Trump INDICTED

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

18 minutes ago, Dozer FBG said:

So, you need a quote that says:

I, Donald Trump request that you, my supporter…. Storm the capital.

that’s what it would take?

Not the back story that we all know about John Eastman and The Green Bay Sweep?

 

Yes.  That’s what it would take. Considering you want to convict him on his words, his words are what matter. Show me the words. 

[Dozer FBG 325]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yes.  That’s what it would take. Considering you want to convict him on his words, his words are what matter. Show me the words. 

Just so we are clear, I want to convict him for his crimes.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

3 minutes ago, Dozer FBG said:

Just so we are clear, I want to convict him for his crimes.

The fake outrage about this after three years is played out. Stop acting like you are concerned with the law. 

[Dozer FBG 325]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The fake outrage about this after three years is played out. Stop acting like you are concerned with the law. 

I’ve heard you say that the J6ers who committed violence need to be held accountable.

We are in agreement there.

I hope that we may find common ground in holding everyone accountable that contributed to the violence on J6.

I gotta get off here. My wife is giving me that “you got on another political forum, didn’t you” look.

catch ya later.

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

6 hours ago, Dozer FBG said:

Time and time again J6 defendants testify in their own defense that the message they got from President Trump that day, and the days leading up to J6, was that their country was being stolen and what are you going to do about it?

Well, by God, they were patriots and they were going to storm the capital and stop the steal. That’s what they were going to do about it! They did it for Trump and it’s just what Trump wanted. Trump should be held accountable for the carnage his lies have caused. 

 

Can you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt? 

I don't see J6 as defensible in any measure. It was bad for the country, it was bad for Conservatives, it was bad for everyone on the entire political spectrum, it was bad for our foreign policy, it was bad long term for how our government operates. But 5000 or so idiots do not constitute the entire slate of 74 million who voted for Trump in the 2020 cycle. But that's how it's being treated. 

To actually put Trump in the jackpot legally, for J6, you need to show "specific intent" 

In more basic terms, you need a "smoking gun", you will need Trump on video, with audio, saying he knew he lost the election, but that he was going to go ahead and try to subvert the results anyway. Do you have that? Does Team Blue? Does the DNC? Does the corporate establishment? Do the dark money donors? 

The core argument that Jack Smith will make, amidst all the other senseless political theater, is the amount of time between Trump's messages. However Big Social Media ( Twitter was still run by Jack Dorsey then, and Twitter's Trust And Safety, was still run then by Vijaya Gadde) began to lock down Trump's accounts. The gap in time from what is being called Trump's "incitement" and his later tweets is something tangible. There's no subjectivity in a block of time. 

However that's not enough to assess that Trump showed specific intent to subvert an election, that he did, beyond a reasonable doubt, knew that he had lost entirely beforehand. 

Unethical is not the same as illegal. Trump calling Brian Kemp in Georgia to ask him to use the Governor's emergency powers to override the Georgia's Secretary of State's Office is unethical. It's actually stupid practically and politically. There was no upside to asking and doing it. But it wasn't illegal. No one in their right mind would advise Trump to make that call. But it's still not illegal. 

Biden commented on the Rittenhouse and Chauvin legal cases BEFORE the respective juries came back with verdicts. Biden had a campaign ad that implied Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when no such thing was ever shown to be true. Biden speaking to the press in the national daily media cycle about ongoing legal cases is high unethical. But it's not illegal. Slandering Rittenhouse ( just because the kid is an imbecile and used like a pawn by both sides doesn't mean he's removed from actual due process) was illegal. But no one was going to prosecute Biden for that. 

It comes back to the same core issue with you. You don't understand the law. At all. You are free to have any opinions you want. But you don't get to change the law on the books right now. You simply repeat what's on the left leaning activist MSM. Then assess that as the absolute truth of the matter. Which is completely insane. Maybe you just don't care. If you actually cared, you'd research on the actual crimes being accused and what legal standards are required to actually put Trump in the legal jackpot. 

