If the same evidence was presented to an impartial jury, Trump would be convicted.Maybe if his lawyer slept through the trial. Any first year law student would crush a case where their evidence was footage of the event.
There was fraud, it was just not the massive fraud that Guiliani and Powell said they had no different than Schiff telling us he had evidence of a Trump/ Russia collusion which he never had either.‘But the Democrats’
] Originally Posted by HedonistForever
While I agree in general with what you said, I think there were a few trials where the judge did look at what was presented and decided that coming into court with 100 examples of fraud in an election decided by 80,000 votes was not worth having. In all most all cases, I believe, I could be wrong, judges looked at some evidence and decided there wasn't enough to overturn the vote.I happen to agree with your statements. Was there fraud? No evidence was brought forward at any level that could be substantiated. Did Trump at anytime tell the protesters to go and illegally enter the Capitol building and threaten several people (Pence and Pelosi to name two). No. But there was every reason to see what was going to happen and, as you said, Trump did nothing to stop it.
That is not to say there wasn't evidence of dead people voting and more absentee ballots coming back that were never sent out but that in not one case did the evidence prove that the number for Biden could be whittled down to a win for Trump.
I believe there was fraud but at no time did Trump's lawyers go into court with the proof they needed to over turn even one state election.
Now was that because the evidence was well hidden or that Democrats prevented access to such evidence? I do not know but what I am sure of is that Trump's attorneys failed to make the case for "massive voter fraud" that would have altered the election in Trump's favor.
Maybe they cheated maybe they didn't but under our judicial system, you either have the evidence or you don't and saying "they wouldn't allow me to get the evidence I needed" will never be sufficient without the proof that they did so.
I said from day one that I supported Trump's right to challenge every single state if he wanted to and he tried 62 times, losing 61 cases. When the SC failed to review for reasons I didn't like, I was done with the election. There was no where else to go and I had to accept, reluctantly, that the contest was over and Trump continuing to say he won and he had proof, was a lie. It may have existed somewhere, but he didn't have it. End of story.
It was pointed out today that a better case for the prosecution, rather than Trump incited the violence which is loaded with reasonable doubt IMHO, there is no doubt what soever that after seeing the first rioters breaking in, he could have told them to stop, he didn't. So while he might reasonably argue he didn't tell them to start the riot, he didn't in a timely manner, tell them to stop and I have to find fault in that.
I still think it is un-Constitutional to try a private citizen and I would love to see the DOJ try and prosecute Trump on a federal charge of inciting an insurrection and see how the courts would handle it.
I also believe that Trump might very well lose a court fight in Georgia of trying to interfere in a federal election. I think they have all the evidence they need to find him guilty of that charge.
You guys might just get your pound of flesh one way or the other. Originally Posted by HedonistForever
The amazing thing? Despite their massive, year-long multi-thronged assault, it still took trucks pulling up in the middle of the night to dump hundreds of thousands of ballots into the Zuckerberg-funded and staffed election tabulation centers to defeat Trump. On Election Day Originally Posted by HedonistForeverLet me translate...Biden held a huge lead in early voting. No suprise. His voters were less inclined to be jammed into voting lines on voting day. So yes his ballots came in later , except in states like FLORIDA which had counted most of the preelection votes.
Interesting theory...any evidence whatsoever to support it? Originally Posted by pfunkdenverFrom Bloomberg:
From Bloomberg:Interesting. I'm not surprised that lawyers would denigrate lawyers representing trump. Everybody has a viewpoint. Any evidence of threats of disbarment? Any evidence of harassment? (not public berating - which is perfectly legal).
Another reason for good lawyers remaining on the sidelines is the pressure being applied to law firms by interest groups such as the Lincoln Project, said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional-law professor at George Washington University Law School. Just days after the election was called for Biden, elite law firms such as Jones Day were being publicly berated for filing election challenges on behalf of Trump.
“The harassment and doxing of lawyers has been unprecedented,” Turley said. “What’s most concerning is that groups like the Lincoln Project have been funded heavily by lawyers who have supported the targeting of bar members for representing the president. It will be difficult for the president to assemble the legal team because of that intimidating environment.”
There are other similar news stories out there.. Originally Posted by gnadfly
I happen to agree with your statements. Was there fraud? No evidence was brought forward at any level that could be substantiated. Did Trump at anytime tell the protesters to go and illegally enter the Capitol building and threaten several people (Pence and Pelosi to name two). No. But there was every reason to see what was going to happen and, as you said, Trump did nothing to stop it.
I also agree that Trump is in deep shit regarding his phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
Barr said federal prosecutors and the FBI had reviewed specific complaints, but they have uncovered no evidence that would change the outcome of the election.That is not the same as "we found no examples of fraud". Why would a judge move forward when the preliminary evidence, even if proven, wouldn't change the election?
“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the AP, even as Trump continued to pursue legal challenges to an election he has yet to concede to President-elect Joe Biden.
"Their evidence is footage of the event", true and accurate. If the same evidence was presented to an impartial jury, Trump would be convicted. Thing is, the jury in this case is not impartial. He'll get off and it doesn't matter much, other than the example made to our kids. O. J. got off as well, then screwed up again. Same thing likely to happen here, He'll make the Boys Proud and cripple the Republicans. Originally Posted by reddog1951