The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#9,751
#9,751
clarksvol00 said:
I'm going to give you a pass because you were using the term before it was cool. But now most of the posters who throw around "tribal" are just "tribal" as everyone else, much like the ones who threw around "cuck" would be proud to hand over their wife to Trump.
Click to expand...
Eeewww
 
#9,753
#9,753
When The Justice System Falls Apart, So Does The Republic

When The Justice System Falls Apart, So Does The Republic
BY: ELLE PURNELL
AUGUST 15, 2023
4 MIN READ
Untitled-design-1-1200x675.png

IMAGE CREDITFDRLST/CANVA, EDITED FROMCHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF / FLICKR/CC BY 2.0

If we no longer uphold equal justice under the law, we still have a country, but not the one we thought we had.

Democrats crusade to weaponize the criminal justice system to put their chief political opponent in jail escalated again Monday night, with the release of an indictment pursued by Georgia’s Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis against former President Donald Trump. The indictment, targeting not just Trump but 18 of his lawyers and advisers, is a clear message that if you’re a Republican, challenging election results — something Democrats have done after every GOP presidential victory this century — is now a criminal offense.
Meanwhile, President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice is tripping over itself to insulate Biden and his son from scrutiny or criminal consequences for their apparent scheme to get rich off of peddling American political influence abroad.


The hacks at DOJ, by the way, also indicted Trump over a classified documents dispute, after raiding his house and rifling through his wife’s closet. Soon after, Biden was found to have classified documents lying around in his garage, but in his case, the feds are content to play nice. Oh, and Hillary Clinton also had a classified records scandal — in which her team destroyed emails and devices with BleachBit and literal hammers — but enjoyed the protection of then-FBI Director James Comey.
Speaking of Hillary, her campaign shopped a fake dossier full of lies about Trump to the FBI, which media and intelligence agencies used to smear Trump as a Russian stooge during and after the 2016 election. FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, the one person handed criminal punishment for the operation, got 12 months probation.
Oh, and Hillary was one of many, many Democrats who screeched for Donald Trump’s entire presidency that the 2016 election was stolen and Trump’s win was illegitimate.

Lest you should think Trump is the only example of the double standard, remember that the DOJ raided the home of a pro-life pastor for pushing a threatening pro-abortion agitator away from his young son, while militant abortion activists firebombed Christian pregnancy clinics. Recall how they charged a man with homicide for defending subway riders from a threatening vagrant, but do nothing to stop criminals who terrorize law-abiding citizens. Think about the ongoing campaign to imprison anyone adjacent to a Republican protest that turned into a mob at the U.S. Capitol in 2021, after letting left-wing protests descend into fiery riots across the country for an entire summer. Excuse me, fiery but mostly peaceful riots.
The message couldn’t be clearer: Republicans can do nothing right in the eyes of the justice system, and Democrats can do nothing wrong. We have a two-tiered justice system, and 4 in 5 Americans know it.
Problems of hypocrisy are another day’s work in politics. The use of the criminal justice system — the leveler on which the basic functions of a society depend — to turn that hypocrisy into arrest warrants is something else entirely.
A functioning justice system is a citizen’s best peaceful defense of his liberty, assuring him that his lawful exercise of freedoms will be protected. There’s a reason four of the 10 original amendments the founders affixed to their newly minted Constitution regard the rights attendant to a fair trial. When the justice system forfeits citizens’ trust, trust in the integrity of the republic itself goes with it.

We don’t have real elections if candidates are jailed — or chilled by the threat of jail — to keep them from running. We don’t have real legal recourse if DAs indict lawyers until other lawyers become afraid to defend an ostracized client. For all Democrats’ pontificating about the rule of law, it doesn’t exist if it’s only applied and misapplied to half the country. If we no longer uphold equal justice under the law, we still have a country, but not the one we thought we had.
As my colleague Joy Pullmann wrote a year ago, “A country that harshly prosecutes people or lets them off Scot-free based on their political affiliation is a banana republic. A two-tier justice system is not a justice system. … Its purpose is not justice but population control.”
A fair justice system isn’t the first thing to crumble in a dying republic — there are plenty of warning signs — but it might be the hardest loss to come back from. After all, the law is supposed to be the authority to which Americans appeal when their rights are abused and trampled. What are they supposed to do when the law and its enforcers are doling out the abuse?
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#9,754
#9,754
i am
BowlBrother85 said:
... and he will use links to discredit The Federalist's nonsense.
Click to expand...

