superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Online
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
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
Was actually willing to consider him. Not anymore. Not even a little bit.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
Donald Trump supporters and right-wing media outlets are incorrectly claiming that the federal government is seeking the death penalty as part of its four-count indictment against the former president for allegedly seeking to overturn the 2020 election.
After the charges were announced on Tuesday, the claims quickly spread across conservative corners of the Internet. Mr Trump’s Truth Social platform sent users an alert that read “New charges against Trump carry DEATH PENALTY,” while conservative influencer Dinesh D’Souza claimed on X the alleged death sentence “proves how scared they are of Trump!”
One MAGA Internet personality wrote on social media, “This is how you start a war.”
A spokesperson for the special counsel’s office told The Independent these claims are “not accurate.”
“The indictment does not contain the special findings required,” the DoJ official said.
The misinterpretation stems from one of the federal statutes that prosecutors are accusing Mr Trump of violating, Section 241 of Title 18 of US Code.
As The Independent has reported, the law is part of a landmark set of provisions passed in the brutal aftermath of the Civil War to prosecute those who sought to deprive the civil rights of newly enfranchised Black Americans.
The punishment for violating this section, according to the Department of Justice, is a felony and up to 10 years in prison. That penalty can be extended to life in prison or death if the government “proves an aggravating factor (such as that the offense involved kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, or resulted in death)”, per the DoJ.
Five people, a mix of police officers and rioters, did die during the January 6 insurrection, but, as The Washington Post noted, nowhere in the lengthy indictment against Mr Trump are prosecutors arguing the former president is responsible for any such aggravating circumstances.…….
www.independent.co.uk
After the charges were announced on Tuesday, the claims quickly spread across conservative corners of the Internet. Mr Trump’s Truth Social platform sent users an alert that read “New charges against Trump carry DEATH PENALTY,” while conservative influencer Dinesh D’Souza claimed on X the alleged death sentence “proves how scared they are of Trump!”
One MAGA Internet personality wrote on social media, “This is how you start a war.”
A spokesperson for the special counsel’s office told The Independent these claims are “not accurate.”
“The indictment does not contain the special findings required,” the DoJ official said.
The misinterpretation stems from one of the federal statutes that prosecutors are accusing Mr Trump of violating, Section 241 of Title 18 of US Code.
As The Independent has reported, the law is part of a landmark set of provisions passed in the brutal aftermath of the Civil War to prosecute those who sought to deprive the civil rights of newly enfranchised Black Americans.
The punishment for violating this section, according to the Department of Justice, is a felony and up to 10 years in prison. That penalty can be extended to life in prison or death if the government “proves an aggravating factor (such as that the offense involved kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, or resulted in death)”, per the DoJ.
Five people, a mix of police officers and rioters, did die during the January 6 insurrection, but, as The Washington Post noted, nowhere in the lengthy indictment against Mr Trump are prosecutors arguing the former president is responsible for any such aggravating circumstances.…….
Trump supporters falsely claim former president faces death penalty
Prosecutors aren’t arguing Mr Trump is responsible for January 6 deaths, an aggravating circumstance which could trigger death penalty
www.independent.co.uk
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
DJ1BigTymer
F-22A 1st Confirmed A/A Kill 4 Feb 23
Offline
Shocking...an elected Republican official lying to his constituents! No Marco, trump isn't indicted because of his lies, he's being held accountable for the actions he took to defraud the US. Not to mention his dumb arse attempt at whataboutism, if he had any evidence of a criminal act to go along with their "lies" about Russian hacking, I would love to see it.
J-DONK
Well-known member
Offline
A bunch of dictators fail the first time around, and go to jail. Castro was the same.
Taurus
Well-known member
Offline
Donald Trump supporters and right-wing media outlets are incorrectly claiming that the federal government is seeking the death penalty as part of its four-count indictment against the former president for allegedly seeking to overturn the 2020 election.
Unless DC doesn't have that provision, aren't you on the hook for murder if someone dies during the commission of your felony?
After the charges were announced on Tuesday, the claims quickly spread across conservative corners of the Internet. Mr Trump’s Truth Social platform sent users an alert that read “New charges against Trump carry DEATH PENALTY,” while conservative influencer Dinesh D’Souza claimed on X the alleged death sentence “proves how scared they are of Trump!”
One MAGA Internet personality wrote on social media, “This is how you start a war.”
A spokesperson for the special counsel’s office told The Independent these claims are “not accurate.”
“The indictment does not contain the special findings required,” the DoJ official said.
The misinterpretation stems from one of the federal statutes that prosecutors are accusing Mr Trump of violating, Section 241 of Title 18 of US Code.
