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

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

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

Yes it will be (and I do think it's coming) the most politically consequential indictment in American history. But it's not needed. The case in Georgia appears to be coming along nicely. A federal case would carry more weight though, but a felony conviction is a felony conviction. 

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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

For example? 

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

It's coming and if it doesn't come, I will be happy to eat crow. Garland has no good reason not to do it now. If he doesn't, he will have a lot of explaining to do to history. 

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's coming and if it doesn't come, I will be happy to eat crow. Garland has no good reason not to do it now. If he doesn't, he will have a lot of explaining to do to history. 

If he is guilty of directing people to participate in a violent attack on the capital, I hope he is convicted of treason and put to death. 

[bocaBob]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes it will be (and I do think it's coming) the most politically consequential indictment in American history. But it's not needed. The case in Georgia appears to be coming along nicely. A federal case would carry more weight though, but a felony conviction is a felony conviction. 

Think about it: if the government can prosecute Trump for events occurring 18 months ago why have they not done so yet and jailed him? Maybe it's due to lack of evidence and the typical "nothing burger concept" echoed by Schiff and his ilk.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

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. 

Personally, I think Garland ought to recuse himself from any and all Trump-related indictments and prosecutions. 

 

Trump having been given the chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice for the position that Garland might consider "his"........... any indictment or prosecution by Garland might be considered retaliatory or vindictive. 

 

Trump didn't cause the Senate to drag their feet........... But!!............ he was the one who chose someone else, rather than him!

 

Remember............. not just impropriety, but the APPEARANCE OF impropriety! 

 

Garland, like Sessions before him, has very capable people under him. He should let one of them take charge, for all things concerning Trump. 

 

Cheers! 

 

 

[vinci]

nothing will happen because law and order is broken, people are afraid of repercussion, example Robert Mueller could of put Trump away but he refuse to take responsibility to do so he wanted some one else to do it, at the end its just wash away and like nothing ever happen.

[placeholder]

20 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

For example? 

For one thing, the Justice Dept policy is that a sitting president can't be indicted for a crime.

For another, his partners in crime can assert that they are protected by executive privilege and can't be compelled to cooperate with investigators.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, vinci said:

nothing will happen because law and order is broken, people are afraid of repercussion, example Robert Mueller could of put Trump away but he refuse to take responsibility to do so he wanted some one else to do it, at the end its just wash away and like nothing ever happen.

No. Mueller was constrained by Justice Dept policy that a sitting President can't be prosecuted. Mueller did make it very clear that the avenue open to investigating Trump was impeachment.

[Yellowtail]

30 minutes ago, placeholder said:

For one thing, the Justice Dept policy is that a sitting president can't be indicted for a crime.

For another, his partners in crime can assert that they are protected by executive privilege and can't be compelled to cooperate with investigators.

That he cannot be indicted does not stop them from building a case. 

 

In any event, he has not been President for a long while. 

 

[Yellowtail]

32 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No. Mueller was constrained by Justice Dept policy that a sitting President can't be prosecuted. Mueller did make it very clear that the avenue open to investigating Trump was impeachment.

And the "Mueller Report" was another nothing-burger. Had there been anything, Trump would have been prosecuted immediately after leaving office.  

 

 

[Scott]

A post with unapproved source has been removed:

 

[onthedarkside]

A trolling post based on a false analogy has been removed, along with several ensuing replies.

 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, bocaBob said:

Think about it: if the government can prosecute Trump for events occurring 18 months ago why have they not done so yet and jailed him? Maybe it's due to lack of evidence and the typical "nothing burger concept" echoed by Schiff and his ilk.

If you think 18 months is the maximum time that should be allowed an investigation, I assume you agree that the "lock her up" Hillary Clinton affair and the claims of a "criminal Biden family" are also nothing burgers.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Personally, I think Garland ought to recuse himself from any and all Trump-related indictments and prosecutions. 

 

Trump having been given the chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice for the position that Garland might consider "his"........... any indictment or prosecution by Garland might be considered retaliatory or vindictive. 

 

Trump didn't cause the Senate to drag their feet........... But!!............ he was the one who chose someone else, rather than him!

