Trump indictment #4: 2020 election RICO conspiracy [Fulton county GA]

[CaptUSA]

I asked what changes remained after covid and your response was a page from 2020

Is that the best you got?? Dude, your game is so pathetically weak.

[Anti-Neocon]

The sad thing is he may be correct to some extent, even though I believe it is bad policy to spy on Americans (I assume he was referring to Americans, although it wasn't made clear).

The way he would likely defend it is that the government needs a warrant to come into your house or search your belongings, but they don't need a warrant to search a box left in the street. If you are sending data over a network of public infrastructure, is that data constitutionally protected, or is it more like a box left in the street? What about a box you send to a private company? Should they be allowed to send that to the government if they want to? If it's on their network, and you sent it to their private network, it belongs to them, right?

It's a complex discussion, I always tend to side on the right to privacy.

Did you know the Post Office needs a search warrant to search First-Class mail, but they don't need one for other classes of mail?

I think it should be constitutionally protected, or at minimum there should be a policy of the US Govt not to spy on Americans.. but the founders didn't include it in the Constitution because the internet and data transfer over public infrastructure didn't exist. For the same reason, I don't think guns that didn't exist back at the time the Constitution was written should be infringed on by law.

What you won't find in many of Dershowitz' opinions is his personal opinion about the way things should be. He just calls it out like he believes the law is written. So I don't hold all his opinions on law against him, because he rarely specifies whether he agrees with the law or not.

If you really wanted a "gotcha" you should have posted his opinion on government forcing vaccinations. I don't agree with him 100% of the time, but he is generally very well educated on these types of topics and is at least worth hearing out. I would have to have a one on one debate with him to understand why he holds his position, whether he personally agrees with that position, etc.

The problem here is that for whatever reason, you believe Dershowitz to be a good-faith actor when he clearly is not. He is a strong neocon Israel-firster type who was fully aboard the agenda of going after muh terrorists using any means necessary. It seems like you only became a fan of his, right after he started defending Trump, mainly because you are such a big fan of Trump. So now your love of Trump has permeated your ability to see the rat objectively and what he has said historically.

If you watched the link I provided you would see how Greenwald completely deconstructs and buries these kinds of arguments.

This is no gotcha, but if you actually listen to all the specious arguments he makes in the video you will see how he is using impromptu logic to serve his own agenda, which is the exact opposite of what you say he does.

I am surprised that someone at Ron Paul Forums doesn't understand the clear difference between a street corner and the Internet on something as basic as the aspect of privacy. It's not "complex" at all. One one hand you are literally doing something in public, on the other hand, you are literally communicating with someone with the reasonable expectation of privacy. It's a ton more similar to having government surveillance devices in your house collecting data and putting it in some kind of "lockbox", with their justification being just in case if you might do something wrong and they will have to dig it out. It is the invasion of privacy without any due cause.

But since Dershowitz was fully aboard the neocon cause at that time, and every foreign adventure for his Zionist freak friends, it's not surprising that he would side with them on the rest of their agenda against American citizens, simply because he is not an objective law reader and interpreter, also evidenced by the lack of charity he gave Greenwald when he was battering him with straw man arguments.

I really don't get people like you, and how your love of Trump turns your brain inside out.

I will give him credit for one thing though - at least he wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment to enact his vision of gun control, rather than trying to pretzel logic his way around how it is compatible with gun control.

[dannno]

The problem here is that for whatever reason, you believe Dershowitz to be a good-faith actor when he clearly is not. He is a strong neocon Israel-firster type who was fully aboard the agenda of going after muh terrorists using any means necessary. It seems like you only became a fan of his, right after he started defending Trump, mainly because you are such a big fan of Trump. So now your love of Trump has permeated your ability to see the rat objectively and what he has said historically.

If you watched the link I provided you would see how Greenwald completely deconstructs and buries these kinds of arguments.

This is no gotcha, but if you actually listen to all the specious arguments he makes in the video you will see how he is using impromptu logic to serve his own agenda, which is the exact opposite of what you say he does.

I am surprised that someone at Ron Paul Forums doesn't understand the clear difference between a street corner and the Internet on something as basic as the aspect of privacy. It's not "complex" at all. One one hand you are literally doing something in public, on the other hand, you are literally communicating with someone with the reasonable expectation of privacy. It's a ton more similar to having government surveillance devices in your house collecting data and putting it in some kind of "lockbox", with their justification being just in case if you might do something wrong and they will have to dig it out. It is the invasion of privacy without any due cause.

