Trump Jan 6 sealed indictment delivered

96,228 Views | 1238 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by aggiehawg
Gigem314
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BluHorseShu • 3:15p, 8/3/23
AG
BluHorseShu said:
Gigem314 said:
Quote:
Sounds like he'll need it at the rate he's digging into PAC funds to pay his legal bills. I'm just surprised he's paying his bills
It's the Biden family that doesn't pay their bills...or taxes.
Okay, I agree. But neither does Trump. Its really funny that the immediate response for any dig at Trump is 'But Biden'. We all are well aware of Bidens faults. Isn't it a given on here? Who has ever actually defended Biden in F16?
If Trump or his family didn't pay their taxes, it would have been front page news over the past 6 years. Why does every criticism of Biden to be followed up with "But but but...Trump does it too!!!"? It's just lazy. Biden has actually done many of the things Trump has been accused of...like colluding with a foreign govt, taking bribes, spying on political opponents, prosecuting political opponents, etc.

GeorgiAg has been all over this board defending Biden and downplaying the Archer testimony, among others. You must not look very closely. There are plenty of Biden goal tenders on here.
Reply Quote
3
WHOOP!'91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oh no • 3:19p, 8/3/23
AG
oh no said:
facts really don't matter when you already have the judge and jury in the bag and you have a populist anti-marxist movement to stamp out.
Right? Some record, this judge. Donated to both Obama campaigns before appointed to bench, Ruled against Trump for several issues, jailed J6 protesters LONGER than requested by the DOJ, now this.

But our Marxists and neverTrump allies will be saying how fair this judge and DC jury are...give me a break.
Reply Quote
2
usmcbrooks
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BluHorseShu • 3:23p, 8/3/23
BluHorseShu said:
Gigem314 said:
Quote:
Sounds like he'll need it at the rate he's digging into PAC funds to pay his legal bills. I'm just surprised he's paying his bills
It's the Biden family that doesn't pay their bills...or taxes.
Okay, I agree. But neither does Trump. Its really funny that the immediate response for any dig at Trump is 'But Biden'. We all are well aware of Bidens faults. Isn't it a given on here? Who has ever actually defended Biden in F16?
Reply Quote
4
Gigem314
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to usmcbrooks • 3:28p, 8/3/23
AG
He's also saying Jack Smith is a conservative and just doing his job by indicting Trump.

So no, he's not being serious. It's pretend ignorance.
Reply Quote
2
jja79
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:31p, 8/3/23
AG
I was in a restaurant tuned to CBS as Trump went into the courthouse and their "experts" had glassed over looks in their eyes and might as well have had a noose.
Reply Quote
2
Watermelon Man
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gigem314 • 3:50p, 8/3/23
Gigem314 said:
Quote:
Sounds like he'll need it at the rate he's digging into PAC funds to pay his legal bills. I'm just surprised he's paying his bills
It's the Biden family that doesn't pay their bills...or taxes.
You've got to be kidding.
It is much easier to fool someone than it is to convince someone that he has been fooled.
Reply Quote
1
jrdaustin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:56p, 8/3/23
AG
Oh, Lord. You actually want to hide behind a Bragg conviction of a Trump company in NY on not reporting executive perks? And compare that in any rational way to Tax evasion of millions of dollars of income from foreign sources for influence peddling?

That's Torbush 'wow' stuff right there....
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 4:01p, 8/3/23
AG
will25u said:
I am sure you know this, but PopeHat is pretty biased toward democrats. And is a big hater of Donald Trump.
I figured that he was.

That's why I said that I would like to see a completely unbiased analysis of the statutes and case law. I doubt that we get this, though.

So instead, we get a lot of blathering by people who might as well be trying to read tea leaves in the bottom of a cup. The best we can do is see what claims are being made by those on each side of the issue.

