MovieChat Forums > Politics > Defendant Donald faces revised 2020 elec...

Defendant Donald faces revised 2020 election interference charges

posted 3 months ago by filmflaneur (1085)
45 replies | jump to latest

US prosecutors have issued revised charges against Donald Trump for the former president's alleged attempts to interfere in the 2020 election after losing the contest. The updated wording tries to navigate a Supreme Court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. The ruling had thrown this case into doubt.

Trump denies accusations that he pressured officials to reverse the results, knowingly spread lies about election fraud and sought to exploit a riot at the US Capitol to delay the certification of Joe Biden's victory.

It appears unlikely the case - and other criminal cases he faces - will reach court before the next election on 5 November. The revised indictment, brought by Department of Justice (DoJ) Special Counsel Jack Smith, leaves in place the four crimes Trump is accused of committing: conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. But these now relate to Trump's status as a political candidate rather than a sitting president.

I sure that we all wish defendant Donald the justice he deserves.

[–] B1cKsurN (17405) 3 months ago

More bullshit charges. Nothing more than to manipulate the news cycle for the low info/short attention span retards.

They are scared shitless.

The MAGA Justice League will fix this broken Injustice System.

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

You entitled to your opinion. Good luck to defendant Donald!

[–] B1cKsurN (17405) 3 months ago

"Fetch" ain't happening, Gretchie.

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

And yet, here you are...

[–] B1cKsurN (17405) 3 months ago

What? 😕

I'm talking about your nickname for Trump that wont stick.

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

It works well enough to exercise you lol

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 3 months ago

presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

but theres gotta be limits right ? some exceptions?

And number 1 of these should be "attempting to overthrow an election , scrap democracy and shit on the flag and erase the constitution" is not included in "immunity"

If those judges havent factored something like that then does the land of the free still exist?
If any random guy elected president can just say "Right I'm taking over now forever and running it as a dictatorship and nobody cant do nuffin cos those judges ruled that a president can do no wrong and is immune from everything"

.... and make no mistake - thats ^ how Donald thinks it works

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

That unfortunate Supreme Court decision will inevitably have consequences. The Watergate break in for instance would have been legal now.

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

That was a setup by the CIA.

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

but theres gotta be limits right ? some exceptions? attempting to overthrow an election

Yes, for actually overthrowing an election after rigging and stealing it.

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

It is your presupposition that it was rigged in the first place. Zero evidence for this exists. It is just another thing you claim with zero evidence.

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

This is correct. Defendant Donald and co filed in over 60 cases alleging electorial malpractice, in different jurisdictions - all but one was thrown out of court.

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

Is that what the lying MSM told you?

There were actually 93 cases, with only 32 decided on the merits, and of those 32, Trump and/or the GOP plaintiff prevailed in 24 of them (75%).

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

>Is that what the lying MSM told you?

Nope. See below.

>After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed 62 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in 9 states (including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia.

>Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence or lack of standing, including 30 lawsuits that were dismissed by the judge after a hearing on the merits.Among the judges who dismissed the lawsuits were some appointed by Trump himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election .

I note you offer no substantiation .. is this what the lying conspiracy sphere told you?

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

Oh, I forgot to include them, so allow me to rephrase the question.

Is that what the lying MSM and the establishment controlled WokePedia told you?

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

And don't tell me, they are all fake news, and against witch hunted defendant Donald? And you are among those patriots who know the real truth?

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 3 months ago

TVfan is among the most brainwashed of the cult members here , and believe me theres some stiff competition! but he is the main keeper of the batshit conspiracies and buzzword spewing.
At one point he claimed he had the missing proof of all this. I advised he inform Donald to have it actioned but nothing seems to have happened yet

in fact I'm beginning to think he's Mike Pillow.

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just wish some would step back from condemning the authoritative and substantial sources which disprove their conspiracy theories and recognise the echo chamber they are in.

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

Lmao, "Oh I forgot to include all the cases where Trump lost."

What concessions did Trump actually gain the cases he supposedly won exactly?

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

attempts to interfere in the 2020 election

They have been interfering with the 2024 election since they started with these bogus indictments/charges .

[–] BKB (9879) 3 months ago

This is a nothing burger on the part of butthurt Jack Smith and lasted 24 hours and is already forgotten because he simply doesn't have a case and even if he did, there wouldn't be a trial before the election much less after. It's over Jack

[–] CraigC (8160) 3 months ago

Democrats are getting really desperate.

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

Yes, with them falling behind in the polls and with an elderly candidate, they must be... oh, wait...

[–] CraigC (8160) 3 months ago

Those the same polls that said Clinton would win in 2016?

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

Yup, fivethirtyeight had [email protected] (45.7) and [email protected] (41.8)

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

The same polls that have been right other times...

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

Put your glasses on. Their polls have been way off target since 2016.

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

Gallup polling has often been accurate in predicting the outcome of presidential elections and the margin of victory for the winner. However, it missed some close elections: 1948, 1976 and 2004, the popular vote in 2000, and the likely-voter numbers in 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections

I also hardly call the percentages involved 'way off target'. And in a very tight race (common recently) the margin of error always has to be born in mind. At moment the consensus is that overall Harris has gained ground and edged ahead. Glad to help.

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

Relying on polling info from Wikipedia is like trusting a thief to safeguard your home.

They exaggerate the polls so that when they rig/cheat in the election, they can justify it with the fake polls.
That’s how they deceive the masses.

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

Feel free to substantiate something of your own by way of proving otherwise. I do love the smell of the conspiracy sphere in the morning.

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

I don't use establishment narrative to substantiate their lies and deception unless they backpedal about something.

How do you trust a lying thief when he tells you that he didn't steal from you?

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

No substantiation then? That's a shame. Is there a problem?

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

Are you expecting substantiation from fake news and propaganda?

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

No, something objective and authoritative will do. But, then again, as you have explained elsewhere and just recently: "I don't really care if it's fake news or not" I'm not sure why you take issue with what I said. Have you thought this through?

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

No? So why do you insist on citing them?

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

If you really 'don't care' whether something is fake news or not, why, er, do you object when I supposedly offer some?

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

I never implied that one way or the other, but I'm not going to use it to substantiate the truth by using more propaganda.

For every truth that's cited, there's at least three fake sources to counter it.

Therefore, it's pointless providing the truth for those that insist in relying in fake news/propaganda.

If you were genuinely interested in the truth, you would seek it instead of expecting others to do it for you.

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

but I'm not going to use it to substantiate the truth by using more propaganda... it's pointless providing the truth

Evasion noted.

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

Thanks for confirming my previous statement.

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

Yes, with your

I'm not going ... to substantiate

to that at least we can agree. Thank you for playing.

[–] tvfan (12729) 3 months ago

And thanks for substantiating with fake news and propaganda.

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

... Even though, er, you 'don't care' whether news is true or false, right? So you are objecting to something you aren't concerned about.

Thank you for the entertaining chat. Until next time.

[–] CraigC (8160) 3 months ago

Which, of course, in no way constitutes 2024 election interference.

[–] filmflaneur (1085) 3 months ago

Well, I suppose Defendant Donald can always try it on again.... you know, asking people to "find votes" and so forth... I wonder how his 60-odd legal challenges went from last time? Any idea?

[–] Joogle83 (4472) 3 months ago

everyone has suffered from both Parties Mudslinging signed a A 3rd Party Voter.