As The Independent has reported, the law is part of a landmark set of provisions passed in the brutal aftermath of the Civil War to prosecute those who sought to deprive the civil rights of newly enfranchised Black Americans.
The punishment for violating this section, according to the Department of Justice, is a felony and up to 10 years in prison. That penalty can be extended to life in prison or death if the government “proves an aggravating factor (such as that the offense involved kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, or resulted in death)”, per the DoJ.
Five people, a mix of police officers and rioters, did die during the January 6 insurrection, but, as The Washington Post noted, nowhere in the lengthy indictment against Mr Trump are prosecutors arguing the former president is responsible for any such aggravating circumstances.…….
Trump supporters falsely claim former president faces death penalty
Prosecutors aren’t arguing Mr Trump is responsible for January 6 deaths, an aggravating circumstance which could trigger death penalty
Unless DC doesn't have that provision, aren't you on the hook for murder if someone dies during the commission of your felony?
LA - L.A.
Well-known member
Offline
Hitler didn't form or organize the Nazi party. He was ordered to infiltrate the German Workers' Party/Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP by the German army. DAP was the precursor to the Nazi Party. Hitler was the 55th member to join DAP.
DAP was founded and bankrolled by German corporate owners to kill the workers embrace of communism and labor unions. The powers behind DAP were impressed with Hitler's oratorical skills and asked him to be one of their spokes people. Hitler wasn't impressed with DAP, until they started paying attention to him with adoration. At that point, Hitler was all in.
The most important and chilling thing to take away from the origins and rise of the Nazi party is not Hitler. It's the fact that it was all about maintaining cheap labor to feed the insatiable appetites of the corporate owners that created it and got rich from it. German corporations literally profited off of the millions of people they systematical murdered. In the beginning, the death camps were primarily forced labor/slave labor camps with the added bonus of literally working "undesirable sub-humans" to death.
Hitler eventually seized control of the Nazi Germany which directly lead to the demise of the Nazi's and their losing WWII.
Trump, like Hitler, is the front man for the Republican fascist extremism, but he's not the one who got it rolling and continues to bank roll it. It's a group of fascist American corporate owners that are the real threat of fascism in this country, especially since they have joined forces with theocracy minded Christian religious leaders.
I'll give you a corporate owner's name that everyone's heard of, Rupert Murdoch. I'll give you three more that are less known, Robert, Jennifer and Rebekah Mercer. There are several others, both domestic and foreign, that are known and likely several more that keep their activities hidden inside a Matryoshka doll of shell companies.
Last edited:
J-DONK
Well-known member
Offline
I think you have to include Zuck at this point as well to go with Mercer, and Murdoch. I have a theory that's how Rogan fell down the IDW hole. Joe has references propaganda, and lies from FB more then once on his podcast. Young Jamie has to play fact checker in real time, and you can see the surprise on Joe's face that he fell for it. I only bring up Rogan because I think Joe is a good approximation of average intelligence. I also used to love his podcast when he was just a chill dude talking to Duncan Trussell about acid, bong rips, and aliens.
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
It's their only move left. Go scorched earth and pick up the pieces after.
Epshteyn is #6...
Trump Indictment Leaves Alleged Co-Conspirators Facing Tough Choices
By the time Jack Smith, the special counsel, was brought in to oversee the investigation of former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, the inquiry had already focused for months on a group of lawyers close to Trump. Many showed up as subjects of interest in a...
It’s just too bad Barr defended him to the point of breaking norms in the DOJ, allowing him to actually weaponize the Justice Dept. Where was this clarity when he was sending Cohen back to jail because Trump was pissed about his book, or when he was changing the DOJ’s official sentencing recommendation for Flynn for Trump, or … well read this if you want to know all the ways Barr politicized the DOJ for Trump:
www.pogo.org
I’m grateful he’s saying what he is saying now, but he’s had a large role to play in why we are where we are. He lied about the Mueller Report, the Durham Report, etc. to keep Trump in power.
Injustice: Tracking Bill Barr’s Misconduct as Attorney General
In less than two years as attorney general, Bill Barr has done remarkable damage to the Justice Department’s commitment to independence and the rule of law. Our detailed timeline lays out the pattern of misconduct he has engaged in, and how it continues to escalate.
www.pogo.orgI’m grateful he’s saying what he is saying now, but he’s had a large role to play in why we are where we are. He lied about the Mueller Report, the Durham Report, etc. to keep Trump in power.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
Eastman (though far from innocent) about to be thrown under the bus
"I just did what my lawyer and trusted adviser told me to do. I had no reason to think he wasn't giving me good advice"
===============================================
Barely hours after Donald Trump was indicted Tuesday for engaging in a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy to overturn U.S. democracy, his defense lawyer, John Lauro, went on Fox News and telegraphed his coming strategy. Lauro said prosecutors cannot prove Trump truly “believed” he’d lost his 2020 presidential reelection, ensuring a not-guilty verdict.
