Fox News GOP Lawyer/Legal analyst says Trump will be prosecuted

A despot's apprentice. Trump 2.0, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

Well, let see how many exaggerations and fake claims we can find in this made up list

You mean like Hillary Clinton did for 3 solid years to include faking information for fake FISA warrants, paying a Russian operative in an effort to remove a sitting president with false allegations?

I guess that part wasn't a problem for you which is why we call it hypocrisy.

There is no such thing as corruptly planned.
And if the president wants to fire the AG, all he has to do is say it.
Yet he never did that
Another fake claim bites the dust

Now its corruptly pressured?
He could have ordered Pence to do it, but he didn't
And he never threatened Pence with anything
Another fake claim bites the dust

More corruptly pressured? You mean asked them to find votes?
He has every right to make such a request if he thinks the election is rigged

Yet there is no record of any fake electors provided during the vote count. In fact, your so called fake electors were only preserving their rights prior to hearings. which they lost and were never present on Jan 6.
You guys should quit lying so bad. It isn't working for you at all.
Did you think everyone is that stupid to believe this, or are you admitting that YOU believed it?

Another fake claim by desperate lefties. Trump was scheduled to speak at that rally for weeks prior. And nobody at the rally was violent.
But I love watching lefties loose their credibility over these fake claims.

Yet it was you claiming Trump grabbed for the wheel of the limo and fought with the Secret Service to get back to the Capital.
Let us know when you make up your mind about what he did or didn't do

 

Maybe you should list the republicans that aren't RINOs. Seems like that would be quicker at this point.

 

A weak copy of tRump who whines a lot.

 

I don't think you understand the size and scope and dynamics of the situation that is facing Garland.
As to what he's up to, he's requested the transcripts of all the depositions, all 1000 of them, and Clark's home was raided and Eastman's cell phone was confisciated.
Garland is tight lipped about what they are doing, so I'd just let him do his thing, and quit trying to second guess why he hasn't indicted anyone yet. Trump is unique in that he has committed so many crimes, which ones should he be indicted on? The big one, seditious conspiracy, is tough to prove. The little ones seem to little to prosecute a former president on. He has enough evidence, but he still has 3 years on his term, so, patience. DOJ, when they are not on a deadline, are notorious for taking their time, turning over every stone, etc. When you shoot an arrow at the king, you best not miss, so he's taken his time to build and air tight case.

I think you ill informed about the reality facing the Justice Dept.

 

So you believe those launching an offensive would "allow" their guns to be confiscated?

 

You can second guess this all you want, but put yourself in the Secret Service's position, and the fact that history is watching

Are you seriously going to allow an army of armed personel to be near the president, you're going to make assumptions abut intent, and/or going to allw the president to march with a group of armed personel, decked wtih glocks, ar 15s, defensive/offensive gear, proceed to attack the capital in order to 'stop the steal'?

Maybe only one of them is planning to kill the president and faked his way into the group.

There are so many things that could happen, who the **** knows?

Maybe they thought they were just defensive weapons, but, you saw what happened, guys bashing cops over the head, in a fevered frenzy, who the hell can say with any certainty what would have happened more people were let through with more powerful weapons.

If something went wrong, something went south, and the president was hurt, or 'mike pence' or anyone, whose head is going to roll?

Well, the guy whose head would roll would be the secret service, and they would be summarily fired, even prosecuted, if they allowed that group of armed people into the ellipse and down to the capital with firearms and something bad happened ( and did not something bad happen?). The idea is insane.

Your thinking on this is simplistic and myopic.

 

To win in 2024, we should lay off Trump and hope he gets nominated. To redeem the republic from the tactics of trumpism, we should press on regardless of who will or will not be the nominee. In short we should press for Trump to be indicted, and his cohorts in election crime to be rounded up, whether DeSantis gains the nomination or not. That we do for the good of the country.

