I don't know. Can Hilary? Can Al Gore? Oh I forgot, only Democrats are allowed to challenge election outcomes. When Trump does it, it's criminal sedition. THIS is how the rule of law fails. When the billionaire-bought elite weaponise "the law" for political aims. Exactly like any banana republic.
Gilga-mess, like Trump, as long you ignore thé facts, your statement is meaningless. Add the facts, and the assertion that follows is wholly unpersuasive. Trump’s Big Lie of election fraud has been debunked so many times and from so many angles. The good news is we each have the right to vote and an informed opinion will always outclass one uninformed. Analysis, not assertions.
The author provides reasons the case could go either way, decided by a judge who will assess the evidence under the standards of the rule of law. It is a process Trump loathes because he knows the likely outcome. Let’s see where it goes.
There are two relevant, current criminal cases against Trump and various others:
1. Federally, in a US District Court in Washington, DC, over election interference.
AIUI, this case focuses on extra-legal actions he and others took after all of the *legally-permitted* challenges to the 2020 Presidential election results were exhausted. "The charges accuse him of trying to subvert the will of voters and undo his election loss in the days before Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in a ... clash with law enforcement."
Prior to that time, the Trump team's legally-permitted challenges – all of which were fully "allowed," contrary to your claim – included (not by any means a complete list):
* 62 lawsuits (with 61 defeats) at various levels in state and Federal courts. (To be fair, one analysis found that "14% of judges’ individual decisions or votes [in these cases]—18% in state cases only—were favorable to Trump." And if I'm recalling correctly, at least some of these were decided on the basis of standing or timeliness, rather than on merits.)
* Two instances where SCOTUS "refused to take up Trump-endorsed lawsuits."
* An examination by "U.S. attorneys and FBI agents ... to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received," under US Attorney General William Barr.
In addition, there were three recounts performed in Georgia, plus one in Wisconsin. And Georgia officials looked deeply into, and responded directly to, every major claim from the Trump campaign.
2. In a state court in Fulton County, GA, in a racketeering case.
The indictment "accuses Trump or his allies of suggesting Georgia’s Republican secretary of state could find enough votes for him to win the battleground state; harassing an election worker who faced false claims of fraud; and attempting to persuade Georgia lawmakers to ignore the will of voters and appoint a new slate of Electoral College electors favorable to Trump."
Whatever you may think of either case, if the Trump team had simply filed challenge after challenge through legal, permissible means, and eschewed the extralegal stuff, neither would have occurred.
In contrast, in 2016 here's ALL that the Clinton campaign did to challenge 2016 election results: backing recounts in several states. That's it, AFAIK. (And note well: her campaign publicly acknowledged that Trump won the election, and its actions weren't carried out with the expectation of overturning those results.)
"Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign said on Saturday it would help with efforts to secure recounts in several states, even as the White House defended the declared results as “the will of the American people”.
"The campaign’s general counsel, Marc Elias, said in an online post that while it had found no evidence of sabotage, the campaign felt “an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton”.
"“We certainly understand the heartbreak felt by so many who worked so hard to elect Hillary Clinton,” Elias wrote, “and it is a fundamental principle of our democracy to ensure that every vote is properly counted.”
Ironically, in this case, then-President-elect Trump was almost certainly correct in his assessment of those recounts. :)
"Wisconsin began recount proceedings late on Friday after receiving a petition from Jill Stein, the Green party candidate. Stein claims there are irregularities in results reported by Wisconsin as well as Michigan and Pennsylvania, where she plans to request recounts next week, having raised millions of dollars from supporters.
"Trump called Stein’s effort a “scam” and said it was “just a way … to fill her coffers with money, most of which she will never even spend on this ridiculous recount”."
(Yes, Hillary did grumble – publicly and repeatedly – about the integrity of election results in the years that followed. And as well, several Democrats rose to object to the election results, during the "joint session of Congress convened to count" the Electoral College votes in early January 2017, but then-VP Joe Biden gaveled away those objections.)
