The Georgia "vote rigging" case may be the strongest case to bring against Trump. The Fulton County District Attorney has already indicated that an investigation is underway and a [possible] indictment may be forthcoming. The evidence against Trump is especially compelling as Brad Raffensberger, Georgia's Secretary of State, recorded the conversation when Trump telephoned demanding that he [Raffensberger] "... find 11,700 votes" which was the number of votes Trump needed to overcome Biden's margin of victory in Georgia. The recorded conversation has been replayed on MSNBC, CNN and other cable channels. (Not sure about the Fox News Channel as playing that tape on-air may be more "fair and balanced" than Fox cares to be with its predominately pro-Trump audience.)

In listening to Trump's voice there's no doubt as to his intent: He wanted Secretary of State Raffensberger to throw out enough of the votes for Joe Biden to swing Georgia (and its 16 Electoral College votes) in Trump's favor. Trump was clearly trying to coerce Raffensberger into throwing the Georgia vote to Trump. To his credit, Mr. Raffensberger showed true courage and dedication to the rule of law by refusing to give in to Trump's demand.

If Trump is indicted for unlawfully attempting to subvert the Georgia election, the outcome of the trial - if there is a trial - will revolve around the question of whether or not that taped telephone conversation will be allowed to be entered into evidence. I don't know what the law is in Georgia, but some states have a law to the effect that you cannot [legally] record a telephone conversation (with another party) without that party's knowledge and consent. If such a law exists in Georgia, the jury would not be allowed to hear the tape.

And there is now more evidence of Trump officials targeting other people up and down the Georgia chain that they felt they could turn. One election official was reported to be threatened with death if they would not say they participated in some purposeful election rigging for Biden in a deposition statement.

That is why I say even if Trump gets the massive benefit of the doubt from a jury that they still cannot prove he 'intended to break laws' but there is certainly enough to let the jury weight that imo.

Especially when you consider the fact Trump has White House lawyers and Bill Barr at the time, so he truly has no excuse to be ignorant of those laws.

It is not even that Trump would be arguing he did not do it. His defense would be he did not know there were laws that prohibited him doing what he did and since the statute requires that knowledge and intent he should walk free.

And that is the biggest absurdity of all and why in a case like this 'ignorance should not be an excuse' Of all the people on the planet who had counsel available to ensure he knew the laws, it was Trump. So even if he did not use it, that willful choice should then preclude him using an 'ignorance' defense.

He has never done anything with grace and dignity.

What makes you think that ignorance of the law is a viable defense? Criminal laws almost never require that the prosecution show that the defendant knew that his or her acts were a violation of law. If you prosecute someone for arson, you don't have the burden of proving that the defendant understood that intentionally setting houses on fire was against the law.

i had one of the morning TV news shows on this morning and they were talking about that prosecution and one of them sad something along the lines of that the key to a conviction is that Trump had to be requesting someone break elections and know that what he was asking was illegal. Meaning he could not ask 'can you do X' and they say "i cannot, that is illegal' and he still gets arrested as he learns it is illegal. That law requires you know what you are requesting is illegal to prosecute it.

Lollolol

Ok I give you this @rococo too.

He seems to be an idiot. An idiot among idiots isn't necessarily the worst option. But most of you guys will disagree.

I don't like what his father did, or what he did. I don't like his wife, his uncle (do you know that trumps uncle isnresposible for the disappearing of Nicola teslas scientific files?) But I am still not happy with Biden and co. He did keep things in check imo. Not everything he did was so bad if you're honest.

This is about trumps uncle and the tesla files.

His uncle went over teslas scientific work (A lifes work!)
And decided within 2 hours it's all bs and not of public interst)

Hahahahahaa! Yeah, sure, the work of the inventor of our modern electricity, wireless electricity, radiology... the tesla car (yes the tesla brand, engine) is of no public interest and it's all bs. His uncle f all of us over!! That was dirty of his uncle whatever he did that. It was most likely to keep his work hidden. 100 years later they popped up with his inventions everywhere. They f tesla over and declared him a cheat. And his uncle helped with this big time. He had a part in this.

So in a sense the trump family screwed us over. He might had have no other choice to be honest from pressure of the cia. Nevertheless the trump clan was powerful back then and taking part in bs operations.

https://www.history.com/.amp/news/ni...classified-fbi

Is Washoe talking about Nikola Tesla or Elon Musk. I don't even know. Anyway I stopped reading what he posted after "This".

Damn boy, go to bed. Also read a real book.

https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/wat...s-130462277603

It seems no one is governing anything and its coming home to roost, sooner rather than later.

