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
LA - L.A.
Well-known member
Offline
I think McCarthy showed a tell when he complained, "Were any of them put in jail?" I think these guys, Trump supporting & liberty for all loathing Republicans, are really worried that Trump will be convicted and put in jail.
The 2024 election has a lot of potential to be dangerously disastrous no matter the outcome. If Trump is convicted and loses the election, there will be violence. If Trump is convicted and wins the election, there will be violence. If Trump is not convicted and wins the election, there will be violence. If Trump is not convicted and loses the election, there will be violence.
The only question for me is how bad and to what scale will the violence be?
LA - L.A.
Well-known member
Offline
She is a person, not an it.
To your point, I saw this:This guy is such a piece of shirt. From DCA to the federal district courthouse, you see very little of DC, most of which is the area around the 14th street bridge (large federal buildings and the Mandarin Oriental hotel) then around Maine Ave and through a tunnel that takes you out right at the Mall.
Such a constant liar
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
……"Donald Trump spent his entire lifetime f****** around and he’s about to find out. I’d like to think that in some small way I played a part in all this," Mr Fanone told NBC News.
Mr Fanone along with the House Select Committee investigating the Capitol riot have argued that Mr Trump was directly responsible for the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol.
Mr Fanone suffered burns, heart attack and traumatic brain injuries while defending the Congress from the insurrectionists during the riots.
"When I heard confirmation of the indictment I couldn’t help but feel incredible proud to be an American," he continued. "The same way I did when President Obama announced that our military had killed [Osama] Bin Laden."
In a separate statement, Mr Fanone slammed Republicans for defending Mr Trump.
"I saw the Trump-fueled MAGA attack before my eyes. It was calculated, premeditated, and malicious,” he said, adding: "It disgusts me that House Republicans are heinously coming to the defense of Trump’s criminal behavior while putting up the foundation of our democracy as collateral."
Other police officers welcomed Mr Trump's indictment, calling it a step closer to justice.
“All I have wanted from day one is accountability and justice for the law enforcement men and women who fought bravely on January 6th. As we get closer to the proverbial finish line, I can only reflect on how long this fight has been,” officer Harry Dunn said in a statement shared by his attorney Mark Zaid.…….
www.independent.co.uk
Mr Fanone along with the House Select Committee investigating the Capitol riot have argued that Mr Trump was directly responsible for the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol.
Mr Fanone suffered burns, heart attack and traumatic brain injuries while defending the Congress from the insurrectionists during the riots.
"When I heard confirmation of the indictment I couldn’t help but feel incredible proud to be an American," he continued. "The same way I did when President Obama announced that our military had killed [Osama] Bin Laden."
In a separate statement, Mr Fanone slammed Republicans for defending Mr Trump.
"I saw the Trump-fueled MAGA attack before my eyes. It was calculated, premeditated, and malicious,” he said, adding: "It disgusts me that House Republicans are heinously coming to the defense of Trump’s criminal behavior while putting up the foundation of our democracy as collateral."
Other police officers welcomed Mr Trump's indictment, calling it a step closer to justice.
“All I have wanted from day one is accountability and justice for the law enforcement men and women who fought bravely on January 6th. As we get closer to the proverbial finish line, I can only reflect on how long this fight has been,” officer Harry Dunn said in a statement shared by his attorney Mark Zaid.…….
Officer injured in Capitol riot gives blistering response to Trump indictment
‘I saw the Trump-fueled MAGA attack before my eyes. It was calculated, premeditated, and malicious’
www.independent.co.uk
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Wonder what the right would say if Joe Biden said he was “eight oh years old”
======================
……US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya then asked the former president to state his full name.
“Donald J Trump — John — Donald John Trump,” Mr Trump replied hesitantly.
He was then asked for his date of birth, and tripped over his words again. At first, he said “seven seven,” before correcting himself and saying “77”……
www.independent.co.uk
======================
……US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya then asked the former president to state his full name.
“Donald J Trump — John — Donald John Trump,” Mr Trump replied hesitantly.
He was then asked for his date of birth, and tripped over his words again. At first, he said “seven seven,” before correcting himself and saying “77”……
Trump appears to stumble over his name and age at arraignment
The ex-president struggled to string words together during his arraignment on Thursday
www.independent.co.uk
Last edited:
I think this indicates a certain nervousness maybe? I would like to think the gravity of his situation may have sort of dimly dawned on him.Wonder what the right would say if Joe Biden said he was “eight oh years old”
======================
……US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya then asked the former president to state his full name.
