Trump Indictment Watch

[Garmel]

That's why he's not going to testify. Or call up any of his expert sources like Mr. Pillow. Cuz they literally have nothing.

The cost of rent in alternative reality land can get expensive.

You and 57 prove another old adage

There's no fool like an old fool.

[thethe]

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 10 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE 2 - OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED OFFENSES
§ 16-10-20 - False statements and writings, concealment of facts, and fraudulent documents in matters within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions
O.C.G.A. 16-10-20 (2010)
16-10-20. False statements and writings, concealment of facts, and fraudulent documents in matters within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions


A person who knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of state government or of the government of any county, city, or other political subdivision of this state shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both.

I look forward to litigating the idea that the ovearching claim of the election being stolen. I can't wait to hear the prosecutions support for a fully secure election because I know that the defense has volumes of information to prove their case.

Saying - The election is secure because judges threw out a bunch of cases based on standing won't cut it and you know it.

[Garmel]

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 10 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE 2 - OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED OFFENSES
§ 16-10-20 - False statements and writings, concealment of facts, and fraudulent documents in matters within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions
O.C.G.A. 16-10-20 (2010)
16-10-20. False statements and writings, concealment of facts, and fraudulent documents in matters within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions


A person who knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of state government or of the government of any county, city, or other political subdivision of this state shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both.

Which doesn't take away from what Striker and me have said here. Thanks for playing.

[thethe]

Which doesn't take away from what Striker and me have told said here. Thanks for playing.

Its going to be hard for him when all of this goes away in a puff of smoke.

[Garmel]

Its going to be hard for him when all of this goes away in a puff of smoke.

He'll disappear and Cajun will lie and distort. It's what both of them do.

[thethe]

Claim: Trump lied about the election being stolen

Counterargument: Can you show us the election wasn't stolen?

"Well we recounted ballots!"

"Ok, did you do any existence testing to ensure legal voters that intended to vote?"

"NO WHY WOULD WE DO THAT! WE RECOUNTED!!!!"

"Here is an auditing 101 book for you to brush up on."

[striker42]

I'm not a lawyer but from reading some of the analysis of the case, this part of the Georgia Code seems destined to play a large role in the trial.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia...20subdivisions

My layman's reading is that in Georgia it is illegal to lie or disseminate false information to a public official about any matter within that official's purview. It is a rather broad law. Broader than its federal counterpart that criminalizes making false statements to federal officials.

When very poorly chosen one produces his report on Monday on how the election in Georgia was rigged, he will be within his first amendment rights. However, before he transmits that report to any Georgia legislator or state or local official involved in conducting elections and enforcing election laws he should carefully listen to what his lawyers have to say.

Problem with that statute you reference is you have a scienter requirement. The defendant has to knowingly and willfully convey the false information to the public official. If you believe what you're saying is true then you're not conveying false information knowingly.

You can think Trump doesn't believe a word he says. The problem is that's not enough. You have to prove he doesn't believe it and that's much harder to do. You see statutes like that used more for people who lie on a form they submit. So if you falsify income data to get government benefits then that's something that's pretty easy to prove. Wild accusations of misconduct? That's harder to show that someone knows what they're saying is false.

[Garmel]

Problem with that statute you reference is you have a scienter requirement. The defendant has to knowingly and willfully convey the false information to the public official. If you believe what you're saying is true then you're not conveying false information knowingly.

You can think Trump doesn't believe a word he says. The problem is that's not enough. You have to prove he doesn't believe it and that's much harder to do. You see statutes like that used more for people who lie on a form they submit. So if you falsify income data to get government benefits then that's something that's pretty easy to prove. Wild accusations of misconduct? That's harder to show that someone knows what they're saying is false.

Thank you.

[cajunrevenge]

It's the same old adage we've seen over and over again.

"Our elections are secure and election deniers are conspiracy theorists."

"Can we audit to make sure?"

"No! We'll take you to court to stop you!"

"WTF?"

