Poor Dazzler, he actually believes that these indictments are intended to bring about convictions.
Tangle Trump up in the courts, destroy RDS with lies about FDOE curriculum.
The stupid will believe anything. Meaning DIM voters.
Right now even with the corrupt media running interference for the criminal in the WH and doing everything they can to destroy the top-2 GOP hopefuls, both are in dead heats with the criminal.
The DIMS always go a bridge too far. It isn’t working Dazzler.
Poor Dazzler, he actually believes that these indictments are intended to bring about convictions.
Tangle Trump up in the courts, destroy RDS with lies about FDOE curriculum.
The stupid will believe anything. Meaning DIM voters.
Right now even with the corrupt media running interference for the criminal in the WH and doing everything they can to destroy the top-2 GOP hopefuls, both are in dead heats with the criminal.
The DIMS always go a bridge too far. It isn’t working Dazzler.
Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.
Then frame it as inciting a riot and not an insurrection. We had a whole committee last summer that thought this was a big deal and that did a criminal referral over the capitol riot incitement.
Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?
Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?
In connection with insurrection. But I guess he wasn't charged with everything he could have been so . . . WINNING!
Yeah I'm sure it's just a kinder gentler justice department.
Does anyone really need Daddy to spend seven lifetimes in prison?
"The most jarring thing about this indictment is it basically just accuses him of disinformation — this is a disinformation indictment," said legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a Fox News contributor.
Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.
Then frame it as inciting a riot and not an insurrection. We had a whole committee last summer that thought this was a big deal and that did a criminal referral over the capitol riot incitement.
Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?
Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?
In connection with insurrection. But I guess he wasn't charged with everything he could have been so . . . WINNING!
Yeah I'm sure it's just a kinder gentler justice department.
Does anyone really need Daddy to spend seven lifetimes in prison?
"The most jarring thing about this indictment is it basically just accuses him of disinformation — this is a disinformation indictment," said legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a Fox News contributor.
Poor Dazzler, he actually believes that these indictments are intended to bring about convictions.
Tangle Trump up in the courts, destroy RDS with lies about FDOE curriculum.
The stupid will believe anything. Meaning DIM voters.
Right now even with the corrupt media running interference for the criminal in the WH and doing everything they can to destroy the top-2 GOP hopefuls, both are in dead heats with the criminal.
The DIMS always go a bridge too far. It isn’t working Dazzler.
Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.
Then frame it as inciting a riot and not an insurrection. We had a whole committee last summer that thought this was a big deal and that did a criminal referral over the capitol riot incitement.
Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?
Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?
In connection with insurrection. But I guess he wasn't charged with everything he could have been so . . . WINNING!
Yeah I'm sure it's just a kinder gentler justice department.
Does anyone really need Daddy to spend seven lifetimes in prison?
Curious for the legal scholars on this thread, why wasn't he indicted for incitement of the events on J6 that the committee told us were really really bad and he did it? Was that an illusion? Thanks in advance.
Any answer would be speculation, but I'd guess Smith was trying to take away the argument that his prosecution was intended to disqualify Daddy under the 14th Amendment.
Then frame it as inciting a riot and not an insurrection. We had a whole committee last summer that thought this was a big deal and that did a criminal referral over the capitol riot incitement.
Is "inciting a riot" even a federal crime?
Who could say. I heard a lot of hot incitement talk for two years. Maybe that was a dud?
In connection with insurrection. But I guess he wasn't charged with everything he could have been so . . . WINNING!
Yeah I'm sure it's just a kinder gentler justice department.
Does anyone really need Daddy to spend seven lifetimes in prison?
"The most jarring thing about this indictment is it basically just accuses him of disinformation — this is a disinformation indictment," said legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a Fox News contributor.
There were Democrat funded commercials of celebrities telling Electors that they didn’t need to recognize the Election results and should vote with their heart in 2016.
If it is illegal to cry and bitch about an election where is the precedent of indictments of every fucking democrat this century
Of course our board fascist is all in
Does anyone even want to live in country where your First Amendment right to appoint fake electors is under constant attack?
Well we survived it in 2016 so thanks for making my point
All you need against Trump is evidence that you don't have
You probably know 2016 and 2020 are mildly different. Alternate electors does not equal faithless electors.
I know that criminalizing calling the election rigged has never happened before
It hasn’t now either. The indictment already anticipated this feeble whine. You should read it.
But when you assemble panels of counterfeit electors, or try to strong arm public officials to change vote counts, you’ve gone well beyond merely kvetching about an election.
Why don’t you just admit you don’t care that he committed these felonies? The truth shall set you free . . . allegedly.
Innocent until proven guilty consuelo. Miss that part in law school?
If it is illegal to cry and bitch about an election where is the precedent of indictments of every fucking democrat this century
Of course our board fascist is all in
Does anyone even want to live in country where your First Amendment right to appoint fake electors is under constant attack?
Well we survived it in 2016 so thanks for making my point
All you need against Trump is evidence that you don't have
You probably know 2016 and 2020 are mildly different. Alternate electors does not equal faithless electors.
I know that criminalizing calling the election rigged has never happened before
It hasn’t now either. The indictment already anticipated this feeble whine. You should read it.
But when you assemble panels of counterfeit electors, or try to strong arm public officials to change vote counts, you’ve gone well beyond merely kvetching about an election.
Why don’t you just admit you don’t care that he committed these felonies? The truth shall set you free . . . allegedly.
Panels of counterfeit electors originated with dems. You should know more about your party. Fkn bootlicker.
There were Democrat funded commercials of celebrities telling Electors that they didn’t need to recognize the Election results and should vote with their heart in 2016.
Pretty inapt comparison. Faithless electors are considerably different than fraudulent electors and the forgeries and perjuries that were necessary parts of that plot.
If it is illegal to cry and bitch about an election where is the precedent of indictments of every fucking democrat this century
Of course our board fascist is all in
Does anyone even want to live in country where your First Amendment right to appoint fake electors is under constant attack?
Well we survived it in 2016 so thanks for making my point
All you need against Trump is evidence that you don't have
You probably know 2016 and 2020 are mildly different. Alternate electors does not equal faithless electors.
I know that criminalizing calling the election rigged has never happened before
It hasn’t now either. The indictment already anticipated this feeble whine. You should read it.
But when you assemble panels of counterfeit electors, or try to strong arm public officials to change vote counts, you’ve gone well beyond merely kvetching about an election.
Why don’t you just admit you don’t care that he committed these felonies? The truth shall set you free . . . allegedly.
Panels of counterfeit electors originated with dems. You should know more about your party. Fkn bootlicker.
Comments
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/legal-experts-slam-jack-smith-lousy-case-trump-disinformation-indictment
Good Lord even liberal news says it's bullshit. So you're not a legal expert or scholar of any kind...
Submitting slates of phony electors, for example, is just a wee bit more than engaging in disinformation.