Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
Hillary Clinton pokes back at the Russian Bear wanna-be.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/12/politics … index.htmlDoes it look like the Trump Republicans are gearing up for a new civil war? It does to me.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … -politics/
God, Trump Republicans are despicable - Hillary had it right, for sure.LOL - Trump's Accounting Firm just dumped him and his organization. Why you ask? Because the financial information Trump supplied them since 2011 is unreliable!
Former President Donald Trump's long-time accounting firm informed the Trump Organization last week that it should no longer rely on nearly 10 years' worth of financial statements and that they would no longer be their accountants, citing a conflict of interest.
"We have come to this conclusion based, in part, upon the filings made by the New York Attorney General on January 18, 2022, our own investigation, and information received from internal and external sources," Mazars wrote in a letter to the Trump Organization chief legal officer, advising them to no longer rely on financial statements ending June 2011 through June 2020.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/politics … index.html
Can you imagine the severe reverberations this is going to have on Trump's financial world? Would it be unreasonable to think that those that are holding billions of dollars of Trump debt to start calling in their loans. When the dust settles, will Donald Trump even own the clothes on his back?
(I hope Mazars had good security as Imagine the death threats are already pouring in. And as we saw during the Jan 6 insurrection, many Trump Republicans are very willing to do harm.)And how is any of the new reporting different than the initial indictment?
https://www.justice.gov/sco/pr/grand-ju … ng-alleged
Seems like the heat was getting too hot on Trump, so Fox News threw you some already well-used red meat to chew on.When normal election processes are claimed to be fraud.
When it is deemed normal to shred official government documents or remove top secret ones from the White House and fail to submit them to the National Archives.
When it is claimed that something the U.S. does as part of normal security operations is spying.
When you can admit that Trump and his cronies have no idea how the government is supposed to work, it should become clear that this is another case of them just misunderstanding normal security procedures.
The rest of us will wonder why there seemed to be people near to his campaign communicating with Russians on cell phones."When it is deemed normal to shred official government documents or remove top secret ones from the White House and fail to submit them to the National Archives."
Presumably you are referring to Clinton destroying her hard drives with secret information?
Presumably you are saying that the US routinely bugs the offices of Presidential candidates?
The rest of you can wonder all you wish, but wondering why something happens is not proof of anything except your ignorance of why something happened. Something that seems to escape you - that your ignorance, or mine, is not proof or even evidence, of guilt - it is only evidence that you don't know."Presumably you are referring to Clinton destroying her hard drives with secret information?" - There you go making stuff up again. Don't you EVER get tired of lying and living in your fantasy world?
More on Trump's financial and legal troubls.
The letter has implications both for the investigations into Trump's financial dealings and for the future business endeavors of the former President.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/politics … index.html
In addition, the Trump organization (meaning Trump) were added back as defendants in the D.C. DAs fraud trial regarding Trump's inauguration.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/politics … index.htmlMore CNN --------
Not sure why you would bring this up in light of Obama's problem campaign violatins.
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/ … 000-085784
"President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign WAS FINDED $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for campaign reporting violations — one of the LARGEST fees ever levied against a presidential campaign, POLITICO has learned.
The fine — laid out in detail in FEC documents that have yet to be made public — arose from an audit of the campaign, which was published in April. POLITICO obtained a copy of the conciliation agreement detailing the fine, which was sent to Sean Cairncross, the chief lawyer for the Republican National Committee, one of the groups that filed complaints about the campaign’s FEC reporting from 2008.
“$375,000 is a HUGE fine,” said Republican election lawyer Jason Torchinsky. “It may one of their top five- or 10-largest fines.”
But he added, “They’re also the first billion-dollar presidential campaign. Proportionally, it’s not out of line.”
FEC officials declined to comment on the fee or the existence of the agreement. But for context, failed Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole set a record for FEC fines on his 1996 campaign when he paid $100,000 two years later.
“At the time, the 2008 campaign was record-breaking, with over 3 million grass-roots donors,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Katie Hogan said. “The very few outstanding questions about the $750 million that was raised have now all been resolved.”
The major sticking point for the FEC appeared to be a series of missing 48-hour notices for nearly 1,300 contributions totaling more than $1.8 million — an issue that lawyers familiar with the commission’s work say the FEC takes seriously. The notices must be filed on contributions of $1,000 or more that are received within the 20-day window of Election Day.
More than half of those contributions were transferred from the Obama Victory Fund,a joint committee between the campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Sources said the fine resulting from the settlement agreement has been paid, with $230,000 coming from the Obama campaign’s coffers and the remainder from the DNC.
The document outlined other violations, such as erroneous contribution dates on some campaign reports. The Obama campaign was also late returning some contributions that exceeded the legal limit.
For critics of the Obama campaign, the audit was a reminder of other reporting errors by the 2008 effort, which campaign officials said they tried to correct in real-time. But independent experts, including former FEC commissioner Michael Toner, said after the audit was released that the infractions were relatively minor, given the scope of the campaign.Since you chose to compare (which you claim you hate doing), then why didn't you point THIS out from the same article? Why didn't you write "Not sure why you would bring this up in light of Obama and DOLE's problem campaign violations."
But for context, failed Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole set a record for FEC fines on his 1996 campaign when he paid $100,000 two years later.
I think this is a great example of lying by Deception to use Mearsheimer's characterization.
You also exhibit another characteristic of extremist - putting jay walking (being late of reporting) on the same level with murder (fraud, deception on financial statements). Interesting. Why do you guys do that?
That was some serious deflection. Going back 14 years to talk about an unrelated campaign finance issue.
God, life is getting good - Trump loses another one in his effort to stay financially afloat. In NY's CIVIL case against him, he tried to quash a subpoena for his deposition as well as that of Ivanka and Don Jr. (Eric sat previously and invoked his 5th amendment rights over 500 times. You know what the Donald says about people who hide behind the 5th don't you? They are GUILTY). The NY Supreme Court told him in no uncertain terms to go take a hike, his grounds were total malarkey.
One thing the judge said was "In the final analysis, a State Attorney General commences investigating a business entity, uncovers copious evidence of possible financial fraud, and wants to question, under oath, several of the entities' principles, including its namesake," Engoron wrote. "She has the clear right to do so."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/politics … index.htmlLet the discovery phase begin in the suit of Congress and police against Trump and others who spoke on Jan. 6.
"[T]he President’s January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action,” Mehta wrote. “The President’s regular use of the word ‘we’ is notable. To name just a few examples: ‘We will not take it anymore’; ‘We will stop the steal’; ‘We will never give up’; ‘We will never concede’; ‘We will not take it anymore’; ‘All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president.’”
Trump’s lawyers and his political backers have repeatedly noted that the former president told his supporters to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically.” However, the judge said those were Trump’s “only” remarks during his address that seemed to discourage violence.
“Those three words do not defeat the plausibility” of the central conspiracy claim in the suit brought by the group of House members, Mehta concluded.
Mehta issued no final ruling on the legal merits of that claim, but ruled that it was legally sound enough to proceed to the discovery phase of the case.
“Importantly, it was the President and his campaign’s idea to send thousands to the Capitol while the Certification was underway. It was not a planned part of the rally. In fact, the permit expressly stated that it did ‘not authorize a march from the Ellipse,’” Mehta wrote.
“From these alleged facts, it is at least plausible to infer that, when he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol, the President did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers’ efforts to certify the Electoral College votes,” he continued. “The Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and others who forced their way into the Capitol building plainly shared in that unlawful goal.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-reject … 31265.htmlDAMN, you beat me to it.
I am surprised the judge dismissed the case against Rep Mo "Kick Ass and Take Names" Brooks, Rudy "Trial by Combat" Giuliani, and Donald "I am as much of a crook as my dad" Trump Jr. I wonder why?
I wrote this in 2016 about Trump It is even MORE true today.
