Trump Jan 6 sealed indictment delivered

138,019 Views | 1457 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by will25u
Claverack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Turley and McCarthy weigh in...

Turley...


Quote:

"[url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-special-counsel-dueling-grand-juries-questions-dont-want-try-him-florida][Smith] may be stretching[/url] the law a bit, so that's why we're going to be looking at things like witness tampering to see how much new evidence he has," Turley said. "You'll notice that not being discussed in all of this is a conspiracy for incitement [or] seditious conspiracy."

He noted those two claims were paramount in Rep. Adam Schiff's, D-Calif., second impeachment proceedings against Trump.

"Those were the claims that Democrats said were lead pipe cinches, where the evidence was absolutely clear," he said. "They do not appear thus far to be in this indictment, but we'll have to see."

"Jack Smith has a reputation for stretching criminal statutes beyond the breaking point. He went after [former Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell] and secured a conviction there. He was unanimously overturned because he just stretched the law too far."

Another Weissmann. Another Comey. Another tool of the Democrat regime.

McCarthy...


Quote:

McCarthy referenced how some Trump acolytes pressed him on the theory, which could be connected to the conspiracy count in the indictment, but suggested that no matter how "frivolous," such machinations are likely protected speech.

"I think it's even beyond that. I think there you get into this whole idea of criminalizing a frivolous legal theory," McCarthy said, naming Trump-friendly attorney John Eastman, who forwarded the electoral slate theory.

Eastman reportedly pressed for certain states to appoint "alternate" elector slates that would help resolve disputed slates presented to Pence as president of the Senate at the time of the January 6 tally.

"Eastman's theory may have been a bad one. I think it was a bad one, but it was something that he was allowed to rely on," McCarthy said.

"And generally speaking, in this country, what we do with frivolous legal theories is we figure that the jury system will take care of it or the political system will. We don't criminalize them. And that's what this indictment attempts to do."

McCarthy also said that connecting Trump to incitement, as Smith reportedly does, would be "low rent stuff that prosecutors are not supposed to do."


So this goes beyond Trump. The Democrats and their toadies in the unelected bureaucracy are attempting to criminalize speech they deem unacceptable.

pacecar02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This will only strengthen Trump

Those charges read like "how dare you challenge our carefully crafted narrative"

Everything must stand the riggers of challenge and be borne out. Challenges mustn't be criminalized. Scrutiny ought be welcomed.

If this becomes precident we are doomed

aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

So this goes beyond Trump. The Democrats and their toadies in the unelected bureaucracy are attempting to criminalize speech they deem unacceptable.
Turley understood that long before McCarthy did.

Now, that msy be becauseTurley is lokking at it from a defense POV and McCarthy is looking froma prosecution POV. But whe McCarthy is sayin Jack Smith is FOS?

ETA: Sorry my eyes are bad.
johnnyblaze36
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stlkofta said:

Politically-motivated indictments designed to protect a known pedophile in the White House who has been caught red-handed putting American foreign policy up for sale to the highest bidder.

Wonder how many indictments Trump will receive when we find out Joe Biden was on the take from the Taliban?

If Trump had the (D) after the last character of his surname, then none of these indictments would ever have reached the draft stage.

The Republican Party controls the budget process. Time to punish those responsible to turning this nation into an Orwellian nightmare by forcing them to do without a good number of their fellow brownshirts.

If McCarthy and his pals will not fight this fire with a flamethrower of their own, then one must wonder why they are worth voting for in the first place.

Are you an opposition party? Or are you just there for the steaks at the Capital Grille?







This whole post was glorious, not just the bolded part.



Claverack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

So this goes beyond Trump. The Democrats and their toadies in the unelected bureaucracy are attempting to criminalize speech they deem unacceptable.
Turley understood that long before McCarthy did.

Now, that msy be becauseTurley is lokking at it from a defense POV and McCarthy is looking froma prosecution POV. But whe McCarthy is sayin Jack Smith is FOS?

ETA: Sorry my eyes are bad.
No problem. I went past the 50 zone myself a few years back and the eyes go downhill when it comes to reading.

McCarthy has issues with Trump. But I like his analysis.

You have a right to be wrong on an issue in this nation. You have a right to put forward a theory that may well be wrong. You also have the right to make statements and offer analyses that are completely correct.

The Democrats want to criminalize all of it, whether it is right or wrong.