You republicans can thank us and Cheney, and Kinzinger when you finally see the damage your Trumpian lies have cost all of us

 

Lol yeah that’s what y’all say but your actions in attempting to keep him off of the ticket say something completely different. The Dems are terrified of Trump winning the election, having a Republican house, senate and SCOTUS and Trump not having to worry about being encumbered with another election.

And let me tell you something. They should be. They should be absolutely terrified.

 

There were people there with guns. Not okay. Not an exaggeration. one person with a gun would be one too many.

FFS, Hillary bitched a little, and faded. Trump, on the other hand, has been holding rallies, claiming 'the only democrats can win is if they rig the election', fleecing is flock To the tune of hundreds of millions and spending it on personal expenses (via his 'save america pac') for the last 2 years and then he whips up his boys (and girls) to a feeding frenzy whereupon they attacked the capital. .Trumped and his surrogates sued in courts over 60 times and lost all but one minor one.

Sorry, there is no comparison, not by a long long long shot.

THe FISA warrants were the FBIl headed by a REPUBLICAN, nothing to do with hillary.

Yeah, if you made an apples to apples to comparison, instead of a raisin to an orange comparison, you just might have a point.

So, in the annals of history, not one action of corruption was planned? That makes no sense. Unless you are nitpicking on grammar.
If that is what you are doing, did you nitpick the last someone said 'hopefully', which is, technically, bad grammar? give me a break.

Surely you are not paying attention. Over cadre of attorneys and officials below Acting AG Rosen threatened to resign if Trump went ahead and replaced Rosen with Clark.. Trump flinched, and didn't. True, he didn't, but the reason why he didn't is the salient fact.
If you think that is false, you are not paying attention, this is easily substantiated, to wit;

Former DOJ officials detail threatening to resign en masse in meeting with Trump
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107...ail-threatening-resign-en-masse-trump-meeting

What was the corruption? Rosen refused to send the Trump 'letter' to Governor Kemp and the State speaker, the letter which falsely claimed
GA was conducting an investigation into fraud, the objective of which was to intimidate election officials to decertify. Clark was willing, so Trump wanted to fire Rosen ( since he was acting AG, no senate confirmation was necessary) and replace him with Jeffery Clark.

"I said, 'Mr. President, you're talking about putting a man in that seat who has never tried a criminal case, who's never conducted a criminal investigation. He's telling you that he's going to take charge of the department — 115,000 employees, including the entire FBI — and turn the place on a dime and conduct nationwide criminal investigations that will produce results in a matter of days. It's impossible. It's absurd. It's not going to happen and it's going to fail.'"

Donoghue said Trump asked him what he would do if he replaced Rosen with Clark.

"I said, 'Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I'm not working one minute for this guy,'" he replied.

Engel echoed that: "'I've been with you through four attorneys general, including two acting attorneys general, but I couldn't be part of this," he said he told Trump.

Donoghue told Trump he would lose his "entire department" if he moved ahead.

"Within 24-48-72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?" Donoghue remembers asking.

According to Donoghue, Cipollone was supportive of the DOJ and said Clark's plan to send a letter to states about election fraud was a "murder-suicide" pact.

Sure, his pressuring Pence had corrupt intent.

No, he couldn't, it would have been illegal to do so.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...at-using-pence-overturn-election-was-illegal/

I never said he threatened him.

No, he doesn't. It's a violation of many state's laws. In GA, a grand jury has just subpoenaed several people to determine if Trump broke the law.

No, they didn't succeed. But, there is a solid record they definitely tried, and that is legal jeopardy. Documents were forged in pursuit of that end.

THere is no legal process to establish stand-by contingency electors. Since it has never happened in US history, no one thought it necessary to create them.
Since there is no legal process to establish stand-by electors, then those electors were not authorized. If they are not authorized, then they are fake.
See, in order for them to be authorized, the establishing document has to be signed by the Governor. Not one Governor signed the forged documents.
The simple reason for that is that the Governor had already signed the document which set the Biden slate, and there simply cannot be two.

