Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Paranoid Android]

BREAKING: Judge overseeing Georgia election interference case dismisses some of charges against Trump

https://twitter.com/AP/status/176791...Vjn-29s_Q&s=19

On phone so idk wtf this really means.

6 of the 18 counts dismissed. Which there is still some significant charges(?).

The scary one dismissed is Trump soliciting votes for the infamous phone call. "I need 11,780 votes". Umm scary? Can be used as evidence I guess but no charge.

[Breccia]

6 of the 18 counts dismissed.

Without prejudice. Looks like prosecutors didn't have enough evidence?

[Sunseeker]

Without prejudice. Looks like prosecutors didn't have enough evidence?

If I am reading it right, it is not for lack of evidence, but lack of pointing to a specific portion of the law relating to those charges stating what Trump did was a violation of said law. Basically, they said "Trump broke the law!" But didnt specify which law or how.

Which essentially makes this more of a "Trump is a mob boss" case than "Trump abused the Office of the President" case.

At least thats my understanding from what Ive read.

[Paranoid Android]

Yes, Trump made the call caught on tape. And yes, Trump wanted Raffensperger to “find” votes that didn’t exist. But the judge had trouble concluding that Raffensperger would violate his oath by doing Trump’s bidding

https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-...er&via=desktop

Huh? So wtf?

If I offer a bribe to a politician but we can't conclude if he would take it, then I'm not bribing an official?

[Sunseeker]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-...er&via=desktop

Huh? So wtf?

If I offer a bribe to a politician but we can't conclude if he would take it, then I'm not bribing an official?

The difference is youre making an overt offer. Trump made no overt offer of compensation or punishment for failure, just asked "it would be great if you could", which the judge is basically saying isnt specifically illegal, because there is no reward for doing so(other than making Trump happy), and no punishment for failing to do so.

[Gabriel]

If the cops stop me for speeding and I tell them "It would be great if we found a way to make this go away", I'm 10000000% going to jail.

Sucks to not be rich.

[Paranoid Android]

The difference if youre making an overt offer. Trump made no overt offer of compensation or punishment for failure, just asked "it would be great if you could", which the judge is basically saying isnt specifically illegal, because there is no reward for doing so(other than making Trump happy), and no punishment for failing to do so.

I was going to edit my analogy since yes it's not in the same. That is cause You Know, a presidential candidate asking for votes from the Secretary of State has never been done.

Idk if you are giving me your opinion or that what you think of the judge, but its frickin weak sauce. The reward is him getting 11,780 votes and winning Georgia.

I mean wtf here. Asking to "find" enough votes has to be one of the most blatant subversions of stealing an election. Guess I'm wrong.

[gondrin]

I was going to edit my analogy since yes it's not in the same. That is cause You Know, a presidential candidate asking for votes from the Secretary of State has never been done.

Idk if you are giving me your opinion or that what you think of the judge, but its frickin weak sauce. The reward is him getting 11,780 votes and winning Georgia.

I mean wtf here. Asking to "find" enough votes has to be one of the most blatant subversions of stealing an election. Guess I'm wrong.

The biggest problem is he didn't tell him to create them out of thin air, just to find them. If he was on tape stating to just create votes out of thin air or invalidate votes that are legal votes, that would be different.

Sucks, for sure. That is why I said, a few years ago, that with Trump, you have to literally have everything on lockdown as he will use every loophole possible. He will have lawyers find those loopholes. That is why it takes so damn long to put someone like Trump in jail whereas it is far easier to get average people in jail faster as they don't have the means or the connections.

That is why Jack Smith is taking so long.

[Paranoid Android]

The biggest problem is he didn't tell him to create them out of thin air, just to find them. If he was on tape stating to just create votes out of thin air or invalidate votes that are legal votes, that would be different.

But this is the same as "You have a nice place here, would be tragic if something happened to it". All Trump did was use mobs speak, cause You Know, he is basically a mobster.

Not arguing with you here and admittedly it's moot cause this judge ruled. I have no background in law, so yes there may be legal standing I have no idea wtf I'm talking about. To me the phone call said a lot. Too bad I guess.

[Sunseeker]

But this is the same as "You have a nice place here, would be tragic if something happened to it". All Trump did was use mobs speak, cause You Know, he is basically a mobster.

Not arguing with you here and admittedly it's moot cause this judge ruled. I have no background in law, so yes there may be legal standing I have no idea wtf I'm talking about. To me the phone call said a lot. Too bad I guess.

Yes, thats basically what the judge ruled. Trump used "mob speak" but the prosecution couldnt point to any specific legal violation for doing so. Historically, mobsters get away with "mob speak" and are usually jailed on racketeering charges.

Which still stand.

Dont get me wrong I think this sets a shitty precedent for the President to be able to lean on people in improper ways(yes, the President should absolutely be able to lean on people in certain ways, and most political systems recognize this). But because of this we dont have a specific law saying "leaning on someone in X or Y way is wrong", and thus the prosecution had nothing to point to where Trumps "mob speak" without offering reward or punishment, violated the law.

