The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#14,926
#14,926
FLVOL_79 said:
Its called DEI initiatives. Each agency has their own and own way of implementing it. Obviously sexual preference, gender, race, etc, were all choices you could make. If we got applicants that didnt mark any or marked all White, male, and straight, our lists of candidates just said their names. If anyone marked ANYTHING else our list had a pie chart breakdown of those demographics in that list followed with a pie chart of the demographics agency wide and some saying like "take into account these characteristics when choosing a new hire"..I have a screen shot somewhere I meant to post last year. Ill try and find it.
Click to expand...


I don't think what you are saying here equates to your earlier claim that Buttigieg has said only homosexual minorities can be hired as air traffic controllers. Or anything close to that, actually.
 
#14,927
#14,927
volgr said:
For one, you are mixing 2 different theories into one. There were a few different lawful and legal ways Trump's campaign tried to do this. One being through State Courts before 1/6. Had a State court overturned the results, the alternate electors would then be legal proper Electors as appointed by the State Legislature.

If that didn't work, the next theory was to present 2 sets of electors to Pence, which the Electoral Act allows and there were a couple of different legal scenarios they hoped would happen with Pence, from there. Have you read the electoral count act? What happens when 2 slate of electors are presented to the VP? Why does the Act mention that the only way to count disputed electors is if each meet the Safe Harbor Act. Do you know what the Safe Harbor Act is?

Again, none of this was illegal. Some of it might have been bizarre legal theory, I will grant you that, but it wasn't illegal. Despite all of these legal efforts, the law was followed and Biden was lawfully elected. Where was the harm?



Imagine not knowing there are different interpretation of the electoral count act and not know that the act isn't cut and dry and is quite ambiguous in parts.
Click to expand...
This is a galloping gash of garbage and it’s hard to know where to start picking it apart.

First, the act was written in 1887 and contemplated a situation from the election of 1877 in which competing slates of electors had actually been endorsed by state officials. It didn’t address competing slates as an endorsement of the practice in the future, it did it to stop the practice by codifying how the disputed slates should be resolved so there would be no incentive to submit “alternate” slates that hadn’t gone through the appropriate certification process.

Second, there was no competing slate of endorsed electors, here. There were some documents falsely purporting to be the certificates of ascertainment for their state, which were signed by people falsely claiming to be the electors for their state.

These documents were never certified or endorsed by any state official or legislative body. They cannot be the “duly elected and qualified electors for [insert state here]” if no official or legislative body ever endorsed them as the elector for that state.

They were fake electors.

I’m open to the idea that they didn’t know that the Trump campaign intended to unlawfully use their certificates to try to overthrow the government and never intended that anybody would rely on them, absent a material change in circumstances, which would be an actual defense to fraud. I’m indifferent as to whether that is determined by prosecutors or juries, with respect to the individual electors.

Regardless, as of January 6, when Trump and his staff continued to seek to rely upon those “certificates of ascertainment,” it was clear they still had not been endorsed by any state executive or legislative body as required by the statute or (arguably) the constitution, respectively. At that point, even this gossamer thread of “lawfulness” that you’re trying to hang from fully falls apart.

Third, your declaration that it’s all legal and lawful is completely meaningless. Eastman, in the memo outlining the plan (which I posted earlier), admitted that Pence had to break with the procedures in the ECA for Trump to win. Cheseboro, in his memo way back in December (also linked earlier), admitted that his plan likely wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. The people organizing it and trying to induce others to rely on these fake documents knew that they were doing was unlawful. They definitely knew it by January 6 when they had no legal victories and no official recognition of their fake certificates.

The only way it would have been lawful is if a governor or state legislature had endorsed one of these alternate slate of electors, which would have most likely occurred following a court victory. The Trump campaign tried all of that. They even tried persuading the legislatures without obtaining any court victories. They failed. Universally. They went forward anyways. Trying to induce congress to rely on the fake certificates of ascertainment. That is, at the very least, fraud.

