What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.**** (2 Viewers)

Prinefan said:
An existing thread was renamed.  Why do you have a problem with this?  BTW- We all know who is the record holder.  Unfortunately to anticipate your next question, I can't name names or I'd have to change my party affiliation.
Click to expand...
Yes we do know who the record holder is. You won't have to change party affiliations for that.

 
ABC News Article:

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson cooperating with DOJ's Jan. 6 probe, say sources

Hutchinson recently testified before the House Jan. 6 committee.

Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top adviser to then-President Donald Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows, has recently cooperated with the Department of Justice investigation into the events of Jan. 6, according to sources familiar with the matter.

 
OP:  can you change the thread to more accurately reflect the topic?  

I'm thinking along the lines of, "OMG!!! 1/6 Part 5322"

 
Is the FBG server running out of space?  Is there a shortage of electrons?

I'm curious why there is concern about too many threads.  Seems silly.

 
moleculo said:
Is the FBG server running out of space?  Is there a shortage of electrons?

I'm curious why there is concern about too many threads.  Seems silly.
Click to expand...
There aren't, some people just blow it out of proportion. There are two independent investigations and one thread dedicated to each. Plus on for the pawns who unfortunately got caught up in Trump's lie and the punishments they're being handed. Seems pretty reasonable.

In addition to these two investigations, we also have the Georgia investigation (also being lead by Republicans), the Manhattan DA investigating the Trump Org, and the E. Jean Carrol lawsuit that's moving forward.

Lots to keep track of.

 
Justice Dept asking witnesses about Trump

Federal prosecutors have directly asked witnesses in recent days about former President Donald J. Trump’s involvement in efforts to reverse his election loss, a person familiar with the testimony said on Tuesday, suggesting that the Justice Department’s criminal investigation has moved into a more aggressive and politically fraught phase.

Mr. Trump’s personal role in elements of the push to overturn his loss in 2020 to Joseph R. Biden Jr. has long been established, both through his public actions and statements and evidence gathered by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

But the Justice Department has been largely silent about how and even whether it would weigh pursuing potential charges against Mr. Trump, and reluctant even to concede that his role was discussed in senior leadership meetings at the department.

Asking questions about Mr. Trump in connection with the electors plot or the attack on the Capitol does not mean the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into him, a decision that would have immense political and legal ramifications.

The department’s investigation into a central element of the push to keep Mr. Trump in office — the plan to name slates of electors pledged to Mr. Trump in battleground states won by Mr. Biden — now appears to be accelerating as prosecutors with the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington ask witnesses about Mr. Trump and members of his inner circle, including the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, the person familiar with the testimony said.

Making a case against Trump. The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack is laying out a comprehensive narrative of President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Here are the main themes that have emerged so far from eight public hearings:

An unsettling narrative. During the first hearing, the committee described in vivid detail what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by the former president that culminated in the assault on the Capitol. At the heart of the gripping story were three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.

Creating election lies. In its second hearing, the panel showed how Mr. Trump ignored aides and advisers as he declared victory prematurely and relentlessly pressed claims of fraud he was told were wrong. “He’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff,” William P. Barr, the former attorney general, said of Mr. Trump during a videotaped interview.

Pressuring Pence. Mr. Trump continued pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to overturn his loss even after he was told it was illegal, according to testimony laid out by the panel during the third hearing. The committee showed how Mr. Trump’s actions led his supporters to storm the Capitol, sending Mr. Pence fleeing for his life.

Fake elector plan. The committee used its fourth hearing to detail how Mr. Trump was personally involved in a scheme to put forward fake electors. The panel also presented fresh details on how the former president leaned on state officials to invalidate his defeat, opening them up to violent threats when they refused.

Strong arming the Justice Dept. During the fifth hearing, the panel explored Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging and relentless scheme to misuse the Justice Department to keep himself in power. The panel also presented evidence that at least half a dozen Republican members of Congress sought pre-emptive pardons.

