Election Investigations

[Bootstrap]

In a recent Fox News poll, a majority of registered voters, 53 percent, said they think Trump “did something illegal” related to “efforts to overturn the 2020 election.”

I personally think he did a lot of things wrong in challenging the elections. I do not think he was wrong in challenging them, but some of the actions taken were quite poor. I am not sure if they were illegal because I do not know all the charges or the laws concerning elections. I have to listen to lawyers who do and listen the the evidence for or against. Not even judges will see the laws the same and will rule differently, so how am I to judge?

I think that's for the courts to decide.

And I don't know a better alternative. After all, who are any of us to judge? None of us are experts on these things. None of us has the level of information a jury will hear. This is what courts are for.

I do not see his actions were at such a high level of badness that I would condemn him. I would advise for some different actions, but he never called or asked me.

What bothers me is the level of attack against him when I have seen worse by others and no one does anything to them.

The charges against him are quite serious and the evidence seems compelling - can't think of another president who has been charged with anything like this before. If he's innocent, let him have his day in court and prove that.

So far, he hasn't even had to testify. That's changing now.

[Bootstrap]

It can be hard to step back and look at the system honestly. The reality is the US system of "justice" is anything but that. The federal agencies are corrupt and we are being lied to about many things, wars and finances alike. The emperor has no clothes. Much of what we think we have in the US is a delusion. The government is bankrupt and the politicians only do what they have to to get reelected to keep their power. The system is corrupt and bankrupt. It needs a hard reset.

I don't think Trump is a solution to any of these concerns. He has focused strongly on tearing down accountability and building personal power. And someone who commits fraud (as found in court in NY) isn't a great candidate for crusading against fraud. We need someone deeply honest who values accountability to do that.

If we don't want lies, corruption, and delusions, it's really quite important for the trials to proceed. January 6th was part of the problem, not part of the solution. Attempts to steal an election are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The Republican Party could take a strong stand against lies, corruption, and delusions by choosing another candidate in 2024. Donald Trump is the patron saint of lies, corruption, and delusions.

And I am very worried about a "hard reset" by an authoritarian personality who rejects accountability and viciously attacks people who disagree. That seems like a good way to tear down democracy and become more authoritarian.

[Bootstrap]

I no longer give the federal government the benefit of the doubt, but distrust anything it does. Once the US government makes an announcement, I now automatically suspect it a lie and they are hiding something.

Yes, I can see that you do that. But that doesn't make it true for any given claim. So often, it's not hard to research the facts and know if something is true or not. It just takes a little work.

And if we really care about truth, that's precisely what we need to do. Sometimes I think you just assume that other people who distrust the government as much as you do must be telling the truth. No matter how often they are caught lying.

Many of the court cases involving the 2020 election were thrown out because "lack of standing."

Which ones are you thinking of?

Texas v. Pennsylvania? Do you think Texas has standing in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan? Or does Texas have standing in Texas? Wisconsin Voters v. Pence? Which states do you think Wisconsin voters have standing in? Gohmert v. Pence?

I'm trying to think of a case involving standing where it was a difficult or controversial decision. Can you please be more specific? If it helps, you can look at this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-elec ... l_election

Cases were filed both before the election and after the election. Courts decided. The "standing" cases that I am familiar with were things like the Texas attorney general launching a lawsuit about all those other states. And he clearly did not have standing to do that. He is responsible for Texas.

The courts did not want to be to blame or have to make a decision, so they claimed the people bringing the cases had no "standing" or should have filed before the election. The times they did file before the election, the court said there was no misdoings since the election had not happened yet. So you can't file before the election and you can't file after. Makes it real hard to seek "justice."

But look at that list. The courts reached LOTS of decisions. Trump-appointed judges were responsible for many of these cases. Republican-appointed judges were responsible for a lot of the others. And no matter who appointed the judge, the courts repeatedly said that there was no evidence for these wild claims.

Courts were happy to make decisions. And they were blamed a lot by people on the right wing. Some received death threats. But they did make decisions. And many of these decisions were for cases filed after the election. See the "first filing date" column for these cases.

Other cases were filed before the election, and these were also decided. Here's a list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-elect ... l_election

I am not a lawyer, but I listen to lawyers about 4-6 hours a week discuss all this stuff.

Are you sure you are listening to lawyers who are telling you the truth about even the basics? I'm really confused by some of the factual claims you make. I would like to see evidence for them. I don't spend anywhere near that much time. but it's not hard to find the basic facts.

[Robert]

I don't spend anywhere near that much time. but it's not hard to find the basic facts.

Maybe you are only finding the facts that some want you to find and just making certain facts easy to find. When you use NYT and CNN, they do not report the whole facts, only the facts they want you to see.

