Potential Federal Charges Against Former President Donald Trump "and others" regarding the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol

[abc3643]

About This MyTake

Today (M 19 DEC 2022), former US President Donald Trump became the first former US President to be referred to the US Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

Per The New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/us/politics/jan-6-trump-criminal-justice-dept.html

===================

Jan. 6 Panel Accuses Trump of Insurrection and Refers Him to Justice Dept.
The committee also accused the former president of three other federal crimes, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. Five Trump allies were referred as well.

By Luke Broadwater

Dec. 19, 2022

WASHINGTON — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol accused former President Donald J. Trump on Monday of inciting insurrection, conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an act of Congress and one other federal crime as it referred him to the Justice Department for potential prosecution.

The action, the first time in American history that Congress has referred a former president for criminal prosecution, is the coda to the committee’s 18-month investigation into Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election that culminated in a violent mob of the former president’s supporters laying siege to the Capitol.

The criminal referrals were a major escalation for a congressional investigation that is the most significant in a generation. The panel named five other Trump allies — Mark Meadows, his final chief of staff, and the lawyers Rudolph W. Giuliani, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark and Kenneth Chesebro — as potential co-conspirators with Mr. Trump in actions the committee said warranted Justice Department investigation. The charges, including a fourth for Mr. Trump of conspiracy to make a false statement, would carry prison sentences, some of them lengthy, if federal prosecutors chose to pursue them.

The committee’s referrals do not carry legal weight or compel any action by the Justice Department, which is conducting its own investigation into Jan. 6 and the actions of Mr. Trump and his allies leading up to the attack. But the referrals sent a powerful signal that a bipartisan committee of Congress believes the former president committed crimes.

===================

The purpose of this MyTake is as a public service:
To explain to you - many of whom are not Americans - how US Federal law is enforced and what charges these men MAY face, should the US Justice Department choose to prosecute.

The United States Code and the Department of Justice

The United States Code

In the law of the United States, the Code of Laws of the United States of America is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes. Informally, this is called "The United States Code" or "The US Code".

The United States Code can be found at the House of Representatives website:

https://uscode.house.gov/

although, a better resource is The Legal Information Institute, part of the Cornell University School of Law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode

US Code statutes are identified by a shorthand notation using the Title number, "US Code" or "USC", and the section number(s). This symbol, §, means "Section". This symbol, §§, means "Sections".

The Department of Justice

In the United States, the Department of Justice, which is under the Executive Branch, is that part of the Federal Government that investigates and prosecutes crimes against the United States. The head of the Justice Department ("The DOJ")is the Attorney General (Merrick Garland) who is informally known as "The Nation's Top Cop". When the DOJ prosecutes someone, the person is charged with violating some part of the US Code under Title 18, Part I - Crimes.

The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol

Here in the United States, Congress has committees that specialize in the various areas of government and society. Sometimes, a temporary "Select Committee" is created to investigate certain events. One such select committee is "The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol".

This is the Select Committee's website:
https://january6th.house.gov/

Soon, the Select Committee is about to end after issuing its final report to the House (and the public).

However, on Monday 19 DEC 2022 at 1 PM Eastern Standard Time, the Select Committee held a business meeting.

You can watch that business meeting on YouTube; it is about 90 minutes long although the first 15 minutes and 52 seconds are wasted with a title card.

Related to today's business meeting, the Select Committee released the document "Introductory Material to the Final Report of the Select Committee".

That document is 154 pages long and can be found here in PDF form with a viewer:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23466415-introductory-material-to-the-final-report-of-the-select-committee

or as a PDF file:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23466415/introductory-material-to-the-final-report-of-the-select-committee.pdf

but, you can read an executive summary here:
https://january6th.house.gov/report-executive-summary

"The Committee believes sufficient evidence exists for a criminal referral of President Trump and others under this statute..."

In the Select Committee's document, "Introductory Material to the Final Report of the Select Committee", the Select Committee referred to the DOJ that former US President Donald Trump and "others" be considered to be charged with violating one or more of several Federal laws ("statutes") regarding the attack on the United States Capitol on W 06 JAN 2021.

