal because you are knowingly and willfully obstructing the electoral process.

 

The crime is not lying or “believing” the election was stolen, or whatever you want to say or tweet publicly - even if your lawyers agree with you. 
 

The crime is  spreading the lies with the intent to prevent the lawful functioning of the electoral certification process. The crime is the unlawful intention.

Welcome to the board.  It's usually almost civil but we mud wrestle sometimes.

 

So are you a Bills fan too?  Or just 49ers?  both teams had OJ in common.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

13 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2023%2F08%2F03%2Fjack-smiths-latest-indictment-is-legally-flawed-and-politically-suspect%2F

 

 

6 Ways Jack Smith’s Latest Indictment Is Legally Flawed And Politically Shady

 

 

Not so fast morons

It's the federalist.  paddock of kavanaugh, Gorsuch and that crazy handmaids tale woman.  What do you expect?

Edited August 3, 2023 by redtail hawk

[49er Fan]

45 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Aha! So knowingly and intentionally lying to impact an election or official proceeding is a crime. You’re SURE about that? That’s the hill you want to die on? The line that can’t be crossed? Hmmmm?

That’s an oversimplification - Trump’s lies (and Jack Smith has to prove that Trump knew he was lying) are part of the evidence to prove intent of violating the criminal statutes he’s being charged with. 
 

These are Federal laws, and there’s a reason that they‘re on the books - to prevent scumbags like Trump, Giuliani, Powell, and Trump’s entire stable of cronies to not f—k with our elections. The government is alleging Trump did.  I expect similar indictments for co-conspirators 1-5 in the future.

[All_Pro_Bills]

16 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

It's the federalist.  paddock of kavanaugh, Gorsuch and that crazy handmaids tale woman.  What do you expect?

One legal problem is you've got two counts of conspiracy and two counts of obstruction but no "real" crime.  Typically, prosecutors add these charges to an indictment, and they do not constitute a standalone charge by themselves.  Looks weak.  

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

One legal problem is you've got two counts of conspiracy and two counts of obstruction but no "real" crime.  Typically, prosecutors add these charges to an indictment, and they do not constitute a standalone charge by themselves.  Looks weak.  

I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the internet.  Been listening to legal commentary however.  Seems divided on party affiliation which is shocking, I know.  Seems to me the consensus is that there is a very good case and probably a lot more damning info behind the curtain.  Barr said it was the tip of the iceberg today.

[Big Blitz]

30 seconds of brilliance - what a fantastic synopsis of what a dumpster fire this country has become thanks to Democrats. 
 

 

[SoCal Deek]

20 minutes ago, 49er Fan said:

That’s an oversimplification - Trump’s lies (and Jack Smith has to prove that Trump knew he was lying) are part of the evidence to prove intent of violating the criminal statutes he’s being charged with. 
 

These are Federal laws, and there’s a reason that they‘re on the books - to prevent scumbags like Trump, Giuliani, Powell, and Trump’s entire stable of cronies to not f—k with our elections. The government is alleging Trump did.  I expect similar indictments for co-conspirators 1-5 in the future.

But more importantly what about the 49er thing….that sort of creeps me out. 😉

[ChiGoose]

23 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

One legal problem is you've got two counts of conspiracy and two counts of obstruction but no "real" crime.  Typically, prosecutors add these charges to an indictment, and they do not constitute a standalone charge by themselves.  Looks weak.  

Conspiracy to commit crimes is a crime. Just because you don’t succeed in your end goal doesn’t mean you didn’t commit a crime by taking steps towards it. 
 

It’s not a weak case. The evidence is pretty strong. It’s not as strong as the documents case though. That’s basically the closest you can get to a sure thing for a prosecutor. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by ChiGoose

[BillStime]

27 minutes ago, 49er Fan said:

and Jack Smith has to prove that Trump knew he was lying)

thats false 

[John from Riverside]

All this talk of the indictments just hardening Trump base

 

That base was never going away. You cannot move based off of trying to change mines. At this point the sunlight is on the cockroaches are not going back under the floorboards willingly.

 

You prosecute because he committed crimes it’s doing the American people a disservice not to prosecute. Press forward Jack.

[All_Pro_Bills]

27 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Conspiracy to commit crimes is a crime. Just because you don’t succeed in your end goal doesn’t mean you didn’t commit a crime by taking steps towards it. 
 

It’s not a weak case. The evidence is pretty strong. It’s not as strong as the documents case though. That’s basically the closest you can get to a sure thing for a prosecutor. 

