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

Suspect that this will also be part of the prosecution…

 

I’d really REALLY enjoy seeing your response if all of this played out in the exact same way the sole difference being Obama instead of Trump. Would absolutely love to see what you, Basso, Bigtexxx, premium post kid, Foxnews and etc etc

it’s hilarious to even think about it. Obama losing the election having the speech in DC suggesting his supporters to do what they did. Having people die. All the while losing case after case in an effort prove of any type of fraud. Saying the voting machines were whatever dumb a** conspiracy but then the company sued everyone and is winning.

I bet you and everyone else would have the same response. No need to speak on the other’s behalf or reply yourself. I know what I say is true.

 

Lol

 

Yeah no. I am not trusting a word coming from the mouth of a pedophile

 

Yeah, it's unhinged. If Obama or Biden did this I'd want them both in prison, too.

 

Everything he says is a direct reflection of himself. He still can't stomach being beat by old man Joe Biden. It festers in his mind. Everything he did is his own doing. Biden didn't brainwash him into commiting crimes. He has no one to blame but himself, but the psychopath in him always twists the story to portray him as the victim. Wake up Republicans! The dude is a nutjob in every way.

 

They should have included all the chants "Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!"

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald...th-january-6-fraud-e0068c4f?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

Another Troubling Trump Indictment
Special counsel Jack Smith’s broad theory of fraud has dangerous implications.
By The Editorial Board
Aug. 1, 2023 at 10:34 pm ET

Donald Trump’s post-election behavior in 2020 was deceitful and destructive, and his malfeasance on Jan. 6, 2021, was disgraceful, but was it criminal? That’s the claim in the extraordinary indictment issued Tuesday by a federal grand jury established by special counsel Jack Smith.

Democrats have long sought an indictment related to Jan. 6, but on that score what’s striking is what’s not in the 45-page document. There is no evidence tying Mr. Trump to the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys who planned to, and did, breach the U.S. Capitol that day. That was the worst offense against democracy, and more than 1,000 people have been prosecuted in connection with it.

Yet the indictment offers no new evidence to establish a connection between the riot and Mr. Trump beyond his well-known tweets and public statements. Surely Mr. Smith would have added this to his conspiracy charges if he had found such evidence. Mr. Trump is also not charged with encouraging an “insurrection,” which is the word and charge leveled by the press corps and Democrats.

***
Instead the indictment charges one obstruction and three conspiracy counts related to what it claims was a broad effort to overturn the 2020 election based on “dishonesty, fraud, and deceit.” The indictment concedes that Mr. Trump “had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won.”

In other words, Mr. Trump can lie about the election all he wants. But the indictment says Mr. Trump broke the law when he acted on those lies. Those actions include lobbying state officials to hunt for voter fraud, working with his conspirators to stand up substitute electors in seven states, and trying to persuade Vice President Mike Pence that he had the power to refuse to count electoral votes on Jan. 6.

This is a remarkably broad theory of “conspiracy to defraud the United States,” and one with troubling implications far beyond the fate of Mr. Trump. Mr. Smith’s theory seems to be that if a President and his “co-conspirators” are lying, and then take action on that lie, they are defrauding the U.S.

This potentially criminalizes many kinds of actions and statements by a President that a prosecutor deems to be false. You don’t have to be a defender of Donald Trump to worry about where this will lead. It makes any future election challenges, however valid, legally vulnerable to a partisan prosecutor. And it might have criminalized the actions by Al Gore and George W. Bush to contest the Florida election result in 2000.

Our legal counselors also point to Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that the President “is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.” That was a civil, not a criminal, case. But lobbying his own Justice Department to investigate voter fraud, or even lobbying state officials to find fraud, is arguably within a President’s official duties if he believes fraud occurred.

Mr. Smith alleges and offers substantial evidence that Mr. Trump was frequently told that he lost the election and that there was no provable election fraud. But Mr. Trump was also told the opposite, and he typically resides in a performance artist, fact-free world of his own imagining. Assuming Mr. Trump can find competent counsel, you can expect to hear more about this “absolute immunity” ruling as part of his defense.

None of this is an apology for Mr. Trump’s post-election behavior. These columns have been clear from Election Day that we have seen no evidence that the election was stolen, and that Mr. Trump should have resigned in disgrace after the events of Jan. 6.

But the good news of that day, and of all four Trump years as President, is that America’s institutions held up under great stress. If there was a conspiracy, it was by a gang of misfits. As Mr. Smith’s indictment makes clear, most GOP officials in the states wanted nothing to do with it. Neither did most Trump officials, and Trump-appointed judges ruled against the President’s claims. Mr. Pence was a hero. The conspiracy had no chance of success.

