Jan. 6 committee says probe shows Trump led and directed effort to overturn 2020 election

[Chomper Higgot]

Trump supporters want evidence, well here you go:

 

Recorded FACT

 

Trump raised funds on the bases of ‘the big lie’ which he stated while asking for donations would be used to fight ‘the big steal.

 

Recorded and documented FACT:

 

He then pocketed the money, around $250,000,000 of it.

 

Simple, easily proven fraud.

 

Indictable as a Federal offense.

Indictable as a State offense in any of the States in which the fraud took place (any State where a Trump supporter made a donation).

 

Fraud, wire Fraud, Tax Evasion and even Consumer Fraud.

 

With a paper trail!

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Another misconstrual. Well, at least you're consistent.

How so? All I was saying was that claims made by the elitists leadership of the FBI does not necessarily redefect the opinion of the rank-and-file FBI employees. 

 

In a previous post, you at least implied my logic was correct, yes? 

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, pomchop said:

To indict and convict trump of a crime just follow the money...whether it is bank fraud from massively inflating values to tax fraud for massively undervaluing assets it is all in writing....you also don't keep two sets of books unless u are commiting crimes....when u collect hundreds of millions of $$ from ignorant kool aid drinkers by promising the $ will be used to fight the stolen election in court but then spend that $$ on yourself that is fraud....there are PLENTY of crimes that trump should be charged with that are all in writing so no matter what bs he claims to believe or not believe doesn't matter...does anyone really believe its not all about $$ and ego with the cheetoh?  Kool aide for sale.

Yeah, the NY State Attorney's office tried this for a few years and gave up. 

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How so? All I was saying was that claims made by the elitists leadership of the FBI does not necessarily redefect the opinion of the rank-and-file FBI employees. 

 

In a previous post, you at least implied my logic was correct, yes? 

How is the opinion of rank and file embers relevant to anything at all, especially when it differs to the opinion of the leadership?

[Yellowtail]

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

If a case is made that Trump conspired to defraud the United States by pressuring Pence to not do his constitutional duty any issues of whether he believed he lost or not are moot. Also in a potential Georgia "find me the votes"  case.

Trump defenders are grasping at straws 

So it is your position that that (as was the case with all the other nonsense) that Trump will be convicted of something? 

 

I say it goes the way of the Russian collusion, Alpha Bank and pushing Ukraine to investigate ... the Bidens. 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

How is the opinion of rank and file embers relevant to anything at all, especially when it differs to the opinion of the leadership?

I never said it was. 

[Yellowtail]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump supporters want evidence, well here you go:

 

Recorded FACT

 

Trump raised funds on the bases of ‘the big lie’ which he stated while asking for donations would be used to fight ‘the big steal.

 

Recorded and documented FACT:

 

He then pocketed the money, around $250,000,000 of it.

 

Simple, easily proven fraud.

 

Indictable as a Federal offense.

Indictable as a State offense in any of the States in which the fraud took place (any State where a Trump supporter made a donation).

 

Fraud, wire Fraud, Tax Evasion and even Consumer Fraud.

 

With a paper trail!

Do you have anything that supports your opinion? 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have anything that supports your opinion? 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-fundraising-scam-jan-6-hearing-1367359/amp/

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-fundraising-scam-jan-6-hearing-1367359/amp/

An opinion piece to support your opinions, perfect. 

 

Where does it support your claim that Trump pocketed the money? 

 

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How so? All I was saying was that claims made by the elitists leadership of the FBI does not necessarily redefect the opinion of the rank-and-file FBI employees. 

 

In a previous post, you at least implied my logic was correct, yes? 

What evidence do you have that the rank and file share one opinion? And what don't you understand about the fact that it wasn't some vague "leadership" that came to this conclusion but a team of investigators? Most of the FBI wouldn't even be engaged in this particular line of investigation. So why would their opinion even be of any special interest any more than the rank-and-file's opinion on the conclusions of the departments that investigate wire fraud or human trafficking?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

An opinion piece to support your opinions, perfect. 

 

Where does it support your claim that Trump pocketed the money? 

 

“The Trump campaign sent “millions” of emails to Trump supporters about how they needed to “step up” to protect election integrity, according to the Jan. 6 committee.”

 

Emails are a record.

 

“The money would go to the so-called the “Official Election Defense Fund” — which doesn’t appear to have actually existed, according to testimony.”

 

Easily tested by criminal investigation, because of course if the Election Defense Fund did exist there will be formal records to prove it existed.

 

 

“The fund — which, again, did not actually exist — raised $250 million, most of which did not go to election litigation, but to Trump’s newly created Save America PAC. The PAC then made contributions to Mark Meadows’ charity, to a conservative organization employing former Trump staffers, to the Trump Hotel Collection, and to the company that organized the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol last Jan. 6.”

 

All of which has a paper trail.