The surprise hearing. Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, delivered explosive testimony during the panel’s sixth session, saying that the president knew the crowd on Jan. 6 was armed, but wanted to loosen security. She also painted Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, as disengaged and unwilling to act as rioters approached the Capitol.

Planning a march. Mr. Trump planned to lead a march to the Capitol on Jan. 6 but wanted it to look spontaneous, the committee revealed during its seventh hearing. Representative Liz Cheney also said that Mr. Trump had reached out to a witness in the panel’s investigation, and that the committee had informed the Justice Department of the approach.

A “complete dereliction” of duty. In the final public hearing of the summer, the panel accused the former president of dereliction of duty for failing to act to stop the Capitol assault. The committee documented how, over 187 minutes, Mr. Trump had ignored pleas to call off the mob and then refused to say the election was over even a day after the attack.

In April, before the committee convened its series of public hearings, Justice Department investigators received phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump White House, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

Two top aides to Vice President Mike Pence testified to the federal grand jury in the case last week, and prosecutors have issued subpoenas and search warrants to a growing number of figures tied to Mr. Trump and the campaign to forestall his loss.

A spokesman for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland declined to comment, saying the Justice Department did not provide details of grand jury proceedings. The department’s questioning of witnesses about Mr. Trump and its receipt of the phone records were reported earlier by The Washington Post.

If a decision were made to open a criminal investigation into Mr. Trump after he announced his intention to run in the 2024 election, as he continues to hint he might do, the department’s leadership would be required to undertake a formal consultation process, then sign a formal approval of the department’s intentions under an internal rule created by former Attorney General William P. Barr and endorsed by Mr. Garland.

But in recent days, Mr. Garland has repeatedly asserted his right to investigate or prosecute anybody, including Mr. Trump, provided that is where the evidence leads.

“The Justice Department has from the beginning been moving urgently to learn everything we can about this period, and to bring to justice everybody who was criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another, which is the fundamental element of our democracy,” Mr. Garland told “NBC Nightly News” in an interview broadcast on Tuesday, when asked to comment on criticism that his investigation was moving too slowly.

The questions about Mr. Trump focused on, among other topics, the plan he was pushing to derail congressional certification of Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory on Jan. 6, 2021, the person familiar with the testimony said.

The two Pence aides who testified to the grand jury — Marc Short, who was his chief of staff, and Greg Jacob, who was his counsel — were present at an Oval Office meeting on Jan. 4, 2021, when Mr. Trump sought to pressure Mr. Pence into embracing the plan to cite the competing slates of electors as justification to block or delay the Electoral College certification.

In recent weeks, the Justice Department also seized phones from two key figures, John Eastman, the lawyer who helped develop and promote the plan to upend the Electoral College certification, and Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who was at the center of the related push to send the slates of electors pledged to Mr. Trump from states Mr. Biden won.

Prosecutors have also issued grand jury subpoenas to figures connected to the so-called fake electors scheme. Those who have received the subpoenas have largely been state lawmakers or Republican officials, many of whom put their names on documents attesting to the fact that they were electors for Mr. Trump from states that were won by Mr. Biden.

The subpoenas, some of which have been obtained by The New York Times, show that prosecutors are interested in collecting information on a group of pro-Trump lawyers who helped to devise and carry out the plan, including Mr. Eastman and Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer.

There are also indications that the tense standoff between the Justice Department and congressional investigators over the transcripts of interviews conducted for the Jan. 6 committee hearings is easing. The House is set to begin handing over some of the transcripts and intends to increase the pace in the coming weeks, according to people familiar with the situation.

Members of the committee have said they are still considering making a criminal referral to the Justice Department in hopes of increasing the pressure on Mr. Garland to prosecute Mr. Trump.

Mr. Garland shrugged off that suggestion.

“I think that’s totally up to the committee,” he said in his NBC interview. “We will have the evidence that the committee has presented, and whatever evidence it gives us, I don’t think that the nature of how they style, the manner in which information is provided, is a particular significance from any legal point of view.”