But since Dershowitz was fully aboard the neocon cause at that time, and every foreign adventure for his Zionist freak friends, it's not surprising that he would side with them on the rest of their agenda against American citizens, simply because he is not an objective law reader and interpreter, also evidenced by the lack of charity he gave Greenwald when he was battering him with straw man arguments.

I really don't get people like you, and how your love of Trump turns your brain inside out.

I will give him credit for one thing though - at least he wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment to enact his vision of gun control, rather than trying to pretzel logic his way around how it is compatible with gun control.

I do disagree with him on certain issues, but keep in mind I was responding to Sonny.. who probably agrees with Dersh on all the topics you are bringing up that you think he is wrong about. I wouldn't be surprised if The Count agrees with him on those issues as well, but I don't ever expect him to end his trollish behavior.

I'm not using Dersh to convince people here who disagree with him on all those particular issues. I still personally listen to him because he does often make very good arguments, and I recommend others listen to his arguments as well and take them into consideration. But I don't use him as the Bible.

[acptulsa]

I'm not using Dersh...

That's right. You're not using your good buddy "Dersh". Your good buddy "Dersh" is using you.

[dannno]

That's right. You're not using your good buddy "Dersh". Your good buddy "Dersh" is using you.

I don't see any evidence of that. There are plenty of other people who I agree with much more often making the same type of claims about Trump, but they would be less credible sources for someone like Sonny.

And, by the way, some of those sources who I agree with more - they may make the right arguments from the standpoint of the spirit of freedom and privacy that I am onboard with, but they don't always align with how the court system sees it. Dersh tends to do that more often.

[Anti Globalist]

We got Covid in late 2019/early 2020 because of Trump. I'm only saying that the timing of the pandemic was due to getting rid of Trump. They had many other objectives as well, it was a global pandemic. But they were more broad goals and less timely.

Are you saying Covid would not have been a major issue if Clinton was in office? If she had been in charge during that time she would have locked down the whole country for the next four years. When the vaccine eventually comes out in late 2024/early 2025, she would have forced everybody into taking it and a 6-3 Liberal SCOTUS would have ruled in her favor and that would have effectively ended the country.

[PAF]

Are you saying covid would not have been a major issue if Clinton was in office? If she had been in charge during that time she would have locked down the whole country for the next four years. When the vaccine eventually comes out, she would have forced everybody into taking it and a 6-3 liberal SCOTUS would have ruled in her favor and that would have effectively ended the country.

IMO, the Federal Agency OWS never would have been approved among “republicans” with a democrat as president, the “R” constituents would have gone berserk. Trump said himself that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not "lose any voters".

[Sonny Tufts]

They had them.. Trump didn't take anything he wasn't supposed to that the National Archives didn't have a copy of. Lookup the portion of the PRA that says "otherwise has access".

That phrase appears nowhere in the PRA or its implementing regulations. What the PRA does say is "The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records" and "Upon the conclusion of a President's term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President."

The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis
A former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tru...nd-11661170684

Rivkin and Casey are good writers and Trump apologists. But they are wrong regarding the PRA. They claim that the Act "doesn’t address the process by which a former president’s records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president. But what is there to negotiate? That Act directs the Archivist to assume control of the possession and access to the records. Moreover, the authors conveniently fail to mention that the warrant was issued only after Trump dragged his heels for almost a year after the Archives asked him to return all of the documents that he retained after returning some. Allowing a former President to retain records indefinitely is inconsistent with the PRA.

And who cares if they "claim" they did an audit? We know they weren't fully audited, we know they didn't do signature matching.. they just "re-counted" a bunch of fraudulent ballots and claimed they were "audited". That's more like a recount, not a full audit..

And who cares if you think you "know" there were a bunch of fraudulent ballots? Where's your proof? Good grief, you have Republican Governor and a Republican Secretary of State (who said he voted for Trump) who certified the results and say that the election in Georgia wasn't stolen and that Trump's claims of fraud are bogus. What kind of conspiracy theorist are you? Are these guys Deep State moles?

His attorney argued they were defamatory per se (meaning the statements were damaging), not "with actual malice" (meaning Guiliani knew the claims were false at the time). That was an argument made to save him time and money in the lawsuit - basically "even if my client's statements were false and damaged the defendants, let's assume they did so we don't have to waste court time... he did so unknowingly and therefore this is Constitutionally protected free speech."