Again, hear this again, you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the law. You won't empower yourself by trying to learn more. Even when I bring up issues, since you don't like any of it, you just pretend nothing was said at all. I won't call you stupid, but your behavior here is ignorant. Doing what you are doing right now is how people stay ignorant. And that has nothing to do with Donald Trump at all. We live in the Internet age, you have all the tools at your disposal to learn more. 

You could literally look up an endless cycle of legal discussion and precedent regarding "specific intent". But you won't. Is this how you raise your own kids? To stay ignorant? 

When it comes to Trump and the actual law, if Trump is in trouble, I say it. When he's not, I say that too and why. The documents case is a real problem for him. His position there is completely indefensible. The rest of these cases are nothingburgers and political theater only.  That's it, that's all there is and that's all there is going to be. If Team Blue could put him into the jackpot for J6, they would have done it already. 

Stay ignorant, if that's your choice. If you keep choosing that path, then I plain just feel sorry for your children. 

[shadrap 228]

15 hours ago, Dozer FBG said:

What difference does that make?

Time and time again J6 defendants testify in their own defense that the message they got from President Trump that day, and the days leading up to J6, was that their country was being stolen and what are you going to do about it?

Well, by God, they were patriots and they were going to storm the capital and stop the steal. That’s what they were going to do about it!
 

They did it for Trump and it’s just what Trump wanted.

Trump should be held accountable for the carnage his lies have caused. 

 

 

 

Huge difference.  you choose to quote words YOU WANT & choose to NOT quote words that override your premise.

OMG we almost lost our country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jerryskids 6,799]

9 hours ago, Blue Horseshoe said:

 

Can you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt? 

I don't see J6 as defensible in any measure. It was bad for the country, it was bad for Conservatives, it was bad for everyone on the entire political spectrum, it was bad for our foreign policy, it was bad long term for how our government operates. But 5000 or so idiots do not constitute the entire slate of 74 million who voted for Trump in the 2020 cycle. But that's how it's being treated. 

To actually put Trump in the jackpot legally, for J6, you need to show "specific intent" 

In more basic terms, you need a "smoking gun", you will need Trump on video, with audio, saying he knew he lost the election, but that he was going to go ahead and try to subvert the results anyway. Do you have that? Does Team Blue? Does the DNC? Does the corporate establishment? Do the dark money donors? 

The core argument that Jack Smith will make, amidst all the other senseless political theater, is the amount of time between Trump's messages. However Big Social Media ( Twitter was still run by Jack Dorsey then, and Twitter's Trust And Safety, was still run then by Vijaya Gadde) began to lock down Trump's accounts. The gap in time from what is being called Trump's "incitement" and his later tweets is something tangible. There's no subjectivity in a block of time. 

However that's not enough to assess that Trump showed specific intent to subvert an election, that he did, beyond a reasonable doubt, knew that he had lost entirely beforehand. 

Unethical is not the same as illegal. Trump calling Brian Kemp in Georgia to ask him to use the Governor's emergency powers to override the Georgia's Secretary of State's Office is unethical. It's actually stupid practically and politically. There was no upside to asking and doing it. But it wasn't illegal. No one in their right mind would advise Trump to make that call. But it's still not illegal. 

Biden commented on the Rittenhouse and Chauvin legal cases BEFORE the respective juries came back with verdicts. Biden had a campaign ad that implied Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, when no such thing was ever shown to be true. Biden speaking to the press in the national daily media cycle about ongoing legal cases is high unethical. But it's not illegal. Slandering Rittenhouse ( just because the kid is an imbecile and used like a pawn by both sides doesn't mean he's removed from actual due process) was illegal. But no one was going to prosecute Biden for that. 

It comes back to the same core issue with you. You don't understand the law. At all. You are free to have any opinions you want. But you don't get to change the law on the books right now. You simply repeat what's on the left leaning activist MSM. Then assess that as the absolute truth of the matter. Which is completely insane. Maybe you just don't care. If you actually cared, you'd research on the actual crimes being accused and what legal standards are required to actually put Trump in the legal jackpot. 

