Death Penalty for Trump?

[WrestlingRasta]

16 minutes ago, mspart said:

1.  Delete video.

2.  Smash cell phones, bleach bit hard drives, have secret documents on a server where they didn't belong and do all the actions before to obscure any evidence of wrong doing.  

 

1.   Indicted.

2.  No cause for concern here.  No reasonable prosecutor would take this case.  

mspart

I think maybe you left out a few allegations on your ‘list’ for #1, no?

[mspart]

1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I think maybe you left out a few allegations on your ‘list’ for #1, no?

Maybe - The point was to show that there is a two tier justice system.    Hillary did all kinds of crooked stuff that is documented.   But no reasonable prosecutor would take the case said the guy with the responsibility to gather evidence, not prosecute.   Trump has 3 indictments already so questioning details is silly in my mind.   They indicted him for speaking his mind.   That is unconstitutional.   Period.   Who cares what else he was indicted for?  As I showed with posts from Jonathan Turley, this is huge.    Your words can send you to jail if this carries the day.    But if you are of the right persuasion you can bleach bit evidence and smash evidence and no reasonable prosecutor would take your case. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

24 minutes ago, mspart said:

Maybe - The point was to show that there is a two tier justice system.    Hillary did all kinds of crooked stuff that is documented.   But no reasonable prosecutor would take the case said the guy with the responsibility to gather evidence, not prosecute.   Trump has 3 indictments already so questioning details is silly in my mind.   They indicted him for speaking his mind.   That is unconstitutional.   Period.   Who cares what else he was indicted for?  As I showed with posts from Jonathan Turley, this is huge.    Your words can send you to jail if this carries the day.    But if you are of the right persuasion you can bleach bit evidence and smash evidence and no reasonable prosecutor would take your case. 

mspart

Didn’t bother to read the indictment at all either did you? 

[Ban Basketball]

If it's genuinely a First Amendment case and violation thereof, I think that we can all rest assured that a Federal judge will step in immediately to have the indictment and charges thrown out.

[Plasmodium]

Pa

1 hour ago, mspart said:

Maybe - The point was to show that there is a two tier justice system.    Hillary did all kinds of crooked stuff that is documented.   But no reasonable prosecutor would take the case said the guy with the responsibility to gather evidence, not prosecute.   Trump has 3 indictments already so questioning details is silly in my mind.   They indicted him for speaking his mind.   That is unconstitutional.   Period.   Who cares what else he was indicted for?  As I showed with posts from Jonathan Turley, this is huge.    Your words can send you to jail if this carries the day.    But if you are of the right persuasion you can bleach bit evidence and smash evidence and no reasonable prosecutor would take your case. 

mspart

Who is Jonathan Turley?

[WrestlingRasta]

He is a known Constitutional attorney, also a known strong partisan. He helped push the rigged voting machines stuff. 

[Ban Basketball]

See below.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Ban Basketball

[Ban Basketball]

13 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

He is a known Constitutional attorney, also a known strong partisan. He helped push the rigged voting machines stuff. 

I'm old enough to remember when Turley was seen as the worst SOB in the land on AM radio and Tattletale News, due to his incessant questioning and criticism of George W. Bush's anti-terrorism efforts, among other things.

Goes to show how money can turn your "principles" around pretty quickly.

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

Maybe - The point was to show that there is a two tier justice system.    Hillary did all kinds of crooked stuff that is documented.   But no reasonable prosecutor would take the case said the guy with the responsibility to gather evidence, not prosecute.   Trump has 3 indictments already so questioning details is silly in my mind.   They indicted him for speaking his mind.   That is unconstitutional.   Period.   Who cares what else he was indicted for?  As I showed with posts from Jonathan Turley, this is huge.    Your words can send you to jail if this carries the day.    But if you are of the right persuasion you can bleach bit evidence and smash evidence and no reasonable prosecutor would take your case. 

mspart

Your words have always been able to send you to jail. It is at the heart of the legal concept of conspiracy.