This was the most investigated election in US history. We even had people checking for ****ing bamboo fibers on ballots but it's never enough with you people. Most the people saying no were Republicans who voted for Trump. Almost all these states had Republican legislatures that could order any kind of inspection they wanted. But no, they were just secret agents who spent their whole lives undercover as a Republican just so they can prevent Donald Trump from finding voter fraud. Meanwhile simply doing a recount in one state that had no chance to change the outcome in that state or overall was off limits according to Trump when he won.

[thethe]

This was the most investigated election in US history. We even had people checking for ****ing bamboo fibers on ballots but it's never enough with you people. Most the people saying no were Republicans who voted for Trump. Almost all these states had Republican legislatures that could order any kind of inspection they wanted. But no, they were just secret agents who spent their whole lives undercover as a Republican just so they can prevent Donald Trump from finding voter fraud. Meanwhile simply doing a recount in one state that had no chance to change the outcome in that state or overall was off limits according to Trump when he won.

It was also the election with the most efforts to prevent inspection.

[cajunrevenge]

Problem with that statute you reference is you have a scienter requirement. The defendant has to knowingly and willfully convey the false information to the public official. If you believe what you're saying is true then you're not conveying false information knowingly.

You can think Trump doesn't believe a word he says. The problem is that's not enough. You have to prove he doesn't believe it and that's much harder to do. You see statutes like that used more for people who lie on a form they submit. So if you falsify income data to get government benefits then that's something that's pretty easy to prove. Wild accusations of misconduct? That's harder to show that someone knows what they're saying is false.

I am not sure "My client is a delusional narcissist who is incapable of accepting he lost" is a defense that's going to work.

[thethe]

I am not sure "My client is a delusional narcissist who is incapable of accepting he lost" is a defense that's going to work.

Its not on the defense to defend that.

Its on the prosecution to prove the defendant KNOWINGLY lied.

[Garmel]

Its not on the defense to defend that.

Its on the prosecution to prove the defendant KNOWINGLY lied.

This concept seems to be hard for some people.

[thethe]

This concept seems to be hard for some people.

Because when you're a raving lunatic that revolves their life on 'GETTING TRUMP' you lose out on nuance and facts.

[cajunrevenge]

It was also the election with the most efforts to prevent inspection.

When you keep asking for more when you don't get the answer you want its always going to end with someone saying no. Republicans have states they have a super majority in the state legislature and still didn't go to the depths of inspection you demand. When your first 100 claims are proven to be hoaxes you don't get another 100. At some point people tell you to sit down and stfu. We didn't get the level of investigation with Trump regarding Russia we wanted but we accepted Trump didn't directly collude with Russia

[sturg33]

The best defense Trump could make that the election was stolen is that he willfully signed the CARES ACT which enabled the election to be stolen

[thethe]

The best defense Trump could make that the election was stolen is that he willfully signed the CARES ACT which enabled the election to be stolen

The cope is going to get worse and worse isn't it.

Long TDS is the worst kind of TDS.

[cajunrevenge]

Its not on the defense to defend that.

Its on the prosecution to prove the defendant KNOWINGLY lied.

I agree. That's why we have the trial. The Jack Smith investigation is providing a lot of evidence for this part. There evidence this plan was in place well before voting even started. Nothing says I truly believe there's voter fraud like hatching a plan to use voter fraud claims to justify overturning an election before the alleged voter fraud even took place.

[thethe]

When you keep asking for more when you don't get the answer you want its always going to end with someone saying no. Republicans have states they have a super majority in the state legislature and still didn't go to the depths of inspection you demand. When your first 100 claims are proven to be hoaxes you don't get another 100. At some point people tell you to sit down and stfu. We didn't get the level of investigation with Trump regarding Russia we wanted but we accepted Trump didn't directly collude with Russia

Which hoaxes were proven to be false and who determined they were?

Please show me court cases because then I'll show those court cases weren't decided on the merits.

[thethe]

I agree. That's why we have the trial. The Jack Smith investigation is providing a lot of evidence for this part. There evidence this plan was in place well before voting even started. Nothing says I truly believe there's voter fraud like hatching a plan to use voter fraud claims to justify overturning an election before the alleged voter fraud even took place.

No - There is no evidence. They got some members of the campaign to say they didn't believe the election was stolen. More opinions because we were never allowed to truly inspect.

Its going to get laughed out of court which is why the left is going to try to hide the proceedings.