Again, hear this again, you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the law. You won't empower yourself by trying to learn more. Even when I bring up issues, since you don't like any of it, you just pretend nothing was said at all. I won't call you stupid, but your behavior here is ignorant. Doing what you are doing right now is how people stay ignorant. And that has nothing to do with Donald Trump at all. We live in the Internet age, you have all the tools at your disposal to learn more. 

You could literally look up an endless cycle of legal discussion and precedent regarding "specific intent". But you won't. Is this how you raise your own kids? To stay ignorant? 

When it comes to Trump and the actual law, if Trump is in trouble, I say it. When he's not, I say that too and why. The documents case is a real problem for him. His position there is completely indefensible. The rest of these cases are nothingburgers and political theater only.  That's it, that's all there is and that's all there is going to be. If Team Blue could put him into the jackpot for J6, they would have done it already. 

Stay ignorant, if that's your choice. If you keep choosing that path, then I plain just feel sorry for your children. 

This is a great post (except the very end, that seems petty).  I can't control your posts but I personally much more enjoy your analyses than your multi-youtube posts.   

I'm no fan of Trump either, as I've said multiple times here.  I am however an opponent of the Left-led establishment running witch hunts against the leading Republican candidate.  If Trump had committed (and been charged with) treason or sedition, then lock him up and throw away the key.  But the charges:

Quote

The special counsel indictment explained Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.

reek of "Orange Man Bad, we need to find something to charge him with for J6, after all we had a televised special committee on this$#@!  Let's send a bunch of interns off to scour the federal codes to find something we can charge dadblammit!"  Seriously, a former POTUS, you charge him with "conspiracy against the rights of citizens?"  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

The FBI director, who never did a lick of law enforcement in his life, continually refuses to comment when asked if there were FBI sources imbedded with the mostly peaceful protesters on Jan 6.  Which confirms there were. Now there could be a good reason for this. But if there were, they wouldn’t no comment it for years. 

[thegeneral 3,214]

21 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The FBI director, who never did a lick of law enforcement in his life, continually refuses to comment when asked if there were FBI sources imbedded with the mostly peaceful protesters on Jan 6.  Which confirms there were. Now there could be a good reason for this. But if there were, they wouldn’t no comment it for years. 

https://www.c-span.org/amp/video/?c5093407
 

“If you’re asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and/or agents… the answer is an emphatic no.”

[Fnord 2,272]

37 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The FBI director, who never did a lick of law enforcement in his life, continually refuses to comment when asked if there were FBI sources imbedded with the mostly peaceful protesters on Jan 6.  Which confirms there were. Now there could be a good reason for this. But if there were, they wouldn’t no comment it for years. 

So NOW the words that WEREN'T said count? Why not hold the PRESIDENT to the same standard you hold his underling to? Find some consistency man.

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

10 minutes ago, Fnord said:

So NOW the words that WEREN'T said count? Why not hold the PRESIDENT to the same standard you hold his underling to? Find some consistency man.

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

28 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

https://www.c-span.org/amp/video/?c5093407
 

“If you’re asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and/or agents… the answer is an emphatic no.”

Yeah, that’s not what he was asked the other day. You people love your strawmen. 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

12 minutes ago, Fnord said:

So NOW the words that WEREN'T said count? Why not hold the PRESIDENT to the same standard you hold his underling to? Find some consistency man.

 

 

[thegeneral 3,214]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, that’s not what he was asked the other day. You people love your strawmen. 

Seeing as you do what you regularly do and just drop some idea of what you heard with no context I have no idea what you are referring to.

The testimony I linked from is the meat of the issue you nuts always bring up…the FBI was responsible for the neckbeard revolution...he said definitively no.

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

15 minutes ago, Fnord said:

So NOW the words that WEREN'T said count? Why not hold the PRESIDENT to the same standard you hold his underling to? Find some consistency man.

 

 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

19 minutes ago, Fnord said:

So NOW the words that WEREN'T said count? Why not hold the PRESIDENT to the same standard you hold his underling to? Find some consistency man.

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

5 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Seeing as you do what you regularly do and just drop some idea of what you heard with no context I have no idea what you are referring to.