 
Captain Cranks said:
Justice Dept asking witnesses about Trump

Federal prosecutors have directly asked witnesses in recent days about former President Donald J. Trump’s involvement in efforts to reverse his election loss, a person familiar with the testimony said on Tuesday, suggesting that the Justice Department’s criminal investigation has moved into a more aggressive and politically fraught phase.

Mr. Trump’s personal role in elements of the push to overturn his loss in 2020 to Joseph R. Biden Jr. has long been established, both through his public actions and statements and evidence gathered by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

But the Justice Department has been largely silent about how and even whether it would weigh pursuing potential charges against Mr. Trump, and reluctant even to concede that his role was discussed in senior leadership meetings at the department.

Asking questions about Mr. Trump in connection with the electors plot or the attack on the Capitol does not mean the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into him, a decision that would have immense political and legal ramifications.

The department’s investigation into a central element of the push to keep Mr. Trump in office — the plan to name slates of electors pledged to Mr. Trump in battleground states won by Mr. Biden — now appears to be accelerating as prosecutors with the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington ask witnesses about Mr. Trump and members of his inner circle, including the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, the person familiar with the testimony said.

Making a case against Trump. The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack is laying out a comprehensive narrative of President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Here are the main themes that have emerged so far from eight public hearings:

An unsettling narrative. During the first hearing, the committee described in vivid detail what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by the former president that culminated in the assault on the Capitol. At the heart of the gripping story were three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.

Creating election lies. In its second hearing, the panel showed how Mr. Trump ignored aides and advisers as he declared victory prematurely and relentlessly pressed claims of fraud he was told were wrong. “He’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff,” William P. Barr, the former attorney general, said of Mr. Trump during a videotaped interview.

Pressuring Pence. Mr. Trump continued pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to overturn his loss even after he was told it was illegal, according to testimony laid out by the panel during the third hearing. The committee showed how Mr. Trump’s actions led his supporters to storm the Capitol, sending Mr. Pence fleeing for his life.

Fake elector plan. The committee used its fourth hearing to detail how Mr. Trump was personally involved in a scheme to put forward fake electors. The panel also presented fresh details on how the former president leaned on state officials to invalidate his defeat, opening them up to violent threats when they refused.

Strong arming the Justice Dept. During the fifth hearing, the panel explored Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging and relentless scheme to misuse the Justice Department to keep himself in power. The panel also presented evidence that at least half a dozen Republican members of Congress sought pre-emptive pardons.

The surprise hearing. Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, delivered explosive testimony during the panel’s sixth session, saying that the president knew the crowd on Jan. 6 was armed, but wanted to loosen security. She also painted Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, as disengaged and unwilling to act as rioters approached the Capitol.

Planning a march. Mr. Trump planned to lead a march to the Capitol on Jan. 6 but wanted it to look spontaneous, the committee revealed during its seventh hearing. Representative Liz Cheney also said that Mr. Trump had reached out to a witness in the panel’s investigation, and that the committee had informed the Justice Department of the approach.

A “complete dereliction” of duty. In the final public hearing of the summer, the panel accused the former president of dereliction of duty for failing to act to stop the Capitol assault. The committee documented how, over 187 minutes, Mr. Trump had ignored pleas to call off the mob and then refused to say the election was over even a day after the attack.

In April, before the committee convened its series of public hearings, Justice Department investigators received phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump White House, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

Two top aides to Vice President Mike Pence testified to the federal grand jury in the case last week, and prosecutors have issued subpoenas and search warrants to a growing number of figures tied to Mr. Trump and the campaign to forestall his loss.

A spokesman for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland declined to comment, saying the Justice Department did not provide details of grand jury proceedings. The department’s questioning of witnesses about Mr. Trump and its receipt of the phone records were reported earlier by The Washington Post.

If a decision were made to open a criminal investigation into Mr. Trump after he announced his intention to run in the 2024 election, as he continues to hint he might do, the department’s leadership would be required to undertake a formal consultation process, then sign a formal approval of the department’s intentions under an internal rule created by former Attorney General William P. Barr and endorsed by Mr. Garland.

