Biden partner Devon Archer testimony thread

[BrightShinyGirl]

Guilty of what exactly, possession of classified documents? Don’t hear any rhetoric about Joe’s illegal possession of classified documents.

That's a different set of indictments. The new ones that dropped today are related to Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election.

 

[dkovic77]

Keep us posted on the Biden Administration’s secret investigation. Maybe you’re already doing that in a secret thread.

It’s what you do in secret, or not so secret, as a Nazi that concerns most of us.

But makes so much sense for your posts with that knowledge.

 

[icanhelp1]

There were good reasons for ANYONE to question the results of 2020.

1. The Constitution gives EXCLUSIVE authority to State Legislatures to make election laws. Not election commissions, not State Supreme Courts, nobody but State Legislatures! There is NO provision made for “pandemics” or any other “issue” that may arise.
2. Election Laws were changed prior to the 2020 election to allow for mass mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and a number of other States. None of them were approved or enacted by the respective Legislatures.
3. If the Laws were adhered to, Trump would likely have won. Regardless, he had EVERY right to question the results based ONLY on those infractions.

If that’s not enough, in Foster v Love 1997, the SCOTUS ruled that elections not decided by “midnight” on Election Day, are null and void and are hence remanded to the respective State Legislatures to decide. In short, “ballot counting” end at midnight on Election Day and each State MUST report to vote totals. There are a few exceptions but only a few. For reference:

https://thecommonsenseshow.com/acti...d-federal-law-foster-v-love-1997-9-0-decision

To sum it up, you statement that Trump wanted “to steal the election,” is NOT true. Some of his yammering was ridiculous but the right to question the outcome, was well within his rights. No different that the Democrats making almost the exact same arguments in 2016.

His yammering is called free speech which will be challenged in court followed by a motion to dismiss. Conspiracy, at a minimum is 2 individuals followed by an overt action. No statute was named in the indictment. Requesting a speedy trial 2 1/2 years later could be challenged on precedent and timing.

 

[icanhelp1]

That's a different set of indictments. The new ones that dropped today are related to Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election.

I wasn’t referring to the newest indictment.

 

[AlexBailey]

I wasn’t referring to the newest indictment.

Were you trying to say “Biden did the same thing” in regards to the Classified Documents case?

 

[Lazaran]

•


Devon Archer’s testimony was such a nothing burger smothered in weak sauce that none of the RWCJ “members” are even TRYING to make it out to be evidence of anything.



RWCJ “members”

 

[picsonly]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2grptxWkAAAyS2?format=jpg&name=small

 

[icanhelp1]

Were you trying to say “Biden did the same thing” in regards to the Classified Documents case?

Worse!

 

[dkovic77]

There were good reasons for ANYONE to question the results of 2020.

1. The Constitution gives EXCLUSIVE authority to State Legislatures to make election laws. Not election commissions, not State Supreme Courts, nobody but State Legislatures! There is NO provision made for “pandemics” or any other “issue” that may arise.
2. Election Laws were changed prior to the 2020 election to allow for mass mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and a number of other States. None of them were approved or enacted by the respective Legislatures.
3. If the Laws were adhered to, Trump would likely have won. Regardless, he had EVERY right to question the results based ONLY on those infractions.

If that’s not enough, in Foster v Love 1997, the SCOTUS ruled that elections not decided by “midnight” on Election Day, are null and void and are hence remanded to the respective State Legislatures to decide. In short, “ballot counting” end at midnight on Election Day and each State MUST report to vote totals. There are a few exceptions but only a few. For reference:

https://thecommonsenseshow.com/acti...d-federal-law-foster-v-love-1997-9-0-decision

To sum it up, you statement that Trump wanted “to steal the election,” is NOT true. Some of his yammering was ridiculous but the right to question the outcome, was well within his rights. No different that the Democrats making almost the exact same arguments in 2016.

Do you like to quote cases as if no one will ever look it up and realize you are full of shit?

Clearly you do. This case was focused on a primary and not a general election. The case also reinforces that states conduct elections but the congress can alter the overall parameters as needed for federal elections.

Using some wack website that has interpreted something to fit their theory doesn’t make it true. The revaluations there are no where near something that stems from the facts of the Foster case. If it did, as they attempt to say, would have guided the Court in Bush v Gore. Sure didn’t seem to be the case.

If the Cheeto didn’t plan his entire strategy around challenging mail in ballots, maybe a few more of his supporters would have used them and he could have won.

Does the Cheeto have the right to challenge, yes.

Does he have the right to challenge over, over, over, after he knew if he was challenging on a non-factual basis, conspire to have entire slates of fake electors, and push his followers to attack the capitol? Clearly he has chosen poorly.

 

[dkovic77]

Worse!

Ohhh professor. Worse is so definitive. Tell us all how it is worse.

