4 minutes ago, steven100 said:

well all I can say is .......  God help America     !!

"If he [Trump] does announce, he could actually cost the Republicans the House as well as the Senate," he bluntly stated. "If the election is about the economy, Republicans win both. If the election is about Donald Trump, Republicans lose both."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-midterms/

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Graham won't even consider nominating while Trump is still on the scene. After Trump insulted Graham's wife he became his biggest sycophant. For this reason alone he'd never get elected. The GOP will win with Trump, De Santis or nobody.

Did I miss something?  Lindsey Graham isn't married.

Just now, Scott said:

Did I miss something?  Lindsey Graham isn't married.

hmm, maybe I missed something. It was probably the wannabe confederate general then.

3 hours ago, lemmie said:

Exactly, u can always have eternal hope for a criminal referral, ANY referral at this time in spite of zero evidence, multiple hearings, television presentations, special grand juries, there is always some thread of hope, just not much, sadly for some.

There is very, very clear evidence of dereliction of duty while the Capitol was under attack.  That alone disqualifies Trump from ever again becoming President or holding any kind of responsible position.

 

Unfortunately some people are ok with such demonstrated incompetence.

15 hours ago, heybruce said:

There is very, very clear evidence of dereliction of duty while the Capitol was under attack.  That alone disqualifies Trump from ever again becoming President or holding any kind of responsible position.

 

Unfortunately some people are ok with such demonstrated incompetence.

For obvious reasons, the J6 committee’s goalposts keep shifting. The early accusations of conspiracy to insurrection have changed into accusations of obstruction of Congress, seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud, or even the very vague dereliction of duty. It is, apparently, hard to find an identifiable crime.

 

Maybe the 14th amendment, Section 3, highly doubt that, forget it.

By the way, can Biden be convicted of dereliction of duty for his failure to secure the southern border thereby allowing millions of illegal immigrants and deadly Fentanyl into the country?

 

Jonathan Turley, a self-described liberal Obama voter and Hillary voter and one of the premier constitutional law experts in the country, points out that instead of being shown the dreadful deeds Trump did, the committee suddenly became very interested in showing what he didn’t do—e.g., a draft of a tweet that was never sent, an executive order that was never signed, or talk of appointing Sidney Powell as a special counsel, seizing voting machines, and replacing Justice Department leadership, none of which were ever carried out. Unfortunately, for the January 6th Committee and its colluders in the new media, we do not convict people in the United States for what they did not do. We generally require that they actually did something, e.g., if they did not pull the trigger themselves, then they had to hide the gun later or lie to the police about what they knew about the shooting, etc.

 

Why has the Left in America been in this unhealthy non-stop state of hyperventilation since Trump came down the escalator in 2015? The answer, as Stephen Miller puts it, is that Trump

has been the victim of unrelenting phony investigations, persecutions, witch-hunts, partisan attacks from congress, from the DOJ, from the FBI, from the deep state, from the Democrats, from New York State…while our cities are besieged in crime. You have actual murderers…killing people in broad daylight, but who do they want to go after? Donald Trump. Why? Because he is the greatest change agent ever to sit in the White House.

https://youtu.be/Q7JqhDmX-C4

Edited July 26, 20223 yr by lemmie

6 minutes ago, lemmie said:

For obvious reasons, the J6 committee’s goalposts keep shifting. The early accusations of conspiracy to insurrection have changed into accusations of obstruction of Congress, seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud, or even the very vague dereliction of duty. It is, apparently, hard to find an identifiable crime.

 

No, the goalpost has not shifted.  It's "all of the above." 

Edited July 26, 20223 yr by Berkshire

9 minutes ago, lemmie said:

For obvious reasons, the J6 committee’s goalposts keep shifting. The early accusations of conspiracy to insurrection have changed into accusations of obstruction of Congress, seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud, or even the very vague dereliction of duty. It is, apparently, hard to find an identifiable crime.

 

Maybe the 14th amendment, Section 3, highly doubt that, forget it.

By the way, can Biden be convicted of dereliction of duty for his failure to secure the southern border thereby allowing millions of illegal immigrants and deadly Fentanyl into the country?

 

Jonathan Turley, a self-described liberal Obama voter and Hillary voter and one of the premier constitutional law experts in the country, points out that instead of being shown the dreadful deeds Trump did, the committee suddenly became very interested in showing what he didn’t do—e.g., a draft of a tweet that was never sent, an executive order that was never signed, or talk of appointing Sidney Powell as a special counsel, seizing voting machines, and replacing Justice Department leadership, none of which were ever carried out. Unfortunately, for the January 6th Committee and its colluders in the new media, we do not convict people in the United States for what they did not do. We generally require that they actually did something, e.g., if they did not pull the trigger themselves, then they had to hide the gun later or lie to the police about what they knew about the shooting, etc.

