Georgia Fani and her LIES

While you may be a tad bit biased, you're far better qualified to comment on Fani Willis' prosecution than anyone posting here. This place will be more interesting with you here with the court cases going on. Please don't get banned again.

And Salty's got some good points, about Perdue and Loeffler for example. You and I may believe they're horses asses for asking Raffensperger to resign, but I don't believe Willis should have presented them for indictment. Salty is however sadly mistaken about election fraud in 2020 in Georgia and in general. Originally Posted by Tiny

I’m sure I’ll be banned eventually. Our moderators are, how can I say, biased is too nice a word. I got 5 points for this post - https://eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1...post1063219042 I’ve seen far worse from others here a the mods have nothing to say about those people’s posts. Anyway it is what it is. And I’ve already been warned not to post on subjects addressed by the court because in some tertiary way they touch on forbidden topics. Even though I’m sure that we all understand that forbidden topics should be avoided in accusing members and whores, who thought it couldn’t be discussed in politics unrelated to either a member or a whore.

Now, as for the subject of this thread, Fani decided to not indict around 20 people, regardless of whether they were listed by the grand jury as having contributed to the crimes. I suspect that the pressure campaign to overturn the GA election, which included many people including Purdue and Loeffler, appeared to the grand jury as tools to achieve a greater goal of getting the legislature in a position to act, which Raffensburger was a roadblock to. Salty’s points are wrong, as are anyone that fails to understand how a RICO works, or that there’s a predicate illegal act, which was butressed by several seemingly unrelated disparate acts. But taken as a whole, even trying to pressure a govt official to resign so that the person that’d step in can take the action to further the crime is a part of the criminal acts.

Nonetheless, Fani appears to have charged the right people and we’ll see what a jury thinks in some short months from now.

I’m sure I’ll be banned eventually. Our moderators are, how can I say, biased is too nice a word. I got 5 points for this post - https://eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1...post1063219042 I’ve seen far worse from others here a the mods have nothing to say about those people’s posts. Anyway it is what it is. And I’ve already been warned not to post on subjects addressed by the court because in some tertiary way they touch on forbidden topics. Even though I’m sure that we all understand that forbidden topics should be avoided in accusing members and whores, who thought it couldn’t be discussed in politics unrelated to either a member or a whore.

Now, as for the subject of this thread, Fani decided to not indict around 20 people, regardless of whether they were listed by the grand jury as having contributed to the crimes. I suspect that the pressure campaign to overturn the GA election, which included many people including Purdue and Loeffler, appeared to the grand jury as tools to achieve a greater goal of getting the legislature in a position to act, which Raffensburger was a roadblock to. Salty’s points are wrong, as are anyone that fails to understand how a RICO works, or that there’s a predicate illegal act, which was butressed by several seemingly unrelated disparate acts. But taken as a whole, even trying to pressure a govt official to resign so that the person that’d step in can take the action to further the crime is a part of the criminal acts.

Nonetheless, Fani appears to have charged the right people and we’ll see what a jury thinks in some short months from now. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

From the little I know about RICO statutes, they must be a prosecutor's wet dream for pursuing cases like this. I can see the wisdom in tying disparate actions together, which by themselves may not be illegal, to show a crime.

I wonder about people down the ladder getting unjustly prosecuted or incarcerated. Yeah, if Willis were prosecuting a Mafia family, it would make sense to be able to prosecute the lieutenants for participation in the enterprise, even if you couldn't convict them for individual crimes. I wonder if it makes sense for some of the people Willis indicted though. Salty came up with three good examples, although admittedly Willis chose not to prosecute them even though the grand jury recommended it. Anyway, I suspect some of these people shouldn't be treated like mob capos.

Btw, what I was trying to say earlier was that something like "sadly mistaken" goes over better with the moderators than "lying." And is more accurate, as I don't believe our fellow board members are intentionally trying to mislead. More often they've been misled themselves or perhaps there's some truth in what they're saying.

Mislead, misinformed, etc when willful stops being misled, ill informed at some point. That’s the problem with not just politics today but pretty much everything. We allow people to be and stay ignorant to truth and they choose to be and stay ignorant because it’s easier than accepting that they are wrong and propagating wrong information.

I’m all for disageement. But we need to operate from some basic provable facts and we can disagree all we want as to what they mean or what the implication of them are. I had this discussion many times with Hedonist, who was another that couldn’t accept facts. When you start believing bullshit and calling it true because it supports your view you’re quickly on the path to just being a liar.

A simple fact is something like, 2020 didn’t have any significant fraud that would change the results of the election. How do I know it’s a fact, because experts with credibility on both sides after months and in some cases years of investigation showed no fraud occurred that would have mattered. Now to have someone keep repeating “there was fraud and Trump won” is them lying. They have no proof to support in any way that makes sense their supposition. For them to point to disproven videos and wacky internet sites or for them to just say “but it’s so because I believe it” is them spreading lies based on their willful ignorance.

Sadly people on here are proudly ignorant or deliberately ill informed or whatever term we can come up with to be politically correct in a forum that allows racism without any check but doesn’t want people called dumb. Just think about that.

From the little I know about RICO statutes, they must be a prosecutor's wet dream for pursuing cases like this. I can see the wisdom in tying disparate actions together, which by themselves may not be illegal, to show a crime.

