The Trump Indictment Thread

rdrr said:
If one pleads guilty, what does that say about the rest of them? How in a conspiracy can one person be guilty and the rest not? I know, I know due process and all…. Just one of those oxymorons.
Click to expand...

I assume at least part of the defense is going to be that every single one of them went rogue in regards to each other and the fact that they all seemed to be working together with the same narrative is a complete coincidence. I, the defendant, didn't sign off on any of that.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
I assume at least part of the defense is going to be that every single one of them went rogue in regards to each other and the fact that they all seemed to be working together with the same narrative is a complete coincidence. I, the defendant, didn't sign off on any of that.
Click to expand...
Ah the old, organized chaos defense. Just a bunch of people running around to Benny Hill music.
 
Altaic said:
I just felt a transient piteous pang for Cheseboro… eh, nope, it’s gone. I imagine Powell is stockpiling quaaludes right about now. Have fun, assholes!
Click to expand...
I’ve been watching the Eastman disbarment hearing (it’s been going on for months), and it’s hilarious to listen to the witnesses for Eastman. Various folks who wrote reports “proving” there was election fraud, which all these goons relied on. Then you hear them cross-examined. One guy was a chip designer at AMD (i think he started just after I left, but in any case I never heard of him). Another guy is a physicist who retired 40 years ago at age 30-something, and who declared, in response to a question from the bar attorney, “I’m a certified genius - I’m in Mensa.” A couple, I believe, were accountants. None had any background in elections. One critical witness for Eastman said a database proved the election was stolen, but had never asked for documentation for the database schema, so he didn’t realize that when it said “mail date” for the ballot, that often meant the date on which the ballot was handed to the voter (he assumed that the “mail date” was the postmark date [which makes no sense even for mailed ballots], and didn’t realize that if you showed up in person ahead of the election to ask for a ballot, the mail date was the date it was handed to you. This was Important because many many ballots had a ”mail date” and a “vote date” that were the same. Obviously it makes little sense that it could be put in the mail and returned on the same day. So he assumed everything was fraud, when it was just people showing up at the clerk’s office and casting votes.)

This whole thing was caused by people who know something about Topic A, thinking that means they know everything about Topic B, and then shady lawyers reading their reports and accepting them without looking into them at all. This is the natural evolution of internet mansplaining to the real world. If people think they are qualified to tell an author she is wrong about the theme of her book, or that a Nobel-prize winning physicist doesn’t get quantum mechanics, then telling election experts they are wrong about fraud is nothing.
 
Cmaier said:
I’ve been watching the Eastman disbarment hearing (it’s been going on for months), and it’s hilarious to listen to the witnesses for Eastman. Various folks who wrote reports “proving” there was election fraud, which all these goons relied on. Then you hear them cross-examined. One guy was a chip designer at AMD (i think he started just after I left, but in any case I never heard of him). Another guy is a physicist who retired 40 years ago at age 30-something, and who declared, in response to a question from the bar attorney, “I’m a certified genius - I’m in Mensa.” A couple, I believe, were accountants. None had any background in elections. One critical witness for Eastman said a database proved the election was stolen, but had never asked for documentation for the database schema, so he didn’t realize that when it said “mail date” for the ballot, that often meant the date on which the ballot was handed to the voter (he assumed that the “mail date” was the postmark date [which makes no sense even for mailed ballots], and didn’t realize that if you showed up in person ahead of the election to ask for a ballot, the mail date was the date it was handed to you. This was Important because many many ballots had a ”mail date” and a “vote date” that were the same. Obviously it makes little sense that it could be put in the mail and returned on the same day. So he assumed everything was fraud, when it was just people showing up at the clerk’s office and casting votes.)

This whole thing was caused by people who know something about Topic A, thinking that means they know everything about Topic B, and then shady lawyers reading their reports and accepting them without looking into them at all. This is the natural evolution of internet mansplaining to the real world. If people think they are qualified to tell an author she is wrong about the theme of her book, or that a Nobel-prize winning physicist doesn’t get quantum mechanics, then telling election experts they are wrong about fraud is nothing.
Click to expand...
Agree completely. In response to people who tell me "person X must be right because they're a leading physicist, physician, attorney, or whatever," I've always said that brilliance in one field rarely translates to other areas, especially considering the volume of knowledge needed to excel in any domain these days. Eastman's hearing should have been over in a week or two.
 
Roller said:
Agree completely. In response to people who tell me "person X must be right because they're a leading physicist, physician, attorney, or whatever," I've always said that brilliance in one field rarely translates to other areas, especially considering the volume of knowledge needed to excel in any domain these days. Eastman's hearing should have been over in a week or two.
Click to expand...
I told my buddy that after the next election, you can bet that Cliff Maier (B.S., M.S., Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Solid State Physics and J.D. in law) will definitely be circulating a report explaining why statistics proves that every republican actually lost. I figure that since I am an expert in two unrelated fields, I must be double as smart about elections as anyone else.
 
Citysnaps said:
Despite her upcoming cooperation, she got off easy considering the crime and resulting consequences of her actions - both real and potential.
Click to expand...

Very true, but without Trump, she'd be an unknown. She's one of those strange people who's done a lot of good and then somehow turned into a MAGA tool.

This is a big win for the prosecution... I figured they'd have to flip half of those unknowns before flipping someone like Powell.
 
As part of the deal, Powell faces a sentence of six years of probation — 12 months per count — and a $6,000 fine and $2,700 in restitution. She was also required to write an apology letter to the citizens of the state of Georgia.
Click to expand...
This is getting off very light, I hope she comes up with gold for the prosecution because she’s a scumbag.
 
Edd said:
This is getting off very light, I hope she comes up with gold for the prosecution because she’s a scumbag.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the light sentence is because she has a lot of juicy evidence to divulge.

And if she doesn't cooperate, the deal will be off the table. Chesebro's trial starts Monday! He was supposed to be on trial with her. I'd give him to the end of business tomorrow to plea or there will be no deal.
.
This is also bad news for Trump in his J6 federal case - she's an unindicted coconspirator.
 
Again I ask. Since she has plead guilty and she was working at the behest of DJT, how is it that he isn't guilty in the conspiracy charge? I know I shouldn't use any type of if A=B and B=C, then A=C type of logic in the MAGA world, but... 🤔
 
Edd said:
This is getting off very light, I hope she comes up with gold for the prosecution because she’s a scumbag.
Click to expand...

GermanSuplex said:
I'm guessing the light sentence is because she has a lot of juicy evidence to divulge.

And if she doesn't cooperate, the deal will be off the table. Chesebro's trial starts Monday! He was supposed to be on trial with her. I'd give him to the end of business tomorrow to plea or there will be no deal.
.
This is also bad news for Trump in his J6 federal case - she's an unindicted coconspirator.
Click to expand...
Screen Shot 2023-10-19 at 12.26.59 PM.png


Seen this opinion more than once. :( Hopefully she has something good, something unimpeachable and concrete, to make it worth it ...
 

Similar threads

Eric
GOP bracing for Trump indictment soon after Election Day
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
GermanSuplex
GermanSuplex
Back
Top