Our tax money wasted to go after Trump

[Dill]

(08-03-2023, 07:09 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: lDill Wrote:Given a choice between more realistic counsel like Barr's, he chose the now disbarred Rudy and Sidney Powell, and their crazy Italian satellite stories.
Why would anyone want a man for president who cannot make the right choice when faced with such decisions? 
A man who believes in conspiracy theories would be in charge of U.S. foreign policy and the DOJ. 

Leaders listen to their inner circle and then make a decision. You say definitively Trump knew there was no election interference when in fact there was, just not the way Trump originally thought. The HB laptop was not Russian disinformation as a bunch of former Democratic leaning leaders signed in a letter. It was a lie.

In the end, leaders make the call. Trump did and does still believe the election was stolen. HRC did the same thing going around said the election was stolen from her and not accepting the results. Stacey Abrams was the worst of all. It is common for politicians who lose close elections to question the results.

This "leader" bought into crazy speculation about Italian satellites. That shows an inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, or a desperate grasping after any straw that will keep him in power.  BAD JUDGEMENT arising from BAD CHARACTER.

LOl Hannity referenced HRC and Abrams last night. Maybe he gets his talking points from you. 

Trump is not indicted for "saying the election was stolen." He is indicted for planning and carrying out an insurrection, for an attempt to defraud American voters. Did HRC and Abrams do that? 

There certainly was election interference--and Trump was behind it.

(08-03-2023, 07:09 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Good luck proving Trump believed he lost, his actions say just the opposite. Barr said in his opinion, the election was not stolen. Did Barr send out every agent o investigate it? What did he do as the acting AG, a question Trump's team will ask if it goes to trial.

I did not say that Trump definitively knew there was no election interference. But now that you raise the issue, I do think he knew that. 

Here is what Trump's actions "say" according to the indictment:

Count #28: When Mark Meadows reported from Georgia that officials in Cobb County were doing a good job but finding no fraud, Trump immediately tweeted that "terrible people" down there were hiding evidence of election fraud. 

How will that look to a jury while his lawyers are arguing he had a free speech right to lie? 

More to the point--why are you still unable to see what's wrong with that picture?

(08-03-2023, 07:09 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I do like Trump will have the opportunity to subpoena witnesses and tell his side of the story. Pelosi, mayor of DC and a lot of intelligence officers should be called. The intelligence community knew of the threat and just like 911 ignored it. If they act, there is no attack on the US capital. Trump said go peacefully in his Jan. 6 speech he never said to take over the capital.

The charges today do not include anything about inciting a riot. Why? Simple, Smith did not agree with the phony Jan. 6 committee's recommendations. 

The "phony Jan. 6 Committee" findings enabled the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Smith has chosen to base the case on Trump's actions, not his words. Fox commentators are still talking about his "right to lie" though, right? Perhaps that's why you are not seeing this.

Sounds like you are saying if the intelligence community had acted properly, the Trump instigated attack on the Capitol could not have been successful. 
As if someone robbed a bank and the defense is he could not have done it if only bank security had taken better precautions. 

Also, Trump is the person most responsible for turning Homeland Security and the FBI away from the problem of Domestic Terrorism. How will that help Trump when the intel community has to confirm this?