Judge in Georgia Dismisses Three Trump Charges

I didn't say Trump was asking for a recount in Georgia. He asked Rastenfucker to find him 11000 votes. That's manipulation, not a recount.
Meaning just one thing. Trump believed there were more than that many votes still to be counted. Nothing illegal about that.
 
LOL.....................Gore wanted the state to only count Dade County.......tell me if that's not interfering in a state election.

Dade is dem city......
Yes that is fact. I had forgot that until you brought it up. Gore was pissed.
 
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.
Right. You can't prepare a cogent defense unless the charge is cogent to begin with.
Offering a bribe to a cop is a crime. Even if he never accepts the money. Asking an official to interfere is a crime in Georgia.
Offering a bribe to a cop is not a compound crime- it's illegal in itself.
(edit: I take that back. The bribe has to be an attempt to induce the cop to do something illegal)

If you solicit a hitman to kill someone, you are guilty of a crime because killing someone is a crime. If you solicit him to go down to the corner and pick up a 6-pack, you haven't done a crime.

You can't be charged with just "soliciting a hitman", and you can't be charged with just "bribing a cop". The crime you are trying to solicit has to be specified in the charges.

Asking an official to intervene in something isn't a crime unless the intervention is a criminal act.
 
Last edited:
I lost an election for the office of president of a large real estate association.

I was there as the votes were counted. I later talked to some Broker friends of mine and they came up with how I lost.

This was the voting system.
Envelope with the ballot inside and the envelope was signed by the association member.
That part floored me until they came up with the solution.

The ballots with my opponents name were done by either the CEO of the Board or he paid to have them done.
Those signed envelopes were steamed open. Then the bogus ballots were put in.

We all know that currency can be counterfeited. It is harder now than say 50 years in the past, but there are criminals with exceptional skill.

Trump was not beaten bad in all states. Many states had him as winner.
Those he questioned were but 6 or 7 of the states. It was those states that had very close elections. Expert Democrats cheated Trump. Trump knows it now.

Did I get cheated out of being president of this association?
Of you say no, I was the one who worked hard for all members. Chuck who won was 100 percent for the CEO and when he and I clashed, he always was for the CEO even when I was voting for the members.
 
Right. You can't prepare a cogent defense unless the charge is cogent to begin with.

Offering a bribe to a cop is not a compound crime- it's illegal in itself.
(edit: I take that back. The bribe has to be an attempt to induce the cop to do something illegal)

If you solicit a hitman to kill someone, you are guilty of a crime because killing someone is a crime. If you solicit him to go down to the corner and pick up a 6-pack, you haven't done a crime.

You can't be charged with just "soliciting a hitman", and you can't be charged with just "bribing a cop". The crime you are trying to solicit has to be specified in the charges.

Asking an official to intervene in something isn't a crime unless the intervention is a criminal act.

I would agree, generally speaking with your definitions. However the crime is asking the SOS of Georgia and the Legislature to overturn the election. To find 11,000 votes.

I was the scrounger in the army. I was the one who went and procured things that we couldn’t get through channels. I stole them. When asked I said I’d found it.

I won’t waste time explaining the rules of such a position. However finding them is an accepted euphemism for stealing. Like something falling off the back of a truck.

Mafia bosses were convicted of conspiracy when they used such euphemisms to describe crimes they wanted committed. Drug dealers refer to their drugs as product. Hookers refer to sex through code phrases. Euphemisms to cloud the issue if the law gets involved.
 
I would agree, generally speaking with your definitions. However the crime is asking the SOS of Georgia and the Legislature to overturn the election. To find 11,000 votes.
And I would reply that is a mischaracterization of what was being asked and the phone call. These are questions of fact that the jury is charged with resolving.
...Euphemisms to cloud the issue if the law gets involved.
And it's done by both sides, and this case is chock full of them...
 
I would agree, generally speaking with your definitions. However the crime is asking the SOS of Georgia and the Legislature to overturn the election. To find 11,000 votes.
At least you qualified your response by including votes.

That is why Trump did not ask for a crime. He only asked for votes.
Your democratic mind assumed those votes would be illegal as were those for Biden.
 
I was the scrounger in the army. I was the one who went and procured things that we couldn’t get through channels. I stole them. When asked I said I’d found it.

