Page 2 of 2

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2023 1:05 pm
by Tunnelcat
woodchip wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2023 6:34 am
Tunnelcat wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2023 4:44 pm A "Republican" coup with the backing of the military. In violation of the Constitution of the United States and insult to every freedom loving American who values democracy. Americans will then be ruled by Right Wing diktat, a wet dream they've had ever since Reagan. I can tell you this, it won't be a cake walk either, so ★■◆● you ultra right wing conservatives.

https://news.yahoo.com/retired-general- ... 05692.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... -military/

And this meshes perfectly with Project 2025, which I started in another thread.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e ... rcna125638
Aren't you just the perfectly brainwashed liberal.
No, experience. Trump has already tried to overturn a fair and valid election once. What's to stop him if he loses by a slim margin again and he contests it? If the U.S. military backs him, he's got his "army" to install him in power and exert martial law. That doesn't include all the deluded armed nutbags and militias in this country that adore him and will fight for him to the bitter end.
vision wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2023 10:27 am
Spidey wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2023 4:05 pm Looking forward to voting for the "Zionist pigs" biggest supporter AKA Genocide Joe?
What even is this comment? Every US administration is pro-Israel. Every one. You know what AIPAC is, right?
Including Trump's Administration. In fact, his son-in-law, who's Jewish, was deeply involved with Israeli foreign affairs and "peace" negotiations. One sided peace talks with Israel only, but hey, any port in the storm to look good politically.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2023 1:44 pm
by Vander
Will Robinson wrote:So the way the democrats get elected is having republicans to scare up votes…flip that coin and the republicans scare their base into creating a need to keep them around too…and the status quo goes unbroken…again. And that’s the best we can do to improve the republic?!?
You want to get out of the hole, I want to stop digging. Just because 'both sides' say the other is crazy and dangerous doesn't mean both have equal veracity. "The election was stolen" and "the election was not stolen" are not equally credible claims. When most of the GOP votes to reject the election results, they are either acting in bad faith and need to be removed from power, or they are so divorced from reality they need to be removed from power. And I feel confident that being a single issue voter on this one issue is THE LEAST we can do to improve the republic. Want to do more? Work to get money out of politics.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2023 4:03 pm
by Darth Wang
Vander wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2023 1:44 pmWork to get money out of politics.
That's not likely to ever happen.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:17 pm
by Tunnelcat
Speaking of a president who's too old to be in office. I ran across an old newspaper article from 1984 stashed in my basement opining that Reagan was too old to be president. As it turned out, Reagan had developed Alzheimers during his last days in office and the rumor was that Nancy was running the show. Both Biden and Trump are older NOW than when Reagan WAS when he was in office. Reagan was practically a youngster in comparison. Funny how Republicans forget that when they ★■◆● about Biden's age when in reality, only 3 years separate him from Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 3a21a3b14/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 784995007/

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:30 am
by woodchip
Tunnelcat wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2023 1:05 pm
woodchip wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2023 6:34 am
Tunnelcat wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2023 4:44 pm A "Republican" coup with the backing of the military. In violation of the Constitution of the United States and insult to every freedom
No, experience. Trump has already tried to overturn a fair and valid election once. What's to stop him if he loses by a slim margin again and he contests it? If the U.S. military backs him, he's got his "army" to install him in power and exert martial law. That doesn't include all the deluded armed nutbags and militias in this country that adore him and will fight for him to the bitter end.


Overturn like Algore did with his hanging chads and Stacey Abrams in her Gov.race?

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:46 am
by Darth Wang
Those required recounts because the margin of error of counting the votes was larger than the difference between votes (several hundred). Trump lost by 7 million votes. And neither Al Gore nor Stacey Abrams encouraged a violent mob to storm the capitol and try to overturn the results.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 10:09 am
by woodchip
Darth Wang wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:46 am Those required recounts because the margin of error of counting the votes was larger than the difference between votes (several hundred). Trump lost by 7 million votes. And neither Al Gore nor Stacey Abrams encouraged a violent mob to storm the capitol and try to overturn the results.
I posted Trump's entire speech with the invite for peeps here to show where he incited the riot. so far I do not see any. Feel free to show where he did.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 10:35 am
by Darth Wang
"Fight like Hell or we won't have a country anymore" ring a bell? Not to mention so many of the rioters themselves saying that they believed they were doing what he told them to. Also there's the fact that he deliberately refused to call in the National Guard and Pence had to do it.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 10:46 am
by Vander
You're right, when he addressed the crowd he gathered to "Stop the Steal," and told them how they had been robbed, that the election was a fraud, and told them to march on over to the Capitol and "show strength," he told them to do it "peacefully." NO COLLUSION!!!