Remember the words by Carl Sandburg: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell"

It seems to me that Trump and his glee club are doing little more than pounding the table and yelling like hell. Does that mean that both the law and the facts are against them?
Reply Quote
2
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:03p, 8/3/23
This is weird:


I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
jrdaustin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 4:05p, 8/3/23
AG
eric76 said:
will25u said:
I am sure you know this, but PopeHat is pretty biased toward democrats. And is a big hater of Donald Trump.
I figured that he was.

That's why I said that I would like to see a completely unbiased analysis of the statutes and case law. I doubt that we get this, though.

So instead, we get a lot of blathering by people who might as well be trying to read tea leaves in the bottom of a cup. The best we can do is see what claims are being made by those on each side of the issue.

Remember the words by Carl Sandburg: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell"

It seems to me that Trump and his glee club are doing little more than pounding the table and yelling like hell. Does that mean that both the law and the facts are against them?
I've heard reasoned analysis by Turley, Dersh, Levin and others that are driving Mack Trucks through that indictment. From what I'm gathering, there is no case law, due to the "creative" nature of this indictment. In fact, all three have stated that the indictment bears similarities to the one that Smith was reversed on 9-0 by SCOTUS.

Furthermore, Turley and Dersh are far from Trump's glee club. They both lean left.

Nice try, though.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
oh no
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 4:11p, 8/3/23
AG
Im Gipper said:
This is weird:

why is Randy Moss a judge?
Reply Quote
2
dmart90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 4:12p, 8/3/23
AG
Im Gipper said:
This is weird:


Why is that weird? A former president is being indicted. Pretty rare occurrence...
Reply Quote
3
oh no
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dmart90 • 4:14p, 8/3/23
AG
dmart90 said:
Im Gipper said:
This is weird:


Why is that weird? A former president is being indicted. Pretty rare occurrence...
rare occurrence is becoming a common occurrence for one former president and the Maoists couldn't be more excited about it.
Reply Quote
4
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jrdaustin • 4:30p, 8/3/23
AG
jrdaustin said:
eric76 said:
will25u said:
I am sure you know this, but PopeHat is pretty biased toward democrats. And is a big hater of Donald Trump.
I figured that he was.

That's why I said that I would like to see a completely unbiased analysis of the statutes and case law. I doubt that we get this, though.

So instead, we get a lot of blathering by people who might as well be trying to read tea leaves in the bottom of a cup. The best we can do is see what claims are being made by those on each side of the issue.

Remember the words by Carl Sandburg: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell"

It seems to me that Trump and his glee club are doing little more than pounding the table and yelling like hell. Does that mean that both the law and the facts are against them?
I've heard reasoned analysis by Turley, Dersh, Levin and others that are driving Mack Trucks through that indictment. From what I'm gathering, there is no case law, due to the "creative" nature of this indictment. In fact, all three have stated that the indictment bears similarities to the one that Smith was reversed on 9-0 by SCOTUS.

Furthermore, Turley and Dersh are far from Trump's glee club. They both lean left.

Nice try, though.
Cites?
Reply Quote
1
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 4:35p, 8/3/23
AG
Im Gipper said:
This is weird:

Hmm. Maybe Chutkan will recuse or be booted from the case? And they assume one of them will get the case?

Just a WAG.
Reply Quote
2
Gigem314
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Watermelon Man • 4:39p, 8/3/23
AG
Watermelon Man said:
Gigem314 said:
Quote:
Sounds like he'll need it at the rate he's digging into PAC funds to pay his legal bills. I'm just surprised he's paying his bills
It's the Biden family that doesn't pay their bills...or taxes.
You've got to be kidding.
You must have missed this part:
Quote:
The 45th president and his children are not charged in the case.
I was told we should assume innocence if no charges are brought, just as we've seen with the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 4:40p, 8/3/23
A magistrate handles the hearing, so no reason for the assigned judge to be there, let alone judges not even on the case!

This is supposed to be some show of force is only reason to be there. Weird & not appropriate!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
3
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 5:05p, 8/3/23
AG
Im Gipper said:
A magistrate handles the hearing, so no reason for the assigned judge to be there, let alone judges not even on the case!

