Georgia starts investigation into Trump's election interference

I am not denying anything; I am simply saying your original statement that you asserted was a VERBATIM quote was factually incorrect. Period.

 

To be clear, I am not saying he shouldn't be charged if he has done something as substantial as the allegations are - I will just say that this a sad day for the USA.

 

LOL, sometimes you love to get sidetracked on minor technicalities that are irrelevant to the main point. I fully expect this to continue. Don't prove me wrong.

 

Yes I didn't think you were saying he shouldn't chaged and it is a sad day that a former President has been indicted and had his mugshot taken.

I think though reaffirming the rule of law is a good thing. We've loaded up our Presidents with all sorts of significance but they aren't kings. I think we need to be reminded of that every now and then.

 

It's been weeks of you saying "Down is up" about this and you're still wrong. Saying it ad nauseam won't make it true.

 

You are Trump-triggered stupid if you actually believe this, and I don't hesitate to think you do believe this.

I have relatives that believe in the stupidest things when it comes to Trump. They just collectively all lost their minds. Outside of Trump, they are normal, decent, smart people. But when it's about Trump this or that, they are just so damn dumb and stupid.

 

Crazy...

 

Well - this is happening.

I guess just because you are President of the United States doesn't mean that you cannot be a mob boss.

Electing that man President of the USA is one of the worst things we have done as a country in recent memory.

 

lol
Os woke up this morning and put on the full clown make up.

 

not minor and not a technicality. A claim was made about a putative VERBATIM quote:

I provided evidence that the statement was NOT verbatim but instead was "I just want to find 11,780 votes . . . ."

the difference in propositional logic between the correct and incorrect versions of the statement are the same as if someone made a descriptive or explanatory statement,

"I just want dinner."

versus making a statement that could be construed as an imperative:

"I just want YOU to make ME dinner."

so no, not minor, and not a technicality

 

LOL

 

She got the crazy eyes.............makes perfect sense.

 

Here is what Trump said. He's trying to intimidate Raffensberger.

He lied about moving machinery, told Raffensperger he can't let that happen. And then instructed him on the different course of action which was finding the votes.

Trump also said this.

That's pretty plain especially in the context with the other statements.He's literally telling Raffensperger what to do and which types of people to use.

 

I believe his meaning is far more ambiguous than you claim here. And it is precisely his intent and meaning that will be crucial to interpret during the trial. I do not believe the case is open and shut.

 

It is not really ambiguous at all. A mobster telling someone that they will sleep with the fishes, isn't using the words "I'm going to kill you" But it's meaning is unambiguously the exact same.

Trump threatened and then told Raffensperger what he should do to change the result.

 

we can agree to disagree

 

thx for not proving me wrong