Is the Jack Smith indictment of Donald Trump "Election Interference"? (Poll)

[Nostra]

Today is another day that you're living with the stink of traitor Trump the document thief's ass on your face.

Is it better now that he's facing 20?

Seek help soon, Simp.

 

[Marener]

when is Biden's day in court for corruption, bribery, and lying to the public?

If lying to the public were illegal, Trump would be serving consecutive life sentences. It’s not illegal.

Biden will have his day in court if anyone can actually put together an actual case that can actually prove that he is corrupt or took bribes.

As far as anyone is aware, we aren’t anywhere near that.

 

[Redfish]

Liar.

nope, but CNN is lying to you, Biden is lying to you. But since you are incapable of thinking for yourself you will probably buy the lies and vote for the senile ole crook (in reality voting for the ho cameltoe to be president)

 

[forkup]

Don't take my word for it....

"CNN's Evan Perez confirms Trump campaign senior adviser Boris Epshteyn's claim that Hillary Clinton staffers destroyed her previous mobile devices using hammers."

She destroyed nothing. One of her aides did.

This was prior any of the trouble with her e-amils ever broke out. Somewhere during her tenure as secretary of state. Neither does it prove anything nefarious. When I have a credit card that becomes invalid, I destroy it. I can perfectly imagine a device used by the secretary of state getting destroyed when the device becomes defunct.

Actually, Clinton Should Have Destroyed Her Phones Better

Politics aside, the best way to destroy data is often physical destruction---ideally, "a blender and fire."

www.wired.com

A State Department official explained in a statement to WIRED that "department security policies mandate that all electronic devices are cleared of sensitive or classified information prior to reuse or disposal.” Some devices are wiped and reused, in other words, while others are destroyed as part of the recycling process.

I will not claim I'm sure it wasn't anything nefarious since I won't claim to be sure of things without having compelling reasons to believe. But neither do you. And neither does the FBI as is attested by the fact that no indictment came.

This in contrast to Trump who has been indicted twice, and who's last indictment is full of vivid and easy to corroborate detail of nefarious intent.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. Says you....And being a Trump hater, I understand that's what you believe, but that is not what Trump attorneys say was happening.

2. All about you eh? Selfish bastard....lol

3. I doubt he would either, but that's what your fellow travelers want....And they don't seem to be stopping until they get it....Quite Soviet don't you think?

4. I've always said the tape is his toughest problem...But, this is, as are the other indictments a product of 'targeting'....Is that what you want to see happen in the US?

1. And now both sides will get to state their case under oath. Is that not what we should want instead of just trying the case in the court of public opinion?

2. Me and mine.

3. I have no fellows, as you noted in point 2

4. I want to see people who break the law punished for it, no matter who they are

 

[berg80]

Easy, show me the statute where NARA has the authority to determine under penalty of law that any former President must comply to NARA's demands...I'll wait.

THAT'S IT. YOU FOUND IT. You found the reason the whole case will be thrown out.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But since you are incapable of thinking for yourself

 

[Redfish]

1. And now both sides will get to state their case under oath. Is that not what we should want instead of just trying the case in the court of public opinion?

2. Me and mine.

3. I have no fellows, as you noted in point 2

4. I want to see people who break the law punished for it, no matter who they are

then you should support indictments of joe and hunter. do you?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

there is well documented proof of Biden bribery and treason.

That is what you are told , but since you are incapable of thinking for yourself you will probably buy the lies and vote for the old crooks.

 

[schmidlap]

Trump is running to stay OUT of prison. Thinks he can pardon himself. Trump should be denied bail as a domestic terrorist, he'll get people killed with his mouth by the time this is over.

The evidence-based prosecution will proceed under the rule of law, predicated upon the evidence, without regard to the media circus and "victim card" bleating that the accused contrives as a distraction.

If the accused wishes to redress the charges, he can avail himself of his rights through the legal representation his fundraising will buy him.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

then you should support indictments of joe and hunter. do you?

100%

 

[schmidlap]

Totally agree that running for office is NOT a get out of jail free card.
BUT, when Trump is the leading candidate in 2024 polls, IMHO the judge needs to weigh that fact in any potential plea deal.

I'd like to see Trump get the same treatment as Hillary, where he pleads to "being careless" with classified documents, pays the fines, and then gets back to running.

