Judge rules Trump's efforts to overturn election likely criminal

You are mistaken. Elections are a binary choice. Trump voters knew he was flawed ... JUST LIKE YOU AND ME. But Hillary was so off putting and so "inside", and they couldn't abide having two Clintons back in the White House. I don't know how women especially could support her given her dismissal of Bill's victims (Willey, Broderick and Lewinsky and.. can't remember the 4th). Did she really call them bimbos?

Hillary voters presumably know she is flawed as well. Right?

I couldn't bring myself to vote for either one, but you guys are being unfair to Trump voters.

 

I believe there is a considerable difference between "flawed" and "career criminal". There may or may not be a million reasons not to like Clinton (either one) but they don't have decades upon decades of judgments against them for financial impropriety in various degrees. The only thing we did was let someone with no moral, values, ethics or decency near our purse strings and football and he's proven that he'd rather burn the country to the ground than even consider the idea that he's not above our laws or Constitution.

I couldn't vote for either of them myself. I will probably abstain if Trump v. Biden hits 2024. It's beyond ridiculous at this point.

 

I’m only going to address one thing in this post:

The 10% for the big guy is evidence, not proof. If it went to trial that email would be admitted as evidence. Again, not proof, but evidence.

 

As with all TDS'rs, they put far too much weight on words like "likely". Time and time again your fantasies effect your interpretation of events and you get disappointed. So, gee, yes a democratic judge decides Trump "likely" committed crimes. This crap has been going on for over five years now and you never get past "likely" "could have" "might have" "wanted to".

 

How can you guys be so critical of ladies you don't even know? This is shameful, not to mention ungallant.

 

What has Trump ever been convicted of? (Civil judgments aren't convictions.)

 

Civil judgments are proof of his long, long history of fraudulent actions. A person doesn't have to go to prison to be found at fault in a court of law in the US.

 

I don't think he surrendered all rights, but when handling business from the oval office, I think it's a good thing that it should all be recorded or preserved. One of the first things I thought of upon hearing that Trump was running for president was about him having to be under scrutiny and preserving records. I wondered why someone in his position would subject themselves to the constant oversight and scrutiny. Turns out, he didn't have a clue on what that entailed, and had no interest in keeping with the "norm", even law, of keeping records and recordings.
There are legal, well laid out routes for contesting a presidential election. Trump failed at all of them, so he attempted non-traditional, illegal means.
This doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

 

Finding Dirty Donalds 100% honest acts would be a real challenge, since little to nothing he has done in his adult life is 100% honest and above reproach.

 

There shouldn't be 0 call logs, that would mean he didn't use the phone, yet we already know he spoke to other people. In addition, Trump was working that day, odds are extremely unlikely the phone wasn't used.

As I say, the investigation continues.

 

Just wow. That means he didn't use the switchboard. lol

There is no investigation into call logs. lol
Even CNN reported that Trump developed a habit of placing calls directly from a landline or cell phone and not through the official White House switchboard while in the Oval Office that don't show up on the official White House call logs.
Go figure. CNN of all media.

Yet in lefty land, they all just found out that the president doesn't use just one phone. So the entire fakery about 7 hour off log calls is just another, look squirrel, issue.

Don't tell me, you thought every time the president uses a cell phone or makes a call when he's not in the oval office, their is a call log?
Now thats funny

 

You really have no way of knowing that and it sounds uncharitable. One has to be careful making categorical statements about anyone, especially negative statements.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-flies-sick-boy/

 

Again the Presidential Records Act, Trump is required to log all his work, period.

 

I don't think Trump expected to win. Part of me thinks he didn't even want to win. He was just in it for the rallies, which is his way of partying.

And another part of me even thinks he was p.o.'d that he won. What good has it done him?

 

Evidence of what? What charges would entail a trial with this evidence being used?

 

News flash. Presidents don't log their calls. Only the switchboard does that.
No president in history has someone tagging along to write down every cell phone or out of office call he makes.

 

I agree. I think he loved the attention and chances for money grabbing, but never thought he would win. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out years from now that Trump running was an inside joke/competition with Hillary, who, as you all know, Trump and the Clinton's were "buddies" for a while.Trump even donated money to Hillary's campaign when running for a congressional seat from NY.
I wondered why a "billionaire" (in quotes to indicate "maybe") would want to put his life in such scrutiny and have to take on the weight of the US when he didn't need to, but two things occurred to me afterwards. One, he likes the attention, fame and money it offered, and two, he didn't really take on the responsibilities of most presidents. He didn't feel the pull of the many different aspects of presidential decision making because he didn't give it that much thought.

 

Simple when you actually think about it applying historical precedent:
ETTD

 

They're still not convictions.
Civil judgements do not require the same standard of proof as a criminal judgement, as as such are far less proof of a crime than a criminal conviction.
"Its likely" he committed an action as compared to "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

Not only that, you can have a good faith disagreement with a person and have a money judgment rendered against you without your having committed a crime.

Has Trump ever even been charged with a criminal offense?

 

Trump wanted no such thing. It took him three whole days before he said anything. And what he said was so general, that he went on with 60 plus lawsuits that went no where, based on fabrication, and is still harping about the 2020 election to this day, along with his supporters down to a t.

 

That is exactly what he believed, rightly or wrongly, and it wasn't about the previous court cases it was about the EVA which the Dems have routinely tried to use to get street electors descertified.

 

In which ones did he admit any guilt of anything?

 

Proof is the evidence used to either support or ascertain that something happened or that a person's statement is true. Proof is a requirement in any criminal trial. Criminal statutes have several elements, each of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

proof | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu › W

The emails are proof of the asserted crimes.

 

There has been no "stealing" of any election. The amount of fraud that does occur is about .0007% of all votes cast and counted. That is not even enough to turn over a national election, let alone a local one.

Need to define EVA. And it's not economic value added here. Unless it is an act I don't know

https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/EVA