Banana Republic? It goes beyond that. This is straight up Stalinism, something that should horrify us all.

Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?

"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
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wow.
Ags77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Question for the Trump supporters. I know yall think these indictments are bs, and he didn't do anything wrong. If you are right, and he is found not guilty in Florida, Washington DC, Georgia, and New York then so be it. The juries have spoken. If that happens, there is NO DOUBT he will be the republican nominee. ( hate typing that but he is way out front). We will then see if he can beat Biden. Maybe he can and if he does good on him. But I have my doubts he can win the general.

But what if he is CONVICTED in one of those 4 venues ? Will yall still want him as the nominee ? Will you say it was rigged, they cheated, or whatever Trump comes up with if he is convicted.

Would that be the time to turn to DeSantis ? Wouldn't it be an opportunity to turn to a young disciplined candidate with no legal problems ?

DeSantis 2024
Claverack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They don't even try hiding their corruption any more.

McCarthy cannot play this like Cry Baby Boehner. Time to take EOP to the woodshed.

Make them pay for this with what you have in your arsenal. That is the only thing that might force a rethink from these lunatics.







Gigem314
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Even DeSantis thinks the charges against Trump are bogus and full of corruption. He doesn't share the opinion of you Biden voters who think everything being brought against Trump is legit while the Bidens avoiding any prosecution clearly means justice is prevailing.
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rapier108 said:



Recuse....LOL they never do
Ags77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gigem314 said:

Even DeSantis thinks the charges against Trump are bogus and full of corruption. He doesn't share the opinion of you Biden voters who think everything being brought against Trump is legit while the Bidens avoiding any prosecution clearly means justice is prevailing.


But that doesn't address my question. Assuming you, DeSantis, and many others think it's not legit, if a jury convicts him in any of these cases, is it time to turn to DeSantis ? A young talented disciplined candidate with no legal issues ?

DeSantis 2024
AggieMD95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
All these indictments amount to election interference pure n simple
Gigem314
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ags77 said:

Gigem314 said:

Even DeSantis thinks the charges against Trump are bogus and full of corruption. He doesn't share the opinion of you Biden voters who think everything being brought against Trump is legit while the Bidens avoiding any prosecution clearly means justice is prevailing.


But that doesn't address my question. Assuming you, DeSantis, and many others think it's not legit, if a jury convicts him in any of these cases, is it time to turn to DeSantis ? A young talented disciplined candidate with no legal issues ?
DeSantis is my #1 choice and would be regardless of the charges against Trump. At the same time I can also acknowledge the mistrust in our current hyper partisan government that people like you voted in gleefully.
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ags77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gigem314 said:

Ags77 said:

Gigem314 said:

Even DeSantis thinks the charges against Trump are bogus and full of corruption. He doesn't share the opinion of you Biden voters who think everything being brought against Trump is legit while the Bidens avoiding any prosecution clearly means justice is prevailing.


But that doesn't address my question. Assuming you, DeSantis, and many others think it's not legit, if a jury convicts him in any of these cases, is it time to turn to DeSantis ? A young talented disciplined candidate with no legal issues ?
DeSantis is my #1 choice and would be regardless of the charges against Trump. At the same time I can also acknowledge the mistrust in our current hyper partisan government that people like you voted in gleefully.


Ok.... so I know YOU are behind DeSantis in 2024, but I asked the Trump supporters. If Trump is convicted and gets a sentence with no prison, would those supporters get behind DeSantis.

DeSantis 2024
Claverack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ags77 said:

Gigem314 said:

Even DeSantis thinks the charges against Trump are bogus and full of corruption. He doesn't share the opinion of you Biden voters who think everything being brought against Trump is legit while the Bidens avoiding any prosecution clearly means justice is prevailing.


But that doesn't address my question. Assuming you, DeSantis, and many others think it's not legit, if a jury convicts him in any of these cases, is it time to turn to DeSantis ? A young talented disciplined candidate with no legal issues ?

DeSantis 2024
Voting for DeSantis in the primary. He will make a great President should he receive the nomination.

If I were voting for Trump, then any conviction on these ridiculous charges would only strengthen my resolve to vote for him in the primary.

As Turley and McCarthy both stated, these indictments are the sort of legal stretches that have gotten Smith slapped around in the past. Much like Comey, Weissmann and Strzoker Ace, he is a man who doesn't operate within a concept embracing ethical restraint.

