(08-05-2023 12:52 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 12:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1. Trump's state of mind --

(to Mike Pence after Mike Pence pointed out that he did not have the right to do what Trump told him to do, and after pointing out that even the attorney, John Eastman, noted that the issue was a violation of the law) -- "The problem with you, Mike, is that you are too honest".

2. First Amendment --

Quote:Is any public challenge to a certified federal election a criminal act? In Jack Smith’s telling, the answer is probably yes.

This prosecutor interestingly overlooks the speech/ action dichotomy. Trump can complain all he wants about the election. The actions he took were to subvert the election. I guess this prosecutor forgot about that speech / action dichotomy.

But like many folks, it sounds cool to trumpet the 'free speech' issue. When the issues in the indictment are charges on specific *acts*.

3. Specific Intent

Quote:he needs to prove they acted with specific intent to deprive people of the right to have their votes counted. This cannot be established by inference, under binding Supreme Court precedent. Smith needs evidence that Trump’s intent was specifically to deprive people of their right to have their votes counted.

"Mike, you have the authority to disallow the slates of electors from Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania."

The slates were certified under the power of those specific states.

I can point to 84 distinct votes that Trump specifically targeted to be disallowed, right there.

4. Proving a Fraud Conspiracy

Quote:But in light of the requirements for proving fraud conspiracy under § 371, Smith needs to show that Trump and his team knew their theories were groundless when they promoted them to state legislators and other decision-makers in the electoral count process and encouraged those officials to take various official actions.

Text from Eastman to Pence at 11:44 pm Jan 6 --- "I implore you to consider *one more* violation [of the Electoral Counting Act] and adjourn for 10 days"

Emphasis added for "one more".

Another -- "Greg Jacob, Vice President Mike Pence’s counsel, recounted a White House meeting on Jan. 4, 2021, in which Eastman told Trump that his plan to thwart the counting of the Electoral College violated federal statute."

By the way Eastman is the author of the plan Trump tried to do.

5. Misapplication of Obstruction Law

Quote: a defendant must have acted with the specific intent “to procure an unlawful benefit either for himself or for some other person.”

See above. There is a stark admission above, and stark other testimony that the actions were themselves unlawful, by the those comments from the participants. And the results of those actions are a benefit obtained by using unlawful means.

------------------

That is a world class effort by that person to actually *not* address the issues in the indictment.

I’ll take a former federal prosecutor’s take over a loan closers take every day. And I would say that was being smart. Should I add a 2nd grade “Lolz”?

Bwahahahaha

I walked out of a loan closing because of a math error years ago after a retard attorney tried to tell me there were fees i didnt understand. Told them they had 15 minutes to find error or desl was off. Told them i was abdolutely not a lawyer, i could add and subtract

Idiots scrambled and found the error. Real estate attorneys are dumb fricks.

(08-05-2023 01:48 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 06:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:57 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:42 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Pence (direct quote): "the president ultimately, ultimately continued to demand that I choose him over the Constitution."

Pence (direct quote): "President Trump and his advisers didn't just ask me to pause, they asked me to reject votes, return votes, to overturn the election,”


Pence (direct quote): "President Trump and his advisers didn't just ask me to pause, they asked me to reject votes, return votes, to overturn the election,”

Not my spin.... the direct quote from the direct witness to act. But go get em sparky....


"[The] President.... asked me ..... to overturn the election."

What does that have anything to do with the laundry list above? Are you trying to excuse someone for trying to "overturn the election"? Seriously?


How is that an excuse to directly and explicity "overturn the election"?


I may not disagree to some sort.

"[The] President.... asked me ..... to overturn the election."

"[The] President.... asked me ..... to overturn the election."

Where is your source for this comment?

Please be specific

Interview at link.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/mike-pence...n-election

Video, specific question about 'pause' starts at 2:42.

Q (paraphrase): were you simply asked to pause the electoral count?

A: That is false.

At 3:33 -- the first time I heard the assertion I had the authority to overturn the election by returning or rejecting votes, I dismissed it out of hand.

At 4:14 -- the President specifically asked me, and his gaggle of crackpot attorneys specifically asked me to literally reject votes, which would have resulted .... in chaos.

4:55 -- the President and his advisors didnt ask me to *pause*, they asked me to reject votes, to return votes, to overturn the election.

Well I looked at this and what I see is a play on words from Pence. I copied and pasted a comment from the article you posted and I believe this comment.

I agree with Pence...he does not have the right to OVERTURN an election.

What he did have, however, is the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to QUESTION AND VERIFY THROUGH THE STATES' LEGISLATURES the authenticity and validity of electoral votes submitted to Congress, if questioned by either candidate.

Questioning votes and sending the votes back to the state legislature for review and investigation is not an illegal act. Ultimately, it is for the preservation and security of the American dream.

If it was, many times, Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of this act.

