Trump charged

[caz]

Thinking about it again, the Moggster [knighted by Boris for promising to be his last friend on earth - bless] was more likely trying to downplay the disastrous local election results for his party by suggesting that it would have made a significant difference if all the Tory-voting old dears had not been turned away for their failure to bring any photo id with them. The man is so thick that he would not have seen his "gerrymandering" comment as an own goal on more than one level, but thought the word would make him sound clever.

Trump and Boris are sounding more and more like Doctor Evil and Mini Me every day, while the satirists will have a tough job to keep up.

Love,

Caz
X

[Svensson]

As you probably know, the most recent problem here in England was when compulsory photo id was hastily introduced by the Tories for all voters in the local council elections in May. It was a cynical move, designed to deprive the more deprived sections of society of a vote, as fewer would have a passport or driving licence, and might not know or bother to seek out alternative options.

Even the haunted pencil, Jacob Rees-Mogg, admitted that it was a piece of "gerrymandering" that backfired, because many older Conservative voters arrived without any photo id [although a bus pass would have been acceptable], unaware of the new rule, and were turned away. I doubt many rushed home to fetch their photo id after that indignity.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, and the question is: What problem was this designed to resolve? In the absence of any significant past voter fraud cases, I can only asume that this was to create obstacles for some voters (and replace much needed red-tape which was lost due to Brexit). For example, as you rightly point out, bus passes for the over-60s are acceptable, but Student ID cards are not. A curious omission, IMHO.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/voter-id/accepted-forms-photo-id

cheers.

[caz]

In 1920, Socialist candidate Eugene Debs ran for President from prison and got 3.4% of the popular vote. Debs had spoken against the draft and been sentenced to 10 years for violating the Sedition Act.

If Trump were to run for President and win, before the law could catch up with him and hand him a prison sentence, would it be in his power to 'pardon' himself?

I wouldn't be surprised in this climate of political insanity.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

why does the US have such ongoing problems with elections? Countries like the UK, Germany or Netherlands have no such problems. and i have not heard anything substantial from Scandinavia or France/Spain.

As you probably know, the most recent problem here in England was when compulsory photo id was hastily introduced by the Tories for all voters in the local council elections in May. It was a cynical move, designed to deprive the more deprived sections of society of a vote, as fewer would have a passport or driving licence, and might not know or bother to seek out alternative options.

Even the haunted pencil, Jacob Rees-Mogg, admitted that it was a piece of "gerrymandering" that backfired, because many older Conservative voters arrived without any photo id [although a bus pass would have been acceptable], unaware of the new rule, and were turned away. I doubt many rushed home to fetch their photo id after that indignity.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fiver]

The next President, or prison? America will decide.

In 1920, Socialist candidate Eugene Debs ran for President from prison and got 3.4% of the popular vote. Debs had spoken against the draft and been sentenced to 10 years for violating the Sedition Act.

[Fiver]

Instead, you need to be able to show fraud on the kind of scale that DID affect the outcome of an election.

Exactly, and while there are legal options that the loser of the election can pursue he must first meet that threshold. Simply showing instances of fraud is not sufficient.

c.d.

And in the case of Trump and is supporters, they didn't even show instances of fraud, let alone fraud on a scale that could affect the election.

[caz]

correct. in MAGA-land, this is nothing unless you are Hilary Clinton in which case you need to be locked up. On planet earth, this could mean anything from 10-50 years in prison.

And then there is of course the constant lies about absolutely everything. Like there is a "standing order" to declassify anything he stuffs into a box and carries out of the White House. He really must be unbelievably stupid to think that we are that stupid to believe this crap.

No, Svensson. He knows his fans will lap up his lies or call this 'nothing'.

He has already lost everyone else, so one more lie can't hurt him.

The next President, or prison? America will decide.

Love

Caz
X

[String]

Boris Johnson also thinks he’s the victim of a witch hunt. Populist right wing scammers are all the same when caught.

[Svensson]

William Barr on Fox with Shannon Bream:

"if only have of the indictment is true, then he's toast. And his claim that he is the victim of a witch-hunt is quite frankly ridiculous."

