That's possible for some but I doubt the Jan. 6 attempt of insurrection has a statutory limitation that short.

Apparently, even this has a 5 year limit. However, Smith works around this by suggesting that Trump's time in office should be "tolled", which means the clock stops ticking during Trump's term. See this article.

I would not be surprised if Trump pardons himself at some point during his term.

I would not be surprised if Trump pardons himself at some point during his term. — Relativist

I would be surprised if he doesn't rename it something like "exonerating himself" Pardoning oneself sounds a bit like an admission of guilt.

Hilarious. A waste of money and a perversion of justice. A witch hunt, a hoax, a scam on Americans. — NOS4A2

No, Jack Smith's immunity filing in the case of The United States v. Donald J. Trump, if nothing else, becomes an important historical document for future historians.

It preserves the words and the deeds of Trump in trying to overturn a legal election.

I have read the entire 165-page filing (it's easily found online), and recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the depth and danger of Trump's corruption and lies.

A historical nothing-burger put out by an unlawful counsel before an election. It’s a good reminder of the DOJ’s election interference.

Jack Smith said he wanted American people to have the benefit of his evidence for the election. Well, the jury decided, and no one cared about any of it.

No, Jack Smith's immunity filing in the case of The United States v. Donald J. Trump, if nothing else, becomes an important historical document for future historians.

It preserves the words and the deeds of Trump in trying to overturn a legal election. — Questioner

I agree. An historical perspective will counteract the current hype-partisanship and denialism.



.

Your position is beyond ludicrous. There's abundant evidence Trump committed crimes, but you refuse to consider it* and proclaim him innocent. By contrast, there's zero evidence Smith committed a crime, or even that he did anything inconsistent with DOJ standards. But you make the baseless claim he's gulity of some crime.

*Symptomatic: Despite my asking you at least 5 times, you have avoided explaining how you account for Trump's falsehoods about the 2020 election: is he liar, irrational, stupid, or ...what?

But NOS4A2 right. The American people had all the evidence in front of them and they didn't care about it. Well, a chunk of Americans cared more about voting against a black woman.

But NOS4A2 right. The American people had all the evidence in front of them and they didn't care about it. Well, a chunk of Americans cared more about voting against a black woman. — RogueAI

An actual jury is forced to review all the evidence. Few (if any) Trump voters actually considered the evidence against Trump. NOS4A2 is a good example of this: he avoids considering the evidence against Trump, and just regurgitates what the criminal himself says about the prosecutions.

He was unlawfully appointed and illegally funded. Your lie is ludicrous because it was on this basis that his classified documents case was dismissed. I never said he was guilty of some crime.

What crime did Trump commit again?

He was unlawfully appointed and illegally funded. Your lie is ludicrous because it was on this basis that his classified documents case was dismissed. I never said he was guilty of some crime. — NOS4A2

You're reaching. One lone district judge claimed an AG cannot appoint a special counsel, a judge who's pro-Trump rulings have been overturned on appeal on multiple occasions. Appellate Courts (in OTHER districts) have ruled that AGs indeed have the authority. AGs have been appointing special counsels for decades, so Garland was clearly not acting in a rogue manner.

What's even more significant is that this is a red herring: it has no bearing on the evidence of Trump's guilt, or the appropriateness of indicting Trump for his crimes. If it were to reach SCOTUS, they agreed with Canon, and the case were to be reinstated - it could be re-litigated with other DOJ attorneys.

I did not "lie", but I accept that I misunderstood what you were saying. Now that I've cleared that up, please clear up your view of Trump's spreading of the falsehoods about the 2020 election.

What crime did Trump commit again?

Thanks for proving my point that Trumpists are unaware of the facts. In the unlikely event you are interested in exploring the facts, here's good starting points:

2020 Election case

Documents case

Sexual Assault case

.

She didn’t claim, she ruled. And you cannot tell me why she’s wrong. Her argument’s, Justice Thomas’ arguments, and former attorney general Edwin Meese’s arguments forever remain untouched by your criticism.

I don’t care what Trump said about the 2020 election. The massive changes to the way people vote warrant scepticism. Besides, all of it pales in comparison to the massive fraud perpetrated against the American people (and indeed, the world) in the 2016 election and beyond.

Tell me in your own words one criminal act Trump committed. Pointing me to some anti-Trump publication just doesn’t work anymore.

She didn’t claim, she ruled. And you cannot tell me why she’s wrong. Her argument’s, Justice Thomas’ arguments, and former attorney general Edwin Meese’s arguments forever remain untouched by your criticism. — NOS4A2

The appellate court rulings on the constitutionality of the special counsel statutes remain binding within their jurisdictions, while Canon's ruling is binding on no court (not even her own). Thomas' comment also has no bearing because it was not part of a majority opinion.

