Do you support pardoning the Jan 6 convicts?

[OddBeMe]

Apparently DeSantis does. This just a tweet so I won’t hold it against him yet til I get more info. But didn’t think law breaking was political.

Yes, release them all!

No, they broke the law and beat cops

Other

[lightbulb27]

doesn't strike me as high priority, but relevant to look at.

you aren't allowed to break the law and get awaywith.. unless you are a young black kid stealing Kia's and crashin em and stealin shit. There is no recourse. But if you rush the capital and sit at Pelosi's desk, that's a huge deal, especially writing her a note... that's traumatizing invasion of space... not squating. It's worse than the dude whom beat her husband with a hammer... considering he sat there and then left under his own power without being arrested as far as I know, I could be wrong... but sure looks like they all went in and then walked out, unlike antifa and other protests.

so yea, they broke the law, but probably getting it way unfair in sentancing, with support of the people that actually did conspire to throw and overflow a Presidency... we know this how they controlled social media narratives via Twitter accomplices, hid stories from the media (Biden's fake business dealings)... at minimum... and then attacked a president with a lies (Russia Dossier) costing millions and endangering a whole country during the pandemic.

So it all depends on ones viewpoint and motivations. It is certainly hazardous to the country to overflow Presidents, conspire and such. In hindsight of this, one could argue the invaders... were as justified as BLM protestors, and better behaved... for they didn't murder anyone directly nor burn down buildings. In fact, most when they invades spaces did traumatizing things, like one guy... that wrote a note to Mrs. Pelosi. That's traumatizing, but it's different than smashing someones car to pieces and burning it. Ditto for Antifa that held whole blocks of a city for months and did graphiti.

Personally I don't think so.. they broke laws. Looks like trump fanned the flames and possibly should do jail time. But it should be minimal for most.

THEN, they are released and we make space for the other people noted above that conspired as they should do jail time for their crimes, yet to be tried.

That to me would be the most fair and healthy thing for the country. That is what you would do if you saw a brawl in school and wanted to deal with it so it didn't happen again. You punish everyone in the mess that did something wrong.

If you punish one side, then you are in essence, a slave owner. You are in power... you make the rules of right and wrong and they other people pay the price when they get upset to your rules.

That is really sick and I know you ain't that sick.

[loveslongnails]

No, they deserve what they get, but their fuhrer, Mr. Trump, needs to be in there with them.

Trumpers are the most ignorant people on the planet. Look how many of the supporters, appointees, associates, cabinet members and lawyers have been sentenced to jail time and are either IN jail or headed there. Every one of them deserves what they get, and should feel like the idiots they are while Trump has the money to fight charges, and Maga-idiots continue to send him money.

It's so pathetic, you just can't make this shit up. DeSatan is in the same category - he deserves the solution he pushes for others.

[SusanColleen]

January 6 was organized by the FBI and the violence orchestrated by Antifa, the new violent arm of the democrat party. Trump never suggested violence, just the opposite, he said to peacefully protest the election corruption and illegal votes that put Biden in office. Trump supporters are not violent, but even Christopher Wray (FBI Director) testified that the FBI had FBI assets in the crowd on January 6 disguised as trump supporters. January 6 was the dream of the democrats to distract from a fraudulent election. January 6 was a false flag operation after Crats stole a presidential election

[msc545]

I think this post earned the Stupidly Ridiculous Conspiracy Theory fo the Week AWARD!

[loveslongnails]

" Trump supporters are not violent" ... definitely the most ridiculous statement I've heard in a while. You are seriously delusional. By the way, do you know what "Antifa" stands for? It stands for Anti-Fascist, you know, fascists, like that ass wipe in Florida, Ronny DeSatan. You would think with all their bullshitting that every conservative in the USA would admittedly say " Hell yeah, I'm anti-fascist". Good Lord, trumpers are stupidest folks around.

[douride2]

If the broke the law let them serve their time.

[OddBeMe]

Yeah… there’s a clear difference from Jan 6ers and protesting. Same as the rioters.

[douride2]

Thanks for a MHO.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Yes, because the vast majority of them didn't do anything. The few that did already served their time, or will be serving their time. Also, that protest/riot lasted a handful of hours in one building on one day. Meanwhile, BLM and Antifa were rioting and looting for over 4 months in 2020, causing far more damage and destruction. They destroyed large areas of communities with mostly minority residents and burned many businesses that those residents used and were mostly minority owned. Yet most of those Antifa and BLM rioters nationwide got a slap on the wrist, or no punishment at all.

[goaded]

That vast majority weren't tried or convicted, and most of the rest weren't tried for seditious conspiracy because they were just going along with the rest of the flock.

The BLM protests were a thousand times bigger and lasted a hundred times longer. Thousands were arrested for property damage. None of them tried to overturn the results of an election and end the record of peaceful transitions of power that the US had enjoyed since its first president lost an election.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Yes, and Adam Schiff's hearsay circus and Cassidy Hutchinson heard something from someone else and Liz Cheney hugs people and Durham must be mistaken and Stormy Daniels and worse than 9/11 and worse than Watergate and worse than Hitler and worse than the moon landing and worse than sliced bread and worse than blah blah blah blah blah whatever.

Save your mouth foam for someone else, or wait until Tuesday. I don't care either way. It's a holiday weekend here, it's going to be gorgeous the entire time (unlike the last few Memorial Day weekends), I'm going on my cousin's boat, and I'm hitting on women half my age, because why not and because I can.

[goaded]

You're deluded, but it's OK, I'll point it out.

[WhiteBoyChill]

@goaded Not sure where you get this idea that they tried to “overturn” the results.

As far as I’m concerned it was nothing more than just a protest that got out of hand.

I’ve never heard of a political coup in history that’s involved a majority of people breaking into government property just to take selfies

[WhiteBoyChill]

“Overturning” might’ve been the end goal a few of them had in mind, but they obviously had no concrete plans of action. A few guys carrying loaded pistols isn’t enough to make a difference in the grand scheme of things

[OddBeMe]

@WhiteBoyChill mmm…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6aBLlUYsaI

[WhiteBoyChill]

@goaded And by the way directing your anger at an institution responsible for your grievances is a lot different than destroying the personal property of people who were uninvolved. I’m surprised your feeble brain can’t wrap its head around that concept

[WhiteBoyChill]

Oh, and you’re calling him the deluded one? Get educated yourself first.

[goaded]

@WhiteBoyChill " “Overturning” might’ve been the end goal a few of them had in mind, but they obviously had no concrete plans of action."

Trump and his cronies knew he'd lost fair and square back in November, exhausted his legal options soon afterwards, so the only way he could stay president was to have traitorous Republicans the House vote on a two votes per state basis to make him president. To ensure that, one of two things had to happen:

1. Get Pence to pretend that fake slates of electors with forged documents meant that multiple states' results were genuinely in dispute and throw them out.

2. Stop Pence from completing the count on Jan 6th.

Pence refused to do #1, the riot was an attempt at #2 (possibly with help from inside the secret service, taking Pence away "for his own safety", and not returning him; Pence seemed to have thought that was a possibility when he refused to get into the car.) The plan also hoped for counter-protesters (of which there were none) as an excuse to declare martial law.

It only takes a few with a "concrete plan of action" to make things happen. The rest were useful idiots, but still deserve to be convicted and punished for their parts.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Four months of riots by BLM and Antifa in 2020. Over $2 billion in damage and destruction to mostly minority communities and mostly minority owned businesses utilized by those same communities. Over 40 dead. Hundreds, if not thousands, of felonies committed by BLM and Antifa across the country. How many of those BLM and Antifa rioters were actually charged with felonies? Of those felonies, how many were found guilty? Of those found guilty, how many are serving time or going to serve time? So go complain about a riot that lasted a couple of hours on just one day somewhere else.

[WhiteBoyChill]

@goaded You do realize that even if some guy were to Assassinate Pence, as I’m sure some of them would’ve liked, it’d be just as easy to find another guy to do the counting.

[goaded]

@WhiteBoyChill You do realise that all they had to do was keep him away from the building, right? Killing him would have promoted someone else to the VP slot (I don't know if that would have been a Trump appointee or the speaker of the House, who they were also after). Preventing the completion of the Jan 6 count would have given Republican seditionists in the House a chance to declare Trump president.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Yes, four months, not just one day, and the purpose of the protests were not to overthrow the government but get justice. There were 25 million people involved in the protests, that's three times the population of New York City. How many crimes are committed in NYC every single day?

"Over 40 dead", really? Name them. Even if the number is correct (which I doubt, I think it's less than half that), that includes the people killed by the police and the police killed by the Boogaloo murderer.

Did criminals take advantage of the breakdown of society to commit crimes? Yes. Were the crimes in furtherance of the protests? No.

Jan 6 was an attempt to steal the presidency from the people. You should be outraged about that. Why aren't you?

[WhiteBoyChill]

@goaded You don’t understand how the law works, but ok

[goaded]

@WhiteBoyChill Oh, so we're on to the "you don't understand..." part of your losing argument, then?

You can read Eastman's plan to steal the presidency using the fake electors to muddy the waters and ignore the results of seven states here: cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/09/20/eastman.memo.pdf

The fact that he had no doubt that every Republican state's representatives would go along with this obvious abuse of power is astounding.

Bear in mind they forged the documents for those fake electors.

(I will admit to making one error: it's one vote per state, not two, which wouldn't make a bit of difference to the outcome.)

[NYCQuestions1976]

@WhiteBoyChill While I agree that liberals cling to January 6th like rabid lunatics (because they've never got any logical or tangible arguments for anything at all), suggesting that someone else would've certified the election if Vice President Pence had been assassinated on January 6th, while true, isn't exactly the best foundation for an argument.

@goaded I didn't realize that the "furtherance of justice" included destroying minority communities and minority business that they were claiming to help. Where are all of the felony charges and sentences for BLM and Antifa?

The leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers are going to jail for January 6th. Meanwhile, you're expecting hundreds of other people to also go to jail for January 6th for decades. It's not going to happen, because there's no logical legitimate legal reason for that to happen.

Hillary Clinton bought disinformation from the Diet Soviet Union and spread it around like it was facts in an attempt to steal the 2016 election. You should be outraged about that. Why aren't you?

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 As usual, you're making shit up, like: "you're expecting hundreds of other people to also go to jail for January 6th for decades", and ignoring the fact that a few thousand criminals taking advantage of chaos are a tiny proportion of the 25 million who took part in the BLM protests. Of course you can't be bothered to find out if there were actually convictions associated with the BLM protests. There were:

"The AP found that more than 120 defendants across the United States have pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial of federal crimes including rioting, arson and conspiracy. More than 70 defendants who’ve been sentenced so far have gotten an average of about 27 months behind bars. At least 10 received prison terms of five years or more."
apnews.com/.../records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8

I expect you'll never again ask: "Where are all of the felony charges and sentences for BLM and Antifa?", right?