[String]

I see OJ is on the road again lol.

The scammer is on the road again.

’Huge crowds’, Well Trump ‘huge crowds’ at the scene.

[Svensson]

hard to argue against if the other candidate spent 3 years attacking him. Maybe he is not such a self-flaggelating suck-up as the other republicans.

Oh, and trump has been indicted by a Grand Jury composed of regular people. In both cases even.

[jason_c]

Well, a jury in Georgia will soon establish that.



So I take it you did not familiarize yourself with the differences of the two cases. Fair enough.

Cheers.

You're arguing that no two cases are exactly alike? I could have told you that without the numerous links. Another difference between the two cases of course is that this man made the recommendation not to prosecute in the case of Hillary.

[Svensson]

I specifically said it 'suggests' Trump was looking for legal votes. I did not say it as categorical fact. However, I will again reiterate he does not ask for anything illegal to take place. In fact I'd say he was just as likely looking to have Biden votes thrown out as illegal votes. Trump's syntax is, after all, a law unto itself. Is what Trump doing here illegal? I'd say almost certainly not.

Well, a jury in Georgia will soon establish that.

Comey's letter detailing his recommendations to the DoJ.

'looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.'

You don't get any more intentional than sending classified info on your own email server. More from Comey on classified info sent through the server.

'None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.'

After all this Comey recommended not to prosecute. One rule for Trump; discretion used in favour of those in bed with the Deep State.

So I take it you did not familiarize yourself with the differences of the two cases. Fair enough.

Cheers.

[jason_c]

What? What was a travesty about it? He ied to the FBI and congress, initially pleaded guilty and then changed his plea to "Not Guilty" on the advice to Sydney Powell (!!!)



You can think what you want, but he facts don't agree. there are numerous articles out there, specifically for people who have a persistently false impression about what is going on with the second Trump indictment (I'm confident there are even more to come). Such as:

https://us.cnn.com/2023/06/12/opinions/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-obeidallah/index.html

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/but-her-emails-why-trumps-case-is-very-different-than-hillary-clintons-aa18921c

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-search-warrant-draws-hillary-clinton-comparisons-big-difference-rcna42921

https://www.businessinsider.com/factual-legal-differences-between-trump-and-clinton-classified-records-cases-2023-6?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Just one quote about the thrust of these articles: "Trump's Republican allies are amplifying claims that he's the target of a political prosecution. Their arguments overlook abundant factual and legal differences between his case and Clinton's.[and then goes on to list all those differences]" I recommend you educate yourself on the facts of the case from credible news sources before making wild claims.

Comey also "used his discretion" to call a press conference a month before the election to state "we are re-opening the Clinton email investigation" while knowning fully well that a Trump investigation was also ongoing. Which is yet another datapoint that does not support your Trump-persecution narrative.



You're pretzelling yourself here just like celee did. You are seriously trying to make the claim that Trump was concerned with every legal vote being counted correctly? And that HE should be the arbiter of what is a legal vote and what is not? Like my uncle used to say, "that's far out man". And yes, all this has previously been discussed to the end of the world with celee. If you're really interested, you can look up the "Sooo..." thread from two years ago.

I specifically said it 'suggests' Trump was looking for legal votes. I did not say it as categorical fact. However, I will again reiterate he does not ask for anything illegal to take place. In fact I'd say he was just as likely looking to have Biden votes thrown out as illegal votes. Trump's syntax is, after all, a law unto itself. Is what Trump doing here illegal? I'd say almost certainly not.

Comey's letter detailing his recommendations to the DoJ.

'looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.'

You don't get any more intentional than sending classified info on your own email server. More from Comey on classified info sent through the server.

'None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.'

After all this Comey recommended not to prosecute. One rule for Trump; discretion used in favour of those in bed with the Deep State.

[Fiver]

. Comey used his discretion on the matter to advise the DoJ NOT to prosecute her. However, Trump is prosecuted.

No, Trump did not prosecute Hillary Clinton. Persecute, perhaps, nut not prosecute.

You need to get out out the echo chamber and start learning some actual facts.