Regardless, whether or not SCOTUS would overturn the statutes is a red herring; it has zero bearing on Trump's guilt or of the ability of DOJ to prosecute with staff already employed. The AG has the authority to hire people, so he could easily get around Canon's issue if he chose to do so (I mentioned this before, but -as usual- you ignored it).

I don’t care what Trump said about the 2020 election. — NOS4A2

So...you don't care if Trump engaged in fraud. I didn't think you did, but wanted you to admit it. You used to care a bit, when you denied that Trump lied (knowingly told a falsehood). Now that I backed you into a corner, you don't care at all (ROFLMAO!)

Your prior allegations against Biden and former national security officials, suggest a double standard: it only matters when it's the "other side". (IOW, you're a hypocrite). I would hope that most Americans would actually care.

The massive changes to the way people vote warrant scepticism.

The changes were legal, but they indeed helped Democratic turnout- and this may have helped them win. Likewise, Russia's assistance may have helped Trump win in 2016. Both issues are moot, and have no bearing on Trump's attempting to illegally overturn the 2020 election.

Tell me in your own words one criminal act Trump committed. Pointing me to some anti-Trump publication just doesn’t work anymore. — NOS4A2

The repository includes court filings by the prosecution, the defence, and court rulings.

The most straightforward is the sexual assault case. I pointed you at the jury's ruling. They found him liable for sexual assault and defamation against the woman he assaulted.

The most significant case is Trump's fraud case- his attempt to illegally overturn the election. You said you didn't care, so what's the point of pursuing that?

I've previously brought up Trump's obstruction of justice in both Mueller and in the documents case. Refer back to those discussions, particularly where you stopped responding when you exhausted your excuses.

The appellate court rulings on the constitutionality of the special counsel statutes remain binding within their jurisdictions, while Canon's ruling is binding on no court (not even her own). Thomas' comment also has no bearing because it was not part of a majority opinion.

Regardless, whether or not SCOTUS would overturn the statutes is a red herring; it has zero bearing on Trump's guilt or of the ability of DOJ to prosecute with staff already employed. The AG has the authority to hire people, so he could easily get around Canon's issue if he chose to do so (I mentioned this before, but -as usual- you ignored it).

You can mention it a thousand times. The AG doesn’t have the authority to hire special counsels. As usual you skirt around the arguments and simply repeat your conclusions, or at least the conclusions you’re taught to repeat.

The changes were legal, but they indeed helped Democratic turnout- and this may have helped them win. Likewise, Russia's assistance may have helped Trump win in 2016. Both issues are moot, and have no bearing on Trump's attempting to illegally overturn the 2020 election.

There is no law against contesting an election.

The most straightforward is the sexual assault case. I pointed you at the jury's ruling. They found him liable for sexual assault and defamation against the woman he assaulted.

What evidence do you have that Trump committed sexual assault?

Two different issues. One is Trump's criminal, unconstitutional actions. The other is what people voted for or against.

You can mention it a thousand times. The AG doesn’t have the authority to hire special counsels. — NOS4A2

Repeating Canon's ruling a million times doesn't make it either authoritative or binding, or relevant to his guilt. You love to obsess on red herrings.

There is no law against contesting an election. — NOS4A2

He was within his legal rights to file those 63 court cases that he lost, and to ask for recounts. It's illegal to try to overturn an election through fraud, which is what he tried to do after losing those court cases.A nexus of his election fraud case is his many lies about election fraud, a lie you said you don't care about.

What evidence do you have that Trump committed sexual assault? — NOS4A2

The primary evidence is the testimony of E. Jeane Carroll, and the two women she confided in just after it occurred. So it's the word of 3 women, who a jury judged to be credible, against that of a man who routinely tells self-serving lies, including the lie that Carroll wasn't "his type" - during a deposition, he misidentified a picture of Carroll as his wife. Trump also lied when he publicly denied ever having met Carroll.

On the Access Hollywood recording, Trump bragged that as a celebrity - he could get away with grabbing women by "the pussy". He doubled down on this during his deposition. This is among the reasons to believe Trump has no moral compunction against doing what he was accused of.

He was within his legal rights to file those 63 court cases that he lost, and to ask for recounts. It's illegal to try to overturn an election through fraud, which is what he tried to do after losing those court cases.A nexus of his election fraud case is his many lies about election fraud, a lie you said you don't care about.

