2020 General Election

[UNI88]

And? Did he tell him to do something illegal? Make up votes that aren't there? Throw away legal votes without any review? I think he was a bitter man at that moment (really is a bitter man most of the time) and he really wanted to win. But he's also a guy that has gone through most of his life avoiding getting his hands dirty by just outright saying something that is clearly criminal. He might be dirty (pretty sure he is) but in this case, with the evidence at hand, was there anything specifically criminal that can stand up in court? That quote you supplied won't do it.

It was a damning phone call in the sense that it revealed even more of his character (or lack there of). It isn't anything that is going to stand up in court. It was the kind of intimidation with plausible deniability that a mob boss uses.

"That's a real nice fruit stand you got there... It'd be a shame if something bad were to happen to it."
"I want you to find X votes, find the fraud."

In the end, even if GA went along with it, he still would have needed to flip like 4 more states. He lost. He knew he lost. He lied about it. He's a liar.

I'm not sure he knew he lost. In his mind: he's a winner and only losers lose elections so he couldn't have lost. Therefore the election must have been stolen. It's a mental health issue.

For BDkalmD, you have yet to show me anything that was said that is more damning than Hunter's "big guy" reference other than your biased belief that it is.

[GannonFan]

Intent? To do what? He didn't say anything criminal should be done, he didn't personally threaten the guy he was talking to, and he didn't refer to anything else illegal. He had motive, i.e. he wanted to win the election, but that's not a crime. He was delusional, but again, not a crime.

To overturn an election under Georgia Law. He was told by his advisors and knew there were no real grounds to voter fraud.

And? His advisors aren't gods, they aren't omniscient. What if they were wrong or didn't have access to all the information? Again, it's not criminal to have a different opinion or viewpoint, even if that different opinion or viewpoint is proven to be wrong later. You can't start from "I think he sounded like a mob boss from the movies, he must be guilty of something" and just automatically get to call that criminal, you need actual evidence of a criminal wrongdoing. There could be something there, but then again there might not be.

[UNI88]

To overturn an election under Georgia Law. He was told by his advisors and knew there were no real grounds to voter fraud.

And? His advisors aren't gods, they aren't omniscient. What if they were wrong or didn't have access to all the information? Again, it's not criminal to have a different opinion or viewpoint, even if that different opinion or viewpoint is proven to be wrong later. You can't start from "I think he sounded like a mob boss from the movies, he must be guilty of something" and just automatically get to call that criminal, you need actual evidence of a criminal wrongdoing. There could be something there, but then again there might not be.

To kalm and the illiberal left, trump is immediately guilty if there is even a hint of impropriety. To the paleo-conservative right, trump is innocent and all allegations are slanderous tDS unless there is video evidence and a confession by trump himself.

How long has it been since we've had a figure as polarizing as trump?

[kalm]

And? His advisors aren't gods, they aren't omniscient. What if they were wrong or didn't have access to all the information? Again, it's not criminal to have a different opinion or viewpoint, even if that different opinion or viewpoint is proven to be wrong later. You can't start from "I think he sounded like a mob boss from the movies, he must be guilty of something" and just automatically get to call that criminal, you need actual evidence of a criminal wrongdoing. There could be something there, but then again there might not be.

To kalm and the illiberal left, trump is immediately guilty if there is even a hint of impropriety. To the paleo-conservative right, trump is innocent and all allegations are slanderous tDS unless there is video evidence and a confession by trump himself.

How long has it been since we've had a figure as polarizing as trump?

I said who knows if what’s in the tape is criminal on its own.

I said what’s in the tape would certainly seem like evidence to suggest intent to overturn a fair election (which is why the investigative grand jury was formed.

None of us are criminal lawyers but criminal lawyers have found reasons to investigate this.

Sadly, there’s no current equivalency for this alleged criminal behavior from the left.

Time to take a seat, son.

[kalm]

To overturn an election under Georgia Law. He was told by his advisors and knew there were no real grounds to voter fraud.