But you know what happened before some of the States were able to tell the VP that they had problems with the votes in their States. Someone had the Capitol Doors open so the people from the outside could come in. At that time they shut down the whole process and went into hiding. When they came back later they rushed everything and never heard from the States that had a problem.

Jan. 6 was a setup and if anyone should be charged are the people that Installed Biden as POTUS. They are the ones that have over thrown the government of the USA.

You omit the very important aspect -- Trump asked Pence to reject votes. Multiple times. End of story.

Nothing in what you state above touches in the slightest on that.

"President Trump .... asked me to reject votes, asked me to return votes, to overturn the election."

*and*

"the President specifically asked me, and his gaggle of crackpot attorneys specifically asked me to literally reject votes"

Kind of hard to escape that Pence is crystal clear that Trump asked him to reject votes, and to overturn the election for him.

President Trump, nor his 'clown car gaggle of lawyers', ever presented *any* tangible basis for that request to "reject votes, .... to overturn the election." Period.

--------------------

To the items above ---

What states were 'tell[ing] the VP that they had problems'? Be specific.

The only things that were trying to get to Pence's hands were the sheets from the fake electors. There were *zero* communications from the only important parties -- the SoS or the Legislatures of the states themselves.

The *only* parties that could do that are the states, either through the SoS or the Lege themselves.

There is no indication of that type of communication in the slightest in record. The only request for communications to Pence were from Senator Ron Johnson to deliver a slate of electors that were not even fing certified by his state. To which Pence refused to accept them. That is like delivering a fake deed to the county clerk -- in fact that is precisely the analogy.

I would like to know specifically what the communications you speak of above were.

(08-04-2023 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 12:16 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 09:24 AM)450bench Wrote:  It’s absolutely a banana republic.
The left has created it, perpetuated it, nurtured it and, as we see here daily from the resident libs, denied it.

All you have to do to see proof is watch ABC, nbc, cbs news for a few minutes at the top of an hour sometime. See what their agenda try to brainwash you with.
See what they prop up and see what they criticize or scoff at.

It’s hilarious.

Pence: I had no right to overturn the election as asked by Trump.

I had no idea Trump was a left winger. Thanks for clearing that up.

What’s clear is what the left has done to this country in order to get their way. That’s what’s clear.
If you don’t see that, you’re beyond help.

How do you classify the "I was asked by Trump and by his clown car attorneys to overturn the election" comment by Pence?

*Pence is running against Trump if you haven’t noticed. He is trying to attract those on the left such as yourself who have an unhealthy hatred of Trump. A very distasteful path for him. He has zero chance now. He wants to continue a Chris Cristi campaign against Trump and he’ll be begging like minded leftists billionaires for money. Soon to be in the waste bin of history.*

Doesnt that seem to fit in with a person willing to break the law "in order to get their own way"?

*Absolutely not in anyway. Trump saw the law breaking that went on for the mush head to win by a few thousand votes. Everyone else did too. Trump was in his way trying to defend our system and its integrity. Ham fisted maybe but it was a precedent. Never in our history that I am aware of has anything like this happened. So now you and the democrats want to criminalize free speech and politics. Hope you fail miserably and suffer the consequences.*

How is that different from your comment against the left on what the left has done "in order to get their own way"?

*No laws were broken. Only the democrat machine stopped the counting. Counted votes when no republican poll workers were present. And on and on. This was an attempt to get to the bottom of the shenanigans which was blocked at ever door. I’ll remind your TDS soul that Bill Barr told the country that the DOJ had investigated vote irregularities and found nothing when in fact not a damn thing had been done.*

I actually agree that the left has done a lot in order to achieve their goals, no doubt.

*How sweet of you to admit the fact to claim the appearance of non-partiality.*

I find it odd that that defense or rationale is used in order to ostensibly protect someone who is willing to ask to have an election overturned, ostensibly "in order to get their own way."

*Trump was engaging in politics Mr Darrow. Been that way from the beginning of the country. In the end he left the White House peacefully as all those before him. Unfortunately now you, fueled by your unhealthy hatred of a politician, have joined the chorus of the idiot army to change the entire trajectory of this country. You should be ashamed of yourself. *

(08-04-2023 03:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:26 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 02:59 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 12:16 PM)450bench Wrote:  What’s clear is what the left has done to this country in order to get their way. That’s what’s clear.
If you don’t see that, you’re beyond help.

How do you classify the "I was asked by Trump and by his clown car attorneys to overturn the election" comment by Pence?

Doesnt that seem to fit in with a person willing to break the law "in order to get their own way"?

How is that different from your comment against the left on what the left has done "in order to get their own way"?

I actually agree that the left has done a lot in order to achieve their goals, no doubt.

I find it odd that that defense or rationale is used in order to ostensibly protect someone who is willing to ask to have an election overturned, ostensibly "in order to get their own way."

