Donald Trump Indicted by special counsel

Yes, the Godless left will gin up multiple false claims and send them one after the other, to create a storm of false charges. The question for you is why with the prosecutor"s record of fabricating charges by stretching the interpretation of existing law beyond recognition, and the FBI known record of manufacturing false evidence, would you not see the whole charade as a nothing burger?

 

The Godless right also gins up multiple false claims about their political enemies. But that’s not what we are talking about.

For the sake of your question, I will pretend your wild accusations are true on their face.

I would not see this federal indictment as a “nothing burger” (a stupid phrase that I hate) since the indictment is based on things that Trump has claimed, the testimony of Trump’s attorneys, and physical evidence that has been well documented, including security videotape and audio recordings. There is also extensive testimony based on an extraordinary number of people who worked for Trump — including those who still work for him. And just about every time Trump makes a speech or gives an interview, he confirms aspects of the charges against him.

Person who have read the indictment and comprehended the charges understand those things. And no amount of weird ex post facto pocket veto ad hominem full stop arguments change those facts.

 

I see that truth does not matter to those on the Left. FBI fabricated charges. Ignore. Ginned up law interpretation to create an ex post facto crime. Ignore. Suggest these facts are "wild accusations." You bet.

Once again a nothing burger is presented as if not a hoax. Time will tell.

 

You are projecting your disdain for truth on me. I have documented everything, but you have only cited the first sentence of Article II of the Constitution, which is irrelevant to the issue. It seems that the one connecting with relevant evidence and the specifics of the indictment is the one who is concerned about truth. You have essentially stamped your foot repeatedly and screamed what you wish to be true, while claiming persecution for yourself and your leader, Donald Trump.

Please provide a compelling argument that the FBI has fabricated evidence for this indictment. Trump has essentially confirmed almost every claim that the Special Prosecutor has made, so does the FBI control Donald Trump and his attorneys?

Not ignored. There’s just nothing to evaluate since you have providing no evidence except for your unsupported assertion.

The “interpretation” is quite standard. The Trump Administration prosecuted persons under these very statutes. Remember Reality Winner? She spent 66 months in federal prison for simply one count under the Espionage Act.

And you still haven’t learned what an ex post facto charge actually is. Are you coming up with this nonsense yourself or are you listening to some unhinged pundit that is feeding you this argument?

Not ignored at all. I dealt with it at length. Just because you decide not to agree doesn’t mean I ignored it.

It is much nicer than saying that they are less valuable than horse manure. I am trying to be charitable and take your seriously.

It is not a hoax at all. Legal experts from across the political spectrum believe that this indictment is quite serious and will be very hard to fight for Trump’s defense attorneys. Many believe Trump will end up in prison due to his own recklessness.

It will. If the interpretations of the law that I have presented are upheld and Trump is convicted, will you admit you were wrong?

 

The denial that the FBI has fabricated evidence. And the request that I present such evidence. Note the claim this poster does not know perfectly well about the fabrication such as altering documents.

The claim the interpretation is "quite standard" has been challenged by Mr. Turley and others.

Offering absurdity is ignoring the reality.

I cite well documented facts and you call them names. Not your finest hour.

How many hoaxes does it take, to conclude the left uses one false charge after another.

Yes, which is probably more than I can expect from anyone on the Left.

 

I specified fabricated evidence regarding this indictment. You like to distort what I write.

A perfectly reasonable request. I’ve been presenting evidence all along.;

You are correct that I do not “know perfectly well” about FBI fabrication of documents. If there has been a case like that, it does not invalidate every other prosecution the FBI has ever attempted. Moreover, the Trump defense team would be well advised to hammer on any evidence supporting THIS indictment that may have been fabricated. Do you know of such fabrication in the evidence for the indictment?

Are you referring to Jonathan Turley who is all over the place with absurd theories, as well as explicitly saying the indictment is extremely serious? Do you agree with him there, or do you only agree with him when he says something you like?

You apparently assume I live in the same news/punditry bubble in which you live. It should be clear that I don’t.

You don’t actually cite anything, you just reference them, expecting me to know what is going on in your mind. When you do cite things like a “pocket veto,” it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

I can’t help but notice that you are avoiding answering my question — “If the interpretations of the law that I have presented are upheld and Trump is convicted, will you admit you were wrong?”

It is not surprising. It would require you to have the courage of your convictions.

 

Of course… he is a PP aka a political pastor

pease to you irregardless

 

I have missed where you established such a thing AND demonstrated why the evidence for this indictment (collected from Trump’s own statements, his attorneys, physical evidence, and audio and visual records) may have been fabricated.

You make a vague reference to something and then condemn me for not bringing it up. That’s a desperate rhetorical move.

I did a little research (since you seem to be afraid of it) and I think you are unknowingly making a reference to McDonnell v. United States. If you were to read the decision AND the issues around it, you would know that there was no unique interpretation or “stretching” of the interpretation of the law (in this case, the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201). It had been the standard interpretation of the law for a number of years. After the Supreme Court vacated part of McDonnell’s conviction on those counts, a number of previous bribery convictions unrelated to Jack Smith’s prosecution were also overturned, including the notorious case of William Jefferson.

So your assertion that Jack Smith is somehow a rogue prosecutor based on losing in the Supreme Court is completely without merit.

And for the third time — “If the interpretations of the law that I have presented are upheld and Trump is convicted, will you admit you were wrong?”

I'm not planning to ask again. I'll just let your lack of confidence in your own arguments stand for itself.

 

There is no need to me to argue with a stone wall. The left manufactured evidence, such as altering documents, and you simply say "taint so."

 

Coming from you, that's quite funny.

Go live your best life.

 

Yet another post addressing me and not the topic.

I must have missed where you agreed that none of the present charges should be considered valid because the FBI has fabricated evidence against Mr. Trump repeatedly.

 

Update on the “Documents” case:

The trial date for Trump’s “documents” case has been set to begin on May 20, 2024. Of course, Judge Cannon can adjust the date according to the interests of justice.

Prosecutor, Jack Smith, has informed the court he has 84 potential witnesses lined up for the prosecution, although the list has not been released to the public.

The next year will likely be very busy for former President Trump and his attorneys.

An indictment from the State of Georgia will likely to be released by August 2023, which may have numerous defendants including Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Lindsay Graham, and other high- and low-profile persons.

About a week ago, Trump announced that he had received a target letter from prosecutor, Jack Smith, regarding issues related to January 6th, the “stolen election” allegations, and the fake electors scheme. There is speculation that Smith is attempting to file his federal charges regarding similar allegations and evidence against Trump before Willis’ state-level charges. However, that remains unknown since neither indictment has been released.

I will continue to make updates as this story develops.

 

When was that?

 

A 2024 rerun of Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump would be a lose-lose situation for the United States. The two major political parties desperately need to do better.