And? His advisors aren't gods, they aren't omniscient. What if they were wrong or didn't have access to all the information? Again, it's not criminal to have a different opinion or viewpoint, even if that different opinion or viewpoint is proven to be wrong later. You can't start from "I think he sounded like a mob boss from the movies, he must be guilty of something" and just automatically get to call that criminal, you need actual evidence of a criminal wrongdoing. There could be something there, but then again there might not be.

So let’s forget ignorantia legis neminem excusat?

Ok.

[UNI88]

To kalm and the illiberal left, trump is immediately guilty if there is even a hint of impropriety. To the paleo-conservative right, trump is innocent and all allegations are slanderous tDS unless there is video evidence and a confession by trump himself.

How long has it been since we've had a figure as polarizing as trump?

I said who knows if what’s in the tape is criminal on its own.

I said what’s in the tape would certainly seem like evidence to suggest intent to overturn a fair election (which is why the investigative grand jury was formed.

None of us are criminal lawyers but criminal lawyers have found reasons to investigate this.

Sadly, there’s no current equivalency for this alleged criminal behavior from the left.

Time to take a seat, son.

Do I think trump tried to use his influence to get the Georgia SOS to change the results? Yes. Do I think there's enough in that transcript/conversation for a criminal case? No.

Do I think Hunter went to Ukraine, China, etc. trying to use his connection to his father the "big guy" to solicit bribes? Yes. Do I think there is enough proof that the "big guy" was Joe Biden and that Biden illegally profited from Hunter's activities for a criminal case against either? No.

Do I think both situations stink to high heaven and that neither should be dismissed for partisan reasons? Yes.

[GannonFan]

And? His advisors aren't gods, they aren't omniscient. What if they were wrong or didn't have access to all the information? Again, it's not criminal to have a different opinion or viewpoint, even if that different opinion or viewpoint is proven to be wrong later. You can't start from "I think he sounded like a mob boss from the movies, he must be guilty of something" and just automatically get to call that criminal, you need actual evidence of a criminal wrongdoing. There could be something there, but then again there might not be.

So let’s forget ignorantia legis neminem excusat?

Ok.

Not forgetting that at all, but I don't see how that applies here. He didn't say to do anything illegal. He didn't personally threaten the person he was talking to on the phone. Since he didn't do either of those things, ignorance of the law isn't really an issue. Although getting to type something in Latin is always fun, it doesn't make your argument any better.

[GannonFan]

To kalm and the illiberal left, trump is immediately guilty if there is even a hint of impropriety. To the paleo-conservative right, trump is innocent and all allegations are slanderous tDS unless there is video evidence and a confession by trump himself.

How long has it been since we've had a figure as polarizing as trump?

I said who knows if what’s in the tape is criminal on its own.

I said what’s in the tape would certainly seem like evidence to suggest intent to overturn a fair election (which is why the investigative grand jury was formed.

None of us are criminal lawyers but criminal lawyers have found reasons to investigate this.

Sadly, there’s no current equivalency for this alleged criminal behavior from the left.

Time to take a seat, son.

Investigating something is fine. Convening a grand jury is fine. But nothing shared publicly yet is going to get a conviction. Trump's a bad dude, but being despicable isn't criminal.

[BDKJMU]

And? Did he tell him to do something illegal? Make up votes that aren't there? Throw away legal votes without any review? I think he was a bitter man at that moment (really is a bitter man most of the time) and he really wanted to win. But he's also a guy that has gone through most of his life avoiding getting his hands dirty by just outright saying something that is clearly criminal. He might be dirty (pretty sure he is) but in this case, with the evidence at hand, was there anything specifically criminal that can stand up in court? That quote you supplied won't do it.

It was a damning phone call in the sense that it revealed even more of his character (or lack there of). It isn't anything that is going to stand up in court. It was the kind of intimidation with plausible deniability that a mob boss uses.

"That's a real nice fruit stand you got there... It'd be a shame if something bad were to happen to it."
"I want you to find X votes, find the fraud."