I wonder about people down the ladder getting unjustly prosecuted or incarcerated. Yeah, if Willis were prosecuting a Mafia family, it would make sense to be able to prosecute the lieutenants for participation in the enterprise, even if you couldn't convict them for individual crimes. I wonder if it makes sense for some of the people Willis indicted though. Salty came up with three good examples, although admittedly Willis chose not to prosecute them even though the grand jury recommended it. Anyway, I suspect some of these people shouldn't be treated like mob capos.
. Originally Posted by Tiny

How about - don’t take part in a criminal enterprise. It’s easily avoidable. I’ve gone 50 years without doing it. No one in the 250 years of our republic has failed to turn over the keys to govt after a loss until this shit for brains, because he couldn’t accept a loss. On top of that, everyone he called jumped on board against the advice of lawyers and judges and pretty much everyone with sense to somehow help him. Then they get indignant when indicted for taking part in what pretty much everyone knew was an illegal scheme cooked up by some wacky crackpot hacks.

This came as a surprise to no one that they’d be indicted and possibly face a conviction.

Easy advice. If someone calls you to take part in a scheme that feels like it might be unlawful, say no. If you really wanna do it regardless of your gut, call a lawyer and see what they tell ya. If the first one tells you to go for it, call another and see if he shares that opinion. If any lawyer tells you that it could result in your indictment - don’t do it.

How about - don’t take part in a criminal enterprise. It’s easily avoidable. I’ve gone 50 years without doing it. No one in the 250 years of our republic has failed to turn over the keys to govt after a loss until this shit for brains, because he couldn’t accept a loss. On top of that, everyone he called jumped on board against the advice of lawyers and judges and pretty much everyone with sense to somehow help him. Then they get indignant when indicted for taking part in what pretty much everyone knew was an illegal scheme cooked up by some wacky crackpot hacks.

This came as a surprise to no one that they’d be indicted and possibly face a conviction.

Easy advice. If someone calls you to take part in a scheme that feels like it might be unlawful, say no. If you really wanna do it regardless of your gut, call a lawyer and see what they tell ya. If the first one tells you to go for it, call another and see if he shares that opinion. If any lawyer tells you that it could result in your indictment - don’t do it. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for the reply.

You don't think it came as a surprise to the attorneys who participated in this that "they'd be indicted and possibly face a conviction?" I'm not counting Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, who are either bat shit crazy or stupid. But how about John Eastman and the rest?

Common sense tells me that Eastman must have known coming up with alternate slates of electors, and instructing Pence to gavel Trump as the winner, was wrong. But did he believe offering that advice to Trump was not a violation of the law? Would that be because he believed the Constitution supported his position? Or are attorneys generally allowed to go out on a limb in the advice they offer to clients and not worry about getting prosecuted themselves?

Eastman went to the University of Chicago law school, clerked for J. Michael Luttig and Clarence Thomas, and taught Constitutional Law. Presumably he's no slouch.

I'm not saying he was right. The opposite. The whole idea of stealing an election was nutty. My practical exposure to law is mostly through taxes, the Internal Revenue Code and the like. And from that, I know that common sense and fairness often have no relationship to laws and regulations. So wonder if Eastman had some basis to believe what he was doing was legal. And if that was the case for other attorneys who helped Trump in the aftermath of the election and who were subsequently indicted.

The other side of the coin, if they did know it was illegal, had they drunk the Kool Aid and believed America without Trump would be a disaster? Or were they willing to take the risk to further their careers? The latter maybe makes sense for Jeffrey Clark, who was going to be appointed Attorney General. But not for the rest.

Ok, let’s assume someone comes in and says, I killed my wife and now her body is in my living room, lawyer what do I do. As advice I tell him meticulously how to get rid of the body and evidence in order to avoid being caught and prosecuted.

Is that good legal advice or aiding in committing a crime. Eastman Chessbourough and co, appear to argue that it’s just Legal advice. They didn’t hide the body nor did they hide any evidence. They just kinda theoretically stated how it’d be done.

Now, Lawyer after these theoretical discussions actually sees client implementing acts, buying tools, calling people to create an alibi, getting bleach and cleaning supplies, etc. they even provide some additional advice along the way and have conversations with alibi witnesses to make sure they provide a workable story.

Again, Eastman and co claim “didn’t kill anyone and didn’t hide any evidence”. Yes, a lawyer can provide some shady unethical and likely borderline criminal advice. I wouldn’t but hey that’s for each individual. But when the advice gets out of the realm of advice and into the realm of promoting action or getting involved in the action, I’ve no doubt it’ll be looked at as criminal. Ask many a convicted mob lawyer whether advice alone will get you jailed they say no. But when they become compatriot in the activity they go to jail.

Eastman and Chessbro might get off but they are gonna have to go to court and fight the charges, which are legitimate.

Ok, let’s assume someone comes in and says, I killed my wife and now her body is in my living room, lawyer what do I do. As advice I tell him meticulously how to get rid of the body and evidence in order to avoid being caught and prosecuted.

Is that good legal advice or aiding in committing a crime. Eastman Chessbourough and co, appear to argue that it’s just Legal advice. They didn’t hide the body nor did they hide any evidence. They just kinda theoretically stated how it’d be done.

Now, Lawyer after these theoretical discussions actually sees client implementing acts, buying tools, calling people to create an alibi, getting bleach and cleaning supplies, etc. they even provide some additional advice along the way and have conversations with alibi witnesses to make sure they provide a workable story.

Again, Eastman and co claim “didn’t kill anyone and didn’t hide any evidence”. Yes, a lawyer can provide some shady unethical and likely borderline criminal advice. I wouldn’t but hey that’s for each individual. But when the advice gets out of the realm of advice and into the realm of promoting action or getting involved in the action, I’ve no doubt it’ll be looked at as criminal. Ask many a convicted mob lawyer whether advice alone will get you jailed they say no. But when they become compatriot in the activity they go to jail.

Eastman and Chessbro might get off but they are gonna have to go to court and fight the charges, which are legitimate. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Excellent explanation, thanks