August 7, 20232 yr Submitting false slates of electors aren't simply "routine misstatements of facts". That said, if he's trying to argue such crimes are more appropriately the subject of state law rather than federal law, then that's fair. But it's quite clear by now to everyone paying attention that Trump did in fact intend to defraud the United States, and the only question is which courses of legal action are best suited to hold him accountable.
August 7, 20232 yr I will go as far to say having a mental illness should not be criminal. When your mental capacity of accepting loss makes you go obstruct the peaceful transfer of power, incite a riot, and not concede to the will of the people, well all of that goes against the constitution. Punishable by law. Amash has his right to speak out, but he's wrong.
August 7, 20232 yr Someone needs their diaper changed. I'm sure continuing to attack the prosecutor will go over well today when his lawyers have to explain the threats from Friday.
August 7, 20232 yr 48 minutes ago, Kz! said: That's fine in theory. But what Trump did was intentionally try and remove the Constitution from the political process by lying, attempting to install fake electors, and then disrupting the Constitutional duties of politicians on Jan 6. You can't fix a political process that's been subverted. Also, all three branches of the government (Judiciary, Legislative, and Executive) are all meant to be checks on each other. Denying the will of the people can't be fixed legislatively when the legislative process has already been corrupted.
August 7, 20232 yr yeah I saw Amash's post over the weekend, and he's just incorrect on the basic facts of the case. they want to establish that Trump did actually know that he lost the election because of how that knowledge shows intent on other actual criminal actions he took. it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, even though Trump and his supporters are trying to convince people that's the case. this indictment does not criminalize his speech. it shows that he attempted to overthrow an election that he knew he lost. if he knew he lost and then spent 2 months convincing his base - a base eager to comfort themselves with his lies - that the election was "stolen from them", culminating in an attempt to steal the election through fake electors and intimidation of congress, then the charge of defrauding the US is strong. losing politicians can yammer on however they like about how they truly won an election. what they can't do is set up an extensive operation to subvert the election through the fake elector schemes/etc. had Trump simply walked away after his 60+ court cases were thrown out and complained about being screwed he wouldn't be facing charges for J6.
August 7, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: yeah I saw Amash's post over the weekend, and he's just incorrect on the basic facts of the case. they want to establish that Trump did actually know that he lost the election because of how that knowledge shows intent on other actual criminal actions he took. it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, even though Trump and his supporters are trying to convince people that's the case. this indictment does not criminalize his speech. it shows that he attempted to overthrow an election that he knew he lost. if he knew he lost and then spent 2 months convincing his base - a base eager to comfort themselves with his lies - that the election was "stolen from them", culminating in an attempt to steal the election through fake electors and intimidation of congress, then the charge of defrauding the US is strong. losing politicians can yammer on however they like about how they truly won an election. what they can't do is set up an extensive operation to subvert the election through the fake elector schemes/etc. had Trump simply walked away after his 60+ court cases were thrown out and complained about being screwed he wouldn't be facing charges for J6. Honestly, whether he actually believed he lost or not is irrelevant in my eyes. A president is not a king and can not subvert democracy regardless of what he believes might've happened. There is a framework for how elections are carried out and the moment he and his team concocted the scheme to blow up the foundation of that framework, then everything else becomes a moot point. It's like saying murder is not murder as long as the murderer believes it was justified.
August 7, 20232 yr Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law when determining whether a crime was committed. It can be used to determine intent and severity of charges.
August 7, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, mayanh8 said: Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law when determining whether a crime was committed. It can be used to determine intent and severity of charges. Even ignorance in this case is a joke. He didn't know he lost an election that he...lost? The fact that he said he didn't lose it is irrelevant. He literally lost it. He got less votes. To believe the President of the United States didn't understand that getting less electoral votes means he lost is an admission that he's retarded and/or mentally ill and he needs to be in an assisted care facility.
August 7, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: Didn't take long for all the CVON "Libertarians" to turn on their hero Justin Amash is amazing until he makes the point that it's probably a bad idea to weaponize the DOJ to prosecute the free speech of your political rival.
August 7, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: Didn't take long for all the CVON "Libertarians" to turn on their hero Right because we have to 100% agree with every single point a particular politician makes. To do so otherwise would make you a partisan hack, right? Yeah I'm sure that made lots of sense in your head.
August 7, 20232 yr 31 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Honestly, whether he actually believed he lost or not is irrelevant in my eyes. A president is not a king and can not subvert democracy regardless of what he believes might've happened. There is a framework for how elections are carried out and the moment he and his team concocted the scheme to blow up the foundation of that framework, then everything else becomes a moot point. It's like saying murder is not murder as long as the murderer believes it was justified. whether he believed it or not is somewhat relevant to the charge of defrauding I believe. remember also that this has to convince a jury, and Trump doing what he did with the full knowledge he actually lost is going to make those charges seem more applicable.
August 7, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: Didn't take long for all the CVON "Libertarians" to turn on their hero I don't think disagreeing with Amash on something is "turning" on him. I believe he's come about his opinion honestly, I just think he's just wrong in this case.
