>

We should know in a handful of weeks whether charges are being filed.
The odds are very good that some charges will come out of this, it is hard to know what at this point though.
Conspiracy to defraud the people of Georgia should be the minimum charges for all involved. >

Here's a full analysis from a group of legal experts on possible charges Trump could face in GA:

We conclude that Trump’s post-election conduct in Georgia leaves him at substantial risk of possible state charges predicated on multiple crimes. These charges potentially include: criminal solicitation to commit election fraud; intentional interference with performance of election duties; conspiracy to commit election fraud; criminal solicitation; and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations. >

I hate every one of the weasel words in this statement >

Unless we have a crystal ball into the future, "potential, possible, risk" are the only words we can use.
The legal analysts writing this report don't decide Trump's fate, unfortunately. They can only speculate. >

“Hate” and “ don’t understand the need for” are two different things. >

Hard to differentiate since a lot of people fall into the latter, but agreed - I hate it too.
Unfortunately, even an indictment isn't a "We got him!" moment. A trial will probably extend well into 2024 and that's not even including appeals. Could be so much longer until we see him actually held accountable, if ever. >

At this stage I would be happy to see him testifying under oath in a well run setting. Sure he will plead the 5th or I don't recall but even him being confronted by evidence already gathered will be interesting >

I doubt he would plead the 5th, since he's so fond of verbal diarrhea. >

Just to be clear, if one of us talks to someone in line to vote, and tries to convince them to vote my way, we can be arrested.
If I threatened a poll worker to change a vote, I'd certainly be prosecuted.
So what happens if I threatened the top state elections official, and tried to force him to "find" over 11,000 fake votes? >

Totally depends. We would need to know your claimed net worth and the extent of your political connections in order to answer this question. Hope you aren’t one of the poors though, cuz you’re fucksville in that case. However, you might be ok if you make enough money that you don’t have to bother paying taxes. American election law is kind of complicated, as you can see in this example. >

Yeah, for reference, a black woman in Texas got 5 years in prison for simply filing a provisional ballot that was never counted. She wasn't sure if she was eligible, so she asked the poll workers what to do. They said file a provisional ballot, and she did.
She got 5 years in real prison for that. >

I’d love to find out how many minorities were denied a vote compared to whites in Texas. Then I’d like a comparison of how many of those people were sent to prison. I wouldn’t be surprised to find the minorities got shafted >

they don't keep those records of white folk denied. thats cause why keep a record that says ZERO >

So you’re saying the statistics are manipulated to make it appear minorities have it bad when trying to vote? >

I think they are saying that Texans never deny white people the ability to vote, so there is no point in keeping a record of "zero cases." So if records are never kept then the implication is that statistics are manipulated to make it appear minorities have the same access when trying to vote. >

Imagine if Biden or Bush or Obama were on tape demanding that a state official "find" thousands of votes so they could win. 
Conservatives. C'mon, guys. Show a modicum of consistency. >

That would be inconsistent with past gop actions >

Just a never ending cycle of hypocrisy >

Not even a cycle so much as a permanent state of being. >


Special grand juries in Georgia cannot issue indictments

all you need to know. >

Not sure what you're suggesting, but yeah - that's how a GA special grand jury works.
The DA can seek charges at a regular grand jury very quickly. The evidence has already been procured and report will help expedite a request, it just takes a majority vote to issue an indictment.
We will ultimately see a decision on whether or not Trump is charged very soon. >


We will ultimately see a decision on whether or not Trump is charged very soon.

This has been every news headline for the last two years. >

Even if that were true, it's doesn't really relate to this situation or make it ambiguous.
We will know if Fulton DA decides to prosecute in the coming weeks. The investigation is essentially over. They either will issue indictments, or they won't.