I am sure you will be up at 3 AM shooting down all the stuff that doesn't meet your ideological standard by posting links from sources that lied to you..
and don’t forget to get the last word in just to prove you won a debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zues1, W.TN.Orange Blood and Sgt_Nick_Fury
#9,755
#9,755
GAVol said:
Not really. All I'm saying is that despite the fact that both believe they have the high ground, Russiagate-ists and election deniers share some common traits - namely that they breathlessly exaggerate claims based on political bias despite a lack of substantiation.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. And you’re saying that’s the same as this:
GAVol said:
In other words, conspiracies are OK if it's about the other side. "Russian collusion" was as much of a goose chase as "rigged elections".
Click to expand...
 
#9,756
#9,756
Orangeburst said:
i am


I am sure you will be up at 3 AM shooting down all the stuff that doesn't meet your ideological standard by posting links from sources that lied to you..
and don’t forget to get the last word in just to prove you won a debate.
Click to expand...
Perhaps my debating skills could use some fine-tuning ....

Maybe, I should resort to calling anyone who takes exception to what I say a "giant pu$$y" ??? LOL.
 
#9,757
#9,757
How the DOJ Outsourced Trump’s Indictment to House Dems | Frontpage Mag

How the DOJ Outsourced Trump’s Indictment to House Dems
Garland lied about the Trump investigation from the beginning.
August 17, 2023 by Daniel Greenfield 27 Comments

IMG_0655-750x420.jpeg




When former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saw the indictment of Trump, she observed that, “it’s interesting to see how similar they are to some of the charges recommended by the January 6 committee and I commend, again, the committee.”
Soumya Dayananda, a senior investigator for the House Democrat committee claimed that, “the committee’s work provided this path.”
A New York Times article described the indictment as having a “narrative that was nearly identical”.
The Democrat prosecutor’s team admitted its dependence on the Democrat congressional committee by citing its work in its demand that the former president’s trial take place in early January 2024 so that it can overshadow the election and any potential inauguration.
The document filed by the Smith team claimed that it would produce materials to the Trump team including “unredacted materials obtained from other governmental entities, including the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol”. The filing also argued for the relevance of the “report written by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.”
Smith’s team was arguing that much of the evidence that it would introduce at trial had already been produced and made public by the House Democrat J6 committee. Trump’s team would receive the unredacted version of the materials and could then expect to be ready for trial.
It was a more official admission that the J6 indictment was just the J6 committee operating within the Justice Department and empowered to abuse the law by bringing criminal charges.
The media had described the House Democrat J6 criminal referrals as “historic.” They are historic in the sense that no partisan congressional committee had ever arranged to conduct a criminal trial of an opposing presidential candidate before.
That’s history of the banana republic kind.
The Democrat committee had issued four criminal referrals Three of the four charges in the indictment were adopted verbatim from the Democrat committee’s criminal referral. Smith swapped out the entirely unsupportable ‘insurrection’ charge for an anti-Klan law which among other things bans wearing costumes on highways.
All of this violates what Attorney Merrick Garland, who handpicked Smith to go after Trump, had promised. During his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, Garland had assured his audience that no “politics would have any influence over prosecutions or investigations.”
“The president has promised that those decisions will only be made by the attorney general, and that is what I plan to do. I do not plan to be interfered with by anyone. I expect the Justice Department will make its own decisions in this regard,” he told senators.
“I want to make clear to the career prosecutors…that my job is to protect them from partisan or other improper motives,”
By the time the J6 committee circus was on their way, Garland was telling a different story. “I am watching, and I will be watching all the hearings, although I may not be able to watch all of it live,” he promised Democrats. “And I can assure you that the Jan. 6 prosecutors are watching all the hearings.”
“The Jan. 6 Committee Returns With One Viewer in Mind: Merrick Garland,” Time Magazine headlined its coverage.
AG Garland and his boys and girls were doing more than watching. The Justice Department contacted the House J6 lead investigator to let him know that his work “may contain information relevant to a criminal investigation we are conducting” and asked for transcripts.
Despite that the Justice Department kept claiming that these were separate investigations. It is now undeniable that the DOJ J6 investigation piggybacked on the work of the House Democrat J6 committee, and that Garland lied when he claimed that there would be no political influence.
The investigation had been as political as it could possibly be because it was undertaken by Democrat opponents of the former president in order to prevent him from running again.
Despite Garland’s promise to “pursue justice without fear or favor”, he provided a rubber stamp for a partisan effort by his boss and his congressional allies to go after an opposing candidate.
Smith’s reliance on the work of the J6 Democrats also raises serious questions about his claim that the Justice Department was conducting “the most wide-ranging investigation in its history”. If the DOJ was conducting a more wide-ranging investigation than say after the attacks of 9/11, why does it appear like such a carbon copy of the work of House Democrats? Why is Smith’s team citing the J6 committee’s materials as representing much of the evidence for the trial?
The House Democrats on the J6 committee had far more unlimited purse strings, blowing through millions of dollars in its investigations, hiring outside investigators and benefiting from a large staff. The “most wide-ranging investigation in its history” wasn’t conducted by the DOJ or Jack Smith, but by the House Democrats who spent lavishly on their political lynch mob.
The 57 staffers and the millions in spending meant that House Democrats and their paid personnel and outside investigators did the real work that Smith had dropped in his lap. This was nearly the same arrangement as Russiagate, where work done by Hillary Clinton’s campaign was then deposited in the Justice Department and the FBI for a rubber stamp.
The Justice Department followed the same protocol in both Russiagate and J6: taking an outside Democrat political hit job and pretending to go through the process of validating it. The actual purpose of both Russiagate and the J6 indictment is the same: to rig an election.
Attorney General Merrick Garland lied when he promised an apolitical justice department. Instead he set out to replicate the abuses that the Obama administration had perpetrated with Russiagate on a much larger scale.
The Trump indictment is not the work of an apolitical DOJ, but of a Democrat committee. It’s not there to provide justice, but to define the election around a Democrat criminal proceeding.
The only real difference between Russiagate and the J6 trial is that the former failed to launch. Garland, Smith and their political backers and bosses intend to make sure this one sticks.
Click to expand...
 