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:05 pm
by Tunnelcat
woodchip wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:30 am Overturn like Algore did with his hanging chads and Stacey Abrams in her Gov.race?
I didn't vote for Al Gore because he stood there next to Bill Clinton in the Rose Garden after the impeachment like a petty sycophant. That told me that he had no principles. However, Al Gore didn't sit there and tell his supporters to go to the nation's capital and "Fight like hell", whereupon they marched on over, forced their way in, beat up Capital police, destroyed property, threaten to hang the VP and raised a ruckus. AL Gore accepted the final vote outcome after the lengthy and contested recount and actually conceded the race to Bush on 12/13/2000. Trump STILL hasn't accepted that he LOST in 2016 and STILL hasn't conceded. Trump even refused to call in the National Guard for hours during those riots and just stood there in front of the TV hoping and preying his supporters would keep him in office, however illegal that would've been. THERE IS NO COMPARISON BETWEEN THESE 2 RACES. One candidate was graceful about his loss, the other has thrown an infinite temper tantrum. That infantile man is patently unfit for office.

By the way, even Stacy Adam's conceded her race to Brian Kemp. She's more of an adult than Trump will ever be.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:49 pm
by Vander
woodchip wrote:Overturn like Algore did with his hanging chads
Based on the NORC review, the media group concluded that if the disputes over all the ballots in question had been resolved by applying statewide any of five standards that would have met Florida's legal standard for recounts, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won by 60 to 171 votes.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:49 pm
by Tunnelcat
Yeah, and then we wouldn't have gotten Bush and the Irag War and the mass psychosis of misplaced patriotism that followed 911.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09 ... -gore.html

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:11 pm
by Darth Wang
Tunnelcat wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:49 pm Yeah, and then we wouldn't have gotten Bush and the Irag War and the mass psychosis of misplaced patriotism that followed 911.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09 ... -gore.html
I'm not sure, I think there would definitely still be an attempted reprisal for 9/11, and it would probably backfire at least somewhat, but maybe not as bad as it did in reality.

EDIT: Assuming, of course, that a Gore administration wouldn't have been able to prevent 9/11. I have seen lots of arguments on whether the US could have realistically prevented it or not and I am unclear on that topic.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:48 pm
by Tunnelcat
The original reprisal was the attempted assassination of Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bush flubbed that operation by farming it out to local warlords, who did squat and let him escape. Strike one against Bush. As he took his eye off the Bin Laden ball, he quickly pivoted towards Saddam Hussein and Iraq, which had nothing to do with 911, but everything to do with finishing daddy's earlier job. Strike 2 against Bush. Finally, he struck out by avoiding the dirty little secret that Bin Laden was a Saudi national and had family in Saudi Arabia. Heavin forbid Bush blame the Saudis for anything untowards.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:45 am
by woodchip
Vander wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:49 pm
woodchip wrote:Overturn like Algore did with his hanging chads
Based on the NORC review, the media group concluded that if the disputes over all the ballots in question had been resolved by applying statewide any of five standards that would have met Florida's legal standard for recounts, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won by 60 to 171 votes.
Does NORC compare to the Fl state Supreme Court? No, then you are a limp flag looking for a breeze.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:48 am
by woodchip
Darth Wang wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:11 pm
Tunnelcat wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:49 pm Yeah, and then we wouldn't have gotten Bush and the Irag War and the mass psychosis of misplaced patriotism that followed 911.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09 ... -gore.html
I'm not sure, I think there would definitely still be an attempted reprisal for 9/11, and it would probably backfire at least somewhat, but maybe not as bad as it did in reality.

EDIT: Assuming, of course, that a Gore administration wouldn't have been able to prevent 9/11. I have seen lots of arguments on whether the US could have realistically prevented it or not and I am unclear on that topic.
If Gore got in and changed the Separation of Power Act, He might of prevented it.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:09 am
by Vander
woodchip wrote:Does NORC compare to the Fl state Supreme Court? No, then you are a limp flag looking for a breeze.
This makes no sense. Care to explain?