What fraud? You keeping making accusations or otherwise repeating them, but then leave it there. I just want to read one action he took that constitutes fraud according to you.

The primary evidence is the testimony of E. Jeane Carroll, and the two women she confided in just after it occurred. So it's the word of 3 women, who a jury judged to be credible, against that of a man who routinely tells self-serving lies, including the lie that Carroll wasn't "his type" - during a deposition, he misidentified a picture of Carroll as his wife.

On the Access Hollywood recording, Trump bragged that as a celebrity - he could get away with grabbing women by "the pussy". He doubled down on this during his deposition. This is among the reasons to believe Trump has no moral compunction against doing what he was accused of.

The politically-funded words of a batch of Trump haters and an unrelated recording 10 years removed from the alleged event is your evidence. Your “crime” is a civil case still under appeal. That’s it.

What fraud? You keeping making accusations or otherwise repeating them, but then leave it there. I just want to read one action he took that constitutes fraud according to you. — NOS4A2

Focusing on a single action can never suffice;it is the collective set of activities that establish his crime. The superceding indictment (here) outlines the case. Read it, then get back to me.

The politically-funded words of a batch of Trump haters and an unrelated recording 10 years removed from the alleged event is your evidence. — NOS4A2

ROFL! A victim would obviously hate her attacker, and so would her confidants. Does that mean their testimony shouldn't be considered? Trump alleged she was politically motivated based on hearsay (someone, he didn't remember who, told him Carroll was a Hillary supporter and was "political"), so of course - you treat that as established fact. However, her article alleging the assault was published in June 2019, rather late for a political hit job for the 2016 election.

On what grounds do you give credibility to Trump's denial? You know he lies all the time; and nearly every criminal claims they're innocent.

Your “crime” is a civil case still under appeal.

No, the most important crime was sexual assault, which is criminal. The fact that the statute of limitations had expired doesn't erase the fact that he committed the crime. It's true that the guilt finding was based on the civil standard of preponderance of evidence, rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The implication: at minimum, this establishes that it's more likely than not that he committed the crime.

Why does it matter that it's appealed? The facts speak for themselves, irrespective of whether or not Carroll will receive a payout from Trump.

Well, a chunk of Americans cared more about voting against a black woman. — RogueAI

:mask:

Focusing on a single action can never suffice;it is the collective set of activities that establish his crime. The superceding indictment (here) outlines the case. Read it, then get back to me.

You’re sure he’s committed a crime but cannot name a criminal act.

ROFL! A victim would obviously hate her attacker, and so would her confidants. Does that mean their testimony shouldn't be considered? Trump alleged she was politically motivated based on hearsay (someone, he didn't remember who, told him Carroll was a Hillary supporter and was "political"), so of course - you treat that as established fact. However, her article alleging the assault was published in June 2019, rather late for a political hit job for the 2016 election.

On what grounds do you give credibility to Trump's denial? You know he lies all the time; and nearly every criminal claims they're innocent.

I said “politically-funded”. I treat this as established fact because it is established fact. It appears you’re not even aware of this, among others, once again deflecting to something unrelated. Neither was Carrol, apparently, because she lied and said she did not receive outside funding. Once it was revealed that she did in fact receive outside funding, her lawyer claimed she forgot. In other words, she could not remember that someone else was funding her lawsuit, but in your mind is credible enough to accuse someone of an event from 30 years ago—as far as we know because she can’t even remember the year it happened—long past the statute of limitations for your so-called crime.

Why does it matter that it's appealed? The facts speak for themselves, irrespective of whether or not Carroll will receive a payout from Trump.

The appeal matters because he did not get a fair trial. The facts do not speak for themselves because you haven’t given a single fact. DNA, video, an entry in her diary, witnesses, medical examinations—you’ve given no such thing while claiming otherwise.

I said “politically-funded”. I treat this as established fact because it is established fact. — NOS4A2

You're making excuses. The litigation was funded, not the allegation and witnesses.

The appeal matters because he did not get a fair trial. The facts do not speak for themselves because you haven’t given a single fact. DNA, video, an entry in her diary, witnesses, medical examinations—you’ve given no such thing while claiming otherwise. — NOS4A2

You have poor understanding of both the law and epistemology. Legally, it would be absurd to avoid prosecuting cases that lacked thoroughly conclusive evidence - like DNA or video. It is legally correct, and morally fair, for a jury to pass judgement based on a preponderance of evidence. It is also reasonable epistemology to conclude that the evidence shows it more likely than not, that Trump committed the act. I asked you to provide a basis for considering Trump's denial to be credible. You obviously had nothing. This was a case of 3 women vs one habitual liar with a history of immoral behavior.