 

Why has the Left in America been in this unhealthy non-stop state of hyperventilation since Trump came down the escalator in 2015? The answer, as Stephen Miller puts it, is that Trump

has been the victim of unrelenting phony investigations, persecutions, witch-hunts, partisan attacks from congress, from the DOJ, from the FBI, from the deep state, from the Democrats, from New York State…while our cities are besieged in crime. You have actual murderers…killing people in broad daylight, but who do they want to go after? Donald Trump. Why? Because he is the greatest change agent ever to sit in the White House.

https://youtu.be/Q7JqhDmX-C4

Actually, as even Turley (not a liberal by the way) conceded, the best case that has been revealed by the committee  is for Trump's participation in the fake elector plot.

And of course there is the possibilty of Trump being charged in Georgia as well.

6 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

No, the goalpost has not shifted.  It's "all of the above." 

Has the FBI determined in earlier investigations there "....was scant evidence of insurrection..."?

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And of course there is the possibilty of Trump being charged in Georgia as well.

Thats a HUGE nothing-burger, for sure. Listen to Trumps call and see for yourself.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

15 hours ago, Scott said:

Did I miss something?  Lindsey Graham isn't married.

And backs GOP policy positions that will ensure he never is.

21 minutes ago, lemmie said:

Thats a HUGE nothing-burger, for sure. Listen to Trumps call and see for yourself.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

I doubt John Eastman or Jeff Clark would agree with you that this is all a ‘nothing burger’.

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, lemmie said:

For obvious reasons, the J6 committee’s goalposts keep shifting. The early accusations of conspiracy to insurrection have changed into accusations of obstruction of Congress, seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud, or even the very vague dereliction of duty. It is, apparently, hard to find an identifiable crime.

 

Maybe the 14th amendment, Section 3, highly doubt that, forget it.

By the way, can Biden be convicted of dereliction of duty for his failure to secure the southern border thereby allowing millions of illegal immigrants and deadly Fentanyl into the country?

 

Jonathan Turley, a self-described liberal Obama voter and Hillary voter and one of the premier constitutional law experts in the country, points out that instead of being shown the dreadful deeds Trump did, the committee suddenly became very interested in showing what he didn’t do—e.g., a draft of a tweet that was never sent, an executive order that was never signed, or talk of appointing Sidney Powell as a special counsel, seizing voting machines, and replacing Justice Department leadership, none of which were ever carried out. Unfortunately, for the January 6th Committee and its colluders in the new media, we do not convict people in the United States for what they did not do. We generally require that they actually did something, e.g., if they did not pull the trigger themselves, then they had to hide the gun later or lie to the police about what they knew about the shooting, etc.

 

Why has the Left in America been in this unhealthy non-stop state of hyperventilation since Trump came down the escalator in 2015? The answer, as Stephen Miller puts it, is that Trump

has been the victim of unrelenting phony investigations, persecutions, witch-hunts, partisan attacks from congress, from the DOJ, from the FBI, from the deep state, from the Democrats, from New York State…while our cities are besieged in crime. You have actual murderers…killing people in broad daylight, but who do they want to go after? Donald Trump. Why? Because he is the greatest change agent ever to sit in the White House.

https://youtu.be/Q7JqhDmX-C4

Dereliction of duty is not a vague concept.  It's similar to "freezing under fire", which would get a combat commander court martialed.  However Trump, the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, sworn to defend the nation and uphold the US Constitution, didn't freeze under fire, he enjoyed the sight of his supporters storming the Capitol for two hours.  Only when it was clear that they would not succeed in stopping the election certification or hanging Mike Pence did he reluctantly take action to call them off.

 

If you think you are supporting your claims or enhancing your credibility by quoting Stephen Miller and linking to a Sean Hannity video, you are wrong.

24 minutes ago, lemmie said:

Thats a HUGE nothing-burger, for sure. Listen to Trumps call and see for yourself.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

Yes, much like his conversation with Zelenski, Trump was careful not to specify what illegal acts he wanted, while making it very clear that he wanted.  The actions of an experienced crime boss.

29 minutes ago, lemmie said:

Thats a HUGE nothing-burger, for sure. Listen to Trumps call and see for yourself.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

Actually, the argument defending Trump goes to state of mind. That if he truly believed the election was fraudlent, that would be a defense. But the state of mind defense isn't absolute. And as the hearings have shown, Trump was repeatedly and forcefully told there was no evidence of fraud in Georgia. 

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, the argument defending Trump goes to state of mind. That if he truly believed the election was fraudlent, that would be a defense. But the state of mind defense isn't absolute. And as the hearings have shown, Trump was repeatedly and forcefully told there was no evidence of fraud in Georgia. 

