Yes.

I have responded to your three points. — NOS4A2

Your "response" was to evade the points.You had asked:

What do you infer from the Georgia phone call and why? — NOS4A2

I answered:

1)Trump didn't care to see the evidence that disproved his fraud claims. 2) Trump lied about what was said, the day after the call. 3) Trump threatened the governor & Secretary of State. — Relativist

You responded:

Trump said some things. — NOS4A2

This is the only "response" you made to my points, and it said nothing - it was neither an agreement nor dispute of the inferences I made. So I tried to prompt a real answer:

Do you agree with my points? If not, then explain why. — Relativist

And you never replied. If you won't answer, I am left with the impression you have no interest (and perhaps no ability) in having an honest discussion.

I wanted to give him a chance to be reasonable, but so far he hasn't made the effort.

We are not confident, however, that this is the case. Our investigation gathered evidence that showed that a number of those closest to the investigation believed that the standard arguably had not been met. For example, both
Supervisory Special Agent-1 and UK ALA T-1 described the predication for the investigation as "thin." Even Strzok, who both drafted and approved the Opening EC, said that "there's nothing to this, but we have to run it to ground." Strzok' s view would seem to dictate the opening of the matter as an assessment or, at most, as a preliminary investigation.

Durham fails to mention that at least a preliminary investigation had to be opened to pursue the Papadopoulous lead. He does allude to it being a judgement call as to whether or not it would be preliminary or full. Durham judged a preliminary was more appropriate (he made this judgement before his investigation); but FBI leadership made a different judgement - and it was within their right to do so. He also fails to note that it would have to be raised to full when the Steele material became available- so it's really a non- point. He also fails to note that Crossfire led to the fruitful Mueller investigation, after Trump fired Comey - for the stated purpose of ending the Russia investigation. During Mueller, Trump behaved suspiciously and obstructed justice by dangling pardons to keep people quiet (like Manafort and Stone). The investigation confirmed illegal Russian interference, the Trump campaign's receptiveness to getting the assistance, and the collusion with Julian Assange on release of the stolen DNC emails. These violated no statutes, but it was sleazy - and closer fits the definition of "cheating" than anything done in 2020. Why did Trump want Stone and Manafort to keep quiet? It's suggestive of wanting to hide something, but we'll never get an answer to that because Barr killed it.

You have not responded to the 3 points I gave you about the Georgia call. What's the problem?

John Durham’s report in combination with the IG report shows it was a hoax and an utter failure in bureaucratic competence. — NOS4A2

Wrong. Some errors were made, but the investigation was warranted. It exposed crimes, exposed corrupt activities by the Trump campaign, and hit a brick wall because of Trump's obstruction of justice.

Are you going to respond to the corrupt acts of Trump's that I referenced in my last comment to you?

I'll get there, but first- please respond to the 3 points I made (refer to paragraphs 31& 32 in the indictment). Do you agree with my points? If not, then explain why.

Here's 3 key points from the Georgia call, which seem undeniable:

1)Trump didn't care to see the evidence that disproved his fraud claims. 2) Trump lied about what was said, the day after the call. 3) Trump threatened the governor & Secretary of State.

this is something that Trump and NOS deny is possible — Fooloso4

Even if NOS believes it not possible for the judge and jury to be objective, he could, still evaluate the evidence and help assess what an objective judge/jury would decide, if it were possible. This would then be a better basis to judge whether or not the process was, or wasn't, fair - in the end.

None of us are truly objective, but it helps us be more objective when we have an honest exchange with someone with an opposing viewpoint - if they're willing to be reasonable. I'm giving him an opportunity to be reasonable.

The evidence suggests his inferences are utterly baseless. — NOS4A2

Trump's Georgia phone call, and subsequent lies about it, suggest otherwise. I brought up specific details earlier, and you ignored them. This is what I mean: you don't engage with the details of the case, but simply make general, dismissive claims.

Smith undoubtedly believes Trump knew the election was not stolen, but that's moot at this point. What matters will be the jury's evaluation of the evidence. As I said, we can try to make educated guesses of the jury result by evaluating the evidence ourselves. You've displayed no interest in doing that, and instead just respond like a conspiracy theorist saying, "prove me wrong".