Finally, in the event that the legal challenges succeeded after it was too late to submit certificates of ascertainment, there was a clear path to a remedy through objection and debate that was set out in the electoral count act. It was so “vague” that it was actually exercised by Cruz, Hawley, Gosar, and one other guy, and it was part of Eastman’s plan. They understood the remedy, even if you can’t, and they knew there wasn’t a legitimate basis that persuade enough to go along with it.

volgr said:
They weren't punished or replaced. Also, what happened to the ones whose State did not allow them to vote their conscience? I see you bend over backwards to excuse their (2016) behavior but you bend over backwards to try and prosecute the others (2020). Where is your consistency?
Click to expand...
They weren’t punished or replaced? Read your own Wikipedia link. There was an entire Supreme Court case in which the faithless electors challenged their punishments (which were upheld). Thought you were alive in 2020?

The Washington faithless electors were fined $1000 and the Colorado ones were replaced or made to change their votes, pursuant to state law. The ones that weren’t punished presumably didn’t have state laws clearly prohibiting their conduct and they got the same treatment as the 2020 fake electors from Nevada.
 
#14,928
#14,928
lawgator1 said:
I don't think what you are saying here equates to your earlier claim that Buttigieg has said only homosexual minorities can be hired as air traffic controllers. Or anything close to that, actually.
Click to expand...
homosexuals and minorities. He cant say that is all we can hire, but we are told that is "WHO" we should hire. I ignore it obviously. In fact when the FAA goes through a hiring cycle (2 to 3 a year) if not enough non White males apply, the cycle is canceled. If you hear on the news about air traffic complaining about not having staffing..thats why. We even were sent a spreadsheet listing towns (99) in the USA that we were to prioritize hiring new hires from because they were "underrepresented". Places like Gary, Indiana, Trenton NJ, aka generally sh!tty ghettos. HR adjusted their algorithms to scan applicant submissions who applied from these 99 places and when they didnt get enough the agency said F you to the 700 other people who applied. They did that throughout 2023. My portion of the agency who had well over 1500 applicants throughout the year ended up hiring 72 people..and we needed 500.
 
#14,931
#14,931
SpaceCoastVol said:
Doesn't change the fact that the Obamas are garbage Marxists. And of that I know you approve.

Make America Great Again... f everybody else.
Click to expand...
You've really mentally deteriorated over the past few years.
I'm willing to bet that will be proven to be a long term side effect of trumpism.

Seriously, you come across as a miserable person. Why so angry?

And just to be clear, you thought Michelle Obama was trash in 2008????
 
#14,932
#14,932
luthervol said:
You've really mentally deteriorated over the past few years.
I'm willing to bet that will be proven to be a long term side effect of trumpism.

Seriously, you come across as a miserable person. Why so angry?

And just to be clear, you thought Michelle Obama was trash in 2008????
Click to expand...
Yes she was. Most Marxists are. "Proud for the first time....", yada yada yada.

It's people like you that would rather the country burn than elect someone who hurts your feelings that makes me 'angry'. I think you are a disgusting, America hating person.
 
#14,936
#14,936
Depending on how this goes with the trial dates. The solution is quite simple, based on new information.

Unfocus on indicting Trump and focus on indicting Chesebro and the other J6 conspirators as this is the bird in hand for the DOJ.

I would see how this cat and mouse game plays out and then indict them. Evidence in the form of emails and notes beginning to surface.

This case could be pushed through the system quickly no waiting on Presidential Immunity ruling and if the evidence is there it exposes the whole plan if it existed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#14,937
#14,937
All I have to say is that, for the third election in a row; a nation of 350 million people has somehow inexplicably managed to find the two most detestable individuals possible and is forcing me to chose between them for who gets to lead us for the next four years. How is that even possible? If you tried to write a tv series with American politics as the plot, no one would believe it to be possible. 90% of political discourse the past few decades can be boiled down to “sure; but your candidate is WORSE”

B1F50967-E2AF-4144-B4E5-59B63659CE7F.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic, Delmar, VolTull and 2 others
#14,942
#14,942
I'm betting that Putin War Criminal is mulling ways that he can funnel some money to his prospective gay lover with
financial problems in Mar-a-Lago. And a certain gangster with financial problems would welcome such help in exchange
for another promise to pull the U.S. out of NATO. Our Muscovite Candidate.
 
#14,945
#14,945

Georgia Senate Examines Fani Willis Meeting With Kamala Harris Before Trump Indictment​


A hearing before members of the Georgia Senate on Wednesday brought new details over the effort to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from Donald Trump’s election subversion case, including information about her meeting with Vice President Kamala Harris.