[Endus]

But this is the same as "You have a nice place here, would be tragic if something happened to it". All Trump did was use mobs speak, cause You Know, he is basically a mobster.

Not arguing with you here and admittedly it's moot cause this judge ruled. I have no background in law, so yes there may be legal standing I have no idea wtf I'm talking about. To me the phone call said a lot. Too bad I guess.

The reason mob bosses talked like that was precisely this reason; plausible deniability, they didn't tell their guys to kill anyone, just "take care of it". The decision to kill was entirely their underlings'.

Like, that's literally the whole reason. When the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", plausible deniability is all you need. Doesn't matter if the jury thinks "oh yeah, he almost certainly meant "do the illegal thing", if there's a remote chance he didn't mean that, you must acquit.

This is one of those cases where we definitely know he did it, but the introduction of reasonable doubt means prosecuting him for it is nearly impossible. Kind of like if you have a murder scene and the DNA for the killer is all over, along with fingerprints and video footage of the actual crime, but the person you're sure committed the crime is a twin and his brother has no alibi either and both insist it must've been the other guy. Unless you've got evidence that excludes the innocent twin, conviction's out of reach, even if you're 1000% certain it was one of the two of them.

[Edge-]

The reason mob bosses talked like that was precisely this reason; plausible deniability, they didn't tell their guys to kill anyone, just "take care of it". The decision to kill was entirely their underlings'.

Like, that's literally the whole reason. When the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", plausible deniability is all you need. Doesn't matter if the jury thinks "oh yeah, he almost certainly meant "do the illegal thing", if there's a remote chance he didn't mean that, you must acquit.

This is one of those cases where we definitely know he did it, but the introduction of reasonable doubt means prosecuting him for it is nearly impossible. Kind of like if you have a murder scene and the DNA for the killer is all over, along with fingerprints and video footage of the actual crime, but the person you're sure committed the crime is a twin and his brother has no alibi either and both insist it must've been the other guy. Unless you've got evidence that excludes the innocent twin, conviction's out of reach, even if you're 1000% certain it was one of the two of them.

I'm reminded of the early Comey discussions on "Won't anyone rid me of this meddlesome priest?" and how that point remains an unresolved issue in law as the Republican party continues to act like and have considerable overlap with the behavior of organized criminal rings.

[Gabriel]

This is one of those cases where we definitely know he did it, but the introduction of reasonable doubt means prosecuting him for it is nearly impossible. Kind of like if you have a murder scene and the DNA for the killer is all over, along with fingerprints and video footage of the actual crime, but the person you're sure committed the crime is a twin and his brother has no alibi either and both insist it must've been the other guy. Unless you've got evidence that excludes the innocent twin, conviction's out of reach, even if you're 1000% certain it was one of the two of them.

I'm pitching the idea of twin hitmen who can't be convicted of any of the hundreds of murders they are accused of because nobody can tell them apart right now to Hollywood.

[Endus]

I'm pitching the idea of twin hitmen who can't be convicted of any of the hundreds of murders they are accused of because nobody can tell them apart right now to Hollywood.

Both of them have cover jobs as realtors (lots of free time out of the office on their own regard, etc). They buy the same clothes from the same stores and match in every way possible to keep this as clearly indistinguishable as possible.

Twist; they're secret triplets. I'm sure that's already been used, but I don't care, it's fun.

[Gabriel]

Both of them have cover jobs as realtors (lots of free time out of the office on their own regard, etc). They buy the same clothes from the same stores and match in every way possible to keep this as clearly indistinguishable as possible.

Twist; they're secret triplets. I'm sure that's already been used, but I don't care, it's fun.

The story of Uta Bloody Valentine in The Secret World is one of the coolest examples of this. She's an assassin that seemingly appears in multiple places at once, and nobody realizes that she's actually three identical twin sisters.

[Huehuecoyotl]

three identical twin sisters.

That's a mouthful. If only there were an easier way to describe this scenario.

Let me know what you were paid for that sentence. If you can find a better way I'll triple it.

[Gabriel]

That's a mouthful. If only there were an easier way to describe this scenario.

Let me know what you were paid for that sentence. If you can find a better way I'll triple it.

I can't help the fact my brain only has so many grooves.

[Flarelaine]

I assume Huehuecoyotl has "triplets" in mind.

It just so happens that Finno-Ugric languages have one term for identical sets of siblings, prefixed by specific numbers above two.

[postman1782]

Without prejudice. Looks like prosecutors didn't have enough evidence?

Apparently they were too vague, but the grand jury brought the charges, and this signals that Fani Willis won't be removed from the case.

[D Luniz]

Both of them have cover jobs as realtors (lots of free time out of the office on their own regard, etc). They buy the same clothes from the same stores and match in every way possible to keep this as clearly indistinguishable as possible.

Twist; they're secret triplets. I'm sure that's already been used, but I don't care, it's fun.

Don't think it was ever in a movie.
But it was the basis for a character in Fullmetal Alchemist
The Slicer