I don’t know. Unlike Benkei I don’t pretend to know the future. — NOS4A2

Of course you don't "know", but most of us are trying to make an educated guess about the future. This entails trying to objectively evaluate the evidence and the laws, and (I suggest) assuming an objective judge and jury. That's what I've been hoping you would do, but you haven't really engaged directly with the evidence.

What you HAVE done is to argue that we can't "know" what's in Trump's mind, while also proclaiming what's in prosecutors' minds:

They knowingly made false accusations that Trump knowingly made false claims. — NOS4A2

[

I don’t care if God himself told him the election was legit. You, like Smith, are trying to read Trump’s mind. You in fact do not know that he knowingly made false claims. You know you don’t know because you in fact cannot read minds. You’re guessing, making it up, or being told what to believe, and I’m not sure which is worse. — NOS4A2

Personally, I'm interested in hearing a Trump supporter's perspective of the evidence. I had thought NOS4A2 might provide that. I've been disappointed so far.

There is no evidence of any crime or criminal activity — NOS4A2

. Are you therefore predicting the charges will be dismissed? If not, why not?

Before the election, Steve Bannon said Trump would declare victory before all the votes were counted. See: this

The president has the authority to fire who he wants, and for whatever reason. Zero corruption there. You have to show that he corruptly defrauded the United States or denied people their rights, all of which is piffle. — NOS4A2

The firing was secondary. He wanted them to LIE. How is that not corrupt, irrespective of the (il)legality?

In fact, Trump told a number of lies - including lying about what Mike Pence said and lying about the Georgia Secretary of State. Do you acknowledge he lied about them?

You’d have to prove he did so corruptly. Any quote or admission would suffice, given proper context. Inference by projection or conspiracy theory just doesn’t cut it. — NOS4A2

A blatant example of corruption was Trump's asking Rosen (the acting AG) to lie, and "say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congress". (This came AFTER Trump went through a litany of fraud allegations that deputy AG Donaghue refuted one by one). After the AG refused, Trump pursued replacing him with Jeffrey Clark, who had drafted a letter to be sent to State Legislatures falsely stating exactly that.

I don’t care if God himself told him the election was legit. You, like Smith, are trying to read Trump’s mind. You in fact do not know that he knowingly made false claims. You know you don’t know because you in fact cannot read minds. You’re guessing, making it up, or being told what to believe, and I’m not sure which is worse — NOS4A2

Prosecution doesn't require the certainty of mind-reading, it merely requires establishing corrupt intent based on evidence. I presented some of the evidence, and you ignored it - labeling all of it "political speech". Perpetrating a fraud is not protected political speech. Asking the acting AG (who clearly knew the election wasn't stolen) to lie entails fraud. If Trump truly believed the election was stolen, it reflects a truly reckless disregard for the truth. The 2 counts of conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding do not depend on Trump's knowing there was no fraud. By Jan 6, there was no legal recourse even if there actually had been fraud.

They knowingly made false accusations that Trump knowingly made false claims. — NOS4A2

There's no basis for claiming Smith "knowingly made a false allegation. You obviously didn't read the indictment. Here's a bit of the evidence Smith presents:

A number of sources told Trump there had been no outcome determinative fraud:

-His campaign hired the Berkely Group Simpatico Software Systems to investigate, and both concluded there was no widespread fraud.
-Bill Barr told him there was no fraud (subsequently, Barr resigned)
-Chris Krebs, head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) told him there was no fraud. Trump fired him.
-White House Counsel advised him there was no fraud.
-Various State Officials told him there was no fraud in their states (e.g. Rusty Bowers in Arizona, Raffensberger in Georgia, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey).
-Mark Meadows told Trump he’d observed the efforts of Georgia officials were “conducting themselves in an exemplary fashion”…who would find fraud if it existed. Within hours, Trump tweeted that the election officials were “terrible people” who were trying to cover-up evidence of fraud. Another lie to support his false narrative. (As Jack Smith says, lying is not a crime, per se. But perpetuating a fraud by lying IS a crime).

