Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?

Jump to Last Post 101-150 of 981 discussions (6159 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    Hillary Clinton pokes back at the Russian Bear wanna-be.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/12/politics … index.html

  2. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    Does 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.

  3. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.)

  4. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    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.

  5. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image78
      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        "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?

  6. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      More 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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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?

  7. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    That was some serious deflection.  Going back 14 years to talk about an unrelated campaign finance issue.

  8. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

  9. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    Let 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.html

    1. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      DAMN, 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?

  10. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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/ak51K

    1. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I 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.

      1. wilderness profile image78
        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  11. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    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/

  12. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

  13. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    The 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.

  14. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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,

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      As more move to the gallows for that insurgency, just wonder when the maze will finally lead to the kingpin.

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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.

  15. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    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.

  16. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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."

    1. wilderness profile image78
      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. My Esoteric profile image85
            My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            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)

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

              "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?

              1. My Esoteric profile image85
                My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                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.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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?

  17. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Why 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.

  18. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

  19. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    You don't always deal in facts.  You often omit facts that make your side look negative.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  20. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I 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

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        "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."

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Has he been charged? I guess the new Liberal AG did not see enough facts to show Trump broke any law.

          1. My Esoteric profile image85
            My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            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.

    2. wilderness profile image78
      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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."

        1. wilderness profile image78
          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image85
            My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image78
              wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image85
                My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                "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.

                1. wilderness profile image78
                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Vance did not charge Trump. Get to a trail?  Trump has not been charged with anything. My God give it up,

              1. My Esoteric profile image85
                My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image85
            My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "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.

            1. Valeant profile image77
              Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              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/

  21. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, 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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          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.

  22. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Has anyone of them been arrested?

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Are 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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Get back to me when one of them is charged.

  23. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

  24. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    Texts 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!!!

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        I absolutely agree!

      2. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        GA

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Oh 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.

        2. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ows-texts/

          As I told Sharlee, this is a little more than just an innocent association in my opinion?

      3. Sharlee01 profile image84
        Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          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,

        2. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          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.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        --

  25. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    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...

  26. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

  27. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    And 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.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      WOW --- 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?

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          t back to me when Trump is charged. Your Trump obsession is really very odd.

        2. wilderness profile image78
          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          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"?

          1. Valeant profile image77
            Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            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-pence

            1. My Esoteric profile image85
              My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              51% 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.

              1. wilderness profile image78
                wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                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?

                1. My Esoteric profile image85
                  My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I didn't think you knew how it worked, you just proved that you don't.

            2. wilderness profile image78
              wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image85
                My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                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)

              2. Valeant profile image77
                Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image85
                    My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    "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.

      2. wilderness profile image78
        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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?)

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Well, I am not in the need of a bridge at this time. LOL

    2. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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,"

  28. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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?

  29. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "Recommended"... That sort of tells you this is going nowhere. It just seems you can't get the lingo down at CNN.  Lots of may have, and could be's, and can't leave out ---  it is thought that, oh and recommended.

  30. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    March 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?

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Valeant profile image77
        Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Valeant profile image77
            Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

              I well expect unless this committee comes up with some indictments, Trump will run again or hand picks who runs.

              1. Valeant profile image77
                Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                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?


                https://hubstatic.com/15944248_f1024.jpg


                https://hubstatic.com/15944249_f1024.jpg

                1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Valeant profile image77
                    Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image85
                    My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    " 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.

              2. My Esoteric profile image85
                My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                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.

          2. My Esoteric profile image85
            My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "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.

        2. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          "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

      2. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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).

    2. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  31. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

  32. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    This 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.html

  33. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    As 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.html

  34. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    The 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-plans

  35. Sharlee01 profile image84
    Sharlee01posted 3 years ago

    It 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

    1. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "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.

  36. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago
  37. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    As 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.html

  38. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    Glad 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-channel

  39. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    Navarro and Scavino referred for contempt of Congress:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-votes- … 41282.html

    1. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      YEP smile

      1. wilderness profile image78
        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Rather 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? sad

        1. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          What has that got to do with anything?  Is that an excuse for breaking the law?

          1. wilderness profile image78
            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            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".

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Add me to that list.

  40. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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.html

  41. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    Two 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=SV8mkeH2xyg

  42. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    Now 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.html

  43. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    Rep 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.html

  44. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    It 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.html

  45. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
    Kathleen Cochranposted 3 years ago

    Seriously? 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!!!

    1. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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)

      1. wilderness profile image78
        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image78
            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. My Esoteric profile image85
              My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image78
                wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                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?

        2. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          BTW, did you know that 1 + 1 = 10 as well?

          1. wilderness profile image78
            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Only if "10" is in binary.  Or at least that is what this feeble brain recalls from 50 years ago.

            1. My Esoteric profile image85
              My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              You recall correctly.

              1. wilderness profile image78
                wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                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.

  46. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago
  47. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    Two 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.

  48. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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 … a594df757d

  49. Valeant profile image77
    Valeantposted 3 years ago

    Insurrection:  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.

  50. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    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?

    1. wilderness profile image78
      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      What was he convicted of?  Incitement to riot?  The crime he was convicted of might tell you whether it was an "insurrection" or not.

      1. My Esoteric profile image85
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        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.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)