Racketeering Charges for Trumpet and others

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 61
#31
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
He is getting re-elected because the law is being used as a political weapon. 
That’s a lie. Trump and his cohorts are being charged because they tried to steal an election. He tried to keep classified documents and lied to the FBI. He paid off a porn star to keep quiet about an affair as a candidate for President and tried to write it off as a business expense. His lawyer already did time in jail for that crime.

#32
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Until the actual crime has been committed with evidence linking you to those ski masks is obtained, IF the exact ski masks purchased were even used, your “what IF” is a huge nothing-burger, bunkis. 
The crime has been committed. The rest of your  rant makes no sense. 

Trump asked someone to get the ski masks.
The ski masks were used in a crime.

If you walk into a bank and say “give me all the money in the till” it’s not free speech and you don’t have to prove the person knew it was a crime, even if they said they really believed money in a bank was free for anyone who asked for it.

#33
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
He clearly was not plotting to steal anything when he genuinely felt/thought that the left was trying to steal the election with magical numbers appearing overnight for Biden. 
So if you really believe it’s legal to kill somebody, then it’s not a crime.

There is proof that lots of people told Trump the election was not stolen. He has no excuse for his actions. He chose to follow advice that he himself said was “crazy stuff”

As you have said, It doesn’t matter what you feel or think, what matters is what you can prove 
#34
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
It’s already been firmly established that the FBI undercover agents and CIs within the crowd present that day were the ones who incited the riot.
More lies. What proof do you have for this ridiculous statement?

AND it’s painfully obvious that the lefty George Soros funded DAs and Special Prosecutor keeps charging DJT with BS stretched thin legal theories in order to divert/deflect all attention away from the Biden Crime Family with all their bribery, extortion, and treasonous activities. Smoke and mirrors.
Lol, I can just imagine where you get your information from. 
#35
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,604
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

Giuliani struggling under massive legal bills after defending Trump

You might want to send him a check.
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Careful, you could be charged for inciting an insurrection.
#37
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
Until the actual crime has been committed with evidence linking you to those ski masks is obtained, IF the exact ski masks purchased were even used, your “what IF” is a huge nothing-burger, bunkis. 
The grand jury had already weighed in and told us there is evidence. Next step is the trial where we will all be able to see and evaluate it for ourselves. To pretend no evidence exists without knowing exactly what they have would be remarkably dishonest.

He clearly was not plotting to steal anything when he genuinely felt/thought that the left was trying to steal the election with magical numbers appearing overnight for Biden.
As has already been pointed out to you, believing he really won does not absolve him of the crime.

Take the call to Brad Raffinsburger as an example. A legal action would have been to call him and ask him to look long and hard to ensure the vote count was accurate. Trump didn't do that. Instead he asked him to "find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have".

The motivation here couldn't have been more clear, Trump was not calling him to ensure voter integrity or ballot counting accuracy, he was calling him to get him to flip the result in Trump's favor. There is no rational argument that this was not a crime.

He incited nothing of the kind, which is clear as Crystal given the language he used and the FACT that no one is charging him with incitement of a riot. No incitement, no riot.
So clear that all of the people rioting said they did so because the president told them to.

The language was clear, and anyone who understands English and holds basic human interaction skills understood what he wanted. When a mob boss tells you "nice family you got there, would be a real shame if something happened to them" they are not expressing concern for the safety of your family.

Everyone knows this.

As far as the lack of charges, that's because proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law is a far higher standard than proving something as an obviously reasonable conclusion. The special council did what most of us would have done, focus on the case they know they can prove to a jury.

It’s already been firmly established that the FBI undercover agents and CIs within the crowd present that day were the ones who incited the riot.
Was the capitol riots a bad thing or not? It never ceases to amaze me watching Trump defenders shift back and forth from claiming January 6th was just a few tourists taking photos, and it was also a massive left wing conspiracy to make Trump look bad.

AND it’s painfully obvious that the lefty George Soros funded DAs and Special Prosecutor keeps charging DJT with BS stretched thin legal theories in order to divert/deflect all attention away from the Biden Crime Family with all their bribery, extortion, and treasonous activities. Smoke and mirrors.
Do you have any evidence for any of this? No, of course not.

Last time you boasted about the Hunter Biden star witness coming to testify it turned out to be someone who told Congress that as far as he saw Joe Biden had no knowledge or involvement in any of Hunter's business affairs.
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
"First we overlook evil, Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil.

Then we persecute those who still call it evil."