Trump wanted Pence to exercise his right as VP to investigate the irregularities of the election.
Everybody knows that he can’t “overturn” the results but he can slow the process down so fraud and irregularities can be investigated.
And there were plenty of irregularities in that election.

Spin that however you want.

Care to dive into the framing and overthrow attempt the left performed while Trump was in office with coordinated fictionalized charges from all angles of left leaning governing bodies in order to get Trump out? The crooked FBI, Hillary’s team, congressman, senators etc etc.

The left started the lies and fabrication and blame Trump for calling them out from the start.

The left are criminals. Plain and simple.

They are brownshirts no lie.

It doesnt bother idiots.

"brownshirts". The

"[The] President.... asked me ..... to overturn the election."

Rich comment shere, absurdly rich.

“Or something to the effect of……” I guess we shall see if that is indeed what Trump said.

y'all crack muh arse up...

tanq's entire case rests upon DJT telling him to 'do eet, dammit!' ... guess how it won't be framed when ol' mikey testifies?!

y'all would be much better off to tell him, "cya in court, honey!" and be done with it ...

the rest of the case doesn't have a fk'n snowball's once it hits the appellate track....

(08-05-2023 03:10 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:26 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 02:59 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  How do you classify the "I was asked by Trump and by his clown car attorneys to overturn the election" comment by Pence?

Doesnt that seem to fit in with a person willing to break the law "in order to get their own way"?

How is that different from your comment against the left on what the left has done "in order to get their own way"?

I actually agree that the left has done a lot in order to achieve their goals, no doubt.

I find it odd that that defense or rationale is used in order to ostensibly protect someone who is willing to ask to have an election overturned, ostensibly "in order to get their own way."

Trump wanted Pence to exercise his right as VP to investigate the irregularities of the election.
Everybody knows that he can’t “overturn” the results but he can slow the process down so fraud and irregularities can be investigated.
And there were plenty of irregularities in that election.

Spin that however you want.

Care to dive into the framing and overthrow attempt the left performed while Trump was in office with coordinated fictionalized charges from all angles of left leaning governing bodies in order to get Trump out? The crooked FBI, Hillary’s team, congressman, senators etc etc.

The left started the lies and fabrication and blame Trump for calling them out from the start.

The left are criminals. Plain and simple.

They are brownshirts no lie.

It doesnt bother idiots.

"brownshirts". The

"[The] President.... asked me ..... to overturn the election."

Rich comment shere, absurdly rich.

“Or something to the effect of……” I guess we shall see if that is indeed what Trump said.

He asked the gutless wonder pence to do his job.

The tilth spin everything and will lose.

Freakin brownshirts

(08-05-2023 09:40 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Trump says if you go after me, I'm coming after you.

Crackpot Jack Smith pees his pants and then reacts.

After this display, there had better be no leaks to the media out of Jack Smith's office, because he wants to muzzle Trump.

"oh muh gerd! If Trump begins leaking grand jury transcripts he will be doing what the doj and Alvin Bragg has already done. That would be CHILLING! WAAAAAAA! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Now I have heard speculation on the media that Hack Smith wants to delay the documents trial and hurriedly get to the 1/6 hogwash. Claim the documents cases is to complicated and will take to long and the 1/6 is a much better case
Not going to say I called it…….but this layman called it. I’ll give myself a
DC with an Obama judge or Florida with a Trump judge. Of course that has nothing to do with it.
TDS has caused many cases of brain damage and it will be irreversible if they don’t shake out of it if this takes place.

(08-05-2023 11:54 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

Quote:Here’s a mashup of Democrats explicitly calling for violence and unrest. When will any of them be held accountable?

{VIDEO}

10:37 AM · Jul 18, 2023

Soon as they back Trump.

(08-05-2023 12:14 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 11:54 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

Quote:Here’s a mashup of Democrats explicitly calling for violence and unrest. When will any of them be held accountable?

{VIDEO}

10:37 AM · Jul 18, 2023

There is no place in a free society for duplicity in accountability. Sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander. Yet another symptom of terminal America.

He is not being prosecuted for his rhetoric.
He is being prosecuted for the organized attempt to overthrow the government. The free speech argument will work for some in the court of public opinion but it will not play in a court of law.

Certainly not in DC. Thus the real purpose of these sham indictments.

(08-05-2023 03:01 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  How do you classify the "I was asked by Trump and by his clown car attorneys to overturn the election" comment by Pence?

*Pence is running against Trump if you haven’t noticed. He is trying to attract those on the left such as yourself who have an unhealthy hatred of Trump. A very distasteful path for him. He has zero chance now. He wants to continue a Chris Cristi campaign against Trump and he’ll be begging like minded leftists billionaires for money. Soon to be in the waste bin of history.*

Hmmmm.... Pence lying, Trump not. Got it.

Thats the same Trump who said that he won every state in a landslide? That Trump?

