(08-31-2023, 10:04 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2023, 08:59 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]So you haven't read the Eastman emails
Emails from Eastman to others may implicate him, but that may not extend to Trump. Again, testimony regarding yet unknown conversations will likely determine the outcome.
In any event, a trial, if/when we get to that point, will be an absolute media circus.
This is a weakness of the federal case. The state of Georgia's case is stronger.
(08-31-2023, 10:10 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2023, 10:04 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Emails from Eastman to others may implicate him, but that may not extend to Trump. Again, testimony regarding yet unknown conversations will likely determine the outcome.
In any event, a trial, if/when we get to that point, will be an absolute media circus.
This is a weakness of the federal case. The state of Georgia's case is stronger.
No
it's not
They've got plenty that implicates his involvement and direction.
This is wishful thinking by MAGA supporters. Nothing more.
Maybe a few of the charges against him will be tough to tie him to directly, but most of them he already put his own foot in his mouth about.
And there's a reason Trump had a [BLEEP] fit yesterday about Jack Smith subpoenaing (and receiving) all of Trump's twitter history.
White House aides who have already rolled over for the prosecution allege that Trump used twitter DMs much more freely than texting in communicating with staff. Apparently he thought it wouldn't be as accessible to outside agencies. LOL
(08-31-2023, 11:50 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2023, 10:10 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]This is a weakness of the federal case. The state of Georgia's case is stronger.
No
it's not
They've got plenty that implicates his involvement and direction.
This is wishful thinking by MAGA supporters. Nothing more.
Maybe a few of the charges against him will be tough to tie him to directly, but most of them he already put his own foot in his mouth about.
And there's a reason Trump had a [BLEEP] fit yesterday about Jack Smith subpoenaing (and receiving) all of Trump's twitter history.
White House aides who have already rolled over for the prosecution allege that Trump used twitter DMs much more freely than texting in communicating with staff. Apparently he thought it wouldn't be as accessible to outside agencies. LOL
Right. The federal indictment, on certain counts, says more about lower level DoJ officials than it says about Trump. Unless they're going to be able to show that Trump directed Eastman's specific behavior, those counts should be against Eastman, not Trump.
(08-31-2023, 11:58 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2023, 11:50 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]No
it's not
They've got plenty that implicates his involvement and direction.
This is wishful thinking by MAGA supporters. Nothing more.
Maybe a few of the charges against him will be tough to tie him to directly, but most of them he already put his own foot in his mouth about.
And there's a reason Trump had a [BLEEP] fit yesterday about Jack Smith subpoenaing (and receiving) all of Trump's twitter history.
White House aides who have already rolled over for the prosecution allege that Trump used twitter DMs much more freely than texting in communicating with staff. Apparently he thought it wouldn't be as accessible to outside agencies. LOL
Right. The federal indictment, on certain counts, says more about lower level DoJ officials than it says about Trump. Unless they're going to be able to show that Trump directed Eastman's specific behavior, those counts should be against Eastman, not Trump.
LOL
Y'all are hilarious.
There is a boatload of testimony already on record from the Jan 6 investigation that clearly implicates Trump in the electors scheme. Nobody paid any attention to that?? Wow. It was kind of a big deal, y'all.
Pence, Ivanka, and other Trump aides all testified under oath about the phone call Trump made to Pence attempting to intimidate him into going along with the cockamamy scheme.
And that was not the only evidence linking him.
Wow, ppl got their heads in the sand on this [BLEEP]
(08-31-2023, 01:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2023, 12:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]LOL
Y'all are hilarious.
There is a boatload of testimony already on record from the Jan 6 investigation that clearly implicates Trump in the electors scheme. Nobody paid any attention to that?? Wow. It was kind of a big deal, y'all.
Pence, Ivanka, and other Trump aides all testified under oath about the phone call Trump made to Pence attempting to intimidate him into going along with the cockamamy scheme.
And that was not the only evidence linking him.
Wow, ppl got their heads in the sand on this [BLEEP]
I'm on your side, homie.
Heard
I'm just surprised so many folks are unaware of what is already out there in terms of damning evidence
Yeah... let's get that white supremacist leader, Enrique Tarrio.
(09-05-2023, 03:37 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah... let's get that white supremacist leader, Enrique Tarrio.
You spelled domestic terrorist wrong
I've been saying for months that multiple agencies intercepted communication form several of these wanna-be militia groups leading up to and on the day of Jan 6. - Only for folks here to tell me they were all just "tourists."
Well - a Trump appointed judge says they were terrorists.
Quote:U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, agreed with prosecutors that the Proud Boys’ crimes could be punished as “terrorism” — increasing the recommended sentence under federal guidelines. But he ultimately sentenced the Proud Boys to prison terms shorter than what prosecutors were seeking.