I won’t waste time explaining the rules of such a position. However finding them is an accepted euphemism for stealing. Like something falling off the back of a truck.
Especially to come out excellent for the IG inspections. (Inspector General inspections) The Army when I was in from 1962 to 1964 had problems getting parts for the vehicles, engines for them and camouflogue nets per the supply sgt. I know about scroungers. I was the company clerk for a HQ unit in Germany and boy would I learn things. They are only stealing some things. They often will ask another unit to lend them parts or engines or nets as examples and later turn them back to the lending units.
 
Aren't you supposed to be fucking off?

Damn tRumplings can't even follow simple instructions...
You and your logo reminds me of the Citizens in the then England, called now the USA, thought of Washington and his men. To them those were all traitors. And we know Trump loves America and Biden should, but does not. We stand with the man who loves America, Donald Trump.

We have a Democrat loyalist to the corrupted Biden saying this is not true.

So a short history lesson. Today one might think Washington was so great he had massive American support. But in truth about 1/3 did not give a damn. 1/3 were for George Washington but 1/3 were active in helping their country, England and fighting against Washington. Washington might have lost except for the French. When the English surrendered at Yorktown VA, that pretty much ended the war. But a huge amount of Americans were not for his war. Today we think of those as the Bidenistas.
 
Last edited:
You’d think that if you were going to come after the president, you’d at least state a crime in the indictments
 
You and your logo reminds me of the Citizens in the then England, called now the USA, thought of Washington and his men. To them those were all traitors. And we know Trump loves America and Biden should, but does not. We stand with the man who loves America, Donald Trump.
That is some really tormented "reasoning" there, my low information friend.
 
That is some really tormented "reasoning" there, my low information friend.
Battling NAZIs is an American tradition.

Join the Fight, Stop the Democrats. Join Trump and stop the Democrats.
 
At least you qualified your response by including votes.

That is why Trump did not ask for a crime. He only asked for votes.
Your democratic mind assumed those votes would be illegal as were those for Biden.

No. The vote totals had been confirmed. They had been audited, recounted, and certified. Trump wanted to win by any means.
 
Especially to come out excellent for the IG inspections. (Inspector General inspections) The Army when I was in from 1962 to 1964 had problems getting parts for the vehicles, engines for them and camouflogue nets per the supply sgt. I know about scroungers. I was the company clerk for a HQ unit in Germany and boy would I learn things. They are only stealing some things. They often will ask another unit to lend them parts or engines or nets as examples and later turn them back to the lending units.

There are rules for scroungers. Among them. You only steal government property. Never private. You never steal for personal gain. You don’t sell the stuff. You don’t keep it for personal use. You get it for the unit.

If you follow the rules and are caught, your chain of command will give you a slap on the wrist. If you break the rules, they throw the book at you.

You never outright lie. If the Chain of Command wants to know how you got it, or where you got it. After confirming that they really want to know the truth, you tell them. Until that moment you use euphemisms and other terms to communicate the truth without saying it.
 
There are rules for scroungers. Among them. You only steal government property. Never private. You never steal for personal gain. You don’t sell the stuff. You don’t keep it for personal use. You get it for the unit.

If you follow the rules and are caught, your chain of command will give you a slap on the wrist. If you break the rules, they throw the book at you.

You never outright lie. If the Chain of Command wants to know how you got it, or where you got it. After confirming that they really want to know the truth, you tell them. Until that moment you use euphemisms and other terms to communicate the truth without saying it.
They probably started even in the Civil war days. My unit Sgts told me all about this.
 
Correct, however the Judge noted that they may not be defective on the merits, they are defective based on specificity.

That the Prosecution could refile.

WW
Usually, when you have a slam dunk case, the lawyers are smart enough to be laser sharp with the wording/specificity.
The reason for it being somewhat vague is to try and baffle 'em with bullshit, because they know it's weak at best.
 
No. The vote totals had been confirmed. They had been audited, recounted, and certified. Trump wanted to win by any means.
I still do not see a problem that was told to me by a former scrounger. Trump only wanted his votes. Again, he did not say make them up. He only asked for what was his.
 
Usually, when you have a slam dunk case, the lawyers are smart enough to be laser sharp with the wording/specificity.
The reason for it being somewhat vague is to try and baffle 'em with bullshit, because they know it's weak at best.
The old saying applies to democrats. For them: "Since you can't baffle we republicans with brilliance, try using bullshit."
 

Forum List

Back
Top