Georgia has opened (ETA: criminal) investigation into Trump's election meddling and 'find me votes'

[essentialsaltes]

Cheung later deleted the post and has clarified that TRUMP did NOT buy the gun (which would be illegal for someone under felony indictment). But he wanted to.

Trump ReTruthed a poster saying he *did* buy it. But since Truth™ is full of alternative facts, who knows what the truth is? Just because someone said an indicted felon illegally bought a handgun is pretty weak evidence that it happened. But maybe Jim and Comer will get right on this.

 

[JustOneWay]

Trump ReTruthed a poster saying he *did* buy it. But since Truth™ is full of alternative facts, who knows what the truth is? Just because someone said an indicted felon illegally bought a handgun is pretty weak evidence that it happened. But maybe Jim and Comer will get right on this.

View attachment 336841

Indeed. This could be a violation of his bond and most likely illegal. Of course nothing will be done about it. On the bright side they just kicked the trump businesses out of New York!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Meh, ALL Donald's phone calls are PERFECT.

Trump Asked His Lawyers for Ways to Suppress His ‘Perfect Call’ ​

Since last year, Trump has been briefed multiple times by some of his legal advisers on specific strategies for attempting to get the tape tossed out in court, according to two sources familiar with the matter. At Trump’s urging, some of the former president’s legal advisers have prepared arguments to try and suppress the call, and discussed them at the upper ranks of Trumpland for months.

 

[Aldebaran]

Trump Asked His Lawyers for Ways to Suppress His ‘Perfect Call’ ​

Since last year, Trump has been briefed multiple times by some of his legal advisers on specific strategies for attempting to get the tape tossed out in court, according to two sources familiar with the matter. At Trump’s urging, some of the former president’s legal advisers have prepared arguments to try and suppress the call, and discussed them at the upper ranks of Trumpland for months.

RollingStone?
RollingStone.com Media Bias Rating Hard Left.

No surprise.

 

[SimplyMe]

RollingStone?
RollingStone.com Media Bias Rating Hard Left.

No surprise.

Can you no longer defend against the things you don't like. You seem to be posting a lot of ad hominem attacks anymore, rather than trying to actually show where the poster is incorrect. Additionally, a bias does not indicate that a story is inaccurate or false.

 

[essentialsaltes]

RollingStone?
RollingStone.com Media Bias Rating Hard Left.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

 

[Aldebaran]

Can you no longer defend against the things you don't like. You seem to be posting a lot of ad hominem attacks anymore, rather than trying to actually show where the poster is incorrect. Additionally, a bias does not indicate that a story is inaccurate or false.

When people just start posting articles from publications with a clear Leftist motivation for whatever they write, there's really no use in listing every problem with the article to refute it. The reputation of the publication itself discredits it.

 

[SimplyMe]

When people just start posting articles from publications with a clear Leftist motivation for whatever they write, there's really no use in listing every problem with the article to refute it. The reputation of the publication itself discredits it.

Sorry, essentialsaltes post shows that you are incorrect; the publication has a great track record for accuracy, despite leaning left.

 

[Aldebaran]

Sorry, essentialsaltes post shows that you are incorrect; the publication has a great track record for accuracy, despite leaning left.

Can you tell me what is so factual in the article he posted? Did either of you read it? It's behind a paywall.

 

[JustOneWay]

Can you no longer defend against the things you don't like. You seem to be posting a lot of ad hominem attacks anymore, rather than trying to actually show where the poster is incorrect. Additionally, a bias does not indicate that a story is inaccurate or false.

Remember two can play that game. The hard right is used as sources all the time. The appropriate response to them should be - Hard right - No surprise. It would seem like trolling or a goading tactic but what other choice is there?

 

[SimplyMe]

Can you tell me what is so factual in the article he posted? Did either of you read it? It's behind a paywall.

I'm not trying to dispute it or support it; you are the one claiming it has to be completely false. I also assume that essentialsaltes read it or wouldn't have posted information from the article -- and I have no issue seeing the article.

 

[JustOneWay]

Can you tell me what is so factual in the article he posted? Did either of you read it? It's behind a paywall.

The obvious question is why did you not lead with the paywall comment instead of going directly to 'hard left no surprise"?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can you tell me what is so factual in the article he posted? Did either of you read it? It's behind a paywall.

"At Trump’s urging, some of the former president’s legal advisers have prepared arguments to try and suppress the call, and discussed them at the upper ranks of Trumpland for months."

If this fact is accurate, this demonstrates that Trump realizes his phone call would be an effective piece of evidence against him in this trial. He realizes this phone call was not, in fact, perfect.