"The leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers are going to jail for January 6th"
Yes, because two separate juries found (and a few of the convicts admitted) that they conspired to overthrow the government. They weren't just part of the riot, they were the spearhead of Trump's attempt to steal the presidency using force. It's incredibly hard to convict people of seditious conspiracy, but the evidence was overwhelming.

You won't, of course, explain why you're not outraged by that, you'll just keep trying to Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

Do you know what DARVO means? ↗

[WhiteBoyChill]

@goaded Dude your argument’s been debunked numerous times. The VP doesn’t have the unilateral authority to just reject votes. Its purely a ceremonial role

[WhiteBoyChill]

I’ve studied American law so don’t try with me

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded So thousands of BLM and Antifa rioters committed felonies over 4 months nationwide, and a total of 120 are in jail? Yeah that makes perfect sense, and I haven't even brought up the support Kamala Harris tried to drum up for BLM and Antifa:

abcnews4.com/.../kamala-harris-backed-bail-fund-helped-incarcerated-man-now-charged-with-murder-go-free

Funny how Harris loved to incarcerate many African Americans for marijuana charges as a prosecutor, but as a Vice Presidential candidate, encouraged financial support for felons via Twitter. I'd claim that she now has a guilty conscience, but I highly doubt she has the ability to think and reason that deeply.

Spare me your self-promoting narcissistic nonsensical questions. Have you ever heard of chronological order? What happened first? 2015/2016? Or 2020/2021? Durham exposed the fact that Hillary Clinton had millions of people (citizens, the media, government officials, etcetera) wasting millions of tax dollars and wasting approximately SEVEN YEARS chasing a lie that she helped create. Again, where's the outrage? Since the central victim of that lie is unsympathetic, where's the outrage from when Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and the Democratic National Committee conspired to bury Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primaries in 2015 and 2016?

Just admit that you're a shill for bullshit socialism, take another L to add to your collection, and move on.

[WhiteBoyChill]

@NYCQuestions1976 He seems to think the damages caused by BLM protesters is morally acceptable. No sense in trying to convince him.

[goaded]

@OddBeMe "The VP doesn’t have the unilateral authority to just reject votes. Its purely a ceremonial role"
Yes, that's true. That didn't stop Trump and Eastman saying he should just do it, did it? Did you forget about the forged documents that were intended to give Pence and congressional Republicans cover for rejecting seven states' votes?

That's why it was sedition, if there had been a legal way for Trump to remain in office, he'd have taken it. There wasn't, and because Pence wouldn't break the law for him, there had to be the riot.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Keep making shit up and ignoring the fact that the whole point of Jan 6th was to steal the presidency, whereas the whole point of the BLM riots was to protest injustice.

Clinton conceded immediately, there was never any question of VP Biden not counting the votes correctly, there was no attempt to steal the presidency after the votes were cast and counted, and your precious Durham report didn't uncover any wrongdoing or prove that the obvious Russian interference on Trump's behalf didn't happen.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You're completely delusional and/or gullible. Antifa and BLM didn't give two shits about Floyd's death, or anyone else's death, or any sort of "injustice", for that matter. It was an excuse, as always, to riot and loot. The only difference is that it lasted for 4 months instead of a few days.

Who cares about Clinton's concession, which took place with her hiding behind closed doors, and not in front of her supporters? Durham's report basically concluded that millions of people spent 7 years wasting millions of dollars going down a rabbit hole full of lies and bullshit started by Hillary Clinton. Where's the outrage?

All you ever want to do is whine, scream, cry, bitch, moan, sob, yell, complain, tantrum, and foam at the mouth over anything and everything that doesn't represent liberalism and/or socialism, while completely, constantly, consistently, continuously, and conveniently ignoring the hypocrisy and propaganda bullshit that liberalism and socialism tries to feed the entire planet every damn day. Now go be insane somewhere else.

[goaded]

Do you never stop lying? You can see the supporters five minutes in to the video and she walks through the crowd of supporters at 19:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khK9fIgoNjQ

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Do your research, you gullible fool! That was the next day! She was supposed to show up at the Javits Center on election night to give her "victory speech" (or at least some sort of speech acknowledging her supporters). There were thousands of people at the Javits Center waiting for her to show up. Instead, she either had her motorcade return to her hotel headquarters, or she never left her hotel headquarters (I've heard both versions, not sure which of the two happened). I'll bet all the money in the world I'm correct about the Javits Center and Clinton not showing up, because I worked on the setup there the day before Election Day and the morning of Election Day, and worked on the ripout the next day! She never showed up to speak to her supporters that night! That is a 1000% cold hard FACT.

[goaded]

So you're complaining that she didn't give a concession speech the day before she conceded.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded No, I'm pointing out that she was supposed to show up at the Javits Center the night of the election, win or lose, and give a speech to her supporters there. Hundreds of Union construction workers, including myself, decked out the entire "Crystal Palace" portion of the Javits just for her. Instead, when it became clear that her investment in her collusion lie was a waste of her time and her money and she was going to lose anyway, she hid herself from everyone that night, including all of her crying supporters at the Javits Center. It was entertaining to watch unfold in person and on overtime, honestly.

[goaded]

Exactly: "win or lose". It wasn't decided yet, there was still some hope on the night of the 8th. Compare that to not conceding until after your attempted insurrection has failed. Not even in the same ballpark.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded One of her stooges kept periodically going to the podium, telling the crowd "Hillary will be here soon.", until everyone was forced to leave the building at 2am. However it's small potatoes compared to what Hillary Clinton did to Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Tulsi Gabbard (whom I accidentally failed to mention to this point).

[goaded]

So they had to leave before the election was decided. You've also failed to mention what the Jan 6 riot was for. Why were they there, what were they trying to do?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Hillary Clinton's team repeatedly lied to the crowd at the Javits about her showing up. Again, small potatoes.

Hillary Clinton created and spread a gigantic collusion lie in an attempt to steal the 2016 presidential election for herself. She deliberately deceived millions of people. Seven years later, that is now a proven fact. Regardless of whether or not I believe anything nefarious took place with the 2020 election in favor of Joe Biden, I cannot blame anyone who believes that might've taken place, because everyone who was vilified for believing that something nefarious was attempted with the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton over the last seven years has now been proven correct.

[goaded]

Not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because of all the obstruction of justice from the Trump crowd. There were multiple convictions for that, and ten potential cases that Trump himself committed.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Potential this, possible that. Blah blah blah. The entire collusion story is now a proven lie created and disseminated by Hillary Clinton. It's fiction. False. Fantasy. Flim-flam. So there can't be any obstruction over something that never happened.

[goaded]

While you're absolutely certain about everything you believe, aren't you? Even after you've been proven wrong.

Why would someone obstruct an investigation if there was nothing to cover up? I mean, really, people got convicted and would have gone to prison if they hadn't been pardoned by the person they were obstructing justice for.

You'll note that Durham got one conviction for something the judge even said the accused believed what he was saying was true. The other two cases that went to trial were basically laughed out of court. A jury member said something like "why were they wasting our time".

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The only people proven wrong are the millions of people who wasted seven years of their lives believing Hillary Clinton's collusion disinformation.

Any conviction handed down concerning Clinton's fake collusion story prior to Durham's report will likely be overturned, since his report confirms that those convictions were based on something that never actually happened in factual reality.

It's time to let go and move on. It's over.

[goaded]

LOL. So Clinton did something illegal, did she? Where are the prosecutions? Who's gone to prison to protect her by covering it up? Once more you show how deluded you are by ignoring all the convictions in the Mueller investigation for doing exactly that sort of thing.

I bet you think there's proof of President Biden doing something illegal, too.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Many of the conclusions in Mueller's report, and following cases and convictions, were based on the theory of collusion being true. Now we know for certain that the collusion story was a boldface lie created and disseminated by Hillary Clinton. That's proper legal theory for those convictions being overturned, because the primary foundation of those convictions doesn't actually exist.

For whatever reason, Hunter Biden decided to save everything. Phone conversations, voicemails, e-mails, videos. Everything. So my conclusion on Joe Biden will be based on that, not your nonsensical hopes and wishes. As an added bonus, a family court judge in Arkansas recently signed off on a motion that subpoenas unredacted versions of just about ALL of Hunter Biden's financial transactions and records. That'll include transactions between him and "The Big Guy". Once they're admitted into evidence, they'll be a matter of public record. That should be a lot of fun to watch unfold.

www.wtoc.com/.../

[goaded]

No, they weren't. They were based on people not answering questions or lying to the FBI, and the rest of your claims (that you're no doubt absolutely sure of) are also crap.

The Republicans in the House have had ages to examine "everything" and still haven't come up with a single crime committed by or with Joe Biden. Which of us is going on "hopes and wishes", again?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "They were based on people not answering questions or lying to the FBI"

How can you answer questions about something that people are claiming transpired, but has now been proven to have not transpired? How can you tell the "truth" about something that people are claiming transpired, but has now been proven to have not transpired?

"The Republicans in the House have had ages to examine "everything" and still haven't come up with a single crime committed by or with Joe Biden."

So Hunter Biden's laptop doesn't exist? Or his laptop exists, but the communications saved don't exist? Or the saved communications exist, but there are none of them mentioning or featuring Joe Biden? Okay you stick with that. See how far it gets you. I mean, you've already wasted seven years of your life believing in Hillary Clinton's collusion lie, so what's a few more years of your life wasted believing in even more bullshit? 👍😂

[goaded]

You don't get convicted of lying to the FBI or obstructing justice just because you don't know the information they're asking for, they have to show that you knew the truth and told the authorities something else. Like when you get recorded saying you've got this secret document but you can't show it to people because you didn't declassify it while you were still president (did you hear about that one?). If you know you didn't commit a crime, what reason would you have for lying about anything?

Why is it you seem to be unable to distinguish between collusion with Russia (not proven because of obstruction, although Manafort passing internal campaign information to Russian agents sounds pretty convincing to me) and the interference itself, a proven fact?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Any answer given under oath that the prosecution received that didn't jibe with the narrative that they and the court believed (or hoped) to be true at the time was construed as a lie, thus convictions ensued. Now that we know for certain that it was the collusion story that was/is the actual lie, those convictions now have legal grounds to be overturned. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to follow and understand.

Any interference that took place by the Diet Soviet Union (or attempted interference) was for Hillary Clinton's benefit, on her requests and with her blessings. It falls under the same lie umbrella as the collusion story she invented. As for the anti-Hillary bots on Twitter you keep drooling over, I guess you missed this:

www.msnbc.com/.../russia-twitter-study-trump-2016-influence-rcna66428

theintercept.com/.../

As I already stated, it's over. You wasted seven (going on eight) years of your life being gullible and believing bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton. You seriously need to let go and move on.

[goaded]

Oh, rubbish, you don't get convicted by a jury for disagreeing with the FBI, you get convicted for lying about material facts. (By the way, even the flop Durham report says that the FBI should have opened an investigation, but not until the final pages.)

