So Trump get to call witnesses.

[i am herdman]

His attorneys will now have subpoena power.

I know call election officials from Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Fulton County, GA, Arizona. Attorney generals serving at the time from the states of my choosing .

I further call the director of.the fbi, the former ceoof twitter, these umpteenth doj officials, the ceo of Facebook aka Meta.

I call the postmaster general. The managers of each post office of my choosing.

The director of the dnc and Biden campaign.

This is going to be awesome.

Now Mr US attorney prove that I didn't think the election was tainted.

 

[GeauxHerd]

I feel you, but they should really focus on dismissal based on lack of standing

 

[extragreen]

Now Mr US attorney prove that I didn't think the election was tainted.

It doesn't require proving what he thought. oath breaker. There are several insurrectionists in prison right now because they said they thought your orange jesus was directing them to "stop the steal". As you can see, it doesn't matter what they "thought".

 

[herdfan06]

His attorneys will now have subpoena power.

I know call election officials from Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Fulton County, GA, Arizona. Attorney generals serving at the time from the states of my choosing .

I further call the director of.the fbi, the former ceoof twitter, these umpteenth doj officials, the ceo of Facebook aka Meta.

I call the postmaster general. The managers of each post office of my choosing.

The director of the dnc and Biden campaign.

This is going to be awesome.

Now Mr US attorney prove that I didn't think the election was tainted.

Do you believe his lawyers who filed all of those suits after the 2020 election are big fvckups?

 

[i am herdman]

Do you believe his lawyers who filed all of those suits after the 2020 election are big fvckups?

Could be. But, he has never got to call witnesses.

Here is the deal. The charges brought by the swamp state are going to have to believe the Trump really thought he lost and was basically committing fraud by knowing he lost and then fraudelent acting like he didn't.

How the hell are they going to do that? It doesn't matter if he did lose and Biden is POTUS. Trump has a right to believe he lost and a right to protest it and say it.

You can even have alternate electors. That is allowed and has been done before. They are not charging him with rioting or violence or leading violence. They are basically going to have to say look Trump knew he lost(and they can document) and created fraud.

Trump has a legal right to protest the election. He has a right to say he was cheated. We have a thing called the 1st Amendment.

 

[extragreen]

Could be. But, he has never got to call witnesses.

Here is the deal. The charges brought by the swamp state are going to have to believe the Trump really thought he lost and was basically committing fraud by knowing he lost and then fraudelent acting like he didn't.

How the hell are they going to do that? It doesn't matter if he did lose and Biden is POTUS. Trump has a right to believe he lost and a right to protest it and say it.

You can even have alternate electors. That is allowed and has been done before. They are not charging him with rioting or violence or leading violence. They are basically going to have to say look Trump knew he lost(and they can document) and created fraud.

Trump has a legal right to protest the election. He has a right to say he was cheated. We have a thing called the 1st Amendment.

He's not going to be tried for his lies, moron, he's going to be tried for his actions. "Alternate" electors are not the same as FAKE electors. They falsely claimed your orange jesus won the election and that is fraud. Their attempt was to deprive people of the right to have their valid votes be counted. By the way, you're a lying trumptard oath breaker.

 

[ThunderCat98]

It doesn't require proving what he thought. oath breaker.

Except that it does. To succeed on these charges they will have to prove Trump intended to deceive or defraud. The problem with that is Trump has always held the firm belief he was cheated. Even if he's wrong (hint: he is), he can still sincerely believe that he was cheated. How do you prove intent to defraud when the target truly believes what he's doing and saying? It will be really interesting to see how this okays out from a legal standpoint.

My take, fwiw, the New York charges and the Jan. 6th charges ultimately fail on legal grounds. Trump is clearly guilty in the Florida document case, but will take it to trial and has some great arguments for jury nullification in a red state.

 

[i am herdman]

Except that it does. To succeed on these charges they will have to prove Trump intended to deceive or defraud. The problem with that is Trump has always held the firm belief he was cheated. Even if he's wrong (hint: he is), he can still sincerely believe that he was cheated. How do you prove intent to defraud when the target truly believes what he's doing and saying? It will be really interesting to see how this okays out from a legal standpoint.

