GA Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens is a lot of the MAGAs realize they have been duped, get mad at the "system" and never vote again. Combined with abortion hopefully getting settled by a pro-choice house and senate so as to never be an issue again, leaves the GOP without a voting base until it figures out a new platform.

Oh, hey, they have a new platform: Anti-Trans Hate!! Trans folk overrunning schools and kidnapping your children!! You read it here first, folks!!

Yeah, this seems to be the next big "issue" for the right.

Hopefully, Covid has killed off more or their voters than the GOP thought.

Aren't you a gem?

Do I lie?

I lost some republican friends I would rather have stayed alive, and I blame the GOP, MAGAs, and their public anti vax / anti mask attitudes.

The state of Georgia also lost three GOP voters when my friends died. You fool around, you find out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t know what she was thinking. Smith did it the right way and narrowed it to Trump to get the best chance possible for a speedy trial. She guaranteed hers will take years when she indicted so many people and charged RICO. Dumb move.

What dumb move? This isn't a political trial. It's a criminal trial. They take as long as they take.

Except it won’t ever happen if he gets elected again.

That is uncharted waters. No one really seems to know the answer to whether a sitting president can be tried in state court for crimes committed prior to becoming the president.

You want to take a wild guess at what SCOTUS would say about that? It hard to predict.

Didn't they already do that with Willy J Clinton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t know what she was thinking. Smith did it the right way and narrowed it to Trump to get the best chance possible for a speedy trial. She guaranteed hers will take years when she indicted so many people and charged RICO. Dumb move.

What dumb move? This isn't a political trial. It's a criminal trial. They take as long as they take.

Except it won’t ever happen if he gets elected again.

That is uncharted waters. No one really seems to know the answer to whether a sitting president can be tried in state court for crimes committed prior to becoming the president.

You want to take a wild guess at what SCOTUS would say about that? It hard to predict.

Didn't they already do that with Clinton?

That was a civil suit, not a criminal trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t know what she was thinking. Smith did it the right way and narrowed it to Trump to get the best chance possible for a speedy trial. She guaranteed hers will take years when she indicted so many people and charged RICO. Dumb move.

What dumb move? This isn't a political trial. It's a criminal trial. They take as long as they take.

Except it won’t ever happen if he gets elected again.

That is uncharted waters. No one really seems to know the answer to whether a sitting president can be tried in state court for crimes committed prior to becoming the president.

This is America. If it isn’t prohibited, it is allowed. It isn’t prohibited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t know what she was thinking. Smith did it the right way and narrowed it to Trump to get the best chance possible for a speedy trial. She guaranteed hers will take years when she indicted so many people and charged RICO. Dumb move.

Smith let all the co-conspirators get away with their crimes. RICO is the right call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t know what she was thinking. Smith did it the right way and narrowed it to Trump to get the best chance possible for a speedy trial. She guaranteed hers will take years when she indicted so many people and charged RICO. Dumb move.

What dumb move? This isn't a political trial. It's a criminal trial. They take as long as they take.

Except it won’t ever happen if he gets elected again.

That is uncharted waters. No one really seems to know the answer to whether a sitting president can be tried in state court for crimes committed prior to becoming the president.

No it isn't. There's absolutely zero legitimate legal reason I am aware of anywhere, why a sitting President can't be tried in court for matters not covered under scope of their presidential duties. Presidential immunity/absolute immunity/qualified immunity only applies to actions that happened as part of official duties.

[Anonymous]

Newly surfaced video: Here's Roger Stone, caught on video scheming on how to steal the 2020 election using fake electors.

Trump is toast.

[Anonymous]

^^^^^. “Robert Rock? Never heard of him. I think he used to pick up coffee”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t know what she was thinking. Smith did it the right way and narrowed it to Trump to get the best chance possible for a speedy trial. She guaranteed hers will take years when she indicted so many people and charged RICO. Dumb move.

What dumb move? This isn't a political trial. It's a criminal trial. They take as long as they take.

Except it won’t ever happen if he gets elected again.

That is uncharted waters. No one really seems to know the answer to whether a sitting president can be tried in state court for crimes committed prior to becoming the president.

No it isn't. There's absolutely zero legitimate legal reason I am aware of anywhere, why a sitting President can't be tried in court for matters not covered under scope of their presidential duties. Presidential immunity/absolute immunity/qualified immunity only applies to actions that happened as part of official duties.