-Deputy AG Richard Donoghue and acting AG Jeffrey Rosen refuted every allegation Trump asked them about. Despite their clearly stated position, Trump asked them to to lie (weaponizing the DOJ): “say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congress”. Trump tried to replace Rosen with a co-conspirator who WOULD support his false claim, but backed down over threats of widespread resignations.

In his famously recorded call to Georgia officials on Jan 2, Trump brought up a variety of fraud allegations (e.g. the State Farm Arena claim about suitcases of ballots appearing from nowhere, out of state voters, dead voters, destruction of ballots). The Georgia Secretary of State explained that each of them had been thoroughly investigated and the claims were false. Regarding the State Farm Arena allegation, the Secretary offered to send Trump a full video showing the alleged suitcases of ballots were innocent. Trump declined, and the very next day, he issued a statement falsely stating the Georgia Secretary of State had not addressed his allegations, and that the Secretary of State had been unwilling or unable to answer questions such as “the ‘ballots under the table’, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters and more”. Trump lied about what had been said, and clearly was not interested in examining the refutation of the “ballots under the table” claim.

In a meeting on Jan 5, Pence told Trump he did not have the power to obstruct the election certification. That evening, Trump released the false statement “The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.

So the evidence shows Trump told multiple self-serving lies, disregarded evidence, attempted to weaponize the DOJ by trying to get the AG and Deputy AG to lie. This demonstrates a corrupt state of mind and a blatant disregard for the truth. There’s also 2 bits of direct evidence Trump knew he lost:

1. In a Jan 3 meeting with General Milley, Trump said, "it's too late for us" and "we're going to give that to the next guy."
2. While watching Biden on TV in mid-November, Trump said to White House Aide Alyssa Farah, “can you believe I lost to this effing guy”?

All this adds up to evidence Trump knew he lost, so you’re absolutely wrong to claim the Special Counsel lied about this. Of course, you could deny this evidence proves his knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. But what’s the explanation for dismissing the analyses of so many, in favor of people like Sydney Powell (who Trump referred to as “sounding crazy”)? Any defense he might use cannot reflect positively on him.
.

More fake word crimes levied from a political DOJ towards the regime’s biggest opponent. What’s new? — NOS4A2

What's the basis of your judgement that the DOJ indictments are "fake"?

On a related note, have you read the indictments?

Back to Trump - I think it's pretty clear there are going to be both Jan 6th (Federal) and Georgia (State) indictments issued in the next month, by which time Trump will be under an enormous number of indictments many of which carry long jail terms. I'm hoping that it will simply become obvious by end this year/early 2024 that it is completely impractical, apart from anything else, for him to actually be the Republican presidential candidate. Heck, one of the Republican speakers at Iowa said that Trump is only running to keep himself out of prison - he was booed for it, but he still said it! — Quixodian

Most Republican voters are in denial about Trump's crimes - there's no other explanation for his current polling. More indictments won't change that. I think Will Hurd is right that Trump is running to stay out of prison, so the number of indictments won't matter.

Although he'd have no formal power to call off the State indictments, he'd have an excuse to get the trial postponed while he's in office - and meanwhile, pressure the state to drop the charges.

This is exactly why we need a wealth tax for those who are able to use this scheme, and why we should retain estate taxes.

No evidence, except it's his son and his son is getting preferential treatment from the justice department. It looks bad. — RogueAI

Is it truly a sweatheart deal? It's hard to find objective analysis. GOP still claims Hillary should have been indicted, although the evidence shows she was treated the same as others.

You referenced the whistleblowers:

And there are two whistleblowers who stated under oath that there was. — RogueAI

And yet, David Weiss disputes their claims. They could be giving their honest perceptions, but may not have an accurate understanding.

The alleged quote from Hunter claiming to be sitting next to his dad may, or may not, be accurate (Hunter's lawyers have denied it). But assuming Hunter actually said it, it only implicates Joe if Hunter was telling the truth (which is questionable). Finally, it has nothing to do with the plea deal, but it is something that needs to be investigated.