[mspart]

If you read the quotes I posted, Turley says he was one of those that told Trump not to try to discount authorized electoral votes.  But Trump did anyway.   Turley still finds problems with the indictment such as what I provided, based on what he provided.

JONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, ‘No, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.’ Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment. The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, (Jack) Smith does a 180 and says, ‘But not here because Trump was told it was a lie.’ Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case.

As I said and as Turley asserts, this is chilling for Free Speech as you can be thrown in the pokey for saying something not acceptable to someone in the federal government. 

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley warned the latest indictment of former President Donald Trump has "chilling" implications for free speech in America

Is Biden going to be held to the same standard.   It is all but fully admitted that he lied about not having anything to do with Hunter's businesses.   Now the line is he was not in business with Hunter.   That is very different.   Will Jack Smith hold him accountable?   No.  Should he?  No, as Turley points out.

mspart

[mspart]

6 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Your words have always been able to send you to jail. It is at the heart of the legal concept of conspiracy.

Then look at what Turley said and explain why he is wrong. 

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

If you read the quotes I posted, Turley says he was one of those that told Trump not to try to discount authorized electoral votes.  But Trump did anyway.   Turley still finds problems with the indictment such as what I provided, based on what he provided.

JONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, ‘No, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.’ Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment. The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, (Jack) Smith does a 180 and says, ‘But not here because Trump was told it was a lie.’ Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case.

As I said and as Turley asserts, this is chilling for Free Speech as you can be thrown in the pokey for saying something not acceptable to someone in the federal government. 

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley warned the latest indictment of former President Donald Trump has "chilling" implications for free speech in America

Is Biden going to be held to the same standard.   It is all but fully admitted that he lied about not having anything to do with Hunter's businesses.   Now the line is he was not in business with Hunter.   That is very different.   Will Jack Smith hold him accountable?   No.  Should he?  No, as Turley points out.

mspart

In that statement by Turley, why does he not speak to the actions by Trump, and not the speech, from Nov-Jan?  Why does he emphasize the free speech ‘aspect’, when the charges and supporting evidence are for actions? 

And I’ll ask again, did you read all of the indictment? 

[mspart]

I have not read the whole indictment.   Does that change anything I reported Turley to have said??

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

I have not read the whole indictment.   Does that change anything I reported Turley to have said??

mspart

What you said and what Turley said are different. Turley said it is legal to lie. You said if this case succeeds then your words can get you convicted. Your words have always and everywhere been able to send you to jail. It is why wiretaps and other recordings are such compelling evidence.

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

I have not read the whole indictment.   Does that change anything I reported Turley to have said??

mspart

I think I covered what you’re getting at  in the paragraph above that question. 

And yes, when you admittingly haven’t read it but instead are arguing what someone else told you to think about it, it changes my perspective when listening to you. 

[mspart]

WKN, you are missing the point of what Turley said.   Turley said it was legal to lie.   If Trump is convicted and it stands, then it is no longer legal to lie.  It changes everything.   That's Turley's point and what I am saying here.   I am not for lying, I am for equal protection under the law. 

2 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

And yes, when you admittingly haven’t read it but instead are arguing what someone else told you to think about it, it changes my perspective when listening to you. 

Wonderful.   Again, how does this make any difference to what is being said.   I don't have time to read legal documents in my spare time.   I will go to trusted sources, whether you trust them or not, and try to make sense of the headlines.   But what you are here saying is that because I haven't actually read the indictment but am depending on Turley, a noted Constitutional authority, helping me understand the legalese, that somehow my reporting of that is of no worth.   So it changes my perspective when listening to you.  

I have not said Trump was right in what he did.  I have not said Trump was wrong in what he did.   All I have done is shown what is obvious to everyone, even you, that there is a legal standard for Trump and there is a legal standard for others.  Heck, Trump was impeached for a phone call that nobody heard.   If that is not a standard that does not apply to others, I don't know what is. 

FYI - I am no legal scholar, I have no background in law, I have never been to court except as a juror.   So obviously that means I cannot lean on someone who does and look at their argument and agree or disagree with it.   That is out of bounds.  So yes, it changes my perspective when listening to you.  