Fr. Dwight Longenecker
Topic's author
#39
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
@Double_R
@IwantRooseveltagain
This paragraph from From Heather Cox Richardson "Letters from and American"..Aug 11th

....."It seems we are reaping the fruits of the political system planted in 1968, when the staff of Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon reworked American politics to package their leader for the election.

...“Voters are basically lazy,” one of Nixon’s media advisors wrote. “Reason requires a high degree of discipline, of concentration; impression is easier.

...Reason pushes the viewer back, it assaults him, it demands that he agree or disagree; impression can envelop him, invite him in, without making an intellectual demand…. When we argue with him, we…seek to engage his intellect…. The emotions are more easily roused, closer to the surface, more malleable.”....

Most of these MAGA's  have no idea what it means to  ' reason ', ergo, 60 million votes for Trumpet last time. Their in denial of obvious truths, because they, the like other 60 million, lack the ability to ' reason ', or choose to be a troll. No new news there.  It is lack of morality, Rebels without a cause, logic, common sense critical thinking.
#40
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
Until the actual crime has been committed with evidence linking you to those ski masks is obtained, IF the exact ski masks purchased were even used, your “what IF” is a huge nothing-burger, bunkis. 
The grand jury had already weighed in and told us there is evidence. Next step is the trial where we will all be able to see and evaluate it for ourselves. To pretend no evidence exists without knowing exactly what they have would be remarkably dishonest.

Grand juries are the prosecutor’s babies. They decide who gets picked, what evidence gets presented, and what gets left out. ... There’s no necessity for unanimity among the 23 or so jurors, and the standard of proof is so low — that probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed — anyone, for the merest hint of an offense, can get indicted.

A friend of mine sat on a grand jury for three weeks and reported that it was so rote that many people played on their phones or even slept as the evidence was being presented. Every presentation ended in an indictment.

 In many instances, over-indicting is not just a waste of time and money — it’s just not fair.

The GJ did not "tell us" anything. The evidence presented at a GJ is not disclosed to public, and as noted above, prosecutors, like the Council of Nicaea, chose what to include and what to purposefully exclude. It's completely one-sided and obviously for a reason, the end game is to indict that ham sandwich.

I did not pretend no evidence exists, that is purely your unsubstantiated subjective opinion. I know full well how this system works as I have worked within it. Nothing you can say about it will be anything that I do not already know. 

He clearly was not plotting to steal anything when he genuinely felt/thought that the left was trying to steal the election with magical numbers appearing overnight for Biden.
As has already been pointed out to you, believing he really won does not absolve him of the crime.
And what crime is that, specifically? Be clear and don't retort with some nonsensical irrelevant analogy. I want the specific statute and description of the crime for which you are referring to and arguing here.

Take the call to Brad Raffinsburger as an example. A legal action would have been to call him and ask him to look long and hard to ensure the vote count was accurate. Trump didn't do that. Instead he asked him to "find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have".
Trump speaks in a different language, and one needs to know how to understand it in order to interpret it correctly. It's like learning a foreign language, except this is Trump's elitist, obnoxious and albeit ignorant language. When Trump says, "find 11,780 votes," he means 'look long and hard to ensure the vote count was on the up and up.'

He incited nothing of the kind, which is clear as Crystal given the language he used and the FACT that no one is charging him with incitement of a riot. No incitement, no riot.
So clear that all of the people rioting said they did so because the president told them to.
All of the people? Okay. List every single person who rioted and source back to their admission that they only did it because Trump "told them to" (jump off the cliff).

Also, suggesting people peacefully gather and make their voices heard in a dignified manner =/= go riot and break into the Capital in order to impede a judicial process. 

It’s already been firmly established that the FBI undercover agents and CIs within the crowd present that day were the ones who incited the riot.
Was the capitol riots a bad thing or not? It never ceases to amaze me watching Trump defenders shift back and forth from claiming January 6th was just a few tourists taking photos, and it was also a massive left wing conspiracy to make Trump look bad.
Moving the goal posts, I see. Of course, the rioting that took place was bad. It is a stain on American history where that election is concerned. But there were far more peaceful protestors there than criminally intent rioters; the videos Tucker Carlson was given direct access to, and the selected footage aired on his program proved that salient fact. In addition to proving Capital Police opened the doors letting them casually walk inside, and certain agitators within the crowd (CIs and undercover agents, for example) egging the crowd on. 