***
Yet this indictment, perhaps even more than the others, will by dint of looking back at 2020 roil the 2024 campaign. Democrats want Mr. Trump to be the Republican nominee, and Mr. Smith (whether he intends it or not) is making that outcome more likely.

We will have an election campaign that rotates between courtrooms and rallies. The carnival will make it difficult for other Republicans to be heard. A debate between Joe Biden and Mr. Trump, if they are the nominees, will be over one man’s age and infirmity and another’s attempt to stay out of jail.

We’ve argued that an indictment of a former President should be based on serious charges with enough evidence to convince most Americans that it is justly brought. We doubt most Republicans will see this one in that light, and that means we are headed for more difficult and dangerous months ahead.

Appeared in the August 2, 2023, print edition as 'Another Troubling Trump Indictment'.
​

 

I’m about halfway through the indictment, and well..,,


On one side we have a dozen or so of Trumps own team and dozens of tenured republicans that voted for trump saying that they told him repeatedly that he lost the election and that he had no proof… and other other side we have Trump and a few coconspirators saying that’s not true but never provided any proof… just theories.

MAGA will just say all these people are RINOs and part of the deep state. Could get ugly for these republican lawmakers in the coming months.

 

If any other president did this yes they should face prosecution. I know a lot of posters here and elsewhere like to post stuff like "Democrats deny election!" over 2016. The fact is that Hillary Clinton might gripe about the election but she conceded the morning after the election. Joe Biden presided over the certification of the election on Jan. 6 2017. Neither Hillary Clinton, her lawyers or proxies called state Secretary of States to find them votes, accused poll workers of changing votes, and didn't call her supporters to DC on Jan. 6 2017 to FIGHT LIKE HELL! There were no gallows set up outside the US Capitol and calls to HANG JOE BIDEN! if he didnt' overturn the election.

 

Again the WSJ Editorial board is selective with the facts and contexts. Trump does have a First Amendment right to say he won the election. The difference is that Trump though when he was making those statements wasn't just a private citizen but also the President of the United States. This is why his call to the GA Secretary of State is particularly significant. He wasn't there just speaking to him as a citizen but as President with actual power. Further as has been repeatedly noted free speech isn't an absolute right. That Trump multiple times before and on Jan. 6 talked about "fighting like HELL!" and other threatening language has to be weighed against the one instance of him saying "do so peacefully".. Given that Trump's own supporters took his speech as an invitation to attack the Capitol and fully believed that was intention also that Trump himself did nothing for hours to stop the riot and even in the midst of it sent out an immflamatory tweet moves this beyond protected free speech towards deliberate incitement.

 

I'll never understand why so many of them are totally willing to throw away our democracy for the sake of Donald ****ing Trump of all people.

 

If you read this as a preview of Trump's defense, it's obvious that the defense will want the jury to only focus on the riot itself, and Trump's 1st amendment rights. If they can make it a messy 1st amendment trial, then mayyyyybbeee they have a chance at a hung jury.

But the indictment is very clear early on that it's not just about the riot, and Trump's speech. It's about all the other things he was doing behind the scenes to obstruct the proceeding, and flip the election.

OS is doing us a favor in previewing Trump's best defense as he usually does. However his best defense in court relies on a jury getting distracted, and only focusing on one element of the 4 count indictment.

 

Yeah the indictment barely focuses on the sixth itself. The real plot was the scheme to issue fake electors, sew "confusion" in Congress and have Pence throw it back to the states. The riot was a cherry on top.

 

It's mundane to say it at this point. (I've heard the whataboutism many times about a comparison of what if Obama did what Trump did) If Obama did this, Bush, Clinton, Biden. I would want what is legally supposed to happen to that person. Trump deserves what he deserves. That's the end of it. For some reason, conservatives are incapable of that rationale. It's sad that humans @bigtexxx can not get over; this is my team mentality. Depending on what team committed said action and letting that determine your opinion instead of the action itself. It's pathetic.

 

The indictment clearly indicates that inciting the 1/6 riot was part of the coup plan to give cover for invoking the Insurrection Act and use the military to retain power.

 

Exactly. As an American who believes in our system of government, I'd be willing to take the L if my once-preferred candidate tried to overthrow that government. A few short-term political wins aren't worth that.

 

Are you serious? Do you realize that every person that will testify against trump is a retrumplican? not one democrat......you are *******