How on Earth do you think two articles about a study that found Russia's interference in the election didn't work means Russia was interfering on behalf of Clinton? Can't you see how ridiculous that sounds? It's well documented that Trump's campaign loved Russia's help.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The juries handed out convictions based on the false narrative that the collusion story was factual reality. Those convictions now have legal grounds to be overturned. It's not that hard to understand. You're just being willfully obtuse.

Also, you really are a gullible fool:

www.bloomberg.com/.../clinton-approved-trump-russia-leak-her-campaign-manager-says

"As Captain, you are responsible for the conduct of your crew." Ever hear that saying? Of course the Diet Soviet Union's interference was welcomed and encouraged by Hillary Clinton and her campaign, even if it's eventually proven there was never a direct request by any of them. Clinton and her campaign happily and joyfully used that interference as a weapon to help bolster their collusion lie. Hillary Clinton and her campaign screamed and pointed, and you've been falling for all of their bullshit for seven years of your life. I'm not sure if I should take pity on you, or laugh at you.

[goaded]

This would be the "reverse victim and offender" thing I've heard so much about. Quite a sad attempt at it. You have no idea what evidence the juries heard, and the idea that the Russians hacking Podesta's emails and releasing them helped Clinton is ludicrous.

Do you know what DARVO means? ↗

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Reverse victim? Hillary Clinton and those in her corner made shit up. Don't lash out at me because you're a gullible narcissistic fool that believed their lies for seven years. That's solely and squarely on you and you alone.

I decided that laughing at you is the way to go. It's much more entertaining and enjoyable for me than just taking pity on you.

[goaded]

Did the Russians hack Podesta's emails and release them, or not?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded If your point is that Hillary Clinton hired idiots to run her campaign, then I agree with you.

www.cbsnews.com/.../

Those phishing e-mails can be spotted miles away, no matter how "authentic" they seem to be. All you need to do is check the e-mail address of the sender. I get e-mails from time to time from "John Smith at Amazon", as a random example. Then when you check the actual e-mail address of the sender, it'll say something non-Amazon like goadedisgullible@whatafool. com or something similar. Or they make subtle (but still detectable) changes, like changing "Gmail" to "GoogleMail" in the e-mail address. Easily detected by non-morons. Also, it was WikiLeaks that released those e-mails.

Seven years of your life wasted. So funny.

[goaded]

So, your answer is yes, Russia did hack Podesta's emails and release them to help Trump get elected. It's nice that you occasionally accept reality.

How, exactly, did that help Clinton?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Except for these three facts: 1.) The Diet Soviet Union didn't release those e-mails. Julian Assange released them via WikiLeaks; 2.) Nothing that the Diet Soviet Union and/or its bots did helped Trump in any tangible statistical way (see links above); and 3.) The collusion story was bullshit that was invented by Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

Seven years of your life believing bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton. So funny.

[goaded]

Isn't it nice that Russia is now zero calorie? Where the hell do you think Assange got the emails from? Mueller indicted the Russian hackers for the attack.

Of course the Podesta emails helped Trump, did that study you're using as a smokescreen look into that at all?

Manafort still passed sensitive internal Trump campaign information to a Russian agent, whether you like it or not; Why would he do that, if not for help?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You posted that the Diet Soviet Union released what they hacked, which wasn't true. It was Assange.

I believe liberals at NYU conducted that study. Go yell at them like a lunatic. They'll probably let you give a Marxist graduation speech.

Paul Manafort was sentenced after a plea deal in a civil case for tax evasion. What does that have to do with giving polling data information, which can be Googled by everyone everywhere, to anyone?

Seven years of your life wasted believing in bullshit created by Hillary Clinton and company. So funny.

[goaded]

1. Russia gave the hacked materials to Assange.
2. Russia did something that significantly affected the election, just not on Twitter
3. You can't Google private interal campaign polling data.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded 1.) Assange released a lot of things over the last few decades. What's the point?

2.) No. They tried to affect the election, and had no statistical effect on the election. Again, see above links.

3.) Polling data isn't classified information, and it can be Googled.

4.) You wasted seven years of your life believing bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

[goaded]

OMG.

1. Wikileaks was the conduit through which Russia released the hacked emails to help Trump

2. The study didn't address the hacked emails.

3. Campaign polling data is not public and not publically available

4. You can keep denying reality as long as you like, but I'll keep pointing it out.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded 1.) The Diet Soviet Union doesn't own WikiLeaks. Julian Assange does. He released the information.

2.) Again, go whine at the liberals in the NYU research department.

3.) The few things that can't be Googled (if there are any) can be accessed via a FOIA request.

4.) The reality is you've wasted seven years of your life believing bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton. It's hilarious, and I'll keep pointing it out.

[goaded]

God, you're dense, and attempting to distract.

1. Wikileaks was given the information by Russian hackers.

2. Why should I complain to them? You're the one claiming they prove that Russia's attacks had no effect, when they only talk about one aspect. The Podesta email leaks were significant.

3. You can't use FOIA on a presidential campaign, it's not the government, dumbass. Can I google or FOIA your bank records? No, because they're private and confidential, just like the documents Manafort passed to a Russian agent before the 2016 election.

4. Maybe you shouldn't trust the people who are lying to you about what the report says.

The msnbc article you posted a link to talks about you in the last paragraph:
"Americans are doing a fine job as it is feeding each other home-grown manipulation and misinformation"

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded 1.) WikiLeaks isn't a country. I could also argue that the Diet Soviet Union is barely a country, but I make fun of them extensively already.

2.) Significant insomuch as to prove Hillary Clinton hired morons and idiots to run her campaign. That's what happens when you hire based on checked boxes instead of merit. You reap what you sow.

3.) Poll statistics, research, and data aren't classified presidential documents. They're statistics about potential opinions. There's nothing secret about them. FOIA requests can be submitted for any non-classified public records, and sharing information available to the public isn't illegal. Stupid behavior isn't automatically illegal.

4.) Yes, and it all started with Hillary Clinton seven years ago. She should be called The Seven Year Bitch. 😂😂😂 Damn I'm good.

[goaded]

You're just intentionally acting stupid, now.

"Poll statistics, research, and data aren't classified presidential documents."
Who do you imagine said they were?

"They're statistics about potential opinions. There's nothing secret about them."
Of course they're secrets, the campaign would have a fit if someone leaked them to the other campaign.

"FOIA requests can be submitted for any non-classified public records,"
The confidential Trump campaign plans and polling that Manafort passed to a Russian agent aren't public records. You can't really be this stupid, can you?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The data and statistics gathered after anonymous questioning about potential voting decisions isn't classified or confidential information.

You're angrier than a dog shitting tacks and lashing out because you're grasping at straws after wasting seven years of your life believing bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton and her cronies. You need to let go and move on. It's over.

[goaded]

You don't even understand what the word confidential means, do you? The documents that Trump campaign manager Manafort gave to a Russian agent were bought and paid for by the Trump campaign, and only to be used to their benefit, which they almost certainly were.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Weren't the words "almost certainly" used to describe the collusion story over the last seven years, which has now been proven to be a big fat lie?

You've spent seven years of your life being bamboozled. It's delightfully hilarious.

[goaded]

OK, so why else would Manafort pass confidential campaign documents to a Russian agent, if he didn't expect them to be used to help get Trump elected? I'll wait.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded There's nothing confidential about "Republicans are going to vote Republican", "Democrats are going to vote Democrat", and "Independents are undecided", which is basically the results of every political survey taken in the last half century.

Did you know that seven years is equal to 84 months? 🤔

[goaded]

There's everything confidential about the Trump campaign internal polling and strategies, which is what Trump's campaign manager, Manafort, passed to a Russian agent. You still haven't come up with another reason why he would do that, if it wasn't so the Russians could help the campaign. You never will, because it's obvious, even to you.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You're still implying collusion took place, which has now been proven to be a felonious falsehood. No matter how you try to spin the situation, it doesn't change the fact that you wasted seven years of your life believing a bullshit story engineered by Hillary Clinton and her cronies. You need to let it go and move on. It's over.

[goaded]

Yes, I am implying collusion took place, because I can see that passing confidential internal campaign documents to the Russians in the hope of help is collusion.

Are you saying Durham disproved that Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, did that? Because it's a matter of record that he did.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The extensive Durham report has debunked the collusion story. I know that it sucks for you that you wasted seven years of your life believing the bullshit collusion story engineered and disseminated by Hillary Clinton and her cronies. However you need let it go. It's over.

[goaded]

It really hasn't, you know.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Yes, it really has... and you wasted seven years of your life believing it to be true.

[goaded]

OK, then. What reported facts about the interactions of the Trump campaign and associates with Russia did it disprove? Be specific.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Directly from Durham's report:

“Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither U. S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,”

Durham directly suggests in his report that if the FBI and the DOJ had taken proper investigation steps, it would have found that the intelligence agencies in the United States did not have any evidence tying Trump to Russian leadership officials.

As I already stated ad nauseum, you wasted seven years of your life believing bullshit generated and disseminated by Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and her cronies.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded EDIT (correction): Durham directly suggests in his report that if the FBI and the DOJ had taken proper investigation steps, it would have found that the intelligence agencies in the United States did not have any evidence tying Trump to Diet Soviet Union leadership officials.

[goaded]

From the man who said: "Potential this, possible that. Blah blah blah.", the words "neither U. S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion" are amusing.

Especially as it ignores the actual evidence of obstruction intended to deprive those agencies of that evidence.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Durham's report was over 300 pages. If obstruction happened, and/or he himself was obstructed during his investigation, he would've mentioned it in his report.

You wasted seven years of your life believing bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton and her cronies.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Also, how do you obstruct something that never happened? 🤔😂

[goaded]

Durham's investigation wasn't obstructed, Mueller's was. He convicted people for it, and documented how Trump did it (including by trying to fire Mueller, which, no doubt, you'll have noticed Biden never did to Durham, knowing he wouldn't find anything.

The question you should be asking is, "why would someone obstruct an investigation into something that never happened?". The answer anyone with half a brain can see is that you wouldn't, because it happened.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Directly from Durham's report:

“Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither United States law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,”

Durham directly suggests in his report that if the FBI and the DOJ had taken proper investigation steps, it would have found that the intelligence agencies in the United States did not have any evidence tying Trump to Diet Soviet Union leadership officials.

Durham's report was detailed and over 300 pages. If obstruction happened at any time, and/or Durham himself was obstructed during his investigation, he would've mentioned it in his report.

You wasted seven years of your life believing bullshit engineered and disseminated by Hillary Clinton and her cronies. It's time for you to let it go. It's over.

[goaded]

You already tried pretending that not having evidence of Trump collusion in Russia's interference was evidence that there was no Russian interference on Trump's behalf.

Durham insists that the FBI started work too quickly, but they were up against an absolute deadline of the presidential election that year. Manafort passing confidential internal campaign documents to a Russian agent is evidence of collusion with Russia, how would they have found that out without any investigation?

Mueller convicted people for obstruction and detailed multiple counts that Trump was directly involved in (including trying to fire Mueller, which Biden, knowing he wouldn't find anything, never did to Durham).