You're making excuses. The litigation was funded, not the allegation and witnesses.

And then there’s the emails between Jean Carroll and her friend Carol Martin, one of the two women who corroborated her story. Emailing Carrol, Martin wrote in 2017 in reference to a Trump article:

“This has to stop. As soon as we're both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again."

“TOTALLY!!!,” wrote Carroll. “I have something special for you when we meet."

This is shortly before she starts writing her book accusing Trump. Martin later said “scheme” was a reference to supporting Democratic party causes. Right.

You have poor understanding of both the law and epistemology. Legally, it would be absurd to avoid prosecuting cases that lacked thoroughly conclusive evidence - like DNA or video. It is legally correct, and morally fair, for a jury to pass judgement based on a preponderance of evidence. It is also reasonable epistemology to conclude that the evidence shows it more likely than not, that Trump committed the act. I asked you to provide a basis for considering Trump's denial to be credible. You obviously had nothing. This was a case of 3 women vs one habitual liar with a history of immoral behavior.

I don’t care what you think because it’s uninformed and one-sided. You have zero facts while claiming his alleged assault was a fact. This is your “reasonable epistemology”: accept any accusations of the political opponents of Donald Trump. Do away with the statute of limitations so you can punish people for allegations from a quarter of a century ago, where any and all evidence against the allegations have been lost. Your understanding of law and epistemology is to get rid of legal statutes so you can get the verdict you like.

And then there’s the emails between Jean Carroll and her friend Carol Martin, one of the two women who corroborated her story. Emailing Carrol, Martin wrote in 2017 in reference to a Trump article:

“This has to stop. As soon as we're both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again."

“TOTALLY!!!,” wrote Carroll. “I have something special for you when we meet."

This is shortly before she starts writing her book accusing Trump. Martin later said “scheme” was a reference to supporting Democratic party causes. Right. — NOS4A2

You're just repeating a line of attack by Trump's defense during the trial. This line of defense depends on the unsupported assumptions that both 1) the email was referring to the sexual assault allegation; and 2) The allegation is false.

Martin testified that the 2017 email was unrelated to the sexual assault allegation. Even if she lied about this, it doesn't imply the allegation was false. That the allegation was true was supported by a second confidante ,(Birnbach).

I previously failed to mention that two other women also testified that they had been assaulted by Trump.

If you want to appear credible, try to show that you're examining a fuller context than simply repeating a defense allegation. That reeks of confirmation bias. Try to show that you're making a judgement based on the totality of evidence.

Emails showing the two wanted to scheme and do their patriotic duty in reference to Trump are facts. And another fact is an email from Martin to someone else stating about Carroll: “It’s too hyperbolic. Too much celebratory stuff over something that hasn’t really happened. She said next she’s gonna sue T when adult victims of rape law is passed in new York State or something. WTF.” These are “established facts”, as you call them. What facts do you have? None.

Yes much unrelated evidence was submitted, none of which have been proven. And that’s all you have is unproven allegations and irrelevant recordings.

I don’t care what I appear like to anti-Trjmpists, especially because you have no evidence for what you claim is a fact.

Emails showing the two wanted to scheme and do their patriotic duty in reference to Trump are facts. And another fact is an email from Martin to someone else stating about Carroll: “It’s too hyperbolic. Too much celebratory stuff over something that hasn’t really happened. She said next she’s gonna sue T when adult victims of rape law is passed in new York State or something. WTF.” These are “established facts”, as you call them. What facts do you have? None. — NOS4A2

Trump's attorney tried a trick: he introduced Martin's text messages into the evidence, but when he cross-examined her, he didn't ask her to explain what she meant by "hasn't really happened". Instead, he pulled this rabbit out of his hat on closing, asserting this "proved" the 3 women conspired on a lie about Trump.

In the prosecution's rebuttal, they explained that Martin was referring to the fact that the passage of the LAW had not happened. Here's a summary of what occurred.

Yes much unrelated evidence was submitted, none of which have been proven. And that’s all you have is unproven allegations and irrelevant recordings. — NOS4A2

Recordings of Trump, and the allegations by other of his victims, are relevant in establishing his character.

"Proven"? The standard of proof it's a preponderance of evidence. It sounds like you will refuse to believe Trump did anything wrong unless is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Such an attitude just shows how devoted you Trumpists are to the morally bankrupt criminal.

They make excuses that Martin was referring to this or that, and Carroll simply forgot about her outside funding, that they were not scheming to get Trump despite using the word “scheme”.

“Relevant in establishing his character”. Again, not a single fact to support your beliefs and claims, in contradiction to everything you say.