#9,759
#9,759
Carl Pickens said:
It was a fair statement ….. You’re just being a little fiesty this evening
Click to expand...

"transhumanism" whatever TF that is, isn't a religion and certainly not something groups of banded (sic) together atheists practice.

Equovocating the political influence churches have versus atheists is nonsensical. It's only a "fair" statement if you have no idea what a my of the words in his assertion actually mean.
 
#9,761
#9,761
The Trump Indictments Are Blunt Demonstrations Of Power

The Purpose Of The Trump Indictments Is To Demonstrate The Left’s Power
BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON
AUGUST 16, 2023
6 MIN READ
Fani-Willis-1200x675.png

IMAGE CREDITNBC NEWS/YOUTUBE
Once again, this isn’t hypocrisy, it’s hierarchy. And it amounts to a threat: Imagine what we can do to you.

The latest indictment of former President Donald Trump is even more outlandish than Jack Smith’s blatant attempt to criminalize free speech. The indictment Monday out of Fulton County, Georgia, criminalizes mundane activities like asking for a phone number, texting, encouraging people to watch a televised hearing, and reserving a room at the Georgia capitol.
These activities, according to Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, run afoul of the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. As far as Willis is concerned, Trump’s legal efforts to challenge the election results in Georgia amounted to a criminal conspiracy, with Trump as the criminal mastermind. What that means, outlandishly, is that every phone call or tweet related to those legal efforts, every step Trump and his team took to press their legal case, counts as “an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.”


This is of course crazy. As more than a few people have noted since the charges dropped, according to Willis’ standard every major Democrat should be in prison on racketeering charges — including Hillary Clinton but especially Stacey Abrams, who has made a career out of denying that she lost the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election.

So yes, the hypocrisy is stupendous and blatant. But let me suggest that decrying the hypocrisy here is a loser’s game. What you see in these anti-Trump indictments is not hypocrisy, it’s hierarchy. We all became familiar with this concept during the Covid pandemic. Gathering for church, even outside, was against the law, but mass rioting in the streets was OK — so long as you were rioting for racial justice. Ordinary people had to let their elderly loved ones die alone and were not even allowed to bury them, yet thousands attended the funeral and memorial services for secular saint George Floyd.
Perhaps nothing better captured the hierarchy-not-hypocrisy concept than a photo of Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the annual Met Gala in September 2021 wearing a white gown with “tax the rich” scrawled on its backside. Set aside the idiocy of the stunt itself. In the photo, AOC isn’t wearing a face mask, but the woman helping her with her gown is. What AOC was displaying for the public was hierarchy.
As my colleague Eddie Scarry wrote at the time, “This is simply another example of those in power, those running our most influential cultural and political institutions, sending a message: There’s a new social hierarchy in America. And this one isn’t about what you can afford to do, it’s about what you’re allowed to do.”