It's not a case of succeeding or not succeeding.  It a case of actually committing the criminal act or chargeable offense.  What criminal act or chargeable offense did Trump commit in order to conspire and obstruct?  I'll save you the response.  No matter what you might cite it should be a count in the indictment.  The current indictment contains no charge for anything.  If for example, its attempting to disrupt the electoral college certification or inciting protesters to attack the Capitol then one or both of those should be a count(s) in the indictment.  Thinking and talking about a criminal act or a chargeable crime and not committing a criminal act or chargeable offense is not a violation of the law because in the context of an act the government has no legal standing to regulate your thoughts and private conversations.  

 

I'm far from a legal expert but I've sat on Grand Juries 3 times, currently on one.  Heard maybe 150 cases across the three times presented by a prosecutor.  I don't recall a single case where the prosecutor presents a charge of conspiracy without a count in the indictment for the actual crime.  Committing 3rd degree burglary and charged with conspiracy to commit 3rd degree burglary.  Nobody's charged with conspiracy to commit 3rd degree burglary without be charged with committing 3rd degree burglary.  

Edited August 3, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[BillStime]

15 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I'm far from a legal expert

we know

[Kemp]

17 minutes ago, BillStime said:

we know

 

He once walked past a courthouse, so he knows the justice system better than anyone.

 

Except for Trump, of course.

[Tiberius]

2 hours ago, Unforgiven said:

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2023%2F08%2F03%2Fjack-smiths-latest-indictment-is-legally-flawed-and-politically-suspect%2F

 

 

6 Ways Jack Smith’s Latest Indictment Is Legally Flawed And Politically Shady

 

 

Not so fast morons

Same people that said Trump won election? 

[ChiGoose]

52 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

It's not a case of succeeding or not succeeding.  It a case of actually committing the criminal act or chargeable offense.  What criminal act or chargeable offense did Trump commit in order to conspire and obstruct?  I'll save you the response.  No matter what you might cite it should be a count in the indictment.  The current indictment contains no charge for anything.  If for example, its attempting to disrupt the electoral college certification or inciting protesters to attack the Capitol then one or both of those should be a count(s) in the indictment.  Thinking and talking about a criminal act or a chargeable crime and not committing a criminal act or chargeable offense is not a violation of the law because in the context of an act the government has no legal standing to regulate your thoughts and private conversations.  

 

I'm far from a legal expert but I've sat on Grand Juries 3 times, currently on one.  Heard maybe 150 cases across the three times presented by a prosecutor.  I don't recall a single case where the prosecutor presents a charge of conspiracy without a count in the indictment for the actual crime.  Committing 3rd degree burglary and charged with conspiracy to commit 3rd degree burglary.  Nobody's charged with conspiracy to commit 3rd degree burglary without be charged with committing 3rd degree burglary.  

People get charged with conspiracy even if they don’t get charged with another crime because requiring that the crime be done successfully in order to charge someone is dumb. 
 

(Queue Sideshow Bob: “Attempted murder. Now honestly what is that? Can you win a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?”)

 

Also, Trump was charged with a non-conspiracy charge in the indictment anyway. 
 

For people who are unfamiliar with indictments, a good place to start is to look at the specific statutes cited and what their elements are. You can only be convicted of a crime if you meet all of the elements of the crime as defined in the statute. The job of the prosecutor is to convince a jury that all of the elements are met beyond a reasonable doubt. 
 

Here, Trump was charged with violating a handful statutes, so we can check the elements of those statutes:

 

18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

 

Elements:

-Two or more persons 

-Conspire to either commit an offense against the US or to defraud the US or any agency thereof

-In any manner or for any purpose

-One or more of such persons do any effect to the object of the conspiracy

 

18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) - Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding

 

This is a bit of a catch-all that basically states that you face the same penalties for conspiring to commit any offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 as you would for actually committing one. 

 

18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), 2 - Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding

 

Elements:

-Someone corruptly either:

    -Obstructs

    -Influences

    -Impedes

-Any official proceeding

OR

-Attempts the above 

18 U.S.C. § 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights

 

Elements:

-Two or more people conspire to do any of:

   -Injure

   -Oppress

   -Threaten

   -Intimidate

-Any person in any state, territory, Commonwealth, possession, or district 

-In the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution; 

Or

-Two or more persons

-Go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another

-With intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution 

 

Edited August 4, 2023 by ChiGoose

[aristocrat]