First of all, actual malice includes knowingly making a defamatory statement or making it with a reckless disregard for whether the statement is true. Second, I'd like to know the source for your claim that Giuliani is not admitting "actual malice". His initial filing admitted his statements were actionable and false and that he no longer disputed the “factual elements of liability” raised in the suit, although he did not admit to any damages. But the filing said nothing about the actual malice standard. See https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...38720.84.2.pdf
*

The judge perceived the initial filing to contain "seemingly incongruous and certainly puzzling caveats" and ordered him to clarify. He then submitted a filing in which he admits to having "default liability" (in a default judgment situation the plaintiff's allegations of liability are taken as true but the defendant can still contest unliquidated damages) but wants to contest some issues on appeal, including damages. But if he admits to liability I can't see how he can ever raise a constitutional issue.

I can't find a copy of the second filing, but here's the article describing it: https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/08/...ion-admission/

*Edit: Third, the actual malice rule may not apply in the defamation case. That rule applies to statements made about public officials and public figures and so-called "involuntary public figures" (i.e., people who are involuntarily thrust into the limelight before the defamatory statement is made because the facts surrounding them are newsworthy. See Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967), a case Richard Nixon argued before the Supreme Court (he lost). It's debatable whether the two election workers were either public officials or public figures. They certainly weren't involuntary public figures at the time of Giuliani's false claims about them.

[nobody's_hero]

Are you saying Covid would not have been a major issue if Clinton was in office?

I think the point is that COVID would not have been released if Clinton had been in office, if there had been any chance whatsoever it made her look bad. Even if assuming COVID was not released intentionally, I think it would have been downplayed by the MSM. Can't say for sure, not like we can go back in time and test it with a Clinton presidency. The closest we can get is Biden and he was pro-OSHA mandate, lockdown, get-vaccinated-or-your-life-ruined.

Then there's also the prospect that we'd be too busy fighting a hot war with Russia to worry about COVID, if Clinton had been in office. Maybe nuclear radiation kills the virus, and she would have been hailed a hero for saving America.

[acptulsa]

I think the point is that COVID would not have been released if Clinton had been in office, if there had been any chance whatsoever it made her look bad. Even if assuming COVID was not released intentionally, I think it would have been downplayed by the MSM. Can't say for sure, not like we can go back in time and test it with a Clinton presidency. The closest we can get is Biden and he was pro-OSHA mandate, lockdown, get-vaccinated-or-your-life-ruined.

That's an excellent hypothesis. Now you're starting to see how Trump was just what they needed to funnel billions to Pfizer.

Same with Dubya. I don't see Al Gore not only getting a pass on allowing 9/11 to happen, but being allowed to start the DHS to lord it over agencies like the FBI. Republicans would have squawked at that, and Democrats of the era would have been resistant within the party to the Patriot Act. He might not have gotten all that done.

And they do have chess players who can think that many moves ahead, yes.

[CaptUSA]

I think the point is that COVID would not have been released if Clinton had been in office, if there had been any chance whatsoever it made her look bad. Even if assuming COVID was not released intentionally, I think it would have been downplayed by the MSM. Can't say for sure, not like we can go back in time and test it with a Clinton presidency. The closest we can get is Biden and he was pro-OSHA mandate, lockdown, get-vaccinated-or-your-life-ruined.

The Democrats were opposed to Project Warp Speed until after the election. Remember in the VP debate, they even asked Kamala if she would take the vaccine created through that process and she even said that she didn't trust anything coming out the Trump White House. So, yeah, we don't even need to go back in time to test it.

If you want to look at it conspiratorially, it took a GOP Presidency (with a left press) to create the fear and get the vax through approvals and a DEM Presidency to implement the forced vaccination regime.

[acptulsa]

If you want to look at it conspiratorially, it took a GOP Presidency (with a left press) to create the fear and get the vax through approvals and a DEM Presidency to implement the forced vaccination regime.

People are so unwilling to acknowledge, or even look at, the fact that they always get screwed by "their guy". And that's why they always do get screwed by their guy --the powers that be know they won't squeal too loud, because it's "their guy".

Does anyone think I'm kidding? Clinton (and Sen. Biden, who wrote it) arranged for tens and tens of thousands of black men to get life sentences, so work release programs could use them as slaves. Dubya created a bureau so huge they had to buy an extra chair for the Cabinet room. Obama pissed off several labor unions by cancelling Keystone XL. It never, ever, ever fails. You just have to have eyes to see it with.

"Oh, you can't realistically expect to elect a nobody." If we really can't elect someone until this media cartel says his name ten thousand times, then you can realistically expect to someday have an interesting view of the big hole where this nation used to be.

And no, they never made famous a man they didn't like, no matter how much they pretend to hate him.

[nobody's_hero]

That's an excellent hypothesis. Now you're starting to see how Trump was just what they needed to funnel billions to Pfizer.