Since looking up all these laws (aka "statutes") would take considerable time and most of you do not know where you can find them, I have done the work for you.

List of Federal Statutes Referred to the Justice Department by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I—CRIMES (§§ 1 – 2725)

CHAPTER 19—CONSPIRACY (§§ 371 – 373)

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

18 U.S. Code § 372 - Conspiracy to impede or injure officer

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS (§§ 1001 – 1040)

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally
18 U.S. Code § 1001(a)(1-3)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2)makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3)makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

CHAPTER 73—OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (§§ 1501 – 1521)

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

Whoever corruptly—

otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES (§§ 2381 – 2391)

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

_____________________________________________________________________

If you have any specific questions about all of this, please ask them and I will try and answer them as best as I can, time permitting.

As usual, I do not accept anonymous opinions.

[goaded]

"Despite the rulings of these [more than 60 Federal and State] courts, we understood that millions of Americans still lack the information necessary to understand and evaluate what President Trump has told them about the election. For that reason, our hearings featured a number of members of President Trump’s inner circle refuting his fraud claims and testifying that the election was not in fact stolen. In all, the Committee displayed the testimony of more than four dozen Republicans— by far the majority of witnesses in our hearings—including two of President Trump’s former Attorneys General, his former White House Counsel, numerous members of his White House staff, and the highest-ranking members of his 2020 election campaign, including his campaign manager and his campaign general counsel. Even key individuals who worked closely with President Trump to try to overturn the 2020 election on January 6th ultimately admitted that they lacked actual evidence sufficient to change the election result, and they admitted that what they were attempting was unlawful."

"President Trump had authority and responsibility to direct deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia, but never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on January 6th or on any other day. Nor did he instruct any Federal law enforcement agency to assist. Because the authority to deploy the National Guard had been delegated to the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense could, and ultimately did deploy the Guard. Although evidence identifies a likely miscommunication between members of the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense impacting the timing of deployment, the Committee has found no evidence that the Department of Defense intentionally delayed deployment of the National Guard. The Select Committee recognizes that some at the Department had genuine concerns, counseling caution, that President Trump might give an illegal order to use the military in support of his efforts to overturn the election. "

"In the weeks before election day 2020, Donald Trump’s campaign experts, including his campaign manager Bill Stepien, advised him that the election results would not be fully known on election night.[23] This was because certain States would not begin to count absentee and other mail-in votes until election day or after election-day polls had closed.[24] Because Republican voters tend to vote in greater numbers on election day and Democratic voters tend to vote in greater numbers in advance of election day, it was widely anticipated that Donald Trump could initially appear to have a lead, but that the continued counting of mail-in, absentee and other votes beginning election night would erode and could overcome that perceived lead.[25] Thus, as President Trump’s campaign manager cautioned, understanding the results of the 2020 election would be a lengthy “process,” and an initial appearance of a Trump lead could be a “red mirage.”[26] This was not unique to the 2020 election; similar scenarios had played out in prior elections as well.[27]"

[goaded]

Reimler: “And I’m sorry to the people of this country for threatening the democracy that makes this country so great…My participation in the events that day were part of an attack on the rule of law.”

[goaded]

Pert: “I know that the peaceful transition of power is to ensure the common good for our nation and that it is critical in protecting our country’s security needs. I am truly sorry for my part and accept full responsibility for my actions.”

[Quigly]

Yeah, Putin tells the same stories about why his elections weren't rigged too.

[abc3643]

@Quigly Except that there's actually no evidence of a stolen election in 2020.

Indeed, this just came out on court testimony in the Dominion Voting Systems defamation trial yesterday...
Fox News hosts such as Sean Hannity did not believe Dominion did anything wrong, but, on camera, they helped propagate the lie that Dominion was primary reason why the election was stolen.
==========

www.nytimes.com/.../...ity-fox-trump-election.html
TITLE:
In Testimony, Hannity and Other Fox Employees Said They Doubted Trump’s Fraud Claims
SUBTITLE:
On Wednesday, lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems shared some of the strongest evidence yet that some Fox employees knew what they broadcast about the claims was false.