AND it’s painfully obvious that the lefty George Soros funded DAs and Special Prosecutor keeps charging DJT with BS stretched thin legal theories in order to divert/deflect all attention away from the Biden Crime Family with all their bribery, extortion, and treasonous activities. Smoke and mirrors.
Do you have any evidence for any of this? No, of course not.
Perhaps that was a stretch regarding the specific DAs and Smith, but Soros has been infiltrating the CJS: Justice for Sale

Bottom line, allegations of a crime =/= a crime actually having been committed.

A grand jury can and would indict a ham sandwich, it's not that difficult. 

I take all these indictments with a grain of salt seeing as I know how it all works. Been there, done that as a grand jury coordinator facilitating the grand jury process for the attorneys of the DAs Office I previously worked. I filed the indictments when true billed. I've read them. I've spoken to the attorneys who were prosecuting the cases. I backed up/supported 2 felony attorneys in that office.

I even served on a jury once, and I can tell you the people that ultimately get selected to be a juror on a case, be it grand or courtroom, are not the brightest in the world. Most just want to get out of the duty or will just vote whichever way the wind blows if it means ending the trial sooner than later so they can go home (or back to work). The prosecutor has (or is in) a strong position of being manipulative in swaying the jury to go their way, especially in cases where the accused is painted as an evil pariah day in and day out like Trump has been since 2015. The jury is tainted, and it makes the prosecutor's job that much easier to manipulate the evidence and the jurors. 

#41
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
IwantRooseveltagain,
You're just not worth my time or the effort anymore. 
So not feeding the troll any further.
I'll let others stupidly engage you, wasting their own time.



#42
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
believing he really won does not absolve him of the crime.
And what crime is that, specifically?
The many election related crimes he's been indicted for. If you want the list you can Google them.

My point there was not to say there's definitely proof beyond a reasonable doubt of [insert criminal statute here], I was responding to your argument that he didn't commit a crime because he believed he won. That isn't how it works. Believing yourself to be the rightful winner of an election does not give yourself legal justification to try and take it.

Trump speaks in a different language, and one needs to know how to understand it in order to interpret it correctly. It's like learning a foreign language, except this is Trump's elitist, obnoxious and albeit ignorant language. When Trump says, "find 11,780 votes," he means 'look long and hard to ensure the vote count was on the up and up.'
So when Trump says "I just want to find [the exact number of votes I need to flip the state to me]", what he's really saying is, "I just want you guys to make sure that you've counted everything accurately to ensure the rightful winner is declared, whoever that might be"

This is the most sycophantic defense of Donald Trump I've ever heard. You're literally arguing that he meant the opposite of what he actually said, and you're justification for that is that we just "need to know" how he speaks.

It's not just that this defense is completely devoid of any logical or factual basis, it's completely unfalsifiable and demonstrates that you have given Trump a green light to say literally anything he wants and you will just spin it into his innocence.

suggesting people peacefully gather and make their voices heard in a dignified manner =/= go riot and break into the Capital in order to impede a judicial process. 
Let's break this down.

For the entirety of the 2 months between the election and January 6th, Trump has repeatedly and consistently told his supporters that the election was stolen and that their voices consequently didn't matter.

Then he calls for all of his supporters to come to the capitol on January 6th saying it "will be wild".

Then when his supporters arrive he tells them to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore".

Then he tells them to March down to the capitol to "peacefully make their voices heard".

One of these things it's not like the others.

This is what legal experts refer to as a false exculpatory. It's a cleverly worded phrase that one inserts in order to be able to point to it later on. It's like when an internet pedophile spends weeks soliciting a child for sex, but then at the last minute says he's coming over to "hang out", or when a prostitute names their price but tells you it's "for their time". Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can easily figure out what this means, his supporters certainly did.

To point to this one sentence is a blatant attempt to ignore the incoherence of his message interpreted this way. Let's take Trump at his word that this was his true intention... The case then is that after spending two months telling his supporters that their voices have been stolen, the remedy for this according to Trump is to March to the capitol and make their voices heard. Yes - The ones that just got stolen.

And if that isn't incoherent enough, they're going to make their voices heard to the exact same people who just flipped them off by stealing it telling them they couldn't care less what they want.

And when he said it will be wild, he just meant it will be wild that people are peacefully protesting.

I don't give Trump's supporters much credit, but even they were not stupid enough to think this.

And if all of that wasn't bad enough, then Trump, after seeing that his supporters badly misinterpreted his message by attacking the Capitol, didn't bother to say word about it till 3 hours later. Didn't make a single phone call to anyone in law enforcement, didn't put out a single tweet telling his supporters to go home... Till HOURS later.

But he did have time to call a couple of senators and congressmen to tell them to use the delay to further the plan to stop the certification.

