It’s Time to Cut Ties with the Republican Party
- Thread starter kjfreeze
- Start date
100% accurate.
Intent is absolutely the key. In fact, if you drew up the plan (intent) and then decided not to go through with it, you're still guilty of Conspiracy with RICO.
...such is the importance of intent within said charge.
He seems to love the law more than political affiliation.
Old school liberal as compared to the new definition.
Liberal wasn't always a dirty word. Sure, in those days we could debate the wisdom of throwing good money after bad, bleeding hearts and poor uses of resources...but liberalism used to be something else entirely.
Establishment Republicans that act like democrats, because enriching themselves are more important than the good of EVERY American is what ruined the Republicans. What ruined Dims?? They are just low character, low morals people. POS's really.
Let me guess...Trump is above all that.
JBFC
Dems are soft and believe democracy will overcome no matter what, unfortunately.
IOW, no, @kalimgoodman can't explain anything about the GA indictment.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) count runs some 70 pages and says all 19 defendants, “while associated with an enterprise, unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in, directly and indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.” The indictment next defines the “enterprise” as “a group of individuals associated in fact,” who “had connections and relationships with one another” and “functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise,” which Willis maintains was “to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.”
There are several problems with the RICO count, most fundamentally, as Andrew McCarthy explained in an enlightening article, RICO requires an “enterprise,” which, while not necessarily a formal entity, needs to be an identifiable group. The RICO crime, then, is “being a member of the enterprise that commits crimes, not the commission of any particular crime.”
But there must be some sort of “enterprise,” and here Willis conflates the objective — keeping Trump in power — with “the enterprise.” “It was that objective, and not the sustaining of any group, that brought them together; and once that objective was attained or conclusively defeated, the group — to the dubious extent it really was an identifiable group — would (and did) melt away,” McCarthy wrote. It’s a “good sign that you’re not dealing with a RICO enterprise,” the former federal prosecutor explained.
Without an “enterprise,” there can be no RICO crime, and the facts alleged in the indictment are such that the defendants will likely soon seek dismissal of that count. Now, Georgia law differs from federal law on RICO, and there is no saying how the state court will interpret its own RICO statute, but from a legal perspective, the claim is exceedingly weak.
The second fundamental problem with the RICO count is factual: Willis portrays the defendants as trying to unlawfully change the election in Trump’s favor, but the many actions Trump and others took involved legal proceedings and efforts to convince the legislative bodies to use their authority to address what the defendants saw as a fatally flawed election. A court is unlikely to toss the complaint on this ground, however, with factual disputes ones only a jury can resolve.
However, if the court holds, as it appears it should, that the RICO count fails as a matter of law because there was no “enterprise,” then that factual dispute is irrelevant. Likewise, the 160-some “acts” Willis included in the indictment — everything from Trump declaring victory on Nov. 4 to tweeting that followers should watch a television newscast — allegedly in furtherance of the “RICO” conspiracy become irrelevant. "
Class dismissed, @kalimgoodman
I don’t think he ever met a toothbrush he actually liked.
Democracy?
First off, we are a Republic and before you go all Representative Democracy on me, I understand this topic very well.
Second, since when did Democrats ever believe in Democracy, other than to fear monger?
Too many Dems these days believe in Ernesto "Che" Guevara's version of Democracy...which is, of course, socialism at best.
Hint...it's Marxism personified.
Exactly. This is why I keep asking the question and liberals like @sadgator and @kalimgoodman keep dodging it...this is basically an attempt to silence political dissent. It's a direct attack on the 1st Amendment.
And the J6 case establishes the Federal Gov't as the arbiter of truth, and hinges on know what Trump was actually thinking (they assert he knew he lost fair and square). It also bans "wrongthink" against the gov't and political dissent.
These people - and their supporters - are tyrannical fascists. If they win there will never be another election challenge because people will be too scared to question - meaning they can do whatever they want moving forward in future elections.
3 of these 4 indictments are so much bigger than Trump. The Bragg indictment is a complete joke and just a mud throwing exercise. There's not even a crime listed in it.
Dims believe in censorship, open borders, high crime(see EVERY dim city), weak military, in ANYTHING that will keep them in power.
Now what Dims DO NOT BELIEVE IN...... United States Constitution and its bill of rights
Absolutely. It's obvious that the people we need to target right now to save us all....are the Christians.
I'm not a pharmacist and I don't know why you keep saying that. Be mature. You don't have to agree with me, but calling names isn't the way to goal.Again, Pharmacists have difficulty comprehending what they read apparently.
According to Dershowitz:
“Lawyers wrote legal memoranda outlining possible courses of conduct, including proposing a slate of alternate electors, who would deliver our preferred election results to Congress”
“Now, Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani, along with others, are accused of conspiracy to commit forgery and false statements for drafting their list of alternate electors.”
In 2000, Florida state officials were lobbied to secure recounts in selected counties in which we thought the tally would favor us. We were trying to find at least 600 votes that would change the result.
This new indictment features Trump's phone call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, which was captured in an audio recording. In the conversation, Trump asks Raffensperger to 'find' 12,000 votes.
In my mind, this call is among the most exculpatory pieces of evidence. Trump was entitled as a candidate to ask a Georgia state official to locate votes that he believes were not counted.
The fundamental truth of this indictment is that if the evidence of specific crimes were compelling, there would be no need to charge under the onerous 'intent' requirements of RICO and conspiracy laws. The proof is not compelling, because these electoral challenges have precedent.
Alot more rebuttals here: Dershowitz basically says it’s a laughable case.
DERSHOWITZ: Gore's team and I contested 2000 vote. Why go after Trump?
DERSHOWITZ: Electoral challenges have long been part of American history, only now are they being criminalized. I was one of the lawyers involved in objections to Florida's presidential vote in 2000.www.dailymail.co.uk
Bill Barr disagrees with that assessment. I can name more but what's the point.
RICO laws allow prosecutors to charge multiple people who commit separate crimes while working towards a common goal.
What is Georgia’s RICO law and how does it apply to Trump, allies?
The law enables prosecutors to target people in positions of authority within a criminal organisation.
I don't care what Ghost has to say. He's still on ignore and it's sad that he thinks I will ever respond to him or even read what says. He's obsessed with me, as evil once jokingly said.
Now back to you. You didn't answer my questions. You refuse to but you want me to answer yours? That's not how this works.
Who is this person ^^^ and why are they making wild accusations directed at me?
Why the defamatory remarks?
Slandering my good name. Goodness. Where are the disinformation police to stop free speech when you need them.
Why the defamatory remarks?
Slandering my good name. Goodness. Where are the disinformation police to stop free speech when you need them.
If I was on Ignore, you wouldn't be able to see that @fatman76 replied to me.
Except one lets their distaste for Trump color every judgement and statement and the other cares about the law and basic legal precedent.
The Republican establishment had just as much to do with taking down Trump and destroying his term as the Dems. We’re a one party system .. ruled by greed and working toward a one world gov.
It is actually, the pubs sold out to the Jesus freaks long ago, Barry Goldwater is still rolling over.
This is true but not in the way you understand. Why I never bothered to vote, total joke.
Similar threads