The question you should be asking is, "why would someone obstruct an investigation into something that never happened?". The answer anyone with half a brain can see is that you wouldn't, because it happened.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded I'd probably be carrying on like you as well if I learned that I wasted seven years of my life believing bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton and her cronies like you did. Seven years is a long time believing a lie. However it's over now, the lie has been exposed, and you need to move on.

[goaded]

You haven't worked out that Trump has been lying to you every day for those seven years? He's about to be indicted on espionage charges, and you think he's an angel. His campaign manager gave confidential campaign documents to the Russians: why, if not in the hope of being helped?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Right there is the disconnect. I accept that politicians lie. All of them. Meanwhile, you believe the ones you like, and then can't accept when they've bamboozled you (not to mention all the others bamboozled as well).

So now you're going from collusion that didn't happen, to espionage that didn't happen? More entertainment for me!

You're like Alvin Simon Theodore Bragg, trying to turn a single misdemeanor into 34 felonies. It's absolutely hilarious. It's all wolf calling with never any actual wolf.

A wise comedian once said while roasting someone, "It takes many years to be a great entertainer, and you ain't reached that year yet." Well same here. Seven years, and you ain't reached that year yet.

[goaded]

Keep telling yourself Trump is innocent and just a victim in all this.

They really did find connections between the Russians and the Trump campaign, just not enough to indict, probably because of all the obstruction by Trump and others they found.

"Section 793, which prohibits “gathering, transmitting or losing” any “information respecting the national defence”.

The use of Section 793, which does not make reference to classified information, is understood to be a strategic decision by prosecutors that has been made to short-circuit Mr Trump’s ability to claim that he used his authority as president to declassify documents he removed from the White House and kept at his Palm Beach, Florida property long after his term expired on 20 January 2021. "

The 34 felonies were separate because that's the way the law works. Each payment is considered separately, so that the defense can address each one separately.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Every move and investigation since 2016 was based on information that turned out to be a lie. The Durham report laid out that there was no collusion. So everything else that was based off that lie now has no foundation.

You just proved that you're either not paying attention, or you're simply obtuse. There were no "34 payments". There was one payment to Daniels, and it's apparently mentioned 34 times in financial documents. That's how Bragg came up with 34 charges. It's laughable legal gymnastics. Also, under New York state law, it's a misdemeanor, not a felony. So I was correct when I stated that Alvin Simon Theodore Bragg is trying to turn one misdemeanor into 34 felonies. Furthermore, Bragg is the Manhattan District Attorney, not the New York State Attorney General. So it's not his case to make, and he's not in his jurisdiction. Letitia James and Merrick Garland knew when to punt and not waste their time and resources. However, Bragg is a dumb progressive and even more gullible than you, and that's stating a lot.

You wasted seven years of your life believing bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton and her cronies. Now you want to waste even more years of your life. It's funny as hell.

[goaded]

No, it wasn't, and the Durham report didn't say there was no collusion, it said there was no firm evidence at the *start* of the investigation, although there was evidence of Russian interference. The Manhattan case is about felonies because the misdemeanour crimes were in support of a federal crime; the payment was made in Manhattan, so Bragg has jurisdiction. You believe ever lie Trump tells you, and that's a lot. It's a crime to mishandle national security documents, and there's a recording of Trump admitting he knew he hadn't declassified a document, simultaneously telling people with no security clearance what's in it, and it seems to have gone missing...

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You keep putting up those Jenga blocks with no foundation. It amuses me.

Bragg has no jurisdiction because it's a state misdemeanor offense case brought in New York State Supreme Court, not in New York County (Manhattan) Supreme Court. Bragg is the Manhattan District Attorney, not the New York State Attorney General.

Let me know when you and Alvin Simon Theodore Bragg are going to film the remake of "Dumb & Dumber". 👍

[goaded]

Seriously, you're saying you know law better than a District Attorney? And that Bragg would be happy to embarrass himself in front of the world? Have you even heard of Occam's razor?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded So Bragg knows more than both Letitia James and Merrick Garland combined? You really are gullible.

Bragg IS embarrassing himself. Even CNN, MSNBC, and other liber legal analysts said so. Keep putting up those Jenga blocks. Seven years of your life wasted... and counting.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded *liberal

[goaded]

Show me Letitia James and Merrick Garland saying Bragg is wrong, and we'll talk. In the meantime, I'll remind everyone that Trump's campaign manager gave confidential campaign documents to the Russians in the hope of assistance.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Letitia James and Merrick Garland didn't pursue the case at the federal or state level. Actions speak louder than words.

There's nothing confidential about anonymous political questioning. Quinnipiac, Reuters, Monmouth University, the Associated Press, and numerous others do it all the time and share it with everyone everywhere.

You wasted seven years of your life believing in bullshit created and disseminated by Hillary Clinton. It's hilarious and entertaining.

[goaded]

Ah, so no actual words, just your inference.

Polling organisations either poll for publications or for people who pay them. In the latter case, the results are confidential, and Manfort not only passed on polling data, but campaign plans.

You're still supporting a traitor.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded It's not my inference or opinion. They refused to pursue the case, and for good reason, because there is no case. No felony case anyway. Alvin Simon Theodore Bragg is wasting taxpayer dollars the same way you wasted seven years of your life believing Hillary Clinton.

Campaign plans? Like what? Like how it was a presidential campaign, because Trump was running for president, so they planned to campaign in an effort to be elected president?

I'm not supporting anyone. I just don't go down bullshit rabbit holes create from one initial primary lie and expecting those paths to lead somewhere other than nowhere.

You should watch this clip from Back To The Future II, and then maybe you'll understand why I keep telling you that you're wasting your time stacking Jenga blocks on a foundation that doesn't really actually exist:

https://youtu.be/vzNBo_n_Wdw

[goaded]

Keep trying to pretend that the documents passed to a Russian agent by Trump's campaign manager weren't confidential, if you like. Nobody believes you.

"They refused to pursue the case, and for good reason, because there is no case."
Bragg was the one who refused to pursue the case originally, causing two of his prosecutors to resign in protest.

"Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz, two senior prosecutors on the team, resigned last month – one day after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg informed them that he wasn’t prepared to move forward with criminal charges."

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded No. First it was Garland at the federal level, then James at the state level. It was never Bragg's case to pursue, because he's not the New York State Attorney General. So Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz, and now suddenly Bragg, out of his jurisdiction, know more than Garland and James? Keep stacking those Jenga blocks with no actual foundation.

[goaded]

And yet nobody's saying Bragg doesn't have the right to bring the case and the underlying crime has been proven against Cohen already.

I assume you know Trump's just been indicted on the stolen documents case?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded In between stacking Jenga blocks on no actual foundation, please supply the date that Alvin Simon Theodore Bragg was elected the New York State Attorney General. Thanks.

That means every other former President and Vice President will need to be indicted. Believe it or not, rich people, including former Presidents and Vice Presidents, don't pack their own U-Hauls.

[goaded]

He's not, as you know. But you also know that the position he holds is legally entitled to bring the case against Trump that he is. Even Trump's few remaining incompetent lawyers would have argued that in court if it wasn't true.

Every other president since Nixon (when they changed the law) who took classified documents with them did it inadvertently, returned them to the government when asked or discovered, and allowed the authorities to perform a search to ensure there weren't any more.

Trump took them, hid them, bragged about them (giving away the content), kept them in his office desk (not lost in some moving box somewhere), lied about returning them all, lied about declassifying them, and obstructed justice in multiple other ways.

It's like saying someone shouldn't be charged for driving 100 past a school at pick-up time because someone else wasn't charged for doing 5 over the limit in the middle of the night. Your boy is toast.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Every liberal and socialist crybaby said the same thing about collusion. You keep stacking those blocks with no foundation and waste seven more years of your life. It's a lot fun to watch.

[goaded]

You do know Trump's been indicted, right? They've even filed in Florida so I'm sure you'll agree that the jury pool will not be all leftists.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Probably not, but they will likely be DeSantis supporters, some of whom are moderates that voted against Trump (based on the fact that Trump won Florida by a smaller percentage in 2020 than DeSantis won in his gubernatorial reelection), and DeSantis himself is running for President. So I find it mildly intriguing from that aspect. Regardless, none of these politicians are my "boy" (or girl or whatever). You keep forgetting that the government is not your friend.

[goaded]

You're always going to come up with some bogus excuse why Trump is totally innocent of everything he's obviously guilty of, aren't you? The government might not be my friend, but the law ought to be, and Trump broke it. Newsflash: he's not your friend, either.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded There isn't a politician alive or dead who hasn't committed crimes while in office. The biggest problem is the hypocrisy generated by selective prosecution. Alvin Simon Theodore Bragg is the perfect textbook example. If he's so serious about going after white collar crimes, then explain this:

D. Trump Has Been Indicted For GIVING S. Daniels $130,000. Why Isn't C. McCray Being Indicted For LOSING/MISAPPROPRIATING/STEALING Over $850 Million? ↗

There are links to stories from media that's all throughout the political spectrum.

[goaded]

Most politicians haven't committed crimes while in office. Whataboutism doesn't exonerate Trump, who clearly kept documents he wasn't allowed to, hid them, lied about them, and so on. 37 counts, I believe it is, that he's been indicted on. He also fomented an insurrection against the country as part of the seditious conspiracy that has been proven in multiple courts of law.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Jenga! Jenga! Jenga!

So worrying about a $130,000 private transaction is more important than figuring out what happened to over $850 million in New York City taxpayer dollars?

[goaded]

Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!

No, it's not "worrying about a $130,000 private transaction" (which would have been legal as a hush payment), it's about crimes associated with it. I don't care if they indict anyone else, just this person for this crime he committed.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded However you want to spin it, it's still a $130,000 transaction of private money. Where's the $850 million or more of New York City taxpayer dollars that magically disappeared, and the corresponding Bragg investigation? Unlike the other case, this actually DID happen in his jurisdiction.

[goaded]

Well, no it isn't, according to the law. Something I'm sure you pretend to support.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The law in New York states that it's a misdemeanor. However, making over $850 million of New York City taxpayer dollars disappear is a big fat felony. Why no investigation?

[goaded]

Whataboutism.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded No. For it to be whataboutism, there'd have to be some sort of relative equivalency. Or at least something close. $130,000 in private money doesn't even come close to $850 million in tax dollars disappearing. Where'd it go, and why no investigation?

[goaded]

Of course it's whataboutism, you're saying they should ignore Trump's crimes if somebody else committed a worse crime.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "It's like saying someone shouldn't be charged for driving 100 past a school at pick-up time because someone else wasn't charged for doing 5 over the limit in the middle of the night."

That was you who posted that, not me.

[goaded]

In response to you saying Trump shouldn't be charged with his massive documents crimes, compared to Biden and Pence's inadvertent keeping of documents.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Trying to turn a single misdemeanor into 34 felonies over a $130,000 private transaction with private money while simultaneously ignoring what happened to over $850 million in New York City taxpayer dollars strongly throws your speeding analogy back at you.

I didn't supply an opinion either way. I stated that it'll be interesting to watch them select from a jury pool of swing voters that supported their governor in his recent reelection at a record 59.5% clip while he's now also running for President himself.

I read the indictment, saw pictures, and watched numerous news clips. The seven count federal indictment basically contends that Trump took and kept numerous classified documents while leaving office in January 2021, correct?

[goaded]

The Stormy payment was legal, the 34 (or whatever) times he illegally lied in the documentation were the misdemeanour crimes (they have to be charged separately, so that the defence can argue each one separately, if they choose) and the fact that it was in aid of a federal election funding crime upgrades them to felonies.

Nobody's suggested anything criminal about the wasteful government spending you're complaining about.

If you read the indictment, you'd know the charges against Trump are listed on pages (46-47), and include "Willful Retention of National Defence Information" (which notably says nothing about classification levels, up to 10 years in prison), "Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice" (gosh, that's up to 20 years in prison), "Withholding a Document or Record" (ditto), "Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record" (ditto), "Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation" (ditto), "Scheme to Conceal" (only 5 years for that one), "False Statements and Representations" (5 years).

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Except Bragg is charging Trump with violating state law, not federal law (neither one is in his jurisdiction, because he's not the New York State Attorney General, or the United States Attorney General, but whatever for now). Also, there is no legitimate legal theory that can turn one state misdemeanor into 34 separate state felonies. Letitia James and Merrick Garland are both very anti-Trump, so it's not like they refused to prosecute him because they like him and/or support him.

"Nobody's suggested anything criminal about the wasteful government spending you're complaining about."

The over $850 million in tax dollars wasn't "wasted", because that implies that McCray excessively overpaid for the proper city services. That's not what happened. At best, that money was used elsewhere by McCray in city government, which means it was misappropriated. Yet not only isn't there an investigation (criminal or civil), there isn't even an active audit. Bragg is derelict in his duties as Manhattan District Attorney.

Okay great. So you saw all of the corresponding pictures as well, right? The dozens, if not hundreds, of boxes of documents in the bathroom, in the ballroom, in the basement, in the bathtub. All the B places. You saw all of this, right?

[goaded]

Why don't you tell Trump's attorneys that you have a foolproof legal argument to get Trump off the hook in Manhattan? I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear it.

What about the pictures? The copies I've seen had been faxed, so they don't show much.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You keep stating "me" like I invented the legal theory I'm correctly citing. Numerous legal experts have been stating the same exact thing. It seems only you and Bragg didn't get the memorandum.

You only saw pictures via facsimile? This is the 21st century, you know.

So here's the question: If the federal indictments against Trump are that he took those classified documents when leaving the office in January 2021, then how did he get those dozens, if not hundreds, of boxes of documents past the multiple levels of security and the Secret Service, into some mode of transportation from Washington DC to Florida, at a time when there was heightened security in place everywhere in Washington DC after the riot in the Capitol building?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded To be clear, I'm not suggesting Trump had zero documents. The question is about the volume.

[goaded]

The indictment papers had been faxed. That's where I saw the pictures. I thought you said you'd read the indictment? s3.documentcloud.org/.../trump-indictment.pdf Where's your non-faxed copy?

The answer to your question is: in a moving van.

Presidents are allowed to take away things that belong to them, they are not allowed to take things that belong to the government under the presidential records act. They're REALLY not allowed to take national security documents with them.

Even then, if Trump had allowed a proper search and returned all of those documents, he'd have been forgiven. Instead, he asked his lawyer what the best lie would be, had them moved around the building to stop them being found, had his lawyers tell the government that he'd returned everything, then had hundreds more found in an FBI search, some in his own desk. That was all his own doing.

The charges against Trump are listed on pages 46-47, and include 31 counts of "Willful Retention of National Defence Information" (which notably says nothing about classification levels, up to 10 years in prison), "Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice" (up to 20 years in prison), "Withholding a Document or Record" (ditto), "Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record" (ditto), "Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation" (ditto), "Scheme to Conceal" (up to 5 years), "False Statements and Representations" (5 years).

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded There are PDF links on numerous news videos online, where there are also clear pictures of all the boxes in all the rooms. So I still don't see why you had to read a facsimile. No matter. Unimportant detail.

So during a time of heightened security in Washington DC in January 2021, just after the riots in the Capitol building, Trump himself loaded dozens, if not hundreds, of boxes into a moving van at the White House in front of the Secret Service, while also under extreme scrutiny by other security agencies, and just had it driven approximately 10 hours to Florida?

"The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers." - Princess Leia Skywalker-Organa

The government, via Merrick Garland and the DOJ, even if they've got a case, are severely overpaying their hand.

[NYCQuestions1976]

*overplaying

[goaded]

The fax is the official unsealed document. You wouldn't want me to take news media's word for what's in it, would you?

Yes, they essentially put a load of boxes from the White House into a moving van (maybe they flew them, I don't know) and transported them to Florida. Why would you search things coming OUT of the White House? For bombs? For classified documents? No president has intentionally stolen so many government documents before, and any things mistakenly taken were returned without undue fuss.

You're really grasping at straws.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You obviously didn't see all of the pictures. There's no way that all of those boxes made it out of the White House and into a moving van undetected. Especially during a time of heightened security and in front of the Secret Service. It requires a gigantic suspension of logic.

[goaded]

What are you talking about? "All those boxes" were expected to contain things the former president was allowed to take. Nobody looked at the contents because nobody expected a former POTUS to steal hundreds of classified documents because no former POTUS had ever been such a crook. The level of security around DC didn't matter because obviously nobody was going to be sneaking bombs OUT of the White House.

Imaginary straws are all you've got to grasp at.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded It's not grasping at straws. There's no way that Trump, who was under a microscope in January 2021, loaded all of those boxes in the released pictures, containing thousands of files and folders, into a large moving van at the White House during a time of heightened security, without drawing attention to himself.

[goaded]

It's what every outgoing president does; pack up and move out. They usually use boxes to do it, too. There was no reason to suspect that he was in the process of stealing hundreds of government documents, it had never happened before!

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded That many document boxes can't be loaded into a van by one person without being noticed by anyone at all. Especially during heightened security. It's utterly impossible. Even if it was a few people loading the van, it's still impossible to not draw attention. If only because it's not a process that takes 30 seconds. Regardless, I'm sure they must have security footage from January 2021. It's the White House. There are cameras everywhere. Obviously there's got to be at least one camera that caught a large moving van being loaded by Trump with a whole lot of document boxes filled with thousands of documents, right?

[goaded]

Whoever said they were "loaded into a van by one person"? People like Trump tell someone to tell workers to transport boxes from A to B, they don't get their hands dirty. You really think Trump personally loaded all those boxes by himself? See what I mean about clutching at straws?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Of course he didn't load the van himself, which was only part of the point. I'm sure there's security footage of who did. It's the White House. There are cameras everywhere.

[goaded]

What, exactly, is the point you think you're making? As far as I can see, you're just saying "Many boxes so Trump innocent!".

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Yes, because you're blind (to go along with over 7 years of gullibility). No worries though. Just send me the link of the White House security camera footage of the large moving van being loaded up with copious amounts of document boxes with thousands of documents from January 2021. Thanks.

[goaded]

You're calling me gullible while saying that Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction to bring his case (he does, or it would have been thrown out already), and that Trump can't have stolen all those documents because there were so many boxes to hide them in?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded New York State Supreme Court isn't New York County (Manhattan) Supreme Court. Bragg is the Manhattan District Attorney, not the New York State Attorney General. Bragg is in the wrong jurisdiction. It's not difficult to understand. Nothing has happened with the case at all because the next scheduled court dates aren't until December 2023 (next procedural date) or March 2024 (first scheduled trial date). A motion to dismiss wouldn't be heard until then, and that's assuming there are no postponements between now and then.

Just show me a link to the White House security footage from January 2021. It's a simple request.

[goaded]

It's not a simple request, it's a request made by a simple person. What would seeing a gang of people loading boxes into trucks prove either way? The crime is what was in those boxes, and that included hundreds of documents that were being stolen by Trump.

[goaded]

Oh, and "lack of jurisdiction" is a grounds for a pre-trial motion to dismiss. I'm sure, in the words of another Trump defender on here, Trump's lawyers are just "waiting for the right moment" to prove your idea legally sound and have the case dismissed.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded So your position is "the less evidence, the better" when trying to prove how the documents made it to Florida? Seems like a pretty low and "simple" standard to me. I'll remember that the next time you claim that there's no evidence in whatever case you cry on about next.

They can file the motion any time they want prior to the next scheduled court date. It doesn't benefit the defense to do it now, because it gives the prosecution far more time to respond. You do it close to the next scheduled court date, to put pressure on the opposition. Then the side that filed gets to respond to the response. That's how court works, criminal and civil, and not just in this case. If you don't believe me, look it up.

[goaded]

What colour jacket was the guy who supposedly bribed Biden wearing? It's just as important as who physically moved the boxes Trump ordered to be sent to Mar a Lago.

I don't believe you, because I did look it up. They can be filed at any time and the opposition always gets given a chance to respond. Why would you delay filing a motion to dismiss if it was obviously going to be accepted and the case dismissed?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded If you're fine with less evidence, I'm not going to argue with you. It just makes the case weaker. I'll just remember that the next time you dial whine-one-one about there being no/not enough evidence in another case, like against the Biden family as an example.

I didn't state that the defense can't file a motion now, and I didn't state that the opposition wouldn't get the chance to respond. I stated that it doesn't benefit the defense to file a motion now, which was 100% accurate.

[goaded]

You're "not going to argue with" me, you'll just imply that I (and the prosecution) need to have every detail of every second of what happened to build a case, when that's obviously never been true of any criminal trial ever.

Funnily enough, just evidence that the crime occurred (something obviously missing so far in all the Biden accusations) and who committed it is sufficient to convict. The faces of the people who carried Trumps boxes around is totally immaterial.

"I stated that it doesn't benefit the defense to file a motion now," Oh, really? Getting Trump off the charges can wait, can it? Why?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "you'll just imply that I (and the prosecution) need to have every detail of every second of what happened to build a case"

Uh, yes, because it's a criminal trial (above and beyond all reasonable doubt), not a civil trial (preponderance of the evidence). Duh.

Filing a motion to dismiss now doesn't move up the court dates. All it does is give the opposition more time to respond ahead of the next scheduled court date. Not just this case, but any motion filed in by any Plaintiff or Defendant in any case, at any level of court, criminal or civil. It's Litigation 101. Again, look it up if you don't believe me.

[goaded]

REASONABLE doubt. Try getting off a crime by saying it was actually committed by invisible monkeys and see how far that gets you. You want to make believe Trump can only be convicted if the prosecution can tell the jury what colour underwear he was wearing last July 4th.

I did look it up, and as usual you're wrong or simply lying. https://legaldictionary.net/motion-to-dismiss/

"A motion filed by either party in a lawsuit asking the court to throw out part of the case, or the case in its entirety."

