What makes this a RICO case

[BackAgain]

Nah.
It's fake news.

Nah. Your denial is false. And you are obviously a retard.

 

[Flopper]

It would require, among other things, the existence of a criminal enterprise.

Here, there is none.

A criminal enterprise means a group of persons sharing a common purpose of engaging in criminal conduct. Trump as leader of his merry band of followers attempting to change election results by pressuring public officials is a good example of a Rico case. The prosecution will need to prove that is what they are doing.

 

[BackAgain]

A criminal enterprise means a group of persons sharing a common purpose of engaging in criminal conduct.

No criminal purpose. No criminal conduct.

Trump as leader of his merry band of followers attempting to change election results by pressuring public officials is a good example of a Rico case.

False. It is a shitty example because your premises are false. Trump wasn’t trying to change the results of the election. He maintained that the election had already been changed — by the Democrap thieves. His goal was to prevent the very thing you’re accusing him of.

And there was no ”pressuring” by Trump.

The prosecution will need to prove that is what they are doing.

It is what the prosecution will attempt. Square pegs. Round halls. Factually, legally and logically it shouldn’t even be permitted to go to the jury. I’m not saying it won’t. I’m just saying it shouldn’t.

Jerk Smith is a big fuckup; and the gaps in his indictments are pretty big. But he has experience in having the SCOTUS unanimously reversing him based on his shitty straining interpretations of what laws even say.

 

[MagicMike]

No criminal purpose. No criminal conduct.

This will be up to 12 jurors to decide. This is why the jury selection process is very important. Smith has to make sure any dumb-fucks like you who may already have their minds made up without even seeing the evidence are weeded out and disqualified.

. He maintained that the election had already been changed

Smith is going to present sworn testimony from ALL the people who advised Trump that yes, he had legitimately lost the election fair and square and then it will be up to the jury to decide if any reasonable person presented with the overwhelming and nearly unanimous information that Trump was presented with, from so many qualified sources saying that he had lost, could have STILL honestly believed the election had been stolen.
Probably not.
BUT....if the answer the jury comes out with is "yes," in spite of being told by all the adults around him....his AG, his campaign director, state and federal election officials, several dozen federal judges (many of whom he himself appointed) and even his own Vice President, that the election was secure and legitimate and he lost, this man was somehow incapable of understanding this.....THEN the bigger issue of is this man even competent enough to be POTUS is going to have to be discussed.

Jerk Smith is a big fuckup; and the gaps in his indictments are pretty big

You keep repeating this cult talking point but so far you have been unable to clearly and specifically detail just what these "gaps" in Jack Smith's legal strategy are.
How about it?
Would you like to maybe put some detail behind this assinine claim or do you want this appearance of you just talking out your ass to stand?
My guess is as usual you have no idea what you are talking about. Your cult propagandists just gave you this little tidbit of a soundbyte talking point....but they didn't give you anymire detail to explain it further....so you'll be at a loss for words.
Isn't that right booger boy?

 

[BackAgain]

This will be up to 12 jurors to decide.

Only if the shit makes it to trial, stupid.

 

[MagicMike]

Only if the shit makes it to trial, stupid.

And tell me old wise one.....in what in your addled, rambling, nattering fantasy world are you imagining would be an event or circumstance that would result in Trump's multiple criminal cases NOT "making it to trial" you imbecile?
You seem to have forgotten that just a year ago you were "predecting" while the J6 hearings were going on that "it was all a bullshit kangaroo court and NO charges for Trump could ever come of it."
Remember?
"Crimes? What crimes? Name ONE crime Trump has been charged with!" You said.
So here we are one year later and you've been proven wrong and made a complete FOOL of because of course, there are now 91 crimes Trump has been charged with.
So now, of course, you've gotta shuffle that goal post around again and now it's all about predicting "aquittal" or dismissal.
Heads up turd boi!
Your predictions suck.
Your credibility based upon your track record is a big ZERO.

 

[BackAgain]

And tell me old wise one.....in what in your addled, rambling, nattering fantasy world are you imagining would be an event or circumstance that would result in Trump's multiple criminal cases NOT "making it to trial" you imbecile?

Listen ass sucker:

I don’t have time or patience to teach a bubbling pile of diarrhea such as you anything about the practice of criminal law. And you’re far too fucking stupid to grasp any of it anyway.

Suffice it to say that cases get subject to motions. Motions can and most often do challenge the sufficiency of the grand jury presentment and prosecutorial conduct.

Sometimes, judges do the startling thing and behave like actual jurists. They can grant motions to dismiss and impose sanctions on some prosecutors by suppressing evidence for some counts or for entire indictments. This could leave the poor special persecutor unable to proceed.

Dismissals happen.

And, it is well worth noting again: Smith has already had a high profile political prosecution case tossed by a unanimous SCOTUS. The boy thinks he’s slick. But he really isn’t.

 

[MagicMike]

Listen ass sucker:

I don’t have time or patience to teach a bubbling pile of diarrhea such as you anything about the practice of criminal law. And you’re far too fucking stupid to grasp any of it anyway.