Beyond the hairdo and mustache, I have a hard time distinguishing between Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump in their quest for power. Why do I make such an outrageous statement? Because both men display an abundance of the following traits:
1. Has a dominating personality
2. Exhibits behavioral patterns that suggest a lack of belief in social and economic equality
3. Shows themselves to be amoral
4. Shows themselves to be vengeful, exploitive, , manipulative, and dishonest
5. Appears to be highly prejudiced (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic)[1]
6. Will tells others what they want to hear and specializes in creating false images to sell self
7. Will take advantage of "suckers", etc.
I challenge the reader to tell me which of the above traits doesn't perfectly describe either Hitler or Trump.
http://hub.me/ak51KI also wrote this in the same article:
Who are these soldiers of the SDO, these RWAs? You might recognize them from the following characteristics that define this group from all others? It is those who exhibit most of the following:
Fearfulness
Self-Righteousness
Dogmatism
Hostility
“Biggest Problem" Syndrome
Compartmentalized Thinking
Double Standards
Feeling Empowered Within Groups
Prejudiced
Ethnocentrism
A Willingness to follow Authoritarian figures
A Lack of Critical Thinking
I argue strongly that many of those on the far-Right (and far-Left to a lesser degree) of the political spectrum exhibit these attributes. And isn’t it just this cohort of citizens which blindly follow Donald Trump? Isn't it just this group that ignores each and every lie, exaggeration, ad hominem, hyperbole, and insult he utters in his quest to lead America? Aren’t we seeing something unique in American political history? Can you think of ANY other politician that has developed such a loyal following based solely on demagoguery? I can’t.Demagoguery. I like that term, for it is exactly what Trump, as well as every other politician, has to offer.
As far as other politicians that have developed a loyal following based on their demagoguery, I would submit Obama. I would add Biden, but we all recognize that his following was not a following per se; it was far more a method to rid the country of Trump. True, Obama's skin color brought an awful lot of votes from people that voted only for that, but I think his suave, statesmanlike delivery also bought lots of them. Plus, of course, his liberalism and freedom with the tax money collected from those awful rich people.
Keywords ---
"I wrote this in 2016 about Trump It is even MORE true today".
It would seem you ruminate on all that is Trump, his past, as well as his present. It seems to consume your thoughts. In this comment you bait, and almost dare anyone to "challenge" your view. It's not 2016 it is 2022. It would seem to me, we have discussed all you have listed time after time, have we not?
Rumination is a form of perseverative cognition that focuses on negative content, consumes one's mind, and prohibited logical thinking.
Former US Attorney (2010-2017) from Michigan and current Michigan Law School professor, Barbara McQuade lays out the case, just from public information, against Trump in a 26-page prosecution memo called 'United States v Donald J. Trump.'
https://www.justsecurity.org/80308/unit … tion-memo/Former President Donald Trump and a right-wing lawyer were part of a "criminal conspiracy" to overturn the 2020 presidential election, the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot alleges in a court filing Wednesday.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/02/politics … index.htmlThe Jan. 6 select committee says its evidence has shown that then-President Donald Trump and his campaign tried to illegally obstruct Congress’ counting of electoral votes and “engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States.”
In a major release of its findings, filed in federal court late Wednesday, the committee suggested that its evidence supported findings that Trump himself violated multiple laws by attempting to prevent Congress from certifying his defeat.
“The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States,” the committee wrote in a filing submitted in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California.
In a major release of the panel’s findings, including excerpts of nearly a dozen depositions from top aides to Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence, the committee described a president who had been informed repeatedly that he lost the election and that his claims of fraud were unfounded — only to reject them and continue to mislead the American public.
He then pushed top advisers to continue strategizing ways to overturn the election results.
The panel released its findings as part of a legal push to force John Eastman, an attorney who was a key driver of Trump’s strategy to subvert the 2020 election, to produce crucial emails tying together elements of the scheme they described. The panel revealed testimony that offered a detailed account of Eastman’s efforts to provide a legal strategy that would justify ordering Pence to overturn the election single-handedly when he presided over Congress’ electoral-vote-counting session on Jan. 6, 2021.
Eastman, however, didn’t relent even after a violent mob — egged on by Trump — stormed the Capitol and sent Pence and Congress fleeing for safety. Eastman continued to press Pence to overturn the election.
"Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege," Pence counsel Greg Jacob emailed Eastman, along with a lengthy refutation of his argument.
“The ‘siege’ is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so the American people can see for themselves what happened,” Eastman replied, according to emails obtained by the panel.
Even after this exchange, Eastman made one final plea to convince Pence to stop the counting of electoral votes, acknowledging it would amount to a “relatively minor” violation of the federal law known as the Electoral Count Act.
“Plaintiff knew what he was proposing would violate the law, but he nonetheless urged the Vice President to take those actions,” the committee wrote in its filings.
They knew they were violating federal law. That amounts to conspiracy.Things move slowly, but they move. Guy Reffitt, a Texas 3%er member was just found guilty, after just 3 hours of deliberation, of five felonies resulting from the Jan 6 insurrection including obstruction of an official proceeding - maximum sentence 20 years,
As more move to the gallows for that insurgency, just wonder when the maze will finally lead to the kingpin.
There are several paths leading to Trump being held accountable.
1. The Jan 6 Commission recommending that DOJ investigate
2. The results of the several civil suits against Trump that deal specifically with insurrection
3. The Atlanta DA's criminal investigation of Trump's actions.
4. The outcome of those charged with seditious conspiracy
All of this mounts more and more pressure on DOJ to act.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/expert-civil … 52345.html
She references the CIA manual for insurrections...would be interesting to get the full copy there and compare it to the modern day Republican Party.Three things you need to know about Trump
- Stephanie Grisham said the former president feared and admired Russian President Vladimir Putin.
- Appearing on "The View," the former White House press secretary said Trump "loved the dictators."
- Grisham added that Trump also "wanted to be able to kill whoever spoke out against him."Where are the "three things about Trump"? All you've posted are stupid and libelous comments by someone else; there is nothing there about Trump. Just about how biased and hateful someone else is. Good information about Grisham, though, and something to keep in mind as she spouts other crap about the ex president she hates.
They cannot be libelous if they are true, and given the source, I have no doubt about their veracity.
Is there ANYBODY you will believe who says something bad about Trump? It seems the whole world are liars in your view except KNOWN liars like Trump, Green, Bobert, Johnson, Paul, McCarthy ... well, to keep the list manageable - Trump Republicans.True? Where is the proof or am I to assume you need no proof to slander another? It would be no surprise to me that you have no doubt about her allegations. But, in regards to your list, you can't stand the more outspoken that share their views... You call them liars.
Wonder if Grisham is lying? She offers nothing but her own thoughts.
My, I could share my thoughts about you -- I mean I do have an opinion after conversing with you for some time now. . But would it be factual, or fair for me to just slander you? Would I not be doing us both a disservice?She is an eye-witness.
You can say what you want about me, but it only becomes libelous or slanderous if it is false.
Since I always deal in facts and try to use reasonable logic, then I suspect most of what you world say would have to be complimentary (beyond my occasional snarkiness when I get frustrated by people reporting or making up disinformation)"She is an eye-witness" to what are you eluding, what statement she shared that is more than her view? She was an eyewitness and formed some generalized opinions. Others that may have been present may have a far different opinion. I think slandering one in a book with "I think" is a disgusting problem with our society.
And you do frequently post comments that are opinion-oriented and attempt to pass the comment as factual. I much of the time offer credible information with a source that offers factual quotes, names, and stats. When I do this you move on, snake away sort to say.
You make unfounded accusations that you pick up from left media, media that are opinion-oriented much of the time.
Grisham has supplied her thoughts her views on what she witnessed. These thoughts are her own, and though very thought-provoking, they are not fact, only how she perceived what may have been saying. We have no context to any given statement she has offered.
I have no problem with views, I have a problem when anyone automatically rehashes them as truth. It is clear Grisham was applauded at Trump's character, many of us are...
Here is a bit of an interview Grisham has done promoting her accusations. -- note the quotes she offered nothing but I THINK = her opinion.
In an interview with The View on Tuesday, Grisham discussed the former US president’s relationship with the Russian president, saying: “I THINK [Trump] feared [Putin]. I THINK he was afraid of him. I THINK that the man intimidated him. Because Putin is a scary man, just frankly, I THINK he was afraid of him.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … ie-grisham
ABC interview more of the same --- " "I don't THINK he is fit for the job," Grisham said. "I THINK that he is erratic. I THINK that he can be delusional. I THINK that he is a narcissist and cares about himself first and foremost. And I do not want him to be our president again."
Asked by Chang what scares her the most, Grisham painted a grim picture of what could happen if Trump ends up running again in 2024.
"I THINK he would foment more violence," she said. "He won't have consequences. He won't need to be reelected again."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-tru … d=80398083
She time after time offered an opinion --- no facts to back her view.
So, did she slander Trump? She certainly made accusations about him and her time working for him. She used wording such as I think" to clearly indicate it was her own oppinion.