That’s gotten lots of attention, most of it appropriately dismissive. But Lauro also slipped another assertion into his appearance that merits more worry: He declared that Trump merely acted on what he thought was reasonable advice from his lawyer, John Eastman.
“He had advice of counsel, a very detailed memorandum from a constitutional expert,” Lauro said of Trump and Eastman. Lauro argued this convinced Trump that he could reasonably ask Vice President Mike Pence to halt Congress’s count of presidential electors to allow states to revisit voting irregularities.
“That’s the only thing that President Trump suggested,” Lauro said, adding that everything Trump attempted “was done with lawyers giving him advice.” Lauro repeated this on NBC’s “Today” show, insisting Trump is “entitled” to “trust advice of counsel.”
This suggests that an “advice of counsel” argument will be central to Trump’s defense. Two of the indictment’s charges are that Trump obstructed the official proceeding of the electoral count and entered into a conspiracy to do so. But the obstruction charge requires proving “corrupt intent,” which could be undermined by the claim that he acted on his lawyers’ advice.
“I’ve always thought this might be his strongest argument,” New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, who has written extensively about the case, told me. Though Goodman believes this “won’t work,” he said it deserves more attention.
Eastman’s theory that Pence had the power to halt the electoral count was utterly baseless. But Matthew Seligman, an election law expert at the Stris and Maher firm, points out that Trump’s lawyers can argue that Trump, who isn’t exactly a legal mastermind, had no reason to doubt what he was being told.
“Prosecutors will need to argue that Trump could not have relied on Eastman’s advice in good faith, because his theories were so outlandish,” Seligman told me.
Trump’s argument could open the door to one juror concluding that, even if those theories were crazy, Trump grasped at them in desperation but in good faith. “If there’s a way for Trump to defeat these charges, this is the way,” Seligman said. “On the law, the prosecution can and should prevail on this point. But they will have to show that Trump adopted these theories in bad faith.”..........
"I just did what my lawyer and trusted adviser told me to do. I had no reason to think he wasn't giving me good advice"
===============================================
Barely hours after Donald Trump was indicted Tuesday for engaging in a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy to overturn U.S. democracy, his defense lawyer, John Lauro, went on Fox News and telegraphed his coming strategy. Lauro said prosecutors cannot prove Trump truly “believed” he’d lost his 2020 presidential reelection, ensuring a not-guilty verdict.
That’s gotten lots of attention, most of it appropriately dismissive. But Lauro also slipped another assertion into his appearance that merits more worry: He declared that Trump merely acted on what he thought was reasonable advice from his lawyer, John Eastman.
“He had advice of counsel, a very detailed memorandum from a constitutional expert,” Lauro said of Trump and Eastman. Lauro argued this convinced Trump that he could reasonably ask Vice President Mike Pence to halt Congress’s count of presidential electors to allow states to revisit voting irregularities.
“That’s the only thing that President Trump suggested,” Lauro said, adding that everything Trump attempted “was done with lawyers giving him advice.” Lauro repeated this on NBC’s “Today” show, insisting Trump is “entitled” to “trust advice of counsel.”
This suggests that an “advice of counsel” argument will be central to Trump’s defense. Two of the indictment’s charges are that Trump obstructed the official proceeding of the electoral count and entered into a conspiracy to do so. But the obstruction charge requires proving “corrupt intent,” which could be undermined by the claim that he acted on his lawyers’ advice.
“I’ve always thought this might be his strongest argument,” New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, who has written extensively about the case, told me. Though Goodman believes this “won’t work,” he said it deserves more attention.
Eastman’s theory that Pence had the power to halt the electoral count was utterly baseless. But Matthew Seligman, an election law expert at the Stris and Maher firm, points out that Trump’s lawyers can argue that Trump, who isn’t exactly a legal mastermind, had no reason to doubt what he was being told.
“Prosecutors will need to argue that Trump could not have relied on Eastman’s advice in good faith, because his theories were so outlandish,” Seligman told me.
Trump’s argument could open the door to one juror concluding that, even if those theories were crazy, Trump grasped at them in desperation but in good faith. “If there’s a way for Trump to defeat these charges, this is the way,” Seligman said. “On the law, the prosecution can and should prevail on this point. But they will have to show that Trump adopted these theories in bad faith.”..........
Create 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.