What is being visited upon Trump now, and what was visited upon him from the moment he became President-elect years ago, will be done to the next Republican President in an attempt to control them.

This is not something we should support. This is something we all should be encouraging our supposed opposition party to fight against.

Muy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We are watching an actual insurrection from the inside, in plain sight, daily.
Ags77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stlkofta said:

Ags77 said:

Gigem314 said:

Even DeSantis thinks the charges against Trump are bogus and full of corruption. He doesn't share the opinion of you Biden voters who think everything being brought against Trump is legit while the Bidens avoiding any prosecution clearly means justice is prevailing.


But that doesn't address my question. Assuming you, DeSantis, and many others think it's not legit, if a jury convicts him in any of these cases, is it time to turn to DeSantis ? A young talented disciplined candidate with no legal issues ?

DeSantis 2024
Voting for DeSantis in the primary. He will make a great President should he receive the nomination.

If I were voting for Trump, then any conviction on these ridiculous charges would only strengthen my resolve to vote for him in the primary.

As Turley and McCarthy both stated, these indictments are the sort of legal stretches that have gotten Smith slapped around in the past. Much like Comey, Weissmann and Strzoker Ace, he is a man who doesn't operate within a concept embracing ethical restraint.

What is being visited upon Trump now, and what was visited upon him from the moment he became President-elect years ago, will be done to the next Republican President in an attempt to control them.

This is not something we should support. This is something we all should be encouraging our supposed opposition party to fight against.




Thanks for answering... even though you too are a DeSantis 2024 guy. I think you might have captured what the Trump supporters might do

DeSantis 2024
FriscoKid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

FriscoKid said:

It could not be more clear on crime vs crime depending on which side you vote for. I'm still sunned that a lawyer started this thread. Apply the law equally or we are done as a country.
GeorgiaAg? LOL. He MAY be licensed but he practices in a niche area of law, like public utilities or some sort.

Not a trial attorney. Not an appellate attorney. Certainly not an election law attorney. (I did the first two but then I actually worked as a lawyer.)

Had some friends who ended up being corporate attorneys. They never stepped foot in a court room. They "did lunch" and the "cocktails" and then "dinner."

Rainmakers have a purpose. Why Boies Schiller put him on the mast head but never expected him to actually work. His value was bringing clients because of who he was.

Acually common. In DC? Standard. It is not like David Boies was such a great attorney. He sucked during the Bush v. Gore cases. Awful.


I'm trying not to get banned again in the largest virtual gathering of Aggies, but this is a great post. I wish OP would come back and argue his case (again in the free and public Aggie square of opinion)

How in the hell does someone criminalize free speech and ignore more than 20 million in bribe money?
ArcticPenguin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't expect the vast majority of F16 posters to be appropriately alarmed at these indictments or to look at the actual facts. That is no surprise. I am sincerely looking forward to the aggiehawg thread on the trial and hope most on here actually watch it and the evidence presented - that includes myself.

Let's have him go through due process and see where the admissible evidence leads/shows. I thought Rittenhouse was not guiltily based on the evidence, but I also thought Murdaugh's case wasn't proved either. I am going to watch and see, but the indictments are alarming, and the crimes, if proven.
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Communistic style politics by the democrats. To deny it is to lie to yourself. If this activity makes you happy, take a long hard look in the mirror.
FriscoKid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ArcticPenguin said:

I don't expect the vast majority of F16 posters to be appropriately alarmed at these indictments or to look at the actual facts. That is no surprise. I am sincerely looking forward to the aggiehawg thread on the trial and hope most on here actually watch it and the evidence presented - that includes myself.

Let's have him go through due process and see where the admissible evidence leads/shows. I thought Rittenhouse was not guiltily based on the evidence, but I also thought Murdaugh's case wasn't proved either. I am going to watch and see, but the indictments are alarming, and the crimes, if proven.