"Defamation law walks a fine line between the right to freedom of speech and the right of a person to avoid defamation. On one hand, a reasonable person should have free speech to talk about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something mean, but true, about someone else. On the other hand, people have a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation. Determining what is a statement of fact and what is a lie is called "absolute defense" and will end the case once it is proven. Then, the winning side may sue for punitive damages depending on the types of defamation"
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-an … on-law-the basics.html#:~:text=A%20person%20that%20has%20suffered,a%20person%20to%20avoid%20defamation.
In my view she slandered him, she left many in the general public grasping onto her "I think "as truth --- You bought it did you not? I did not due to the context of her words. I think, is nothing but her view...
I could offer a view of you, my own thoughts --- would they be facts or just my own thoughts about what I observed? Would it be fair? Maybe others see you much differently. Do I have the right to say derogatory things about you, just because "well I think:? Would it be fair play to publish accusations, views? We know it's pretty much legal, but is it fair?You forget, her observations are backed up by many other sources - all of whom I suspect you think are lying about Trump as well. Sooner or later you will realize all of these dozens of people are telling the Truth about Trump.
I have read all of what you posted. Is this all not opinion-oriented?
Yet your statement --- "Three things you need to know about Trump"
Seems to imply her opinion is something you take as factual. She certainly blasted Trump, but is it not more plausible to consider it is her opinion, nothing based in fact?
More and more keeps coming out about Justice Thomas' wife who is a conservative firebrand. Now we learn she was at the Jan 6 insurrection, "but didn't help plan it". I think the Jan 6 Select Committee needs to interview her.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/14/politics … index.htmlWhy in the world should she be questioned. She attended a rally as did thousands of Americans where the President was speaking?
This kind of mindset you have exhibited suggests she be questioned due to just being at a rally. Last I knew this was a free country where one is free to move about, and plan their own outings.
This kind of thinking, in my view, is very dangerous to our Democracy. I can say is, how dare you imply this woman be questioned due to attending the Trump rally.
Yet another person in Trump's circle is under investigation. Is there anyone who isn't?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/18/politics … index.htmlYou don't always deal in facts. You often omit facts that make your side look negative.
You are correct that's why you see these words frequently ib my comments ---" In my view"... I don't push my views as facts, just thoughts on a given subject. I do try to be fair when posting a negative fact to back up the fact with several sources. I am human, I am sure I slip up here and there.
The lead prosecutor looking into Trump's various financial crimes thought that it was time to bring an indictment. He says Cyrus Vance thought the same thing. His replacement, however, disagreed and is letting Trump escape justice - again. This is why he and another lead attorney resigned - to protest the current DAs poor decision.
According to Pomerantz, the previous district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., had "concluded that the facts warranted prosecution, and he directed the team to present evidence to a grand jury and to seek an indictment of Mr. Trump."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/23/politics … index.htmlI noted a couple of what appear to be facts.
Trump has not been charged with any form of crime And - "Bragg took over in January. ( replacing Vance) His office insists that the investigation is ongoing and has announced that another attorney has been appointed to lead the team.
So what's your problem? It appears Vance just could not find anything to arrest Trump for. he certainly tried, and he got Trump's tax records.
So, one would think if he broke any tax laws Vance would have charged him. At any rate, they have the tax records to continue their quest. If you ask me this attorney is smearing Trump without displaying the goods.Unfair, and uncalled for. In my view, this is a liberal bunch that has played a dirty game to keep this crap in the media to slander Trump. In the end, they have come out looking ridiculous. As have all that have drummed up accusations on Trump. I noted an article yesterday that Stormy D's lost her case and now must pay Trump's court cost at the tune of $300 thou... It well appears Trump has not broken any laws. He has been wrongly slandered by many, those many now walk away with their tails between their legs. As Vance did.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/97139138 … gal-battle"It appears Vance just could not find anything to arrest Trump for. " - REALLY?? You say that after reading the article where it says that Vance left instructions to have a grand jury bring an indictment against Trump. How did you get from that to the ridiculous claim that Vance "could not find anything to arrest Trump for", ROFL.
Since you obviously missed this, I will repost it:
According to Pomerantz, the previous district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., had "concluded that the facts warranted prosecution, and he directed the team to present evidence to a grand jury and to seek an indictment of Mr. Trump."Has he been charged? I guess the new Liberal AG did not see enough facts to show Trump broke any law.
Yet the previous liberal DA did AS DID the lawyers who worked for him. I think the people who did the investigation know more than the new guy on the block, I will trust them.
I am not ready to say something smells fishy, but I am getting close.
Rather interesting, and quite revealing, that you think an inability to find any crimes by Trump means he is "escaping justice".
I would have to say that "justice" is being done as Trump once more walks away from the lies, the dreams, the fantasies and the hopes of the TDS crowd. You would think they would learn, eventually, but it doesn't seem to happen.Here, I will repost this for you as well - read it carefully, understand the words - they REFUTE what you just claimed.
According to Pomerantz, the previous district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., had "concluded that the facts warranted prosecution, and he directed the team to present evidence to a grand jury and to seek an indictment of Mr. Trump."And the next one did not that there was sufficient evidence to convict. Which is what I said, isn't it?
I understand that you wish, with all your heart, to get even a trial going, with a "guilty" verdict the ultimate goal (whether actually guilty of something or not), but after 6 years of trying most people recognize that it isn't going to happen; that there just isn't the evidence there. A thousand claims...but never enough to get a guilty verdict from a jury.
Give it up, Eso, and come into the real world, where desires to not drive the justice system. Where facts, evidence and truth matter, not fantasies, hate and wants.Except that is NOT what you said, is it?
If a jury finds him not guilty, then I am fine with that. but he needs to get to trial and he will do anything to stop that from happening. Vance was going to have his trial and then this coward comes on the scene, go figure.Again, that's what I said, isn't it? You have determined that he is a criminal and must be tried...but can't find anyone that feels there is sufficient evidence to go to trial.
Or Vance hated Trump as much as you do and would force him to trial knowing he didn't have the evidence to support a conviction. Whereupon the "coward" (your label) that believes in the justice system disagreed and refused to continue the farce.
Which makes you angry, not getting the trial you wish (with the accompanying disgrace) so you label him a coward. Pretty plain set of events, and reasoning, given your continual expression of hatred towards Trump and anything or anyone remotely connected to him."Or Vance hated Trump" - And THAT is your answer to anybody who has a truthful, yet bad thing to say about Trump
Also, unlike conservatives, I can't "hate" a person who is mentally ill like Trump is. I can "hate" what he does (and I do) but I just feel sorry for him,. He must be miserable every minute of every day living his paranoid world.
There has GOT to a reason why Vance's successor did a 180 with what all of the prosecutors thought was the next step in bringing Trump to justice. If he thought Trump was innocent, why didn't he say so? Something else must be going on.No, that's my answer to those that have mounted a vendetta, spreading lies, innuendoes and falsehoods about Trump. To those that can't leave it, that continually insists there simply must be something, somewhere, that he can be found guilty of...without ever having sufficient proof to complete it. To those that attack anyone and anything that even smells of Trump.
Yes, there has GOT to be a reason. Perhaps the one I gave, but then that is unacceptable to you as there HAS to be something to convict him of.
You know as well as I do that a person can be guilty but still not have sufficient evidence to convict. Or perhaps that successor is a Trump lover (as you claim anyone that doesn't share your propensity for making unsupported claims is). Don't know any more than you do, but the difference is that I refuse to make claims that I can't support. Like that the man is a coward because he didn't do what you want him to.
Vance did not charge Trump. Get to a trail? Trump has not been charged with anything. My God give it up,
While I won't give up hoping for justice, you may continue to keep your head buried in the sand so that you don't have to face reality.
No not buried in the sand, but holding on to the justice of fairness, and decency in our law enforcement, and courts. I hope to always be able to trust them to do their jobs when looking for a crime. I don't appreciate accusations of crimes without the presentation of that crime. I never trust any officer of the law that leaks to left media. I find them slimy.
The truth, the reality is Trump has not been charged with anything. Your hate for this man is making you not be able to prosses reality.
I have not seen any reports on any fact that Trump broke any tax laws. Maybe Vance should have presented his case instead of leaving his job.I would think if he had them, he would have he has been trying to hang Trump for years. There are no facts, or Trump would have been charged.
"Maybe Vance should have presented his case instead of leaving his job." - I wish he had and I bet he now wishes he would have stayed on another year rather than retire as he had planned long ago. I am guessing he didn't think his replacement would be such an idiot. If this new guy doesn't take it to a grand jury, he will never be elected to anything again.