Lolz.

Quote:Doesnt that seem to fit in with a person willing to break the law "in order to get their own way"?

*Absolutely not in anyway. Trump saw the law breaking that went on for the mush head to win by a few thousand votes. Everyone else did too. Trump was in his way trying to defend our system and its integrity.

Defend integrity by rejecting electoral votes because, well, because. Got it. makes perfect sense.

Defend integrity by, well, in Pence's words 'overturn[ing] the election'. Got it.

Quote:Ham fisted maybe but it was a precedent.

Ham fisted? Telling someone to simply replace votes or reject votes is fing illegal. No matter who does it. Ham fisted...... lolz.

Quote:Never in our history that I am aware of has anything like this happened.

You and I agree. Never in our history have we had a President try to tell the VP to reject voters of the Electoral College.... with no basis. That is electoral voters certified by their states. Not some clown car fks with a certificate from the local Lubys like the ones trump wanted to have counted and told Pence he wanted to have counted. Funny that.

Quote:So now you and the democrats want to criminalize free speech and politics. Hope you fail miserably and suffer the consequences.*

Where is free speech being criminalized? be specific. I *really* want to hear this.... this could be worth some good laughs.....

Quote:*No laws were broken.

I guess you forget the ones that say 'an official cant reject a vote with no basis in the law.' Stupid ones like that....

I guess you forget the ones that say 'you cant walk into Congress with a fake document and tell them that they are certified voters for the Electoral College.'

Funny things like that.

Maybe you should walk into your county clerk's office with a fake deed, and take your neighbor's land. Im sure that is completely legal.

Quote:Only the democrat machine stopped the counting. Counted votes when no republican poll workers were present. And on and on. This was an attempt to get to the bottom of the shenanigans which was blocked at ever door.

Funny, the comment was that 'Trump asked [Pence].... to reject votes, to return votes, to overturn the election.'

How is asking someone to 'reject votes' an 'attempt to get to the bottom on the shenanigans'? That is quite the interesting take.

Quote:I’ll remind your TDS soul that Bill Barr told the country that the DOJ had investigated vote irregularities and found nothing when in fact not a damn thing had been done.*

Every succeeding head of the DOJ after Barr said there was no proof -- and they had done stuff. I guess that doesnt fit so you leave it out.

Quote:*Trump was engaging in politics Mr Darrow.

Telling his VP to reject certified slates of electors, and to count the ones with certificates from box of fing Cracker Jacks, and to 'overturn the election', when Trumps *own* fing lawyer described the actions as "one more .... violation [of the law]" in an email to Pence -- *that* is 'engaging in politics'? Seriously?

Quote:Been that way from the beginning of the country. In the end he left the White House peacefully as all those before him. Unfortunately now you, fueled by your unhealthy hatred of a politician, have joined the chorus of the idiot army to change the entire trajectory of this country. You should be ashamed of yourself. *

Lolz.

(08-05-2023 12:35 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

Unfortunately this is to the point. And Tanq, Tommie Bois, Menstra, DirtyTennisShoe and the rest of the filth here will celebrate it as the MSM tell us it was a deranged conservative that did the deed. Complete with a Facebook, Twitter X and YouTube channel to prove to them the corrupt mafioso in the deep state had nothing to do with it.

(08-05-2023 03:10 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:26 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 02:59 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 01:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  How do you classify the "I was asked by Trump and by his clown car attorneys to overturn the election" comment by Pence?

Doesnt that seem to fit in with a person willing to break the law "in order to get their own way"?

How is that different from your comment against the left on what the left has done "in order to get their own way"?

I actually agree that the left has done a lot in order to achieve their goals, no doubt.

I find it odd that that defense or rationale is used in order to ostensibly protect someone who is willing to ask to have an election overturned, ostensibly "in order to get their own way."

Trump wanted Pence to exercise his right as VP to investigate the irregularities of the election.
Everybody knows that he can’t “overturn” the results but he can slow the process down so fraud and irregularities can be investigated.
And there were plenty of irregularities in that election.

Spin that however you want.

Care to dive into the framing and overthrow attempt the left performed while Trump was in office with coordinated fictionalized charges from all angles of left leaning governing bodies in order to get Trump out? The crooked FBI, Hillary’s team, congressman, senators etc etc.

The left started the lies and fabrication and blame Trump for calling them out from the start.

The left are criminals. Plain and simple.

They are brownshirts no lie.

It doesnt bother idiots.

"brownshirts". The

"[The] President.... asked me ..... to overturn the election."

Rich comment shere, absurdly rich.

“Or something to the effect of……” I guess we shall see if that is indeed what Trump said.

My quote is a direct quote of Pence, sparky. Funny that.

I can roll with several other direct quotes from Pence that say the equivalent.

Nice attempt at deflection, though. Maybe try 'reality' instead of pulling stuff out of your ass. That tends to help.

