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

[Nostra]

And what do you call demanding Ukraine come up with evidence against your leading opponent?

Dimtard fantasies.

 

[Nostra]

Not just 78 but is indicted for espionage.

Banana Republic.

 

[kyzr]

I just don’t get Republicans
They are using Biden’s age as a major campaign issue and they counter with someone who is 78.
They are countering against a candidate who is 82 and physically in shape with a candidate who is 78, obese, has poor eating habits and does not exercise.

Trump didn't win the nomination yet, stay tuned.
Biden is senile and getting worse.
He can't do a real press conference.
He falls a lot.
There is no fucking way he'd win in 2024.
Its just a matter who Republicans put up.

 

[kyzr]

It's a year and a half to election, what the fuck are you talking about?
Trump will have his day in court and if he truly has done nothing illegal he'll have every chance to clear himself.
On the other hand if the evidence that he committed crime is beyond reasonable doubt he will be convicted and held accountable just as HE SHOULD BE. No one should be above the law just because they keep running for president.

Agreed. I expect that the court date will be after the election. Factor that in.

 

[Faun]

Banana Republic.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Agreed. I expect that the court date will be after the election. Factor that in.

There is no reason at all it should take near that long. The election is 17 months away

 

[kyzr]

There is no reason at all it should take near that long. The election is 17 months away

My prediction is that the judge will let the election process proceed without the trial.
If Trump loses the GOP primaries and is not the nominee, the trial may be earlier.
But if Trump wins the GOP nomination I don't see how the judge will have a trial before the election.

The first GOP primary is in January, 6-months away.

 

[Faun]

There is no reason at all it should take near that long. The election is 17 months away

I would expect Trump would want to delay all his cases until after the election; hoping to win and then be shielded from prosecution for 4 more years.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

My prediction is that the judge will let the election process proceed without the trial.
If Trump loses the GOP primaries and is not the nominee, the trial may be earlier.
But if Trump wins the GOP nomination I don't see how the judge will have a trial before the election.

The first GOP primary is in January, 6-months away.

The RNC is more than 12 months away. No reason at all to wait.

 

[Faun]

The RNC is more than 12 months away. No reason at all to wait.

There is if Trump seeks delays.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is if Trump seeks delays.

They do not have to be granted.

It is in the best interest of the country for this to be a speedy trial

 

[Faun]

They do not have to be granted.

It is in the best interest of the country for this to be a speedy trial

Defendants get to choose if they want to waive their right to a speedy trial. I also don't see Judge Cannon denying Trump's request for delays, should he seek them. Which if I were him, I absolutely would.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump didn't win the nomination yet, stay tuned.
Biden is senile and getting worse.
He can't do a real press conference.
He falls a lot.
There is no fucking way he'd win in 2024.
Its just a matter who Republicans put up.

Again, Trump is no Spring Chicken and has many more personal demons than Biden

Voters just need to prefer Biden to Trump

 

[rightwinger]

Defendants get to choose if they want to waive their right to a speedy trial. I also don't see Judge Cannon denying Trump's request for delays, should he seek them. Which if I were him, I absolutely would.

Based on her past decisions on this case and the reprimand she received for perceived bias, I can’t see her staying on the case

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

First, let me tell you that the argument. " Something isn't a crime because before working on a different set of circumstances no crime was prosecuted is a good legal, or for that matter logical argument.)
Second, no, she didn't. Her servers where purged (accidentally according to the FBI.) She didn't order it nor for that matter is there any proof she directed it.

The main and all-important differences between the 2 cases are that Hillary cooperated, there was no indication that there was a willful act by Clinton to retain the information. Let alone open defiance.

You run with that lefty. Hahahaahhaahhaa.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

First, let me tell you that the argument. " Something isn't a crime because before working on a different set of circumstances no crime was prosecuted is not a good legal, or for that matter logical argument.)
Second, no, she didn't. Her servers where purged (accidentally according to the FBI.) She didn't order it nor for that matter is there any proof she directed it.

The main and all-important differences between the 2 cases are that Hillary cooperated, there was no indication that there was a willful act by Clinton to retain the information. Let alone open defiance.

It is a standard the DOJ has always applied that's why the espionage act for instance states, "willful retention."

The problem is that the government in general over-classifies and that human error is a thing.

In most crimes mens rea is an important aspect. This is one of those statutes.

You actually believe they can prove espionage!
Hahahahahahaahaahahhahaahaaa!

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Indicting him or not indicting him would influence the upcoming election. Comey's announcement of reopening the Hillary investigation a week before the 2020 election and then announcing there would be no investigation after the election may have cost her the election.

Naaaah. Everybody hated Hillary.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Entirely untrue.

The server wasn’t illegal.
She didn’t delete the emails.
She didn’t smash subpoenaed devices.
The FBI investigation was legitimate, there never was a prosecutable case against her which is why she faced no charges after Trump took over and appointed new prosecutors.

The FBI does not treat anyone the way they treated Clinton. If they decide not to prosecute, they don’t have a whole press conference attacking them.

Excellent example of a leftist lying to itself.

 

[AntonToo]

Agreed. I expect that the court date will be after the election. Factor that in.

Good that we can agree on something.

Though your expectations on court date are baseless and will surely be proven false.

 

[BS Filter]

Donald Trump is a leading presidential candidate for the 2024 election.

President: general election : 2024 Polls

The latest political polls and polling averages from FiveThirtyEight.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

By indicting Trump now Jack Smith is potentially removing the leading 2024 presidential candidate from voters.

Can the judge postpone or dismiss the indictment charges to be sure that the electorate can vote for their preferred president?

Lets take a poll, especially considering the past democrat charges against Trump (Russian collusion, the Steele Dossier, Operations Crossfire-Hurricane and Crossfire Razor, the FBI Gestapo paying Twitter & FB to censor the Biden laptop story, the CIA lying about the laptop calling it Russian Disinformation scamming 2020 voters, and the MSM's constant 95% negative coverage of Trump, but covering up for Biden, etc. You all know that "the LAW" is being subverted in favor of democrats.

Yes, the judge can dismiss the charges.