By Jeremy W. Peters
Dec. 21, 2022

On Nov. 30, 2020, Sean Hannity hosted Sidney Powell on his prime-time Fox News program. As she had in many other interviews around that time — on Fox and elsewhere in right-wing media — Ms. Powell, a former federal prosecutor, spun wild conspiracy theories about what she said was “corruption all across the country, in countless districts,” in a plot to steal re-election from the president, Donald J. Trump.

At the center of this imagined plot were machines from Dominion Voting Systems, which Ms. Powell claimed ran an algorithm that switched votes for Mr. Trump to votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr. Dominion machines, she insisted, were being used “to trash large batches of votes.”

Mr. Hannity interrupted her with a gentle question that had been circulating among election deniers, despite a lack of supporting proof: Why were Democrats silencing whistle-blowers who could prove this fraud?

(more)

[abc3643]

Did Mr. Hannity believe any of this?

“I did not believe it for one second.”

That was the answer Mr. Hannity gave, under oath, in a deposition in Dominion’s $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, according to information disclosed in a court hearing on Wednesday. The hearing was called to address several issues that need to be resolved before the case heads for a jury trial, which the judge has scheduled to begin in April.

Mr. Hannity’s disclosure — along with others that emerged from court on Wednesday about what Fox News executives and hosts really believed as their network became one of the loudest megaphones for lies about the 2020 election — is among the strongest evidence yet to emerge publicly that some Fox employees knew that what they were broadcasting was false.

[abc3643]

The high legal standard of proof in defamation cases makes it difficult for a company like Dominion to prevail against a media organization like Fox News. Dominion has to persuade a jury that people at Fox were, in effect, saying one thing in private while telling their audience exactly the opposite. And that requires showing a jury convincing evidence that speaks to the state of mind of those who were making the decisions at the network.

In Delaware Superior Court on Wednesday, Dominion’s lawyers argued that they had obtained ample evidence to make that case.

One lawyer for Dominion said that “not a single Fox witness” so far had produced anything supporting the various false claims about the company that were uttered repeatedly on the network. And in some cases, other high-profile hosts and senior executives echoed Mr. Hannity’s doubts about what Mr. Trump and his allies like Ms. Powell were saying, according to the Dominion lawyer, Stephen Shackelford.

This included Meade Cooper, who oversees prime-time programming for Fox News, and the prime-time star Tucker Carlson, Mr. Shackelford said.

(more)

[abc3643]

“Many of the highest-ranking Fox people have admitted under oath that they never believed the Dominion lies,” he said, naming both Ms. Cooper and Mr. Carlson.

Mr. Shackelford described how Mr. Carlson had “tried to squirm out of it at his deposition” when asked about what he really believed.

Mr. Shackelford started to elaborate about what Mr. Carlson had said privately, telling the judge about the existence of text messages the host had sent in November and December of 2020. But the judge, Eric M. Davis, cut him off, leaving the specific contents of those texts unknown.

A spokeswoman for Fox News declined to comment.

Another previously unknown detail emerged on Wednesday about what was going on inside the Fox universe in those frantic weeks after the election. A second lawyer representing Dominion, Justin Nelson, told Judge Davis about evidence obtained by Dominion showing that an employee of the Fox Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, had tried to intervene with the White House to stop Ms. Powell. According to Mr. Nelson, that employee called the fraud claims “outlandish” and pressed Mr. Trump’s staff to get rid of Ms. Powell, who was advising the president on filing legal challenges to the results.

Mr. Nelson said that evidence cut straight to the heart of whether the Fox Corporation, which is controlled by Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, was also liable for defamation. Judge Davis ruled in June that Dominion could sue the larger, highly profitable corporation, which includes the Fox network on basic television and a lucrative sports broadcasting division.

(more)

[abc3643]

A spokesman for the Fox Corporation declined to comment.

Over the last several months, Dominion has been combing through mountains of private email and text messages from people at every level of Fox News and the Fox Corporation — hosts like Mr. Hannity, senior executives and midlevel producers. A lawyer for Fox, Dan K. Webb, said on Wednesday that the company had produced more than 52,000 documents for Dominion, with more to come.

