Trump Indicted in Georgia

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm sorry, is the argument here that it's legally permissible for Trump and his people to access state voting equipment, download the records and then share them publicly...because people protested the killing of George Floyd in what became the largest protest movement in the history of the country?

Is it now legal for all sitting Presidents (maybe elected officials? All candidates?) to illegally breach and tamper with voting equipment and share voting records publicly? Is it legal now in general (for everyone) because of the George Floyd protests? Or is Trump the only one who gets that right? If so, why?

I'm genuinely curious here.

Same for directly asking Secretaries of State to change vote counts, convening fake elector slates who posed as real elector slates to change the Electoral College vote and sending an angry mob to disrupt the Electoral College count all for the purpose of undoing an election after all legal channels failed.

Moving forward, what are the specific circumstances where these things are legal and acceptable? Obviously you feel like they were legal and acceptable for Trump. Are you asking for a specific carve out for him? If not, if you're applying justice fairly, when does this carve out apply generally? Does Biden get to do these things if he loses the election?

The argument you've presented seems to be raising concerns about a perceived inconsistency in the treatment of actions involving election interference, access to voting equipment, and manipulation of voting records, particularly in relation to former President Trump and the George Floyd protests. There are several issues and misunderstandings in this argument:


1. **Misrepresentation of the Argument**: The initial argument misrepresents the stance of legality by suggesting that it's being claimed that accessing state voting equipment and sharing voting records is permissible due to the George Floyd protests. However, the actual argument for legality likely has more nuanced reasoning and legal foundations, which are not accurately reflected in this representation.


2. **False Equivalence**: The argument falsely equates the George Floyd protests with actions related to election interference and tampering with voting equipment. These are separate issues with different legal contexts and implications. The protests were about social justice and police reform, while election-related actions involve the integrity of democratic processes.


3. **Complex Legal Issues**: Election laws, tampering with voting equipment, and interfering with the electoral process are complex legal matters. Whether an action is legal or not depends on specific laws, regulations, and the interpretation of the legal system. It's an oversimplification to assert that actions are either fully legal or fully illegal without considering the nuances of the law.


4. **Assumption of Motivation**: The argument assumes motivations behind certain actions, such as asking Secretaries of State to change vote counts or convening fake elector slates. Motivations can be debated and may not be as clear-cut as suggested, making it important to base judgments on evidence rather than assumptions.


5. **Selective Examples**: The argument appears to focus solely on actions attributed to Trump without considering actions taken by other individuals or politicians. A well-rounded analysis would require examining actions taken by multiple actors and evaluating their legality within their respective contexts.


6. **Caricature of Positions**: The argument somewhat caricatures the opposing position by suggesting that someone is claiming actions were legal and acceptable "because of the George Floyd protests." This simplification may not accurately represent the nuanced arguments made by legal experts, scholars, and commentators.


7. **Political Bias**: The argument seems to express a certain degree of political bias by framing the issue in a way that might be intended to provoke a specific response, rather than seeking a genuine understanding of legal principles and interpretations.


In order to engage in a productive and accurate discussion, it's important to address these complexities and nuances, avoid making assumptions, and approach the topic with an open mind to the intricacies of the legal and political landscape.

[time4fun]

Ok, I did read the rest of it. Again Trump was under no legal obligation to tell the rioters to go home in any length of time, but he did. Thank you for not calling me disingenuous and indeed it is not my goal to be that way. It’s possible I’m missing information, but I’m giving my opinion based on the knowledge I have. I disagree with you, but thank you for the response and clarifying.

You were very respectful in your reply. There's no reason for me not to be respectful as well.

I do think you're letting him off the hook a little easily here with the "no legal obligation" thing. From a liability perspective, if you create a dangerous situation you are actually legally liable if you don't take all appropriate steps to remedy the situation. (or more liable I guess) Also he took an oath of office to faithfully execute the laws and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He was in direct violation of that Oath that day. He absolutely had a legal obligation. (but that's not the same thing as saying he has broken a law with punishment attached)

But getting to the missing information piece. Take this however you will, but here is my two cents:

The worst possible place you can go to get a full sense of how a Democratic President is doing is a place like MSNBC or Huffpost. They have a very clear agenda. You are guaranteed not to get the full picture. (Personally I avoid them like the plague at all times, but you get the point)

By the same token, the worst place you can go to get a full sense of how a Republican President is doing is a place like Fox or Newsmax. They have a very clear agenda. You are guaranteed not to get the full picture.