This is supposed to be some show of force is only reason to be there. Weird & not appropriate!
Oh I know Chutkan was not there and it was a magistrate but still wonder what the courthouse scuttlebut is about this case that would entice those judges to take time out of their busy dockets to basically rubberneck in the back of the courtroom.
Reply Quote
2
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Watermelon Man • 5:24p, 8/3/23
Watermelon Man said:
Gigem314 said:
Quote:
Sounds like he'll need it at the rate he's digging into PAC funds to pay his legal bills. I'm just surprised he's paying his bills
It's the Biden family that doesn't pay their bills...or taxes.
You've got to be kidding.
No, he is quite serious. They don't.
Reply Quote
3
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 5:25p, 8/3/23
Im Gipper said:
This is weird:

This is what a banana republic looks like. It is intimidation.
Reply Quote
3
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:30p, 8/3/23
All three are Obama judges.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
3
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 5:35p, 8/3/23
AG
Quote:
This is what a banana republic looks like. It is intimidation.
If they were in street clothes, maybe not. But if they were in their robes? Different question altogether.
Reply Quote
1
jrdaustin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 5:42p, 8/3/23
AG
eric76 said:
jrdaustin said:
eric76 said:
will25u said:
I am sure you know this, but PopeHat is pretty biased toward democrats. And is a big hater of Donald Trump.
I figured that he was.

That's why I said that I would like to see a completely unbiased analysis of the statutes and case law. I doubt that we get this, though.

So instead, we get a lot of blathering by people who might as well be trying to read tea leaves in the bottom of a cup. The best we can do is see what claims are being made by those on each side of the issue.

Remember the words by Carl Sandburg: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell"

It seems to me that Trump and his glee club are doing little more than pounding the table and yelling like hell. Does that mean that both the law and the facts are against them?
I've heard reasoned analysis by Turley, Dersh, Levin and others that are driving Mack Trucks through that indictment. From what I'm gathering, there is no case law, due to the "creative" nature of this indictment. In fact, all three have stated that the indictment bears similarities to the one that Smith was reversed on 9-0 by SCOTUS.

Furthermore, Turley and Dersh are far from Trump's glee club. They both lean left.

Nice try, though.
Cites?
Really? Take 2 seconds and Google "Turley & Indictment". Multiple articles. If you like, search "Turley & Haiku" as well.
If you can stomach it, listen to Glenn Beck's yesterday podcast (on Pandora, or wherever else you get your podcasts) where he interviews Dersh.
And Levin has hours of discussion on it as he has a daily show available by podcast as well.

