🤷‍♂️

Um no.... it doesnt matter if Trump believes there was real fraud or not... if his intent is to have the Sec of State to "find" votes that really arent there then that is illegal. period.

We don't generally prosecute someone for being dumb and making some small error in judgment that doesn't really impact anyone.

Now if it impacted someone, that'd be different.

Ok.... i just cant believe you are minimizing this

... no, I'm applying the law fairly.

Again, we really can't just shrug what he is doing off and say its just politics. Trump has shone a light on some clear problems with our Republic and to some extent that is a good thing as we can address the shortcoming now.

Lets imagine a scenario in the future where some super liberal socialist leaning President gets elected. And he has done the same sort of power grabs that Trump has and also ignored all the previous traditions of things like providing taxes, and the White House visitor list to the public....

And then while running for his second term he contacts the leaders of France and Germany to help him dig up dirt or make up dirt on his strongest Republican rival.

The election, unlike 2020, is very very close.... like in 2000. And just 1 State decides the election. And that State is the Liberal Leaning California.

And that call that we heard Trump made is the same call that the very Liberal President is making to his also very Liberal friends in power in California...

And you don't see this as a problem?

Not using it as a stick to beat people I disagree with.

@Maw if the Sec. Of state said yes we will find you those 11000 votes... then who is the criminal.

Then you have more of a case on your hands, yes.

But it's very clear that isn't what's happening.

So wait.... Trump is only the criminal if the other guy is also a criminal? WTF?

But because Trump was faced with a good person who refused to bend the knee to him Trump gets a pass?


How does the Sec of State's actions or intent change Trump's?

@Maw is like the masterplan of a Robbery. Who gets convicted the robbers or the creator of the plan.? They both going to jail

Indeed!

Whoops wrong person.

Meant that at @MatiLuc

That is rather messed up.

I mean, not really?

read the article I posted, Trump pretty clearly broke the spirit of the law if not the letter ... BUT just because someone broke the law (or came close) doesn't mean it's a cake walk to prove it in a court of law ... that's pretty much all @Maw and I are saying

Should Maxine Waters go to prison for suggesting people harass/potentially harm members of Trump's cabinet?

In these case the Sec. Got cold feet and didnt bend to the master criminal intent

I don't think so, that clearly wasn't her intent, and nothing to suggest that it caused anyone harm.

yeah maybe but I can't see a court convicting her

There has to be some form of potential injury/actual injury.

probably too crippled from being run over by the Trump bus

Let me know what those are.

https://parler.com/post/343752035bb74883a95ae73767611d05

if you truly threaten someone that in and of itself is illegal (in most/all states?)

i not 100% sure if @Maw understands the value of fact vrs opinion. Spinoza wrote a tun of books on it. Bias vrs preservation. Christian law's may get argued in the same light. A fact is only a fact until it is proven false. Any "Summary" is always bias dependent on whom wrote it. I still stand by my statement that the summary on the BP page seem Bias as well as 90% of the judges opinions. But like i said just one mans Opinion.

@Maw you do get that if the Sec of State had said "Ok, Mr. President I will find you those votes and we will "recalculate" and announce that you won first thing in the morning, hehehehe!" We never get to hear that tape at all.

The bigger point is that the response of the Sec of State does not change Trump's intent, which is what you are implying.

You are saying that if the Sec of State agreed to find the votes then you have a case. Which means there is criminality. But since he was a good man and refused Trump's request then Trump is likewise not guilty and had no criminal intent.

The action of the Sec of State does not eliminate the criminal intent of Trump in the ask.... the ask was criminal.

Easy defense to suggest he wasn't actually threatening anyone.

Proof of intent is ridiculously hard.

agreed

Remember, @Maw, power dynamics are not important when dealing with the Epstein and Maxwells of the world

Maxine?

is that what she said?

@Maw would that not be the principle of reasonability? If the average human would feel threatened?

the view from the alternative universe

Easy defense in her position too!

(dont know how to translate this)

that's the point of me bringing up her speech.