Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

Wow, I agree with Ted on two sentences. "It is not subtle. It is not complicated." Trump by all evidence ran afoul of the law and that's why all these indictments are piling up, and it took time to investigate, convene grand juries, etc. Pretty simple.

What would be much more complicated, Ted, would be for a president to be afraid of some scary scandal involving his loser son and thereby building a time machine to initiate DOJ investigations that started before he was inaugurated and perfectly time all the investigations and grand jury deliberations to unfurl naturally right when news of the loser son's activities (allegedly) was getting inflated by the media.

 

LOL

 

You've been coming with the heat today, make sure to cool off after you're done torching the D&D.

 

... your rhetorical sarcastic dissertations have exponentially improved in both wry effectiveness and deadpan humor.

You been working out?

 

Can't embed it...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/L4M5DPHsZ8U

 

I'm just cranky! LOL.

 

Civil War-era rights law key in Trump election interference charges

 

Post's lead story's headline

Heart of the Trump Jan. 6 indictment: What’s in Trump’s head
The former president’s intent — and whether he knew he was lying about election fraud — are key issues for prosecutors

https://wapo.st/3Klb6MT

this article link should work to provide access without a subscription

 

The New Jack Smith Indictment Is Where Whataboutism Goes to Die


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/opinion/jack-smith-trump-jan-6-indictment.html



Donald Trump has now been indicted three times, accused of crimes occurring before, during and after his presidency. The latest indictment alleges facts from all quarters to prove his criminality: from the vice president to the White House counsel and the heads of the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of National Intelligence, as well as many others. All are Republican loyalists.

But the indictment does more: It skillfully avoids breathing air into a Trump claim of selective prosecution. To not have brought this case against Mr. Trump would have been an act of selective nonprosecution. The Justice Department has already charged and obtained convictions for myriad foot soldiers related to the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including charging well over 300 people for obstructing the congressional proceedings. In this indictment, the special counsel Jack Smith wisely brings that same charge, but now against the alleged leader of the effort to thwart the transfer of power.

That charge of obstruction and conspiracy to defraud the United States in the administration of elections are entirely fitting for the conduct alleged in the indictment. In a civil case last year, the Federal District Court judge David Carter held that Mr. Trump and John Eastman likely engaged in a criminal conspiracy under both those statutes in their schemes to organize false electors and pressure the vice president. Mr. Smith has now said he can prove the same conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

Although the Jan. 6 select committee referred Mr. Trump for investigation for inciting an insurrection, Mr. Smith wisely demurred. The Justice Department has not charged that offense in any other case involving the attack on the Capitol, and insurrection has not been charged since the 19th century. Of course, no president has engaged in it since then — but since no one else has been charged with that crime relating to Jan. 6, it likely would have been an issue. And since the penalty for the insurrection offense is that the defendant would not be eligible to hold federal office, it would have fueled a claim of weaponizing the Justice Department to defeat a political rival.


Mr. Trump and others like him will of course continue to assert that the Justice Department has been politically weaponized. That claim has it exactly backward.

To not charge Mr. Trump for trying to criminally interfere with the transfer of power to a duly elected president would be to politicize the matter. It would mean external political considerations had infected the Justice Department’s decision-making and steered the institution away from its commitment to holding everyone equally accountable under the law.


What those circling their wagons around Mr. Trump are in effect asking for is a two-tiered system, in which the people who were stirred by lies to interrupt the congressional certification are held to account but not the chief instigator. That injustice has not been lost on judges overseeing cases related to Jan. 6. In the 2021 sentencing of John Lolos — a 48-year-old man with no criminal recordwho traveled from Seattle to hear Mr. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse before being convinced to “storm” the Capitol — Judge Amit Mehta commented on the incongruity in the D.C. courtroom.

“People like Mr. Lolos were told lies, fed falsehoods, and told that our election was stolen when it clearly was not,” the judge said. He went on to add that those “who created the conditions that led to Mr. Lolos’s conduct” and the events of Jan. 6 have “in no meaningful sense” been held “to account for their actions and their words.”

…

 

You really leaning into that contrarian opinion, eh?

 

I watched Trump express what was in his heart in late 2020 and January 2021.

 

Where the hell was this Mike Pence on January 6th or the day immediately after? I honestly can’t believe someone as soft as Pence is talking like this.

 

Looks legit

 

I wonder why his tweet is showing unavailable when embedded? Hmmm....

 

As "luck" would have it? So you're clearly delighted that Dershowitz is "all in" on supporting trump and, in my opinion, trump's attempt to steal the election. That's what he's doing here, going so far as referring to "all you trump haters popping champagne." Sad to see the deeply experienced 86 year old "the Dersh" appearing to turn into, as former Vice-President Pence might put it, just another "crackpot lawyer."

Maybe the Dersh should get together with this group for some bubbly and conspiracy theories:

 

I wanna say something on my mind so bad but I know I gotta restrain myself.

 

Best to stay calm. Perhaps it will pass?
;-)

 

I'm good old school but do appreciate your concern.