Texas v. Pennsylvania? Do you think Texas has standing in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan?

One state MUST have a way to express grievances with other states or what will hold it all together? Texas does have standing to challenge Pennsylvania. What if Alabama decided to have slavery again? How would that be addressed by other states?

And if we really care about truth, that's precisely what we need to do.

I have been proven right many more times then others who just listen to the progressive "facts."

He has focused strongly on tearing down accountability and building personal power.

He lost money and power by being President. How do you figure this? He helped reduce government bureaucracy and returned many things to the states. That is not him gaining power, but loosing it to the states.

Donald Trump is the patron saint of lies, corruption, and delusions.

He lies almost as much as the Clintons.

So do you disbelieve the evidence against him that has been presented in each of these cases.

There are two sides to much of that "evidence" and I have heard both sides. Have you?

The charges against him are quite serious and the evidence seems compelling - can't think of another president who has been charged with anything like this before. If he's innocent, let him have his day in court and prove that.

Courts are not perfect. There are a lot of innocent people in prison. We know this because ignored or hidden evidence becomes available and we find that out. Take Derek Chauvin. Justice was not done in his case, nor the 3 other officers who are all in prison. Many people are convinced to pled guilty because of the pressure and costs to fight the charge. I hope you never get charged with anything you have to go to court for. You will find out how unfair and feckless it is.

[Bootstrap]

I don't spend anywhere near that much time. but it's not hard to find the basic facts.

Maybe you are only finding the facts that some want you to find and just making certain facts easy to find. When you use NYT and CNN, they do not report the whole facts, only the facts they want you to see.

I think I'm looking at a broad set of facts from many sources. You don't seem to know what my sources are, even when I cite them. If you have better facts, please provide them.

I think this would be a very different conversation if we were actually discussing facts and evidence. Perhaps you could stop preaching facts and simply supply facts? Perhaps you could stop telling us how much more you know about these things than we do and how blinded we are, and simply show us how much you know by telling us the facts?

Texas v. Pennsylvania? Do you think Texas has standing in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan?

One state MUST have a way to express grievances with other states or what will hold it all together? Texas does have standing to challenge Pennsylvania. What if Alabama decided to have slavery again? How would that be addressed by other states?

It would be addressed by the federal government, not by individual states. I'm trying to imagine what happens when every state sues every other state over every hot button political issue .... I think ever state would be in court all the time. And a lot of it would be "made for media" lawsuits so politicians can profile themselves.

That's not the government we have, at any rate.

The charges against him are quite serious and the evidence seems compelling - can't think of another president who has been charged with anything like this before. If he's innocent, let him have his day in court and prove that.

Courts are not perfect. There are a lot of innocent people in prison. We know this because ignored or hidden evidence becomes available and we find that out. Take Derek Chauvin. Justice was not done in his case, nor the 3 other officers who are all in prison. Many people are convinced to pled guilty because of the pressure and costs to fight the charge. I hope you never get charged with anything you have to go to court for. You will find out how unfair and feckless it is.

I can't imagine anyone in America with more money for lawyers and more marketing and campaigning power than Donald Trump. I can't imagine anyone else accused of so many serious crimes with such strong evidence still running for president.

When all of the courts, across America, seem to be ruling the same way, including Trump judges, that may tell us something. When all election boards agree, that may tell us something. And the alternative to imperfect courts seems to be that Donald Trump need not even testify when there is solid evidence of serious wrongdoing.

At the same time, he is promising to send his political opponents to jail. He is threatening people involved in investigating him. Do you think that's the system we should have instead of the justice system, political leaders who get off scot free no matter what they do and threaten anyone who would expose their misdeeds?

If not, courts are probably the best available option. Nothing in democracy is perfect, but a country needs some way to investigate and rule on this kind of thing. You seem to think you have a better idea in mind with your "hard reset", but I have no idea what it is. Comparing countries, I think the American justice system has worked a whole lot better than what I see in most other countries. There are perhaps 30 countries with comparably good justice systems.

If you really want the truth to come out, what better alternative is there to our courts? If you really want justice, what better alternative do you suggest?

[GaryK]

I don't spend anywhere near that much time. but it's not hard to find the basic facts.

Maybe you are only finding the facts that some want you to find and just making certain facts easy to find. When you use NYT and CNN, they do not report the whole facts, only the facts they want you to see.

I think I'm looking at a broad set of facts from many sources. You don't seem to know what my sources are, even when I cite them. If you have better facts, please provide them.