Let us get our s’mores materials ready because this promises to be a hot mess!

 

[HisArpy]

His yammering is called free speech which will be challenged in court followed by a motion to dismiss. Conspiracy, at a minimum is 2 individuals followed by an overt action. No statute was named in the indictment. Requesting a speedy trial 2 1/2 years later could be challenged on precedent and timing.

I think the arraignment on Thursday will have motions for quashing the indictment on all kinds of legal grounds - 1st Amendment, Presidential Immunity, double jeopardy, failure to state a legal claim, etc.

The judge will not agree because it's easier to let a jury sort it all out and/or hope that there's a plea deal down the road. Trump will plead not guilty and then the law & motion phase will begin.

I expect an interlocutory appeal on the legal sufficiency of the indictment and the judge's refusal to quash. There is no legal case here per legal precedent, and the lack of a statutory basis for charging based on the allegations doesn't help.

What's interesting is that if Trump wins, the fact that there are multiple indictments opens the door for him to sue all the individuals, and the government, for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Should the indictments go sideways for the gov, he has a good chance at doing that.

At this point I think most people understand that persecution is what is really happening. All Trump needs to do is get this latest indictment tossed and he's got them by the short hairs.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Do you like to quote cases as if no one will ever look it up and realize you are full of shit?



Does he have the right to challenge over, over, over, after he knew if he was challenging on a non-factual basis,

I’m just beginning to read and digest the latest indictments but this question you’ve raised is one I have as well. The indictment concedes the defendant (Trump) has the right to lie about election results, even if he knew he was lying.

It says he broke the law when he acted upon those lies. The actions included the multiple lawsuits, lobbying state officials to investigate allegations of voter fraud, working with others to find substitute electors in 7 states, and trying to convince Pence that he had the power refuse counting electoral votes.

The prosecution apparently is implying there are legal limits on how many lawsuits can be filed or perhaps limits on the merits of lawsuits. It also implies limits on how far investigations can be taken, and how much pressure or persuasion can be applied. These all strike me as slippery legal slopes that the court will have to contend with. How will it define standards and precedent that can apply to future election disputes?

There’s also the challenge of proving Trump knew he was lying. Plenty of highly qualified and responsible people told him the election was lost, but there were also close advisers (yes, complete nut jobs) who told him the results were based on fraudulent and illegal activities. The court will have to define a standard for determining how one knows they’re lying.

I have no idea how this case will turn out and am not going to attempt to make any predictions on the final outcome. As far as the political implications, I’m still voting for DeSantis in the primary and would be delighted if this gives the Governor’s flailing campaign a boost. Unfortunately I’m not optimistic about that happening.

 

[HisArpy]

I’m just beginning to read and digest the latest indictments but this question you’ve raised is one I have as well. The indictment concedes the defendant (Trump) has the right to lie about election results, even if he knew he was lying.

It says he broke the law when he acted upon those lies. The actions included the multiple lawsuits, lobbying state officials to investigate allegations of voter fraud, working with others to find substitute electors in 7 states, and trying to convince Pence that he had the power refuse counting electoral votes.

The prosecution apparently is implying there are legal limits on how many lawsuits can be filed or perhaps limits on the merits of lawsuits. It also implies limits on how far investigations can be taken, and how much pressure or persuasion can be applied. These all strike me as slippery legal slopes that the court will have to contend with. How will it define standards and precedent that can apply to future election disputes?

There’s also the challenge of proving Trump knew he was lying. Plenty of highly qualified and responsible people told him the election was lost, but there were also close advisers (yes, complete nut jobs) who told him the results were based on fraudulent and illegal activities. The court will have to define a standard for determining how one knows they’re lying.

I have no idea how this case will turn out and am not going to attempt to make any predictions on the final outcome. As far as the political implications, I’m still voting for DeSantis in the primary and would be delighted if this gives the Governor’s flailing campaign a boost. Unfortunately I’m not optimistic about that happening.

DeSantis will flame out soon. He's a great State Governor and might make a good VP at the Fed level, but he's not a leader. He can't think fast enough on his feet and it's really his advisory staff who does the thinking for him behind the scenes.

You can see the change in his political career once he got good advisors on board and started doing/saying what they told him to do/say. Before that point he was mediocre and going nowhere.

You can see the same thing in his Presidential campaign; mediocrity.

 

[dkovic77]

I’m just beginning to read and digest the latest indictments but this question you’ve raised is one I have as well. The indictment concedes the defendant (Trump) has the right to lie about election results, even if he knew he was lying.

It says he broke the law when he acted upon those lies. The actions included the multiple lawsuits, lobbying state officials to investigate allegations of voter fraud, working with others to find substitute electors in 7 states, and trying to convince Pence that he had the power refuse counting electoral votes.