Maybe because the president can’t carry out his duties if he’s focused on a trial or in prison. The Supreme Court would never let this happen. Get real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t know what she was thinking. Smith did it the right way and narrowed it to Trump to get the best chance possible for a speedy trial. She guaranteed hers will take years when she indicted so many people and charged RICO. Dumb move.

What dumb move? This isn't a political trial. It's a criminal trial. They take as long as they take.

Except it won’t ever happen if he gets elected again.

That is uncharted waters. No one really seems to know the answer to whether a sitting president can be tried in state court for crimes committed prior to becoming the president.

This is America. If it isn’t prohibited, it is allowed. It isn’t prohibited.

Spiro Agnew was Vice President and convicted of tax evasion while in office. He has the same constitutional standing as the President. The whole notion that you "can't" prosecute a sitting president is bs.

There is a DOJ opinion but it is hardly persuasive. Read it yourself. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t know what she was thinking. Smith did it the right way and narrowed it to Trump to get the best chance possible for a speedy trial. She guaranteed hers will take years when she indicted so many people and charged RICO. Dumb move.

What dumb move? This isn't a political trial. It's a criminal trial. They take as long as they take.

+1

It's also a vitally important trial for Georgia and democracy. These aren't minor acts or allegations. They are very serious.

And now the grand jurors have been identified and threatened with their home addresses published. None of this is something that can just be swept under the rug.

How did this happen? Who has access to this data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t know what she was thinking. Smith did it the right way and narrowed it to Trump to get the best chance possible for a speedy trial. She guaranteed hers will take years when she indicted so many people and charged RICO. Dumb move.

What dumb move? This isn't a political trial. It's a criminal trial. They take as long as they take.

+1

It's also a vitally important trial for Georgia and democracy. These aren't minor acts or allegations. They are very serious.

And now the grand jurors have been identified and threatened with their home addresses published. None of this is something that can just be swept under the rug.

How did this happen? Who has access to this data?

Grand juries are public in Georgia. There names were in the indictment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t know what she was thinking. Smith did it the right way and narrowed it to Trump to get the best chance possible for a speedy trial. She guaranteed hers will take years when she indicted so many people and charged RICO. Dumb move.

What dumb move? This isn't a political trial. It's a criminal trial. They take as long as they take.

Except it won’t ever happen if he gets elected again.

That is uncharted waters. No one really seems to know the answer to whether a sitting president can be tried in state court for crimes committed prior to becoming the president.

No it isn't. There's absolutely zero legitimate legal reason I am aware of anywhere, why a sitting President can't be tried in court for matters not covered under scope of their presidential duties. Presidential immunity/absolute immunity/qualified immunity only applies to actions that happened as part of official duties.

Maybe because the president can’t carry out his duties if he’s focused on a trial or in prison. The Supreme Court would never let this happen. Get real.

Harry Claiborne was a federal judge convicted of falsifying tax returns and sentenced to 2 years in jail. He did not resign his position, however. It was resolved when Congress impeached him, but in doing so they recognized the evidence of a criminal conviction made him unsuited for the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t know what she was thinking. Smith did it the right way and narrowed it to Trump to get the best chance possible for a speedy trial. She guaranteed hers will take years when she indicted so many people and charged RICO. Dumb move.

What dumb move? This isn't a political trial. It's a criminal trial. They take as long as they take.

Except it won’t ever happen if he gets elected again.

That is uncharted waters. No one really seems to know the answer to whether a sitting president can be tried in state court for crimes committed prior to becoming the president.

This is America. If it isn’t prohibited, it is allowed. It isn’t prohibited.

Spiro Agnew was Vice President and convicted of tax evasion while in office. He has the same constitutional standing as the President. The whole notion that you "can't" prosecute a sitting president is bs.

There is a DOJ opinion but it is hardly persuasive. Read it yourself. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution.

The VP and president do not have the same constitutional standing. The president has enormous powers and responsibilities and the VP has almost none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah, I don’t know what she was thinking. Smith did it the right way and narrowed it to Trump to get the best chance possible for a speedy trial. She guaranteed hers will take years when she indicted so many people and charged RICO. Dumb move.

What dumb move? This isn't a political trial. It's a criminal trial. They take as long as they take.

+1

It's also a vitally important trial for Georgia and democracy. These aren't minor acts or allegations. They are very serious.

And now the grand jurors have been identified and threatened with their home addresses published. None of this is something that can just be swept under the rug.

How did this happen? Who has access to this data?

Grand juries are public in Georgia. There names were in the indictment.

Their addresses and pictures were not