My take, fwiw, the New York charges and the Jan. 6th charges ultimately fail on legal grounds. Trump is clearly guilty in the Florida document case, but will take it to trial and has some great arguments for jury nullification in a red state.

Exactly. This is obvously headed to the Supreme Court. Uncharted territory with no real historical precedence.

The court in DC are biased and the jury will be as well. The district court likely the same. How do you even get a jurty of your peers? People in a district that voted 97 percent against you?

Not a historical attorney but, I would think the Supreme Court would toss this thing in a nano second. I have heard several scholars say it is one of the worst things they have ever seen written up.

 

[extragreen]

Except that it does.

It does not.

To succeed on these charges they will have to prove Trump intended to deceive or defraud.

Fraudulent intent is shown if a representation is made with reckless indifference to its truth or falsity.”

The problem with that is Trump has always held the firm belief he was cheated.

No. He hasn't.

 

[extragreen]

Exactly. This is obvously headed to the Supreme Court. Uncharted territory with no real historical precedence.

The court in DC are biased and the jury will be as well. The district court likely the same. How do you even get a jurty of your peers? People in a district that voted 97 percent against you?

Not a historical attorney but, I would think the Supreme Court would toss this thing in a nano second. I have heard several scholars say it is one of the worst things they have ever seen written up.

You're a simple lying trumptard and oath breaker

 

[riflearm2]

m they will have to prove Trump intended to deceive or defraud.

Trump? Deceive or defraud? No chance. Not the Trump that Herdman blows.

The problem with that is Trump has always held the firm belief he was cheated. Even if he's wrong (hint: he is), he can still sincerely believe that he was cheated. How do you prove intent to defraud when the target truly believes what he's doing and saying?

Like when he admitted losing on video? Like when multiple aides testified that he admitted losing? Like when he said “I don’t want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing. Figure it out”?

 

[i am herdman]

It does not.

Fraudulent intent is shown if a representation is made with reckless indifference to its truth or falsity.”

No. He hasn't.

Many legal scholars disagree with you.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Trump? Deceive or defraud? No chance. Not the Trump that Herdman blows.



Like when he admitted losing on video? Like when multiple aides testified that he admitted losing? Like when he said “I don’t want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing. Figure it out”?

Those are all statements that will come back to haunt him. Contrast those with the hundreds of statements of him denying losing, claiming he was cheated, and alleging fraud on the part of the dems. How do you determine intent from a guy that changes his position on everything on a whim? It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Another interesting aspect is several of these statutes are being charged in ways they were never intended to be used. How far will the courts go in allowing this? Typically, on criminal statutes - especially in recent years - they've moved away from broad interpretation towards a more strict reading. That's why we've seen things like the Armed Career Criminal Act and career offender designations gutted by SCOTUS.

 

[extragreen]

Many legal scholars disagree with you.

No. They don't. oath breaker.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Fraudulent intent can be shown if a representation is made with reckless indifference to its truth or falsity.

Fify. But that's using circumstantial evidence and making reasonable inferences, something that you don't believe in (or refuse) to do with your lying, senile, pedo, money-laundering savior. Weird how you have no problem applying those concepts to a guy you hate, but ignore them in someone you agree with. Oh, that's right, you're an intellectually and morally dishonest jackass.

 

[extragreen]

How do you determine intent from a guy that changes his position on everything on a whim?

Intent can be reasoned from statements, conduct, victim testimony, and complaint letters, all of which can help demonstrate that the perpetrator knew that victims were being misled.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Intent can be reasoned from statements, conduct, victim testimony, and complaint letters, all of which can help demonstrate that the perpetrator knew that victims were being misled.