If you know of any actions that HRC or her campaign performed, whether legally or extralegally, to actually attempt to overturn the 2016 election results, please tell us! I'd be interested to know, because I couldn't find anything like that in my brief research.
Trump's POTUS status was loudly and unceasingly questioned and denied by much of the DC insiders (who really run the country), the infotainment industry, Hollywood, a decisive number of "highly accredited" intellectuals, etc etc.
Denying this removes nearly all credibility from your post.
"Denying this removes nearly all credibility from your post."
Please point out where I denied the existence of people who groused about DJT's legitimacy as our 45th President. I even acknowledged that HRC herself grumbled publicly and repeatedly about that.
(It's also worth noting, as a counterpoint, that polls regularly find that nearly 2/3rds of US Republicans deny that Joe Biden is our legitimate 46th President. And many public figures, from celebrities to politicians, have also "loudly and unceasingly" questioned his election. For instance, "more than half of GOP governor nominees" in 2022 "have questioned or denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election.")
As well, the existence of such people, whether falsely denying DJT's 2016 victory or Biden's 2020 victory, is immaterial to Gilgamech's original point. Their claim was that "only Democrats are allowed to challenge election outcomes. When Trump does it, it's criminal sedition." That's the point I was addressing via my two comments.
Various peoples' opinions – ignorant or informed – about the outcome of elections isn't germane to that point. The topic of this comment thread is whether DJT has unfairly been charged with criminal acts merely because his campaign made election challenges, unlike HRC and Al Gore, the two Democratic Party counterparts which Gilgamech mentioned.
Just one point. I believe that all 3 attorneys in GA provided video testimony to the DA as part of their plea deals. Presumably if they attempt to add significant caveats to their testimony at trial that weren't part of their video testimony, it could jeopardize their deals.
As you note, it will soon become clear whether their testimony justifies the laughably light consequences.
I don't know. Can Hilary? Can Al Gore? Oh I forgot, only Democrats are allowed to challenge election outcomes. When Trump does it, it's criminal sedition. THIS is how the rule of law fails. When the billionaire-bought elite weaponise "the law" for political aims. Exactly like any banana republic.
Gilga-mess, like Trump, as long you ignore thé facts, your statement is meaningless. Add the facts, and the assertion that follows is wholly unpersuasive. Trump’s Big Lie of election fraud has been debunked so many times and from so many angles. The good news is we each have the right to vote and an informed opinion will always outclass one uninformed. Analysis, not assertions.
The author provides reasons the case could go either way, decided by a judge who will assess the evidence under the standards of the rule of law. It is a process Trump loathes because he knows the likely outcome. Let’s see where it goes.
There are two relevant, current criminal cases against Trump and various others:
1. Federally, in a US District Court in Washington, DC, over election interference.
AIUI, this case focuses on extra-legal actions he and others took after all of the *legally-permitted* challenges to the 2020 Presidential election results were exhausted. "The charges accuse him of trying to subvert the will of voters and undo his election loss in the days before Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in a ... clash with law enforcement."
Prior to that time, the Trump team's legally-permitted challenges – all of which were fully "allowed," contrary to your claim – included (not by any means a complete list):
* 62 lawsuits (with 61 defeats) at various levels in state and Federal courts. (To be fair, one analysis found that "14% of judges’ individual decisions or votes [in these cases]—18% in state cases only—were favorable to Trump." And if I'm recalling correctly, at least some of these were decided on the basis of standing or timeliness, rather than on merits.)
* Two instances where SCOTUS "refused to take up Trump-endorsed lawsuits."
* An examination by "U.S. attorneys and FBI agents ... to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received," under US Attorney General William Barr.
In addition, there were three recounts performed in Georgia, plus one in Wisconsin. And Georgia officials looked deeply into, and responded directly to, every major claim from the Trump campaign.
