Judge rules Trump's efforts to overturn election likely criminal

Biden and his entire administration

* Hyper-hypersensitive. Any criticism hurts his feelings.
Biden and his entire administration

* He has no manners. None. Diplomacy is important.
Biden some in his adminstration have some manners but not many

* He is completely tone-deaf to the average person.
Biden is deaf and blind to everyone and has no idea his own policies

* He has too many conflicts of interests in foreign countries.
ROLFLMAO - the Biden influence peddling syndicate

* He's a pathological liar.
The train lie, the truck driver lie, the plagiarism, the lies about his education record, the lies about what he said last week about troops in Ukraine, using chemical weapons and Putin regime change and on and on

* He has DECADES of lying, cheating and fraud.
Biden even more so

* He stole from his own donors' bank accounts and a judge had to FORCE him to refund their money.
Biden should return the China money

* He married three hookers and cheated with other hookers.
Insulting the wives now?

* He ignored the Capitol police being attacked by an angry mob ("Law and Order President"? Not hardly).[/QUOTE]
Nope he watched in while it happened while his hands were tied to do anything other than urge everyone to be peaceful as he did. Did Biden do anything to stop the riots during the Kavanaugh hearings, he had just as much power to do so.

 

Tax evasion, influence peddling, racketeering, FISA violations, and more

 

Electoral Voting Act

In the 2016 races in Virginia where which party would control the statehouse came down to the final seat and that vote ended in a dead heat. A tie. What percent of all votes cast would have had to be fraud to change the outcome? In 2000 who would be President of the United States came down to just 538 votes, what percent of votes being fraudulent would it have taken to change the outcome. When Franken was electect to the Senate he first lost by just 215 votes and won after recounts won by just 312. There are THOUSANDS of small local and state elections were are routinely close and doesn't take a lot of fraud to swing an outcome. So stop with the canard that voter fraud is not a problem to have to deal with because is takes a HUGE amount of fraud to change an election.

 

No evidence of tax evasion as we speak since he has not been charged, or arraigned, or even convicted. Hearsay and inuendo is all you have.

 

I think you mean the Electorial Count Act of 1887. there is no law called Electorial Voting Act, literally, under federal law. There is the Voting Rights Act. Again, you are posting something, making accusations of fraud, and have literally zero, absolute zero, proof of your claim. By the way, the party who controlled most of the county elections in 2016 was the GOP. What happened in 2016 was there was not a supermajority in either the house or senate. The GOP still controlled the majority in both houses, which meant, had to deal with that pesky democracy instead of railroading the legislature with without any input from the Democratic party. And you call that fraud?

 

Nope he watched in while it happened while his hands were tied to do anything other than urge everyone to be peaceful as he did. Did Biden do anything to stop the riots during the Kavanaugh hearings, he had just as much power to do so.[/QUOTE]
All opinions with no factual basis or concrete examples.

for starters, Biden was not President, or President Pro Tempe of the Senate, nor had any control of anythings on the day the riots occurred. You are projecting here with many of the things you are mentioning actually Trump did, not Biden, like cheat on his third wife three times at least.

 

Well, most use the term 'evidence' to imply proof, and my responses operate thusly. The term 'evidence' connotes 'true'. When it is proved it doesn't prove the allegation, it is no longer considered evidence. So, I'm going to disagree with your statement given that such a distinction is not being made on this forum, based on my observation of it's usage.

In any event,

If it went to trial, such 'evidence' would be squashed under cross examination, easily.

 

You are confusing integrity for stupidity. The Judge is a moron that hasn't any business sitting on the court given his lack of constitutional history. US Democracy wasn't around when George Washington was alive, and he never envisioned Modern, or even 19th century, US Democracy. He owned 300 slaves and willed the remainder to his wife after his death. It's evident from the statutory and constitutional history that early US Democracy was meant to preserve slavery from the abolitionist movement that was being pushed through by European Republican and Revolutionary Politicians that were already restricting the practice. Then Napoleon ended slavery in 1815, and the British Parliament would follow in 1833 after announcing their intentions in 1807. The Democrat Party was created to preserve slavery from the Republican Politicians. The Democrats formed out of the first federalist party, and they deferred policy to the elites of society, which was based on pedigree, education, military accomplishment, and prosperity. They believed in government control of society as a means of socially engineering society. Their advocacy of Democracy was merely out of self-interest, and it was limited and expanded to essentially preserve a kind of oligary/aristocracy. They disliked the constitution and believed in centralized control. However, George Washington intended to preserve this type of system as he was a member of this aristocracy, and he never made any effort to challenge it. He never wanted to be a king (or even a politician), and it was never a real possibility for him at the end of his Presidency.