(08-05-2023 01:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 12:45 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 10:39 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 08:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In terms of what is outlined in the indictments —- yes, those issues there detail the contents of documents that will ne presented, and the contents of actual testimony by witnesses.

If Jack Smith does no deliver those I just might come further to your camp.

If that testimony and documents don’t exist and are shown not to exist, not only will I join your camp, my call is that Jack Smith should be disbarred or charged.

Jack Smith has done a put up or shut up step here. Given that I will take those sworn filings as such. And if shown not to be true then I am all onboard with severe consequences.

Now, if Jack Smith actually does put up, what will be your response Adopted?

To your question ‘is Smith lying’? If he is I expect the Trump team to be able to address that fairly easily. Lord knows they have mouthpieces by the dozens to throw at the airwaves, but the actual legal system is designed where Trump has the full ability to bring that out.

And I expect that the campaign / PAC money grift that is being used as nothing more than a piggy bank for legal expenses {to the tune of 70 *million* dollars just in the 1st half of 2023) should be very well equipped to do that on his behalf. Would you agree?

You bring up money. Really? Who’s paying Hack Smiths bills and how much has he got to continue this farce? Do the contributors to Hack Smith’s attack have a choice as Trump’s contributors do? What consequences will Hack Smith suffer if he loses whether now or in the SCOTUS? None of course. With the exception of a cush job somewhere in government or a Washington law firm for a job well done.

Either you understand what’s going on here and are fine with political persecution or you don’t understand and are stupid. Only two choices.

Actually I am bringing up paying all the legal bills for all the witnesses.

And using the piggy bank of a campaign fund to do that.

Im completely sure all the schlubs that send their 100 bucks the campaign are fully aware that their funds going to the campaign and PAC are being used to pay for an army of attorney time.

Maybe you should read a little more attentively. As opposed to gross generalities and coming up with a subject that shares only two words with the original. And opposed to the kneejerk and rather empty practice of whadabout that you seem to glom onto religiously.

Or just glom onto the idiotic surficial comments above and call everyone else stupid for not go along with your 200,000 foot view of generalities notwithstanding the actual issues being referenced.

Or maybe you are pissed that you are one of the schlubs paying part of the 70 million in legal expenses that you didnt know you were paying.

I find it odd that a dude that owns his own 757 luxury airliner is scamming his donors to pay his legal bills, and to pay the legal bills of every witness he can lay his hands on. Dont you?

You are stupid. You don’t seem to be able to grasp the fact that the government is trying to bleed his campaign funds dry. Another reason this was perused now rather than two years ago. You defend Jack Smith after he was roundly skull dragged by the supreme court. But you are smarter than them, aren’t you? Even the liberals on the court. Yes I said you’re stupid and I mean it. You are. Or a liar. Not sure which one but either one’s not very becoming.

Scream some more, pinhead. It is so becoming.

Did you even bother to read the McDonnell case at the Supreme Court? Maybe you should. Why dont you tell us how that affects this issue? If it does....

Or just blather some shallow water ignorant redneck dreck about it. Sounds fun.

Ill take your response as that you are one of the people that Trump is grifting to pay his lawyers......

Yes. You are either stupid or a liar. Your hero lost 9 zip in the SCOTUS. That’s all I need to read. Should I add a 2nd grade “Lolz”?

(08-05-2023 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 01:48 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 06:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:57 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:42 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  "[The] President.... asked me ..... to overturn the election."

Where is your source for this comment?

Please be specific

Interview at link.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/mike-pence...n-election

Video, specific question about 'pause' starts at 2:42.

Q (paraphrase): were you simply asked to pause the electoral count?

A: That is false.

At 3:33 -- the first time I heard the assertion I had the authority to overturn the election by returning or rejecting votes, I dismissed it out of hand.

At 4:14 -- the President specifically asked me, and his gaggle of crackpot attorneys specifically asked me to literally reject votes, which would have resulted .... in chaos.

4:55 -- the President and his advisors didnt ask me to *pause*, they asked me to reject votes, to return votes, to overturn the election.

Well I looked at this and what I see is a play on words from Pence. I copied and pasted a comment from the article you posted and I believe this comment.

I agree with Pence...he does not have the right to OVERTURN an election.

What he did have, however, is the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to QUESTION AND VERIFY THROUGH THE STATES' LEGISLATURES the authenticity and validity of electoral votes submitted to Congress, if questioned by either candidate.

Questioning votes and sending the votes back to the state legislature for review and investigation is not an illegal act. Ultimately, it is for the preservation and security of the American dream.

If it was, many times, Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of this act.

But you know what happened before some of the States were able to tell the VP that they had problems with the votes in their States. Someone had the Capitol Doors open so the people from the outside could come in. At that time they shut down the whole process and went into hiding. When they came back later they rushed everything and never heard from the States that had a problem.