I like the OP's video ... his characterization of the "degradation of democracy," meaning sort of in name only. We already have that in other senses. Haven't corporatocracy, plutocracy, oligarchy long since been in the driver's seat? Aren't elections more bought than anything else?

I am beginning to believe there is some inevitableness to this unless Hilary sees a candidate step into the void she knows she cannot beat. Problem with that second point is I am not sure she is self aware enough to believe there is anyone she cannot beat.


The claim in the original Schoen WSJ Op Ed, is to make a case for Hilary's deep experience in all areas and how none of other viable candidates can compare and then moments later to say she can represent the 'Change Candidate'. That point is made without an ounce of mirth.

What is Hilary the change agent from? Why, the Biden Presidency failures. She, of course can deliver on what Biden did not ( :: Spoiler tags :: to the Elites and Corporate Dem supporters :: /spoiler tags : which is the type of change voters get excited and turn out the base for.








And remember I said it here first and a long time ago, that the Dem's will always look across the pond at how abhorrent they think the GOP candidate is, and that allows them then to select up to and as close to that person as long as they are to the left and thought to be even slightly more tolerable, which is the thing that could open the door to Hilary again.

So if Trump is the candidate certainly then Hilary is back on the table and from the Dem establishment stand point who they want the most.




Because remember "LESSER OF TWO EVILS!" and it is definitely your fault Progressive and POC if you don't turn out in mass to defeat Trump.

@Rococo, not trying to isolate or pick on you but I am pretty sure I have seen support the 'lesser of two evils' concept for voting in the past when i think it was Original Position, e_d and others criticizing Progressives and the idea of 'lack of turn out' and when some posters (I think it was RFlush) was arguing why that lack of turn out can be justifiable even when a reprehensible candidate exist on the other side...

... but if this is the case and Trump is the candidate in 2024 and the Dem's then select Hilary would you blame the Progressives using a 'lesser of two evils' reasoning?, If Trump again gets record turn out of his base, and Hilary loses as Progressive votes shrink to a point where they could have made the difference is that on Progressives?

Apologies if I am misremembering your position about the 'need to vote in a lesser of two evils', if that is the case, but I seem to remember you being on that side of the ledger and as such am curious how you would view Hilary redux and the Lesser of Two evils, arguments???

Feel like this would have been a massive story 20 or even 10 years ago. Democratic voter engagement doesn’t seem particularly high right now (it’s not super low like 2010, but republicans are definitely more engaged) so house is gone and senate a toss up. I’m late 30s and we’ve been stuck in this pattern my entire life. Dems win a major election, then lose half of it right back.

Hillary 2024: I Feel Great!

"...enabling her to claim the title of 'change candidate'"

Hillary 2024: Hope and Change?!?!?

She's got my vote!

Please cite even one person in America who self-identifies as a "Constitutional Conservative" and who also "wants to bring back slavery."

Thanking you in advance.

California is still a great place to live, even though the Democrat politicians are doing their best to ruin it.

That is both very funny and not at all far from the truth.

do your own research

It is that the Dem establishment feigns surprise to this dynamic that is the biggest disconnect.

It took decades of POC threats/hammering away at the Dems to not just treat them as props for elections, trotted out, promises made and then no delivered as soon as they were used to get power, for the Dem Establishment to say 'FINE, ya we rely on you to win and thus cannot simply ignore you after while doling out all the benefits to our usual donors and corporate allies'.

Now they are doing the exact same thing with the Progressive wing. They will trot them out, promise the world, and deliver little to nothing of what was promised simply because they think they have them stuck with no other place to go (lesser of two evils) and that they don't have power.

Is that a dynamic for continued support in the MT's or next election?

The Dem's have always operated on the premise of 'even if we lose to the GOP the voters will then see how horrible they are and come back to us' which is a horrible way to run things when you use it purposely to lie to them and give them little to nothing.

For decades we have seen Elderly Voters and Military voters, promised the world and then delivered to, mostly by Conservatives and because they are prized reliable voting base who the party values.

Dem's don't really value their voting base. Sorry but they don't. They use them. They value their donors and their Corporate allies. The voting base is just what they need to be able to deliver the benefits to those two and once they have done they always then feel like it is 'Mission Accomplished'.

The question is how long the Dems will game the Progressive voters before actually giving them a more equitable share of the benefits? The answer to that is 'not one day before they believe they have to... and likely a few days too late to save a key election'.

Did you also read this on your bodybuilding forum?

I think the way it works is that the person making the claim has to provide evidence for said claim.

As we used to say: Cite or Ban!

Probably not; I think he mostly just looks at the photos.

I highly doubt 2+2 would ban me for not doing YOUR homework. And if they did, big deal. I don't allow anonymous people on the internet to determine my happiness.