This judge really is a F-ing moron. He has no business being in a criminal court, and he's not one. He's a civil court judge that's conjecturing about some vague criminal conduct that he can't describe in legalize. I imagine that the author of this article provides some context and opposing legal arguments and facts given that you didn't have the integrity to post a link to your source. That usually is the case with these fake news articles with extreme headlines and initial out-of-context fact patterns and assertions.

It's become common for Democrats to not read their source, and it's a little less common for them not to provide a source in order to conceal their falsehoods. The OP author lacks integrity. If I were to do this in court, I could be disbarred for lack of candor and diligence. It may be that the judge also lacks ethics, but it's more likely that the article has left out parts of the Judge's statements cause there are no ethical standards in left-wing media. It's often the case that news articles provide false information in cases that I and my colleagues have worked on.

 

Facts and Biden had just as much authority to order some type or law enforcement action at the WH has Trump did that day. So why didn't he? You seem to miss the fact the President has no such authority to order the police or the military into domestic law enforcement. That comes from the local authorities as you have been told over and over and over.

 

THERE IS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO TAX FRAUD IN TO THE BIDEN FAMILY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hunter has already paid $1,000,000 in taxes he did not pay. We have the emails, we have the financial records.

 

Again

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.

 

And the Dems still tried to have slates of Electors decertified and not counted just as Trump did.

 

News flash, Trump is still responsible.

 

Nice list. If only there was a basis for the charges you suggest.................
I think you're conflating a few things here.

 

There is plenty read the emails, read about the checks, the bank accounts

 

I have and see nothing illegal to charge Joe Biden with. You are speculating with prejudice, because you don't like Biden.
When Trump did some very questionable things about hiring family, you didn't complain. It's ok, not expecting you to change your mind, just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Hunter Biden is a scourge on his family as it is. All presidents have family members that benefit from being kin. Remember "Billy Beer"?

 

The you can provide the call logs for any president before Trump when they aren't in the WH.
I'll wait here just for one. lol

 

I am reading the evidence, this is not about Trump, this is about racketeering, tax evasion, influence peddling, being in the back pockets of corrupt governments ALL by the Biden family syndicate. The emails are real, the financial documents are real, the checks are real, The Big Guy is real.

 

No they are not. Nor does your definition claim it to be 'proof'.

Your definition doesn't say 'equals proof', it says 'used to support', which means it is to be used in argument, ie., has to survive forensic scrutiny, which is to say, survive cross examination and obtain a favorable verdict.

And 'beyond a reasonable doubt' equals ......(above highlighted)

Offer it in a court of law, have it withstand forensic scrutiny and survive cross examination, and then, and only then, will it be 'proof'.

Until then, it proves NOTHING.

 

Proof is the evidence used to either support or ascertain that something happened or that a person's statement is true.



The emails are proof, evidence of what the Biden family influence peddling syndicate was engaged and their shakedowns and who was getting their splits. The emails are real.

 

Those emails are not proof or evidence until a judge says it is

And the reason I say that is because on the surface they are not proof so the facts surrounding those emails will have to be examined and cross-examined, if, indeed, they are allowed in court in the first place

You have totally misapplied the definition -- you have assumed the evidence is indeed evidence and just because you say it is doesn't mean that it is as it will have to be accepted by a judge in a court of law

 

the email is hearsay it would be be squashed in court

 

No it is not hearsay, where did you get that idea? They are confirmed and corroborated first person dialogs, a written record.

 

I'll take Cornell Law School over you as to what is proof and evidence. The emails are FACTUAL and corroborated by others. Geez man give it up, even the NYT and WaPo admit they are REAL. And I have accurately corrected your misstatement about proof and evidence. Confirmed verified emails are dismissed as evidence by you, just amazing.

 

But not confirmed as evidence in a court of law.