Judge in Georgia Dismisses Three Trump Charges

[WEATHER53]

What a stupid lie. You have no knowledge of any of this, do you?

Boo boo got ruffled feathers over facts again

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Boo boo got ruffled feathers over facts again

These low IQ baby outbursts won't help you.

You can pretend to be a lot of things on the internet.

"Smart" and "informed" are not two of them.

That's free advice, son.

 

[WEATHER53]

In layman’s language those 6 things would be criminal but there is no connection to Trump committing them

How did Trump go about doing the things that would be illegal if done? That’s what thinker judge finds lacking

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

you said generalizing all the droped charges not specifically the racketeering: "The charges dropped were ruled sufficient in detail but not in evidence."
You avoided and smokescreened the racketeering by Biden Willis and her prosecutor paid lover.
Once again you became the perfect example of responding using ad hominem arguments.
Checkmate!

That's not how it works, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?”

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

In layman’s language those 6 things would be criminal but there is no connection to Trump committing them

Sure there is.

 

[para bellum]

In layman’s language those 6 things would be criminal but there is no connection to Trump committing them

No, it means that the solitications are only crimes if the things being solicited were crimes.

The charges are properly formatted, there is just no underlying crime identified which would constitute a "violation of oath of office". There was a solicitation. The defendants really did ask the committees and/or officials to do "something", but that "something" is not shown to be a crime.

Does that make sense? Legislatures can have hearings. Legislatures can appoint electors in the event an election can't be certified. They were being asked to do that.

Two of the counts involve Trump- the infamous phone call to Raffy on Jan 2, and another communication in September '21 where he asked Raffy to decertify the results. Raffy is the Chief Elections Officer, this is within his area of responsibility. So Fani has to show that it would be a violation of his oath of office if he had done what Trump was asking, and she doesn't do that.

Most of the remaining counts are conspiracy or making false statements, and those don't charges require an underlying crime. They are just questions of fact to be settled at trial.

There are a couple counts that have been separated out- those involve the election servers in Coffee County and those charges seem legitimate to me. I think they have all been pled out.

The rest is a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and I expect it will collapse under it's own weight if it ever makes it to trial.

 

[Blisterfinger]

All allegations, no evidence? Hmm, are you MAGAitry?

Lawfare that's falling apart. MAGA

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The rest is a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and I expect it will collapse under it's own weight if it ever makes it to trial.

Of course this is just a made up lie, and you couldn't argue it if your life depended on it.

 

[para bellum]

Of course this is just a made up lie, and you couldn't argue it if your life depended on it.

Trying to debate you is like playing chess with a pigeon, I won't even bother.

Carry on.

 

[Robert W]

 

[Delldude]

That also would not be "restarting the investigation". That would be a reexamination of the results of the invetsivlgation. I.E., the evidence.

“You have to look at the case as if you’re starting from scratch,” he said.

 

[Delldude]

All allegations, no evidence?

That's why six charges were dropped......lack proof of commission of a crime.

The racketeering and criminal organization charges are sound.

Not really, there is no group of people actively focused on violating the law together.

 

[WEATHER53]

No, it means that the solitications are only crimes if the things being solicited were crimes.

The charges are properly formatted, there is just no underlying crime identified which would constitute a "violation of oath of office". There was a solicitation. The defendants really did ask the committees and/or officials to do "something", but that "something" is not shown to be a crime.

Does that make sense? Legislatures can have hearings. Legislatures can appoint electors in the event an election can't be certified. They were being asked to do that.

Two of the counts involve Trump- the infamous phone call to Raffy on Jan 2, and another communication in September '21 where he asked Raffy to decertify the results. Raffy is the Chief Elections Officer, this is within his area of responsibility. So Fani has to show that it would be a violation of his oath of office if he had done what Trump was asking, and she doesn't do that.

Most of the remaining counts are conspiracy or making false statements, and those don't charges require an underlying crime. They are just questions of fact to be settled at trial.

There are a couple counts that have been separated out- those involve the election servers in Coffee County and those charges seem legitimate to me. I think they have all been pled out.

The rest is a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and I expect it will collapse under it's own weight if it ever makes it to trial.

They threw out a bunch of spaghetti slinging slop and did not identify crimes with the silly ass unprofessional assumption that mere charges were enough
It’s only to smear anyway and not convict

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trying to debate you is like playing chess with a pigeon, I won't even bother.

Carry on.

This isn't going to work for you.

You couldn't argue that lie to anyone, if your life depended on it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

“You have to look at the case as if you’re starting from scratch,” he said.

That doesn't mean "restart the investigation". Sorry.

Same article:

"He said whoever takes over the case would be able to use the investigative work that’s already been completed by the DA’s office, but they’d also have the ability to do additional investigative work and to use — or discard — some or all of Willis’ indictment."

You just confused yourself again, as you often do. I can't dumb this down any further for you, so don't bother asking.

 

[Delldude]

"He said whoever takes over the case would be able to use the investigative work that’s already been completed by the DA’s office, but they’d also have the ability to do additional investigative work and to use — or discard — some or all of Willis’ indictment."

“You have to look at the case as if you’re starting from scratch,” he said.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

“You have to look at the case as if you’re starting from scratch,” he said.

Sorry, doesnt mean they have to restart the investigation.

By the way: the invetsigation came before the legal case. I figured someone should tell you, so you can stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Billo_Really]

Bring up your bitch with Fani and her fuckbuddy. They are the ones that screwed up the pleading.

Hey, unless they are fucking in court, there is no screw up! Bee-otch!

 

[Delldude]

Sorry, doesnt mean they have to restart the investigation.

“You have to look at the case as if you’re starting from scratch,” he said.

 

[SavannahMann]

“You have to look at the case as if you’re starting from scratch,” he said.

You guys need to learn reading comprehension. The problem wasn’t that the evidence didn’t support the alleged crimes. The problem was the allegations were not specific enough for the Defense to properly prepare a cogent defense.