BillsFanNC Posted September 19, 2023 Author Posted September 19, 2023 23 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The "decide not to do it" part of your hypothetical is inapplicable here since they very much were trying to do it. If you and I plan to rob a bank and then I drive you to the bank to rob it, we are both guilty of conspiracy to rob the bank (even though normally giving someone a ride to a bank isn't a crime). If you and I plan to rob a bank and then I illegally hack into the bank's security system, you would be liable for the hacking even if you didn't do it, or weren't even with me when I did it. They had a plan, they took many steps to execute the plan, but the plan failed. They can still be found guilty of the conspiracy even if it was unsuccessful. And if you plan to rob a bank with a group of people, half of which are government informants who actively assist in your plan, and when you show up at the bank the doors are locked but security opens the doors and let you in anyway, allowing you the informants and anyone else inside for a stroll in the lobby. After your stroll you walk out and go home, then none of that is your hand waving bloviating bull ***** that you like to puke on the board regularly.
The Frankish Reich Posted September 19, 2023 Posted September 19, 2023 36 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The "decide not to do it" part of your hypothetical is inapplicable here since they very much were trying to do it. If you and I plan to rob a bank and then I drive you to the bank to rob it, we are both guilty of conspiracy to rob the bank (even though normally giving someone a ride to a bank isn't a crime). Correct. Kind of shocking about how these amateur legal experts (Julie Kelly, is that you?) are completely ignorant about criminal law and the law of conspiracy. 1 1 1
ChiGoose Posted September 19, 2023 Posted September 19, 2023 1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I think people are making a lot of assumptions about what they believe and what a jury might believe given counter arguments from a defense counsel vs. a grand jury indictment where the prosecutor will tell the GJ the minimum necessary information to acquire an indictment on the charges they've submitted. Such as the bolded hypothetical below. A prosecutor might argue that I'm complicit but convincing a jury when confronted by a defense argument might not so easy. Given I had no knowledge of your actions and wasn't present when the hack occurred. Not to mention it wasn't part of "the plan". The other part is the unconstitutionality of it all. You might have a better understanding of the details around the charges than I do but I don't recall any of the charges indicating any specific article or amendment to the Constitution was violated in the indictments. One thing for sure, any convictions will be appealed. Perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court. Also not sure any of this is hurting Trump, or maybe helping Biden is a more appropriate way of looking at it. CBS news poll has Trump over Biden right now 50/49. Which seems incredible. https://www.scribd.com/document/671717605/cbsnews-20230917-SUN# There is a lower threshold for getting an indictment than a conviction, for sure. But for a lot of this stuff, the evidence is overwhelming to the point that there isn't really much of a case that the defense can make. The Mar A Lago documents case is the most slam dunk easy-to-prove case I've ever seen. The only reason someone wouldn't plead out on it would either be because they are in denial or they believe they can get rid of their liability through other means (such as becoming president and shutting down the investigation). The other charges are of varying degrees of difficulty to prove. Jack Smith seems to be narrowly tailoring his investigation against the cleanest and most forward cases he can make while Fani Willis seems to be taking more of a shotgun approach: charging everything she has evidence for. 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: Correct. Kind of shocking about how these amateur legal experts (Julie Kelly, is that you?) are completely ignorant about criminal law and the law of conspiracy. Well, if they listened to actual legal experts, they'd be told things they don't like. So they need to seek out people who have no idea what they are talking about because that's how they get the answers they want. Feelings over facts. Always. 2 1 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted September 19, 2023 Posted September 19, 2023 The actual law of criminal conspiracy: a conspiracy is distinct from the substantive crime contemplated by the conspiracy and may be charged whether or not the underlying substantive offense actually occurred. A criminal conspiracy has four elements, each of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A conspiracy exists when there is an agreement between at least two parties to achieve an illegal goal in which the parties have knowledge of and participated in the conspiracy, and at least one conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. So what about the example of a couple of morons sitting around talking about robbing a bank, and then taking a drive to the bank to case it? Yeah, if proved, a criminal conspiracy to commit bank robbery. So what if Ray Epps was a third guy in that conversation and he was actually an informant? Two responses: - unless he actually put the idea in your head to rob the bank, it really doesn't matter - given that all these Deep State MAGA Conspiracists were the core of the January 6 rioters, how naive could they be? (We are always watching you) 1
The Frankish Reich Posted September 19, 2023 Posted September 19, 2023 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: MAGA talking points, September 2023 Edition: - Make sure to point out that some of the alleged Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plotters were acquitted by a jury. The failure of those prosecutions proves that this was a trumped up (hah!) political persecution. - Make sure to point out that all January 6 defendants who have had their cases decided were found (or admitted) guilty. The success of these prosecutions proves that this is all a trumped up political persecution.
The Frankish Reich Posted September 19, 2023 Posted September 19, 2023 13 minutes ago, B-Man said: B-Man, continuing to rely on ONLY the most reliable of sources. Here's another gem from the same Twitter monkey! Apparently that salsa band, Hugo Chavez and The Venezuelans, rigged those voting machines!
BillsFanNC Posted September 19, 2023 Author Posted September 19, 2023 Again Finding Qanon with the trust the experts BS. That. Ship. Has. Sailed. With covid. Your credentials and experience mean *****. Least of all to non useful idiots among us. I wipe my ass with your credentials.
BillStime Posted September 19, 2023 Posted September 19, 2023 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: Again Finding Qanon with the trust the experts BS. That. Ship. Has. Sailed. With covid. Your credentials and experience mean *****. Least of all to non useful idiots among us. I wipe my ass with your credentials.
John from Riverside Posted October 23, 2023 Posted October 23, 2023 22 minutes ago, B-Man said: well, I’ll tell you what let’s have some of the supreme court justices start accusing them selves from cases where there is a problem and then we can start talking about this The hypocrisy of the right knows no ends
Irv Posted October 23, 2023 Posted October 23, 2023 11 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: well, I’ll tell you what let’s have some of the supreme court justices start accusing them selves from cases where there is a problem and then we can start talking about this The hypocrisy of the right knows no ends "Accusing"? "Them selves"? Are you drunk? 1
B-Man Posted October 23, 2023 Posted October 23, 2023 1 hour ago, Irv said: "Accusing"? "Them selves"? Are you drunk? John meant recusing obviously. But his comparison is flawed. Unlike this obvious Wisconsin case, The outraged left still cannot even hint at any time Justice Thomas made a ruling that wasn't completely in line with his constitutional standard hell, they don't even try !! It's all, planeride this and vacation that. I have given up asking them for some actual proof of him being influenced, they can't and won't. . 1
ChiGoose Posted October 23, 2023 Posted October 23, 2023 2 hours ago, B-Man said: A better solution would be to not elect judges because electing judges is one of the stupidest things this country does. And that’s saying a lot. 1
Tommy Callahan Posted January 9 Posted January 9 4 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Some banana republic *****. but the mob doesn't care. they only see Red. (Orange actually)
The Frankish Reich Posted January 9 Posted January 9 I actually listened to the oral argument. The judges did what appellate judges do - they ask questions aimed at poking holes in an argument, and it's fair to say that Trump's attorney had no good answer to some of their questions.
BillsFanNC Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 ⬆️ Hey its Finding Qanon! Yep zero ***** given about anything it's saying. 1
Recommended Posts