State of mind, (u forgot 2nd component: actus reus) was more than articulated/comminicated during his call with Raffensperger, it's all in the transcript I gave you. Now, if the call showed culpability, Trump would/should have been charged but due to lack of evidence and in search of a crime Fulton Co. DA Willis applied for a special grand jury to provide subpoena power only, along with the usual option to make criminal referrals, BUT no authority for issuing criminal indictments. This is going nowhere, same as the J6 ABC television presentations. Trump is going to prevail again, on the side of the facts and truth.

Edited July 26, 20223 yr by lemmie

29 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Dereliction of duty is not a vague concept.  It's similar to "freezing under fire", which would get a combat commander court martialed.  However Trump, the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, sworn to defend the nation and uphold the US Constitution, didn't freeze under fire, he enjoyed the sight of his supporters storming the Capitol for two hours.  Only when it was clear that they would not succeed in stopping the election certification or hanging Mike Pence did he reluctantly take action to call them off.

 

If you think you are supporting your claims or enhancing your credibility by quoting Stephen Miller and linking to a Sean Hannity video, you are wrong.

its down to section 3 of the 14th. After you study it you can better understand it and see where all this goes...as usual.

This is talked to death now, supposed to be about "booed in AZ"

If you want the numbers Trump discussed in the call with Raffensperger, I have them all documented in a mini linear compilation.

 

Bye for now.

6 minutes ago, lemmie said:

State of mind, (u forgot 2nd component: actus reus) was more than articulated/comminicated during his call with Raffensperger, it's all in the transcript I gave you. Now, if the call showed culpability, Trump would/should have been charged but due to lack of evidence and in search of a crime Fulton Co. DA Willis applied for a special grand jury to provide subpoena power only, along with the usual option to make criminal referrals, BUT no authority for issuing criminal indictments. This is going nowhere, same as the J6 ABC television presentations. Trump is going to prevail again, on the side of the facts and truth.

No state of mind is not established in Trump's call. You would have to prove that Trump believed what he said. How do you prove that? Moreover, state of mind is not an absolute defense. Unless Trump wants to mount an insanity defense, the fact that many highly qualified people told him that there was no basis for his alleged belief, undermines the state of mind claim.

As for your indictment vs criminal referral claim, even if true, doesn't seem to amount to much:

 

"A criminal referral or criminal recommendation is a notice to a prosecutory body, recommending criminal investigation or prosecution of one or more entities for crimes which fall into that body's jurisdiction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_referral

26 minutes ago, lemmie said:

its down to section 3 of the 14th. After you study it you can better understand it and see where all this goes...as usual.

You mean this:

 

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

 

You are wrong, in a clear and comically obvious manner. 

 

A commander who allows his troops to be overrun in battle by failing to order the troops to to defend themselves has committed dereliction of duty, even if he didn't actively participate in overrunning his own troops.

 

The fact that Trump did not actively participate in the attack on the Capitol does not mean he is innocent of dereliction.  The fact that he encouraged it in his speech, wanted to participate, and watched without taking any action to end the violence makes it clear that he is guilty of worse than dereliction of duty.

 

Whether Trump can be convicted of instigating the violence remains to be seen.  However he is clearly guilty of gross dereliction of duty at a minimum and unfit to hold any government office.

Edited July 26, 20223 yr by heybruce

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

A commander who allows his troops to be overrun in battle by failing to order the troops to to defend themselves has committed dereliction of duty, even if he didn't actively participate in overrunning his own troops.

 

The fact that Trump did not actively participate in the attack on the Capitol does not mean he is innocent of dereliction

The people at the disturbance at Capital hill  were not troops , they were members of the public and they were not members of the army .

   Trump also made a video on the very day asking for peace and the violent  protests to stop 

28 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The people at the disturbance at Capital hill  were not troops , they were members of the public and they were not members of the army .

   Trump also made a video on the very day asking for peace and the violent  protests to stop 

He waited many hours before he did that. And at no time did he order assistance to put a stop to the incursion despite the pleas of members of congress, the vice-president, his own staff, and even his daughter.

34 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The people at the disturbance at Capital hill  were not troops , they were members of the public and they were not members of the army .

   Trump also made a video on the very day asking for peace and the violent  protests to stop 

Wrong.

 

Trump made a video the next day, long after VP Pence had called in the National Guard to clear the protesters.  A call Trump should have made.  https://news.yahoo.com/trump-video-outtakes-jan-6-hearing-election-over-ivanka-white-house-030543867.html

 

As has been clearly established, Trump watched the Capitol assault on television without doing anything to stop it.  And he was still Commander in Chief while he did this.

 

There is absolutely no escaping the fact that, at the very least, Trump is guilty of gross dereliction of duty.  He is clearly unfit for office.