 

 

941. 18 U.S.C. 1343—ELEMENTS OF WIRE FRAUD.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

An opinion piece to support your opinions, perfect. 

 

Where does it support your claim that Trump pocketed the money? 

 

According to the article some of the money went to the Trump Hotel Collection. And of course, how is claiming that money is going to the Official Election Defense Fund, when there was and is no such entity, not fraudulent?

[Jingthing]

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So it is your position that that (as was the case with all the other nonsense) that Trump will be convicted of something? 

 

I say it goes the way of the Russian collusion, Alpha Bank and pushing Ukraine to investigate ... the Bidens. 

Is it your position that presidents and ex presidents are supposed to be above the law? Or only when its a president that you like?

[KanchanaburiGuy]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

If a case is made that Trump conspired to defraud the United States by pressuring Pence to not do his constitutional duty any issues of whether he believed he lost or not are moot. Also in a potential Georgia "find me the votes"  case.

Trump defenders are grasping at straws 

First off, it wasn't Pence's "Constitutional Duty" to certify the Electoral Count. It was his Constitutional Duty to determine whether the Electoral Vote merited being certified. 

 

Inherent in the requirement that the votes be "certified"....... is the possibility that they might not be.

 

Say, for example, Pence had found some votes that were obviously fraudulent; that were the exact opposite from the outcome he already knew a State had arrived at. Should he certify them, anyway? Of course not! 

 

Because inherent in the need to certify......... is the possibility that he might not! 

 

And that's why a NEXT STEP has already been defined in the Constitution! It IMMEDIATELY goes to the House for a 1-vote-per-State ballot, with the choice being made from slate of a maximum of three candidates.

 

Simple logic should make clear that the next-step wouldn't be there........... if refusing to certify wasn't an option!

 

 

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

First off, it wasn't Pence's "Constitutional Duty" to certify the Electoral Count. It was his Constitutional Duty to determine whether the Electoral Vote merited being certified. 

 

Inherent in the requirement that the votes be "certified"....... is the possibility that they might not be.

 

Say, for example, Pence had found some votes that were obviously fraudulent; that were the exact opposite from the outcome he already knew a State had arrived at. Should he certify them, anyway? Of course not! 

 

Because inherent in the need to certify......... is the possibility that he might not! 

 

And that's why a NEXT STEP has already been defined in the Constitution! It IMMEDIATELY goes to the House for a 1-vote-per-State ballot, with the choice being made from slate of a maximum of three candidates.

 

Simple logic should make clear that the next-step wouldn't be there........... if refusing to certify wasn't an option! 

 

------------------

 

Secondly, it is important to understand the Role-reversal I mentioned in a post upthread. I believe Trump believed that the truth was false, and that falsehoods were true. 

 

If you can accept this upside-down paradigm, then you'll realize that........ in his mind, what Trump was trying to do when he "pressured" Pence....... was to uphold his Constitutional oath to preserve and protect the Country and the Constitution! !!

 

In Trump's mind....... (or so I believe).......... Trump was not asking Pence to "overthrow an election." He was asking him to right a wrong ........ a wrong that was about to put the wrong person in office!

 

(Because......... as the story goes........ of the massive voter fraud and illegal activity that gave Biden his so-called "victory!") 

 

If Trump believed he was asking Pence to right a wrong........... not to subvert an election.......... (and all indicators revealed thus far say that's what he was trying to do!).......... then Trump's actions not only become the-right-thing-to-do......... but even *gag* Honorable! 

(Because doing the right thing......... is more Honorable.......... than letting the wrong person get sworn into office as President of the United States!) 

 

---------------

 

Have you actually read the Constitution vis a vis the electoral votes? There is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress is supposed to decide on the validity of the electoral votes.  The Constitution specifically designates that electoral votes are to be counted and certified at the state level. And Pence is operating under a law passed by Congress that designates him to preside over and certify the electoral vote count. That's it. Nothing at all in there about him judging electoral vote validity.  How many times does this have to be litigated before Trumpistas can accept this? The only contingency the Constitution provides for having the vote decided by the House is in the case where no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. In that case one of the 3 front runners are to be selected by a majority vote of the state delegations.

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

What evidence do you have that the rank and file share one opinion? And what don't you understand about the fact that it wasn't some vague "leadership" that came to this conclusion but a team of investigators? Most of the FBI wouldn't even be engaged in this particular line of investigation. So why would their opinion even be of any special interest any more than the rank-and-file's opinion on the conclusions of the departments that investigate wire fraud or human trafficking?

I am not now, nor have I ever claimed the rank and file share one opinion. 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“The Trump campaign sent “millions” of emails to Trump supporters about how they needed to “step up” to protect election integrity, according to the Jan. 6 committee.”

 

Emails are a record.

 

“The money would go to the so-called the “Official Election Defense Fund” — which doesn’t appear to have actually existed, according to testimony.”