2. In a state court in Fulton County, GA, in a racketeering case.
The indictment "accuses Trump or his allies of suggesting Georgia’s Republican secretary of state could find enough votes for him to win the battleground state; harassing an election worker who faced false claims of fraud; and attempting to persuade Georgia lawmakers to ignore the will of voters and appoint a new slate of Electoral College electors favorable to Trump."
Whatever you may think of either case, if the Trump team had simply filed challenge after challenge through legal, permissible means, and eschewed the extralegal stuff, neither would have occurred.
In contrast, in 2016 here's ALL that the Clinton campaign did to challenge 2016 election results: backing recounts in several states. That's it, AFAIK. (And note well: her campaign publicly acknowledged that Trump won the election, and its actions weren't carried out with the expectation of overturning those results.)
"Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign said on Saturday it would help with efforts to secure recounts in several states, even as the White House defended the declared results as “the will of the American people”.
"The campaign’s general counsel, Marc Elias, said in an online post that while it had found no evidence of sabotage, the campaign felt “an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton”.
"“We certainly understand the heartbreak felt by so many who worked so hard to elect Hillary Clinton,” Elias wrote, “and it is a fundamental principle of our democracy to ensure that every vote is properly counted.”
Ironically, in this case, then-President-elect Trump was almost certainly correct in his assessment of those recounts. :)
"Wisconsin began recount proceedings late on Friday after receiving a petition from Jill Stein, the Green party candidate. Stein claims there are irregularities in results reported by Wisconsin as well as Michigan and Pennsylvania, where she plans to request recounts next week, having raised millions of dollars from supporters.
"Trump called Stein’s effort a “scam” and said it was “just a way … to fill her coffers with money, most of which she will never even spend on this ridiculous recount”."
(Yes, Hillary did grumble – publicly and repeatedly – about the integrity of election results in the years that followed. And as well, several Democrats rose to object to the election results, during the "joint session of Congress convened to count" the Electoral College votes in early January 2017, but then-VP Joe Biden gaveled away those objections.)
If you know of any actions that HRC or her campaign performed, whether legally or extralegally, to actually attempt to overturn the 2016 election results, please tell us! I'd be interested to know, because I couldn't find anything like that in my brief research.
Trump's POTUS status was loudly and unceasingly questioned and denied by much of the DC insiders (who really run the country), the infotainment industry, Hollywood, a decisive number of "highly accredited" intellectuals, etc etc.
Denying this removes nearly all credibility from your post.
"Denying this removes nearly all credibility from your post."
Please point out where I denied the existence of people who groused about DJT's legitimacy as our 45th President. I even acknowledged that HRC herself grumbled publicly and repeatedly about that.
(It's also worth noting, as a counterpoint, that polls regularly find that nearly 2/3rds of US Republicans deny that Joe Biden is our legitimate 46th President. And many public figures, from celebrities to politicians, have also "loudly and unceasingly" questioned his election. For instance, "more than half of GOP governor nominees" in 2022 "have questioned or denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election.")
As well, the existence of such people, whether falsely denying DJT's 2016 victory or Biden's 2020 victory, is immaterial to Gilgamech's original point. Their claim was that "only Democrats are allowed to challenge election outcomes. When Trump does it, it's criminal sedition." That's the point I was addressing via my two comments.
Various peoples' opinions – ignorant or informed – about the outcome of elections isn't germane to that point. The topic of this comment thread is whether DJT has unfairly been charged with criminal acts merely because his campaign made election challenges, unlike HRC and Al Gore, the two Democratic Party counterparts which Gilgamech mentioned.
I agree with your analysis.
Just one point. I believe that all 3 attorneys in GA provided video testimony to the DA as part of their plea deals. Presumably if they attempt to add significant caveats to their testimony at trial that weren't part of their video testimony, it could jeopardize their deals.
As you note, it will soon become clear whether their testimony justifies the laughably light consequences.