The Jan. 6 Investigation

[acbytesla]

This is indeed correct. All of his rhetoric was that Mike Pence could deliver him the presidency, and then he bleated to the crowd that Pence was too much of a coward to do what needed to be done, and now they would have to take this into their own hands.... FFS, the rally was called "Stop the Steal", it was a call to the deplorables to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

Trump clearly and obviously incited that crowd to do what they did - only a Trump sycophant could spin it to mean anything different.

Hell the sycophants knew what he was talking about. The defense given by a majority of the rioters is they were following their Commander in Chief.

The wink and the nod only goes so far.

 

[Warp12]

What am I supposed to do? Storm the Capitol!?

I'm just curious if you will still cling to your notions, should he not be convicted of any related crimes. You seem very adamant that he is obviously guilty. So, it should follow that he will be convicted of something related, if the evidence is as overwhelming as you suggest.

 

[bruto]

We can nitpick after the fact about how technically accountable T**** is for this or that, but in the end, I can't see how anyone reasonable would not consider him a malignant ******* anyway. No matter how carefully you slice the legal sausage, it would have been easy enough, I think, for him to have said something like "Whatever you do, don't break into the Capitol." But that makes the very tenuous assumption that he did not want them to do exactly that.

As usual, the main argument against his being directly responsible is the contention that he was too stupid to know what to do.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm just curious if you will still cling to your notions, should he not be convicted of any related crimes. You seem very adamant that he is obviously guilty. So, it should follow that he will be convicted of something related, if the evidence is as overwhelming as you suggest.

Trump is clearly guilty of many crimes. Tax and bank fraud for decades. Long before he ever became POTUS, he managed to get away with it. He then got away with it for four more years. Impeached twice and was clearly guilty but people like you. You know, individuals with double standards who think the law only applies to the poor, liberals and people of color. They could and likely would ignore the facts and pulled a white OJ Simpson.

You know. Jury nullification.

This is what every prosecutor is worried about. Get 12 people into the jury and you're likely to get at least one dumb ignorant MAGA bro hick who wont care how many people he killed. He is their cult leader.

 

[Warp12]

Trump is clearly guilty of many crimes. Tax and bank fraud for decades. Long before he ever became POTUS, he managed to get away with it. He then got away with it for four more years. Impeached twice and was clearly guilty but people like you. You know, individuals with double standards who think the law only applies to the poor, liberals and people of color. They could and likely would ignore the facts and pulled a white OJ Simpson.

Curiously, you accused someone else of an ad hominem attack, today. You might want to engage in an introspective moment, at this point.

I think it's pretty clear here that your opinion will not be influenced by any actual legal determination of guilt or innocence. You have made up your mind. So, there is really no point in further debate.

 

[smartcooky]

I don’t think the phone call means what you think it means.

Oh, I know exactly what it means, and it means exactly what any reasonable person would understand it to mean. Lets have a look at one of the key parts of the call...

"But the ballots are corrupt, and you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal — it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery, and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen, and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."

This is a mobster style threat to Raffensperger that he could face criminal sanctions more severe than the sanctions for those Trump accused of casting illegal ballots. But its not just this phone call that shows Trump's guilt...there are also others... such as the phone call with then Acting AG Jeffrey Rosen, in which Trump told Rosen to “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the congressmen” after which Jeffrey Clark, the former acting assistant AG for the DOJ Civil Division, separately threatened Rosen’s job if he didn’t use the DOJ to coerce Georgia and other states to certify a new slate of electors.

In, true mob boss style, Trump was asking Rosen to lie for him, and then had his consigliere Clark follow up by threatening Rosen if he didn't comply with Trump's request.

The question of course, is that, are any of these things illegal? Of course they are...

GA Code § 21-2-604. Criminal Solicitation to Commit Election Fraud
A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.​

Trump asked Raffesperger to "find" just enough votes to change the election outcome. If that is not solicitation of a criminal offences, then I'd like to know what is!

Then there is this one

GA Code § 21-2-566. Interference With Primaries and Elections Generally
8. Willfully tampers with any electors list, voter's certificate, numbered list of voters, ballot box, voting machine, direct recording electronic (DRE) equipment, electronic ballot marker, or tabulating machine

All of the information I have read about the Georgia case holds that Trump is in real trouble on this one. He has definitely broken the above mentioned two Georgia State laws, and he may well have broken others as well as some Federal statutes

18 USC § 241
18 USC § 620
52 USC § 20511(2)


The GA AG has requested, and been granted, a Special Grand Jury to assist with her investigations. This allows her to force co-operation from those who do not want to co-operate with her investigations, by subpoenaing them under criminal penalty for non-compliance.