August 7, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, Kz! said: Justin Amash is amazing until he makes the point that it's probably a bad idea to weaponize the DOJ to prosecute the free speech of your political rival. Free speech So, do you believe Trump's retarded or mentally ill? It has to be at least one to explain how he didn't know he lost an election he clearly lost. I'll also accept retarded and mentally ill.
August 7, 20232 yr Amash: Tweets random TDS nonsense. CVON "Libertarians": Yasss, slay my libertarian qween! Amash: Tweets an actual libertarian position talking about the dangers of criminalizing speech and jailing political opponents. CVON "Libertarians": REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
August 7, 20232 yr 22 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: whether he believed it or not is somewhat relevant to the charge of defrauding I believe. remember also that this has to convince a jury, and Trump doing what he did with the full knowledge he actually lost is going to make those charges seem more applicable. Yeah maybe to the extent of showing intent and thus factoring into the severity of the defrauding charge. My point is, we all agree it's not a crime to lie about whether you actually lost an election. That's protected by 1A as Amash asserts. However, any criminal actions taken under the pretense of those lies are not protected by 1A as that can no longer be explained away as simply being "routine misstatements of facts." This is where I disagree with Amash's point. He's trying to say what Trump did never went beyond protected speech, or that they were simply actions of political misconduct which should be remedied via political means via legal ones. By that logic, you can reduce it down and basically say any and all criminal behavior can be engaged in so long as the president is confident enough that two thirds of the senate wouldn't convict him after impeachment.
August 7, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: yeah I saw Amash's post over the weekend, and he's just incorrect on the basic facts of the case. they want to establish that Trump did actually know that he lost the election because of how that knowledge shows intent on other actual criminal actions he took. it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, even though Trump and his supporters are trying to convince people that's the case. this indictment does not criminalize his speech. it shows that he attempted to overthrow an election that he knew he lost. if he knew he lost and then spent 2 months convincing his base - a base eager to comfort themselves with his lies - that the election was "stolen from them", culminating in an attempt to steal the election through fake electors and intimidation of congress, then the charge of defrauding the US is strong. losing politicians can yammer on however they like about how they truly won an election. what they can't do is set up an extensive operation to subvert the election through the fake elector schemes/etc. had Trump simply walked away after his 60+ court cases were thrown out and complained about being screwed he wouldn't be facing charges for J6. Exactly. Kari Lake going around saying she won and is the governor of Arizona is free speech. Trump trying to install fake electors, intimidate state officials, commit fraud and incite violence is not.
August 7, 20232 yr 43 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: Didn't take long for all the CVON "Libertarians" to turn on their hero The shame here, is that creatures like you are unable to see how blinded you are, only able to parrot thoughts given to you by the crazed dingbats you worship, and listen to exclusively. Cultists. You are incapable of any discernment. There is your side, and everything else is bigly bad.
August 7, 20232 yr 40 minutes ago, Kz! said: Justin Amash is amazing until he makes the point that it's probably a bad idea to weaponize the DOJ to prosecute the free speech of your political rival. That's the Nixonian argument. That you can't prosecute a president for anything no matter what. By the same argument Biden could cancel the election and declare himself emperor, with Hunter taking over when he dies and you'd just have to take it. Its a moronic argument.
August 7, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, Gannan said: That's the Nixonian argument. That you can't prosecute a president for anything no matter what. By the same argument Biden could cancel the election and declare himself emperor, with Hunter taking over when he dies and you'd just have to take it. Its a moronic argument. 24 minutes ago, Kz! said: Amash: Tweets random TDS nonsense. CVON "Libertarians": Yasss, slay my libertarian qween! Amash: Tweets an actual libertarian position talking about the dangers of criminalizing speech and jailing political opponents. CVON "Libertarians": REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
August 7, 20232 yr 48 minutes ago, mikemack8 said: Didn't take long for all the CVON "Libertarians" to turn on their hero Did they threaten to hang him as a RINO pedo satanist...or did they disagree with him? It's funny what counts for "turning on" someone in MAGA world.
August 7, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, VanHammersly said: Even ignorance in this case is a joke. He didn't know he lost an election that he...lost? The fact that he said he didn't lose it is irrelevant. He literally lost it. He got less votes. To believe the President of the United States didn't understand that getting less electoral votes means he lost is an admission that he's retarded and/or mentally ill and he needs to be in an assisted care facility. John Snow's Hair is right though. Jack Smith intends to prove that Trump knew he lost through recordings, witness testimony, etc. The key part is Trump knowing he lost, but still trying to fundraise based off the election being "stolen." And like, even causing an insurrection. He defrauded his own voters and that's a crime whether Amash wants to admit it or not.
August 7, 20232 yr 24 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: John Snow's Hair is right though. Jack Smith intends to prove that Trump knew he lost through recordings, witness testimony, etc. The key part is Trump knowing he lost, but still trying to fundraise based off the election being "stolen." And like, even causing an insurrection. He defrauded his own voters and that's a crime whether Amash wants to admit it or not. They should just argue insanity. Say he has multiple personalities, one thought he won, one knew he lost. They'd have a mountain of evidence that backs up him being mentally ill.
Create an account or sign in to comment