Jan. 6 was a setup and if anyone should be charged are the people that Installed Biden as POTUS. They are the ones that have over thrown the government of the USA.

You omit the very important aspect -- Trump asked Pence to reject votes. Multiple times. End of story.

Nothing in what you state above touches in the slightest on that.

"President Trump .... asked me to reject votes, asked me to return votes, to overturn the election."

*and*

"the President specifically asked me, and his gaggle of crackpot attorneys specifically asked me to literally reject votes"

Kind of hard to escape that Pence is crystal clear that Trump asked him to reject votes, and to overturn the election for him.

President Trump, nor his 'clown car gaggle of lawyers', ever presented *any* tangible basis for that request to "reject votes, .... to overturn the election." Period.

--------------------

To the items above ---

What states were 'tell[ing] the VP that they had problems'? Be specific.

The only things that were trying to get to Pence's hands were the sheets from the fake electors. There were *zero* communications from the only important parties -- the SoS or the Legislatures of the states themselves.

The *only* parties that could do that are the states, either through the SoS or the Lege themselves.

There is no indication of that type of communication in the slightest in record. The only request for communications to Pence were from Senator Ron Johnson to deliver a slate of electors that were not even fing certified by his state. To which Pence refused to accept them. That is like delivering a fake deed to the county clerk -- in fact that is precisely the analogy.

I would like to know specifically what the communications you speak of above were.

As to your first statement. Your whole point is Pence is telling the truth and nothing but the truth. I'm not buying it, you can because that's what you want to hear.

On the second part I will have to get back to you because this was like 2 1/2 years ago.
Another thing, why do you think they pasted that ELECTORAL COUNT REFORM ACT in 2022?

(08-05-2023 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 12:52 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 12:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1. Trump's state of mind --

(to Mike Pence after Mike Pence pointed out that he did not have the right to do what Trump told him to do, and after pointing out that even the attorney, John Eastman, noted that the issue was a violation of the law) -- "The problem with you, Mike, is that you are too honest".

2. First Amendment --

Quote:Is any public challenge to a certified federal election a criminal act? In Jack Smith’s telling, the answer is probably yes.

This prosecutor interestingly overlooks the speech/ action dichotomy. Trump can complain all he wants about the election. The actions he took were to subvert the election. I guess this prosecutor forgot about that speech / action dichotomy.

But like many folks, it sounds cool to trumpet the 'free speech' issue. When the issues in the indictment are charges on specific *acts*.

3. Specific Intent

Quote:he needs to prove they acted with specific intent to deprive people of the right to have their votes counted. This cannot be established by inference, under binding Supreme Court precedent. Smith needs evidence that Trump’s intent was specifically to deprive people of their right to have their votes counted.

"Mike, you have the authority to disallow the slates of electors from Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania."

The slates were certified under the power of those specific states.

I can point to 84 distinct votes that Trump specifically targeted to be disallowed, right there.

4. Proving a Fraud Conspiracy

Quote:But in light of the requirements for proving fraud conspiracy under § 371, Smith needs to show that Trump and his team knew their theories were groundless when they promoted them to state legislators and other decision-makers in the electoral count process and encouraged those officials to take various official actions.

Text from Eastman to Pence at 11:44 pm Jan 6 --- "I implore you to consider *one more* violation [of the Electoral Counting Act] and adjourn for 10 days"

Emphasis added for "one more".

Another -- "Greg Jacob, Vice President Mike Pence’s counsel, recounted a White House meeting on Jan. 4, 2021, in which Eastman told Trump that his plan to thwart the counting of the Electoral College violated federal statute."

By the way Eastman is the author of the plan Trump tried to do.

5. Misapplication of Obstruction Law

Quote: a defendant must have acted with the specific intent “to procure an unlawful benefit either for himself or for some other person.”

See above. There is a stark admission above, and stark other testimony that the actions were themselves unlawful, by the those comments from the participants. And the results of those actions are a benefit obtained by using unlawful means.

------------------

That is a world class effort by that person to actually *not* address the issues in the indictment.

I’ll take a former federal prosecutor’s take over a loan closers take every day. And I would say that was being smart. Should I add a 2nd grade “Lolz”?

Had you bothered to read the indictment before flapping your gums, you might take note of what I say above.

Or, just flap your gums. You be you.

Why does that poster never bother to note the differences between 'action' and 'words'? But, have fun there flappy.

The FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR above read the indictments for me. Maybe it’s your lying ass that should read them without your TDS colored glasses. (2nd grade) Lolz (added for effect) Chuckles.

Your opinion means absolutely chit to me so you might as well hold back your War and Peace response unless you actually enjoy wasting your time, Mr Darrow.