“Donald J Trump — John — Donald John Trump,” Mr Trump replied hesitantly.
He was then asked for his date of birth, and tripped over his words again. At first, he said “seven seven,” before correcting himself and saying “77”……
Trump appears to stumble over his name and age at arraignment
The ex-president struggled to string words together during his arraignment on Thursday
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Former president Donald Trump and some of his legal advisers see an upside to the latest criminal case against him: He can use his upcoming trial to further argue his false claims of a stolen 2020 election.
The looming courtroom showdown is poised to push his insistence that election fraud occurred in 2020 toward the center of the 2024 presidential campaign, a dismaying prospect for Republicans and some of Trump’s advisers who have urged him to stop belaboring that subject.
Trump’s defense team has signaled that they’ll focus on rebutting prosecutors’ allegations that Trump knew his fraud claims were false.
The strategy offers a small consolation to the former president, who spent Thursday suffering once again from the small indignities faced by indicted federal defendants.
He was arraigned after roughly an hour-long wait inside a Washington courthouse just blocks from the site of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob. Trump spent the time occasionally rapping his knuckles on a table.
Trump has said that he wanted to subpoena people about the 2020 election and argue that he won, as prosecutors allege that he knew he lost and that his claims were false, according to people close to the former president, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
But the prospect of revisiting the validity of the last election has delighted Democrats, on top of causing consternation among Republican strategists, who see other, much more politically fruitful focal points for 2024.
There are mountains of evidence — provided by top leaders in his campaign and government — that the election was not stolen from Trump, and the indictment paints a damning portrait of a man who was frequently informed of that reality……
The looming courtroom showdown is poised to push his insistence that election fraud occurred in 2020 toward the center of the 2024 presidential campaign, a dismaying prospect for Republicans and some of Trump’s advisers who have urged him to stop belaboring that subject.
Trump’s defense team has signaled that they’ll focus on rebutting prosecutors’ allegations that Trump knew his fraud claims were false.
The strategy offers a small consolation to the former president, who spent Thursday suffering once again from the small indignities faced by indicted federal defendants.
He was arraigned after roughly an hour-long wait inside a Washington courthouse just blocks from the site of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob. Trump spent the time occasionally rapping his knuckles on a table.
Trump has said that he wanted to subpoena people about the 2020 election and argue that he won, as prosecutors allege that he knew he lost and that his claims were false, according to people close to the former president, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
But the prospect of revisiting the validity of the last election has delighted Democrats, on top of causing consternation among Republican strategists, who see other, much more politically fruitful focal points for 2024.
There are mountains of evidence — provided by top leaders in his campaign and government — that the election was not stolen from Trump, and the indictment paints a damning portrait of a man who was frequently informed of that reality……
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
I agree with this article.
The first house committee hearings I watched the recaps and highlights afterwards, my girlfriend watched them live and said there was a big difference between seeing everything unfold live in real time versus the recaps where what’s shown is specifically chosen and the spin/interpretation had happened
When I watched one live I got the point, that made perfect sense
This trial should be televised
===================
The upcoming trial of United States v. Donald J. Trump will rank with Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education and Dred Scott v. Sandford as a defining moment for our history and our values as a people.
And yet, federal law will prevent all but a handful of Americans from actually seeing what is happening in the trial. We will be relegated to perusing cold transcripts and secondhand descriptions. The law must be changed.
While many states allow cameras in courtrooms, federal courts generally do not. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 states: “Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.”
Whatever the virtues of this rule might have been when it was adopted in 1946, it is beyond antiquated today. We live in a digital age, where people think visually and are accustomed to seeing things with their own eyes.
A criminal trial is all about witnesses and credibility, and the demeanor of participants plays a big role. A cold transcript cannot convey the emotion on a defendant’s face when a prosecution witness is on the stand, or how he walks into the courtroom each day.
Most important, live (or near-live) broadcasting lets Americans see for themselves what is happening in the courtroom and would go a long way toward reassuring them that justice is being done.
They would be less vulnerable to the distortions and misrepresentations that will inevitably be part of the highly charged, politicized discussion flooding the country as the trial plays out.
Justice Louis Brandeis’s observation that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” is absolutely apt here…….
Some fear that televising trials will create a circus atmosphere, undermining the decorum and dignity of the court. That risk exists, but the far greater risk is that if this trial is done out of the public eye, many more people will question the legitimacy of the court and its decisions. We should do what is needed to keep that from happening.