She didn't see any reports? Maybe she should start wondering why her right-wing media site are canceling important news reports:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mark-pomer … iolations/
Wonder what's going to happen if the civil case pertaining to fraud is won and if there is new pressure to have the criminal trial from that successful verdict.
This article has a fun table tracking the allegations of laws Trump broke during his campaign and time as president.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor … isconduct/
This is too good to be true - TRUMP SUES CLINTON and the DNC for trying to link him to Russia. What an idiot. Not only do you have the full Mueller Report which clearly gets past the Predominance of the Evidence hurdle needed in a civil trial, he will have to face a deposition.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/politics … index.htmlYes, he will perhaps have many pertinent depositions, need I name all the people involved with the Steel dossier? And so many more. I predict a splashy trial with a big trump win.
Smart move on Trump's part, he will vindicate himself, and maybe even end up starting a new congressional investigation on Hillary's grift, when the new Republican Congress take their place after the Nov election sweep.
This will be so much fun to watch.Hell, Trump won't take it to trial as he will clearly lose. Remember, most of his cases that HE brings never go to trial. He is just trying to take the spotlight back from Putin.
He can't vindicate himself because Mueller has already buried him. It will only get worse when they have to produce discovery.
Clinton/DNC can EASILY prove his campaign's coziness with the Russians with a preponderance of the evidence. Even the Steele dossier will help because a goodly piece was verified.
Finally, what does "need I name all the people involved with the Steel dossier? " have to do with anything?
God, ANOTHER failed Trump Republican investigation on Hillary, when will they ever learn they don't have a winning case?The Mueller report has not accused Trump of any crime. Mueller did not enter one word in the report that indicated Trump broke any laws.
Like I said Trump will win his case. . Plus he was genius to bring this suit, it will lay out the entire scheme Clinton and the DNC tried to pull and put another nail in the Democratic party's coffin. IT will out the entire dirty scandal. And it won't be buried by Government investigations that go nowhere. Trump will have his day in court and walk away from a winner while exposing Clinton and her slopy crew.
Not only are Trump, Sen Graham, and Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows under investigation for voter fraud, so is Meadows' wife!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/politics … index.htmlAre all three being investigated? (or are you one of those conservatives who would rather arrest people without an investigation first?) Where there is smoke, there is fire.
I think if any Jan 6 cases get to the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself (or have it done for him). His over-the-top, conspiracy theory consumed wife will make being impartial impossible.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/politics … index.htmlTexts from Justice Thomas' looney wife to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (not in chronological order):
-- “Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!...The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History,” - Thomas
-- "“Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it." - Meadows
-- "Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down." - Thomas
-- "I can't see Americans swallowing the obvious fraud. Just going with one more thing with no frickin consequences... the whole coup and now this... we just cave to people wanting Biden to be anointed? Many of us can't continue the GOP charade." - Thomas
-- "We are living through what feels like the end of America. Most of us are disgusted with the VP and are in a listening mode to see where to fight with our teams. Those who attacked the Capitol are not representative of our great teams of patriots for DJT!! Amazing times. The end of Liberty," Thomas (about voting in America)
Think about it, this Qanon follower has the ear of a Supreme Court Justice!! - SO SCARY!!!Esoteric, Uncle Clearance should recuse himself from any involvement regarding Trump or the January 6th attack. His wife reeks of the stench of rightwing politics to the point where Thomas may no longer be considered impartial on the bench.
And it's not just his wife! It has been reported that he has a 3rd cousin that knows someone whose brother's girlfriend once dated an Oath Keeper.
GAOh and GA, you would really be pissed if I shared what I found out about your favorite flavor of jello... I will keep it in confidence but don't push your luck.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ows-texts/
As I told Sharlee, this is a little more than just an innocent association in my opinion?
Cred, she is a Republican, why in the world should Thomas rescue himself due to his wife's staunch beliefs? I don't like the fact that we have a president that's son is being investigated, and posted his sex life on Pron Hub.
Until the investigations in regards to Thomases wife and Bidens son, should we start asking Thomas to recuse himself, should we impeach a president until we know all the facts. It seems we are out to destroy lives with poison keyboards, with the guidance coming from the media.
There is no indication Thomas's wife has done anything wrong but supports Trump.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ows-texts/
I think that this is a bit more than just being a Republican, don't you? Just how much is she involved in the crimes of January 6th? A pipeline to Trump's chief of staff and an accessory to the plot?
We know that wives generally cannot testify against their husbands and vice Versa, there is always a conflict of interest there,Because she is an irrational extremist that makes McCarthy look absolutely liberal AND she has her husband's ear. She is in a position to influence his decision.
Could you offer proof she is a Qanon follower? This seems very hyperbolic not to mention nasty for you to assume. Where is your proof or have you just labeled this woman because you can?
Sure, her own words.
-- “Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!...The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History,” - Thomas - A Q conspiracy theory.
-- "Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down." - Thomas - A Q conspiracy theory.
-- "I can't see Americans swallowing the obvious fraud. Just going with one more thing with no frickin consequences... the whole coup and now this... we just cave to people wanting Biden to be anointed? Many of us can't continue the GOP charade." - Thomas - A Q conspiracy theory.
-- "We are living through what feels like the end of America. Most of us are disgusted with the VP and are in a listening mode to see where to fight with our teams. Those who attacked the Capitol are not representative of our great teams of patriots for DJT!! Amazing times. The end of Liberty," Thomas - A Q conspiracy theory.
-- “Watermarked ballots in over 12 states have been part of a huge Trump & military white hat sting operation in 12 key battleground states” - Thomas - A Q conspiracy theory.
-- “Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition”—and then adding “I hope this is true.” - Thomas - A Q conspiracy theory.
Want me to find more from loony Ginnie?
--
Rick Wilson of the Lincoln Project:
In the Before Times, there were boundaries. There were spoken and unspoken rules of behavior. I'm not the first to observe that the Ginny Thomas story is being greeted by utter silence -- if not outright approval -- on the right. 'So what?' is the reaction.
And others have posed the counterfactual I will add below, but it's important to think this one through given the New Rules. Imagine for a moment what the Republicans would say if the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice nominated by a Democrat joined in a conspiracy to overthrow a free and fair American election. Imagine she or he was part of a conspiracy to launch a violent shock-and-awe attack on the Capitol in its furtherance. An Attack that led to lives lost, our Capitol desecrated.
Imagine their response as she was discovered in the days leading up to the attack to be texting and emailing a Democratic White House chief of Staff, encouraging him to illegally overturn the election and promote lurid conspiracy theories. Imagine she promoted the idea Republicans were 'being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right not & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.'
Now imagine her husband was the sole vote to protect the losing president from scrutiny.
I'll tell you what they'd do. They'd burn Washington to the damn ground. They'd salt the Earth. They'd call for sanctions, impeachment, removal.
Their powerful media apparatus would turn it into a 24/7 scandal that would never ever disappear. Facebook would amplify (and monetize) a million pages calling for the removal of said Justice. They'd hold hearings and drag every person involved before them in a televised Great Spectacle. It would become a centerpiece of their messaging for ages. It would be a drumbeat about corruption of the opposing party. It would motivate no end of earnest op-eds from the gentry media.
The GOP silence now is telling...I hadn't heard about this 2018 lawsuit against the Trump's for fraud. They were able to hold off being deposed for four years, but were finally forced tp sit down for a deposition.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/25/politics … index.htmlAnd the Noose tightens further,
Judge: 'More likely than not' that Trump 'corruptly attempted' to block Congress from counting votes on January 6
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/28/politics … index.htmlWOW --- A MORE LIKELY THAN NOT ! Boy, he sure went out on a limb. I wonder if LIKELY would hold up in any form of a court of law? LOL, It seems it does not take much to get you to believe just about anything. No really
And again from CNN. Do you read any other online news outlets?Well, it seems to me that is EXACTLY why he said it - because thinks it WILL hold up in a court of law. Obviously, I trust his EPERT opinion rather than you very biased one.
Boy, you sure do have a complex about CNN. A silly one I admit, but a complex nevertheless.t back to me when Trump is charged. Your Trump obsession is really very odd.
Hmm. 51% is "more likely than not" - do you see our justice acting on 51% surety in criminal cases? Or is it "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
51% meets the standards to go after more evidence it seems. That's what really matters is that they cannot hide privileged information if it potentially involves crimes. And if those correspondences are anything like the ones where Dr. Eastman already admitted to knowing that the plot was unlawful, hence a fraud, it could get very interesting.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … mike-pence51% is also enough to convict someone in a civil trial and get millions and millions of dollars.