In the end, even if GA went along with it, he still would have needed to flip like 4 more states. He lost. He knew he lost. He lied about it. He's a liar.

Wrong. 2 more- AZ and WI. All 3 decided by about 0.2 to 0.4%

[GannonFan]

It was a damning phone call in the sense that it revealed even more of his character (or lack there of). It isn't anything that is going to stand up in court. It was the kind of intimidation with plausible deniability that a mob boss uses.

"That's a real nice fruit stand you got there... It'd be a shame if something bad were to happen to it."
"I want you to find X votes, find the fraud."

In the end, even if GA went along with it, he still would have needed to flip like 4 more states. He lost. He knew he lost. He lied about it. He's a liar.

Wrong. 2 more- AZ and WI. All 3 decided by about 0.2 to 0.4%

He did caution it with "like 4 more states" - andTrump didn't have any chance to flip those other states. He still lost.

[SeattleGriz]

Devastating.

[houndawg]

Devastating.

They had sixth graders hacking voting machines 8 years ago to prove it could be done...... try to keep up

[Caribbean Hen]

So let’s forget ignorantia legis neminem excusat?

Ok.

Not forgetting that at all, but I don't see how that applies here. He didn't say to do anything illegal. He didn't personally threaten the person he was talking to on the phone. Since he didn't do either of those things, ignorance of the law isn't really an issue. Although getting to type something in Latin is always fun, it doesn't make your argument any better.

That was Latin? Looks like Pig Latin under the influence

[houndawg]

To overturn an election under Georgia Law. He was told by his advisors and knew there were no real grounds to voter fraud.

And? His advisors aren't gods, they aren't omniscient. What if they were wrong or didn't have access to all the information? Again, it's not criminal to have a different opinion or viewpoint, even if that different opinion or viewpoint is proven to be wrong later. You can't start from "I think he sounded like a mob boss from the movies, he must be guilty of something" and just automatically get to call that criminal, you need actual evidence of a criminal wrongdoing. There could be something there, but then again there might not be.

Oh please, you don't even believe that nonsense yourself - the guy is a career criminal. You heard the phone call - show us the part where we're all mistaken and tell us how "...I need you to find me 10,789 votes...which is one more than....." wasn't an attempt at election interference.

And his advisors knew the election was going to come down to a relatively small number of votes in a handful of states before the election campaign even started and those were the only states that were challenged.... you're just polishing a turd.

[GannonFan]

And? His advisors aren't gods, they aren't omniscient. What if they were wrong or didn't have access to all the information? Again, it's not criminal to have a different opinion or viewpoint, even if that different opinion or viewpoint is proven to be wrong later. You can't start from "I think he sounded like a mob boss from the movies, he must be guilty of something" and just automatically get to call that criminal, you need actual evidence of a criminal wrongdoing. There could be something there, but then again there might not be.

Oh please, you don't even believe that nonsense yourself - the guy is a career criminal. You heard the phone call - show us the part where we're all mistaken and tell us how "...I need you to find me 10,789 votes...which is one more than....." wasn't an attempt at election interference.

And his advisors knew the election was going to come down to a relatively small number of votes in a handful of states before the election campaign even started and those were the only states that were challenged.... you're just polishing a turd.

Wow, took you almost a year to reply to that post and that's the best you could do?

Like I said, maybe there's more there, but the snippet of the call where he asks the guy to find more votes, by itself, isn't enough to criminally convict someone. Heck, if it were, why didn't we try to convict Al Gore and his advisors when they cherry picked which districts to recount votes in in Florida in 2000? If "his advisors knew the election was going to come down to a relatively small number of votes in a handful of..." districts, "...and those were the only" districts, "that were challenged" why wasn't that the same? Get me something on tape where he says to do something illegal - like say, make up the 10,789 votes he needed, or purposely disqualify ballots that were legit just to get to that number. I think he's dirty as hell, but that doesn't mean we just skip the part where we need to provide actual evidence of wrong doing.