The backbone of the government’s case was hundreds of messages exchanged by Proud Boys in the days leading up to Jan. 6 that prosecutors say showed how the extremists saw themselves as revolutionaries and celebrated the Capitol attack, which sent lawmakers running into hiding.
[url=https://www.wcvb.com/article/peter-stager-prison-sentence/44652905][/url]
Gotta love that war on terror.
(08-31-2023, 12:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2023, 11:58 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Right. The federal indictment, on certain counts, says more about lower level DoJ officials than it says about Trump. Unless they're going to be able to show that Trump directed Eastman's specific behavior, those counts should be against Eastman, not Trump.
Pence, Ivanka, and other Trump aides all testified under oath about the phone call Trump made to Pence attempting to intimidate him into going along with the cockamamy scheme.
That is the prosecution's allegation. A jury will decide if it is true.
(08-31-2023, 01:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2023, 01:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm on your side, homie.
Heard
I'm just surprised so many folks are unaware of what is already out there in terms of damning evidence
They don't want to know, so they gravitate to news sources that don't cover it.
(08-31-2023, 01:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2023, 01:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm on your side, homie.
Heard
I'm just surprised so many folks are unaware of what is already out there in terms of damning evidence
What was brilliant about the Jan. 6th committee investigation was most of the witnesses were Republicans.
(09-05-2023, 06:10 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (09-05-2023, 03:37 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah... let's get that white supremacist leader, Enrique Tarrio.
You spelled domestic terrorist wrong
I've been saying for months that multiple agencies intercepted communication form several of these wanna-be militia groups leading up to and on the day of Jan 6. - Only for folks here to tell me they were all just "tourists."
Well - a Trump appointed judge says they were terrorists.
Quote:U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, agreed with prosecutors that the Proud Boys’ crimes could be punished as “terrorism” — increasing the recommended sentence under federal guidelines. But he ultimately sentenced the Proud Boys to prison terms shorter than what prosecutors were seeking.
The backbone of the government’s case was hundreds of messages exchanged by Proud Boys in the days leading up to Jan. 6 that prosecutors say showed how the extremists saw themselves as revolutionaries and celebrated the Capitol attack, which sent lawmakers running into hiding.
[url=https://www.wcvb.com/article/peter-stager-prison-sentence/44652905][/url]
Judge Kelly's opinion represents a very liberal expansion of the traditionally held definition of "terrorism". If it applies to this situation, it should apply equally to BLM protesters who torch buildings and attack police.
(09-06-2023, 08:40 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (09-05-2023, 06:10 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]You spelled domestic terrorist wrong
I've been saying for months that multiple agencies intercepted communication form several of these wanna-be militia groups leading up to and on the day of Jan 6. - Only for folks here to tell me they were all just "tourists."
Well - a Trump appointed judge says they were terrorists.
[url=https://www.wcvb.com/article/peter-stager-prison-sentence/44652905][/url]
Judge Kelly's opinion represents a very liberal expansion of the traditionally held definition of "terrorism". If it applies to this situation, it should apply equally to BLM protesters who torch buildings and attack police.
Riots aren't terrorism and neither are protests, this is just an attempt to broaden the criminal code (again) to over-Police some segments of society. If protestors turn into rioters there's plenty of laws on the books to deal with them if the DAs would apply them to lefties the way they are trying with these righties.
(09-06-2023, 06:57 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2023, 01:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Heard
I'm just surprised so many folks are unaware of what is already out there in terms of damning evidence
They don't want to know, so they gravitate to news sources that don't cover it.
Where can one find this mountain of incontrovertible evidence that you claim exists and is already in public circulation?
(09-06-2023, 08:54 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2023, 08:40 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Judge Kelly's opinion represents a very liberal expansion of the traditionally held definition of "terrorism". If it applies to this situation, it should apply equally to BLM protesters who torch buildings and attack police.
Riots aren't terrorism and neither are protests, this is just an attempt to broaden the criminal code (again) to over-Police some segments of society. If protestors turn into rioters there's plenty of laws on the books to deal with them if the DAs would apply them to lefties the way they are trying with these righties.
There's not a clear, easily explained line between a riot and a terrorist act. That said, threatening to kill members of Congress and the Vice President crosses that line. "Are you killing people or threatening to kill people" is as good of a rule of thumb as any.
(09-06-2023, 08:54 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (09-06-2023, 08:40 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Judge Kelly's opinion represents a very liberal expansion of the traditionally held definition of "terrorism". If it applies to this situation, it should apply equally to BLM protesters who torch buildings and attack police.
Riots aren't terrorism and neither are protests, this is just an attempt to broaden the criminal code (again) to over-Police some segments of society. If protestors turn into rioters there's plenty of laws on the books to deal with them if the DAs would apply them to lefties the way they are trying with these righties.
You forgot to emphasize the important part.
mikesez will be along shortly to say, "But that was an attack on the Constitution....."