2024 Field
- Thread starter Jaw
- Start date
The line that was crossed? Eastman has legal scholars testifying at his disbarment what Trump and his lawyers did was legal. Dems have been doing the same thing every time a republican has won the presidency over the last couple of decades. Even Dershowitz the famous lawyer said he was working with Gore to do the exact same thing in 2000. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dershowitz-slams-trump-georgia-indictment
Yes, he wanted a pardon because we all know the dems love lawfare.
You noticed how when Pence said no they didn't go any further with it? They were following the law or what they believed was the law.
Last edited:
Perhaps you should have read the Dershowitz article that I posted above.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
They use just the dumbest logic. Eastman knew the Democrats were going to "weaponize law enforcement to go after him". What a croc of **** that is. Just a never ending set of bad excuses by these people. The conditions they throw on every damn thing in order for anything to be evidence against Trump. Needs to be something they personally witnessed, need to have been a Trump supporter from day 1, cant have ever been in the same state as Hillary Clinton, needs to have never publicly supported a war, needs to have 4k quality video and audio proof of Trump doing it, needs to continue to say good things about Trump even after Trump attacks them, needs to have not be an ex-employee of Trumps. We cant listen to his VP, both his AG's, his lawyers, national security director, Secretary of defense, multiple chiefs of staff, his niece etc. All of them, just out to get Trump for some reason.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Dershowitz is a clown and a good buddy of our old pal Epstein. Democrats absolutely did not do what Trump did. Gore conceded after he lost the legal battle even though he still believed he had won. Show me where any Democrat tried to strongarm states into committing election fraud to flip the outcome. The best you got is some Democrat on twatter named AssBlaster5000 suggesting someone do something. Which is totally the same thing as calling up secretaries of state and trying to intimidate them into changing the results.
lol. Yeah, we have no history of dems abusing the law to go after others. Many people may not agree with Trump's decision but many legal scholars say it's legal.
Yeah, one of the biggest lawyers of our time is a clown. lol. Show you? Lol. You are so uninformed it's amazing. Do a search, bud because I'm tired of giving you evidence to what I'm saying just for you to ignore it. We've had dems have their alternate electors right there in the capital.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
And the whole right wanted to weaponize law enforcement to go after Hillary in 2016. Trump spent the whole 2020 race demanding Biden not be allowed to run and pressuring Republicans to weaponize law enforcement to go after Biden. Out of the 1000s of legal scholars you could find one or two who believe just about anything. Trump has been pro-weaponization of law enforcement his entire political career. He is the farthest thing from a victim as it can get.
Here comes the misdirection without facts. There are a lot more than 1 or 2 but believe what you want to believe.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
They are not comparable situations. You just ignore any context you dont like. Alternate electors were used when the elections were so close that there was a real chance the outcome would change depending on recounts. There was no path to victory for Trump when he did it. He even tried to get his VP to recognize his fake electors because he is incapable of believing he lost. The Hawaii electors had no relevance on the election in the first place. If everything was reversed about the 2020 elections and it was say a President Hillary trying to overthow a Trump win in 2020 you people would have lost your **** about it. You arent uninformed you are ignorant. You have decided who you want to support and work backwards. I am convinced there is no amount of evidence of any crime Trump committed that would make you admit reality. There is a legitimate argument to make for Trump regarding the election. I disagree with it but it is a legally complicated issue. The other ones are not. They are as open and shut as shooting someone in the middle of main street full of witnesses and on video. Stop being a stooge for a man you claim you dont even support.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You are the one who refuses to even set goal posts. If he wins in court its proof you are right. If he loses in court its proof of nothing. No one can be a witness against Trump because everyones out to get him. He can just ignore subpoenas because he feels like it. He can steal national security documents because of a law that was specifically designed to prevent that ****. A never ending trail of excuses for why you are proven wrong.
Once again you have zero clue to what you're talking about. You really need to read the Electoral Act of 1877 where this statute comes from. There is vagueness there that an be interpreted in several ways. Perhaps reading instead of parroting MSM talking points would do you some good.
Last edited:
I've shown you the statutes that show Trump didn't steal anything and they are his. I've shown you that the DOJ didn't follow the correct procedure. You don't respond to facts but just follow narratives.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
It can be interpreted many ways in the sense that "go **** yourself" could be interpreted as a greeting. The VP has no ability to do anything but count the votes certified by the state.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
All you have done is regurgitate what you hear from the Teflon Don. You cant explain why Trump chose to hide the documents and take illegal actions to evade a subpoena instead of taking legal action saying he had the documents and had the right to keep them. He could have done that at any time but instead lied about having them and even hid them from his own lawyers forcing them to lie on an affidavit. The dudes filed hundreds of frivolous lawsuits that get laughed out of court but all of a sudden he cant file anything related to these documents. Theres only one excuse and thats he knew he would lose. There is nothing in any law that says you get to arbitrarily decide if the DoJ followed proper procedure in a subpoena. Theres a place to make that argument and its a court of law. Trump chose not to file a lawsuit to get an injunction based off your claim. If he thinks he has a legitimate right to these documents he sure didnt act like it.
I find it fascinating that you actually think Trump said this.
The conversation in question here was something he ended up being right on. I'll let you do the research to find out.