What is the deal with all these indictments?

Author: Greyparrot
FBI

Posts

Total: 88
Topic's author
#1
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,410
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Lets take a look, shall we?

This video is a discussion about the recent indictment involving former President Donald Trump. The indictment accuses him of various crimes related to how he challenged the results of the 2020 election. The indictment, on its face, seems weak and politically motivated, and we should raise questions asking if there's enough evidence to charge AND convict him with serious crimes.

The video claims that the indictment acknowledges Trump's right to speak out about the election and even claim there was fraud, even if those claims were false. It's a basic first amendment right to question the government without fear of retribution or retaliation. He had the right to challenge the election results through legal means like filing lawsuits and seeking recounts or audits. You have to wonder why they're charging him with these felonies if he indeed had the constitutional right to do those things. Something to note is that, as of yet, not one indictment has been presented charging Trump with "insurrection," yet that is the allegation most assigned to him by his detractors.

Many people who protested the election were charged with felonies, even if they didn't engage in violence. Other protesters in different situations were not charged with felonies unless they caused harm through violence. This seeming violation of the exercise of the first amendment is unfair and should raise questions about the way Trump is being treated.

I believe the indictment is questionable, and I feel it's important to have strong evidence before charging someone with serious crimes; especially if that person is in the middle of a democratic election. I think we should consider whether there's a fair basis for the charges and to avoid bastardizing basic legal matters into overly political demagoguery if only to preserve the integrity of fair treatment and a functioning democracy.

What do you guys think?
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,302
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump said: “So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”
He insisted: “There’s no way I lost Georgia. There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes.”

You know Trump gets this technique from Hitler, don't you? On Oct. 16, 1919, Adolf Hitler became a propagandist. It would be his chief occupation for the rest of his life. Without propaganda, he could never have become a public figure, let alone risen to power. It was as a propagandist that he made a second world war possible, and defined Jews as Germany’s foe. The form of his propaganda was inextricable from its content: the fictionalization of a globalized world into simple slogans, to be repeated until an enemy thus defined was exterminated.

Do you keep a copy of Mein Kampf on your nightstand?
Topic's author
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,410
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Do you keep a copy of Mein Kampf on your nightstand?
lol, zero posts in and you have already invoked your Godwin card.

Well done sir.
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,302
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

OMG, I was wrong, you ARE a Republican!
Topic's author
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,410
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Yes yes, Godwin is a Repuglican. 

Again, well done sir. Hats are off to you.
#6
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,302
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

What is the deal with all these indictments? Why don't Independents and Democrats like the new Hitler?
Topic's author
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,410
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW

Full approval of course. 

“So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause”
#8
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,315
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Liberty dies when most of the citizens are morons who believe lies from liars
#9
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,302
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

Shouldn't you be saying, FLRW, You're Too Honest!
#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
He had the right to challenge the election results through legal means like filing lawsuits and seeking recounts or audits. You have to wonder why they're charging him with these felonies if he indeed had the constitutional right to do those things.
let me see if I can clarify this for you. You have a right to free speech. For example, you can say "I hate bob, I think he's sleeping with my wife". But you can't say "I will give you 5000 to go murder bob". One is protected free speech, the other is a crime. 

the indictment isn't about what trump said about the election, nor his lawsuits. That is protected. The indictment is for all the things he tried to do to illegally overturn the results of the election. Basically, he pressured state officials and Mike pence, among others, to do things that were illegal to change the results of the election. So while technically it is what he said that was illegal, it was not his speech itself. It was the conspiracy to overturn the election results. 
#11
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Mark Levin broke it down more succinctly. 

The indictment is pure garbage chalked full of legal theories and NO CRIMES!!! 

#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TWS1405_2
I think you will find these are crimes

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.
Topic's author
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,410
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
I am way too busy slow-clapping to your impressive Godwin skills.

#14
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@HistoryBuff
-->
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
I think you will find these are crimes

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.