Your knowledge on this is lacking, or you wouldn't have uttered a moot question.

This one has to be litigated. We shall see.

I never made that claim. Where did you read that? You are obviously not paying attention to the printed word.
I did, however, in a post, mention that Hutchinson repeated a story told to her by Ornato, who has yet to testify against her, though there are rumours about.

Well, I have, indeed, made up my mind that you are foggy on the facts.

 

Just because someone had a gun, and never used a gun, doesn't make your fake claim of an armed insurrection true.
Sorry, that just leftist propaganda BS.

So she didn't go on tour about how the election was stolen?
Write a book about how the election was stolen and flont it all over every liberal new channel?
Pay a Russian operative to provide fake information, for a fake dossier, to get fake FISA warrants to spy on a campaign?
Get questions provided to her up front for a presidential debate?
Naw, she just bitched a little?
That must be some bubble you live in

And thats the end of the story
He didn't. But you think you can prosecute someone for thinking something? Hilarious
Sorry

There is no law that states a president can't request information or ask about an election. And if you need an investigation 2 years down the road to try and determine it, theres your answer.

They didn't even try. More lefty BS that nobody but the most extreme lefty could even swallow.
No false electors came to DC
No false electors were waiting in the wings on Pence to give them the vote
Once their cases were heard and refused, they disbanded and never tried to influence any Jan 6 vote.
But I do love watching lefties lie about it. That means they are not to be trusted by the voters.

No litigation needed when you have the actual video.
What are you going to do? Ask people to believe you or their lying eyes? lol

 

I made my point. These armed people were not launching an offensive. No one believed they were going to do so.

 

Let me explain to you what are the material facts:

1. There were people there with guns who wouldn't go through the metal detectors because SS would confiscate them
2. Ellipse wasn't getting filled, Trump, concerned about crowd size.....then

From that fact, the SS will have to take the default position that someone with arms intend on harming the president and others. To do otherwise would have been a dereliction of their duty to protect the president and the Constitution.

What did the president say?

3. "They will not hurt me, take down the metal detectors and let them through".

That's not propaganda, that's first hand testimony that has yet to be denied by anyone.

The SS, knowing there are people with arms, MUST assume they are there to hurt people, including the president.

The DAMNING fact is that Trump wanted armed personnel into the Ellipse area, and, by extension, to march on the capitol.

The above are the material facts.

First, we know that the capital was violently attacked. We can assume, therefore, or rather, we MUST assume, therefore, the armed personnel were there to harm people.

And that, sir, is a crime by the president and anyone who aided and abetted the president. Which crime? One or the other or both

8 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

If the people without guns attacked the capitol, it is logical that if the people with guns were allowed to pass, they, too, would ahve attacked the capitol. WE MUST ASSUME, given that they brought offensive military gear and arms, they intended to use them.

Now then, the people without arms who were not let to pass to the capitol, that does not mean one the above violations was not made.

One might argue that since the insurrection code 2383 does not contain the word 'attempt' that a failed attempt cannot get a conviction. I don't think that is true because the only way they could be prosecuted is if they had failed, because if they had succeeded, they would have taken over the government and the notion of prosecution would be moot, so 'attempt' exists by default.

But it doesn't stop there, Trump was deeply involved in a scheme to subvert the election and WiTNESS INTIMIDATION by Trump or his operatives ( Mark Meadows sent an intimidation text to Hutchinson)

Let me guess, they were there to play TiddlyWinks.

Give me a break.

A flash in the pan, quickly forgotten and read by only a about four hundred thousand people and only by her hard core fans, not enough to have an impact on the electorate. This does not compare to Trump holding rallies, week after week, inculcating his base with 'dems stole the election' hwich ultimately led to the attack on the capitol noting that over 65,000,000 believe in the Big lie.