 

[acbytesla]

Curiously, you accused someone else of an ad hominem attack, today. You might want to engage in an introspective moment, at this point.

I think it's pretty clear here that your opinion will not be influenced by any actual legal determination of guilt or innocence. You have made up your mind. So, there is really no point in further debate.

Is it an ad hominem to suggest you have double standards as it pertains to democracy and the law? I believe your posts go to support that hypocrisy.

Yes, my opinion was made up on January 6th 2001 when I witnessed how for hours on end as rioters attacked the capitol after a call to arms by Trump and his cabal. I watched in horror as they beat up Capitol policemen and screamed "Hang Mike Pence." I watched the carnage as Trump did nothing. And then after the tide turned against the rioters he said "we love you" to the rioters.

I watched till the middle of the night as more than a hundred GOP Congress critters continued with their coup attempt. Since then I have heard about the war room in the Willard Hotel. The fake electors in seven states.

Tell me please, what exculpatory evidence is there that points to Trump's innocence in this attempted coup de etat?

 

[smartcooky]

Feds are investigating the Forged Electoral Certificates

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/25/...al-certificates-justice-department/index.html

 

[Warp12]

Is it an ad hominem to suggest you have double standards as it pertains to democracy and the law?

It's an ad hominem when you direct your disparaging commentary towards the arguer, instead of upon the argument. In this case, completely unprovoked, I might add. I was just asking for clarification of your position.

As I say, no point in any further debate on the core issue. Your mind is made up.

 

[acbytesla]

It's an ad hominem when you direct your disparaging commentary towards the arguer, instead of upon the argument. In this case, completely unprovoked, I might add. I was just asking for clarification of your position.

As I say, no point in any further debate on the core issue. Your mind is made up.

Isn't yours?

Every single post of yours seems to reflect that the facts don't matter to you. Trump wasn’t engaged in a coup. He didn't have his team arrange for fake electors. They didn't spread disinformation. Their calls for the protesters to fight was simply metaphorical.

Trump is merely an innocent babe in the woods. This is all a witch hunt out to get him.

 

[Aridas]

"Certainly"? I don' think so, Lucy. You're falling for Trump's tactic of not directly saying what he wants as to leave plausible deniability. As Michael Cohen put it in his testimony to Congress:





https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/28/how-trump-speaks-like-mob-boss/

Trump knew exactly what he was doing and it worked:





https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-trump-dozen-capitol-rioters-trumps-guidance/story?id=75757601

It's not like Trump's desire was even remotely hidden. That he used words that conveyed his rather obvious desire and left him plausible deniability when it came to any fall out is pretty much how he works, regardless. Plausible deniability predicated on presuming that one turns a blind eye to everything that makes it clear that actually believing the weasel defense is utterly unreasonable. Just like Trump's "If you can hear me, Russia" joke defense that was widely spread. Nevermind that anyone at all familiar with his history and personality knew that it was perfectly in line with his desires from the start and he directly confirmed that it wasn't a joke at the time, much less the later revelations that Trump repeatedly acted to try to make it reality, him saying that it was just a joke after days of criticism means that, clearly, it was just a joke and not only can be dismissed, but also used to demonstrate how unreasonable the criticisms of him are.

I wonder if it was a Republican caught you would have quite so understanding.

I'm not the one you asked, but... personally, honestly, I was with Trump. I didn't much care about Clinton's sexual conduct when it came to his professional performance and nor did I care about Trump's sexual conduct when it came to his professional performance.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Does Trump bear responsibility for the words of the other speakers at the "Rally", given that he did know about them in advance and had close contacts with them?

"Trial by Combat" does leave any room for ambiguity.