Nope. None of them are. 



#15
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,165
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
You know another famous leader who kept a copy of Mein Kampf?

Hitler. Actually, he might have had the original manuscript.
Topic's author
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,410
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
Those silly Weimar Germans just needed to know the correct way to deal with political opposition. Clearly Hitler was guilty of obstructing justice.
#17
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,107
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
"I NEED ONE MORE INDICTMENT TO ENSURE MY ELECTION!"  -  Donald Trump
#18
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,315
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
All the witnesses for the case against Trump are Republicans. Are they liars?

Mike Pence 
Bill Barr
Jeff Rosen
Mark Meadows
and a dozen others from Trumps inner circle 

#19
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TWS1405_2
Nope. None of them are. 
So tell me why they are not crimes, despite being literal crimes trump is charged with. And don't link to a podcast by a moron. Tell me with your own words like a big boy. 

#20
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@HistoryBuff
Nope. None of them are. 
So tell me why they are not crimes, despite being literal crimes trump is charged with. And don't link to a podcast by a moron. Tell me with your own words like a big boy. 
You claiming legal theories are crimes is 😂!! 

Calling a lawyer a moron is 😂 😂 x2!! Moreover, it’s a 🐓 💩 intellectual cowardice move. 

I am not a transcriber, I don’t provide cliff notes either. You can listen for yourself just like everyone else does and will do. Shapiro. Levin. They all come to the same legal conclusion. The indictment is pure bull 💩!! 
#21
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
#22
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TWS1405_2
I am not a transcriber, I don’t provide cliff notes either. You can listen for yourself just like everyone else does and will do. Shapiro. Levin. They all come to the same legal conclusion.
right wing idiots all come to the same conclusion!! my god, why didn't you say so!!

I am not a transcriber, I don’t provide cliff notes either.
no one has asked you to transcribe or provide cliff notes. I have asked you to make an argument, on you own, like a big boy. If you are incapable of doing that, then I will assume you have nothing but what some idiot said in a youtube video. If that is the case, there is no reason to discuss anything with you. 

#23
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@HistoryBuff
I am not a transcriber, I don’t provide cliff notes either. You can listen for yourself just like everyone else does and will do. Shapiro. Levin. They all come to the same legal conclusion.
right wing idiots all come to the same conclusion!! my god, why didn't you say so!!
Ad hominem and genetic fallacies. Typical of one clearly exhibiting intellectual cowardice with a flare of grandiose pomposity. 

I am not a transcriber, I don’t provide cliff notes either.
no one has asked you to transcribe or provide cliff notes. I have asked you to make an argument, on you own, like a big boy. If you are incapable of doing that, then I will assume you have nothing but what some idiot said in a youtube video. If that is the case, there is no reason to discuss anything with you. 
repeating the legal analysis given [IS] providing the cliff note version of what was said. 

I don’t need to make an argument as there is no argument to make when it has already been made for me in literal detail via the legal analysis given by Shapiro. One in which, given my own legal background, I could not find fault with. 

Using statutes that were designed for things other than what Smith twisted and stretched like a Mr Stretch Armstrong stretch doll into some superfluous verbose legal theories ≠ an actual crime with clearly outlined criteria to be established in order to prove that the defined alleged crime actually occurred. 

More than that, much of the garbage is pinned to what Trump did or did not know and knowingly knew or didn’t know and did or said it (1A) anyway. Unless Smith is a psychic or has Trump’s brain activities on video…no one can prove such a case. It’s purely a political indictment, not  a legal one. 