Suffice it to say that cases get subject to motions. Motions can and most often do challenge the sufficiency of the grand jury presentment and prosecutorial conduct.

Sometimes, judges do the startling thing and behave like actual jurists. They can grant motions to dismiss and impose sanctions on some prosecutors by suppressing evidence for some counts or for entire indictments. This could leave the poor special persecutor unable to proceed.

Dismissals happen.

Andbut is well worth noting again: Smith has already had a high political prosecution case tossed by a unanimous SCOTUS. The boy thinks he’s slick. But he really isn’t.

Wishful thinking idiot.
This case is rock solid.

 

[BackAgain]

Wishful thinking idiot.
This case is rock solid.

No. It’s not. It is fluffy like cotton candy. And it will prove to be an equally sticky mess.

The “case” is plainly ridiculous.

 

[MagicMike]

No. It’s not. It is fluffy like cotton candy. And it will prove to be an equally sticky mess.

The “case” is plainly ridiculous.

No
That would be YOU.
You still haven't detailed how.
On what particular points do you imagine this case to be ridiculous?
That is, other than the fact it is filed against your cult-god-hero?

 

[BackAgain]

No
That would be YOU.
You still haven't detailed how.
On what particular points do you imagine this case to be ridiculous?
That is, other than the fact it is filed against your cult-god-hero?

Actually I have.

As I said: you’re just a very poor student.

 

[MagicMike]

Actually I have.

As I said: you’re just a very poor student.

You are a liar because actually you haven't.

 

[BackAgain]

You are a liar because actually you haven't.

Yes. I have. And you’re too stupid to follow along. You liar. Typical libturd.

 

[MagicMike]

Yes. I have. And you’re too stupid to follow along. You liar. Typical libturd.

So it's official then.
You are just talking with your head firmly stuck up your A-hole.
You assert that Jack Smith has a pretty flimsy case....but you actually have NADA to back up that assertion.
You just "feel" it.
Well, here's to BackAgain's mamby-pamby "feelings" everyone!
Happy unicorns and rainbows to ALL!

 

[BackAgain]

So it's official then.

Yep. It’s official. You’re a complete retard.

 

[MagicMike]

Yep. It’s official. You’re a complete retard.

Keep backpeddaling you little turd.
Have you found any PROOF Jack Smith has a weak case yet?

 

[MagicMike]

Yep. It’s official. You’re a complete retard.

Uh-oh turd boy!
Looks like Trump's rats are turning on each other on their way off the sinking ship.



Looks like another brick in Smith's ROCK SOLID case.
Along with of course Trump's own Vice President, Attorney General, and former campaign manager testifying against him.
But tell us some more about how you just "FEEL" that Smith is some kind of sloppy, substandard prosecutor who only has weak cases against your cult-god.

 

[Flopper]

No criminal purpose. No criminal conduct.

False. It is a shitty example because your premises are false. Trump wasn’t trying to change the results of the election. He maintained that the election had already been changed — by the Democrap thieves. His goal was to prevent the very thing you’re accusing him of.

And there was no ”pressuring” by Trump.

It is what the prosecution will attempt. Square pegs. Round halls. Factually, legally and logically it shouldn’t even be permitted to go to the jury. I’m not saying it won’t. I’m just saying it shouldn’t.

Jerk Smith is a big fuckup; and the gaps in his indictments are pretty big. But he has experience in having the SCOTUS unanimously reversing him based on his shitty straining interpretations of what laws even say.

You seem to think Trump and his Merry Men have the right to put pressure on goverment officials to change election results because Trump believes there has been voter fraud. That is not a defense for what he did. Even if it were, Trump would lose. Over 50 courts in 7 states have either examined evidence and either dismissed the case or refused to hear it.

 

[MagicMike]

False. It is a shitty example because your premises are false. Trump wasn’t trying to change the results of the election. He maintained that the election had already been changed — by the Democrap thieves. His goal was to prevent the very thing you’re accusing him of

"He maintained" are the operative words in your ridiculous post here.
So "he maintained......"
So what?
He is an incompetent idiot.
He "maintained that the election had already been changed-by the Democrap thieves....."
HE WAS DELUSIONAL!
HE WAS WRONG!
His own campaign staff told him he was WRONG!
His Vice President told him he was WRONG!
His Attorney General told him he was WRONG!
State election officials told him he was WRONG!
63 federal courts told him he was WRONG!
Yet....he still "maintained that the election had already been changed by the Democrap theives."
At this point "he maintained" is not a valid defense.....
except maybe, for an insanity plea.

 

[Flopper]

"He maintained" are the operative words in your ridiculous post here.
So "he maintained......"
So what?
He is an incompetent idiot.
He "maintained that the election had already been changed-by the Democrap thieves....."
HE WAS DELUSIONAL!
HE WAS WRONG!
His own campaign staff told him he was WRONG!
His Vice President told him he was WRONG!
His Attorney General told him he was WRONG!
State election officials told him he was WRONG!
63 federal courts told him he was WRONG!
Yet....he still "maintained that the election had already been changed by the Democrap theives."
At this point "he maintained" is not a valid defense.....
except maybe, for an insanity plea.

He was trying to change the offical election results which had been certified.