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

7 minutes ago, mspart said:

Wonderful.   Again, how does this make any difference to what is being said.   I don't have time to read legal documents in my spare time.   

Because you’re too busy going to see what other people are telling you to think about it, then coming to places like here and arguing what other people are telling you to think about it, from a stance that ‘I am right and any other thought is just stupid’. God forbid you actually read the thing you are arguing, to see if you might have your own opinion about it.  Honestly I didn’t read the rest of your message after that, it’s telling enough. 
 

Lawyers lie, political lawyers lie (and here’s a surprise, it’s not only those on the left). Political lawyers who lied about a particular election…may….juuuuust may….focus on an aspect he deems favorable for the person he was lying for, even if that aspect has nothing to do with the charges laid out, but will play loudly with those who are too busy waiting to be told what to think to bother going to read it for themselves.  

[WrestlingRasta]

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing. Why should I put effort and go seek out the actual information on my own, when I know there’s a safe space right over here where they will tell me exactly what I want to hear about it. 
 

It’s become even more powerful in the app age, and there are people who make millions off of it. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

25 minutes ago, mspart said:

WKN, you are missing the point of what Turley said.   Turley said it was legal to lie.   If Trump is convicted and it stands, then it is no longer legal to lie.  It changes everything.   That's Turley's point and what I am saying here.   I am not for lying, I am for equal protection under the law. 

 

mspart

It has never been legal to lie to induce someone to commit a crime. It is not even legal to tell the truth to induce someone to commit a crime. The indictment, that you have not read, says in the third paragraph "The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won."

The defense, and Jack Turley, want it to be a freedom of speech case. The prosecution does not believe it is a freedom of speech case. Either way, it is still illegal to lie to induce someone to commit a crime.

[Plasmodium]

It is not legal to fill up a theater and then yell "FIRE!" ?

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

It has never been legal to lie to induce someone to commit a crime. It is not even legal to tell the truth to induce someone to commit a crime. The indictment, that you have not read, says in the third paragraph "The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won."

The defense, and Jack Turley, want it to be a freedom of speech case. The prosecution does not believe it is a freedom of speech case. Either way, it is still illegal to lie to induce someone to commit a crime.

What about Obama lying about Ferguson to incite riots & violence, what about Hillary lying about Benghazi to save the admin, what about Biden's repeated lies about Hunter's "business" to save the election and cover up crime?  A lie is when you know it is untrue.  Obama knew it was a lie as did Hillary (admitted to her daughter) and obviously as did Biden.  Now I'd like as much as any to see Trump go away but report is he had some advising he lost and some advising he won except for shenanigans.  He chose to believe shenanigans.  Even if it were 3 advising one way and 1 advising the other, you can't prove its a lie because he chose to believe the 25% instead of the 75%.  

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

What about Obama lying about Ferguson to incite riots & violence, what about Hillary lying about Benghazi to save the admin, what about Biden's repeated lies about Hunter's "business" to save the election and cover up crime?  A lie is when you know it is untrue.  Obama knew it was a lie as did Hillary (admitted to her daughter) and obviously as did Biden.  Now I'd like as much as any to see Trump go away but report is he had some advising he lost and some advising he won except for shenanigans.  He chose to believe shenanigans.  Even if it were 3 advising one way and 1 advising the other, you can't prove its a lie because he chose to believe the 25% instead of the 75%.  

"What about" one of the most effective defense strategies. It always worked with my parents, too.

[Le duke]

Then look at what Turley said and explain why he is wrong. 
mspart

He’s arguing that knowingly engaging in a criminal conspiracy is protected free speech?

If John Doe engages in a criminal conspiracy to kill his wife, that’s not protected free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

It is not legal to fill up a theater and then yell "FIRE!" ?

Somebody didn’t go to law school. 

[Bigbrog]

2 hours ago, Le duke said:

He’s arguing that knowingly engaging in a criminal conspiracy is protected free speech?

If John Doe engages in a criminal conspiracy to kill his wife, that’s not protected free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dude...come one...