Also, what is the "Separation of Powers Act?"

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 2:07 pm
by woodchip
Vander wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:09 am
woodchip wrote:Does NORC compare to the Fl state Supreme Court? No, then you are a limp flag looking for a breeze.
This makes no sense. Care to explain?

Also, what is the "Separation of Powers Act?"
First what is NORC? All I could find is it is a social research organization at U of chicago. If so it has no standing, unlike the the Fla S.C. which has the force of law. Don't know why you even brought up NORC.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 2:13 pm
by woodchip
As to Sep. of Powers I thought it was a act but maybe not However this link shows there was a separation between investigatory powers prior to 2001:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/inte ... ed-states/

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:28 pm
by Vander
woodchip wrote:First what is NORC? All I could find is it is a social research organization at U of chicago. If so it has no standing, unlike the the Fla S.C. which has the force of law. Don't know why you even brought up NORC.
Ok, so you can't explain your question. I will explain why it doesn't make sense. FL race is tight, ballots are weird and machine counts aren't working great, Gore calls for hand recounts as per law, Brooks Brothers riot shuts down recount with time running out before statutory deadlines, Gore sues to restart, FL Supreme Court orders recount, Bush sues to stop the recount at US Supreme Court. Bush wins the 5-4 election, Gore concedes. Afterwards a bunch of media outfits sponsored NORC to do the recount the FL Supreme Court initiated. (they actually did a bunch of different scenarios)

"Does NORC compare to the Fl state Supreme Court?" doesn't make sense.

Anyways, I was just pointing out that Gore, unlike Trump, arguably should've won. He certainly didn't try to overturn an election. Unlike Trump.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:19 pm
by vision
Spidey wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2023 11:12 amWell, I figured you would at least have to hold your nose while voting for any pro-Israel admin. after reading the things you have posted.
You realize I have to hold my nose voting for pretty much anyone, right? There aren't many candidates for any office that share my worldview.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:38 am
by woodchip
Vander wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 9:28 pm
woodchip wrote:First what is NORC? All I could find is it is a social research organization at U of chicago. If so it has no standing, unlike the the Fla S.C. which has the force of law. Don't know why you even brought up NORC.
Ok, so you can't explain your question. I will explain why it doesn't make sense. FL race is tight, ballots are weird and machine counts aren't working great, Gore calls for hand recounts as per law, Brooks Brothers riot shuts down recount with time running out before statutory deadlines, Gore sues to restart, FL Supreme Court orders recount, Bush sues to stop the recount at US Supreme Court. Bush wins the 5-4 election, Gore concedes. Afterwards a bunch of media outfits sponsored NORC to do the recount the FL Supreme Court initiated. (they actually did a bunch of different scenarios)

"Does NORC compare to the Fl state Supreme Court?" doesn't make sense.

Anyways, I was just pointing out that Gore, unlike Trump, arguably should've won. He certainly didn't try to overturn an election. Unlike Trump.
You still haven't shown that Trump did try...other than by innuendo.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:59 am
by Spidey
vision wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 11:19 pm
Spidey wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2023 11:12 amWell, I figured you would at least have to hold your nose while voting for any pro-Israel admin. after reading the things you have posted.
You realize I have to hold my nose voting for pretty much anyone, right? There aren't many candidates for any office that share my worldview.
Well then don't contradict yourself by saying you are "looking forward" to voting for someone.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:34 am
by Vander
woodchip wrote:You still haven't shown that Trump did try...other than by innuendo.
We all watched it happen. He's been indicted for it. A judge JUST ruled that he "engaged in insurrection."