Attorney Ashleigh Merchant, who first raised allegations about Willis’s relationship with a special prosecutor on her team, Nathan Wade, testified before a state Senate hearing about what she has learned about the prosecutors seeking to indict her client, Mike Roman, in the sweeping racketeering case. The hearing panel comprised six Republicans and three Democratic state lawmakers.

Merchant shared publicly available White House records during the hearing that showcased Willis’s meeting with Harris took place on Feb. 28, 2023, just months before a special grand jury handed up an indictment to Willis’s office in August of that year.

During the roughly three-hour hearing, Merchant noted that the Mayor of Atlanta, Andre Dickens, was present for the meeting at the White House.

Wade previously billed Willis’s office $2,000 for an interview he had with “DC/ White House” attorneys on Nov. 18, 2022, according to his billing records. Willis has denied ever traveling with Wade the Washington, D.C. while the pair have worked together.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Georgia Senate examines Fani Willis meeting with Kamala Harris before Trump indictment - Washington Examiner

Fani Willis met Kamala Harris during a Feb. 2023 meeting, months before a special grand jury handed up an indictment to Willis's office in August of that year.
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
#14,948
#14,948
From the article

Democrat Fani Willis’ legal troubles extend beyond recent revelations that she deceptively hired her otherwise under-qualified, secret, married lover to run the political prosecution of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans in Georgia. A new book from Mike Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman admits that a widely misunderstood phone call, on which Willis’ political prosecution rests, was illegally recorded. That means the entire prosecution could crumble with defendants having a new avenue to challenge Democrat lawfare.

Find Me the Votes: A Hard-Charging Georgia Prosecutor, a Rogue President, and the Plot to Steal an American Election is a fawning political biography of Willis. For context on the bias of the authors, Isikoff was an original Russia-collusion hoaxer, and his articles to that end were used to secure warrants for the FBI to spy on innocent Republican presidential campaign advisers such as Carter Page.

However, the person who recorded the phone call wasn’t in Fulton County or even in Georgia. That’s a problem. Jordan ***hs, a political activist who serves as Raffensperger’s chief of staff, was in Florida, where it is illegal to record a call without all parties to the call consenting to the recording. She neither asked for nor received consent to record.

Book Admits Fani Willis' Investigation Began With Illegal Recording

A new book admits that a widely misunderstood phone call, on which Fani Willis' political prosecution rests, was illegally recorded.
thefederalist.com thefederalist.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#14,949
#14,949
Here is another one since this will be excluded of any coverage from the democrat run state media ... From the article:

Regardless, Fulton County DA Fani Willis used the phone call as the foundation for her RICO prosecution against Trump and his associates. According to a new book published by Michael Isikoff (who was an original pusher of the Russian collusion hoax), that call was illegally recorded by Jordan ***hs.

Who is ***hs? She is Raffensperger's Chief of Staff and has a very checkered history of political activism. Her hatred of Trump can be described as obsessive, and she was in Florida when she recorded the call in question. Why is that a problem? Because Florida is a two-party consent state.

In other words, she broke the law because Trump did not give his consent to be recorded. In fact, according to Isikoff and his co-author, she didn't have Raffensperger's permission to record the call either. After the conversation concluded, ***hs immediately leaked a copy of it to the Washington Post, and the rest is history, including Willis' use of it in her case.

To put a finer point on how corrupt this was, ***hs was supposed to be a star witness for the January 6th committee, but Liz Cheney and others agreed to not call her to publicly testify to shield her from possible legal exposure. Raffensperger himself also played a big role in protecting her because it had become obvious ***hs had committed a crime.

redstate.com

BOMBSHELL: Infamous Trump-Raffensperger Call at Heart of Fani Willis Prosecution Was Illegally Recorded

redstate.com redstate.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol
#14,950
#14,950
So witness #5 had cone forward to explain that, the day the FBI showed up to retrieve the documents from Mar-a-Lago, Trump had he and others take boxes of those documents to his private plane.

No wonder Trump is so separate to win, so he can pardon himself before the full facts emerge.

I just keep returning to my original question. These were boxes and boxes of documents. To the ceiling.

Why? Why did Trump want them to begin with and why did he take so much action to keep from returning them?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top