‘Decisions are imminent’ on charges in Trump’s effort to overturn 2020 election

Sure, here is the link to the 800 page Jan 6 committee report, including all the footage, court documents, supporting videos, police files, the works, TONS of evidence
that show that Trump did something that NO Democrat EVER did.

January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection

https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/january-6th-committee-final-report

Final Report
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf

Supporting materials, court documents (Mp4)
https://customer-uh7tqhki3bpanql6.cloudflarestream.com/1108be80e2ea40b1bef630754c00a390/watch

Supporting materials, documents on file with the committee etc etc etc (scores of PDFs, at the above top link). .


But for Donald Trump, there would be no 1/6, no investigation, no injuries, deaths, nada, zilch, zip.

But the salient fact is:

Trump and the conspirators followed a 7 point plan:

1. Engaged in a concerted effort to spread false information to the American public that
the 2020 election was stolen.

2. To orchestrate a corrupt scheme between Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Representative
Scott Perry to replace the acting Attorney General, to use the Department of Justice to overturn the
election.

Here Trump wanted to replace the Acting AG, who refused to go along with a scheme to send a letter to various state's election officials that the 'election was suspicious' and 'two sets of elector slates have been transmitted to Congress' (in which Trump's 'slate of electors' were illegal, as only Joe Biden's certificate of ascertainment was signed by the Governor) and the AG was unwilling to go along with the scheme, as the letter would, as WH Counsel Pat Cipillone exclaimed, 'would be a suicide pact' and so Trump wanted to replace the acting AG with Jeffrey Clark, an environmental lawyer with no experience in criminal law because he was willing to send the letters out, and thus use the DOJ as a weapon to further Trump's overall scheme to overturn the election.

The reason Trump didn't to this was because scores of DOJ officials swore they would resign, en masse, if Trump did this, and so he backed off.

3. To implement Eastman's plan to pressure Vice President Pence to refuse to count or to delay the
certification of the electoral count (and if enough electors could be denied to Biden, below the 270 threshold, thus no side having the required number of electors. the vote would go to the house where Republican's state delegations have a two state majority, thus reelecting Trump.

4. To pressure state election officials and state legislators to change their state's election results. This is what the GA investigation is about.

5. To instruct Republicans to create false electoral slates in seven battleground states and transmit those
fake slates to Federal Magistrates, Congress and the National Archives.

6. To summon up a mob to the US Capitol.

7. During the attack on the Capitol to ignore pleas for help and tacitly endorse violence, including
threats to hang Mike Pence.

No Democrat candidate for president ever did what Trump has done.

 

Well six weeks since it was declared they are IMMINENT. What happened?

 

And now it's March..........................for how long now have we heard "WE GOT HIM NOW', "WE REALLY REALLY REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME"!!!!

 

How long does "imminent" last before it is no longer imminent?

 

6 weeks later is not imminent.

 

I have. Multiple times. You somehow got the idea you're both moderator and debater.

 

Then I suggest you register your complaint on how the term is used with DA Willis.

 

I clicked back to your comments to see if you actually posted an argument. Let's take a look...

You wrote;

The point being, when all else fails you throw up a wall of words. I know!

That's a cop out, not an argument.

You wrote:

Just pointing out your stereotyping the characteristics of pundits and judges.

You provided no substantiation of that allegation, no path of reasoning, no examples, and, as such, it is not an argument.

I could go on, but you will just accuse me of tossing up a wall of words, so why should I bother?

I would, if you were really interested in debating, but with cop outs like that, it proves my point, you clearly are not interested in debating.

The fact is, you haven't provided anything of substance or on point which is pertinent to the discussion under topic.

You just think you have,

 

And, again, you anoint yourself chief arbiter. You can't make a point and then dismiss any post that contradicts your post. But it's all you do.

 

ROFL "register"? Why, the discussion is here.

 

If your rebuttal is a vacuous allegation without substance, without a path of logic/reasoning, without examples, without links to back up your claim, (as they most often are) then I most certainly can dismiss you rebuttal because without these items, you haven't provided an argument, one that actually moves the debate forward. You're just being lazy.

How so? Anyone can say anything, and I sure as hell am not taking anyone's word for it, let alone yours. I want to see a real argument, put some work into it.

But, that's all you do, vacuous claims without substance.

 

Well, we going into month two of "imminent".



Imminent? or "In the offing"?



Maybe rather that 'imminent' maybe it would be better described as 'in the cards'?



Or perhaps, 'on the horizon'?



Perhaps they are 'nigh'?

 

Look to your own arguments- plucked from the finest of the Lw press/propaganda mills, or your own unsupported opinions. You base your arguments on what some slanted journalist or pundit spews.

 

And you were so right-- listen to this one: Trump's lawyers are now making a big stink, about the fact that Trump wasn't called to testify, before the Georgia Grand Jury!
I just heard an interview, with a couple of them, talking about how their client deserved the right to defend himself, & characterizing the Georgia prosecutor's rationale for not calling Trump-- that she expected Trump would fight any subpoena, & as she felt there was already sufficient evidence presented, she didn't see it as worth all the time, to pursue that route; additionally, with limited resources, the expense & manpower required to undertake that fight, did not seem warranted-- as a lack of diligence, or seriousness.

Asked then, by the interviewer, if Trump would have fought, or complied with, any subpoena to testify, they said they would not speculate about hypothetical situations.

 

Georgia 100% did the right thing.... It's not mandatory that targets of investigations participate in GJ proceedings, although I imagine they have that right, even in backwards Georgia. .

If Mango had wanted to testify to this investigating GJ, he could have requested to at any time. I see that effort by targets all the time on old episodes of Law and Order...

To think he wouldn't have fought it, when Lil Lindsey took it to the SCOTUS level, defies any logic test I can come up with...

 

Of course, Trump would have fought a subpoena to testify-- it would have been completely out of character, for him to not have done so! That's why the disingenuous complaints of his lawyers, are so obviously preposterous. They are just miffed at someone side-stepping Trump's nonsense (and thereby denying them, billable hours).

 

What does "imminent" mean, in your usage?

 

You posted this over two months ago. What does 'imminent' mean, again?



Getting a Groundhogs Day vibe, here.

https://hotair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Fr5zLBCWwAIKiJE.jpeg

 

"Some time after I post this".

 

In fairness - the universe has been around billions of years.

If this takes 100 years to resolve, in the context of history, that is imminent...

 

Could we all die of old age before 'imminent' elapses?

 

Sure, he was speaking of 'imminent' in geologic time.

 

I'm quite a bit younger than Trump, so I doubt it.

 

Email Willis.

I'm sure she'll set you straight.

 

You email Wills if you want Willis emailed.