But in recent days, Mr. Garland has repeatedly asserted his right to investigate or prosecute anybody, including Mr. Trump, provided that is where the evidence leads.

“The Justice Department has from the beginning been moving urgently to learn everything we can about this period, and to bring to justice everybody who was criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another, which is the fundamental element of our democracy,” Mr. Garland told “NBC Nightly News” in an interview broadcast on Tuesday, when asked to comment on criticism that his investigation was moving too slowly.

The questions about Mr. Trump focused on, among other topics, the plan he was pushing to derail congressional certification of Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory on Jan. 6, 2021, the person familiar with the testimony said.

The two Pence aides who testified to the grand jury — Marc Short, who was his chief of staff, and Greg Jacob, who was his counsel — were present at an Oval Office meeting on Jan. 4, 2021, when Mr. Trump sought to pressure Mr. Pence into embracing the plan to cite the competing slates of electors as justification to block or delay the Electoral College certification.

In recent weeks, the Justice Department also seized phones from two key figures, John Eastman, the lawyer who helped develop and promote the plan to upend the Electoral College certification, and Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who was at the center of the related push to send the slates of electors pledged to Mr. Trump from states Mr. Biden won.

Prosecutors have also issued grand jury subpoenas to figures connected to the so-called fake electors scheme. Those who have received the subpoenas have largely been state lawmakers or Republican officials, many of whom put their names on documents attesting to the fact that they were electors for Mr. Trump from states that were won by Mr. Biden.

The subpoenas, some of which have been obtained by The New York Times, show that prosecutors are interested in collecting information on a group of pro-Trump lawyers who helped to devise and carry out the plan, including Mr. Eastman and Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer.

There are also indications that the tense standoff between the Justice Department and congressional investigators over the transcripts of interviews conducted for the Jan. 6 committee hearings is easing. The House is set to begin handing over some of the transcripts and intends to increase the pace in the coming weeks, according to people familiar with the situation.

Members of the committee have said they are still considering making a criminal referral to the Justice Department in hopes of increasing the pressure on Mr. Garland to prosecute Mr. Trump.

Mr. Garland shrugged off that suggestion.

“I think that’s totally up to the committee,” he said in his NBC interview. “We will have the evidence that the committee has presented, and whatever evidence it gives us, I don’t think that the nature of how they style, the manner in which information is provided, is a particular significance from any legal point of view.”
Click to expand...
"I didn't know anyone in the White House. They all got coffee!"

 
Ex-prosecutor weighs in on Trump’s legal peril

The biggest question set off by the special committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack has been: Will the Justice Department prosecute former President Donald J. Trump for his role in trying to overturn the election? The question has become even more prominent with the news that federal prosecutors have begun asking witnesses about Mr. Trump in their criminal investigation.

Legal commentators, lawmakers and average Americans all seem to have an opinion. To better understand this question and the issues around it, The New York Times interviewed one of the last federal prosecutors to have led an investigation into Mr. Trump’s conduct.

That prosecutor, Andrew Goldstein, was one of the lead investigators who examined whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct the Russia investigation carried out by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. In an interview with the New York Times podcast “The Daily,” Mr. Goldstein laid out the obstacles to a prosecution.

Here are some takeaways from that interview:

Prosecuting Trump would be harder than it looks.

Members of the House select committee — including its vice chairwoman, Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming — have publicly read from the criminal code the laws they believe Mr. Trump broke, including obstructing an official proceeding of Congress. Mr. Goldstein said that while the committee has done a good job of laying out the potential criminality, it is far more difficult to make a case in court.

In court, the standards for entering evidence are higher and prosecutors need to prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. The case also would need to survive legal appeals that would likely go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Without question, what happened on Jan. 6 was horrendous for our country and for our democracy,” Mr. Goldstein said. “You certainly wouldn’t want to look away if there’s criminal wrongdoing there. But you also want to make sure that the cases that you bring are strong and are the right cases to bring.”

