Who is going to make the case for election interference

Lets start with the statute:

Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization.

18 USC 595

Which state or US district attorney has the testicular fortitude to bring this case?

Myself, I find the statute fairly cut and dry. Now I'm a moron, so maybe there is something big that I'm missing here. The elements for example of the statute.

We all should know the hoax about Russia's election interference. That was based on bullsnip yet was allowed through.

Conversely, the US has violated this abroad since the inception of the CIA. It's policy.

Who thinks they wouldn't do it here at home?

originally posted by: JinMI
Lets start with the statute:

Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization.

18 USC 595

Which state or US district attorney has the testicular fortitude to bring this case?

Myself, I find the statute fairly cut and dry. Now I'm a moron, so maybe there is something big that I'm missing here. The elements for example of the statute.

We all should know the hoax about Russia's election interference. That was based on bullsnip yet was allowed through.

Conversely, the US has violated this abroad since the inception of the CIA. It's policy.

Who thinks they wouldn't do it here at home?

What is the Most Conservative State Right Now ? Maybe a Federal Judge there would Consider Hearing that Case if Presented in a Convincing Manner .

a reply to: JinMI
I can only respond in the negative…not a single member of either party in Congress…NOT ONE.

And that is indicative of a conspiracy to defraud, given the abundance of evidence

a reply to: JinMI

Won't matter if there is no election.

a reply to: JinMI

That summation involves a heap ton of people. I’m with you Joe b being number 1 . I’d like to see anyone who was a part of this election fraud be dealt with . This election was all about fraud and people breaking the law . Starting with the doj and every 3 letter agency , Twitter , Facebook . I want to see prison sentences . Life or worse .

a reply to: JinMI

It'll never happen because. . . . .

Any legitimate investigation into Biden will be seen as a comparison to the illegal investigations into Trump.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI

It'll never happen because. . . . .

Any legitimate investigation into Biden will be seen as a comparison to the illegal investigations into Trump.

Pfft.

lets just print up the indictment, publish it, then have a GJ vote on it.

C'mon maaan, this isn't hard.

a reply to: JinMI

Me being a moron as well, they knew they couldn’t beat Trump in a fair and square election.

How could they actually pull off an almost fool proof election scam?
Lockdown the entire country for their mail-in ballot fraud.

But Trump was in charge as president you say?
Even though they paint him as the second coming of Hitler, they knew he wouldn’t overrule the states when they decided to lockdown everything.
Because that’s the stand up, law abiding guy that Trump is.

They #ing rigged it all, just like they are trying to rig it all now by manufacturing these crimes against him.
Because they know they cannot beat him in a fair fight and they cannot lock down the country again for vote fraud without a serious revolt on their hands.

They want to bog him down in fake legal trouble thinking maybe he will drop out.

a reply to: RazorV66
And there’s one more little “tool” in their box of tricks…Obama allowing the Mockingbird Media to come back into existence.

For the 80% of the population that seem to take their cues by the direction of the herd…it’s 100% a sure thing they could sway the bulk of the population enough to do nothing.

Add in censorship through the tech channels, and here we are. No great revelation, I know, but if it’s repeated enough maybe we can reach another 31% of the population and turn the tide.

a reply to: JinMI
The Biden administration is committing election interference.
Actively currently.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: JinMI
The Biden administration is committing election interference.
Actively currently.

Indeed and aided and abetted by what…3 states? I mean brush up your resume…if truth wins, there’s likely to be a crap ton of government jobs opening up, state and federal. Who knows, probably quite a few network news spots to boot🤷🏼‍♂️

a reply to: BlueJacket

If things go the way I'd like, those positions will not be refilled.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BlueJacket

If things go the way I'd like, those positions will not be refilled.

Bingo🤞🏻

a reply to: JinMI

So here's the text of the law minus a bunch of the unnecessary verbiage:

"Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, …. in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States …, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, ….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

In order to convict someone under this paragraph, you would have to show all 3 of the following:

1) The person was employed in an administrative position (That's not hard).
2) They were connected to an activity that was financed in whole or in part by a loan or grant by the US Government (That could be hard, since Presidential elections are the responsibility of the States and are financed by them. Also, it's not clear what "connected" means in this context; I would think it means someone who had administrative control over a loan or a grant and was trying to use that control to influence someone's actions.)
3) The person used their official authority for the PURPOSE of interfering or affecting nomination or election (intent is always the hardest part to prove)

I'm not sure who you have in mind as the violator of this law, but whoever it is, you need to put them up against these elements of the crime and see if you have a case.

a reply to: 1947boomer

These are the elements then?

Lets start with the obvious one that is of contention:

3) The person used their official authority for the PURPOSE of interfering or affecting nomination or election (intent is always the hardest part to prove)

Regarding Brag and Willis, they both ran on the campaign to lock up Trump. Which would indicate that they didn't have a crime to investigate, but a person. The obvious hole in this argument is that it has nothing to do with election interference.

Now, in a vacuum, that makes a good argument in the negative.

However, taken in the entirety, 5 months, 4 indictments, 100 some charges, the intent becomes more clear.

a reply to: JinMI

The US Code is merely a suggestion these days. The government breaks those codes DAILY, everyday, 365.

If you read the US Code, it'll piss you off because you're scratching your head wondering why the fk aren't people in prison or worse!???!!!

Check out Title 8, it's a doozy. It'll leave you wondering if it's purposely being ignored. I think it is, imo.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
a reply to: JinMI

The US Code is merely a suggestion these days. The government breaks those codes DAILY, everyday, 365.

If you read the US Code, it'll piss you off because you're scratching your head wondering why the fk aren't people in prison or worse!???!!!

Check out Title 8, it's a doozy. It'll leave you wondering if it's purposely being ignored. I think it is, imo.

I think I've demonstrated my moron tendencies.

So I can stick to the simple stuff, like the first and second amendments for starters.

a reply to: JinMI

You're just being modest, lol.

Let's put it this way, according to USC Title 8, Joe Biden and his executive branch are guilty of treason. Have been since he TOOK office and unsecured our southern border. You can't do what he's doing according to Title 8, but like I said, it's merely a suggestion.

a reply to: EternalShadow

Not modest, intentional.


All day, everyday. All three branches.

a reply to: JinMI

USC Title 18 §. 242, 243 is supposed to be the savor of us all but it's a beech to win. You can file everything yourself even, at no charge but it's definitely a pain and it really shouldn't be.

It's my firm belief that both sides are guilty of many things in the USC, so neither side can bring the other to book. That essentially ends the legitimacy of the government but let's keep going, right? 🙄Smh...