#24
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,315
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Ad hominem and genetic fallacies. Typical of one clearly exhibiting intellectual cowardice with a flare of grandiose pomposity. 
Greatest Hits!

given my own legal background,
Lol

no one can prove such a case. It’s purely a political indictment, not  a legal one.
Nonsense. Trump indicated with words he knew he had lost and that these theories from his crackpot lawyers were crazy talk. He took steps to overturn the election despite that. He’s guilty as charged. The MAGA morons who support him are delusional 
#25
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,107
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ad hominem and genetic fallacies. Typical of one clearly exhibiting intellectual cowardice with a flare of grandiose pomposity. 
Greatest Hits!
I kinda miss Dunning Kruger Effect.
given my own legal background,
Lol
I guess you missed where he posted his extensive legal resume, Trump would have made him a Supreme but he said "No, I won't work with Clarence Thomas."
no one can prove such a case. It’s purely a political indictment, not  a legal one.
Nonsense. Trump indicated with words he knew he had lost and that these theories from his crackpot lawyers were crazy talk. He took steps to overturn the election despite that. He’s guilty as charged. The MAGA morons who support him are delusional 
It goes beyond delusional, his supporters know it and still let him stick it to them, no matter how many times he embarrasses them, lies to them, betrays them, makes them bend over and squeel like  pig, they like it, and thier love grows.  
#26
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TWS1405_2
I don’t need to make an argument as there is no argument to make when it has already been made for me in literal detail via the legal analysis given by Shapiro. One in which, given my own legal background, I could not find fault with. 
then why are you here? This is a debate website. you obviously either have no opinion of your own or lack the capacity to argue it. If you just want to give links to other people's opinions then you might be more at home on some right wing echo chamber. 

Using statutes that were designed for things other than what Smith twisted and stretched like a Mr Stretch Armstrong stretch doll into some superfluous verbose legal theories ≠ an actual crime with clearly outlined criteria to be established in order to prove that the defined alleged crime actually occurred. 
ok, that is at least part of an argument. What about those statutes is not supposed to be used this way?

More than that, much of the garbage is pinned to what Trump did or did not know and knowingly knew or didn’t know and did or said it (1A) anyway. Unless Smith is a psychic or has Trump’s brain activities on video…no one can prove such a case. It’s purely a political indictment, not  a legal one. 
1) none of these charges have anything to do with the 1st amendment. You are allowed to say you think the election was rigged. You are not allowed to take steps to overthrow the election. That is what he is charged with.

2) trump spoke with many, many people about the crimes in question. If he ever said that some of the things he was claiming weren't true, then that would show his "brain activities". And reportedly they have at least one conversation from him where he called some of these arguments crazy, but then went on to make them anyway. 

#27
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,376
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a basic first amendment right to question the government without fear of retribution or retaliation. He had the right to challenge the election results through legal means like filing lawsuits and seeking recounts or audits. You have to wonder why they're charging him with these felonies if he indeed had the constitutional right to do those things.
If I sat here telling you I had tickets to the MLB all star game sitting right behind home plate, it doesnt matter if I'm lying. There's nothing illegal about me doing so.

If I then sell you my tickets with that understanding which turn out to be nose bleed seats, I've now committed fraud.

The indictment goes to great length to clarify that Trump did in fact have the right to lie about the election. It becomes illegal when he uses the lies he told to advance illegal activity.

Advancing that activity includes organizing the fake electors scheme and his many attempts to get the states to change their election results. That's why he's being charged.
Topic's author
#28
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,410
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
 It becomes illegal when he uses the lies he told to advance illegal activity

So why are there no indictments for insurrection?
#29
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,093
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
then why are you here? This is a debate website. you obviously either have no opinion of your own or lack the capacity to argue it. If you just want to give links to other people's opinions then you might be more at home on some right wing echo chamber. 
That's what I keep telling Double_R.

#30
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,107
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
Trump has been charged with 78 crimes so far, more expected from Georgia for 2020 election interference, plus multiple civil cases, and already been found guilty of fraud with his charity scam, sexual assault and defamation of E. Jean Carroll, and multiple other crimes, he is facing up to 641 years in prison, and his entire legal defense can be sumarized in three words:

What about Hunter?