There are legal hurdles to the most likely charges.

There are three crimes that committee members and legal experts have said Mr. Trump would be most likely to be investigated for:

1. Obstructing an official proceeding of Congress

2. Defrauding the United States

3. Seditious conspiracy

Mr. Goldstein said there appears to be the most material for the first charge, obstructing an official proceeding of Congress — in this case, the certification of the Electoral College vote that was interrupted on Jan. 6 when Trump supporters stormed the building.

To prove such a charge, prosecutors would have to show that Mr. Trump had a corrupt intent when he took an action that was designed to interfere with the proceeding, meaning that he knew he was doing something wrong. Mr. Goldstein said there was likely enough evidence on the public record to prove corrupt intent but that finding an action would be more challenging.

In the end I think the prosecutor would still need to point to an act — an action — that the president either took himself, or directed to have been taken, that would itself obstruct the proceeding,” Mr. Goldstein said.

A decision on prosecuting Trump could have broader implications.

Even if prosecutors are able to meet those elements, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland would have an extraordinary decision to make: Is it in the best interests of the country to bring charges against a former president, especially one who may be running again for that office?

Such a prosecution could draw the Justice Department into partisan politics in extraordinary ways.

One of the things that the Department of Justice has to weigh in this kind of a situation is both, what are the potential ramifications of prosecuting, but also the ramifications of not prosecuting,” Mr. Goldstein said.

“And here, in part because of just how high profile all of this is,” he continued, “if there were very clear evidence of a crime and it was sort of very straightforward and provable, but the Department of Justice walked away, there is a real risk of the American people thinking that there are two systems of justice. And that would be devastating to the mission of the department.”

 
Get caught up on all of the many, many criminal investigations into former President Trump! 

The DOJ, Fulton County, New York, (am I miss any?)

Politico Article:

DOJ, Georgia, New York: A guide to Trump's legal threats
 

The former president is one of several prominent Republicans whom federal investigators are asking about. And that's among several other probes he faces.

“…In short, Trump is where he’s been for much of his political life: at the center of intense criminal and legal controversies. The question is, will this time be different?”

“Here’s a rundown of the accelerating criminal and civil investigations aimed at Trump, who’s openly mulling when to announce a third presidential campaign:”

 
Herb said:
Ex-prosecutor weighs in on Trump’s legal peril

The biggest question set off by the special committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack has been: Will the Justice Department prosecute former President Donald J. Trump for his role in trying to overturn the election? The question has become even more prominent with the news that federal prosecutors have begun asking witnesses about Mr. Trump in their criminal investigation.

Legal commentators, lawmakers and average Americans all seem to have an opinion. To better understand this question and the issues around it, The New York Times interviewed one of the last federal prosecutors to have led an investigation into Mr. Trump’s conduct.

That prosecutor, Andrew Goldstein, was one of the lead investigators who examined whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct the Russia investigation carried out by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. In an interview with the New York Times podcast “The Daily,” Mr. Goldstein laid out the obstacles to a prosecution.

Here are some takeaways from that interview:

Prosecuting Trump would be harder than it looks.

Members of the House select committee — including its vice chairwoman, Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming — have publicly read from the criminal code the laws they believe Mr. Trump broke, including obstructing an official proceeding of Congress. Mr. Goldstein said that while the committee has done a good job of laying out the potential criminality, it is far more difficult to make a case in court.

In court, the standards for entering evidence are higher and prosecutors need to prove allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. The case also would need to survive legal appeals that would likely go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Without question, what happened on Jan. 6 was horrendous for our country and for our democracy,” Mr. Goldstein said. “You certainly wouldn’t want to look away if there’s criminal wrongdoing there. But you also want to make sure that the cases that you bring are strong and are the right cases to bring.”

There are legal hurdles to the most likely charges.