While not enough for a criminal trial, it is certainly enough, as you just said, to get one going.Then let the judge present his 51% of the necessary to convict and get permission to go look for more.
Unfortunately he doesn't have 51% - he has perhaps 10% and a burning desire (with the rest of liberal America) to remove Trump from the political scene. After all, he may be our next President, and that simply cannot be tolerated. If it takes playing games with the justice system, well, it has been done for 6 years so what's a couple more?I didn't think you knew how it worked, you just proved that you don't.
Except that to date there is (perhaps) 10% evidence of what is needed. Not 51% - that is the opinion of a liberal judge out to hang Trump.
In any case, it is as Sharlee said - let us know when Trump is charged and indicted. Until then your conspiracy theories about Trump have really become tiresome. Six years, without a single indictment but with hundreds or thousands of claims...we're all tired of hearing about it.Apparently the good judge disagrees with your expert legal opinion, as to so many other legal experts.
No indictments YET - but two impeachments that were bi-partisan to some extent. While not convicted, a majority of Senators did vote to convict, again bipartisan. If fact, they almost had enough votes to convict on the last one. (So you win on a technicality, but practically speaking, you lose)Oh, I'd love to know where you got that 10% figure. Sounds like your usual attempt to make things up as you go.
Not conspiracies when they are backed by court documents and Congressional reports. That would be your side leaning on the conspiracies. But nice projection.What court documents? The DOJ won't even cooperate with the committee. It is nothing but Democratic conspiracies, and the DOJ will not indite or can he without evidence of crimes.
These fools are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, making ridiculous accusations, with no evidence whatsoever, just their biased hate for a president that showed Washington for what it is a swamp."The DOJ won't even cooperate with the committee. " - How do you know that? Do you have someone on the inside? They charged Bannon, didn't they?
Trump PROVED to be even more "swampy" than what he said he was trying (and failed) to get rid of.From your source --- It well appears the committee is feeling somewhat put off by Garland --- "(CNN) Members of the House select committee investigating the insurrection at the US Capitol voiced their frustration with Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice on Monday, as they voted unanimously to recommend two former advisers to former President Donald Trump be referred to the department on criminal contempt of Congress charges.
The message to Garland and DOJ, which has still not said whether it will pursue criminal charges against former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows for defying a congressional subpoena, was clear: Do your job."
I trust Garland will do his job if the evidence is produced to want him" to do his job". He can't skirt the law to please a committee.
And yes Bannon was Indicted for Contempt of Congress. An indictment is merely an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
This can be found at the bottom of all indictments."From your source --- It well appears the committee is feeling somewhat put off by Garland " - That is clearly an understatement. I feel for the position Garland is in, and I HOPE is reticence is from an overabundance of caution, given the stakes of an even larger insurrection if he had the audacity to indict your hero.
"merely" - There you go minimizing again. An indictment is a VERY BIG DEAL because it means the prosecution feels it has enough evidence to get a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. I am surprised you do not know that.
If Trump were in power, he would have gotten rid of Garland because of his honesty and independence and install a lackey again to do his bidding.
Now, now, Sharlee. You must understand that no California judge would ever stretch the law to get what they feel is right.
(Would you like to buy a very nice bridge?)
To that, Judge Carter adds the exact reasoning of why there is a Jan 6 commission in the first place.
"If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself,"
Here's a link or two she might be able to understand. They are in her language.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federa … on-statute
https://www.thedailybeast.com/federal-j … y-on-jan-6
The laziness to just shrug it off as CNN without going out and seeing that most major news networks are covering the story is typical.I am flabbergasted that either had the courage to report such devastating news about Trump without really spinning it, lol.
I wonder if they will fire the reporters?
Two more Trump insiders are recommended to be held in Criminal Contempt of Congress. DOJ needs to get busy.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/28/politics … index.htmlMarch 28, 2022 (Monday)
Today, United States District Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered John Eastman to disclose 101 documents to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Eastman is a former law school dean at Chapman University and author of the Eastman memo outlining a plan for Vice President Mike Pence to throw the 2020 election to Donald Trump. He also spoke at Trump’s January 6 rally on the Ellipse, lying to the crowd: “We know there was fraud…. We know that dead people voted.” Now he will have to share his communications about the events of January 6 with the January 6th Committee.
The backstory to this lawsuit is that on November 8, 2021, the January 6 Committee subpoenaed Eastman’s testimony and disclosure of documents and emails sent or received by Eastman between November 3, 2020, and January 20, 2021, related to the Capitol attack. Eastman testified before the committee on December 3, 2021, but asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 146 times. He also refused to produce any documents, again asserting his Fifth Amendment rights.
So on January 18, 2022, the January 6 Committee subpoenaed Eastman’s emails from Chapman University—it had parted ways with Eastman by then—which initially collected 30,000 documents off its servers. The January 6 Committee then worked with Chapman to winnow down those results, ending up with just under 19,000 documents.
Eastman then tried to stop that document production. The court refused to agree. When Eastman appeared to be delaying disclosure, the court ordered him to focus on emails from January 4–7. On February 22, 2022, Eastman sued Representative Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), chair of the January 6 Committee, and Chapman University to prevent disclosure of certain emails, claiming that 111 of them from January 4–7 should not be disclosed because they are covered by attorney-client privilege, with the “client” being Trump. The committee disagreed.
So Judge Carter personally examined the contested documents to decide if they should be disclosed or kept private. He concluded that 10 were indeed covered by attorney-client privilege because they did not involve Trump or involved litigation that was not covered by the subpoena. The other 101 must be disclosed.
That disclosure is important. But far more important is what is in Carter’s decision. It lays out, point by point, what depositions have now told us about the actions of former president Trump in the days before January 6, and explains what those actions mean.
Judge Carter explains how Trump and Eastman fostered the public belief that the 2020 presidential election was tainted by fraud, despite the lack of evidence for that claim. They urged state legislators to question the results of the election. On January 2, 2021, Trump and Eastman hosted a briefing urging several hundred state legislators from states Biden won to “decertify” the electors.
The same day, January 2, 2021, Trump called Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to get him to throw the election to Trump. Raffensperger refuted all of Trump’s arguments, “point by point,” and told him “the data you have is wrong.” Trump insisted he just wanted to find 11,780 votes, one more than Biden received to win the state.
The next day, January 3, Trump tried to remove the acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who had replaced Attorney General William Barr when he resigned on December 23, 2020, and replace him with Jeffrey Clark, who planned to write a letter to certain states Biden won, telling them that the election might have been stolen and urging them to decertify the electors. Richard Donoghue, the acting deputy attorney general at the time, told the January 6 Committee that the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, described Clark’s proposed letter as a “murder-suicide pact” that would “damage everyone who touches it” and said “we should have nothing to do with that letter.” When high-ranking officials in the Department of Justice warned they would resign together if Trump appointed Clark, he did not do so.
Judge Carter outlined how in the months after the election, sources from members of Trump’s inner circle to statisticians told Trump and Eastman that there was no evidence of election fraud. Christopher Krebs of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said that “[t]he November 3rd election [was] the most secure in American history,” and that it found “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” An internal memo from the Trump campaign said the fraud claims about Dominion voting machines were baseless. In early December, Barr said publicly there was no evidence of fraud, and on December 27, Donoghue told Trump that after “dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews,” the Justice Department had concluded that there was no evidence of voter fraud that had changed the election results.
Still, Trump insisted that the Department of Justice should say that the election was fraudulent.
By early January, courts had rejected more than 60 cases relating to accusations of fraud, owing to lack of evidence or lack of standing.
By late December, Eastman wrote a memo proposing to reinstate Trump by getting Pence to reject the certified electoral votes from states Trump claimed to have won. If Pence rejected the votes from those states, Trump would win. Alternatively, Pence could send the election to the House of Representatives, where each state would get a single vote and Republicans had a majority of the states, and elect Trump that way. Eastman wrote: “[t]he main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission—either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court.”
Eastman expanded on this a few days later, saying that the plan was “BOLD, Certainly. But this Election was Stolen by a strategic Democrat plan to systematically flout existing election laws for partisan advantage; we’re no longer playing by Queensbury Rules.”