I look forward to your response next year.

[kalm]

Oh please, you don't even believe that nonsense yourself - the guy is a career criminal. You heard the phone call - show us the part where we're all mistaken and tell us how "...I need you to find me 10,789 votes...which is one more than....." wasn't an attempt at election interference.

And his advisors knew the election was going to come down to a relatively small number of votes in a handful of states before the election campaign even started and those were the only states that were challenged.... you're just polishing a turd.

Wow, took you almost a year to reply to that post and that's the best you could do?

Like I said, maybe there's more there, but the snippet of the call where he asks the guy to find more votes, by itself, isn't enough to criminally convict someone. Heck, if it were, why didn't we try to convict Al Gore and his advisors when they cherry picked which districts to recount votes in in Florida in 2000? If "his advisors knew the election was going to come down to a relatively small number of votes in a handful of..." districts, "...and those were the only" districts, "that were challenged" why wasn't that the same? Get me something on tape where he says to do something illegal - like say, make up the 10,789 votes he needed, or purposely disqualify ballots that were legit just to get to that number. I think he's dirty as hell, but that doesn't mean we just skip the part where we need to provide actual evidence of wrong doing.

I look forward to your response next year.

The entire conversation was available. I listened to the whole thing. It’s all damning and I hope will be evidence at trial.

You’re guilty of the same admonishment you gave Houndy.

[GannonFan]

Wow, took you almost a year to reply to that post and that's the best you could do?

Like I said, maybe there's more there, but the snippet of the call where he asks the guy to find more votes, by itself, isn't enough to criminally convict someone. Heck, if it were, why didn't we try to convict Al Gore and his advisors when they cherry picked which districts to recount votes in in Florida in 2000? If "his advisors knew the election was going to come down to a relatively small number of votes in a handful of..." districts, "...and those were the only" districts, "that were challenged" why wasn't that the same? Get me something on tape where he says to do something illegal - like say, make up the 10,789 votes he needed, or purposely disqualify ballots that were legit just to get to that number. I think he's dirty as hell, but that doesn't mean we just skip the part where we need to provide actual evidence of wrong doing.

I look forward to your response next year.

The entire conversation was available. I listened to the whole thing. It’s all damning and I hope will be evidence at trial.

You’re guilty of the same admonishment you gave Houndy.

Then by all means share the damning parts - I'm all ears and ready to hear additional evidence. I'm an open mind on this.

[Caribbean Hen]

Wow, took you almost a year to reply to that post and that's the best you could do?

Like I said, maybe there's more there, but the snippet of the call where he asks the guy to find more votes, by itself, isn't enough to criminally convict someone. Heck, if it were, why didn't we try to convict Al Gore and his advisors when they cherry picked which districts to recount votes in in Florida in 2000? If "his advisors knew the election was going to come down to a relatively small number of votes in a handful of..." districts, "...and those were the only" districts, "that were challenged" why wasn't that the same? Get me something on tape where he says to do something illegal - like say, make up the 10,789 votes he needed, or purposely disqualify ballots that were legit just to get to that number. I think he's dirty as hell, but that doesn't mean we just skip the part where we need to provide actual evidence of wrong doing.

I look forward to your response next year.

The entire conversation was available. I listened to the whole thing. It’s all damning and I hope will be evidence at trial.

You’re guilty of the same admonishment you gave Houndy.

Your record for hearing what Trump is saying is poor

[houndawg]

The entire conversation was available. I listened to the whole thing. It’s all damning and I hope will be evidence at trial.

You’re guilty of the same admonishment you gave Houndy.

Your record for hearing what Trump is saying is poor

He's been saying some pretty weird shit lately, we're still unsure whether its the syphilis or that he's off his meds..

[houndawg]

Oh please, you don't even believe that nonsense yourself - the guy is a career criminal. You heard the phone call - show us the part where we're all mistaken and tell us how "...I need you to find me 10,789 votes...which is one more than....." wasn't an attempt at election interference.

