Trump Moves To File Charges Against Clinton

As American citizens, we have a right to be adamant about any form of corruption or fraud in our elections.

originally posted by: ValentineWiggin
If even a non-Trump supporter can see the fraud (worst case scenerio even), then why does the strong reaction to Trump's statements exist?

That is what I meant, he isn't saying that he sees it or that it exists. He is saying that even if there was anything to it that is as far as it would go.

Of course it would be best if he cleared that up.

I was pointing out that it is hard for me to follow these two very different ideas at once. That democrats/the media in general are so appalled by the idea Donald Trump would say the election is rigged, while at the same time these videos exist and seem to prove that there was fraud.

You are assuming that those that do see voter fraud in those videos are also appalled. Those would be the only instances where your claim of confusion would make sense.

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots

(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent— (1) to incite a riot; or (2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or (3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or (4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1] Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (b) In any prosecution under this section, proof that a defendant engaged or attempted to engage in one or more of the overt acts described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) [2] and (1) has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or (2) has use of or used any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including but not limited to, mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, to communicate with or broadcast to any person or group of persons prior to such overt acts, such travel or use shall be admissible proof to establish that such defendant traveled in or used such facility of interstate or foreign commerce.

www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: AboveBoard

Well, I am no lawyer.

originally posted by: ValentineWiggin
a reply to: AboveBoard

Well, I am no lawyer.

lol! Neither am I!! No doubt phalanxes of them are being assembled as I type!

a reply to: AboveBoard

I think he just went with what others are saying about the videos.

Remember when Trump cancelled his Chicago rally?
Well, Illinois has this statute:
This is a FELONY.

(720 ILCS 5/25-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 25-1) Sec. 25-1. Mob action. (a) A person commits mob action when he or she engages in any of the following: (1) the knowing or reckless use of force or violence disturbing the public peace by 2 or more persons acting together and without authority of law; (2) the knowing assembly of 2 or more persons with the intent to commit or facilitate the commission of a felony or misdemeanor; or (3) the knowing assembly of 2 or more persons, without authority of law, for the purpose of doing violence to the person or property of anyone supposed to have been guilty of a violation of the law, or for the purpose of exercising correctional powers or regulative powers over any person by violence. (b) Sentence. (1) Mob action in violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) is a Class 4 felony. (2) Mob action in violation of paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) is a Class C misdemeanor. (3) A participant in a mob action that by violence inflicts injury to the person or property of another commits a Class 4 felony. (4) A participant in a mob action who does not withdraw when commanded to do so by a peace officer commits a Class A misdemeanor. (5) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, a court shall order any person convicted of mob action to perform community service for not less than 30 and not more than 120 hours, if community service is available in the jurisdiction and is funded and approved by the county board of the county where the offense was committed. In addition, whenever any person is placed on supervision for an alleged offense under this Section, the supervision shall be conditioned upon the performance of the community service. This paragraph does not apply when the court imposes a sentence of incarceration. (Source: P.A. 96-710, eff. 1-1-10; 97-1108, eff. 1-1-13.)

www.ilga.gov...

a reply to: xuenchen

We are being told that Donald Trump is going to press charges on these people

From your link. Which contains not one word to substantiate the claim.

How some of you — I mean the white reactionaries who have pinned their hopes on this marmalade-coloured demagogue — have sacrificed moral and intellectual integrity to preserve your belief in him. How will you recover them after it is all over?

a reply to: AboveBoard



Absolutely!

Yeah. Well, when the actual footage is subpoenaed during discovery, and the "entirely different story" (i.e. the real one) is told, we'll see what's what.

I welcome the truth, if it comes out in court, so be it.

a reply to: BlueAjah

You also have to look at the definitions:

(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

From what I heard the tactic was baiting rally-goer's. I don't think baiting falls within this definition.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wouldn't you think Trump's team of lawyers would have all that?

originally posted by: daskakik
I don't know how sheltered a person must be to not know that this is the way it has always been.

Lmfao? And child molesters have always molested children. I suppose we should start letting them get away with that, huh? Better yet, let's put them in the white house!

a reply to: BlueAjah

From what I understand (and again, I am not a lawyer) there would have to be evidence that Hillary, herself, ordered there to be violence at rallies. They would also have to prove that the guy saying they had planted "unstable" people wasn't just making that up - there would need to be demonstrable evidence other than his statement, AND, again, it would have to be Hillary's order for her to bear any responsibility for that.

Do they have that as evidence? I haven't seen it yet. Did I miss something?? (I'm going on the thread title, here, regarding charging Clinton.)

If they don't, they don't have a case against her. They MIGHT have a case against others, but only if there is proof.

peace,
AB

originally posted by: Josh0h
Lmfao? And child molesters have always molested children. I suppose we should start letting them get away with that, huh? Better yet, let's put them in the white house!

Is campaigning a crime?

Strawmen need not apply.

They need to change the motto of this site from Deny Ignornace to Willful Ignorance

Judges, CIA, FBI and other were buddy-buddy with Clinton and she got off Scott free for something ANYONE else would have never seen another free day in their life. Whatever riots were incited incited by Clinton, she is way removed by way of her hands being dirty. No chance they connect this to her..

I seem to recall a man rushing the stage at a rally in Dayton. There was other violence as well. Since we now know that orders were coming from the Clinton campaign, all violence is suspect.
Ohio has this law:

2917.01 Inciting to violence. (A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply: (1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed; (2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence. (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree.

codes.ohio.gov...

It seems that most states have their own laws.
Clinton broke many laws in many states by authorizing inciting violence at Trump rallies.

a reply to: xuenchen

It's like a game of "Battleship".
A-Eight file away!



You sunk my battle wagon!

a reply to: Astyanax

From your link. Which contains not one word to substantiate the claim.

Yeah, it appears that way.

How some of you — I mean the white reactionaries who have pinned their hopes on this marmalade-coloured demagogue — have sacrificed moral and intellectual integrity to preserve your belief in him. How will you recover them after it is all over?

Even the best of us get triggered, lol.

(mind your language!)