 

Remember............. not just impropriety, but the APPEARANCE OF impropriety! 

 

Garland, like Sessions before him, has very capable people under him. He should let one of them take charge, for all things concerning Trump. 

 

Cheers! 

 

 

I trust you also agree that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all 2020 election matters.  Appearance of impropriety and all that.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

And the "Mueller Report" was another nothing-burger. Had there been anything, Trump would have been prosecuted immediately after leaving office. 

The Mueller Report showed Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 election and resulted in a number of Russian citizens being indicted.  That ain't nothing.

[Lacessit]

"Wild and savage insurrection quitted the woods, and prowled about our streets in the name of reform.... A sort of national convention ... nosed parliament in the very seat of its authority; sat with a sort of superintendence over it; and little less than dictated to it, not only laws, but the very form and essence of legislature itself."

 

( Edmund Burke, 1796 )

[Lacessit]

12 minutes ago, Kenneth White said:

I watched TV footage on both lamestream and cable networks and frankly these footages where the same except for the narratives. Lamestream is the liberal side whereas some cable outlets are conservative. What caught my eye was the lack of coverage where in the state of George, which played a large part in the 2020 election, lamestream focused on the suitcases stashed under the table and the fact the pollsters continued to count ballets well into the night blocking conservative poll watchers access with their typical "nothing to see here" comment. That night President Trump had a slight advantage but the next morning low and behold Seepy Joe had the lead by a large margin and the suitcases of ballets not found. I also questioned the voting machines used, the mail-in ballets, drop boxes, everything leading up to election day had me thinking the 2020 election could have some implications to fraud and the theft of this election. The senate and the electoral collage vote by state was tampered with and a complete other thing.

 

Last thing. Your last comment was a personal attack on me. I don't receive personal attacks very well and would hope you would apologize and retract your comment. 

I've noticed supporters of the "stolen election" claim shy away from the fact Biden had 7 million more votes than Trump.

I've also noticed not a single link to a credible news source is provided by said supporters, it's all baseless allegations from conspiracy websites.

If you are going to suggest we are mindless sheep hewing to lamestream media, you should expect to get some of your own s**t back.

[Scott]

Keep it civil, please.  

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, Kenneth White said:

I watched TV footage on both lamestream and cable networks and frankly these footages where the same except for the narratives. Lamestream is the liberal side whereas some cable outlets are conservative. What caught my eye was the lack of coverage where in the state of George, which played a large part in the 2020 election, lamestream focused on the suitcases stashed under the table and the fact the pollsters continued to count ballets well into the night blocking conservative poll watchers access with their typical "nothing to see here" comment. That night President Trump had a slight advantage but the next morning low and behold Seepy Joe had the lead by a large margin and the suitcases of ballets not found. I also questioned the voting machines used, the mail-in ballets, drop boxes, everything leading up to election day had me thinking the 2020 election could have some implications to fraud and the theft of this election. The senate and the electoral collage vote by state was tampered with and a complete other thing.

That you are still calling those  ballot boxes "suitcases" after that claim was repeatedly debunked shortly after that ridiculous charge was made, pretty much tells us all we need to know about where you get your information from and where you don't get it from. And it's utterly false that any ballot watchers, conservatives or even communists were blocked from observing.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-posts/no-georgia-election-workers-didnt-kick-out-observe/

What don't you understand about the fact that the vote was recounted 3 times, including once by hand? And this in a Republican state and overseen by a Republican Secretary of State who was a faithful supporter of Trump's re-election.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

On 6/15/2022 at 4:19 PM, KanchanaburiGuy said:

What needs to be proved, here, is not that people told Trump that what he was saying was false, but that Trump himself believed they were false. 

 

"...that several of Trump's advisers warned him against making false claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election..." 

 

Of course, Trump then has the simplest of rebuttals available to him.............. "They told me not to make false claims. I wasn't making false claims."

 

See, it's not important what his advisors told him. That only matters if Trump later wants to claim, "No one told me."

 

The only thing that is important is what he believed!.......... If he believed---truly believed---he was speaking the truth, then advice to stop saying false things........ would naturally fall on deaf ears! 

 

Indeed, Trump may have been mystified as to why his advisors kept insisting he START speaking in falsehoods, when he believed he was speaking the truth, all along! 

 

If you don't understand that there was almost certainly a role-reversal going on with Trump---what was true, he believed was false; what was false, he believed was true---then you'll completely misunderstand what his reaction would be when someone tells him to "stop saying things that are false!" 

 

To role-reversed Trump, to tell him to "not say things that are false".......... is to tell him to not say the things that are actually true! 

 

(It's a little like playing around with negative numbers, in math. Lol The thinking feels weirdly backwards! lol) 

 

So the committee parading a bunch of advisors who told Trump he was wrong......... really means nothing. Whether or not TRUMP believed he was wrong......... is the only thing that matters. 

 

So, who among his advisors, his friends, his family, and the thousands who heard him give speeches............ ever heard him say anything different from the things we heard a thousand times over? 

 

Are there ANY?

 

Anyone, anywhere? 

 

If there isn't........ then............ for all their showmanship, they're not actually building a case against TRUMP!

 

Then it all just becomes hand-waving and table-thumping. 

 

(Of course, we're still only in the middle, so it's not fair to criticize too much! 555)

 

Cheers! 

I think there is a problem with that argument.
Let’s say that Trump believed that Biden was part of a paedophile ring in a pizza shop basement and decided that, based on that, Biden’s candidacy was invalid. Everyone who has credibility, and even many who do not, tell him it’s not true, and that the way he’s going about overturning the election is not valid, except for a few individuals. It was easily identifiable that the few were clearly not in the mainstream and we’re not experts in their field. 
Would you accept your own argument that he has done nothing wrong if he believed it and took the actions he took.  You’d say a president has a responsibility to get expert advice, and he has access to the best in the world, and to act based on a at least a reasonable and sustainable argument. He can’t just say I believed it, and that’s good enough to show he acted in good faith, even if wrong.
Similarly with saying there was election fraud and the election was stolen. Unless he is arguing some mental illness,  or serious mental incompetence, acting in good faith would surely require him to show he had at least a somewhat sound base for his actions. Basing a decision on tales of dodgy voting machines linked to overseas dictators, and various other arguments state by state, is not a tenable argument if courts and real experts are showing they are false. Keep in mind too, he said he may not accept the results more than once before he could even identify the dodgy issues raised after the election, further affecting his argument that he genuinely believed the arguments for election fraud. 

[bendejo]

I agree with the idea that the Mueller Report should be revisited, now that Barr is out of the way.  Also it should extend to the former president's proclivity to side with Putin over the reporting from his own gov't's agencies -- what's up with that?  (If you don't know what I mean lookup the Helsinki fiasco.) Sounds like colluding with a foreign adversary to me, which translates to treason.

The guy with the orange face ain't sitting in the Presidential Seat no more, so no more of this "un-indictable" protection.  And there ain't no executive privilege.

 

Why did Mueller let Barr hijack his report?  Because he was afraid of the Republicans, he said so in not as many words.

Why did Comey throw Hillary under the bus just before the 2016 election?  Because he was afraid of the Republicans, he said so in just about as many words.

See the pattern?  When was the last time you heard anyone say the were afraid of the Dems? 

 

 

[Berkshire]

13 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Personally, I think Garland ought to recuse himself from any and all Trump-related indictments and prosecutions. 

 

Trump having been given the chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice for the position that Garland might consider "his"........... any indictment or prosecution by Garland might be considered retaliatory or vindictive. 

 

Trump didn't cause the Senate to drag their feet........... But!!............ he was the one who chose someone else, rather than him!

 

Remember............. not just impropriety, but the APPEARANCE OF impropriety! 

 

Garland, like Sessions before him, has very capable people under him. He should let one of them take charge, for all things concerning Trump. 

 

Cheers! 

 

 

Ridiculous....but at least you didn't take 1,000 words to make yet another nonsensical claim.  Even if Garland were to recuse himself, so what?  His next-in-command could easily shepherd Trump's prosecution. 

 

The wheels of justice move slowly.  But at least now they're going after that whole fake electors caper. 