Excuses? So...you are assuming the worst about Martin, and the best about Trump.

Why didn't Trump's attorney ask Martin about the comment when she was on the stand? It was tactical. He's a smart lawyer- he wanted to use his negative characterization in his closing without giving her the chance to explain it. Surely you can see that. It's what a good defense attorney should do.

Carroll's lawyers were smart too; they would have discussed this text with her in advance- so they were in position to know the answer.

Still, lawyers' statements aren't testimony, so all they give us are two competing interpretations of the texts. You didn't acknowledge this fact. Instead you latched onto the defense interpretation because it fit your pre-conceived view that Trump was innocent.

“Relevant in establishing his character”. Again, not a single fact to support your beliefs and claims, in contradiction to everything you say. — NOS4A2

I put myself in the shoes of a juror, examining the evidence (testimony is evidence, btw) and it's clear that the preponderance of evidence is in Carroll's favor. My conclusion is the same as the jurors. You are the outlier. You have given no indication you've weighed the evidence- you just parrot the defense case, and complain about the absence of DNA or video evidence- which is dumb. The case should be decided on the evidence presented at trial, not the absence of evidence you'd like to see.

Of course, his character and pattern of behavior is relevant. Why wouldn't it be? That's why trial defenses often put character witnesses on the stand. No one could possibly testify that Trump is too virtuous to commit the alleged act. But you apparently think he is.

Trump’s best pick yet.

What crime did Trump commit again? — NOS4A2

Trump’s words and deeds in trying to overturn the 2020 election constitute a criminal scheme.

On August 1, 2023, a grand jury of everyday Americans, convened by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), returned an indictment criminally charging former President Donald Trump with four crimes related to 2020 presidential election interference. The indictment centers on Trump and his co-conspirators’ attempt to prevent the lawful certification of the 2020 presidential election, and to interfere with millions of Americans’ right to vote and have that vote counted.

https://statesunited.org/resources/doj-charges-trump/

I pointed you to a 165-page court filing that laid out all the evidence against Trump. And if you have not read it, you are not in a position to criticize it.

Also, Trump has been clear about his plans to concentrate power in the Executive Branch, and will not tolerate any refusal to carry out his orders, whether or not they are legal. Under Trump, we can expect the rule of law to be under assault, and the courts to be very busy.

Trump’s illegality has already begun with his insistence on the Senate bypassing the normal confirmation process to install his loyalists, even though the Constitution says appointees must be confirmed with the “advice and consent of the Senate.”

But, even beyond that, whether or not something is a crime cannot be the sole criterion to determine if something is wrong or immoral.

Trump is not a man of principle. He exploits the biases, bigotry, and fears of his base for one purpose only: to gain more power for himself. He has them voting against their own interests to further his own. Surely, this is immoral.

An example of the way he manipulates his base can be found in the tweet below that he made last summer (posted three times).

I would be interested in hearing your opinion of its morality, in light of the fact it was made with reference to his attempt to overturn a legal election so he could stay in power.

Jul 20th 2024 - 10:12:25 PM EST, Jul 20th 2024 - 8:44:02 PM EST, Jun 25th 2024 - 3:09:00 PM EST

Every time the Radical Left Democrats, Marxists, Communists, and Fascists indict me, I consider it a GREAT BADGE OF HONOR. I’m being indicted for YOU. Never forget—our enemies want to take away MY FREEDOM because I will never let them take away YOUR FREEDOM. They want to silence ME because I will never let them silence YOU. In the end, they’re not after me, they’re after you—and I’m just standing in their way!

Smith’s October suprise”. I do not need to read a dismissed case from an unlawful special counsel who puts out a motion in violation of DOJ’s own rules in order to criticize it. It is exactly as every investigation into Trump has ever been hitherto, little more than a list of word and thought-crimes imagined in the head of a fevered anti-Trump prosecutor, all while presuming to know Trump’s thoughts, desires, and feelings in an assumption of guilt. It’s clear they didn’t like what the president said and believed, or that he didn’t comply lock step with their own judgements, so they thread a one-sided story without the benefit of any defense in order to influence an election. As such it can serve as nothing more than opposition research, a conspiracy theory, like every investigation before it. That’s all it will ever be.

To me it is neither wrong nor immoral to contest or dispute an election if one believes it was stolen. I believe it is both right and good to want to get to the bottom of it.

As for the Truth post, it’s a great one. The fevered, conspiratorial, and reactionary forces weaponizing the justice system and the media warrant precisely such an insult. Their actions warrant far more than a Truth post, in my opinion, and I hope they get their comeuppance.