• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Merrick Garland, weakest AG ever?

Mithrae said:
Which law was violated? Just because it's inappropriate and morally contemptible doesn't mean that the laws were written well enough to cover it.


Could you quote that from the transcript? As I've pointed out, the full sentence was "All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."

How is it 1 more vote than Trump had if he wanted 11,780 more votes for himself? Imagine anyone reading the full sentence to try to understand its meaning - crazy stuff! The rest of the surrounding context further explains, again as posted in #17 and repeatedly in subsequent posts (and the previous one you quoted).
Click to expand...
That's crazy talk. we all know what Trump was trying to do. It was part of a much broader attempt in multiple states to throw out Biden's victory.

And when that didn't work, 60 courts didn't work, he resorted to violence at the nation's capitol.

Let's let a judge and a jury decide on the details.
 
Mithrae said:
Yes, he wanted Raffensperger to find votes for Biden which could be disqualified on trivial technicalities. Not votes for Trump. Votes for Biden. You understand that, right?

The particular federal law we've been looking at - 52 U.S. Code § 20511, since it was cited by the experts/article posted by @RIP U.S. Democracy - makes it illegal to count ballots known to be fraudulent, but as far as I can see from half a dozen readings doesn't say anything about disqualifying ballots based on technicalities in a one-sided manner. Did you have a different law in mind which was violated here? As I've said repeatedly, it seems strange to think that such a contemptible call might not be strictly illegal, but how else do you explain the lack of prosecution?
Click to expand...
You may have a slight point here. The problem is he was trying to manipulate the results after they were certified. The people voted, period. The votes were counted and recounted.

As I said, let a judge and jury figure it out. Your attempts to exonerate Trump are falling on deaf ears.
 
The AntiDonald said:
You may have a slight point here. The problem is he was trying to manipulate the results after they were certified. The people voted, period. The votes were counted and recounted.

As I said, let a judge and jury figure it out. Your attempts to exonerate Trump are falling on deaf ears.
Click to expand...
Trump like everyone else is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He doesn't need to be "exonerated" - least of all by some random Aussie - until he's charged. And if he is charged on a flimsy basis he will be exonerated, which would be a 'victory' for him and his supporters but, more importantly, would be a bona fide example of a 'witch-hunt' style politicization of the DoJ by the Democrats. As @Callen has suggested, that would pretty much be the worst possible outcome.

What he did in that call should be illegal. If it was, it should have been easy enough for those who claim so to explain specifically which law/s he broke and how, and more to the point with the evidence so public and so outrageous he surely would have been charged by now. They did not show that, and he has not been charged. So if he did find a loophole in the laws as presently written, then push to fix the laws!

Instead we've got some Obama/Biden supporters here turning on their own Attorney General based on dogmatic assumptions that the call simply must have been illegal... including blatant, unrepentent falsehoods about what Trump actually said :unsure:
 
RIP U.S. Democracy said:
I disagree, because Trump knew that he lost.

Regardless, Garland should force Trump to make that same argument in court -- "I thought I won the election because I'm ****ing crazy and I have lost all grasp of reality".

That is a case that any reasonable prosecutor should be willing to pursue.
Click to expand...

Why? Its not illegal to think one was the victim of fraud.
 
he will only be weak IMO if he doesn't seek criminal charges of any kind against Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom