DescentBB

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.

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?

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?!?

Vander wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2023 1:44 pmWork to get money out of politics.

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.

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.

woodchip wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:30 am Overturn like Algore did with his hanging chads and Stacey Abrams in her Gov.race?

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.

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

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.

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.

woodchip wrote:Does NORC compare to the Fl state Supreme Court? No, then you are a limp flag looking for a breeze.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

woodchip wrote:You still haven't shown that Trump did try...other than by innuendo.

Spidey wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 7:59 amWell then don't contradict yourself by saying you are "looking forward" to voting for someone.

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.

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.

woodchip wrote:I'll still wait until the court case

woodchip wrote:There is no reality until the witnesses get up on the stand under oath and get cross examined.