I mean, trying to convince someone to go against the constitution.. seems like something they should be impeached for…

The prosecution apparently is implying there are legal limits on how many lawsuits can be filed or perhaps limits on the merits of lawsuits. It also implies limits on how far investigations can be taken, and how much pressure or persuasion can be applied. These all strike me as slippery legal slopes that the court will have to contend with. How will it define standards and precedent that can apply to future election disputes?

When you file a case it has to have merit- which the Cheeto’s legal team has already been fined in several cases for filing cases with not a shred of evidence.

If there is evidence, there is no issue to bringing to court. Only slippery slope here is the fact you are willing to accept the lack of evidence.

There’s also the challenge of proving Trump knew he was lying. Plenty of highly qualified and responsible people told him the election was lost, but there were also close advisers (yes, complete nut jobs) who told him the results were based on fraudulent and illegal activities. The court will have to define a standard for determining how one knows they’re lying.

A challenge, but there are more than 50 % who can make that judgement at the ballot box. Won’t be the primary voters, but hands the general to Biden.

I have no idea how this case will turn out and am not going to attempt to make any predictions on the final outcome. As far as the political implications, I’m still voting for DeSantis in the primary and would be delighted if this gives the Governor’s flailing campaign a boost. Unfortunately I’m not optimistic about that happening.

I’m sorry, Nazi says what? Our country has gone adrift but it’s not going to support a Nazi candidate like you do. Against, red, white, and blue. Not just red and white.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

DeSantis will flame out soon. He's a great State Governor and might make a good VP at the Fed level, but he's not a leader. He can't think fast enough on his feet and it's really his advisory staff who does the thinking for him behind the scenes.

You can see the change in his political career once he got good advisors on board and started doing/saying what they told him to do/say. Before that point he was mediocre and going nowhere.

You can see the same thing in his Presidential campaign; mediocrity.

Sorry for getting off topic. Since my comment was in response to someone else’s comment on the Trump indictments, I should have made it in one of those threads but I don’t disagree with you that the RDS campaign is probably going to flame out soon. I suspect the same is true for all the other GOP candidates not named Trump.

On that note, I’ll get back to keeping my comments in this thread focused on revelations and reactions to the Devon Archer testimony. Most notably the amusing changes to the narrative from Biden and his supporters.

 

[Bray123]

There were good reasons for ANYONE to question the results of 2020.

1. The Constitution gives EXCLUSIVE authority to State Legislatures to make election laws. Not election commissions, not State Supreme Courts, nobody but State Legislatures! There is NO provision made for “pandemics” or any other “issue” that may arise.
2. Election Laws were changed prior to the 2020 election to allow for mass mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and a number of other States. None of them were approved or enacted by the respective Legislatures.
3. If the Laws were adhered to, Trump would likely have won. Regardless, he had EVERY right to question the results based ONLY on those infractions.

If that’s not enough, in Foster v Love 1997, the SCOTUS ruled that elections not decided by “midnight” on Election Day, are null and void and are hence remanded to the respective State Legislatures to decide. In short, “ballot counting” end at midnight on Election Day and each State MUST report to vote totals. There are a few exceptions but only a few. For reference:

https://thecommonsenseshow.com/acti...d-federal-law-foster-v-love-1997-9-0-decision

To sum it up, you statement that Trump wanted “to steal the election,” is NOT true. Some of his yammering was ridiculous but the right to question the outcome, was well within his rights. No different that the Democrats making almost the exact same arguments in 2016.

Your view that Trump didn't want to steal the election is false. Otherwise he wouldn't have complained to Mike Pence that he was 'too honest'.

 

[icanhelp1]

I think the arraignment on Thursday will have motions for quashing the indictment on all kinds of legal grounds - 1st Amendment, Presidential Immunity, double jeopardy, failure to state a legal claim, etc.

The judge will not agree because it's easier to let a jury sort it all out and/or hope that there's a plea deal down the road. Trump will plead not guilty and then the law & motion phase will begin.

I expect an interlocutory appeal on the legal sufficiency of the indictment and the judge's refusal to quash. There is no legal case here per legal precedent, and the lack of a statutory basis for charging based on the allegations doesn't help.

What's interesting is that if Trump wins, the fact that there are multiple indictments opens the door for him to sue all the individuals, and the government, for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Should the indictments go sideways for the gov, he has a good chance at doing that.

At this point I think most people understand that persecution is what is really happening. All Trump needs to do is get this latest indictment tossed and he's got them by the short hairs.

Exactly! The emotional progressive left and Biden’s posse can’t seem to differentiate between persecution and a legal prosecution. This is impeachment 3.0, all political.

 

[Bray123]

That’s your “evidence?”

There's much more than those two words, but they sum it up. Trump is a liar and that's his defense in one of his cases (it's hard to keep up). That it's his 1A right to lie.