And what is the difference? Allow me to explain to you, since you seem oblivious

Hillary's complaints had to do with external methods, such as Trump tried to obtain incriminating information from a foreign government about Joe Biden etc, all of which are 'undue influence' and all of her complaints were actually true, because TRUMP did not hide any of his acts. All Trump was guilty of was hard ball tactics, and her accusations didn't rise above that, accusations which amount to undue influence.

That is not what Trump is accusing democrats of. Trump is accusing democrtas of TAMPERING WITH THE ELECTION PROCESS. .

And that was it, a tour, and she was QUICKLY FORGOTTEN. She did not get 65,000,000 Americans to believe that Trump tampered with the electoral process, which is precisely what Trump achieved with his base.

Now do you understand the difference?

No matter waht you say, this is not a comparison of comparable magnitude, and it is FOLLY to make that comparison.

See above

He wasn't merely requesting information. He wasn't merely 'thinking'.
He was trying to get states to decertify their elections and replace Biden electors with Trump's electors. He took action in pursuit of those objectives.
Yes, and I suppose a grand jury was convened in GA because Trump was playing tiddly winks.
There's your answer.

Forged documents were sent to Governors, a federal Judge and the Federal Archives.
That equals 'attempt'.

Doesn't matter. We have the email from Ron Johnson's staff requesting forged documents of the elector scheme to be sent to Pence.
The recipient, a Pence staff member, refused the documents. Naturally, because they were illegal. However, the email proves 'attempt'.

The documents were the precursor to electors. They didn't send electors because the document's being sent failed to achieve the preliminary objective. So, your premise is impotent.

However, electors were waiting in the wings in certain state houses at the elector certification stage. They attempted to enter the government buildings where the Biden electors were being formally certified ( I don't have the formal language of the process. We have videos of electors being turned away in Michigan, or some state, I forget which state it was but I think it was a Midwestern state ).

Yeah, we'll see about that.

 

You're not providing material facts. You are pushing fake propaganda.

Tell me, do you guys get together and decide which story you're going to tell for the day because they seem to change depending on when you say it.

1. Nobody was shot, pointed at, drew their weapons, or threatened in any way shape or form with a gun.
You can only be guilty of using a gun, by using a gun.
Another fake insurrection claim
Case closed

2, Secret Service has already debunked your looney stories from Hutchinson or they would have been called to verify them by the committee.
But the committee refuses to call them even when they have volunteered to testify
Which is why you can't sell this BS story
Case closed

3. No false electors came to DC to take the place of the legal electors
No vote was provided by any false electors
Nobody ever asked for the false electors during session
Case Closed

And you know how everyone knows how fake these stories are?
Because it only take one sentence to debunk your paragraphs propaganda

 

Whether they used a gun or not, the insurrection was real.

No, they haven't debunked anything; Someone (anonimous) from the SS denied; the 2 people mentioned by Hutcinson haven't testified on that story.

It's been established (testimonies) that they tried; that is a crime in itself.

 

We'll see, after six years of politically motivated prosecutions they've achieved nothing, what do you think will change?

 

Yet nobody is charged with such. Stop spreading fake stories for political gain. It ain't workin

You were saying?
Secret Service informs committee that agents are willing to testify and dispute the SUV incident
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/li...gs-june-28/h_4f27ec7e42faefa388933c938ba274e0

No it hasn't. Just leftist BS
You don't try and come to DC. lol
They never came to DC
They never were available for a vote
They never were called upon to vote
They were never even mentioned during the process

Stop slurping up fake information.

 

Fox News GOP Lawyer/Legal analyst says Trump will be prosecuted

This might help.

Cipollone Reaches Deal With Jan. 6 Panel To Testify In Transcribed Interview Friday

Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, a key figure in then-President Trump’s inner circle who pushed back against some of his attempts to subvert the election results, has reportedly reached a deal to sit for a transcribed interview before the Jan. 6 Select Committee on Friday, according to multiple reports.

Cipollone is appearing after the panel subpoenaed him for testimony.

