recogitare.com

Admin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 6:35 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 5:53 pm That might help determine the election.

Nope. Old news that will change nobody's mind.

The murkier question is precisely what new evidence Smith might reveal. The broad case against Trump is widely understood and has been previously pieced together by congressional investigators, Georgia prosecutors, civil lawsuits, news reports and prior filings by Smith’s team.

But Smith won legal fights to interview an array of witnesses who refused to cooperate with congressional investigators. Chief among those witnesses was Pence, who was the subject of Trump’s last-ditch pressure campaign to reverse the election results on Jan. 6. Meadows provided thousands of text messages to Congress that became a crucial timeline for investigators, but he refused to interview with lawmakers. And Trump’s social media adviser Dan Scavino, who was with Trump during key moments on Jan. 6 — when rioters were ransacking the Capitol — also spoke to Smith’s investigators despite spurning Congress.

In addition, Smith obtained reams of data from Twitter, now known as X, that could shed light on Trump’s movements during the Jan. 6 riot, including where he was when he tweeted an attack on Pence just as rioters were descending on his location in the Capitol. Trump’s tweet inflamed the mob and preceded some of the largest spasms of violence that day.

Other witnesses, like Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his deputy Pat Philbin, spoke to Congress but halted their testimony at key moments, citing executive privilege. Smith was able to secure court rulings to override Trump’s privilege claims, giving him access to details that other investigators were unable to learn.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/2 ... r-00181108

Prosecutors have said they intend to file a redacted version of this sealed brief. Previously unseen allegations may become public in the final couple weeks before the election.

Oh yeah, that will make people vote for Trump more. lol

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:49 pm Prosecutors have said they intend to file a redacted version of this sealed brief. Previously unseen allegations may become public in the final couple weeks before the election.

Oh yeah, that will make people vote for Trump more. lol

No, but it won't stop anyone who's already voting for him.

As Trump himself said, he can do anything and they'd still love him.

He's supported by evangelical christians, yet is a serial adulterer, a rapist, and paid for at least one abortion. Why the fuck would they care what happened or what anyone said?

Admin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:57 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:49 pm Prosecutors have said they intend to file a redacted version of this sealed brief. Previously unseen allegations may become public in the final couple weeks before the election.

Oh yeah, that will make people vote for Trump more. lol

No, but it won't stop anyone who's already voting for him.

As Trump himself said, he can do anything and they'd still love him.

He's supported by evangelical christians, yet is a serial adulterer, a rapist, and paid for at least one abortion. Why the fuck would they care what happened or what anyone said?

That seems pretty obvious.

Independent voters in the swing states will decide the election, not Trump's base.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 5:23 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 12:40 pm

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 3:46 am Either they already know, or they don't care. Either way, it will change no minds.

Already know what?

They already know what he did in an effort to overturn the election results. If they don't know, it's because they have remained wilfully ignorant of the details. (i.e. They don't care.)

Not only do they know, they like it and support it and hope he'll do it again.

arthwollipot wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:28 pm

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 5:23 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 12:40 pm

Already know what?

They already know what he did in an effort to overturn the election results. If they don't know, it's because they have remained wilfully ignorant of the details. (i.e. They don't care.)

Not only do they know, they like it and support it and hope he'll do it again.

Sad, but true.

arthwollipot wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:28 pm

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 5:23 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 12:40 pm

Already know what?

They already know what he did in an effort to overturn the election results. If they don't know, it's because they have remained wilfully ignorant of the details. (i.e. They don't care.)

Not only do they know, they like it and support it and hope he'll do it again.

And by all means, let us not do anything about it.

Oh, maybe some whining.

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:49 pm Oh yeah, that will make people vote for Trump more. lol

It might. I'm not sure.



Let's take a step back and talk about threats to democracy. I will not even consider voting for Trump for any office, ever, because he lost an election and tried to stay in office, including causing a riot in the Capital, one person dead as a direct result, and a few others dead from indirect results. I never voted for him before then, either, but it wasn't a case of "Hell, No! No way, ever!" until after the election. After the election, I began to see him as a true, not hypothetical, threat to democracy. Therefore, I won't vote for him, no matter what.

What else is a threat to democracy?

How about making up phony criminal charges to keep your opponents, who otherwise might win, off of the ballot? If that were ever to happen, I think we ought to all agree that that would constitute a threat to democracy.

Now, you are probably saying right now that that's ridiculous because that's not what Jack Smith or anyone else is doing, and I agree. We might quibble on some aspects of the case, but I agree that they are not phony charges. Trump isn't being framed here.

However, not everyone agrees. If people perceive that government authority is being used to attack political opponents for political purposes, they will see the prosecution as a threat to democracy, and they will link that threat to the Biden (and therefore Harris) administration, and they will vote against them.

What worries me is that the new "bombshell" evidence will be so empty that people will perceive the charges as phony.

In fact, we know that will happen with some people. However, most of the people who say that will be folks who were going to vote Trump anyway. What about the people who were undecided or not committed to a decision yet? If I knew answers like that, I could make a lot of money as a political consultant.

So......we'll see. I hope there is indeed a smoking gun in the new evidence , but I am extremely confident there isn't.

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:04 pmAnd by all means, let us not do anything about it.

Oh, maybe some whining.

The thing that you can do about it is vote.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 11:19 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:49 pm Prosecutors have said they intend to file a redacted version of this sealed brief. Previously unseen allegations may become public in the final couple weeks before the election.

Oh yeah, that will make people vote for Trump more. lol

It might. I'm not sure.



Let's take a step back and talk about threats to democracy. I will not even consider voting for Trump for any office, ever, because he lost an election and tried to stay in office, including causing a riot in the Capital, one person dead as a direct result, and a few others dead from indirect results. I never voted for him before then, either, but it wasn't a case of "Hell, No! No way, ever!" until after the election. After the election, I began to see him as a true, not hypothetical, threat to democracy. Therefore, I won't vote for him, no matter what.

What else is a threat to democracy?

How about making up phony criminal charges to keep your opponents, who otherwise might win, off of the ballot? If that were ever to happen, I think we ought to all agree that that would constitute a threat to democracy.

Now, you are probably saying right now that that's ridiculous because that's not what Jack Smith or anyone else is doing, and I agree. We might quibble on some aspects of the case, but I agree that they are not phony charges. Trump isn't being framed here.

However, not everyone agrees. If people perceive that government authority is being used to attack political opponents for political purposes, they will see the prosecution as a threat to democracy, and they will link that threat to the Biden (and therefore Harris) administration, and they will vote against them.

What worries me is that the new "bombshell" evidence will be so empty that people will perceive the charges as phony.

So, like a creationist, you commence to "teaching the controversy"? Promoting the false perception that Trump’s 2020 election subversion case is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the American community? That there is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing?

As if there were genuine controversy in the legal community that this has been a legitimate criminal investigation moving to its conclusion?

Weird.

President Bush wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 9:10 am Promoting the false perception that Trump’s 2020 election subversion case is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the American community?

You really need to step out of your bubble.