"During a pretrial conference called by either party or the judge, a Motion to Dismiss can be presented."

Called by "either party"; i. e. any time after indictment and before the trial starts.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded It's fascinating to me that you would liken White House video footage to "invisible monkeys", while you also consider Cassidy Hutchinson's triple hearsay as some sort of big-time evidence. Duh again.

"A motion filed by either party in a lawsuit asking the court to throw out part of the case, or the case in its entirety." "During a pretrial conference called by either party or the judge, a Motion to Dismiss can be presented." Called by "either party"; i. e. any time after indictment and before the trial starts.

How is this any damn different than what I posted twice already?

[goaded]

No it's not "fascinating" to you, it's just another attempt to distract from the crimes documented in the Trump indictments.

You'd like to pretend, to give a concrete example, that video of people taking Trump's boxes out to send them to Mar a Lago could possibly affect the crime of him having the documents contained in some of those boxes, when there's proof that Trump knew they were there, knew they belonged to the government, and hid them from that government on multiple occasions.

Me: "a Motion to Dismiss can be presented... any time after indictment and before the trial starts."
You: "How is this any damn different than what I posted twice already?"
Because you've said a couple of times now that the defence has to wait for the next scheduled court date. Total bullshit:

"Filing a motion to dismiss now doesn't move up the court dates. All it does is give the opposition more time to respond ahead of the next scheduled court date."

"They can file the motion any time they want prior to the next scheduled court date. It doesn't benefit the defense to do it now, because it gives the prosecution far more time to respond. You do it close to the next scheduled court date, to put pressure on the opposition."

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded I forgot that you like hearsay more than actual evidence. It's all good.

That is NOT what I posted. Just because you need your hand held to understand things doesn't mean that I'm making shit up. Either side can file a motion for anything between now and the next court date (I never stated otherwise), which is sometime in December 2023. If either side filed a motion now, can the judge add an additional court date to the calendar to hear the filed motion and responding cross-motion sooner than December 2023? Yes she can, but that almost NEVER happens, unless it's an "emergency motion", which is called "An Order To Show Cause". A request by the defense that the case be dismissed isn't considered an emergency, unless, for example, the defense can not only show evidence that their client is innocent in a motion, but also show evidence that their client was deliberately framed as well. Again, just an example. Otherwise, the judge will just hear whatever is filed from either side (if anything) at the next scheduled court date, which is currently in December 2023.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded As another example of something that could happen, if either side files an order to show cause (emergency motion), the judge can have a conference call (phone or Zoom) between the parties after she reviews the order to show cause, decide that it's not an emergency, accept it as a regular motion, and then tell the parties they'll reconvene at the next court date in December 2023.

[goaded]

Any motion to dismiss that's based on clear, indisputable, legal reasoning would be accepted immediately. To do otherwise would be a clear waste of the court's resources. What you pretend, that the AG doesn't have jurisdiction could have been argued at the arraignment. It wasn't, because he has jurisdiction to bring the case.

And stop lying about what I believe. You just want to make the same stupid argument that Tucker Carlson did, that video not showing a crime is just as important as video showing a crime. The documents were in the boxes taken from the White House, NOBODY disputes that, not even Trump, so what possible relevance would video of boxes being moved have to the case?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "You just want to make the same stupid argument that Tucker Carlson did, that video not showing a crime is just as important as video showing a crime."

It's called DISCLOSURE, you socialist shill. You don't get to hide evidence that you don't like.

"Any motion to dismiss that's based on clear, indisputable, legal reasoning would be accepted immediately."

Yes, but you're conflating the textbook definition of "immediately" and what "immediately" means in court. A motion to dismiss would almost certainly not be considered an emergency (an order to show cause), and the opposition would be given the opportunity to file a response either way. The judge may decide to have a conference call over the matter, but other than that, in all likelihood, would still tell the parties that they'll reconvene on the next scheduled court date, which is in December 2023.

[goaded]

Video of nothing happening is not evidence unless there's a claim that something specific happened at that time.

Why would a judge who was going to decide that the prosecutor had no jurisdiction wait to announce it? Admit it, you're just making up excuses when the real reason they haven't claimed that the Manhatten DA doesn't have jurisdiction is because he has.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded So video footage of the document boxes leaving the White House and being loaded into a moving van is "Video of nothing happening" and "not evidence"? Okay. Sounds like an acquittal to me.

The Judge on the case can't just make that unilateral decision without a motion being filed. Those are the rules of litigation and court, whether you like them or not. I didn't create them.

[goaded]

What exactly do you think "video footage of the document boxes leaving the White House and being loaded into a moving van" would prove or disprove? Nobody's disputing the fact that Trump had his things moved to Mar a Lago.

FFS. You're trolling now. You're trying to justify your lie that Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction to bring the NY case against Trump by saying Trump's lawyers aren't filing a motion to dismiss on those grounds because they're waiting until December to get their client off the charges (which makes no sense). Now you claim I'm suggesting that the judge should decide without a motion being filed, when I'm saying the judge would deal with such a motion immediately. Just not in Trump's favour.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You just don't understand how the court system works here, so you're lashing out. A motion to dismiss isn't considered an emergency in court. The Judge is highly unlikely to add a court date to address that matter prior to December. Also, there are two benefits of going through with the trial for the defense: 1.) If Trump is somehow found guilty in Bragg's farce of a case, with Bragg being out of his jurisdiction (the forum is correct, Bragg isn't the New York State Attorney General) and Bragg trying to magically turn one misdemeanor into 34 felonies with no legitimate legal theory, those are both strong grounds for an appeal; and 2.) If Trump is acquitted, then there's Double Jeopardy.

[goaded]

No, you just keep lying about it.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Nothing I've posted is a lie. Your tiny socialist brain is just too dumb to understand anything complex and complicated.

[goaded]

Several things you've posted were obviously incorrect, but I suppose you could go with the "if I believe it's true, it's not a lie" defence. Maybe you'd like to go back and check?

For example, when Trump is on trial in Manhattan for the crimes you say Bragg has no jurisdiction over, will you admit that you were wrong?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Nothing I posted is incorrect. Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction. He's not the New York State Attorney General. It's not that difficult to understand. It's also not "crimes". It's one misdemeanor that Bragg is trying to Houdini into 34 felonies.

[goaded]

So, when Trump's on trial in Manhattan, will you admit that you were wrong? Hint: If the case is dismissed on the grounds of lack or jurisdiction, I will admit that I was wrong.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Geez. I’m not even following the conversation anymore but you guys are still going at it? Can you PM eachother or something?

[goaded]

@WhiteBoyChill You can just mute the opinion or the question. Since you're here, do you think Bragg has jurisdiction over the Trump case, or not?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Trump isn't "on trial in Manhattan". He's on trial in New York State Supreme Court, Part 59, which is supposed to be handled by the New York State Attorney General, or one of the AAGs from the AG's office. The Manhattan District Attorney and the ADAs are supposed to bring cases (they can be local, county, and state charges) in New York County (Manhattan) Supreme Court. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps your confusion lies in the fact that both Court buildings happen to be located in downtown Manhattan? In fact, if I remember correctly and without consulting Google Maps, I believe they're actually across the street from one another, on Centre Street.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Thank you. I will make use of that feature!

[goaded]

@WhiteBoyChill Shame. I was hoping someone else reading might stop @NYCQuestions1976 making stuff up.

" Former President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony criminal charges of falsifying business records in Manhattan criminal court Tuesday afternoon. "

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded It's not Manhattan criminal court, dumbass. Whomever printed that is an idiot, as well as the the editor. Go read the first page of the indictment.

"NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT"
"PART 59"

"The People Of The State Of New York"
"Verses"
"Donald J. Trump"

It's LITERALLY on the first page of the indictment, in the upper left-hand corner of the page. Now go be stupid somewhere else.

[goaded]

Why do I think you don't know what you're talking about, again? Yes, this case was a New York Supreme Court indictment returned by a Manhattan grand jury convened by the Manhattan DA (34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree), but so were the cases against Allen Weisselberg and the Trump Organisation (which they both lost). And your claim is that nobody noticed any of those times that they could have had the cases dismissed?

You really ought to let Trump's defence lawyers know your theory! Or you could admit it's bullshit.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The Manhattan District Attorney isn't the New York State Attorney General, there's a difference between New York County Supreme Court and New York State Supreme Court, and one misdemeanor isn't 34 felonies, no matter how much you're foaming at the mouth with your OMB/TDS complexes.

[goaded]

That doesn't matter. Bragg's actions as Manhattan DA are legally valid, same as Cy Vance's were, and Allen Weisselberg and the Trump Organisation were both successfully convicted under the system, which clearly doesn't work the way you'd like it to.

"The court is unlike courts with the name "Supreme Court" in nearly all other states, because in New York the Supreme Court is a trial court and is not the highest court in the state."

"Under the New York State Constitution, the New York State Supreme Court has unlimited jurisdiction in both civil and criminal cases, with the exception of certain monetary claims against the State of New York itself"

"Civil actions about lesser sums are heard by courts of limited jurisdiction, such as the New York City Civil Court, or the County Court, District Court, city courts, or justice courts (town and village courts) outside New York City."

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded New York County Supreme Court (criminal) isn't the same as New York City Civil Court (civil). Stop typing about things that you clearly don't understand.

The Allen Weisselberg case was handled by AAGs from the Attorney General's office (Letitia James). So you're wrong again! What a shock!*

*P. S.: It's not a shock.

[goaded]

You're wrong, especially as I've already shown you another Trump related case that went through the exact same process. Look it up. en.wikipedia.org/.../New_York_criminal_investigation_of_The_Trump_Organization en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_New_York

Your attempts to claim that if I get a detail wrong that means you're completely right is getting annoying.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The Allen Weisselberg case was handled by AAGs from the office of the New York State Attorney General, who is Letitia James. So the case was in New York State Supreme Court. Both legally sound and correct, in terms of forum and jurisdiction. Just because James allowed Alvin Simon Theodore Bragg to fat around the Weisselberg case doesn't mean he has authority to bring cases on his own outside the proper forums and outside his jurisdiction. Bragg is the Manhattan District Attorney, not the New York State Attorney General. Again, stop commenting on things that you clearly don't understand.

[goaded]

Just go tell Trump's lawyers how you've found a way to get the case against him dismissed and stop wasting our time. The New York Supreme Court hears all felony cases and high value civil cases in New York City, and the Manhattan DA is perfectly entitled to bring cases before it provided a Grand Jury votes to indict.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Just because the New York State Supreme Court has a branch located in Manhattan (Part 59), it doesn't mean that it's the same thing and on the same level as the New York County Supreme Court. The state-level Supreme Court has branches all over the state. Letitia James also has multiple Attorney General offices in the state, and one of them is in Manhattan.

I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to explain the differences between the New York State Supreme Court, and the New York County (borough of Manhattan) Supreme Court. You're just a deranged idiot, plain and simple.