Let's have Biden go through a trial of taking bribes for political favors or Trump disputing the vote counting? What trial are we talking about and how are the kids?
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Proc92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm sure he will get a fair and impartial jury and straight shooting judge in that dc courtroom.
oh no
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Muy said:

We are watching an actual insurrection from the inside, in plain sight, daily.
I'm afraid the bloodless Bolshevik revolution already happened circa 2009-2017. The party that used to stand strongest for liberalism, open mindedness, expression of differing viewpoints, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press to hold big government and big businesses accountable and transparent to the people now opposes all of those things vehemently. They have commandeered the press and it's ability to program the masses as it wishes and they own a cabal of billionaire tech platform monopoly founders as well as global conglomerates and financial institutions. They are 100% in alignment with permanent government bureaucracies in justice, intelligence and counterintelligence who have amassed far too much permanent power. They have been interfering and rigging our elections and they are imprisoning political opposition in broad daylight. The republicans' former role of exiting only to attempt to slow the roll of socialist takeover is gone. It's a one-party Marxist regime now and the opposition- anti-communists and anti-socialists who still believe in far right wing extremist things like hard work, merit, and the American dream in a land of opportunity- are political enemies of the state.
GMaster0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Reading the indictment is wild. At one point, Trump called the AG and deputy AG and tried to get them to override the election for them, then told them to just declare it to be fraudulent and then let him and the republican congressman handle it.

He did this twice, and on the second time threatened to fire the AG for not agreeing. He then attempted to replace him with one of the co-conspirators, twice. He first sent the coconspirator to fire the AG, who rejected the attempt, then in a meeting with the AG and the co-conspirator, Trump tried to fire him and stopped when he was told the DoJ would see mass resignations if he did.

He and his co conspirators were outlining the crimes to each other in emails and texts, and talking about it in front of witnesses who weren't even really in on it.
IMnAg79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://rumble.com/v33zmbp-its-okay-when-we-do-it-10-minutes-of-democrats-denying-election-results.html
TheCurl84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Malibu said:

I wont be following this post up with any others.

Trump lost an election, claimed fraud without proof both before and after the election, and tried to stay in power by getting fake electoral voters and pressuring Mike Pence to join in on the sham. Thats actual banana republic autocratic nonsense that should anger every American. Yet here we are on F16 with the defenders saying that Trump did nothing wrong. I'm satisfied he's being held accountable for his attempts to stay in power. Flame away.



Willful blindness.
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GMaster0 said:

Reading the indictment is wild. At one point, Trump called the AG and deputy AG and tried to get them to override the election for them, then told them to just declare it to be fraudulent and then let him and the republican congressman handle it.

He did this twice, and on the second time threatened to fire the AG for not agreeing. He then attempted to replace him with one of the co-conspirators, twice. He first sent the coconspirator to fire the AG, who rejected the attempt, then in a meeting with the AG and the co-conspirator, Trump tried to fire him and stopped when he was told the DoJ would see mass resignations if he did.

He and his co conspirators were outlining the crimes to each other in emails and texts, and talking about it in front of witnesses who weren't even really in on it.
That sounds really scary. Almost as bad as that time he grabbed the steering wheel
HarryJ33tamu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Now do Biden using his crackhead pedophile son to accept tens of millions of dollars in bribes from our adversaries
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheCurl84 said:

Malibu said:

I wont be following this post up with any others.

Trump lost an election, claimed fraud without proof both before and after the election, and tried to stay in power by getting fake electoral voters and pressuring Mike Pence to join in on the sham. Thats actual banana republic autocratic nonsense that should anger every American. Yet here we are on F16 with the defenders saying that Trump did nothing wrong. I'm satisfied he's being held accountable for his attempts to stay in power. Flame away.



Willful blindness.
Were you as scared for Democracy when Hillary did something similar?
ArcticPenguin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FriscoKid said:

ArcticPenguin said:

I don't expect the vast majority of F16 posters to be appropriately alarmed at these indictments or to look at the actual facts. That is no surprise. I am sincerely looking forward to the aggiehawg thread on the trial and hope most on here actually watch it and the evidence presented - that includes myself.

Let's have him go through due process and see where the admissible evidence leads/shows. I thought Rittenhouse was not guiltily based on the evidence, but I also thought Murdaugh's case wasn't proved either. I am going to watch and see, but the indictments are alarming, and the crimes, if proven.

Let's have Biden go through a trial of taking bribes for political favors or Trump disputing the vote counting? What trial are we talking about and how are the kids?
If you think I am going to say no to this you are wrong. If there is the evidence to indict, no one, especially the Commander In Chief is above the law.
the_batman26
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can we develop some repeated catchphrase *other* than "no one is above the law"?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.