 

[acbytesla]

It's not like Trump's desire was even remotely hidden. That he used words that conveyed his rather obvious desire and left him plausible deniability when it came to any fall out is pretty much how he works, regardless. Plausible deniability predicated on presuming that one turns a blind eye to everything that makes it clear that actually believing the denial is utterly unreasonable. Just like Trump's "If you can hear me, Russia" joke defense that was widely spread. Nevermind that anyone at all familiar with his history and personality knew that it was perfectly in line with his desires from the start and he directly confirmed that it wasn't a joke at the time, much less the later revelations that Trump repeatedly acted to try to make it reality, him saying that it was just a joke after days of criticism means that, clearly, it was just a joke and not only can be dismissed, but also used to demonstrate how unreasonable the criticisms of him are.

Exactly.

Trump doesn't say do this thing that is immoral or illegal. He simply implies what must be done leaving it up to his supporters to make the inference.

The joke here is EVERYONE KNOWS what Trump was implying. Just because he doesn't outright tell others to commit crimes doesn't absolve him of his responsibility.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's amazing that Republicans defend the right of Trump to break everything but the letter of the law (and Oath of Office), given how law& order they pretend to be, and how much in love with the Constitution.
The Oathkeepers should have arrested Trump if they were true to their name.

 

[Joecool]

It's amazing that Republicans defend the right of Trump to break everything but the letter of the law (and Oath of Office), given how law& order they pretend to be, and how much in love with the Constitution.
The Oathkeepers should have arrested Trump if they were true to their name.

How is Joe Biden doing with enforcing immigration laws?

Why are many of his mandates being found illegal?

 

[Craig4]

Trump is clearly guilty of many crimes. Tax and bank fraud for decades. Long before he ever became POTUS, he managed to get away with it. He then got away with it for four more years. Impeached twice and was clearly guilty but people like you. You know, individuals with double standards who think the law only applies to the poor, liberals and people of color. They could and likely would ignore the facts and pulled a white OJ Simpson.

You know. Jury nullification.

This is what every prosecutor is worried about. Get 12 people into the jury and you're likely to get at least one dumb ignorant MAGA bro hick who wont care how many people he killed. He is their cult leader.

I'm kind of liking Manhattan's odds of seating a pro-American Jury in the financial fraud case. New York City went pro-American by a wide margin in the last election and the jury pool is pulled from registered voters. I'm not sure the Georgia case is going anywhere but it will draw attention and resources.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

How is Joe Biden doing with enforcing immigration laws?

Why are many of his mandates being found illegal?

Citation?


Republicans are complaining that record numbers of drugs are being found at the border, and record numbers of migrants are being turned back.

 

[The Don]

Citation?


Republicans are complaining that record numbers of drugs are being found at the border, and record numbers of migrants are being turned back.

Yes, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

If the numbers of people turned back and/or the amount of drugs is down then the Democrats are looking the other way and simply allowing them in the country.

If the numbers of people turned back and/or the amount of drugs is up then the Democrats aren't doing enough to stop them at source.

 

[Stacyhs]

Exactly.

Trump doesn't say do this thing that is immoral or illegal. He simply implies what must be done leaving it up to his supporters to make the inference.

The joke here is EVERYONE KNOWS what Trump was implying. Just because he doesn't outright tell others to commit crimes doesn't absolve him of his responsibility.

But it gives him a tidbit of plausible deniability which we saw the majority of GOP senators latch right onto in Impeachment 2.0. We see it with GOP House members. We see it being used here in this very thread.

 

[smartcooky]

Exactly.

Trump doesn't say do this thing that is immoral or illegal. He simply implies what must be done leaving it up to his supporters to make the inference.

The joke here is EVERYONE KNOWS what Trump was implying. Just because he doesn't outright tell others to commit crimes doesn't absolve him of his responsibility.

This is typical mobster technique

"That sure is a nice car you've got there. It would be a shame if it were to get run it over by a tank"

"That sure is a nice house you have there. I would be a shame if it were to burn down"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-speaks-like-mob-boss/?utm_term=.adb130e65347

" Trump very possibly never said explicitly that Ukraine would be frozen out unless it helped discredit Trump’s potential election rival. Sondland’s testimony suggests that Trump tried to get Ukraine to hurt his presidential opponent through intermediaries using careful language that left no doubt what he wanted, but did so in a way that would preserve a crucial minimum of deniability."

Same applies here... Trump knew exactly what he wanted that mob to do, and when he said what he said, they also knew exactly what he wanted them to do... and so did every person who heard him, especially those of us who have seen how he operated. Only Trump sycophants in full denial mode give him the benefit of the doubt.