Of course it can, but that goes both ways. There is as much, if not more, evidence of Trump saying and acting the exact opposite. To be clear, if it makes it to a jury in D.C., I think he gets convicted, but have doubts whether the actual charges - regardless of his actual conduct - survive legal scrutiny. Same goes for the NY charges. Could I be wrong? Sure. But your best bet of convicting him of something that sticks is the classified documents case.

 

[extragreen]

Fify

You didn't fix anything, idiot.

But that's using circumstantial evidence and making reasonable inferences, something that you don't believe in (or refuse) to do with your lying, senile, pedo, money-laundering savior. Weird how you have no problem applying those concepts to a guy you hate, but ignore them in someone you agree with. Oh, that's right, you're an intellectually and morally dishonest jackass.

I already told you, punk, that there's a difference between evidence and evidence of a crime. Your continuing to be stupid is expected.

 

[ThunderCat98]

You didn't fix anything, idiot.


I already told you, punk, that there's a difference between evidence and evidence of a crime. Your continuing to be stupid is expected.

Way to revert to form. I take it you didn't have enough time to Google an intelligent response because your seething hatred for Trump created the need to immediately respond with this^^^ garbage. Well done.

 

[extragreen]

There is as much, if not more, evidence of Trump saying and acting the exact opposite.

That evidence^^will be used to show that he did what he's charged with- that he entered into a conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

 

[extragreen]

Way to revert to form. I take it you didn't have enough time to Google an intelligent response because your seething hatred for Trump created the need to immediately respond with this^^^ garbage. Well done.

The "garbage" is fact. Unless you want to agree that republicans have evidence of a crime and are just too stupid to know how to go forward with charging Biden.

 

[riflearm2]

Those are all statements that will come back to haunt him. Contrast those with the hundreds of statements of him denying losing, claiming he was cheated, and alleging fraud on the part of the dems. How do you determine intent from a guy that changes his position on everything on a whim?

A career con man who admits to not wanting people to know the truth privately but the. publicly says something else is pretty telling.

Why did he make hundreds of statements denying losing? Because he didn’t want people to know that he lost, which is what he said.

And it’s a pretty shaky position to say that just because somebody doesn’t publicly admit something means there’s no way of proving the subject didn’t know what was accurate.

 

[ohio herd]

What this is about is trying to keep anyone who dares to have a viewpoint outside of the democratic echo chamber silent. They think Trump’s a criminal for opposing them, and they think the same thing about his supporters. The left wants to criminalize dissent. They don’t really think you should get a vote, much less an opinion. That’s what this indictment is about. If you think this is bad, just wait.For the life of me I don't understand why more people don't see this for what it is.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Trump has a legal right to protest the election. He has a right to say he was cheated. We have a thing called the 1st Amendment.

If Biden lose next year, will he have a right to conspire to install false electors? Will he have a right to call various states and tell them to 'find votes"? Will he have the right to tell Kamala to throw out the election?

Don't bother answering, I already know what you will say.

It will be really interesting to see how this okays out from a legal standpoint

Not really. I'll expand on this below, but I can tell you one exact sentence Trump said that by itself proves intent and sinks his ass: "You're too honest."

How do you determine intent from a guy that changes his position on everything on a whim?

By what he says behind closed doors. It really is that simple.

 

[extragreen]

What this is about is trying to keep anyone who dares to have a viewpoint outside of the democratic echo chamber silent. They think Trump’s a criminal for opposing them, and they think the same thing about his supporters. The left wants to criminalize dissent. They don’t really think you should get a vote, much less an opinion. That’s what this indictment is about. If you think this is bad, just wait.For the life of me I don't understand why more people don't see this for what it is.

You're just an idiot trumptard. YOU don't realize that your orange jesus is being criminally charged for having done exactly what you CLAIM is being done by democrats. The idiot has falsely claimed the election was rigged and fraudulent, incited an insurrection in that cause, and criminally attempted to overturn the results of a free and fair election. And THAT is what this indictment is about.