Edited July 26, 20223 yr by heybruce

On 7/24/2022 at 5:11 AM, Scott said:

The ex-president responded to the booing by apparently seeking some self-validation: “But you like me?” he asked

Narcissism personified and all you need to know about this wretched excuse of a human being. 

On 7/24/2022 at 9:09 PM, Phoenix Rising said:

To add insult to injury:

 

New York Post's editorial should worry Trump

 

"...a new editorial published by the New York Post, "Trump's silence on Jan. 6 is damning," should worry him, given the newspaper's reach with a loyal pro-Trump audience and its status as one of the crown jewels of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.

....another Murdoch publication, The Wall Street Journal, also slammed Trump in an editorial titled "The President Who Stood Still on Jan. 6."
The Journal wrote that, of all the condemnable behavior by Trump presented by the January 6 committee over the past several weeks, "most horrifying" was witnesses describing how "as the riot raged ... he sat watching TV, posting inflammatory tweets and refusing to send help.""

 

This turn is quite noteworthy, the bottom is falling out of DT media support.  Also in recent days OAN is losing their cable carrier. 

MAGA Channel OAN Goes Wild on ‘Marxist’ Verizon for Dropping Network

This is at a bad time for Team Orange, as he is launching another initiative to have the 2020 election results overturned in several states, e.g.:

https://politicalwire.com/2022/07/20/trump-still-trying-to-overturn-election-results/

Said Vos: “I explained that it’s not allowed under the constitution. He has a different opinion.”

 

 

On 7/24/2022 at 2:32 PM, placeholder said:

I'd like to say "nice try" but your deflection doesn't even rise to that level. So, I'm afraid I'm going to have to award you a "sad fail". I wonder if there's an emoji for that?

Look at opinion polls

On 7/25/2022 at 6:31 AM, ozimoron said:

Graham won't even consider nominating while Trump is still on the scene. After Trump insulted Graham's wife he became his biggest sycophant. For this reason alone he'd never get elected. The GOP will win with Trump, De Santis or nobody.

I think you mean Ted Cruz, that was during the 2015-16 campaign.  All these invertebrate bullies are the same.  Single terms for US senators and representatives,, I say!

The Murdoch media machinery is backing away from DT, this is a turning point.  There are at least six of these fringe conservatives with their eyes on the WH prize, the pyrotechnics will be going on next year at this time.  If the GOP somehow manages to push the insurrectionist former occupant of the Oval aside will he go third-party?  If so, and both DT and the GOP pick are defeated, I just might start believing in god!

 

 

3 hours ago, bendejo said:

I think you mean Ted Cruz, that was during the 2015-16 campaign.  All these invertebrate bullies are the same.  Single terms for US senators and representatives,, I say!

The Murdoch media machinery is backing away from DT, this is a turning point.  There are at least six of these fringe conservatives with their eyes on the WH prize, the pyrotechnics will be going on next year at this time.  If the GOP somehow manages to push the insurrectionist former occupant of the Oval aside will he go third-party?  If so, and both DT and the GOP pick are defeated, I just might start believing in god!

"If the GOP somehow manages to push the insurrectionist former occupant of the Oval aside will he go third-party?  If so, and both DT and the GOP pick are defeated, I just might start believing in god!"

 

I think you have identified why the GOP continues to cater to Trump.  Trump wouldn't care if a third party bid was a dismal failure for him and the GOP so long as it kept his name in the news and his face on television.  However it could cost the GOP the White House, many seats in both houses of Congress, and many state governments.  The GOP would rather continue its deal with the devil than lose that much power.

I was thinking of Tom Cotton as a contender, and then this comes up today:

Liz Cheney Isn't Taking Tom Cotton's Sh*t

 

On the other hand he may be getting soft, US Senator is a pretty cushy job and in more cases than not they tend to auto-relect.  He's GOP so the money is good.  Who in their right mind would want a job where you are observed 24/7? 

 

 

21 hours ago, lemmie said:

State of mind, (u forgot 2nd component: actus reus) was more than articulated/comminicated during his call with Raffensperger, it's all in the transcript I gave you. Now, if the call showed culpability, Trump would/should have been charged but due to lack of evidence and in search of a crime Fulton Co. DA Willis applied for a special grand jury to provide subpoena power only, along with the usual option to make criminal referrals, BUT no authority for issuing criminal indictments. This is going nowhere, same as the J6 ABC television presentations. Trump is going to prevail again, on the side of the facts and truth.

"trump" and the words "facts and truth" in the same sentence - priceless!????

15 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Look at opinion polls

Do you really believe in opinion polls? For every opinion poll that says one thing, there is another poll saying the opposite.

 

First you start with the result that you want, you tailor the questions to suit the result and then you target your audience.

 

You want Trump to look good you ask one set of questions to one audience, or if you want Biden to look good, use different questions and a different audience.