Right wing sources (publishers and elected officials) are a really bad place to be going for information on Trump, IMO. You may not be using them at all, but in case you are...two cents.

[Shaps]

Only if you concede the following:

Hillary had her own classified network in a bathroom illegally - No legal recourse

Hillary and the Democrat Party falsified information and utilized the Justice System to impeach a sitting US President - An act of treason by the way - No legal recourse

Democrats supporting domestic terrorism through monetary donations and release of criminals, resulting in the most destructive riots ever in the history of the United States - No legal recourse

Democrats blatantly sabotaging numerous elections - to include their own Primaries against Bernie Sanders - in coordination with their Media cohorts - No legal recourse

The Biden and Clinton families receiving hundreds of millions from foreign donations for no specific product - No legal recourse

The Democrat Party actively supports, in violation of Federal Law, the illegal immigration and human trafficking of persons across international boundaries.

The Democrat Party actively supports operating on children without Parental Consent, in direct violation of Federal Law.

The Democrat Party actively supports segregation through the creation of "safe spaces" and promotes racial inequity by claiming they would be safer "among their own kind".

Everything stated above is 100% true.

So when I consider the options - Did Trump contest an election vs. the facts above?

I'll go with Trump (not happily, but is what is) over that insanity any day.

The Left claims to care... look at any City that they have full control of over the years... full desolation and despair occurs. The Left are good at talking, they are shit at Policy.


As for the current case against Trump:

I've already posted links and information where the Democrat Party did the exact same thing that he did. I've already posted historical precedents of things that occur when contesting elections.

The Democrats really haven't thought this through - everything they've done to try and stop Trump over the past 7 years - all the lies, slander, and legal attacks... will come back to haunt them. If they convict a former President based on this... do you really think any election moving forward will ever be resolved?

[time4fun]

Can you acknowledge that many of what you call George Floyd protests were riots? I called January 6th a riot and denounce that action of anything beyond legal peaceful protests. I won’t ask you to acknowledge that many leftist politicians encouraged and allegedly funded these violent riots, but calling them what they were would go a long way for PC relations.

If you're asking me to acknowledge that people died and property was damaged- of course. These are facts.

But my response to Shap's post was to explicitly call out that talking about Black Lives Matter protests serves as a distraction from having to fairly evaluate Trump's actions. I'd be undermining my own post if I took the bait on digging into this.

But I'll make you a deal. Answer my questions first. And I will answer yours. Seems only fair.

[Shaps]

If you're asking me to acknowledge that people died and property was damaged- of course. These are facts.

But my response to Shap's post was to explicitly call out that talking about Black Lives Matter protests serves as a distraction from having to fairly evaluate Trump's actions. I'd be undermining my own post if I took the bait on digging into this.

But I'll make you a deal. Answer my questions first. And I will answer yours. Seems only fair.

I wasn't baiting... it's all tied together.

And as I said... I've already linked the information regarding when the Democrat Party did the EXACT same thing that the Trump team did, regarding contesting an election.

So if you're so up in arms about "Trump is trying to overthrow our Government, blah blah blah"... then you have to say that the Democrat Party is also...

Not sure what you "have to dig into"... as I've already done it and linked it for people to read. Not my fault no one does.

[Seran]

I wasn't baiting... it's all tied together.

And as I said... I've already linked the information regarding when the Democrat Party did the EXACT same thing that the Trump team did, regarding contesting an election.

So if you're so up in arms about "Trump is trying to overthrow our Government, blah blah blah"... then you have to say that the Democrat Party is also...

Not sure what you "have to dig into"... as I've already done it and linked it for people to read. Not my fault no one does.

No matter how many times you ring that cowbell dude, ain't nobody believing your nonsense arguments.

[Shaps]

No matter how many times you ring that cowbell dude, ain't nobody believing your nonsense arguments.

Just shut up... I know you're a fucking moron, and you could care less about facts... or have any semblance of rational.

Democrat Party thanks you for your stupidity and blind loyalty. The rest of us? Not so much.

[Suppressed Poet]

Time4Fun: Please allow me to share minimum information on my passion of guns. I’m writing this sincerely with intentions only to educate you with very basic firearm knowledge so you can communicate about them more effectively.



On top you have an AR-15. AR stands for ArmaLite which was the original manufacturing company in the 1960s and 15 is just a model designation. This is by far America’s most popular semiautomatic rifle. Today there are many manufacturers but the core design has been standardized. AR-15s are as American as cherry pie and Chevrolet.

