Trump Indictment Watch

sturg33 said:
So Biden could have blocked Trump in 2016?
Click to expand...

Quite possible. As something that is not clearly defined the SCOTUS might have not knocked it down just like they might have if Pence had tried it. I know how much you love to laugh at the left's hypocrisy but the media was cheering the electors not to vote Trump in 2016. There was even a commercial with many actors pleading with the electors not to vote Trump. For some reason these people were not traitors or insurrectionists.

Here's the video. https://time.com/4603254/celebrities-electoral-college-donald-trump-video/
 
nsacpi said:
He never did. The statute on the electoral college is poorly written and the new law simply clears up potential confusion.

But this theory Eastman was promulgating had no chance even under the old statute. The whole thing has been aptly described as a crime in search of a legal theory. Eastman himself knew this and asked if he could be added to the list of people getting pardons.
Click to expand...

You're wrong.
 
nsacpi said:
He never did. The statute on the electoral college is poorly written and the new law simply clears up potential confusion.

But this theory Eastman was promulgating had no chance even under the old statute. The whole thing has been aptly described as a crime in search of a legal theory.
Click to expand...

Even if there was a legal basis, what’s the moral justification for someone in power to override the will of the people to prevent a transition of power?

I’m obviously not against election certification. That should happen, but at the state level.
 
chop2chip said:
Even if there was a legal basis, what’s the moral justification for someone in power to override the will of the people to prevent a transition of power?

I’m obviously not against election certification. That should happen, but at the state level.
Click to expand...

Yeah. In this case the legal and ethical happen to coincide.
 
Garmel said:
If there's been confirmed fraud it does make the process a little harder now. You can do it through the states.
Click to expand...
Confirmed fraud is very difficult to establish. This power should be left to the states.

You wouldn’t want Kamala Harris to have this authority if a conservative were to win an election.
 
57Brave said:
Very easily influenced are you?
You once said, " what propaganda"

Your reasons are not an excuse for not staying up to date with the most consumed current events source on the planet.

NYT also had WMD and invasion of Iraq wrong. I strongly disagrreed with their stance
Yet those days a huge majority of their reporting was spot on.

So we throw out the baby with the bath water?
Click to expand...

Yes. Why should I consume and pay for state propaganda who is consistently pushing false narratives like WMD, Russia Collusion, Russian Disinformation, and Covid nonsense?
 
Garmel said:
Quite possible. As something that is not clearly defined the SCOTUS might have not knocked it down just like they might have if Pence had tried it. I know how much you love to laugh at the left's hypocrisy but the media was cheering the electors not to vote Trump in 2016. There was even a commercial with many actors pleading with the electors not to vote Trump. For some reason these people were not traitors or insurrectionists.

Here's the video. https://time.com/4603254/celebrities-electoral-college-donald-trump-video/
Click to expand...

Oh I'm aware they claimed Trump illegitimate as they did Bush

But the elector system is how our system is supposed to work. The delegates vote how they think they should (regardless of the election vote)

I don't see why the VP should have sway on that
 
sturg33 said:
Oh I'm aware they claimed Trump illegitimate as they did Bush

But the elector system is how our system is supposed to work. The delegates vote how they think they should (regardless of the election vote)

I don't see why the VP should have sway on that
Click to expand...

In theory it was for fraud purposes.
 
nsacpi said:
One problem very poorly chosen one and his defenders will have is that they elaborated a plan and discussed it publicly before the election to declare victory even if they lost. And they executed that plan on election night. From those humble beginnings grew the criminal conspiracy to overturn an election.

He KNEW before the election they were likely to lose. His pollster (who is very good) told him he had a 10% chance of winning. This prompted the development of the plan to declare victory on election night no matter what the outcome. I think this is what set in motion this entire chain of unfortunate and criminal acts for which he is likely to spend a long time behind bars.
Click to expand...

They knew because the democrats showed their hand and you know it. Everyone knew the mail in system is ripe with fraud. They knew ballot harvesting operations that were setup. Stop pretending otherwise.
 
thethe said:
They knew because the democrats showed their hand and you know it. Everyone knew the mail in system is ripe with fraud. They knew ballot harvesting operations that were setup. Stop pretending otherwise.
Click to expand...

People who don't believe that ballot harvesting is happening I would love for them to explain why so many states are now having issues with chain of custody since 2020 when we rarely had them before.
 
Last edited:
The idea that trump asked pence to award the presidency to trump is a lie. That was never the ask.
 
Garmel said:
People who don't believe that ballot harvesting is happening I would love for them to explain why so many states are now having issues with chain of custody since 2020 when we rarely didn't have them before.
Click to expand...

Nobody even understands chain of custody. If they did they would never want the system for electing our leaders that we do now.
 
sturg33 said:
And then what? Let the next president be decided by the expiring congress?
Click to expand...

After investigation absolutely. I’m not going to rubber stamp an election that was stolen. Nobody should want they. This wasn’t just a normal election and treating it as such is a massive mistake.
 
The courts are the forum for adjudicating disputes in close elections. This happened in 2000. We have a process. Not perfect. But there is no need to delve into unconstitutional methods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top