superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Trump and Eastman appear to be preparing to be indicted. It’s probably better to have a new, separate thread for this case.
Special Counsel January 6 conspiracy case against Trump in DC (Update: Trial set for March 4, 2024) (1 Viewer)
- Thread startersuperchuck500
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
Lapaz
Well-known member
Offline
The Republican party has become a crime syndicate with Trump as its boss. The rank and file followers are largely cultists, but the leadership is a criminal syndicate that is doing everything they can to subvert law and order. Democracy needs alternatives, so we desperately need a legitimate opposition party with integrity to offer a reasonable alternative to the Democratic party, AND we need ranked choice to allow such a party to grow.
Lapaz
Well-known member
Offline
As usual, you have it backwards. The best thing that could happen to the Republican party is for Trump to go to jail and for the party to reject him, because Haley does much better with general election voters. Biden will probably have a much better chance against Trump than nearly any other Republican.
Justice is the most important thing, so at this point, since the judicial system is choosing to delay justice, the executive justice department should ignore its policy of taking a case to court too close to an election.
fooferdoggie
Well-known member
Offline
FullMonte
Well-known member
Offline
SCOTUS really dropped the ball on this one, and I hope they sus it out before April.
Their order grants a review of: “Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
Ok, so let’s say the president DOES have immunity from prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts.
Where does that leave us? Is the former president immune simply because he alleges that his conduct was an official act? How long before THAT ends up in front of SCOTUS?
If they rule that way, who determines what is/isnt an official act?
Their order grants a review of: “Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
Ok, so let’s say the president DOES have immunity from prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts.
Where does that leave us? Is the former president immune simply because he alleges that his conduct was an official act? How long before THAT ends up in front of SCOTUS?
If they rule that way, who determines what is/isnt an official act?
- Thread starter
- #581
OP
OP
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
I think the best answer here is to read the DC Circuit opinion - you can even search/find "official" and just focus on that question. There's discussion of it.
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
The longer this gets drawn out, the longer I fear nothing will come from any of this.
- Banned
- #583
SaintForLife
Well-known member
Offline
It's ironic you say that while Biden escaped being charged for his classified documents case supposedly because he was too old to remember things. How convenient.
What about the Biden DOJ covering for Hunter and Joe at every turn? What about the unprecedented plea deal they tried to sneak through for Hunter? The IRS whistleblowers say their entire team was removed from Hunter Biden tax fraud investigation. Why?
Whistleblower Joseph Ziegler said the Justice Department hindered the Hunter Biden probe by blocking felony charges, search warrants, and interviews with the Biden family.
Another IRS whistleblower, Gary Shapley, also testified about the Justice Department preventing them from charging Hunter Biden with felonies, rejecting search warrants, and restricting witness interviews. Both whistleblowers were denied access to Hunter Biden's laptop Their testimonies were corroborated by an FBI agent in the Delaware office.
Shapley:
"I'm here to tell you that the Delaware US Attorney's Office and Department of Justice's handling of the Hunter Biden tax investigation was very different from any other case my 14 years at the IRS. At every stage decisions were made that benefited the subject of this investigation.
For example, prosecutors conceal contents of Hunter Biden's laptop from investigators. DOJ slow walked steps to include interviews, serving document requests, and executing search warrants. Warrents that we're ready as early as April of 2020, but were delayed until after the November 2020 election, and never pursued.
Investigators were not allowed to follow up on WhatsApp messages from Hunter Biden's Apple iCloud backup, where he suggested he was sitting next to his father. Assistant United States Attorney Leslie Wolf cited the optics of executing a search warrant at President Biden's residence as a deciding factor for not allowing it even though she agreed that probable cause existed.
Prosecutors instructed investigators not to ask about the big guy or dad when conducting interviews. The Biden transition team was tipped off about interviews the night before the investigation went over."
It would be one thing if the Biden DOJ didn't protect Hunter and Joe, but they did which makes the rush to put Trump in jail even more political.
Obama authorized a drone strikes to kill an American citizen yet he wasn't charged. Snowden revealed the US government had been illegally spying on American citizens yet nobody was charged. Bush lied about WMD to get us into a war, but he wasn't charged. What about going to war without congressional authorization?
- Banned
- #584
SaintForLife
Well-known member
Offline
The last thing we need is Dick Cheney in heels. Haley is just another neocon establishment Republican and that's why the media loves her. She couldn't even win her own state and you think she would do well in the general election?
Justice is the most important thing? While Joe and Hunter are protected by his own DOJ? Yeah okay
FullMonte
Well-known member
Offline
Is that why? I thought they didn’t charge him because:
“The evidence does not establish Mr Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
(Page 1, Paragraph 3)
“..the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the department of Justice’s Priciples of Federal Prosecution.”
(page 1, Paragraph 3)
“This could convince some reasonable jurors that he did not retain them willfully.”
(Page 4, Paragraph 5)
“…will likely convince some jurors that he made an innocent mistake, rather than acting willfully…”
(Page 5, Paragraph 2)
Shall I go on?
But, I do have a simple yes/nonquestion for you.
If you believe that Biden should be prosecuted for his actions, you do also believe that Trump should face hundreds of additional charges for the documents he returned to NARA, right?
In another post in this thread, did you not complain that they waited three years to charge him? So is it a rush, or did they wait three years?
- Thread starter
- #586
OP
OP
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Sigh.