On January 4, Trump and Eastman pressed Pence, Pence’s lawyer Greg Jacob, and Pence’s chief of staff Marc Short to reject the electors or delay the count. Pence insisted he did not have the authority to do either of those things.
The next day, Eastman again pressed Jacob and Short to follow his plan. Jacob has testified that Eastman admitted his plan was “contrary to consistent historical practice, would likely be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court, and violated the Electoral Count Act on four separate grounds.” Nonetheless, Eastman and Trump continued to pressure Pence to follow it.
At 1:00 am on January 6, Trump tweeted, “If Vice President [Pence] comes through for us, we will win the Presidency…. Mike can send it back!” At 8:17 am, he tweeted, “States want to correct their votes…. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!” Then Trump called Pence twice, reaching him on the second attempt and berating him for “not [being] tough enough to make the call” to reject or delay the electoral votes.
At the January 6 rally on the Ellipse, Eastman and Trump spoke to explain the plan to the attendees and those watching at home. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani introduced Eastman as the professor who would explain how the Democrats cheated. Eastman told the crowd that they just wanted Pence to “let the legislators of the state look into this so we get to the bottom of it, and the American people know whether we have control of the direction of our government, or not. We no longer live in a self-governing republic if we can’t get the answer to this question. This is bigger than President Trump. It is a very essence of our republican form of government, and it has to be done. And anybody that is not willing to stand up to do it, does not deserve to be in the office. It is that simple.”
Following him, Trump praised Eastman as “one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country” who looked at this and he said, ‘What an absolute disgrace that this can be happening to our Constitution.’... Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election….”
Pence rejected the plan publicly, and at 1:00, members of Congress, gathered in joint session, began to count the electoral votes. Trump urged his supporters to walk with him up to the Capitol, saying: “[i]t is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down…. [W]e’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help. We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
After the speech, Trump went back to the White House while several hundred protesters stormed the Capitol. Even after he had been informed of the violence, Trump tweeted at 2:24 pm: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”
During the riot, Pence’s lawyer Greg Jacob emailed Eastman that the rioters “believed with all their hearts the theory they were sold about the powers that could legitimately be exercised at the Capitol on this day…. [a]nd thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.” Eastman responded: “The ‘siege’ is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so the American people can see for themselves what happened.”
Trump eventually released a video asking the rioters to leave the Capitol but saying “We love you, you’re very special. You’ve seen what happens, you see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel.” At 6:00 pm, he tweeted: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”
Eastman continued to press Pence to delay the count until almost midnight on January 6.
Judge Carter concluded that Trump’s actions “more likely than not constitute attempts to obstruct an official proceeding.” He also concluded that “Trump likely knew the electoral count plan had no factual justification.” The plan, Carter wrote, “was a last-ditch attempt to secure the Presidency by any means.” He also found that “it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”
Eastman and Trump “launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” Carter wrote. “Their campaign was…a coup in search of a legal theory…. If [the] plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.”
Does anyone really not see the fraud that Trump and Eastman attempted against the United States?It is no secret that Trump and many of his associates have, and still do claim there was widespread fraud in the election, and that Trump won. Many citizens have that same belief.
" If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.”
Last I heard we have a Congressional committee investigating the matter.
Hopefully, we get to see some evidence, and a report when they conclude the investigation.
With all the crimes that Trump is being accused of, too many to mention, one should wonder why he has not been charged?
These kinds of accusations serve no one unless one can prove them and prosecute someone. So far this is all fooder beefed up by left media.Your denialism that a large preponderance of evidence is not already laid out in that judge's ruling is astounding.
Trump and associates were briefed that no evidence existed to show fraud. So the entire January 6 rally was based on a fraudulent claim.
Eastman was aware that asking Pence to violate the Electoral Count Act was unlawful and said as much in an e-mail to Pence's people.
When you're this much of a partisan hack though, it does not surprise me that you cannot recognize the damning evidence that those public pieces of information truly are.
And charging a billionaire ex-president is no small task and would set all kinds of precedent. Let alone the way he causes his base to become domestic terrorists when he directs them at someone that attacks him (threats to the media, pipe bombs getting mailed to political opponents that he has named, threats to elections workers, insurrection on January 6 to name just a few). If you cannot understand why some may hesitate to be the first to go down that road, that just shows how you continue to omit pertinent information to the nature of charging someone like Trump.Hey, I never supported the fraud accusation. Still don't. When Trump made his accusations I felt it would have served us all if a Congressional committee did an investigation to show fraud had not occurred that would have changed the outcome of the election. It could have stopped this all in its tracks. Now, any do believe there was widespread fraud, I truely feel this could have been avoided. I know my view is unpopular, and that many feel, the evidence did not warrant a Congressional investigation.
And I remember taking a real beating over my view at that time. I think we would be in a different place if one was done.
I basically hold on to the concept one is innocent until proven guilty. I think Garland will go by the law, and that he feels he can prove and prosecute. he very likely will charge more citizens with Contempt and work with the Committee to fully investigate the case.
The Congressional committee is investigating the matter.
I would like to see some evidence if they have it, and I certainly expect to see some form of a report when they conclude the investigation.
"And charging a billionaire ex-president is no small task and would set all kinds of precedent." Yes, you said a mouth full...
It is important this committee get to the truth. But it is very important that they can produce evidence of what went down, otherwise, some of the public will look at this as a witchhunt. The investigation could do more harm than good... If you get my point.
Actually, ifTrump runs and can call this investigation another witchhunt if they don't produce facts. This is how I see it.
I feel if the committee can prove the Jan 6th riot was planned most Americans would not certainly vote for Trump. But who knows, it seems he still holds a big base.
I have said this many times, I hope the Republican Party does not run Trump. I feel the country needs two new fresh candidates.And again, I point to two key pieces of public evidence that you refuse to even acknowledge and dance around in any response:
1.) Trump was told, repeatedly, there was no fraud.
2.) Eastman knew his ask of Pence was unlawful.
That Trump was pushing something Eastman knew to be unlawful sounds clearly like a fraud on the American people by losing candidate Trump. That Trump continues to raise money knowing there was no election fraud is also another example of fraud.
Pure denialism.I well expect unless this committee comes up with some indictments, Trump will run again or hand picks who runs.
Yup, won't even acknowledge the obvious. That Trump clearly tried to subvert American democracy. In fact, we are all pretty sure you'll vote for him again despite the obvious.
Instead, just a deflection to Trump's 2024 plans, which I'm not even trying to discuss.
Let me ask plainly, does pushing something you know to be unlawful to remain in power constitute a violation of the law? Does the cult let you come to such conclusions?
I will wait on the evidence to see if Trump or anyone around Trump planned to subvert America's Democracy --- because our democracy says one is innocent until proven guilty.
In my view pushing an idea is not unlawful. If the idea is breaking the law, and the idea is not carried out, no law was broken. I could say I am going to rob someone, but until i do it, no law was broken.
I belong to a segment of Americans that use common sense and do not buy into unfounded media reports. We are a dying breed. We need a bit of proof before accusing someone of a crime, like the true-crime itself. It is so dangerous to buy into innuendo, find a person's equity and then search for a crime. Dangerous, and not very intelligent in my view.
Hey, I certainly won't change my principles or my values at this stage in my life. And I can always look the other way at an unfounded insult toward my person.
Let me know if Trump is indicted by the DOJ.I just handed you the evidence of Eastman attempting to coerce Pence to do something he knew was unlawful. And Trump did the same all day long via twitter and speeches. Is trying to coerce someone to break the law illegal to you?
Federal Coercion Laws
The term coercion can be found in multiple sections of the U.S. Code in relation to political activity, employment, sex trafficking, commerce, housing, and contract law, to name a few. Sometimes these codes use the term "duress" instead, but they're similar in their recognition of acts done under pressure from another party. Federal laws addressing coercion include the following:
Coercion of Political Activity - To "intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce" any federal employee to engage (or not engage) in any political activity. Punishable by a fine and/or up to three years in prison.
And I don't agree with your argument that people can attempt to subvert our democracy, but they are only culpable if they succeed.The keyword is 'attempted" to do something unlawful. If all you have come to believe and have shared with me is true, we should see someone arrested, should we not?
Last I knew Eastman has not been indicted. I have read he is under investigation --- The former visiting professor MAY face charges following his alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 attack. and --- Former Chapman professor John Eastman under ethics investigation by California State Bar
and --- Lawyer Eastman promoted theory Pence could overturn election.
None seem to be proven as of yet. Yet curiously you have come to the conclusion these accusations are true.