I don't agree. The plea deal that fell apart was a sweetheart deal. It looks bad. — RogueAI

What's the evidence Joe Biden had anything to do with it?

Do you think the DOJ is an independent agency of the US government — NOS4A2

No. But as I said, there's no evidence the DOJ is being influenced by Biden as Republicans allege.

The argument is that Biden’s DOJ is benefitting Biden while trying to ruin his political opponent. — NOS4A2

That "argument" is a political allegation unsupported by evidence. The irony is that there was abundant evidence of Trump's efforts to influence the DOJ. It's as if Trumpists think that was normal, and thus assume Biden is following suit.

Only you can answer that question,since only you exist.

I'm convinced the majority of Congressional GOP know the allegation is nonsense (idiots like MTG notwithstanding). But they know the fiction appeals to their base, so they milk it.

they are spreading a conspiracy theory and misinformation before an election. — NOS4A2

That wasn't an irrational conspiracy theory- the Russians did such things in 2016- and they merely noted this seemed consistent, while not denying it possibly being real. They were telling the truth as they saw it, so they did nothing morally or legally wrong. I already noted it was politically motivated, but you're going to have to explain what's wrong with that. I gather you don't like the fact it was an (unintentional) untruth. Shall I tally up the intentional untruths spread by Trump & his supporters in all 3 of the elections he's been
involved with?

I’m surprised you weren’t there telling everyone “it needs to be investigated, rather than jump to conclusions in any either direction.” — NOS4A2

When I read the letter in 2020, I focused on the sentences I quoted, and accepted that the laptop info might be true. I read the NY Post articles, deciphered the real info from the hyperbole and speculation, and concluded Hunter Biden is an asshole drug-addict, but also saw nothing implicating Joe. It was reported the FBI had the info and were investigating, and yes- I thought that appropriate.

You seem upset that a misleading letter was sent for political purposes. Why does it matter, given that the laptop doesn't implicate Joe?

why are you being a running dog for the CIA? The entire purpose of the letter was to frame it as disinfo, to sew the seeds of doubt in the public, and to provide Biden with a talking point should Trump bring up the laptop in the debate. — NOS4A2

You're treating a distorted partisan narrative as established fact. No signatories of the letter were in the CIA at the time of signing. They could only be guilty of disinformation if they knew the laptop was legitimate, but I've seen no evidence that any of them (or Blinkin) actually knew the laptop data was legitimate. It does makes perfect sense for the campaign to want to minimize attention to the distraction - that's the nature of political campaigns.But your partisan outrage leads you to jump to the conclusion they lied, and that this constitutes cheating, and then criticize me for failing to do the same.

You also exaggerate what the letter said - I quoted it in my last post. They wrote that THEY DIDN'T KNOW if it was genuine, and given the context (which I described- and you are free to rebut), how COULD they know? And what exactly was the impact? It didn't stop Trump from making exaggerated claims about it. Trump lost because people voted against him. Do you seriously believe they wouldn't have voted against Trump if they knew the laptop was legit? Now that we know it's legit, and we know what's on it, why should it affect anyone's vote? It doesn't implicate Joe as anything but a concerned father (notwithstanding additional partisan distortion).

I try to form opinions by evaluating allegations and evidence similarly to the criminal justice system. An accusation is, at best, a good reason to investigate further (as I said about the whistleblower); it is not proof positive of guilt. I apply the same standard regardless of the person or party. You can't say the same.

Hunter linked daddy to Chinese deal in threat to business partner.
Joe Biden showed up at business meetings with Hunter and his Chinese partners.
The FBI authenticated Hunter Biden's laptop almost a year before we knew it existed and found no evidence of misinformation. Former intel officials come out and say it’s misinformation before the election. — NOS4A2

Mischaracterization. The former intel officials did not say it was misinformation. Here's a quote from the letter:

We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by
President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have
evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the
Russian government played a significant role in this case.