[goaded]

Just look reality up. You're claiming Trump's (and the Trump Organisation's) lawyers are totally incompetent, and that you know better than them. And I've been pointing out that you're deluded for 18 days now.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The other cases you cited were prosecuted by AAGs from the office of the Attorney General. Now go be stupid somewhere else.

[goaded]

Only one of them was, and you're still trying to make believe that Trump's lawyers are incompetent and you know better than them.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Both cases were handled by AAGs from the office of the New York State Attorney General.

What are you still going on about with Trump's attorneys, dummy? There's only been one court date so far, and it was an arraignment. You don't file motions at an arraignment. You enter a plea to the charge (s) and that's all. Go be stupid somewhere else.

[goaded]

"A separate criminal trial brought by the Manhattan district attorney began in October; on December 6, the organization was convicted on 17 criminal charges."

Go back to pretending you know better than Trump's lawyers.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded If there was a "separate" trial, it's because it was in New York County Supreme Court, where the Manhattan District Attorney files changes and brings cases, and not in New York State Supreme Court, where the New York State Attorney General files charges and brings cases.

Stop posting about things that you clearly don't understand. You're being an idiot.

[goaded]

It was a criminal trial against the Trump Organisation, the first words of the indictment are: "SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK", and it was brought by the Manhattan DA.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded That case was prosecuted by AAGs from the office of the New York State Attorney General. Just because James allowed Bragg to fat around on the case with them doesn't mean it was Bragg's case.

[goaded]

It wasn't Bragg, it was another Manhattan DA, and you're still pretending you know more than Trump's lawyers.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Cy Vance Jr. was the previous Manhattan District Attorney. It doesn't matter, because it's irrelevant. The case was prosecuted and handled by AAGs from the office of the New York State Attorney General.

[goaded]

So, are Trump's attorneys so incompetent that they missed their chance to get the charges against him dismissed on the spot at the arraignment? It would have been easy if you were right.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You can't file a motion at an arraignment. You're just there to enter a plea, and the prosecution is there to request bail or remaind. There's an order of operations. After you enter a plea, then you can file motions. Motions aren't heard (considered) at an arraignment. That's why they have pre-trial (status) dates. In this particular case, December 2023.

[goaded]

Oh, look at this! There was another hearing in May, a month after he was arraigned, where Trump's lawyers tried to get the case moved to a federal court. Why didn't they try to get the case thrown out then?
www.nytimes.com/.../trump-bragg-trial-date.html

"Rule 12. Pleadings and Pretrial Motions

(a) Pleadings. The pleadings in a criminal proceeding are the indictment, the information, and the pleas of not guilty, guilty, and nolo contendere.

(b) Pretrial Motions.

(2) Motions That May Be Made at Any Time. A motion that the court lacks jurisdiction may be made at any time while the case is pending."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_12

There's also repeated use of the phrase "At the arraignment or as soon afterward as practicable...", so there are more things that can happen at an arraignment than you'd like to suggest.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded A motion being made/filed can't happen until after a plea, and motions aren't heard/considered at an arraignment. So nothing I've stated has been wrong and/or inaccurate.

[goaded]

What part of "at any time", do you not understand? Also, there was a court date after the arraignment, and Trump's lawyers didn't try your cunning plan to get him off, they just tried to get the trial moved to federal court.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "A motion that the court lacks jurisdiction may be made at any time while the case is pending."

You're zeroing in on "at any time". The key word is "pending" (ongoing). Until there's a plea, there is no "case" pending. Prior to a plea, the only thing pending is the indictment.

I also already explained why trying to get the case tossed because of jurisdiction at this point or in December 2023 isn't beneficial to the Defense because of Double Jeopardy. If the case is thrown out on technicalities prior to it being completed, it can be filed again. If you go through with the case and are exonerated, except for an appeal from the opposition to the Appellate Court, there's nothing that the prosecution can do besides that or after that, because of Double Jeopardy. If you go through with the case and lose, then file an appeal based on jurisdiction and the decision is overturned, that also falls under Double Jeopardy.

[goaded]

No, you didn't already explain that, that's a totally new argument that you're introducing now. So, now you're saying Trump and his lawyers want this to go to trial? Despite your claim that Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction (which isn't true).

So why did Trump's lawyers try to get the case moved to federal court, a month after the arraignment and not guilty plea, and not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, in the reasonable expectation that other prosecutors would not bring the case?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded I absolutely already did explain Double Jeopardy in a previous post. Today was not the first time I brought that up. You're either not paying attention or deliberately being obtuse.

Bragg is the Manhattan District Attorney, not the New York State Attorney General. Thus New York State Supreme Court Part 59 is not his jurisdiction. That's the jurisdiction of the New York State Attorney General. Two different level criminal courts within the state. Repeating otherwise isn't going to change that fact.

As for requesting a change in venue, it's because Bragg, who's out of his jurisdiction, is wasting everyone's time with trying to magically turn one misdemeanor into 34 felonies with no logical legitimate reason and no legitimate legal theory.

[goaded]

My apologies, you did mention Double Jeopardy a couple of days ago (quoted at the end):

Of course, the judge wouldn't have had to "add a court date" because there already was one in May. And both these indictments were brought by Manhattan DAs against Trump ('s organisation), with the same boilerplate, so Bragg is no more out of his jurisdiction than Vance was: s3.documentcloud.org/.../...hush-money-payment.pdf int.nyt.com/.../full.pdf

" @goaded You just don't understand how the court system works here, so you're lashing out. A motion to dismiss isn't considered an emergency in court. The Judge is highly unlikely to add a court date to address that matter prior to December. Also, there are two benefits of going through with the trial for the defense: 1.) If Trump is somehow found guilty in Bragg's farce of a case, with Bragg being out of his jurisdiction (the forum is correct, Bragg isn't the New York State Attorney General) and Bragg trying to magically turn one misdemeanor into 34 felonies with no legitimate legal theory, those are both strong grounds for an appeal; and 2.) If Trump is acquitted, then there's Double Jeopardy. "

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded I told you, court is very complex here, with many levels and forums and jurisdictions, and a specific order of operations. Until the point at the end of a trial when it's time for "guilty" or "not guilty", it's all about strategy. Not too dissimilar from chess.

Please read the very top two sentences on the very first page of the link you just sent me. It proves my point.

"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK"
"COUNTY OF NEW YORK"

It doesn't say "SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PART 59" like the current Bragg indictment states.

Bragg is in the wrong jurisdiction. He's not the New York State Attorney General.

[goaded]

Yeah, it does, read them.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded I read the first page of both indictments. You do realize that there's a difference between New York County (Manhattan borough) and the whole state of New York, correct?

[goaded]

You're do realise that it doesn't make any difference to your claim that Bragg doesn't have jurisdiction in the case, correct? He does.

It's getting really boring correcting you. Which Manhattan DA brought indictment starts:

"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
-against- ...

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere,"

s3.documentcloud.org/.../...hush-money-payment.pdf
int.nyt.com/.../full.pdf

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Go look at the first page of both indictments and then you'll see the difference. Vance's indictment was brought in New York County (Manhattan) Supreme Court, where it belongs. Bragg's indictment was brought in New York State Supreme Court, Part 59, where it doesn't belong. Bragg is out of his jurisdiction.

[goaded]

Do you happen to know what "New York State Supreme Court, Part 59" is? It has another name: "Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County". ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/1jd/criminal/index.shtml

Come on, come up with another alternative fact that shows that Trump will go free.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded No it's not, and nowhere on that page does it say that. "Part 59" is one of *lateral* branches of the New York State Supreme Court. New York is a big state with a big population, so the State Supreme Court isn't just located in Albany (the state capital), hence the term "Part". New York County Supreme Court isn't a "Part" (lateral court) of the State Supreme court. It's a step below (lower court) the New York State Supreme Court and all of it's Parts. Now because New York County (Manhattan) has a large population, the New York County Supreme Court also has its own Parts (none are named 59), spread between two buildings:

ww2.nycourts.gov/.../about.shtml

Two perfect recent examples of State charges being brought against Defendants in the *County* level of the New York State Supreme Court by District Attorneys (where the District Attorneys belong) are the "subway vigilante" cases:

nypost.com/.../

www.cbsnews.com/.../

Daniel Penny was charged with a State level crime by the New York County District Attorney in New York County (borough of Manhattan) Supreme Court.

Jordan Williams was charged with a State level crime by the Kings County District Attorney in Kings County (borough of Brooklyn) Supreme Court.

I hope both of these guys are exonerated. Forced to act to protect innocent people because stupid liberals and their policies favor criminals. An argument for another day.

Main point: Alvin Simon Theodore Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney, brought his State level charges against Donald Trump to the New York State Supreme Court Part 59, not the New York County (Manhattan) Supreme Court, where he belongs. Bragg isn't the New York State Attorney General, thus Bragg is in the wrong jurisdiction.

[goaded]

So you're giving me two more examples of people legally being indicted in the way Trump (and his organisation) has been, and saying that's evidence it's illegal?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Are you dumb? Bragg isn't going after Trump in the same forum that Vance did, and Bragg isn't going after Trump in the same forum as the case against Penny, and the Brooklyn District Attorney against Williams. Why is this so difficult for you to follow and understand? Bragg is in the wrong jurisdiction/forum against Trump. He isn't the Attorney General.

[goaded]

And yet, nobody serious agrees with you. Strange, that.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The links and documents clearly show otherwise. Go be gullible and dumb somewhere else.

[goaded]

Keep lying. The Bragg indictment I posted a link to never mentioned "Part 59", which is your whole "argument" down in flames.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The indictment filing clearly states "SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PART 59" on the upper left-hand corner of the first page. Again, go be stupid somewhere else.

[goaded]

As anyone can read: (a) the original (below) did not, and (b) "People of the State of New York against Donald J. Trump, Indictment No. 71543-23" is being dealt with in a particular part (59, in NY county) of the NY supreme court. You're really hanging your hat on something you've misunderstood and nobody else, including Trump's lawyers, believes.

s3.documentcloud.org/.../...hush-money-payment.pdf

"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
-against-
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses
the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:"

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded That's cute, but that isn't where the case was filed, and as I've pointed out ad nauseum, New York County Supreme Court doesn't have a Part 59. However the Supreme Court Of The State Of New York has a Part 59. The upper left-hand corner of the very first page of the indictment stated SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PART 59. The indictment and Bragg are in the wrong jurisdiction/forum.

[goaded]

Why doesn't the judge think so?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded A motion hasn't been filed for the Judge to consider that specific request. A motion has been filed to move the case to Federal Court. Maybe that's their tactic to try to move the case out of the improper forum while also keeping Double Jeopardy in place. Requesting an outright dismissal on a technicality means the prosecution can decide to bring the case again. I already explained to you, court procedures here are a lot like chess.

[goaded]

Or, and it's just a thought, Bragg isn't a total moron and has a perfect right to bring a case before that court.

They might be playing chess, you're playing tiddlywinks.