 

[WVUSerg]

What this is about is trying to keep anyone who dares to have a viewpoint outside of the democratic echo chamber silent. They think Trump’s a criminal for opposing them, and they think the same thing about his supporters. The left wants to criminalize dissent. They don’t really think you should get a vote, much less an opinion. That’s what this indictment is about. If you think this is bad, just wait.For the life of me I don't understand why more people don't see this for what it is.

People like Greed do not care because it is their side doing it.

 

[i am herdman]

What this is about is trying to keep anyone who dares to have a viewpoint outside of the democratic echo chamber silent. They think Trump’s a criminal for opposing them, and they think the same thing about his supporters. The left wants to criminalize dissent. They don’t really think you should get a vote, much less an opinion. That’s what this indictment is about. If you think this is bad, just wait.For the life of me I don't understand why more people don't see this for what it is.

Guess I am next.. ****em.

They know they cheated..they involved doj and manipulated the big tech...made a fake Russian hoax. The Bidens are crooks.

Bunch of mask wearing Fauci lovers. Kiss my ass.

 

[i am herdman]

If Biden lose next year, will he have a right to conspire to install false electors? Will he have a right to call various states and tell them to 'find votes"? Will he have the right to tell Kamala to throw out the election?

Don't bother answering, I already know what you will say.

Not really. I'll expand on this below, but I can tell you one exact sentence Trump said that by itself proves intent and sinks his ass: "You're too honest."

By what he says behind closed doors. It really is that simple.

Trump has a legal right and Biden would too. Correct.

 

[extragreen]

People like Greed do not care because it is their side doing it.

Then indict them and stop whining, you moron trumptard oath breaker

 

[herdfan06]

Could be. But, he has never got to call witnesses.

Here is the deal. The charges brought by the swamp state are going to have to believe the Trump really thought he lost and was basically committing fraud by knowing he lost and then fraudelent acting like he didn't.

How the hell are they going to do that? It doesn't matter if he did lose and Biden is POTUS. Trump has a right to believe he lost and a right to protest it and say it.

You can even have alternate electors. That is allowed and has been done before. They are not charging him with rioting or violence or leading violence. They are basically going to have to say look Trump knew he lost(and they can document) and created fraud.

Trump has a legal right to protest the election. He has a right to say he was cheated. We have a thing called the 1st Amendment.

Did his lawyers not have the option to present evidence to the courts?

 

[i am herdman]

Did his lawyers not have the option to present evidence to the courts?

No, not like they will now. Not even close.

 

[extragreen]

No, not like they will now. Not even close.

Who are they going to call? His own cabinet members and close administration? They're the ones providing testimony against the idiot. oath breaker.

 

[herdfan06]

No, not like they will now. Not even close.

What evidence were they not able to present? I know in one case they were expressed concern over the number of observers where the ballots were being counted.

 

[mlblack16.]

A career con man who admits to not wanting people to know the truth privately but the. publicly says something else is pretty telling.

Agreed, but why bring Biden into this? We're talking about Trump; please try and stay on topic, moron.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Trump has a legal right and Biden would too. Correct.

Oh horseshit.

 

[GeauxHerd]

If Biden lose next year, will he have a right to conspire to install false electors? Will he have a right to call various states and tell them to 'find votes"? Will he have the right to tell Kamala to throw out the election?

If the election is close and he decides to challege and the challenge is still ongoing when the electors are being selected then obviously you would want to have your slate ready incase your challenge is successful. If Biden wants to discuss with public officials that are Dems where specific challenges etc can possibly be made to increase your vote totals then sure.

 

[WV-FAN]

Oh horseshit.

awwww, doesn't fit his narrative so it must not be true. poor baby.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Then indict them and stop whining

Uh, you do know the executive branch is over criminal prosecutions, right? And that the left controls the executive, right? And no matter what, they ain't indicting their own, right? Right???

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

awwww, doesn't fit his narrative so it must not be true. poor baby.

Awwww, WVU man really believes Herdman's horseshit, poor baby must be the biggest rube in here.

 

[WV-FAN]

Awwww, WVU man really believes Herdman's horseshit, poor baby must be the biggest rube in here.