Every case is adjudicated on its own merits.

Trump's own statements and documented actions appear especially damning. His legal defense is a disparate matter from his playing to his followers.

Justice should be blind to celebrity.

 

[schmidlap]

but justice can be denied if the accused is named Biden or Clinton, right?

No one has contrived charges against Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton, despite a vehement desire to do so by certain factions.

Were charges ever to be brought, the same prosecutorial standards would apply.

 

[merrill]

Let's call it if anything voter protection of voter rights. Voter protection is under fire through the Koch ALEC Voter Suppression scheme which seems to me must be against the
law.

Let's see it has been Rump who has been trying to steal the election since day one he lost the election any way he can.

Any politician who can rack up more 30,000 lies while in office should be questioned always. GW Bush may have come close
though his lies were labeled " Bush Misleads" . The former GOP
is in shambles which began with Nixon then Reagan/Bush came along ......talk about on steroids. So much crime during that administration. Lordy me.

 

[merrill]

No elected officials should have protection from prosecution no matter what. If anything we the voters should be demanding any
politician that is indicted for any reason should be mandated to
step aside no matter what.

 

[j-mac]

She destroyed nothing. One of her aides did.

This was prior any of the trouble with her e-amils ever broke out. Somewhere during her tenure as secretary of state. Neither does it prove anything nefarious. When I have a credit card that becomes invalid, I destroy it. I can perfectly imagine a device used by the secretary of state getting destroyed when the device becomes defunct.

Actually, Clinton Should Have Destroyed Her Phones Better

Politics aside, the best way to destroy data is often physical destruction---ideally, "a blender and fire."

www.wired.com

A State Department official explained in a statement to WIRED that "department security policies mandate that all electronic devices are cleared of sensitive or classified information prior to reuse or disposal.” Some devices are wiped and reused, in other words, while others are destroyed as part of the recycling process.

I will not claim I'm sure it wasn't anything nefarious since I won't claim to be sure of things without having compelling reasons to believe. But neither do you. And neither does the FBI as is attested by the fact that no indictment came.

This in contrast to Trump who has been indicted twice, and whose last indictment is full of vivid and easy to corroborate detail of nefarious intent.

That’s your defense? Her aid did it?

And I suppose Hillary had no idea what this aid was doing, right? Bull shit.

 

[forkup]

Totally agree that running for office is NOT a get out of jail free card.
BUT, when Trump is the leading candidate in 2024 polls, IMHO the judge needs to weigh that fact in any potential plea deal.

I'd like to see Trump get the same treatment as Hillary, where he pleads to "being careless" with classified documents, pays the fines, and then gets back to running.

You can plead being careless all you want. But when the evidence says it was willful it kind of stops doesn't it?

The reason Clinton's defense held up was because it would have been as good as impossible to prove otherwise. And she didn't "get back to running" in fact 10 days before the election the then FBI director in contradiction to department policy against taking actions that can influence the elections reopened the investigation. Something I supported at the time.

The problem you guys have is this idea that if you can just pretend that Hillary and Trump did the same Trump is of the hook. But both cases aren't even close to the same, and it's not any kind of legal defense.

 

[j-mac]

Every case is adjudicated on its own merits.

Trump's own statements and documented actions appear especially damning. His legal defense is a disparate matter from his playing to his followers.

Justice should be blind to celebrity.

Should be, but not, if it’s a democrat.

 

[schmidlap]

That is what you are told , but since you are incapable of thinking for yourself you will probably buy the lies and vote for the old crooks.

Some are incapable of distinguishing hyper-partisan media gas from judicial proceedings that are predicated upon credible evidence.

There are clearly those who would initiate actions against their political enemies if they could ever contrive the needed pretexts.

 

[j-mac]

You can plead being careless all you want. But when the evidence says it was willful it kind of stops doesn't it?

The reason Clinton's defense held up was because it would have been as good as impossible to prove otherwise. And she didn't "get back to running" in fact 10 days before the election the then FBI director in contradiction to department policy against taking actions that can influence the elections reopened the investigation. Something I supported at the time.

The problem you guys have is this idea that if you can just pretend that Hillary and Trump did the same Trump is of the hook. But both cases aren't even close to the same, and it's not any kind of legal defense.

I hope that’s not Smith‘s opening statement.