This is a brazenly incoherent interpretation of the events of that day, there is no way any rational person would honestly try to argue this.

In addition to proving Capital Police opened the doors letting them casually walk inside, and certain agitators within the crowd (CIs and undercover agents, for example) egging the crowd on. 
Please explain what you think happened. Do you really believe left wing government agents conspired to incite the riots to what... Blame Trump? What was the plan here?

allegations of a crime =/= a crime actually having been committed
No one is arguing this. The point of pointing to the grand jury is to demonstrate that the prosecution had to have something in order to proceed and no prosecutor worth half their salary would bring a case they weren't confident could unanimously convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

You seem to like misinterpreting my arguments as all or nothing propositions. This is about strength, and the strength of the case against Trump here is damning. At the very least it's absurd to suggest this is all just political nonsense with no basis whatsoever in truth or the law.
#43
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
You're just not worth my time or the effort anymore. 
So not feeding the troll any further.
I'll let others stupidly engage you, wasting their own time.

You’ve said that before. It’s not like you have anything else to do. Being disabled and living off the government.
#44
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
. It’s not like you have anything else to do. Being disabled and living off the government.

reported
#45
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Don’t forget Trump urging his people to take the magnetometers down because  “they aren’t here to hurt me”

#46
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
IwantRooseveltagain,
You're just not worth my time or the effort anymore. 
So not feeding the troll any further.
I'll let others stupidly engage you, wasting their own time.

Reported for calling me a troll.

#47
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
reported
The big baby. Were you popular in high school? Probably not I’m guessing 

#48
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
> 
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
believing he really won does not absolve him of the crime.
And what crime is that, specifically?
The many election related crimes he's been indicted for. If you want the list you can Google them.

Read your own typed words…

“…does not absolve him of the crime.”

Of…[the]…crime.

That, within the context in which it is written, clearly denotes a single crime. [A] crime. Not two crimes. Not three or more crimes. ONE CRIME!

So I rightly asked you to cite what crime you are clearly inferring to here. 

And NOW you want to shift the goal post to “the many election related crimes”!?! 

*facepalm*
#49
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
Since someone clearly doesn’t comprehend what an internet troll is…he crosses all the proverbial Ts and dots all the Is on this one:

a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.
#50
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
So when Trump says "I just want to find [the exact number of votes I need to flip the state to me]", what he's really saying is, "I just want you guys to make sure that you've counted everything accurately to ensure the rightful winner is declared, whoever that might be"
I bet you, like so many others, actually believed Trump when he “grabs them by the pussy,” as being quite literal vs the obvious hyperbole, don’t ya!!! 
A lot of the tripe that flows from his mouth is hyperbole, vague, nonsensical, and quite often never very specific. So yeah, you have to learn to read between the lines with a lot of what he spews. But it really isn’t that difficult. Just stop trying so hard, you might actually get it vs your made up garbage along with the rest of the garbage being fictionalized. 

#51
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain,
You're just not worth my time or the effort anymore. 
So not feeding the troll any further.
I'll let others stupidly engage you, wasting their own time.

Reported for calling me a troll.
The White Supremacist 1405_2 has a new word, hyperbole!

This one has four whole sylables, maybe he's getting edumacated.

Handling drunk soldiers made him a legal scholar.

The clever use of the word hyperbole makes him a constitutional authority.

And racism, that made him a....well, just a racist....but a racist with a four sylable word, you don;t see that every day  

Yes, he's definately gone a got himself edumacated.
#52
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
Sidewalkwr,
Reported. 
And you too just proved you’re being nothing but a troll, just like your other bird of the same feather, IWRA. 
#53
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
Biden caught red handed: Liar liar 
#54
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
Read your own typed words…

“…does not absolve him of the crime.”

Of…[the]…crime.

That, within the context in which it is written, clearly denotes a single crime. [A] crime. Not two crimes. Not three or more crimes. ONE CRIME!
"You do the crime, you do the time" - Martine Barrat

Enlighten me... when Martine Barrat famously stated these words, which specific criminal statute was he referring to?

Or if you prefer, we can drop the silly little "gotcha" word games and instead focus on the point I was actually making.

A lot of the tripe that flows from his mouth is hyperbole, vague, nonsensical, and quite often never very specific. So yeah, you have to learn to read between the lines with a lot of what he spews. But it really isn’t that difficult. Just stop trying so hard, you might actually get it vs your made up garbage along with the rest of the garbage being fictionalized.
Note that you dropped every point I made in order to just call my argument garbage and repeat your original assertion.