He has not even been indicted on --- anything thus far.Glad you can admit that Eastman and Trump attempted to do something unlawful. It's a step in the right direction. And the investigation is still unearthing information since Eastman sued to keep further documents from the committee. But, yes, many expect arrests and indictments from this information.
The e-mail I just posted makes it crystal clear that Eastman knew what he was asking of Pence to do was unlawful. The goal being to send the vote back to the states which would have led to a Trump victory via state delegate votes since Republicans controlled more states.
I can understand your wanting to wait for the trials. I initially thought Rittenhouse was guilty until I heard the actual testimony. So there is some merit in that. But having seen this evidence, it's pretty damning and has me leaning towards guilt.The information coming out from the committee is damming, I don't think many would deny that. But we just have no way of knowing how this will all end. As I have said, I trust the DOJ to do the right thing. I have taken a flack for that statement on other chats. But, I do have to feel that Garland will carry out the law, I felt the same about Barr. And he did come out early on and state no widespread fraud was committed.
What has leaked is damming. But we have no way of knowing if the info can be proven. Much of it is very damming and would be hard to ignore one way or the other. Very difficult situation one way or the other. Yes, the cat is out of the bag with the Eastman information, it would be hard to ignore.Yes, it is damning and heads will need to roll. This time we will cage the heretofore slippery serpents involved.
I guess my age has come to jade my views. I do hope if laws were broken those that broke them need to be held accountable. However, as time drags on I will not hold my breath.
If this committee does not come up with the goods -- Trump will run, and use the investigation to stir his base, and perhaps attract more to that base. Such a gamble I would say. Trump will be screaming about another witchhunt that he was fully exonerated.
This committee needs to hit the gas.One of my biggest fears if Garland (or NY or GA) does indict Trump, many states will have to call out their national guard to quell the riots that will ensue. I don't think Trump's base will take his being brought to the bar of Justice quietly.
I am sorry, Barr was an obvious hack by the time Trump got done with him. He use to be well respected, but now he is a laughingstock. Garland, on the other hand, has principles he sticks to, unlike Barr (until the very end when even he couldn't take anymore of Trump).
Personally, I am not convinced Rittenhouse is not actually guilty (I think that double negative works), but there was enough doubt (which doesn't make him innocent, btw) to prevent the jury from returning conviction.
Then you didn't listen to the witness accounts. It was clear that those Rittenhouse shot were the aggressors.
Yeah, I did, and watched the videos. In at least one of the killings, I might have voted to convict - the one where he killed an unarmed man.
You mean the one that tried to take Rittenhouse's gun away after being heard saying he was going to kill Rittenhouse if he found him alone? The one whose fingerprints were on Rittenhouse's rifle? That unarmed saint?
You must have a very limited definition of self-defense.I guess the moral of the story is to never try to protect someone from someone shooting people and never, ever bring a skateboard to a gunfight.
"Last I knew Eastman has not been indicted." - UNBELIEVABLE! And so disingenuous (my new favorite word for the day)
" because our democracy says one is innocent until proven guilty." - And as I have pointed out before, with that black and white attitude, you will go to your grave defending Al Capone (or pick your own really bad guy) saying he is innocent of murder because he was never found guilty of it. That he is a innocent as the driven snow, just like Trump is. I find that disingenuous.
"In my view pushing an idea is not unlawful. If the idea is breaking the law, and the idea is not carried out, no law was broken." - That is extremely naïve. Ton's of people are convicted every year for planning crimes that never happened. Hopefully, Trump will be one of those.
"We need a bit of proof before accusing someone of a crime, like the true-crime itself. It is so dangerous to buy into innuendo, find a person's equity and then search for a crime. " - Of course you know that is NOT what has happened here. They had lots of proof that Trump committed a crime and to start an investigation. You may not know this, but they have not accused Trump of anything yet, they are still investigating. Nor, have they found him guilty of anything.
So where you get his befuddled notion that this committee as determined that Trump is guilty and started looking for evidence to prove it is beyond me, unless it is these Right-Wing propaganda outfits you get a lot of your talking points from.
The Committee cannot indict. I can only send to the House a recommendation to refer Trump for criminal prosecution to DOJ. Then the House has to vote on that recommendation and if it passes, only then will the referral to DOJ be made. Once it is in Garland's hands, only then can DOJ indict Trump, if they chose to do so.[/i]
I personally think they ought to indict Trump even if they aren't 100% sure they can convince a jury. Let the jury decide if there is enough evidence.
"Hey, I never supported the fraud accusation. " - But neither do you push back against it, even though it does so much damage to our democracy. Why is that?
" I truely feel this could have been avoided." - No more that Putin's war in Ukraine could have been avoided. There were massive amounts of evidence showing there was no significant fraud and NO evidence that there was. I am sorry that is not enough for you, but that issue was settled a long time ago. Even Trump's lackey in DOJ couldn't stomach Trump's lies and finally had to revolt.
For cult members, there will never be enough proof to shake their belief in the infallibility of Pope Trump.
"would set all kinds of precedent. " - precedence that SHOULD be set so no future demagogue like Trump can attempt to be king again - that no one, not even Trump, is above the law
The last I heard you didn't see the point of that committee to investigate anything because you have often implied, if not actually said, "there is no there, there" You have often claimed there was no insurrection. While you don't go as far as some on your side says the insurrectionists were invited into the Capitol by the police, neither do you push back on it.
"Hopefully, we get to see some evidence, and a report when they conclude the investigation." - What did I say about having one's head buried? Here is a good example as there has been PLENTY of evidence revealed by the committee. Be honest now, is there ANY amount of evidence that will convince you of Trump's obvious guilt.?
"With all the crimes that Trump is being accused of, too many to mention, one should wonder why he has not been charged?" - That is naïve and suggests you don't understand how the process works. Besides Trump WAS charged TWICE. Further, a majority of Senators were convinced of his guilt (I suspect all were, but had no spine to say so).
Trump Republicans don't see the fraud because their head is buried so deep in the sand that they don't know which way is up. You can't reason with unreasonable people and people who use Conway's "alternative facts" as most people on the Right in this forum do.
Trump's attack on Democracy keeps on growing as more and more revelations come out as this ANALYSIS shows.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/29/politics … index.htmlThis investigation into Trump is still active, or at least it ought to be as the FEC is sued for slow-walking the look into Trump's campaign violations.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-fe … mg00000004
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/29/politics … index.htmlAs part of the Republican coup attempt to fundamentally change voting laws in America and diminish democracy, various conservative State legislatures passed restrictive voting laws.
Today, a federal judge in Florida ruled parts of SB 90, the Trump Republican attempt to rig the election process in their favor, was unconstitutional. It violated the Voting Rights Act as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments.
Specifically, he said that SB 90s rules:
- scaling back the availability of mail ballot drop boxes;
- restrictions on providing aid like water, fans and snacks to those waiting in line to vote;
- its more stringent rules for voter registration drives.
Are unconstitutional because they are designed to discourage black voters from voting. He drew the obvious link to past discrimination - the very reason the Voting Rights Act was passed in the first place.
His remedies was to put Florida under the Voting Rights Act provision known as preclearance, which requires certain states to seek the okay of a federal judge or the Justice Department when making changes to its election rules. For the next 10 years, under his ruling, the state will need to seek preclearance for laws and regulations concerning voter registration drives, drop boxes or so-called line warming activities.
"Without preclearance, Florida could continue to enact such laws, replacing them every legislative session if courts view them with skepticism. Such a scheme makes a mockery of the rule of law," Walker wrote.
Yea for the good guys.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/31/politics … index.htmlThe DOJ criminal investigation into Jan 6 just got another step closer to Trump.
The Department of Justice has expanded its criminal investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack to look at the financing and planning of a preceding rally attended by former President Donald Trump, people familiar with the matter told The Washington Post.
I bet you the revelations from the Jan 6 Select Committee is responsible for that.
https://theweek.com/donald-trump/101202 … hing-plansIt well appears Attorney General Merrick Garland will not be pushed or badgered into a decision on whether to investigate former President Donald Trump and his associates related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
Garland had stated previously -- He vowed to hold accountable “all January 6th perpetrators, at any level” and has said that would include those who were “present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.”
Garland has assured reporters at a Justice Department press conference Friday, April 1, 2022 -- He will not be taking outside demands into account.
"The only pressure I feel, and the only pressure that our line prosecutors feel, is to do the right thing," Garland said in a Justice Department press conference Friday.
"That means we follow the facts and the law, wherever they may lead," Garland added.