 

Easily tested by criminal investigation, because of course if the Election Defense Fund did exist there will be formal records to prove it existed.

 

 

“The fund — which, again, did not actually exist — raised $250 million, most of which did not go to election litigation, but to Trump’s newly created Save America PAC. The PAC then made contributions to Mark Meadows’ charity, to a conservative organization employing former Trump staffers, to the Trump Hotel Collection, and to the company that organized the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol last Jan. 6.”

 

All of which has a paper trail.

 

 

941. 18 U.S.C. 1343—ELEMENTS OF WIRE FRAUD.

So it went to a Super PAC, not in his pocket, thanks. 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Is it your position that presidents and ex presidents are supposed to be above the law?

No, that is not my position. 

 

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Or only when its a president that you like?

Again, I do not think any President is about the law, do you? 

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So it went to a Super PAC, not in his pocket, thanks. 

 

 

"to the Trump Hotel Collection"

[Mavideol]

8 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

First off, it wasn't Pence's "Constitutional Duty" to certify the Electoral Count. It was his Constitutional Duty to determine whether the Electoral Vote merited being certified. 

 

Inherent in the requirement that the votes be "certified"....... is the possibility that they might not be.

 

Say, for example, Pence had found some votes that were obviously fraudulent; that were the exact opposite from the outcome he already knew a State had arrived at. Should he certify them, anyway? Of course not! 

 

Because inherent in the need to certify......... is the possibility that he might not! 

 

And that's why a NEXT STEP has already been defined in the Constitution! It IMMEDIATELY goes to the House for a 1-vote-per-State ballot, with the choice being made from slate of a maximum of three candidates.

 

Simple logic should make clear that the next-step wouldn't be there........... if refusing to certify wasn't an option! 

 

------------------

 

 

first it appears that you aren't aware of the constitution but asides from that it just puzzles me that somebody goes to such lengthy non sense explanation to prove nothing, the orange guy cheated and lost, period, move on

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I am not now, nor have I ever claimed the rank and file share one opinion. 

So what was the point of this comment of yours?

"Every FBI agent does not make claims that the white supremacy is a big problem, that would be the elitists running the department."

 

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So it went to a Super PAC, not in his pocket, thanks. 

 

 

Even if none of it had gone into Trump's pockets, which is not the case, it's not fraudulent to solicit donations for a non-existent organization and then distribute the money elsewhere?

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

No, that is not my position. 

 

Again, I do not think any President is about the law, do you? 

What do you think?

[stevenl]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump supporters want evidence, well here you go:

 

Recorded FACT

 

Trump raised funds on the bases of ‘the big lie’ which he stated while asking for donations would be used to fight ‘the big steal.

 

Recorded and documented FACT:

 

He then pocketed the money, around $250,000,000 of it.

 

Simple, easily proven fraud.

 

Indictable as a Federal offense.

Indictable as a State offense in any of the States in which the fraud took place (any State where a Trump supporter made a donation).

 

Fraud, wire Fraud, Tax Evasion and even Consumer Fraud.

 

With a paper trail!

They say they want evidence. Plenty of that, but it will be denied and ignored. Nothing will change and he is going to be the GOP candidate next time.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

They say they want evidence. Plenty of that, but it will be denied and ignored. Nothing will change and he is going to be the GOP candidate next time.

Why has Merrick Garland and the Justice Department, or any of the state Attorney Generals involved not moved ahead with an indictment? It's been over a year yes? 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why has Merrick Garland and the Justice Department, or any of the state Attorney Generals involved not moved ahead with an indictment? It's been over a year yes? 

Because a decision to indict will be the biggest decision in the history of the office of the Attorney General. 

The table is being set now.

 

Consider the issues.

 

A former president. Never happened.

An attempted coup by a former president. Never happened.

This very former president promoted a big lie believed by most of his party.

This very former president still controls that party.

This very former president is threatening to run again against maybe Garland's boss.

He's got the goods. 

But it's a momentous political decision and he needs to be very very certain of a conviction.

He can't be rushed to do such a thing. You would be screaming to high heaven if he had done so. 

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Because a decision to indict will be the biggest decision in the history of the office of the Attorney General. 

The table is being set now.

 

As I remember it, he would be indicted the day he left office for any number of things, what happened with that? 

 

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why has Merrick Garland and the Justice Department, or any of the state Attorney Generals involved not moved ahead with an indictment? It's been over a year yes? 

How many years did it take for John Durham to come up with a prosecution that his team developed?

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

As I remember it, he would be indicted the day he left office for any number of things, what happened with that? 

 

 

 

Nobody said that. Again, he NEEDS to be slow about this. The political implications are just too massive to act otherwise. You can mock all you want. Doesn't change what Garland will or won't do. 

[placeholder]

Lots of roadblocks to developing a case when the target is the President.