(08-05-2023 03:37 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 01:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 12:45 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 10:39 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  You bring up money. Really? Who’s paying Hack Smiths bills and how much has he got to continue this farce? Do the contributors to Hack Smith’s attack have a choice as Trump’s contributors do? What consequences will Hack Smith suffer if he loses whether now or in the SCOTUS? None of course. With the exception of a cush job somewhere in government or a Washington law firm for a job well done.

Either you understand what’s going on here and are fine with political persecution or you don’t understand and are stupid. Only two choices.

Actually I am bringing up paying all the legal bills for all the witnesses.

And using the piggy bank of a campaign fund to do that.

Im completely sure all the schlubs that send their 100 bucks the campaign are fully aware that their funds going to the campaign and PAC are being used to pay for an army of attorney time.

Maybe you should read a little more attentively. As opposed to gross generalities and coming up with a subject that shares only two words with the original. And opposed to the kneejerk and rather empty practice of whadabout that you seem to glom onto religiously.

Or just glom onto the idiotic surficial comments above and call everyone else stupid for not go along with your 200,000 foot view of generalities notwithstanding the actual issues being referenced.

Or maybe you are pissed that you are one of the schlubs paying part of the 70 million in legal expenses that you didnt know you were paying.

I find it odd that a dude that owns his own 757 luxury airliner is scamming his donors to pay his legal bills, and to pay the legal bills of every witness he can lay his hands on. Dont you?

You are stupid. You don’t seem to be able to grasp the fact that the government is trying to bleed his campaign funds dry. Another reason this was perused now rather than two years ago. You defend Jack Smith after he was roundly skull dragged by the supreme court. But you are smarter than them, aren’t you? Even the liberals on the court. Yes I said you’re stupid and I mean it. You are. Or a liar. Not sure which one but either one’s not very becoming.

Scream some more, pinhead. It is so becoming.

Did you even bother to read the McDonnell case at the Supreme Court? Maybe you should. Why dont you tell us how that affects this issue? If it does....

Or just blather some shallow water ignorant redneck dreck about it. Sounds fun.

Ill take your response as that you are one of the people that Trump is grifting to pay his lawyers......

Yes. You are either stupid or a liar. Your hero lost 9 zip in the SCOTUS. That’s all I need to read. Should I add a 2nd grade “Lolz”?

Ill take that as you dont have a fing clue as to that case. You could have just said that. If you read it, you might have an inkling on what your lip flapping is. But you just lip flap. Got it. Lolz.

SEN. CRUZ OPPOSES ELECTORAL COUNT REFORM ACT FOR REDUCING CONGRESSIONAL ABILITY TO ADDRESS VOTER FRAUD
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), member of the Senate Rules Committee, voted against the Electoral Count Reform Act today during a committee mark-up and gave the following remarks:

“This bill is a bad bill. … It’s bad policy and it’s bad for democracy. There are serious constitutional questions in the bill. The text of the Constitution, Article Two says, ‘Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” This bill is Congress trying to intrude on the authority of the state legislatures to do that. But it’s also exceptionally bad policy.

…

“We know that Democrats aren’t opposed to objecting to elections and presidential electors. We know that because Democrats objected in 1969. And then they objected again in 2001. Then they objected again in 2005. And then they objected again in 2017. So Democrats have a long history of going up and objecting to electors.

…

“We also know that the Democrats are hell bent on federalizing elections. And this bill takes a significant step down that road of putting the federal government in charge of elections. That has been a top Democrat priority for some time.

…

“What this bill does is decreases the ability of Congress to address instances of fraud when it occurs, and I believe Congress has a responsibility to do that.

…

“I don’t believe senators from this side of the aisle should be supporting a bill that enhances the federalization of elections and reduces the ability of Congress to respond to the very serious problem of voter fraud. I think this bill does that, and so I intend to oppose it.”

(08-05-2023 01:48 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 06:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:57 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:42 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 03:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Pence (direct quote): "the president ultimately, ultimately continued to demand that I choose him over the Constitution."

Pence (direct quote): "President Trump and his advisers didn't just ask me to pause, they asked me to reject votes, return votes, to overturn the election,”


Pence (direct quote): "President Trump and his advisers didn't just ask me to pause, they asked me to reject votes, return votes, to overturn the election,”

Not my spin.... the direct quote from the direct witness to act. But go get em sparky....


"[The] President.... asked me ..... to overturn the election."

What does that have anything to do with the laundry list above? Are you trying to excuse someone for trying to "overturn the election"? Seriously?


How is that an excuse to directly and explicity "overturn the election"?


I may not disagree to some sort.

"[The] President.... asked me ..... to overturn the election."

"[The] President.... asked me ..... to overturn the election."

Where is your source for this comment?

Please be specific

Interview at link.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/mike-pence...n-election

Video, specific question about 'pause' starts at 2:42.

Q (paraphrase): were you simply asked to pause the electoral count?

A: That is false.

At 3:33 -- the first time I heard the assertion I had the authority to overturn the election by returning or rejecting votes, I dismissed it out of hand.