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 11:43 am
by Tunnelcat
My guess is, even if the bastard was convicted of insurrection, made ineligible to be president and tossed into prison, deluded worshippers would STILL think he wasn't guilty, that the system is rigged against poor ol' Trump and would still vote for him as president.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2023 12:04 pm
by vision
Spidey wrote: Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:59 amWell then don't contradict yourself by saying you are "looking forward" to voting for someone.
You can look forward to things you don't like, you know. For me it's the sense of getting it over with since there is really only one option.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:59 pm
by Vander
Here you go woodchip, this is from a judges decision tonight to deny Trump's attempt to get charges dismissed. (a different one than I mention earlier) It has a pretty good summary of what he's charged with in this regard. (Just the election stuff, this isn't the stolen docs, or the GA RICO, or the NY Business stuff, or whatever else there is, it's hard to keep track)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sh ... cr0257-171
At the motion to dismiss stage, the court assumes the truth of the Indictment’s allegations. Defendant contends that the charges in the Indictment are based on his “public statements and tweets about the federal election and certification,” “communications with the U.S. Department of Justice about investigating elections crimes and possibly appointing a new Acting Attorney General,” “communications with state officials about the federal election and the exercise of their official duties with respect to the election,” “communications with the Vice President and Members of Congress about the exercise of their official duties in the election-certification proceedings,” and “organizing slates of electors as part of the attempt to convince legislators not to certify the election against defendant.” Those generalized descriptions fail to properly portray the conduct with which he has been charged. Accordingly, the court will briefly review the central allegations as set forth in the Indictment.

Defendant “was the forty-fifth President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020.” “Despite having lost” that election, he “was determined to remain in power,” so “for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.” He “knew that [those claims] were false,” but “repeatedly and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.” “In fact, the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts and he deliberately disregarded the truth.” Those people included the Vice President, “senior leaders of the Justice Department,” the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, “Senior White House attorneys,” “Senior staffers on the Defendant’s 2020 re-election campaign,” state legislators and officials, and state and federal judges.

“Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.” Specifically, he “targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.” The Indictment describes that process:
The Constitution provided that individuals called electors select the president, and that each state determine for itself how to appoint the electors apportioned to it. Through state laws, each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia chose to select their electors based on the popular vote in the state. After election day, the [Electoral Count Act (“ECA”)] required each state to formally determine—or ‘ascertain’—the electors who would represent the state’s voters by casting electoral votes on behalf of the candidate who had won the popular vote, and required the executive of each state to certify to the federal government the identities of those electors. Then, on a date set by the ECA, each state’s ascertained electors were required to meet and collect the results of the presidential election—that is, to cast electoral votes based on their state’s popular vote, and to send their electoral votes, along with the state executive’s certification that they were the state’s legitimate electors, to the United States Congress to be counted and certified in an official proceeding. Finally, the Constitution and ECA required that on the sixth of January following election day, the Congress meet in a Joint Session for a certification proceeding, presided over by the Vice President as President of the Senate, to count the electoral votes, resolve any objections, and announce the result—thus certifying the winner of the presidential election as president-elect.
Defendant, along with at least six co-conspirators, undertook efforts “to impair, obstruct, and defeat [that process] through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit.” Those efforts took five alleged forms:

First, they “used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant.” Id. ¶ 10(a). “That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.”

Second, they “organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws.” “This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors.” They “then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6,” 2021.

Third, they “attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome; that sought to advance the Defendant’s fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department’s authority to falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors; and that urged, on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted states’ legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.”

Fourth, “using knowingly false claims of election fraud,” they “attempted to convince the Vice President to use the Defendant’s fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them.” “When that failed, on the morning of January 6,” they “repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused.”

Fifth, “on the afternoon of January 6,” once “a large and angry crowd—including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results—violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding,” they “exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.”

Based on this conduct, the Indictment charges Defendant with four counts: 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.
Innocent until proven guilty and yadda yadda, but he did most of this stuff in public.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:54 am
by woodchip
Vander wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:59 pm Here you go woodchip, this is from a judges decision tonight to deny Trump's attempt to get charges dismissed. (a different one than I mention earlier) It has a pretty good summary of what he's charged with in this regard. (Just the election stuff, this isn't the stolen docs, or the GA RICO, or the NY Business stuff, or whatever else there is, it's hard to keep track)

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sh ... cr0257-171
At the motion to dismiss stage, the court assumes the truth of the Indictment’s allegations. Defendant contends that the charges in the Indictment are based on his “public statements and tweets about the federal election and certification,” “communications with the U.S. Department of Justice about investigating elections crimes and possibly appointing a new Acting Attorney General,” “communications with state officials about the federal election and the exercise of their official duties with respect to the election,” “communications with the Vice President and Members of Congress about the exercise of their official duties in the election-certification proceedings,” and “organizing slates of electors as part of the attempt to convince legislators not to certify the election against defendant.” Those generalized descriptions fail to properly portray the conduct with which he has been charged. Accordingly, the court will briefly review the central allegations as set forth in the Indictment.