Considering the circumstances, it was a reasonable comment. Rudy G. (a man of questionable veracity, who also brought forward the false allegation from Viktor Shokin that Joe got him fired to halt the Burisma investigation) brought the laptop image to the NY Post (an ultra-partisan newspaper), and it wasn't shared with any other sources. Plus, it's firmly established that Russia had planted misinformation in the 2016 election - so it wasn't a wild leap to think it MIGHT be misinformation, given what we knew.

Hunter deducted hooker and sex club payments from his taxes
The investigation into Hunter Biden had started due to a foreign porn website back in the 2018, and of course all of this was hidden from the public, unlike anti-Trump leaks.

"Hidden"? It's policy to keep investigations private, unless and until an indictment is made. You complain of "anti-Trump" leaks, and yet everything we know about the Hunter investigation is a product of leaks.

Prosecutors wanted to charge Hunter with felonies, but all he got was misdemeanors.
Biden’s Department of Justice worked to block the investigation.
Agents wanted to search Biden family homes but were told the optics would be too bad.
IRS wanted search warrant for Hunter’s storage locker but a Biden-appointed prosecutor tipped off his lawyers.

As you know, a Trump appointed prosecutor (Weiss) was given free rein to handle Hunter's investigation and worked the plea deal with Hunter's attorneys. Plea deals are common. I have read the IRS Whistleblower's testimony, and it means one of three things: 1) Weiss and Garland have both lied; 2) the whistleblower lied; 3) the whistleblower misunderstood something that was said.

I absolutely want the whistleblower's allegation investigated to find the truth. But you've obviously already made up your mind. I'll note that there's been no evidence of Joe Biden's involvement. Joe promised to keep the DOJ independent, and there's no evidence he's interfered (contrast this with Trump's frequent pressure on Jeff Sessions & Bill Barr.).

Agents wanted to search Biden family homes but were told the optics would be too bad.
IRS wanted search warrant for Hunter’s storage locker but a Biden-appointed prosecutor tipped off his lawyers. — NOS4A2

This is according to the whistleblowers, and it absolutely should be investigated. But bear in mind, this occurred when Trump was President in June 2020. The DOJ has a policy of standing down on matters that are relevant during an election during the 3 months prior to the election. The controversy seems to surround the fact that this was a couple months prior to the official "freeze". Were they, perhaps, exercising extra caution to avoid an appearance of partisanship - as when Obama failed to make a fuss in 2016 about Russia's campaign assistance for Trump? (see: this). Given Trump's public interference with DOJ, a bit of extra caution might have been in his best interests. But again- it needs to be investigated, rather than jump to conclusions in any either direction. An allegation isn't proof; at worst, it points to a need to investigate.

The double standards are between those who oppose the deep state and those who do not. — NOS4A2

So you're a conspiracy theorist. That says it all. It provides context for your obvious confirmation bias.

The real problem is the preferential treatment, the justice system and intelligence community protecting one of its own. — NOS4A2

The problem with your claim is that it seem to merely be parrotting a GOP talking point, that is rooted in applying confirmation bias to anecdotal evidence, applying false equivalences, and an unwillingness to consider their guy uniquely culpable. We're all partisan, but that doesn't excuse poor reasoning.

A lot of people in the Trump sphere w8llfully did bad things, and there may very well be enough evidence to prosecute. That fact doesn't entail bias. AFAIK, there's nothing close on the left. The comparisons seem rooted in:

1) Dissatisfaction with the failure to indict Hillary in 2016 (ignoring the reason she wasn't indicted).
2) Treating weak evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden as proof of crimes, and then leaping to the conclusion DOJ is treating him differently.
3) Failing to consider the possibility Trump (et al) willfully broke multiple laws, and there's sufficient evidence to prosecute.

You're a smart guy, so I'd love to hear your perspective- in particular, describing your basis for believing the DOJ applies a double standard between Dems & GOP (cognizant of the issues I described).

You cannot name a single person whose life is at risk — NOS4A2

I note that you had nothing to say with regard to my debunking your claim about these documents being his personal records, as opposed to Presidential Records under the PRA. Instead, you've moved the goalpost - making it unreachable, since I cannot possibly know what's in the documents. Neither do you, and yet you assume it's a false claim. No national security expert would agree with you.