At 4:14 -- the President specifically asked me, and his gaggle of crackpot attorneys specifically asked me to literally reject votes, which would have resulted .... in chaos.

4:55 -- the President and his advisors didnt ask me to *pause*, they asked me to reject votes, to return votes, to overturn the election.

Well I looked at this and what I see is a play on words from Pence. I copied and pasted a comment from the article you posted and I believe this comment.

I agree with Pence...he does not have the right to OVERTURN an election.

What he did have, however, is the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to QUESTION AND VERIFY THROUGH THE STATES' LEGISLATURES the authenticity and validity of electoral votes submitted to Congress, if questioned by either candidate.

Questioning votes and sending the votes back to the state legislature for review and investigation is not an illegal act. Ultimately, it is for the preservation and security of the American dream.

If it was, many times, Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of this act.

But you know what happened before some of the States were able to tell the VP that they had problems with the votes in their States. Someone had the Capitol Doors open so the people from the outside could come in. At that time they shut down the whole process and went into hiding. When they came back later they rushed everything and never heard from the States that had a problem.

Jan. 6 was a setup and if anyone should be charged are the people that Installed Biden as POTUS. They are the ones that have over thrown the government of the USA.

*****This*****
I would add here that the real conspirators were specifically Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of DC. They purposely denied security that Trump asked for. It never seems to dawn on the sick TDSers why would a coup conspiracy include the protection of the target by the supposed instigators?That seems to have been missing from every investigation these government hacks have done.

(08-05-2023 03:44 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2023 12:52 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-04-2023 12:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1. Trump's state of mind --

(to Mike Pence after Mike Pence pointed out that he did not have the right to do what Trump told him to do, and after pointing out that even the attorney, John Eastman, noted that the issue was a violation of the law) -- "The problem with you, Mike, is that you are too honest".

2. First Amendment --

Quote:Is any public challenge to a certified federal election a criminal act? In Jack Smith’s telling, the answer is probably yes.

This prosecutor interestingly overlooks the speech/ action dichotomy. Trump can complain all he wants about the election. The actions he took were to subvert the election. I guess this prosecutor forgot about that speech / action dichotomy.

But like many folks, it sounds cool to trumpet the 'free speech' issue. When the issues in the indictment are charges on specific *acts*.

3. Specific Intent

Quote:he needs to prove they acted with specific intent to deprive people of the right to have their votes counted. This cannot be established by inference, under binding Supreme Court precedent. Smith needs evidence that Trump’s intent was specifically to deprive people of their right to have their votes counted.

"Mike, you have the authority to disallow the slates of electors from Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania."

The slates were certified under the power of those specific states.

I can point to 84 distinct votes that Trump specifically targeted to be disallowed, right there.

4. Proving a Fraud Conspiracy

Quote:But in light of the requirements for proving fraud conspiracy under § 371, Smith needs to show that Trump and his team knew their theories were groundless when they promoted them to state legislators and other decision-makers in the electoral count process and encouraged those officials to take various official actions.

Text from Eastman to Pence at 11:44 pm Jan 6 --- "I implore you to consider *one more* violation [of the Electoral Counting Act] and adjourn for 10 days"

Emphasis added for "one more".

Another -- "Greg Jacob, Vice President Mike Pence’s counsel, recounted a White House meeting on Jan. 4, 2021, in which Eastman told Trump that his plan to thwart the counting of the Electoral College violated federal statute."

By the way Eastman is the author of the plan Trump tried to do.

5. Misapplication of Obstruction Law

Quote: a defendant must have acted with the specific intent “to procure an unlawful benefit either for himself or for some other person.”

See above. There is a stark admission above, and stark other testimony that the actions were themselves unlawful, by the those comments from the participants. And the results of those actions are a benefit obtained by using unlawful means.

------------------

That is a world class effort by that person to actually *not* address the issues in the indictment.

I’ll take a former federal prosecutor’s take over a loan closers take every day. And I would say that was being smart. Should I add a 2nd grade “Lolz”?

Had you bothered to read the indictment before flapping your gums, you might take note of what I say above.

Or, just flap your gums. You be you.

Why does that poster never bother to note the differences between 'action' and 'words'? But, have fun there flappy.

The FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR above read the indictments for me. Maybe it’s your lying ass that should read them without your TDS colored glasses. (2nd grade) Lolz (added for effect) Chuckles.

Your opinion means absolutely chit to me so you might as well hold back your War and Peace response unless you actually enjoy wasting your time, Mr Darrow.

It means enough for you to keep lip flapping..... imagine that.

But, that is all you can do -- lip flap into the wind.

The dude above never bothered with noting the difference between 'speech' (protected) and 'actions' (not protected). A fairly crucial distinction. But please keep jumping up and down for us about all you know about. Its kind of cute, gummy.