Fancypants wrote: ↑Aug 17th, '23, 21:42
How about his first amendment right to free speech including political discourse. Since when did that become a felony offense? These indictments are worth nothing more than a ham sandwich if brought to a court system somewhere outside of NYC, DC and Metro Atlanta. Call me what you will but, all 4 of Trump's prosecutions are littered with legal overreach and overcharging. Hope you can find your way out of the wilderness to realize that these are only distractions from the real corruption committed for years by Joe Biden and the Biden family.
I typed a thorough response, but then I realized you wouldn't believe anything I said anyway. So I'll just quote what Trump's own attorney general said about the Jan 2020 case.
"It's certainly a challenging case, but I don't think it runs afoul of the First Amendment," Barr told "Face the Nation" on Sunday. "From a prosecutor's standpoint, I think it's a legitimate case."
Trump's legal team argues he was indicted for political speech that was protected by the First Amendment. The indictment itself acknowledges that Trump "had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won."
"If that was all it was about, I would be concerned on a First Amendment front," Barr said.
But Trump's alleged actions went beyond political speech, he said.
"This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress," Barr said. "The allegation, essentially, by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes."
"The other elements were the substitution of bogus panels — that were not authorized panels — to claim that they had alternative votes," he said. "And that was clearly wrong and the certifications they signed were false. But then pressuring the vice president to use that as a pretext to adopt the Trump votes and reject the Biden votes or even to delay it — it really doesn't matter whether it's to delay it or to adopt it or to send it to the House of Representatives. You have to remember a conspiracy crime is completed at the time it's agreed to and the first steps are taken. That's when the crime is complete
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-barr- ... he-nation/
Here's what he said about the documents case.
“This was a case entirely of his own making,” Mr. Barr said. “He had no right to those documents. The government tried over a year, quietly and with respect, to get them back — which it was essential that they do — and he jerked them around. And he had no legal basis for keeping them.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/18/us/p ... ussia.html
If you want to argue the Stormy Daniels case is legal overreach, you might have a case. As for the others, I don't see any basis for what you're saying. It sounds to me like you're just parroting what the right-wing media is saying about these cases, but if you actually read the indictments, you'd see they're lying. Don't fall for it like so many who fell for the Fox Domininion voting machine lies.