The testimony I linked from is the meat of the issue you nuts always bring up…the FBI was responsible for the neckbeard revolution...he said definitively no.

Again, he wasn’t asked if anyone did anything. He was asked  if they were there. No comment. He’s been no commenting about it for years now. Sorry you weren’t aware.  Now you are.  

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

21 minutes ago, Fnord said:

So NOW the words that WEREN'T said count? Why not hold the PRESIDENT to the same standard you hold his underling to? Find some consistency man.

 

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

So, word is leaking out that no one will be charged in Bidens classified documents investigation.  He will receive a strong rebuke. 

[thegeneral 3,214]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Again, he wasn’t asked if anyone did anything. He was asked  if they were there. No comment. He’s been no commenting about it for years now. Sorry you weren’t aware.  Now you are.  

What would be the issue with this? It’s a shame they couldn’t arrest a few of these focking dopes before stuff got out of hand.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

11 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

What would be the issue with this? It’s a shame they couldn’t arrest a few of these focking dopes before stuff got out of hand.

Yeah, what’s the issue? Critical thinking ain’t your thing. 

[thegeneral 3,214]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, what’s the issue? Critical thinking ain’t your thing. 

You have any actual evidence of behavior you would like to take issue or just fever dream tinhat ramblings someone on Twitter alluded too.

Have you also thought that perhaps FBI employees were also there on their own time because they had idiots working for them?

 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

35 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So, word is leaking out that no one will be charged in Bidens classified documents investigation.  He will receive a strong rebuke. 

I don’t think he hid them and refused to give them back even after official action was taken, didn’t flood a room to destroy evidence, didn’t take out national security secrets and show em to his dipsh1t buddies at some gauche resort he owned, etc, etc. Far as I know anyway 

[thegeneral 3,214]

We still don’t get the difference between Biden, Pence etc docs case and Trump’s

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

16 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I don’t think he hid them and refused to give them back even after official action was taken, didn’t flood a room to destroy evidence, didn’t take out national security secrets and show em to his dipsh1t buddies at some gauche resort he owned, etc, etc. Far as I know anyway 

There was evidence destroyed ? I thought they got all of them back? Yeah, Biden just had his in his garage. And his think tank funded by China. It’s cool. 

[Strike 5,553]

23 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I don’t think he hid them and refused to give them back even after official action was taken, didn’t flood a room to destroy evidence, didn’t take out national security secrets and show em to his dipsh1t buddies at some gauche resort he owned, etc, etc. Far as I know anyway 

Two things:

1)  None of what you posted matters.    Not to mention that it's not accurate.  Biden's lawyers pored through all those documents before they even notified the government that they existed.   Then the government scheduled when they would get them.  Not like Trump where they barged in in the middle of the night to get the documents.  This notion perpetuated by the media that Biden was super duper cooperative is a load of crap.  It was a well orchestrated and coordinated operation between the government and Biden. 

2)  He DID do something Trump didn't do.  He had classified documents from when he was a Senator.  A Senator has to view classified documents in a SCIF and cannot remove them from the SCIF.  Even if everything you posted above is true, removing classified documents from a SCIF is a crime and he should be held accountable for that.

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

This is a great post (except the very end, that seems petty).  I can't control your posts but I personally much more enjoy your analyses than your multi-youtube posts.   

I'm no fan of Trump either, as I've said multiple times here.  I am however an opponent of the Left-led establishment running witch hunts against the leading Republican candidate.  If Trump had committed (and been charged with) treason or sedition, then lock him up and throw away the key.  But the charges:

reek of "Orange Man Bad, we need to find something to charge him with for J6, after all we had a televised special committee on this$#@!  Let's send a bunch of interns off to scour the federal codes to find something we can charge dadblammit!"  Seriously, a former POTUS, you charge him with "conspiracy against the rights of citizens?"  

The Jan 6 trial will include, as the main witness for the prosecution, Mark Meadows. After his testimony I am going to predict that you will change your mind about Trump’s culpability. 

[jerryskids 6,799]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The Jan 6 trial will include, as the main witness for the prosecution, Mark Meadows. After his testimony I am going to predict that you will change your mind about Trump’s culpability. 

