Jump to content

This time we've got him! No really we do. We're serious. Adam Schiff has all the evidence..


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Unfortunately you’re wrong. Her testimony doesn’t show whether he wanted to be with the crowd to stop them or urge them on. Since the ONLY words we have from the President were to March peacefully….we have to assume he was intent on stopping the violence.

The End

 

"March peacefully" were the last few words he said in public. Were you behind the scenes before and after?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

For the record, I think an incitement charge against Trump has a big hill to climb.

 

But to claim that simply saying "peacefully" negates any other context or history around his other words and actions is laughable. That would be a loophole so big as to allow criminals to run wild. "I want you to go deliver a message to that other gang, but do it peacefully..."

 

Ultimately, in the real world (not the fabulous world of criminal conspiracies being impossible to prosecute that you seem to think we live in), this would be up to a jury to decide. As I said, I am not confident they would decide it against Trump, but to dismiss it out of hand is ridiculous. 

 

It doesn't matter.  Again Kinzinger, speaking on behalf of the J6 farce, er, committee, said that telling people to break into the Capitol isn't a crime.  They have zero evidence he even did that.  And he's on videotape saying "peacefully and patriotically."  If they heard something different, that's on them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It doesn't matter.  Again Kinzinger, speaking on behalf of the J6 farce, er, committee, said that telling people to break into the Capitol isn't a crime.  They have zero evidence he even did that.  And he's on videotape saying "peacefully and patriotically."  If they heard something different, that's on them. 

 

Ah, gotcha. We should believe members of the committee when they say things we agree with, but they are a farce when they say something we disagree with?

 

As I've stated, I am skeptical that the DoJ would or could secure a guilty verdict of Trump on incitement. But they have shown plenty of evidence that he committed other crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Ah, gotcha. We should believe members of the committee when they say things we agree with, but they are a farce when they say something we disagree with?

 

As I've stated, I am skeptical that the DoJ would or could secure a guilty verdict of Trump on incitement. But they have shown plenty of evidence that he committed other crimes.

 

There's nothing to believe.  He actually said it, in defense of Ray Epps not being criminally charged.  And no one on the J6 sham, er, committee refuted him.  I would expect consistency even if Trump had told them to do it, which he did not.  Or I'd expect Epps to be put in jail immediately.  Kinzinger unwittingly FUBAR'd the whole thing before it ever began.

Edited by Doc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

There's nothing to believe.  He actually said it, in defense of Ray Epps not being criminally charged.  And no one on the J6 sham, er, committee refuted him.  I would expect consistency even if Trump had told them to do it, which he did not.  Or I'd expect Epps to be put in jail immediately.  Kinzinger unwittingly FUBAR'd the whole thing before it ever began.

 

This is some real tinfoil hat *****.

 

I have a golf course in Scotland I'm selling if you're interested...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

This is some real tinfoil hat *****.

 

I have a golf course in Scotland I'm selling if you're interested...

 

Tinfoil hat *****?  LOL.  OK Chi. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doc said:

 

Tinfoil hat *****?  LOL.  OK Chi. 

 

The Ray Epps stuff is dumb as ***** because even if it was true, Trump would still have committed crimes. It's just a distraction from people drinking from the right wing conspiracy fire hose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ChiGoose said:

The Ray Epps stuff is dumb as ***** because even if it was true, Trump would still have committed crimes. It's just a distraction from people drinking from the right wing conspiracy fire hose.

 

Hey, you can be naive if you want.  It's no skin off my nose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Let's see them.

 

Here ya go

 

Trump quote from around 51:45:

Quote

All we have to do, Cleta, is find 11,000-plus votes. So we don’t need that. I’m not looking to shake up the whole world. We won Georgia easily. We won it by hundreds of thousands of votes.

 

Around 1:01:17:

Quote

And the real truth is, I won by 400,000 votes. At least. That’s the real truth. But we don’t need 400,000 votes. We need less than 2,000 votes. And are you guys able to meet tomorrow, Ryan?

 

Here's the text of 52 U.S.C. 20511:

Quote

A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office—

     (1) knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for—

          (A) registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to register or vote;

          (B) urging or aiding any person to register to vote, to vote, or to attempt to register or vote; or

          (C) exercising any right under this chapter; or

     (2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—

          (A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or

          (B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,


shall be fined in accordance with title 18 (which fines shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31), notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

 

So we have Trump on the record saying he won by 400,000 votes but asking the Secretary of State of Georgia to just add about 11,000 votes because that's what he needs to win.

 

If Trump truly believed that he won by 400,000 votes, that is a crime.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

That's it?  But no charges because the DoJ is inept or too scared, is that right? :rolleyes:


Well there’s a grand jury in Georgia looking at it now. 
 

But I imagine that professionals would want to make sure they could absolutely prove their case before they make a Durham of themselves…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Here ya go

 

Trump quote from around 51:45:

 

Around 1:01:17:

 

Here's the text of 52 U.S.C. 20511:

 

So we have Trump on the record saying he won by 400,000 votes but asking the Secretary of State of Georgia to just add about 11,000 votes because that's what he needs to win.

 

If Trump truly believed that he won by 400,000 votes, that is a crime.

 


Wait so they could have charged him with an obvious felony almost two years ago and just haven’t gotten around to it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Over 29 years of fanhood said:


Wait so they could have charged him with an obvious felony almost two years ago and just haven’t gotten around to it? 


Maybe you should look into how prosecutions work…

 

Also, there is currently a grand jury in Georgia looking at this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...