Georgia DA investigating Trump closer to decision on charges

Well, the lawyers are talking to the DA so charges are likely imminent. The knickers will be un-bunched shortly it would appear. It's definitely corrupt intent on the part of the Cheeto Hezuz.

 

Did you read the comment to which my reply was responding to?

Apparently not.

 

Yes I did and also your OP. I was responding to your

And the constitutes what crime? What charges is Trump likely to face in GA since you posted a thread claiming it was close to that.

 

So give me the specific GA law that was violated. And you do know no American citizen can be forced to give testimony against himself or are you just saying when it comes to Trump the Constitution doesn't count?

 

So where did Trump do any of that? You do know there is a difference between trying to convince someone that fraud was committed and telling a person to commit a crime right? I've read the transcript of the call. I saw no where that he tried to coerce anyone to commit a crime. Convince that a crime possibly happened and that it should be checked out. But not commit a crime. Perhaps you can point it out to me?

 

Just google it, all sorts of stuff comes up.

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/4/222130...brad-raffensperger-election-call-fraud-felony
§20511. Criminal penalties
A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office-


(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by-

(B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,

shall be fined in accordance with title 18 (which fines shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31), notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-comm...ection-interference-analysis-suggests-1632746
"These charges potentially include criminal solicitation to commit election fraud; intentional interference with performance of election duties; conspiracy to commit election fraud; criminal solicitation; and state RICO violations," the legal analysis explained.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/24/trump-georgia-election-law/
The report separately discusses the possibility that Trump could be charged under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act statute. The term “RICO” may conjure up images of Mafia bosses, but the statute is much broader. If Trump committed a so-called pattern of predicate criminal acts — which may include many of the acts potentially chargeable in the statutes mentioned above — a RICO charge may be available if he did so either through an enterprise (like his campaign) or to gain control of an enterprise (like the presidency).


For all these possible charges, the same core fact pattern comes into play: Trump is reported to have repeatedly used misinformation and intimidating statements to seek to induce, solicit or threaten state officials to alter the legitimate outcome of the presidential election in Georgia, including after the election results were certified by Republican elected officials. And for all these possible charges, Trump is not insulated because his efforts failed: It can be criminal to attempt these crimes.


However, Trump will probably beat any rap because his lawyers will convince a jury that he didn't intend on Raffensberger to find illegitimate votes, he intended for him to find legit votes which were either fraudulently counted, or not counted at all.

However, Raffensberger informed him that his data was wrong, yet Trump continued with his bogus claim.

So, if there is a trial, it could go either way.

My opinion is that the Fulton DA won't charge Trump, because of the above lack of concrete proof that he intended for Raffensberger to find illegitimates votes.

She's going to give him the benefit of the doubt, as she should.

But, Trump isn't out of the woods in NYC.

Nor is he out of the woods, elsewhere:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim Staff Report FINAL.pdf

 

How can I possibly help you find what you clearly have no intention of seeing?? Many dozens of trained legal minds found it clear and compelling on hearing/reading that phone call... along with many laymen on here, including myself

You know where the water is, but keep finding sand....

 

So you can't point to anything specific. Why is that?

 

The DA will, patience grasshopper.

 

And for what now six years all I hear are these statements of fact that Trump is about to be charged with a crime, this is it, we're not kidding this time, we really really really mean it and then when asked well what is this crime all I get is nothing more well just you wait and see..............but in the mean time what ever it is HE'S GUILTY!!!

Geeezzzz

 

If he runs in 2024, he gives a D another 4 yrs in the WH.

 

Well since he didn't.................Trump believed, rightly or wrongly, he had evidence of voter fraud and wanted Raffensberger to look at it because he believed he would find fraudulent votes. And it would only take what ever that number was to over turn the results and Trump believed, rightly or wrongly, there were LOTS more than that out there, but only had to hit the 500 and something number.

Yep Raffensberger did indeed and it went nowhere. And yes Trump continued with what he believed, right or wrong as it was.

Where's the crime?

What crime would he be guilty of. Trump believed there were fraudulent votes, he wanted the Governor to have it investigated.

How about any proof? How about the phone call where he doesn't ask the Governor to do anything illegal, unseemly...........yea perhaps.........but he wasn't asking him to find votes, he was asking for his claims of fraudulent votes be investigated.

We BEGIN with the benefit of the doubt, it is not granted to us by the government. You know that basic little fundamental of our country and our constitutional rights?

Is this where we shift the subject?

 

Nice rant, feel better? This all started because Trump was trying to steal the election from Biden.

 

No, this all started because he dared to run as President. That is when he suddenly became a criminal and Democrats were hollering for impeachment literally from day one of his Presidency.

 

Once this indictment comes down, this will prove the dems to be correct.

 

If they bring a bunch of fake trumped-up charges they should be charged their own self

 

Oh yeah just like we're still waiting on Adam shift to produce all the evidence he told us he had every damn day of the last 4 years

 

Wow so you guessed something that sounds pretty Rock solid to me...
But keep us updated on what kind of trumped-up charges this witch Hunt produces okay?

 

Yeah but this time they really got him, unlike the previous 300 times they really, really had him.

 

Trump had been advised by Raffensberger and Barr.

he had NO reason to believe what he was claiming. He relied on less than competent sources, and ignored more competent sources, which, for a president, does not exonerate his responsibility to get the data right, and to support the laws of the US, etc, etc. etc.

From there, one COULD make the argument that he was engaging in a conspiracy.

Depends. he was advised his data was wrong. So, at that juncture, any language to 'find votes' could be argued he was engaging in a conspiracy.

The DA might go in that direction, or she might not. We shall have to wait and see.

I am going to wait for what the Fulton DA decides, who is privy to more facts than we have before us.

As for 'benefit of the doubt' given the multitude of deceptive behavior of Trump, in the past, I'm not finding much reason to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything. to wit:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim Staff Report FINAL.pdf

 

Assuming it does....out of how many claims over how many years of claims? Note: Indictment =/= guilty.

 

A boatload of personal opinion, is what your post equals. Nothing more.

 

why was the da meeting with Trump lawyers... potential plea deal on the table?

 

Meetings between the two always happen. Doesn't mean anything. But yes, if it's possible. Unlikely imo. But still possible.

 

Not likely. It started because he is corrupt forever and for sure, someone has leverage on him being corrupt for that length of time.