I think this would be a very different conversation if we were actually discussing facts and evidence. Perhaps you could stop preaching facts and simply supply facts? Perhaps you could stop telling us how much more you know about these things than we do and how blinded we are, and simply show us how much you know by telling us the facts?

Texas v. Pennsylvania? Do you think Texas has standing in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan?

One state MUST have a way to express grievances with other states or what will hold it all together? Texas does have standing to challenge Pennsylvania. What if Alabama decided to have slavery again? How would that be addressed by other states?

It would be addressed by the federal government, not by individual states. I'm trying to imagine what happens when every state sues every other state over every hot button political issue .... I think ever state would be in court all the time. And a lot of it would be "made for media" lawsuits so politicians can profile themselves.

That's not the government we have, at any rate.

The charges against him are quite serious and the evidence seems compelling - can't think of another president who has been charged with anything like this before. If he's innocent, let him have his day in court and prove that.

Courts are not perfect. There are a lot of innocent people in prison. We know this because ignored or hidden evidence becomes available and we find that out. Take Derek Chauvin. Justice was not done in his case, nor the 3 other officers who are all in prison. Many people are convinced to pled guilty because of the pressure and costs to fight the charge. I hope you never get charged with anything you have to go to court for. You will find out how unfair and feckless it is.

I can't imagine anyone in America with more money for lawyers and more marketing and campaigning power than Donald Trump. I can't imagine anyone else accused of so many serious crimes with such strong evidence still running for president.

When all of the courts, across America, seem to be ruling the same way, including Trump judges, that may tell us something. When all election boards agree, that may tell us something. And the alternative to imperfect courts seems to be that Donald Trump need not even testify when there is solid evidence of serious wrongdoing.

At the same time, he is promising to send his political opponents to jail. He is threatening people involved in investigating him. Do you think that's the system we should have instead of the justice system, political leaders who get off scot free no matter what they do and threaten anyone who would expose their misdeeds?

If not, courts are probably the best available option. Nothing in democracy is perfect, but a country needs some way to investigate and rule on this kind of thing. You seem to think you have a better idea in mind with your "hard reset", but I have no idea what it is. Comparing countries, I think the American justice system has worked a whole lot better than what I see in most other countries. There are perhaps 30 countries with comparably good justice systems.

If you really want the truth to come out, what better alternative is there to our courts? If you really want justice, what better alternative do you suggest?

Why keep opining away about Donald Trump and all the evidence against him if he hasn't yet been found guilty of things related to election investigations? You seem to want everyone else to wait for the justice system to run it's course rather than offering their opinions about things. Why not do the same?

[Robert]

I can't imagine anyone else accused of so many serious crimes with such strong evidence still running for president.

You keep claiming strong evidence, but what evidence is that? For everything you present, there is a counter argument. I have heard it. I present it, but then you say I have no evidence. Maybe that is because the innocent do not need evidence, but a fair justice system, which I do not see in play.

Again, I am not a MAGA or Trump stooge. I am wanting things to be equally addressed. I do not think they are. You do. You can have your opinion. Why can't I have mine? Then you say I can, but then I must prove why I have it.

[Robert]

Comparing countries, I think the American justice system has worked a whole lot better than what I see in most other countries.

See. This is the basis of my disagreement. I have been in two law suits for almost 3 years now. They have caused my insurance to go way up and made it hard to even get covered at times. The insurance company in one finally settled two weeks ago. I got no say in it, yet my name was dragged in the mud and we had to suffer just because someone wanted free money. I have no idea what the settlement was even though it released us from the suite. The other is still pending.

I have two family members in jail awaiting trials. One over 12 months and the prosecution just keeps postponing the trial. The bail is too high to raise, so they sit. No speedy trial. Court appointed lawyer is doing nothing. The family member tried to fire them and represent themself, but the Judge would not allow it. So they sit. The prosecution does not have enough evidence and the crime is not a big deal, so there is no effort to do anything and that person sits in county jail with little to no rights. Beaten up once and all his stuff stolen. How is that justice?

I have questioned the legal system in the US for a while. This just validates it even more.

[Josh]

Do you think that's the system we should have instead of the justice system, political leaders who get off scot free no matter what they do and threaten anyone who would expose their misdeeds?

No, I don't. I think biased and corrupt government officials like Leticia Jones should be held accountable, which in my view would include imprisonment for numerous ways they have abused government office and broken the law.

[Ken]

Do you think that's the system we should have instead of the justice system, political leaders who get off scot free no matter what they do and threaten anyone who would expose their misdeeds?

No, I don't. I think biased and corrupt government officials like Leticia Jones should be held accountable, which in my view would include imprisonment for numerous ways they have abused government office and broken the law.

What laws do you think Leticia Jones has broken? Be specific.