It’s like a broken record. Biden wasn’t charged over documents for the same reason Pence wasn’t charged - there wasn’t ill intent and they cooperated immediately with the return of the material. Trump did the exact opposite.
I say charge Joe Biden with whatever crimes they can get an indictment for - and I think most reasonable people agree because we’re not cultists and believe in the rule of law. But this never ending line of conspiracy to keep them from being charged is just so tiresome. There's a special prosecutor. There’s a congressional investigation. There was a Trump DOJ. I know you have to believe that Joe Biden is some master criminal and is controlling all of the levers of power to keep any prosecution from happening or else everything else you believe falls apart.
But nothing ever comes of it and nothing ever will because there’s nothing there.
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
Exactly. And the lemmings and conspiracy theorists continue to pretend that isn't the case. Broken record indeed.
Yep, so much this. Great points.
- Thread starter
- #588
OP
OP
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
And there's so much more to say, really.
1. Saying "Hunter and Joe Biden!" really has nothing do to with the issue that Trump supporters refuse to acknowledge - that the reason why Trump has been charged with 91 felonies and no other presidential candidate in a century or maybe ever, Republican or Democrat, has been is that there is probable cause (and more) for each of those 91 felonies. That doesn't mean there will be a conviction on each, but the idea that Trump should just get a pass is wrong, and it used to be wrong to Republicans too . . . but they've completely sold out to this man who has virtually none of the qualities they used to value.
2. If it's nothing more than a Biden attempt to rig the election, why aren't they charging Senate and House candidates? Control of Congress is particularly important for a president to accomplish their agenda - so if they're just freely willing to break law and convention and charge Trump to win the election, why aren't they doing it in other races?
3. DOJ is not a monolith under the whim of the White House. There are more than 10,000 lawyers at DOJ, each of them sworn to an oath to uphold the law and the Constitution. Each of them bound to report impropriety to an independent Inspector General. Each of them licensed by at least one state bar association and bound by the rules of that bar association. This idea that DOJ is going around covering up Biden crimes left and right as an institutional practice is nonsense - the lawyers wouldn't do it. They wouldn't do it for Nixon, they wouldn't do it for Trump, and they're not going to do it for Biden. I'm not naive enough to sit here and argue that there aren't grey areas and discretionary elements that aren’t influenced to the benefit of the president and that political-appointee lawyers don't serve the interests of the President as partisan - but that's quite different than career lawyers en masse simply covering up crimes, shutting down investigations, and concealing evidence for some indirect political interests.
Trump found this to be a problem - he called it the Deep State and concluded that it's some liberal conspiracy against him, when really it was career professionals in the professional ranks, many of which have sworn oaths, that refuse to bend law and convention beyond that which they believe the political leadership is authorized to command.
Last edited:
Lapaz
Well-known member
Offline
I know writing this to you is a waste of energy with respect to you, because I know you know, and are totally disingenuous. I know you know that there is ZERO evidence that Joe Biden is being protected by his DOJ. I know you know the impeachment is a farce. I know you know that the JAN 6th impeachment against Trump was totally justified, because he did not perform his duties, and actively sought to undermine the U.S.
Whether you think Haley is Cheney in heels or not is irrelevant to whether she would be a stronger general election candidate. Trump has support from a majority of the Republican base, so of course he wins primaries, but that doesn't translate to a general election, where he is supposedly in a dead heat with Biden. I think Biden will beat him, but I'm fairly sure that Biden would NOT beat Haley. If the Biden administration manages to convict Trump and lead the Republicans to abandon him, and instead select Haley, it would be great for the country, but it would be bad for Biden. Biden would still have a challenger, but his challenger wouldn't be a convicted felon. I think you know all this too.
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
It has become the new butteremails outcry
coldseat
Well-known member
Offline
It's worse than that, because at least there was an actual DOJ investigation and emails with Hillary. This is all just smoke and mirrors while pushing pure Russian disinformation.
Last edited:
I agree that he believes this, and then in the next post he will say that Biden has dementia. It’s completely contradictory and illogical and he doesn’t even notice that.
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
They throw sheet at the wall to see what sticks. No intellectual honesty at all.
- Banned
- #594
SaintForLife
Well-known member
Offline
President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, a previously hidden transcript obtained by The Federalist shows.
Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.
Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato’s first transcribed interview with the committee was conducted on January 28, 2022. In it, he told Cheney and her investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city.
He also testified President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021. Ornato also described White House frustration with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s slow deployment of assistance on the afternoon of January 6, 2021.
Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review. On top of that, committee allies began publishing critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato ahead of follow-up interviews with him. Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to the security position in the White House.
thefederalist.com
cha.house.gov
Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.
Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato’s first transcribed interview with the committee was conducted on January 28, 2022. In it, he told Cheney and her investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city.
He also testified President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021. Ornato also described White House frustration with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s slow deployment of assistance on the afternoon of January 6, 2021.
Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review. On top of that, committee allies began publishing critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato ahead of follow-up interviews with him. Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to the security position in the White House.
Exclusive: Jan. 6 Committee Hid Trump-Exonerating Evidence
Cheney and her Jan. 6 committee falsely claimed they had 'no evidence' the Trump White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops.
thefederalist.comChairman Loudermilk Publishes Never-Before Released Anthony Ornato Transcribed Interview
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration
cha.house.govCreate an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.