“The purpose of an Espionage Act prosecution, however, is not to punish a person for spying for the enemy, selling secrets for personal gain, or trying to undermine our way of life. It is to ruin the whistleblower personally, professionally and financially. It is meant to send a message to anybody else considering speaking truth to power: challenge us and we will destroy you.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/obama-abuse-espionage-act-mccarthyism

This is a new sort of McCarthyism and I’m glad I’m not on your side. Morally speaking, I put all activities of this sort in the morally depraved category, and any defense of it under the category of deep-state boot licking. — NOS4A2

Trump is a hypocrite, not a whistleblower exposing some bad acts by the government (btw, actual whistleblowers, like Snowden, understand the legal risk they're taking), and he's only being prosecuted because he hid documents he should not have had from Evan Corcoran, who was conducting a search to satisfy the demands of the Grand Jury subpoena, and because Trump's words and actions led to a false statement in the affidavit confirming the search was thorough and all docs with classified markings had been found and returned. Had he made a good faith effort to comply with the search warrant, there would be no charges. This is unequivocal obstruction of justice (remember Nixon? Obstruction was the final nail in HIS coffiin), and this is what establishes his corrupt intent.

What's your excuse for putting him above prosecution for obstruction of justice?

This short video featuring Bill Barr makes the same case I made.

This idea of 'inaction against Biden (and Clinton and whoever)' is a blatant falsehood, comparing spurious allegations of wrongdoing with mountains of documentary evidence and witness testimony in the cases concerning Trump. So too all the complaints about the 'politicization' and 'weaponization' of the DoJ and FBI - all the politicization is coming from Trump and his stooges in an effort to discredit the very well-founded allegations against him. — Wayfarer

100% agree. It seems to me this originates in the fact that Trump has been investigated so much, and GOP is loath to think any investigation of him can possibly have merit. Whereas others notice how many of the investigations into Trump and his associates have borne fruit and exposed actual crimes.

I'll add this to your solid info: Hunter was added to the Burisma board AFTER the illegal activities occurred, and his specific role isn't implicated in any crimes. Still, it could be that his undeserved high salary was a quasi-bribe, but I don't see that Burisma got anything out of it. Hunter has a history of making money off his name. It's a questionable practice, but it's not unique to the Bidens.

High Five! Welcome aboard!

It's surreal, but it works up their audience (=Trump's base). I'm also amazed at how much mileage the GOP is getting out of the FBI 1023 form, and how it's been misrepresented. (see this thread).

Trump could roll a blunt with those documents for all I care. Neither the DOJ nor NARA have the power to designate documents presidential or personal records. That discretion lies solely with the executive. — NOS4A2

This overlooks the very reason the Presidential Records Act was passed: it was in response to Nixon's treating Presidential Records (including recordings) as his private property. Your interpretation would render the act meaningless.

Andrew McCarthy (a conservative contributor to the Conservative "National Review", who's also a former federal prosecutor) lays it all out in this article: Frivolous Trump Argument No. 1: Classified Intelligence Reports Compiled by Government Agencies Are ‘Personal Records’ under the Presidential Records Act

Of course, Trump's attorney's may challenge the Constitutionality of the PRA, but that seems to me quite a longshot.

Welcome! I'll keep an eye out for Wonderer. Would be great if Johan, Harvey and Sanoy were to join - then it would be like old times.

↪NOS4A2
So if I'm following you correctly, Trump (if he so choose to do so) could have

1) Rquested the blueprints for building an H-Bomb (or the nuclear codes or a list of all foreign secret assets or etc),
2) Declared them to be his personal property,
3) Taken them with him when he left office (since they're now his personal property)
4) And then sell them to the highest bidder (or put them on Truth Social)

And all this would be perfectly legal. Am I getting this correct? — EricH

I asked him the same question in the other thread, although I much prefer the way you asked it. Looking forward to his answer.

Are you the same GRWelsh from the Reasonable Faith Forum? If so, you may remember me as Fred.