There are three crimes that committee members and legal experts have said Mr. Trump would be most likely to be investigated for:

1. Obstructing an official proceeding of Congress

2. Defrauding the United States

3. Seditious conspiracy

Mr. Goldstein said there appears to be the most material for the first charge, obstructing an official proceeding of Congress — in this case, the certification of the Electoral College vote that was interrupted on Jan. 6 when Trump supporters stormed the building.

To prove such a charge, prosecutors would have to show that Mr. Trump had a corrupt intent when he took an action that was designed to interfere with the proceeding, meaning that he knew he was doing something wrong. Mr. Goldstein said there was likely enough evidence on the public record to prove corrupt intent but that finding an action would be more challenging.

In the end I think the prosecutor would still need to point to an act — an action — that the president either took himself, or directed to have been taken, that would itself obstruct the proceeding,” Mr. Goldstein said.

A decision on prosecuting Trump could have broader implications.

Even if prosecutors are able to meet those elements, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland would have an extraordinary decision to make: Is it in the best interests of the country to bring charges against a former president, especially one who may be running again for that office?

Such a prosecution could draw the Justice Department into partisan politics in extraordinary ways.

One of the things that the Department of Justice has to weigh in this kind of a situation is both, what are the potential ramifications of prosecuting, but also the ramifications of not prosecuting,” Mr. Goldstein said.

“And here, in part because of just how high profile all of this is,” he continued, “if there were very clear evidence of a crime and it was sort of very straightforward and provable, but the Department of Justice walked away, there is a real risk of the American people thinking that there are two systems of justice. And that would be devastating to the mission of the department.”
Click to expand...
"Would a prosecution be in the best interests of the country?"

I'm very much of the opinion that sending a message to our elected officials that you are not above the law is in the best interests of the country.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it just me, or are you seeing an increase in how much actual evidence is coming in?  I know Cheney referenced it a couple weeks ago how the bricks in the wall are crumbling.  It just seems like she's right.  Every day I'm seeing new facts.  I abhor the whole web of crime involved in this, but I can't help but appreciate this momentous time in history.  I do hope he's prosecuted and according to the evidence I've seen so far, convicted.  

 
massraider said:
"Would a prosecution be in the best interests of the country?"

I'm very much of the opinion that sending a message to our elected officials that you are not above the law is in the best interests of the country.
Click to expand...
I agree. But with the acknowledgement that it's going to be a political nightmare and incredibly divisive for the country. As this forum illustrates,  there are those that will refuse to believe the investigation and hopefully prosecution isn't 100% partisan political malfeasance.  And there will be very loud dissent, which is fine. But my fear -my dread- is that this will get violent. Quite violent. 

This one horrific man has and will continue to do more damage to this country than any foreign enemy could have ever hoped to.

 
Herb said:
I agree. But with the acknowledgement that it's going to be a political nightmare and incredibly divisive for the country. As this forum illustrates,  there are those that will refuse to believe the investigation and hopefully prosecution isn't 100% partisan political malfeasance.  And there will be very loud dissent, which is fine. But my fear -my dread- is that this will get violent. Quite violent. 

This one horrific man has and will continue to do more damage to this country than any foreign enemy could have ever hoped to.
Click to expand...
I don't have any of these fears. 

The divisive ship has sailed, and really, you can already see the sane conservatives distance themselves. Trump was a bully, and a bunch of his followers were followers, who liked to scream along, and were happy he didn't make them feel dumb. The conservatives HERE have already decided it's DeSantis, and Trump was just some guy the Dems made too big a deal out of. Once the bully gets sand kicked in his face by Hannity, the followers will either lose interest, or jump on Team DeSantis. . 

The violence? No way. The next time Meal Team Six or Y'all Qaeda try and mount up, their moms/wives/girlfriends will all nip that #### in the bud. It's all fun and games LARP'ing Call of Duty, until you spend a month in jail awaiting trial. 

They got violent once, they got inside, and then no one had any ideas. So they stole some muffins, and posted some incriminating selfies. If Trump puts out the call again, the National Guard will be waiting for them. 