 

[Rightguide]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686389074603765761

These butt-sucking Biden sycophants are a nauseating insult to American manhood.

 

[Rightguide]

Why would Ivanka be subject to legal scrutiny for using her POTUS father’s influence for personal gain?

Ivanka Trump won China trademarks days before her father’s reversal on ZTE.​

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...on-china-trademarks-donald-trump-zte-reversal


“Biden crime family?”



Here’s a Time article from May 2023 comparing some of the allegations against the two families. Both families need some scrutiny.

​

https://time.com/6279053/hunter-biden-trump-children-scandals/​

Now there could be more about the Trump family regarding the deals cut for the Saudi Liv Golf league using Trump properties.

That was a legal enterprise. It's Joe Biden who was "always" selling out our country. The Democrats simply projected Joe's criminal enterprise onto Trump in order to take him out politically.

 

[AlexBailey]

That was a legal enterprise. It's Joe Biden who was "always" selling out our country. The Democrats simply projected Joe's criminal enterprise onto Trump in order to take him out politically.

Yeah, got the evidence?

Your spin machine still says Trump won 2020.

 

[Rightguide]

That's a different set of indictments. The new ones that dropped today are related to Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election.

Prediction number one: The SCOTUS will reverse any J6 conviction of Donald Trump on First Amendment grounds. These latest charges are simple testimony to the weakness inherent in Smith's overall case against Trump.

Prediction number two: Trump will prevail against Smith who has a record of corruption and legal incompetence.

 

[AlexBailey]

Prediction number one: The SCOTUS will reverse any J6 conviction of Donald Trump on First Amendment grounds. These latest charges are simple testimony to the weakness inherent in Smith's overall case against Trump.

Prediction number two: Trump will prevail against Smith who has a record of corruption and legal incompetence.

Your post is bullshit that can only be produced by someone who is either a lying shill and/or has not read the indictments.

 

[Rightguide]

Your post is bullshit that can only be produced by someone who is either a lying shill and/or has not read the indictments.

Your posts are evidence of a lack of legal knowledge and historical knowledge as well. We've been here before with Jack Smith:

HIS RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF:​

• From 2010 to 2015, Smith served under Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, leading the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section. The Obama Administration set in motion Democrats’ Coup against Trump from Day One of his presidency. (Excerpt from Lee Smith’s book, October 2019, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History”).
• Among his more notable corruption cases, Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican. Although Smith scored a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” (Politico, 6/27/16). The High Court also rebuked Smith and warned that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”
• Smith prosecuted and convicted former Democrat vice presidential nominee John Edwards. “By not losing on any of the six felony counts for which he was being tried, John Edwards won the biggest victory of his political and legal life . . . A mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one resulted in a clear -- if not complete -- legal vindication and a likely fatal setback for federal prosecutors seeking to convict the former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.” (U.S. News, June 1, 2012).
• Smith prosecuted Democrat Bob Menendez on public corruption charges. The case ended in a mistrial. “The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong, and the way it was tried was wrong as well,” Menendez said outside the courtroom at the time.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).

https://americafirstpolicy.com/latest/fact-sheet-jack-smith-a-record-that-speaks-for-itself

 

[AlexBailey]

Your posts are evidence of a lack of legal knowledge and historical knowledge as well. We've been here before with Jack Smith:

HIS RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF:​

• From 2010 to 2015, Smith served under Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder, leading the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section. The Obama Administration set in motion Democrats’ Coup against Trump from Day One of his presidency. (Excerpt from Lee Smith’s book, October 2019, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History”).
• Among his more notable corruption cases, Smith prosecuted the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, a Republican. Although Smith scored a conviction against McDonnell, the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.” (Politico, 6/27/16). The High Court also rebuked Smith and warned that “the uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers.”
• Smith prosecuted and convicted former Democrat vice presidential nominee John Edwards. “By not losing on any of the six felony counts for which he was being tried, John Edwards won the biggest victory of his political and legal life . . . A mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one resulted in a clear -- if not complete -- legal vindication and a likely fatal setback for federal prosecutors seeking to convict the former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.” (U.S. News, June 1, 2012).
• Smith prosecuted Democrat Bob Menendez on public corruption charges. The case ended in a mistrial. “The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong, and the way it was tried was wrong as well,” Menendez said outside the courtroom at the time.” (Washington Examiner, 6/5/23).

https://americafirstpolicy.com/latest/fact-sheet-jack-smith-a-record-that-speaks-for-itself

You don’t see the bias in that piece? Find something real.

The “Democrats’ coup”

You provide “evidence” by quoting the defendant criticizing the case?

Keep spinning.

Let’s see you break down the indictment against Trump - in your own words instead of cut and pasting your favorite Maga headpiece.