And his advisors knew the election was going to come down to a relatively small number of votes in a handful of states before the election campaign even started and those were the only states that were challenged.... you're just polishing a turd.

Wow, took you almost a year to reply to that post and that's the best you could do?

Like I said, maybe there's more there, but the snippet of the call where he asks the guy to find more votes, by itself, isn't enough to criminally convict someone. Heck, if it were, why didn't we try to convict Al Gore and his advisors when they cherry picked which districts to recount votes in in Florida in 2000? If "his advisors knew the election was going to come down to a relatively small number of votes in a handful of..." districts, "...and those were the only" districts, "that were challenged" why wasn't that the same? Get me something on tape where he says to do something illegal - like say, make up the 10,789 votes he needed, or purposely disqualify ballots that were legit just to get to that number. I think he's dirty as hell, but that doesn't mean we just skip the part where we need to provide actual evidence of wrong doing.

I look forward to your response next year.

but there more than the snippet there.

I'll get back to you around inauguration day!

[GannonFan]

The entire conversation was available. I listened to the whole thing. It’s all damning and I hope will be evidence at trial.

You’re guilty of the same admonishment you gave Houndy.

Your record for hearing what Trump is saying is poor

Again, by all means, share the evidence here. For something that is so damning and obvious, you guys seem to have quite the reluctance to distribute it. I don't even like Trump, I despise him, so I should be really easy to convince on this. The hesitancy on your parts is mystifying.

[GannonFan]

Your record for hearing what Trump is saying is poor

He's been saying some pretty weird shit lately, we're still unsure whether its the syphilis or that he's off his meds..

Your fascination over hundreds of posts with his potential STD's and bizarre bedroom behaviors could also be evidence that you're off your meds too. I can find hundreds of reasons to vote for him and not once have to delve into bodily fluids or deviant sexual behavior. You're a weird duck sometimes.

[Caribbean Hen]

Your record for hearing what Trump is saying is poor

He's been saying some pretty weird shit lately, we're still unsure whether its the syphilis or that he's off his meds..

How would you know what he’s saying when Maddow won’t let him speak

I’ll help you with some subtitles I read

Unification - It’s pretty much impossible given how much the outsider is hated but he’s been saying it

No retribution - ultimately success will be his retribution and won’t have time for it

Dictator for one day to secure the border

Also said his wife was at Rosalyn Carters funeral and saw Joey Rotten smiling, Jimmy Carter can now go to his grave knowing he’s not the worst President of all time …

[kalm]

The entire conversation was available. I listened to the whole thing. It’s all damning and I hope will be evidence at trial.

You’re guilty of the same admonishment you gave Houndy.

Then by all means share the damning parts - I'm all ears and ready to hear additional evidence. I'm an open mind on this.

Pretty sure I did a long time ago.

If you’re interested, listen to the full tape. I’m not going to parse it out for you and besides, the full tape sheds the most light regarding tone and general motivation.

Snippets are assailable without the entire context (see UNI88’s thoughts on Tucker’s out of context snippets.)

Oh…and keep in mind as you’re listening to Trump’s assured allegations (boxes, Ruby Friedman, etc) that he very likely knew by this call it was all bullshit.

[GannonFan]

Then by all means share the damning parts - I'm all ears and ready to hear additional evidence. I'm an open mind on this.

Pretty sure I did a long time ago.

If you’re interested, listen to the full tape. I’m not going to parse it out for you and besides, the full tape sheds the most light regarding tone and general motivation.

Snippets are assailable without the entire context (see UNI88’s thoughts on Tucker’s out of context snippets.)

Oh…and keep in mind as you’re listening to Trump’s assured allegations (boxes, Ruby Friedman, etc) that he very likely knew by this call it was all bullshit.

I'm not listening to more than an hour. I don't even have podcasts that run that long and I'm not on a jury. Parse it down for me - what much smaller sections are best to listen to.