So, pleased to see he is not giving in to Congressional pressure, gives me faith he will follow facts and the law as his job requires of him. Source -- https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ag-mer … e-pressure"It well appears Attorney General Merrick Garland will not be pushed or badgered into a decision on whether to investigate former President Donald Trump" - Of course not. That may be the way Trump acts, but not Biden. Biden, like all other good presidents, leaves DOJ alone to do an honest, independent job.
That said, Garland has let his Jan 6 prosecutors expand their investigation to go beyond those who participated in the insurrection. He is now having them go after those that were responsible for the rally held before Trump sent his troops to the Capitol (I bet that is the way he thinks of them - his troops) which led to the insurrection.
I can only guess that the revelations coming out of the Jan 6 committee led to that decision.
Trump FAILS Again
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/04/politics … index.htmlAs expected, Special Counsel Durham is on a witch-hunt against Clinton. They allege that Sussmann lied to the FBI about working for the Clinton campaign (he didn't lie) so he finds it necessary to go fishing into the Steele dossier.
Either Sussman lied to the FBI about being paid by the DNC and Clinton at some point in time or he didn't lie (it is hard to lie when he previously told the FBI of his relationship with them).
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/05/politics … index.htmlGlad to see that DirectTV not renewing one of the worst Right-Wing propaganda outlets, One America News (OAN) from its line up. One more victory against disinformation in America.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … ve-channelNavarro and Scavino referred for contempt of Congress:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-votes- … 41282.htmlRather snarky, and not to the point, but is there anyone in this country or any other that does not hold the US Congress in contempt?
What has that got to do with anything? Is that an excuse for breaking the law?
Peace, Eso. Just a side remark, and a rather snarky one at that. Not intended to address the topic of the thread at all. Just a sarcastic comment on "contempt of Congress".
Good news and bad news. The Good News is that DOJ is investigating Trump's theft of classified material and Bad News is that while they are doing so, they are blocking the Jan 6 committee from doing their job.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/07/house-o … trump.htmlTwo days after the 2020 election, Donald Trump Jr. is texting the coup plot ideas to Mark Meadows. This before the result of the election had been determined, any recounts done, or any investigations into alleged fraud had been started.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV8mkeH2xygNow Donny Jr. joins the conspiracy to overturn the election - BEFORE the results had been called. Talk about pre-planning!!
wo days after the 2020 presidential election, as votes were still being tallied, Donald Trump's eldest son texted then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows that "we have operational control" to ensure his father would get a second term, with Republican majorities in the US Senate and swing state legislatures, CNN has learned.
In the text, which has not been previously reported, Donald Trump Jr. lays out ideas for keeping his father in power by subverting the Electoral College process, according to the message reviewed by CNN. The text is among records obtained by the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021.
"It's very simple," Trump Jr. texted to Meadows on November 5, adding later in the same missive: "We have multiple paths We control them all."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics … index.htmlRep MTG will probably have to face a Georgia administrative judge to determine if she can qualify for the Republican primary ballot because of her support of the Jan 6 insurrection. Greene filed suit in federal court to block the hearing. She is likely to lose given the Obama-appointed judge disagreed with the Trump-appointed judge who ruled in a similar NC case (Cawthorn) that an old amnesty law was "prospective" and applied to Cawthorn.
Constitutional scholars and the Obama-judge think that the law is retrospective and doesn't logically apply to future cases. She will likely rule on Monday to allow the administrative proceeding to continue.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics … index.htmlIt is now clear the DOJ is investigating those responsible for the Jan 6 insurrection and not just the those directly involved in attacking the Capitol. This, presumably, could reach all the way up to Trump.
I suspect the work of the Jan 6 committee is the reason why DOJ has expanded their investigation.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/politics … index.htmlSeriously? We're debating how to define what happened on January 6? My husband went to a military college. Often a math problem would be left incomplete. The text would say "The solution to this problem is intuitively obvious to the casual observer." If ever there was a problem to which this is the proper answer!!!
Was somebody debating the obvious - that it was an insurrection?
In college I once spent an evening and three pages of proof to show that
2^n >= 1 where n is >=0.
It seemed stupid on the fact of it, but took a lot of effort to actually prove it (although I suspect I was very inefficient and unglamorous in my proof)I haven't seen anyone debate whether the riot was an insurrection. Some make the claim, without proof, others call them on a lie. No debate.
But the math question is interesting. I tool a class titled "number theory" in college and it consisted of proving that some of our root ideas of math are correct (1+1=2 was one as I recall), just as you did. Fascinating subject, and not at all an easy one.If not an insurrection, then why are several people charged with Seditious Conspiracy?
Insurrection - a violent uprising against an authority or government.
Seditious Conspiracy - .If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Sounds like there is no debate needed - it was an insurrection.By your definition anyone that defies police is an insurrectionist. Anyone that participates in a riot, anyone that flips a cop car, anyone that occupies a police precinct or courthouse is an "insurrectionist", participating in an "insurrection".
I have a little different definition, as (I believe) most of the people. Most likely including you...except where it could possibly lead to jailing Trump.Those aren't my definitions, they are federal statute (for the sedition) So your hyperbole is inaccurate.
The definition I gave for insurrection is a dictionary definition. But here is the statute.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.You have quoted the text of a law that does not even attempt to define insurrection. As that is the topic (definition of "insurrection") can you find one that defines it?
BTW, did you know that 1 + 1 = 10 as well?
Only if "10" is in binary. Or at least that is what this feeble brain recalls from 50 years ago.
But then, to be completely clear and correct, the radix of each number should be indicated as a subscript of that number unless it has already been established that the base is two rather then ten. Math is not English, and the preciseness of mathematical notation is, I think, something that throws a lot of people that have trouble with it.
A 'silent coup...'
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maybe-real-c … 38390.htmlTwo guilty pleas to conspiracy charges related to the attempt to stop the certification of electoral votes.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/proud-boys-m … 08250.html
Pretty sure that helps the insurrection argument.REAL Republican Rep Liz Cheney says the Jan 6 committee now has enough evidence against Trump to recommend a criminal indictment to the DOJ.
The internal question is, should they since the DOJ is apparently now in hot pursuit of an indictment all on their own.
My recommendation would be for the Committee to complete their investigation, hold open hearings so the public can see all the evidence against Trump and other, and postpone issuing a criminal referral to Sep 1. If, by Sep 1, DOJ has not done so on their own, then send the referral to the full House for a vote with recommendation of what laws need changing to prevent a president from trying a coup again.
If DOJ does indict, then issue their report and start working on laws to prevent such a coup attempt by a president from ever happening again. Of course we know the Trump Republicans will want to keep such a possibility in place so as to give Trump another bite at the apple.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/masonbissa … a594df757dInsurrection: an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects
Organized. Check. Two convictions already.
Violent. Check. Hundreds of assaulted Police.
Established government. Check. US Congress.
By a group of citizens. Check.A Jury convicted another insurrectionist today. One of the pieces of evidence used against him was his online post that said.
Prosecutors cited online posts Robertson allegedly wrote a month before the attack where he called for an "opened armed rebellion."
Tell me again how this is not an insurrection?What was he convicted of? Incitement to riot? The crime he was convicted of might tell you whether it was an "insurrection" or not.
I see you still don't get it do you, lol. Let's say you out-and-out murder somebody, no question about it, everybody saw you do it..
The prosecution charges and convicts you have jay-walking. By your theory, you did not kill anyone and therefore are not a murderer. Ludicrous.
Related Discussions
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 10
"Declassified Docs Target Obama-Era Spying"
by Sharlee 20 hours ago
Former President Barack Obama is being accused of orchestrating a politically motivated effort to undermine Donald Trump after the 2016 election. According to declassified intelligence and a criminal referral from current DNI Tulsi Gabbard, Obama allegedly directed top intelligence officials to...
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 7 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 16
The Trump Dossier revisited.
by Randy Godwin 7 years ago
Today Sen. Diane Feinstein released the transcripts of the Richard Steele interview against the wishes of Republican committee members. Steel was worried about Trump being possibly blackmailed if he became POTUS and contacted the FBI as he should have. This was before the election and before the...
- 27
FBI launches criminal investigations of John Brennan, James Comey
by Readmikenow 12 days ago
It's about time!"CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred Brennan for criminal investigation to the FBIEXCLUSIVE: Former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey are under criminal investigation for potential wrongdoing related to the Trump–Russia probe, including allegedly...
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...