 
Herb said:
I agree. But with the acknowledgement that it's going to be a political nightmare and incredibly divisive for the country. As this forum illustrates,  there are those that will refuse to believe the investigation and hopefully prosecution isn't 100% partisan political malfeasance.  And there will be very loud dissent, which is fine. But my fear -my dread- is that this will get violent. Quite violent. 

This one horrific man has and will continue to do more damage to this country than any foreign enemy could have ever hoped to.
Click to expand...
I agree and I see the comments from his followers on social media. But I think we need to go through it. We can't go back to any sense of normalcy unless this is called out and accounted for. We see the copycats in local and state elections (see PA with the three counties refusing to certify elections). This entire "fake election/never concede" needs to stop and people who break the law need to pay.

 
Herb said:
I agree. But with the acknowledgement that it's going to be a political nightmare and incredibly divisive for the country. As this forum illustrates,  there are those that will refuse to believe the investigation and hopefully prosecution isn't 100% partisan political malfeasance.  And there will be very loud dissent, which is fine. But my fear -my dread- is that this will get violent. Quite violent. 

This one horrific man has and will continue to do more damage to this country than any foreign enemy could have ever hoped to.
Click to expand...


:doh:

Oh, c'mon!!!   The drama is out of this world.  :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Prinefan said:
Is it just me, or are you seeing an increase in how much actual evidence is coming in?  I know Cheney referenced it a couple weeks ago how the bricks in the wall are crumbling.  It just seems like she's right.  Every day I'm seeing new facts.  I abhor the whole web of crime involved in this, but I can't help but appreciate this momentous time in history.  I do hope he's prosecuted and according to the evidence I've seen so far, convicted.  
Click to expand...
IMO part of it is the J6 Committee knows it will not have the structure it has now after Republicans retake control of the House next January, so there’s more urgency to get information out in front of the public before McCarthy turns the Committee into a grandstanding stage for Jim Jordan.  

There’s also a wing of the Republican Party that knows once Trump gets his official campaign up and going, Trump will be the unopposed GOP nominee for 2024 and they won’t be able to publicly criticize him.  That’s why that WaPo article the other day about DOJ investigating Trump reeked of Team Pence being the sources.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Washington Post@washingtonpost
The leader of the Wisconsin Assembly’s elections committee called Friday for invalidating President Biden’s victory in the state 
Click to expand...
If only Democrats weren't doing the same thing in the future, Republicans wouldn't support this kind of thing today.

You see?

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
If only Democrats weren't doing the same thing in the future, Republicans wouldn't support this kind of thing today.

You see?
Click to expand...
Big increase in these arguments lately. 

"I guarantee that IF   this scenario I just envisioned was happening, then Dems would totally do this thing I made up, so clearly we cannot get upset that the GOP is actually doing this thing. "

 
Herb said:
Care to provide links to me constantly trashing threads with whataboutisms? I can supply you with dozens, if not hundreds of examples of you doing it.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about you and the rest of the 1/6 Hyperbole TeamTM propensity to always use, well, hyperbole and high-drama to describe EVERY situation.  :thumbup:

 
Sorry to interrupt discussions on the super important issue of Drag Queens, but you might be interested in hearing about how the former President’s lawyers are preparing to defend Trumps crimes.

Rolling Stone Article:

Trump’s Lawyers Are Preparing Legal Defenses Against Criminal Charges

According to internal communications reviewed by Rolling Stone, Trump’s team is “quietly” planning for criminal charges as they wait for the Justice Department to make its move

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

massraider
Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states
2 3
Replies
147
Views
4K
Roy L Fewks
R
the moops
60 Percent Of Americans Will Have An Election Denier On The Ballot This Fall
3 4 5
Replies
209
Views
7K
NorvilleBarnes
NorvilleBarnes
Joe Bryant
Election Deniers Are Bad, Right?
20 21 22
Replies
1K
Views
30K
knowledge dropper
knowledge dropper

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top