This case, after all, is not some celebrity spectacle or a morbidly fascinating murder being broadcast for ad revenue or high ratings.
It is the gravest matter of public concern imaginable: A former president is alleged to have tried to launch a coup to keep himself in power, and used his powers as president to do so……
The first house committee hearings I watched the recaps and highlights afterwards, my girlfriend watched them live and said there was a big difference between seeing everything unfold live in real time versus the recaps where what’s shown is specifically chosen and the spin/interpretation had happened
When I watched one live I got the point, that made perfect sense
This trial should be televised
===================
The upcoming trial of United States v. Donald J. Trump will rank with Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education and Dred Scott v. Sandford as a defining moment for our history and our values as a people.
And yet, federal law will prevent all but a handful of Americans from actually seeing what is happening in the trial. We will be relegated to perusing cold transcripts and secondhand descriptions. The law must be changed.
While many states allow cameras in courtrooms, federal courts generally do not. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 states: “Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.”
Whatever the virtues of this rule might have been when it was adopted in 1946, it is beyond antiquated today. We live in a digital age, where people think visually and are accustomed to seeing things with their own eyes.
A criminal trial is all about witnesses and credibility, and the demeanor of participants plays a big role. A cold transcript cannot convey the emotion on a defendant’s face when a prosecution witness is on the stand, or how he walks into the courtroom each day.
Most important, live (or near-live) broadcasting lets Americans see for themselves what is happening in the courtroom and would go a long way toward reassuring them that justice is being done.
They would be less vulnerable to the distortions and misrepresentations that will inevitably be part of the highly charged, politicized discussion flooding the country as the trial plays out.
Justice Louis Brandeis’s observation that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” is absolutely apt here…….
Some fear that televising trials will create a circus atmosphere, undermining the decorum and dignity of the court. That risk exists, but the far greater risk is that if this trial is done out of the public eye, many more people will question the legitimacy of the court and its decisions. We should do what is needed to keep that from happening.
This case, after all, is not some celebrity spectacle or a morbidly fascinating murder being broadcast for ad revenue or high ratings.
It is the gravest matter of public concern imaginable: A former president is alleged to have tried to launch a coup to keep himself in power, and used his powers as president to do so……
DaveXA
Well-known member
Online
Yeah, that's what I think. I'm pretty sure this one is a different deal and will be bad news for him.
GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Mental defect defense incoming...Wonder what the right would say if Joe Biden said he was “eight oh years old”
======================
……US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya then asked the former president to state his full name.
“Donald J Trump — John — Donald John Trump,” Mr Trump replied hesitantly.
He was then asked for his date of birth, and tripped over his words again. At first, he said “seven seven,” before correcting himself and saying “77”……
Trump appears to stumble over his name and age at arraignment
The ex-president struggled to string words together during his arraignment on Thursday
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
Incompetent to stand trial but perfectly competent to be President of the United States
Last edited:
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
Well just imagine a forum with a lot of people like SFL and Farb
some of them think it is a ploy by democrats to help get DeSantis elected so he can pardon trump... or something like that
some still in denial Jan 6th happened
some still think trump won the election
then there are some comments like:
"While the real criminal, traitor sits in the White House, eating ice cream in his underwear. never forget that Joe Biden is the most corrupt President in US history"
"are they going to arrest every Democrat who peddled Trump/Russia collusion? are they going to arrest every Democrat who supported the impeachment over the Biden Bribery organization? are they going to arrest every laptop denying Democrat?"
and lots of people there like to use the word 'cuck'
SFIDC3
Well-known member
Offline
I hear you, I think the fundamental difference in our takes is their motivation. I believe its not willing to put the country first, it's self preservation and CYA.....
SFIDC3
Well-known member
Offline
Yup 395 goes under the DOL building where I worked for 25 years....
DJ1BigTymer
F-22A 1st Confirmed A/A Kill 4 Feb 23
Offline
In other news:
Kremlin critic Alexey Navalny given more jail time on extremism charges | CNN
Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny is facing an even longer stint in jail after being sentenced to 19 years in prison on extremism charges, Russian media report, a fresh blow to a fierce critic of Russia’s President Putin that comes amid an intensifying crackdown on dissent.
www.cnn.comMore like:
Am I doing it right?
UriUT
Well-known member
Offline
This makes total sense now that we've seen one maga republican after another bring out 1st amendment arguments.
post.news
Post Article
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.