The same analysis applies to the raft of indictments against Trump, whose post-2020 denunciations of the election are no different than those of Clinton in 2016 or most Democrats in 2000 and 2004. Democrats are allowed to question the results of an election, Republicans are not. That’s not hypocrisy, it’s hierarchy.
Once you understand this, you begin to recognize it everywhere. Antifa thugs and BLM rioters were allowed to trash entire city blocks, torch police stations, take over neighborhoods, besiege federal courthouses — and do so with the blessing and encouragement, at times even with the complicity, of elected Democrat Party leaders. But every granny that set foot within a mile of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 had better brace for a federal indictment if they haven’t already been charged.
The same goes for teachers who push transgender ideology and critical race theory on students versus the parents who object to these things being taught behind their backs. The former are courageous leaders, the latter are potential domestic terrorists, at least according to the Biden Justice Department. Ditto for the media’s treatment of the Trump family business versus the Biden family business. None of this is hypocrisy, it’s hierarchy. The left is trying to tell you something, which is that they have all the power and you have none.
The essayist N.S. Lyons (a pseudonym) put it well in a piece last August, describing the futile efforts of Team B to call out the hypocrisy of Team A:

You see, it’s possible you are under the misapprehension that you are not supposed to notice what you described as the “double-standard” in acceptable behavior between Team A and Team B. And that you think if you point out this double-standard, you are foiling the other team’s plot and holding them accountable. This might be because, in your mind, you are still in high school debate club, where if you finger your opponent for having violated the evenly-applied rules a neutral arbiter of acceptable behavior will recognize this unfairness and penalize them with demerits.​
Except in reality you are not holding Team A accountable, and in fact are notably never able to hold them accountable for anything at all. Even though Team A gets to hold you accountable for everything and anything whenever they want. This is because unfortunately there is no neutral arbiter listening to your whining. In fact, currently the only arbiter is Team A, because Team A has consolidated all the power to decide the rules, and to enforce or not enforce those rules as they see fit.​
With each new Trump indictment, the left’s strategy becomes increasingly clear. It isn’t to bring real criminal charges based on actual violations of the law, or to see justice applied equally and fairly even to a powerful person like Trump. The strategy is to demonstrate power and thereby humiliate and discourage Trump supporters by showing them how powerless they are.
Another aspect of this strategy, as James Lindsay explained in a Twitter thread Tuesday, is to provoke the right into reacting. This is what Lindsay calls “leftist dialectical political warfare,” or, in Trump’s case, “Operation Poke the Bear.” The purpose of such warfare, says Lindsay, is to provoke a reaction that would justify the further consolidation of power on the left.
Screen-Shot-2023-08-16-at-6.23.59-AM-1024x886.png

So expect to see more “hypocrisy” — even lazy and objectively embarrassing hypocrisy of the kind we saw this week in the Georgia indictment. It doesn’t matter how laughable or outlandish the charges against Trump are, because prosecuting actual crimes and upholding the law have nothing to do with any of this.
This is about power — who has it, and who doesn’t. The people at the top are trying to tell you, the masses under them, that they can do whatever they want to you, at any time, and there’s nothing you can do to fight back. Just look what they’re doing to Trump, a former president. If they can do that to him, imagine what they can do to you.
Click to expand...
 
#9,763
#9,763
BowlBrother85 said:
Right ... because Fox News is so anti-Trump, aren't they?

Is it possible to take a picture of Donald Trump, where he doesn't look fat and orange? He is overweight, and he obviously applies a spray-on tan product, which reflects an orange hue under direct light. That is not anyone's fault but his own.
Click to expand...
He’s saying they use his worst photos…. It’s true ….Fox and CFP do the same things with democrats
 
#9,764
#9,764
Septic said:
"transhumanism" whatever TF that is, isn't a religion and certainly not something groups of banded (sic) together atheists practice.

Equovocating the political influence churches have versus atheists is nonsensical. It's only a "fair" statement if you have no idea what a my of the words in his assertion actually mean.
Click to expand...
I understood exactly what he was saying. 🤷
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sgt_Nick_Fury
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top