Defendant “was the forty-fifth President of the United States and a candidate for re-election in 2020.” “Despite having lost” that election, he “was determined to remain in power,” so “for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.” He “knew that [those claims] were false,” but “repeatedly and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.” “In fact, the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue—often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts and he deliberately disregarded the truth.” Those people included the Vice President, “senior leaders of the Justice Department,” the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, “Senior White House attorneys,” “Senior staffers on the Defendant’s 2020 re-election campaign,” state legislators and officials, and state and federal judges.

“Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.” Specifically, he “targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.” The Indictment describes that process:
The Constitution provided that individuals called electors select the president, and that each state determine for itself how to appoint the electors apportioned to it. Through state laws, each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia chose to select their electors based on the popular vote in the state. After election day, the [Electoral Count Act (“ECA”)] required each state to formally determine—or ‘ascertain’—the electors who would represent the state’s voters by casting electoral votes on behalf of the candidate who had won the popular vote, and required the executive of each state to certify to the federal government the identities of those electors. Then, on a date set by the ECA, each state’s ascertained electors were required to meet and collect the results of the presidential election—that is, to cast electoral votes based on their state’s popular vote, and to send their electoral votes, along with the state executive’s certification that they were the state’s legitimate electors, to the United States Congress to be counted and certified in an official proceeding. Finally, the Constitution and ECA required that on the sixth of January following election day, the Congress meet in a Joint Session for a certification proceeding, presided over by the Vice President as President of the Senate, to count the electoral votes, resolve any objections, and announce the result—thus certifying the winner of the presidential election as president-elect.
Defendant, along with at least six co-conspirators, undertook efforts “to impair, obstruct, and defeat [that process] through dishonesty, fraud, and deceit.” Those efforts took five alleged forms:

First, they “used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant.” Id. ¶ 10(a). “That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the Defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.”

Second, they “organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws.” “This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors.” They “then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6,” 2021.

Third, they “attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome; that sought to advance the Defendant’s fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department’s authority to falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors; and that urged, on behalf of the Justice Department, the targeted states’ legislatures to convene to create the opportunity to choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors.”

Fourth, “using knowingly false claims of election fraud,” they “attempted to convince the Vice President to use the Defendant’s fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them.” “When that failed, on the morning of January 6,” they “repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously refused.”

Fifth, “on the afternoon of January 6,” once “a large and angry crowd—including many individuals whom the Defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results—violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding,” they “exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince members of Congress to further delay the certification based on those claims.”

Based on this conduct, the Indictment charges Defendant with four counts: 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.
Innocent until proven guilty and yadda yadda, but he did most of this stuff in public.
I'll still wait until the court case to see what witness's there are and what evidence there is. If it is like the Russian collusion Trump was charged with, I would't hold your breath

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:52 am
by Tunnelcat
Not going to be collusion with the Russkies, even though they clearly helped him win via social media. It's going to be insurrection and Mark Meadows will seal Trump's fate.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2023 11:39 am
by Vander
woodchip wrote:I'll still wait until the court case
So first you've deflected by accusing Gore and Abrams, then you say it's nothing but innuendo, and now it's 'we'll have to wait and see how it plays out legally.'

You don't have to deny the obvious reality of what he did and still does. You can just be honest and say you're OK with it.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:01 pm
by woodchip
There is no reality until the witnesses get up on the stand under oath and get cross examined. Statement from the court like, " court assumes the truth of the Indictment’s allegations". A court can assume nothing until witnesses are presented and a jury of his peers decides, to do otherwise shows the outcome to be fixed...just like the 3rd world country we've become. I'd cite a title of a book by Aldous Huxley, but the new world in America is certainly not brave

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:09 pm
by Darth Wang
If a Democrat had done half of that ★■◆●, you'd be insisting they be publicly executed.

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2023 3:20 pm
by Vander
woodchip wrote:There is no reality until the witnesses get up on the stand under oath and get cross examined.
This isn't a court. Would you even acknowledge that it would be bad for anyone to have done what Trump is charged with? Or is saving the country from woke communists a good enough reason to throw out the vote?

Re: Four Parties

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2023 9:09 pm
by Ferno