Change my mind on what, his "conspiracy to defraud the US?"  Who cares?  That has nothing to do with my post.  If you want to address my point (e.g., refute my "reek" statement) feel free.

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

10 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Change my mind on what, his "conspiracy to defraud the US?"  Who cares?  That has nothing to do with my post.  If you want to address my point (e.g., refute my "reek" statement) feel free.

You approved of BH’s post which argued that Trump shouldn’t be charged with a crime over Jan 6. I predict you and many others will change your mind after Meadows testifies. We’ll see. 

[thegeneral 3,214]

53 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

There was evidence destroyed ? I thought they got all of them back? Yeah, Biden just had his in his garage. And his think tank funded by China. It’s cool. 

They added obstruction charges that Trump directed his employee that the server that contained vids of them moving boxes to be deleted. These vids were subpoenaed by prosecutors.

Do you follow these things at all

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

So Trump ordered the code red? 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

4 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

They added obstruction charges that Trump directed his employee that the server that contained vids of them moving boxes to be deleted. These vids were subpoenaed by prosecutors.

Do you follow these things at all

Moving them from where to where? Also, Biden moved his to his lawyers office in Boston.  I guess that’s different. 

[thegeneral 3,214]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Moving them from where to where? Also, Biden moved his to his lawyers office in Boston.  I guess that’s different. 

That’s why they wanted to see the videos. Did you hit your head today?

How do you not get the differences in these cases? What they have to do to not be in trouble in these cases is an insanely low bar - essentially you have to not be proven you knowingly hid docs and obstructed an investigation.

Ooops I was unaware. I had these, here they are. Come look all you want. See how easy this is?  Dumbo Trump couldn’t meet this threshold.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

3 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

That’s why they wanted to see the videos. Did you hit your head today?

How do you not get the differences in these cases? What they have to do to not be in trouble in these cases is an insanely low bar - essentially you have to not be proven you knowingly hid docs and obstructed an investigation.

Ooops I was unaware. I had these, here they are. Come look all you want. See how easy this is?  Dumbo Trump couldn’t meet this threshold.

So no difference between a senator removing classified docs and a President? Splain that one Lucy. 

[Strike 5,553]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So no difference between a senator removing classified docs and a President? Splain that one Lucy. 

He won't.  Just like @IGotWorms won't.  They have their talking points but can't support/discuss the actual facts.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,436]

6 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

That’s why they wanted to see the videos. Did you hit your head today?

How do you not get the differences in these cases? What they have to do to not be in trouble in these cases is an insanely low bar - essentially you have to not be proven you knowingly hid docs and obstructed an investigation.

Ooops I was unaware. I had these, here they are. Come look all you want. See how easy this is?  Dumbo Trump couldn’t meet this threshold.

So they recovered the documents, but they need to know where they were, within the same location.  You fall for this shitt? 

[thegeneral 3,214]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So no difference between a senator removing classified docs and a President? Splain that one Lucy. 

Again it is a slap on the wrist if you just say my bad oops and follow the rules. Why don’t you get this?

[thegeneral 3,214]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So they recovered the documents, but they need to know where they were, within the same location.  You fall for this shitt? 

They don’t know what’s happened because the guy has lied and obstructed the entire time. He’s got them strewn on his desk at his golf course in Jersey and showing them to people like trophies

I know you got a big time crush on this dude but he shet the bed on this issue. 

[Fnord 2,272]

28 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

They added obstruction charges that Trump directed his employee that the server that contained vids of them moving boxes to be deleted. These vids were subpoenaed by prosecutors.

Do you follow these things at all

To be fair to Twatadour, he only gets news from Tucker, who's not exactly known for presenting clear, unbiased, factually sound content.

[thegeneral 3,214]

19 minutes ago, Strike said:

He won't.  Just like @IGotWorms won't.  They have their talking points but can't support/discuss the actual facts.

The facts are you can’t obstruct an investigation. If you do you are in trouble and it just continues to get worse the more you try.

Why is this so hard?