This isn't hard.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Watermelon Man
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gigem314 • 5:42p, 8/3/23
Gigem314 said:
Watermelon Man said:
Gigem314 said:
Quote:
Sounds like he'll need it at the rate he's digging into PAC funds to pay his legal bills. I'm just surprised he's paying his bills
It's the Biden family that doesn't pay their bills...or taxes.
You've got to be kidding.
You must have missed this part:
Quote:
The 45th president and his children are not charged in the case.
I was told we should assume innocence if no charges are brought, just as we've seen with the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens.
Well, if you are going to assume innocence if no charges are brought, how can you assume Biden is guilty? Oh, yeah, he's a Democrat. That's his crime. Not political at all.
It is much easier to fool someone than it is to convince someone that he has been fooled.
Reply Quote
1
jrdaustin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Watermelon Man • 5:47p, 8/3/23
AG
Watermelon Man said:
Gigem314 said:
Watermelon Man said:
Gigem314 said:
Quote:
Sounds like he'll need it at the rate he's digging into PAC funds to pay his legal bills. I'm just surprised he's paying his bills
It's the Biden family that doesn't pay their bills...or taxes.
You've got to be kidding.
You must have missed this part:
Quote:
The 45th president and his children are not charged in the case.
I was told we should assume innocence if no charges are brought, just as we've seen with the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens.
Well, if you are going to assume innocence if no charges are brought, how can you assume Biden is guilty? Oh, yeah, he's a Democrat. That's his crime. Not political at all.
Joke/Ironic Point
.
.
.
.
.
.
Your Head
Reply Quote
3
Gigem314
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Watermelon Man • 5:57p, 8/3/23
AG
Watermelon Man said:
Gigem314 said:
Watermelon Man said:
Gigem314 said:
Quote:
Sounds like he'll need it at the rate he's digging into PAC funds to pay his legal bills. I'm just surprised he's paying his bills
It's the Biden family that doesn't pay their bills...or taxes.
You've got to be kidding.
You must have missed this part:
Quote:
The 45th president and his children are not charged in the case.
I was told we should assume innocence if no charges are brought, just as we've seen with the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens.
Well, if you are going to assume innocence if no charges are brought, how can you assume Biden is guilty? Oh, yeah, he's a Democrat. That's his crime. Not political at all.
I don't assume Biden is guilty. I just assume he is a delusional fool, like those who voted for him and goal tend for his horrible policies.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:17p, 8/3/23
Reply Quote
2
oysterbayAG
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:17p, 8/3/23
AG
It seems that the entire indictment is based solely on Trump's INTENT, which should be impossible to determine, but a rabid, biased Democrat Judge that hates Trump and a Jury of Left Wing Democrats from DC will be tasked th determine Trump's INTENT. You would have to have the IQ of a dog to think that is fair !
Reply Quote
5
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 6:30p, 8/3/23
Quote:


In it's rules governing Electoral Counts, Deschler dictates what to do when a State sends TWO slates of Electors.


Hate to break it to "truth ninja", but no state sent two slates of electors.
Reply Quote
6
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:06p, 8/3/23
AG


Jack Smith lied...again.
Reply Quote
4
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jrdaustin • 7:48p, 8/3/23
AG
jrdaustin said:
eric76 said:
jrdaustin said:
eric76 said:
will25u said:
I am sure you know this, but PopeHat is pretty biased toward democrats. And is a big hater of Donald Trump.
I figured that he was.

That's why I said that I would like to see a completely unbiased analysis of the statutes and case law. I doubt that we get this, though.

So instead, we get a lot of blathering by people who might as well be trying to read tea leaves in the bottom of a cup. The best we can do is see what claims are being made by those on each side of the issue.

Remember the words by Carl Sandburg: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell"

It seems to me that Trump and his glee club are doing little more than pounding the table and yelling like hell. Does that mean that both the law and the facts are against them?
I've heard reasoned analysis by Turley, Dersh, Levin and others that are driving Mack Trucks through that indictment. From what I'm gathering, there is no case law, due to the "creative" nature of this indictment. In fact, all three have stated that the indictment bears similarities to the one that Smith was reversed on 9-0 by SCOTUS.

Furthermore, Turley and Dersh are far from Trump's glee club. They both lean left.

Nice try, though.
Cites?
Really? Take 2 seconds and Google "Turley & Indictment". Multiple articles. If you like, search "Turley & Haiku" as well.
If you can stomach it, listen to Glenn Beck's yesterday podcast (on Pandora, or wherever else you get your podcasts) where he interviews Dersh.
And Levin has hours of discussion on it as he has a daily show available by podcast as well.

This isn't hard.
It's not hard to find them making public pronouncements. Where is this analysis of the statutory and case law?
Reply Quote
2
FTA 2001
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 8:10p, 8/3/23
aggiehawg said:


Jack Smith lied...again.


The indictment makes clear that Trump is being indicted for his actions not his speech.
Reply Quote
3
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTA 2001 • 8:54p, 8/3/23
FTA 2001 said:
aggiehawg said:


Jack Smith lied...again.


The indictment makes clear that Trump is being indicted for his actions not his speech.
They make clear that the Republic is in grave danger because one entire party has lost its moral compass.
Reply Quote
4
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:02p, 8/3/23
Reply Quote
4
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:06p, 8/3/23
This is all about destroying the election for republicans. It is pure evil.
Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.