Jump to content

Donald Trump is under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice


Recommended Posts

I don’t think there’s going to be enough to charge Trump over the false electors ruse. He no doubt egged on those who proposed the theory, but he had a sketch legal opinion from Eastman that he can fall back on. 
The strongest case I see is the intimidation of Georgia election officials — it’s worst moment was the “find me 11,000 votes” call. A problem we have here is the law needs to more clearly delineate the line between Trump the President and Trump the Candidate. A lot of what Trump was doing was in his capacity as Losing Candidate, and in that capacity he shouldn’t have any more right to urge/cajole/threaten election officials than any other candidate has. I do believe there’s a strong case there, but it may be that Georgia DAs (particularly Fulton Co.) are concerned that a charge brought during the course of some hotly contested other races could backfire on the other Democratic candidates. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 

 I think a lot of the pissing and moaning is the allegation that Trump suggested and "encouraged" replacing some electoral college representatives in states he lost with others that would override the voters choice and change their vote in the Electoral College. 

But in 2016 numerous Democratic officials went on the record suggesting the electors be pressured and coerced to change their votes to Hillary.  So how many of them got indicted, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced?  None.  Because 1) they were Democrats, 2) they were members of the political class, 3) they were members of the perpetual war uni-party.  I guess the logic is they did it, anything goes for them, and the rules and laws don't apply in the pursuit of "good".  Only the other guys need to follow the law.

This has been my line of thinking from the start.  Political people pay political games and get their base all riled up, but a 30 second google search reveals similar behavior that raised no red flags whatsoever.  
 

Still, Tibs has been very bold about citing criminal behavior but exceptionally timid providing details with anything beyond that.  In that regard, he’s Chicken Little. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I think we have enough evidence to charge several people close to Trump, and Trump himself, with conspiracy to defraud the United States. If a jury acquits him, then we *have* to accept that.

 

Whether or not Garland has the stones to actually do it, remains another question.


 Who can  *prove* he knew he lost and tried to change it???
 

like anyone who paid any attention to this tools behavior, I have zero doubt he himself believed and still believes he actually won. 

 

being delusional and saying stupid and irrational things isn’t a convict-able offense, otherwise BillStime and Tibs would be roommates at Leavenworth. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:


 Who can  *prove* he knew he lost and tried to change it???
 

like anyone who paid any attention to this tools behavior, I have zero doubt he himself believed and still believes he actually won. 

 

being delusional and saying stupid and irrational things isn’t a convict-able offense, otherwise BillStime and Tibs would be roommates at Leavenworth. 

 

Do you argue with Stop signs, too?

 

Trump went WAY beyond SAYING stupid and irrational things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:


 Who can  *prove* he knew he lost and tried to change it???
 

like anyone who paid any attention to this tools behavior, I have zero doubt he himself believed and still believes he actually won. 

 

being delusional and saying stupid and irrational things isn’t a convict-able offense, otherwise BillStime and Tibs would be roommates at Leavenworth. 

 

I agree that he is delusional and honestly believes that he won. That makes proving intent very difficult.

 

However, for conspiracy to defraud the United States, prosecutors can show evidence (that we have already seen) of advisors like Eastman telling him that their scheme was illegal and Trump deciding to move forward with it anyway. That's a pretty strong piece of evidence of intent to commit fraud, regardless of whether or not he believes he won the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I agree that he is delusional and honestly believes that he won. That makes proving intent very difficult.

 

However, for conspiracy to defraud the United States, prosecutors can show evidence (that we have already seen) of advisors like Eastman telling him that their scheme was illegal and Trump deciding to move forward with it anyway. That's a pretty strong piece of evidence of intent to commit fraud, regardless of whether or not he believes he won the election.


There is direct evidence of him knowingly directing clearly illegal activity? 
 

if so great, bring that to trial and lock him up. Enough with all the theatrics and this oscar winning level production “hearing” that’s costing tens of millions of dollars. And by the way making it nearly impossible to find an objective jury ever…. 

Edited by Over 29 years of fanhood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:


There is direct evidence of him knowingly directing clearly illegal activity? 
 

if so great, bring that to trail and lock him up. Enough with all the theatrics and this oscar winning level production “hearing” that’s costing tens of millions of dollars. 

 

The hearing is independent of the DOJ investigation.

 

The hearing will continue whether or not Trump goes to "trail."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:


There is direct evidence of him knowingly directing clearly illegal activity? 
 

if so great, bring that to trail and lock him up. Enough with all the theatrics and this oscar winning level production “hearing” that’s costing tens of millions of dollars. 

 

Mike Pence's counsel testified under oath that Eastman told Trump that the plan was illegal at a meeting.

 

Additionally, there is an email from Eastman stating that there is no legal support for the plan to have Pence reject certification.

 

https://time.com/6188491/john-eastman-jan-6-testimony-trump/

 

However, the decision to actually do anything about this lies with the DoJ, not the Jan 6 committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:


There is direct evidence of him knowingly directing clearly illegal activity? 
 

if so great, bring that to trial and lock him up. Enough with all the theatrics and this oscar winning level production “hearing” that’s costing tens of millions of dollars. And by the way making it nearly impossible to find an objective jury ever…. 


Recurring theme w the cult:

 

STOP REMINDING US OF OUR BAD CHOICE IN 2016 AND 2020.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Mike Pence's counsel testified under oath that Eastman told Trump that the plan was illegal at a meeting.

 

Additionally, there is an email from Eastman stating that there is no legal support for the plan to have Pence reject certification.

 

https://time.com/6188491/john-eastman-jan-6-testimony-trump/

 

However, the decision to actually do anything about this lies with the DoJ, not the Jan 6 committee.

Right, wouldn’t you rather see a proper Doj process etc than the dog and pony show? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

Nothing will come of this. He has been under investigation for years.

 

Here is the deal, if they charge Trump and he goes to prison or is not allowed to run for office, this country will destroy itself.

 

Things will not go well if they indict and open up the possibility of an actual defense and all that comes with it. It's the same reason they are denying due process to the DC gulag prisoners. If those go to trial before the midterms, the defense will introduce all the evidence that's  inconvenient for the sham committee. 

 

Can't have that.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...