 

[The Department of Justice reportedly is criminally investigating the formation of alternate slates of presidential electors for Donald Trump as part of a plan to undo President Joe Biden's 2020 election win.

That probe is particularly focused on a team of attorneys who were working for Trump on that effort, The New York Times reported.]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-criminally-investigating-plan-for-alternate-trump-electors-with-focus-on-lawyers-report-says/ar-AAYy8Qd?ocid=wispr&cvid=5a2082419e9949c2b3b032ba1f6e4c28

[bendejo]

3 hours ago, Kenneth White said:

I watched TV footage on both lamestream and cable networks and frankly these footages where the same except for the narratives. Lamestream is the liberal side whereas some cable outlets are conservative. What caught my eye was the lack of coverage where in the state of George, which played a large part in the 2020 election, lamestream focused on the suitcases stashed under the table and the fact the pollsters continued to count ballets well into the night blocking conservative poll watchers access with their typical "nothing to see here" comment. That night President Trump had a slight advantage but the next morning low and behold Seepy Joe had the lead by a large margin and the suitcases of ballets not found. I also questioned the voting machines used, the mail-in ballets, drop boxes, everything leading up to election day had me thinking the 2020 election could have some implications to fraud and the theft of this election. The senate and the electoral collage vote by state was tampered with and a complete other thing.

This post reminds me of something from the past few days.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/15/small-county-new-mexico-shows-where-big-lie-delusions-can-lead/

“When I certify stuff that I don’t know is right,” County Commissioner Vickie Marquardt said during the hearing, “I feel like I’m being dishonest because in my heart I don’t know if it is right.”

 

So rather than evidence it goes by 'feelings' now, eh?

You are also going off script, Giuliani said the ballots were in shopping carts and wastepaper baskets.  Better get together and get your fictions straight.

 

 

[Berkshire]

On 6/15/2022 at 1:19 PM, KanchanaburiGuy said:

The only thing that is important is what he believed!.......... If he believed---truly believed---he was speaking the truth, then advice to stop saying false things........ would naturally fall on deaf ears! 

Ah, the old "I believed my own lies defense."  Not so fast.

 

[Some have expressed the idea that such testimony might support a credible defense for Trump to any potential criminal charges — because he was deluded enough to believe his own BS. According to this misguided theory, Trump lacked the “criminal intent” necessary for conviction because he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong.]

[Incorrect. The law distinguishes between refusing to accept inconvenient truth to get your way and mental disturbance sufficient to excuse illegality, between adopting strategic blindness and not knowing your facts from a hole in the ground.]

[Judges commonly instruct juries that “willful blindness” to facts in front of you establishes criminal intent. A drug courier handsomely paid to carry a closed package into the United States doesn’t get off the hook by saying, “I never looked inside it.”]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/an-i-believed-my-own-lies-defense-won-t-work-for-trump/ar-AAYz5ok?ocid=wispr&cvid=419cba3e10484bfea5ddf3d33b5a7b34

 

[Phoenix Rising]

5 hours ago, Kenneth White said:

I watched TV footage on both lamestream and cable networks and frankly these footages where the same except for the narratives. Lamestream is the liberal side whereas some cable outlets are conservative. What caught my eye was the lack of coverage where in the state of George, which played a large part in the 2020 election, lamestream focused on the suitcases stashed under the table and the fact the pollsters continued to count ballets well into the night blocking conservative poll watchers access with their typical "nothing to see here" comment. That night President Trump had a slight advantage but the next morning low and behold Seepy Joe had the lead by a large margin and the suitcases of ballets not found. I also questioned the voting machines used, the mail-in ballets, drop boxes, everything leading up to election day had me thinking the 2020 election could have some implications to fraud and the theft of this election. The senate and the electoral collage vote by state was tampered with and a complete other thing.

 

Last thing. Your last comment was a personal attack on me. I don't receive personal attacks very well and would hope you would apologize and retract your comment. 

So scores of Republicans have gone over each "contested" state election with a fine tooth comb and found nothing that has impressed even trump appointed judges but you, watching television, have concluded that the election was stolen???