Same with Dubya. I don't see Al Gore not only getting a pass on allowing 9/11 to happen, but being allowed to start the DHS to lord it over agencies like the FBI. Republicans would have squawked at that, and Democrats of the era would have been resistant within the party to the Patriot Act. He might not have gotten all that done.

And they do have chess players who can think that many moves ahead, yes.

The problem is that Trump supporters didn't even go for it when Trump promoted it. If [getting people to take the jab] was the plan by TPTB, it failed miserably. Most of the republicans who got the jab are the same ones who think Pence and Christie are decent and respectable and that Trump is destroying their party. We've been fighting those guys since Ron Paul ran, or longer.

[acptulsa]

The problem is that Trump supporters didn't even go for it when Trump promoted it.

Yes, they wound up having some problem with that, though there was a time when Trump people weren't nearly as resistant to the idea as they are now, and I personally know a couple of Republicans who did and regret it.

But they put Warp Speed over and pocketed the kickbacks. They shut down countless small businesses. Hillary Clinton could have met as little resistance crushing hundreds of thousands of small brick and mortar businesses? I doubt it, myself.

Remember, you're thinking, was it a necessary step? Because a normal person thinks, if it's not a necessary step, they won't do it and risk getting caught. And I think that's the change since you and I were kids. Then, they didn't even care who won the general election, because people were convinced a third party vote was wasted, and they got something acceptable nominated in each party.

But these psychos are playing for all the marbles. They aren't just risking the next election; they know they're doing things that just might get them Nurenberged. They appear to be arrogant enough to play psyops which require a switch of presidents in the middle to complete the plots. They think they can control every variable.

And so far they've found plenty of people to put poster board over the windows and reshuffle ballots for money, and nowhere near enough who have the resolve to remain free men. But we still stand a chance. Because they're psychos, and prone to just keep pushing and pushing until they finally do find out what their limitations are.

[ClaytonB]

Because they're psychos, and prone to just keep pushing and pushing until they finally do find out what their limitations are.

When your claim is to be literally God/gods, you have painted yourself into a corner where the only possible response to resistance is escalation. Thus, you had better literally be what you claim to be, or you will be escalated into oblivion. They are not God, obviously, so oblivion is the inevitable outcome. Might be a while, who knows. Sooner or later, they are doomed.

PS: Not sure if that's "3D chess" or not, but it doesn't really matter, because the checkmate is inevitable...

[acptulsa]

When your claim is to be literally God/gods, you have painted yourself into a corner where the only possible response to resistance is escalation. Thus, you had better literally be what you claim to be, or you will be escalated into oblivion. They are not God, obviously, so oblivion is the inevitable outcome. Might be a while, who knows. Sooner or later, they are doomed.

Sometimes I think, you really see where this is going, but you just can't believe it's really going there just the way you see it going there.

This level of evil is something you and I have only read about in the back end of the Bible, until now. The devil's last test is to present us with one or more antichrist(s), so God can see if we reject them or not, the way I read it.

Our God is a jealous God, and has warned us about having unconditional faith in mortal men. Just sayin'...

[ClaytonB]

Sometimes I think, you really see where this is going, but you just can't believe it's really going there just the way you see it going there.

This level of evil is something you and I have only read about in the back end of the Bible, until now. The devil's last test is to present us with one or more antichrist(s), so God can see if we reject them or not, the way I read it.

Our God is a jealous God, and has warned us about having unconditional faith in mortal men. Just sayin'...

Sure, I see quite clearly the various ways this can play out. Nevertheless, I believe that God is a God of mercy and that he sincerely offers men -- even wicked men -- the opportunity to get off the Hell-gondola before it arrives at its destination. The Israelites many times repented of their idolatry and God averted the scourge of judgment which they were about to be afflicted with. So, if Americans will wake up and start repenting of sin -- even on a civil level (to begin with), and then moving on to our rotten spiritual heart-condition -- God will surely show some mercy, and the coming fiery judgment will not be as bad as it otherwise will be. The fire is what I see most clearly. That is why I spend most of my time searching for paths leading to repentance and mercy, because I love my country and I don't want to see my family, friends, and associates plunged into the flames that are about to envelop us. Not to mention that I don't like suffering, either... it sucks. Job #1 of every believer in America today is repenting of sin (our own sins, first). Job #2 is calling our fellow countrymen to repentance, while clinging to hope in God because, no matter how terrible things are about to get, God will deliver through the flames all who are trusting in Jesus, as he did Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

[Occam's Banana]

CLIP from SYSTEM UPDATE #134:

SURPRISE? Indictments Boost Trump's Huge Primary Lead | SYSTEM UPDATE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q0DHiqu2ys

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1694459883905568968

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/martyrmade/statu...04962898026721

//

[devil21]

13 counts lol. But of course....

https://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/...-bible/13.html


Do you want to hear it? Are you sure? Are you REALLY sure??