You have yet to provide any criteria by which Trump's words should be interpreted. "Just stop trying so hard" is not a criteria for anything, it's just another data point proving that he is infallible in your view to the point where you will bend the very meaning of the English language to excuse him.

You are correct about one thing though, he does have a particular way of expressing his wishes. Let's hear from his personal attorney and fixer for 10 years;

“He doesn’t give you questions, he doesn’t give you orders, he speaks in a code. And I understand the code, because I’ve been around him for a decade” - Michael Cohen

His supporters understood this code very well because it's not complicated. 
#55
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
<<<TWS1405_2>>>
Read your own typed words…

“…does not absolve him of the crime.”

Of…[the]…crime.

That, within the context in which it is written, clearly denotes a single crime. [A] crime. Not two crimes. Not three or more crimes. ONE CRIME!
"You do the crime, you do the time" - Martine Barrat

Enlighten me... when Martine Barrat famously stated these words, which specific criminal statute was he referring to?

Or if you prefer, we can drop the silly little "gotcha" word games and instead focus on the point I was actually making.

Your inability to write a cogent, well thought out statement in either making a point or asking a question is your fault/problem, not mine. 

And my reading of what you wrote exactly as it reads within the context and word choices given therein, making the obvious observation, isn’t a “gotcha” word game. 

Also, last I checked it is you and I having this exchange, I don’t know who Martine Barrat is, and they clearly are not a part of this conversation. Martine didn’t write what you wrote, you did. 

Own your obvious mistake and correct yourself and move on, the intellectual cowardice denialism is pathetic. 

Now do you wish to rephrase your previous statement in response to my quoted statement you chose, or are you going to continue with these silly childish intellectual cowardice denialism games? Cause if you are (the latter), we can stop right there. I have no interest wasting anymore time pointing out huge lack of writing skills and obvious intellectual cowardice denialism. And yes, third time is charm!! 
#56
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
my reading of what you wrote exactly as it reads within the context and word choices given therein, making the obvious observation, isn’t a “gotcha” word game. 

Also, last I checked it is you and I having this exchange, I don’t know who Martine Barrat is, and they clearly are not a part of this conversation. Martine didn’t write what you wrote, you did. 
Ok, let me help you out. Martine Barrat is the person who famously said "You do the crime, you do the time". A statement you have no doubt heard many times before in your life as nearly everyone has. And at no point anywhere in your life, or that of just about anyone elses have you or anyone else ever sat there and said "wait, which crime exactly is he talking about? Which criminal statute"

The reason for this is because it is painfully obvious to anyone who speaks English - "the crime" is a not a term anyone uses when they are pointing to a very specific criminal statute. It's a general term applied to whatever crime is being alleged.

This is very basic stuff.

Morover, here is the exchange which lead to this silly little deflection of yours: 

He clearly was not plotting to steal anything when he genuinely felt/thought that the left was trying to steal the election with magical numbers appearing overnight for Biden.
As has already been pointed out to you, believing he really won does not absolve him of the crime.
Notice how the topic of your post began with the idea that he can't be guilty if he didn't think he was doing anything illegal, and my post was in response to that very idea pointing out how your argument there was nonsense.

So did you respond by explaining why your original argument stands up and why my rebuttal fails? No, that's what an intelligent poster with a desire for productive rational conversation would have done. Instead you tried to change the subject to 'show me which criminal statute you are claiming Trump is guilty of'.

But because I saw right through your attempt to deflect and am not letting you wiggle out of having to defend this absurd argument, you unsurprisingly decide to go back to your usual pathetic "duh you're a denialist" rant. 

I have no interest wasting anymore time pointing out huge lack of writing skills and obvious intellectual cowardice denialism. And yes, third time is charm!! 
Clearly, this is all you are interested in. Every conversation we have ends just like this with you dropping every point I made so you can pound your chest and declare yourself intellectually superior despite having given up once you were pushed to rationally support your own nonsense.

I would be disappointed, but this is just par for the course for you. To be honest I'm just surprised you lasted this long.

Good day.
#57
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Ok, let me help you out. Martine Barrat is the person who 
Still going with the intellectual cowardice denialism. 

Adieu 

#58
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.
So your hero Donald Trump is a troll.

How many of his trading cards have you bought with your disability checks from the government?

#59
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
So your hero Donald Trump is a troll.

How many of his trading cards have you bought with your disability checks from the government?

Reported. 
#60
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
How many of his trading cards have you bought with your disability checks from the government?

reported