 

My advice still stands; get help - ASAP!

Edited June 17, 2022 by Phoenix Rising

[nauseus]

58 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I see.  You think Republicans should not be charged if an indictment has not been made within 18 months of a possible crime, but Democrats should be harassed with investigations forever.

 

I don't think anyone is surprised that you hold that view.

Looking back at the last six or seven years, it looks like it's the Democrats who are the champions of never-ending harassment.

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

So scores of Republicans have gone over each "contested" state election with a fine tooth comb and found nothing that has impressed even trump appointed judges but you, watching television, have concluded that the election was stolen???

 

My advice still stands; get help - ASAP!

Not what he said at all. 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

59 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Ah, the old "I believed my own lies defense."  Not so fast.

 

[Some have expressed the idea that such testimony might support a credible defense for Trump to any potential criminal charges — because he was deluded enough to believe his own BS. According to this misguided theory, Trump lacked the “criminal intent” necessary for conviction because he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong.]

[Incorrect. The law distinguishes between refusing to accept inconvenient truth to get your way and mental disturbance sufficient to excuse illegality, between adopting strategic blindness and not knowing your facts from a hole in the ground.]

[Judges commonly instruct juries that “willful blindness” to facts in front of you establishes criminal intent. A drug courier handsomely paid to carry a closed package into the United States doesn’t get off the hook by saying, “I never looked inside it.”]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/an-i-believed-my-own-lies-defense-won-t-work-for-trump/ar-AAYz5ok?ocid=wispr&cvid=419cba3e10484bfea5ddf3d33b5a7b34

 

Your premise depends heavily on something not yet proven............ that Trump knew he was lying. That he, "believed his own lies." 

 

I've asked a couple of times in this thread whether anyone could present any evidence, testimony, speech transcripts or clips, or interview segments............. ANY AT ALL.......... where Trump EVER said something that indicates that he doesn't wholeheartedly believe everything he's been saying about the election. 

 

So far, nothing. Nothing, nada, zero, zip! 

 

See, for someone to "believe their own lies," first they have to know they ARE lies. 

 

To this point, there are probably HUNDREDS of clips of Trump speaking about this issue......... as well as many hours of testimony on record by people who saw him frequently or even daily.......... yet, as far as I've seen, there's not one indicator.......... NOT ONE!........ that Trump doesn't believe 100% in the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of what he's saying! 

 

It's not "believing your own lies"......... when you believe you are speaking the absolute truth! 

 

So sorry, a counter-argument saying he's been "believing his own lies"........... doesn't fly. Produce some evidence that Trump doesn't believe in the absolute truth of what he's been saying........... JUST ONE!........ and that'll change everything!

 

Certainly, asking for examples a couple of times here............. still has yet to produced any!

 

Can you? 

 

Cheers! 

[Berkshire]

8 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Your premise depends heavily on something not yet proven............ that Trump knew he was lying. That he, "believed his own lies." 

 

I've asked a couple of times in this thread whether anyone could present any evidence, testimony, speech transcripts or clips, or interview segments............. ANY AT ALL.......... where Trump EVER said something that indicates that he doesn't wholeheartedly believe everything he's been saying about the election. 

 

So far, nothing. Nothing, nada, zero, zip! 

 

See, for someone to "believe their own lies," first they have to know they ARE lies. 

 

To this point, there are probably HUNDREDS of clips of Trump speaking about this issue......... as well as many hours of testimony on record by people who saw him frequently or even daily.......... yet, as far as I've seen, there's not one indicator.......... NOT ONE!........ that Trump doesn't believe 100% in the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of what he's saying! 

 

It's not "believing your own lies"......... when you believe you are speaking the absolute truth! 

 

So sorry, a counter-argument saying he's been "believing his own lies"........... doesn't fly. Produce some evidence that Trump doesn't believe in the absolute truth of what he's been saying........... JUST ONE!........ and that'll change everything!

 

Certainly, asking for examples a couple of times here............. still has yet to produced any!

 

Can you? 

 

Cheers! 

Obviously, you didn't read the article.  Let me summarize:  It doesn't matter what Trump believed.