I don't think I can be bothered any more, feel free to have the last word until Trump is convicted.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Bragg IS a total moron, because on top of being in the wrong jurisdiction/forum, he's trying to turn one single misdemeanor over private money into 34 felonies with no legitimate legal theory, precedent, or basis. Meanwhile, people who (at best) misappropriated over $850 million in New York City taxpayer dollars, and there isn't even an active audit going on, let alone a civil or criminal investigation. So yes, prioritizing what happened to $130,000 of private money over what happened to over $850 million in TAXPAYER dollars in his jurisdiction proves that Bragg is indeed a moron.

[Anonymous]

Congress needs to release their political prisoners.

Yes they are being held as political prisoner when in nearly every case they are merely being accused of being in what was until then the people's own house. That is not a legitimate crime in a democracy.

Unless you can prove the individual person harmed something or someone, then you must release them.

It is otherwise charge them with that crime of harming property or persons and nothing more.


There have been countless protest in Washington D. C. in and out of the Capital building no one has been treated so reprehensibly as those charged with being there on January 6th.
This extreme unequal treatment of theses particular protestors by the Federal Governments compete competent contempt equal justice and the right of the people of this country to seek redress of grievance.

[OddBeMe]

So they didn’t hit cops?

[Opinion Owner]

only a few did and if that were such an offense they would be the same day, as nearly everyone else who hits a cop during a protest is.

[OddBeMe]

Um no. That’s not true.

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme It is true, only a very small number ever hit a cop and if that were indeed their offense they would be free years ago and have no use for any pardon.

[OddBeMe]

1) assault on police is a very serious crime. Doubtful anyone would be released the same day unless it was a misunderstanding.
2) whatev…

[Bricealan]

Assaulting a police officer is a felony BUT certainly not going to have an 18 year prison term.

[OddBeMe]

@Bricealan I mean if there’s other charges along with it. Do you have a specific convict with an 18 year term that’s unfair?

[Bricealan]

Reading that on-line about some guy getting 18 years... Insane!

[goaded]

@Bricealan Elmer Stuart Rhodes was convicted of seditious conspiracy, essentially treason. What sentence would you prefer?

[Anonymous]

the debate around these rioters is so funny because if they brown or black they'd have a MUCH different media and societal reaction and there'd be hardly any debate at all - plus when a developing country has its people storming governmental buildings, the west generally looks down at them, look at what happened in pakistan over imran khan, now that was something worthy to protest over

[OddBeMe]

You’re right there. I mean back horrible governments overseas.

[DextroShade]

They rioted for a few hours and caused minimal damage while BLM and ANTIFA have rioted for months across the country, caused millions in damages, and assaulted and murdered people. Yet the leftist terrorists got almost no punishments while the J6 people got the book thrown at them. I hope DeSantis wins, pardons the J6 people, and orders the troops to shot the ANTIFA terrorists dead to protect law-abiding people and property.

[OddBeMe]

Murdered who? BLM?

[Staximus]

The law is the law. If they broke the law then they must suffer the consequences. Whatever libtard wrote that is a complete idiot, though. The justice dept and fbi have been used as a political tool\weapon since their inception. Maybe they are too young and ignorant to have ever heard of J. Edgar Hoover.

[goaded]

Who were they always used against until recently? MLK, "communists", anti-war protesters, the left generally. The right finally runs so far over the line that their actions can't possibly be ignored (a violent attack on the seat of power and the only time the presidency wasn't handed over peacefully in the history of the country) and they cry "political prisoners!".

[Staximus]

@goaded I don't think they should be released, try reading the first sentence again. I don't think all the "protesters" (rioters) who destroyed their own towns should have been released, either.

[goaded]

I know, I was mostly agreeing with you, just pointing out that the "political tool/weapon" was always used against the left until recently.

[Staximus]

@goaded you think the Democrats didn't do the same thing? You're delusional

[goaded]

I think the Democrats in government also targeted the left.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

What DeSantis is doing is called politicking.

You should know by now that politicians generally say things often in general terms to try to swing votes in their direction.

By DeSantis saying what he said, he's trying to get support from right wingers who many of them think that the January 6th riots were justified.

[goaded]

It's a good indication of how this site is a popular place for the right wing that 22 people so far voted for pardoning convicted felons. I bet they all say they're "tough on crime", too.

[Surely]

If murders, rapists, shoplifters, actual rioters burning government buildings and stores are turned loose before the end of day. Those political prisoners should be released after paying for any damages they might have caused.

[OddBeMe]

Pretty sure all of those if convicted, are imprisoned.

[Surely]

@OddBeMe. That is the problem with the Democrats catch and release program. They are never convicted!

[OddBeMe]

So crime is rock bottom but we’re just not catching killers and rapists?

[Sevenpointfive]

in some ways this site instills very radical ideas. i'm not sure we should have poitical discussions anymore. (i can't understand them, nor do i want to).
Politics is bullshit

[Exterminatore]

Well….. I guess I found something I can finally disagree with Ron about.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Precisely right

[Stoner710]

Might as well the BLM and Antifa protesters didn’t go to jail why should apthe Jan 6thers

[goaded]

Yes they did. Not for 18 years, but then they didn't try to overthrow the government and install an illegitimate president.

[Stoner710]

@goaded you had BLM lock cops in a police station and set it on fire in east seattle no one was prosecuted if they get off Scott free so should the Jan 6thers. There should be 1 standard for everyone not if your on the left and your rioting you get away Scott free vs your on the right you get 20 years for rioting. Either send them all to jail or none of them should be in prison

[OddBeMe]

@goaded nor threaten to assassinate elected officials. That’s felonies right there.

[goaded]

@Stoner710 If they did that and got off scott free they didn't deserve to, but presumably there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict. That doesn't mean other people should be let off for breaking the law. The law in question that got Elmer 18 years was seditious conspiracy, which is akin to treason. What do you think should happen to people who conspire and violently act to overthrow the government?

[Stoner710]

@goaded so he essentially did nothing compared to BLM. The only difference between him and the BLM Twitter organizers was he didn’t actually rob or loot anyone.

You know if BLM had been a right wing organization they all would have been hunted down and thrown into prison. Our prison population would have doubled or tripled if they were right wingers.

[goaded]

So you think attempting to overthrow the government is less important than looting and arson?

[Stoner710]

@goaded there both equally important. Treat them the same way, if it’s ok for liberals to rob loots and murder then it’s fine for the right to do it as well, If it’s not ok for the right to do it then it’s not ok for the left to do it. 1 standard to everyone, But we don’t have that standard.

Oh and if they were really trying to destroy the government why didn’t the capital building burn?

[goaded]

Because that wasn't needed for the plan to work. Trump and his cronies knew he'd lost fair and square back in November, exhausted his legal options soon afterwards, so the only way he could stay president was to have traitorous Republicans the House vote on a two votes per state basis to make him president. To ensure that, one of two things had to happen:

1. Get Pence to pretend that fake slates of electors with forged documents meant that multiple states' results were genuinely in dispute and throw them out.

2. Stop Pence from completing the count on Jan 6th.

Pence refused to do #1, the riot was an attempt at #2 (possibly with help from inside the secret service, taking Pence away "for his own safety", and not returning him; Pence seemed to have thought that was a possibility when he refused to get into the car.) The plan also hoped for counter-protesters (of which there were none) as an excuse to declare martial law.

Looting and arson are not "equally important" to overthrowing the government. One can be fixed and, frankly, happens all the time, the other ends democracy in the country forever. Incidentally, the looters were criminals taking advantage of the BLM protests, not the whole reason for the protest. The whole point of Jan 6 was to attempt to stop the count and steal the presidency.

[exitseven]

Yes, time served is more than enough punishment for trespassing.

[msc545]

Yes, if that were all it was. It was far more than that whether you believe it or not.

[exitseven]

@msc545 Did you see the video of the cops holding the doors open for most of the protestors? did you see them escorting them through the building? There was hardly any damage. A few broken windows and a broken door. There was over a million people in DC that day to protest so it is actually miracle that this was all that happened. If it was a real insurrection I imagine there would have been a lot more damage, more on the scale of what went on the summer before. in cities around the country.

[OddBeMe]

I saw them herding the riot away from congresspeople hiding in their offices.

[exitseven]

the protesters that were inside the building were peaceful and respectful. There was no damage and most of them sort of did a lap inside the building and left.

[OddBeMe]

Did any of them get imprisoned? Because the prosecutors used the video to convict the violent, or sticky fingers ones.

[exitseven]

The FBI took almost a thousand into custody. Most are languishing in a jail and have not been charged with a crime yet, Many of the political prisoners want to be transferred to GITMO because the conditions are better. One of them committed suicide in his cell. These people's constitutional rights have been shit on by these traitors.

[OddBeMe]

950 charged. 350 still in jail as of January 2023.
www.usatoday.com/.../

[msc545]

Exit, I would have done exactly what the cops did. Did you really expect a small number of cops to fight off a mob of that size? If the cops had not opened the doors that mob would have torn them down. Better to open the doors and let the mob in - it was getting in anyway. By cooperating with the mob the cops mostly saved their own lives and possibly some of those of the rioters as well.

[goaded]

" the protesters that were inside the building were peaceful and respectful. There was no damage and most of them sort of did a lap inside the building and left. "
How about the ones who smeared shit on the walls? How respectful is carrying a Confederate flag in there?

[TooHot2Care]

... Bro, they LITERALLY broke into state property VIOLENTLY, they assaulted cops, brought zip ties and were looking for elected officials to kidnap and kill.

[msc545]

Hell no. I support justice, fair trials, and appropriate punishment, if warranted, for all of them.

[Agape93]

Nope. Line them up against the wall, and treat them the way the Russians treat civilians in Ukraine.

[monorprise]

Only if we are allowed to do that to BLM protestors regardless of whether or not they harmed any property or person.

[Agape93]

Fine by me

[Dargil]

Some actually committed felonies but many are political prisoners. Any who remain jailed without a trial should be freed.

[LiamJHayden]

I would not even consider it for anyone who was carrying a weapon. For others I might under certain conditions.

[OddBeMe]

The American flag was used as a weapon to beat a Capitol Hill police officer.

[captain_voidwalker]

Personally I don't think they did anything wrong. Putting the fear of God into your government is what this nation was founded on. They just wanted to be part of that proud tradition

[Kingofkings1992]

You will bitch about anything DeSantis does. If he zigs, you will whine. If he zags, you will complain. As long as there’s breath in DeSantis’ lungs, you will continue to bitch.

[OddBeMe]

No he’s just zigging and zagging so prominently because he wants to be president.

Funny how you fcks never care when a right wing authoritarian uses the state to bear down on enemies.

[Anonymous]

No, I support execution for most convicts say anything with 10 years imprisonment should be take outside the court and double tapped

[Anonymous]

Yes.

[OddBeMe]

Why?

[Opinion Owner]

It's only fair.

[OddBeMe]

How?

[Opinion Owner]

They just trespassed. Big deal.

[OddBeMe]

https://youtu.be/_6aBLlUYsaI

[Blueeyes81]

I do not.