[Occam's Banana]

RazörFist | The Mugshot Heard Round The World - Razör Rants
___ the System.
https://odysee.com/@RazorFist:1/the-...d-raz%C3%B6r:7

//

[nobody's_hero]

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...34051869262090
& https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/st...34623154524272

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1695158862813466979

[Anti Globalist]

If Trump refuses to take the Deep State down with him if they are successful in convicting him and putting him in prison, we'll know for sure he was a Democratic operative the whole time. He certainly won't be pulling a Law Abiding Citizen if that happens.

[Occam's Banana]

If Trump refuses to take the Deep State down with him if they are successful in convicting him and putting him in prison, we'll know for sure he was a Democratic operative the whole time. He certainly won't be pulling a Law Abiding Citizen if that happens.

And if you want to, you'll "know [exactly the same thing] for sure", even if he doesn't.

In that case, the "proof" that he is (and will continue to be) a "Democratic operative" will simply shift to some other locus.

Because that's how "controlled opposition" narratives function.

They can account for any event, and thus can never be falsified.

[TheTexan]

And if you want to, you'll "know [exactly the same thing] for sure", even if he doesn't.

In that case, the "proof" that he is (and will continue to be) a "Democratic operative" will simply shift to some other locus.

Because that's how "controlled opposition" narratives function.

They can account for any event, and thus can never be falsified.

^ Which is exactly what a controlled opposition would say

[Occam's Banana]

^ Which is exactly what a controlled opposition would say

[Sonny Tufts]

Following up on post #218, the court has now dropped the hammer (a default judgment) on Rudy Giuliani for refusing to obey her discovery orders:

Defendant Rudolph W. Giuliani is taken at his word that he understands these [discovery] obligations. He assured this Court directly that he “understand[s] the obligations” because he has “been doing this for 50 years[.]” Transcript of May 19, 2023 Mot. Hearing (“May 19 Hrg. Tr.”) at 67:21–68:6, ECF No. 75. In this case, however, Giuliani has given only lip service to compliance with his discovery obligations and this Court’s orders by failing to take reasonable steps to preserve or produce his ESI. Instead, Giuliani has submitted declarations with concessions turned slippery on scrutiny and excuses designed to shroud the insufficiency of his discovery compliance. The bottom line is that Giuliani has refused to comply with his discovery obligations and thwarted plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea’ ArShaye Moss’s procedural rights to obtain any meaningful discovery in this case...

Facing court orders compelling his discovery compliance and potential default judgment as a sanction for failing to preserve ESI, Giuliani filed two personally executed, but unsworn, “stipulations” admitting, for the purposes of this litigation, liability on the factual elements of plaintiffs’ claims and their entitlement to punitive damages. See Def.’s Resp. Pls.’ Mot. (“Def.’s Mot. Resp.”), “Nolo Contendre [sic]” Stipulation (“Giuliani Stip.”), ECF No. 84-2; “Superseding Nolo Contendre [sic]” Stipulation (“Giuliani Superseding Stip.”), ECF No. 90. Giuliani’s stipulations hold more holes than Swiss cheese, with his latest stipulation expressly reserving “his arguments that the statements complained of are protected and non-actionable opinion for purposes of appeal[,]” Giuliani Superseding Stip. ¶¶ 5-6, which arguments were previously rejected in this Court’s decision denying defendant’s motion to dismiss..."

The downside risk of turning the discovery process into what this Court has previously described as a “murky mess,” May 19 Hrg. Tr. at 105:22, is that Rule 37 provides a remedy: sanctions, including entry of default judgment, against Giuliani. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(e)(2)(C); 37(b)(2)(a)(vi). Given the willful shirking of his discovery obligations in anticipation of and during this litigation, Giuliani leaves little other choice. For the reasons set out below, the pending motion is granted. Default judgment will be entered against Giuliani as a discovery sanction pursuant to Rules 37(e)(2)(C) and 37(b)(2)(a)(vi), holding him civilly liable on plaintiffs’ defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and punitive damage claims, and Giuliani is directed to reimburse plaintiffs for attorneys’ fees and costs associated with their instant motion.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...38720.94.0.pdf

There will now be a trial on the amount of compensatory damages he has to pay.

In addition, the court ordered Giuliani and his affiliated companies to pay the Plaintiff's attorney fees and costs in the amount of $132,856.