Some of the rest of the article presents the opinion of at least one Trump lawyer that these legal strategies are not likely to work, and because of that, it is "unlikely" that these arguments will even be tried in a court of law.

More of the article:

But the legal theorizing over it highlights the gap between Trump’s public rhetoric and his lawyers’ private analysis of his legal exposure in Fulton County. Trump may continue to characterize the call as “perfect”; some of his attorneys view it as a threat in the most serious criminal case facing the former Republican front-runner.

Trump has taken a keen interest in the development and evolution of these possible legal strategies, the sources add, requesting updates this year and asking follow-up questions to lawyers and other advisers about the plans.

 

[Whyayeman]

This is from The Guardian today:

Trump ally is first to plead guilty in Georgia elections case​

Former Republican poll watcher Scott Hall pleads guilty to five criminal counts and must testify against co-defendants.

Trump ally is first to plead guilty in Georgia elections case

Former Republican poll watcher Scott Hall pleads guilty to five criminal counts and must testify against co-defendants

www.theguardian.com

Scott Hall is now expected to testify against his co-conspirators.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trump ally is first to plead guilty in Georgia elections case​

Former Republican poll watcher Scott Hall pleads guilty to five criminal counts and must testify against co-defendants.

In addition to contacts with [Sidney] Powell, Hall also had a 63 minute phone call with former Trump justice department official Jeffrey Clark on 2 January 2021 where they discussed the 2020 election results in Georgia, according to the indictment.

See also:

Trump Team Lawyers Linked to Lawful and Unlawful Access of Election Equipment in Multiple States

Some of the tentacles here and there are coming together into one ugly kraken. Of course, the exclamation point at the bottom of all of this is that nobody found anything that called the 2020 election results into doubt. Trump-allied lawyers pursued voting machine data in multiple states...

www.christianforums.com

Allegations that machine data had been accessed in Coffee County, Ga., first surfaced in February this year as part of the long-running lawsuit. In a recording of a March 2021 telephone call filed in court, pro-Trump businessman Scott Hall said he had arranged for a plane to take people to Coffee County and joined them as they “went in there and imaged every hard drive of every piece of equipment” and scanned ballots. “We basically had the entire elections committee there,” Hall added. “And they said: ‘We give you permission. Go for it.’ ” [This effort was also carried out by the same team and arranged by Powell.]

 

[Mayzoo]

This is from The Guardian today:

Trump ally is first to plead guilty in Georgia elections case​

Former Republican poll watcher Scott Hall pleads guilty to five criminal counts and must testify against co-defendants.

Trump ally is first to plead guilty in Georgia elections case

Former Republican poll watcher Scott Hall pleads guilty to five criminal counts and must testify against co-defendants

www.theguardian.com

Scott Hall is now expected to testify against his co-conspirators.

Well, this is about to unravel pretty quickly then.

 

[Aldebaran]

Remember two can play that game. The hard right is used as sources all the time. The appropriate response to them should be - Hard right - No surprise. It would seem like trolling or a goading tactic but what other choice is there?

You could try coming up with actual evidence instead of accusations, and relying on the MSM to keep false narratives going until they're debunked.
Just an idea....

 

[Aldebaran]

This is from The Guardian today:

Trump ally is first to plead guilty in Georgia elections case​

Former Republican poll watcher Scott Hall pleads guilty to five criminal counts and must testify against co-defendants.

Trump ally is first to plead guilty in Georgia elections case

Former Republican poll watcher Scott Hall pleads guilty to five criminal counts and must testify against co-defendants

www.theguardian.com

Scott Hall is now expected to testify against his co-conspirators.

Of course he is. Since Trump's accusers don't have any real evidence against him, they have to rely on accusing people around him, then using indictments those people as leverage to get those around Trump to turn on him in order to get a "deal".

 

[KCfromNC]

Of course he is. Since Trump's accusers don't have any real evidence against him, they have to rely on accusing people around him, then using indictments those people as leverage to get those around Trump to turn on him in order to get a "deal".

Seems like the criminal indictments prove this post is false. You know, given they contain both evidence and actual criminal allegations against Mr. Trump.

 

[wing2000]

Of course he is. Since Trump's accusers don't have any real evidence against him, they have to rely on accusing people around him, then using indictments those people as leverage to get those around Trump to turn on him in order to get a "deal".

You must be confused with yesterday's "impeachment hearing".
A Grand Jury of your peers already determined there is enough evidence to proceed with these prosectutions.