Cipollone will reportedly appear in private before the committee, the New York Times reported, citing a person briefed on the matter.

The deal for Cipollone to testify comes a week after the committee subpoenaed him, following shocking testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/cipollone-january-6-committee-transcribed-interview

Is this the Cassidy affect?

 

Not yet; but I can understand you're impatient.

So, as I said, they haven't.

You should keep yourself informed.

 

Why is it leftist claims are always somewhere in the future and not in the present?
Kind of like the thousands of felony criminal claims against Trump over the last 6 years but your batting average for criminal claims vs indictments are 0/20,000
There are no insurrection charges and you have no evidence of any coming.
Fail

No you said Someone (anonimous) from the SS denied;
Which isn't true. The SS came forward disputing Hutchinsons testimony and have requested to testify.
And if the committee thought for a second they would confirm her BS story they would have them there within hours to confirm it.
But they won't and the entire world (except you) knows why

Or you could provide the testimony that claims the electors came to DC to fake their votes in congress.
GUARANTEED you won't
Because your story is bulls***

 

I guess this is what you so desperately wanted to hear. Please note that most of these people testifying are republicans....that you're immediately going to call RINOs. I know your type so well!



I'm sure you could find the same testimonies on Fox News archives.

 

So you couldn't dispute my post so you posted a video?
lol

 

Your point is meaningless. You don't let armed people near the president, or the capitol, period, and worst case scenario must be assumed by all authorities. To do otherwise is derelict, and Trump ordering the metal detectors taken down is derelict, AND criminal.

 

Thought terminating clichés are not an argument.
My statemetn was based on her testimony. "If true, then..."
Until we get testimony that contradicts her, the committee, as do I, find her testimony credible. No one has refuted her story, yet, under oath. I don't even
think Ornato, Engel, or Cipillone have given public statements.

that's irrelevant. People attacked the capitol, people died, trump encouraged it, and didn't stop it until hours later.
That people were armed and Trump ordered the metal detectors removed is a criminal act. Just because they didn't use the weapons is irrelevant.
Arms were illegal, and they do not allow weapons near the president or the capitol, period. To do otherwise would be derelict.

Ornato, nor Engel, nor Cipillone have come put publicly to refute Hutchinson.
The committee has an open invitation for them to appear, and Thompson said that on the hearing.
Every one on staff at the WH has been called, and many refused to appear.

Doesn't matter. We have the email from Ron Johnson's staff requesting forged documents of the elector scheme to be sent to Pence.
The recipient, a Pence staff member, refused the documents. Naturally, because they were illegal. However, the email proves 'attempt'.

The documents were the precursor to electors. They didn't send electors because the document's being sent failed to achieve the preliminary objective. So, your premise is impotent.

However, electors were waiting in the wings in certain state houses at the elector certification stage. They attempted to enter the government buildings where the Biden electors were being formally certified ( I don't have the formal language of the process. We have videos of electors being turned away in Michigan, or some state, I forget which state it was but I think it was a Midwestern state )

Forged documents were sent to Governors, a federal Judge and the Federal Archives.
That equals 'attempt'.

Not required for the criminal violation of defrauding or attempting to defraud the government, or attempting to stop a government proceeding. The forged documents and the scheme by Eastman to overturn the election were a scheme to delay the certification during the joint session.

The attack on the capitol, incited by months of Trump claiming Democrats stole the election and thus creating a juggernaut of rage in hte minds of his flock whom he whipped up into a frenzy which erupted on 1/6 by attacking the capitol, and people died, which is felony murder in some states and territories.

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

weasel words are not an argument.

though terminating clichés are not an argument.

I'll file that in the wishful thinking file.

And, bone up on 'propaganda' while your at it. Testimony is not propaganda.

A good example of propaganda are 'The only way Democrats can win is if they rig the election'.

I mean, if you really didn't like propaganda, you should despise Trump, but, alas, you defend him, so you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

very few know the laws