On bottom you have an AK-47. AK stands for “Avtomat Kalashnikova” which the Russian translation is roughly automatic Kalashnikov (the last name of the man credited with the invention) rifle and the 47 part is the introduction model year of 1947. The USSR, Russia, and all of the former Soviet countries made a bajillion of these. They are less popular (but growing and still popular) in the US than the AR-15. The easiest way to recognize one is that banana curved shape magazine.

On both rifles there are military versions that are full automatic machine guns, but civilian models fire only one bullet when you press the trigger. You can go down a rabbit hole on both, but that’s about all you need to know to sound like you know what you’re talking about amongst the broskis. Thanks for reading this.

[time4fun]

Only if you concede the following:

Hillary had her own classified network in a bathroom illegally - No legal recourse

Hillary and the Democrat Party falsified information and utilized the Justice System to impeach a sitting US President - An act of treason by the way - No legal recourse

Democrats supporting domestic terrorism through monetary donations and release of criminals, resulting in the most destructive riots ever in the history of the United States - No legal recourse

Democrats blatantly sabotaging numerous elections - to include their own Primaries against Bernie Sanders - in coordination with their Media cohorts - No legal recourse

The Biden and Clinton families receiving hundreds of millions from foreign donations for no specific product - No legal recourse

The Democrat Party actively supports, in violation of Federal Law, the illegal immigration and human trafficking of persons across international boundaries.

The Democrat Party actively supports operating on children without Parental Consent, in direct violation of Federal Law.

The Democrat Party actively supports segregation through the creation of "safe spaces" and promotes racial inequity by claiming they would be safer "among their own kind".

Everything stated above is 100% true.

So when I consider the options - Did Trump contest an election vs. the facts above?

I'll go with Trump (not happily, but is what is) over that insanity any day.

The Left claims to care... look at any City that they have full control of over the years... full desolation and despair occurs. The Left are good at talking, they are shit at Policy.

Shaps, you're not going to find analogous situations to the actions cited in the Georgia indictment because they are without parallel (in our country). No sitting President in US history has ever tried to overthrow the results of an election after the normal, legal channels for contesting it had been exhausted.

This isn't a Republicans vs Democrats thing. It's Trump vs Democracy and the law. You're making this an "Own the Libs" moment when it should be "Am I okay with this becoming the new normal?" moment.

I asked you a very sincere set of questions. You have made it clear that you don't think Trump should be held accountable for trying to overthrow our election after all legal avenues to contest had been exhausted. Specifically you don't think he should be held accountable for breaching our election equipment and records, for sending an armed and angry mob to the Capitol to disrupt the electoral college certification, for organizing false slates of electors to submit alternate votes that could be counted instead of the legally determined ones or for calling elections officials and demanding they change vote counts.

I'm just trying to understand the rules here, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by not assuming you're creating a special carve out just for Trump. (That would be doing everything you're accusing everyone else of doing)

So what are the other situations where these things are acceptable and should be completely legal?

[Suppressed Poet]

You were very respectful in your reply. There's no reason for me not to be respectful as well.

I do think you're letting him off the hook a little easily here with the "no legal obligation" thing. From a liability perspective, if you create a dangerous situation you are actually legally liable if you don't take all appropriate steps to remedy the situation. (or more liable I guess) Also he took an oath of office to faithfully execute the laws and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He was in direct violation of that Oath that day. He absolutely had a legal obligation. (but that's not the same thing as saying he has broken a law with punishment attached)

But getting to the missing information piece. Take this however you will, but here is my two cents:

The worst possible place you can go to get a full sense of how a Democratic President is doing is a place like MSNBC or Huffpost. They have a very clear agenda. You are guaranteed not to get the full picture. (Personally I avoid them like the plague at all times, but you get the point)

By the same token, the worst place you can go to get a full sense of how a Republican President is doing is a place like Fox or Newsmax. They have a very clear agenda. You are guaranteed not to get the full picture.


Right wing sources (publishers and elected officials) are a really bad place to be going for information on Trump, IMO. You may not be using them at all, but in case you are...two cents.

I’m letting him off the hook on the no legal obligation to do so because I’m confident it is factual. The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and he has the legal presumption of innocence. And yes, I would hold Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or anyone else to that same standard to the very best of my flawed ability to do so.

I agree on what you said on news source. Unbiased news on either side really doesn’t exist, but I assure you I don’t just consume Fox, NewsMax (eww gross), and ones churning out propaganda. Sometimes I enjoy reading the comments section of both the extreme ends of the political spectrum but I never make one. I also get a frequent real life left of center perspective within my close family, and I’ll leave it at that.