During the hearing, the judge was asked to rule on several issues. One was whether a second voting company that is suing Fox for defamation, Smartmatic, could be given access to the documents Dominion had obtained for its case. Judge Davis ruled in Fox’s favor, denying Smartmatic’s motion.

A second issue was whether certain evidence that Dominion has used against Fox in its court filings — including emails among Fox employees and a page from a deposition in which someone from Fox describes the journalistic processes of one of the network’s programs — should be made public.

Throughout the case, Fox has asked the court to keep almost everything in the case pertaining to its inner workings under seal. A third lawyer for Dominion, Davida Brook, argued on Wednesday that the public had a fundamental right to see what it had filed with the court in the interest of fostering the openness that a democracy requires.

Judge Davis disagreed, ruling that the evidence would stay under seal. But he admonished the lawyers that neither party in the case should be overly aggressive in trying to keep facts in the case confidential.

If, for instance, someone says something “not bright” — and therefore embarrassing — that wouldn’t be enough to keep that information under seal, Judge Davis said.

“That’s too bad,” he said.

[Quigly]

Not only the illegal law changes regarding mail-in votes, but also too many witnesses, videos and statistical evidence regarding the stacks of unfolded ballots, the clandestine coolers, the dead names, the fake addresses, the bribed voters, the blocked windows, the ejected poll watchers, the computer data... it goes on and on.

All the evidence that you would ever have that an election was stolen has been presented.

The Burden of proof is on the Government to prove its legitimacy. How can they do that without voter I. D. laws?
How can they do this while Ballot harvesting is allowed in mass?

[abc3643]

@Quigly
There is insufficient evidence. 60 court cases - all thrown out. ALL OF THEM... including those in which Trump appointed the judges. And GOP Secretaries of State (the people who certify elections)... they all certified them as accurate.

I will quote Chief Judge Matthew W Brann of the US District Court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, GOP judge appointed by Trump, from his ruling in one of those 60 cases...

www.pamd.uscourts.gov/.../chief-judge-matthew-w-brann
www.pamd.uscourts.gov/.../20-v-2078_corrected.pdf

DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KATHY BOOCKVAR, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
November 21, 2020

Pending before this Court are various motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs in this matter are Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the “Trump Campaign”), and two voters, John Henry and Lawrence Roberts (the “Individual Plaintiffs”). Defendants, who filed these motions to dismiss, include seven Pennsylvania counties (the “Defendant Counties”), as well as Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar.

(more)

[abc3643]

I. INTRODUCTION

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.

==========

That's the best part: "dismiss with prejudice". In legal terms, that's polite for saying "You are so full of shit and do not have your act together that I am not going to let you present this case again."

Again, from a GOP judge.

[Quigly]

Joe Biden admitting the election was stolen. Why do you disagree with the president?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA8a2g6tTp0

[abc3643]

@Quigly LOL that is a funny gaffe or a fun video edit...

[abc3643]

But, suppose that video is true? Why isn't it being used in a court case today to undo the election?
It's not, is it?
Because either it is doctored or has no merit because it's a recognized gaffe. If neither, then GOP operatives would be hunting for evidence admissible in court...

... but they can't find any because they're not looking because they know there isn't any.

[goaded]

@Quigly That's because he always wins them.

[goaded]

Sorry, response to the wrong comment. Biden's obviously talking about people responsible for detecting voter fraud, not creating it.

[Quigly]

He eliminates the competition with fake committees like the j6 Committee and elaborate fake stories about the opposition to try and discredit the claims his elections were rigged elections.

[goaded]

@Quigly No, the Jan 6 committee is entirely reasonable and has accumulated a mountain of evidence that Trump decided before the election even started to stay in power regardless of the results.

[DryGermanGuy]

@goaded:
That Quigly character is a lost cause. MAGAism might as well be a certified mental incompetence.

[goaded]

@DryGermanGuy There are so many of them here.

[Quigly]

Yea, Bidens' gaffe was speaking truth.

[Quigly]

"Why isn't it being used in court case to undo the election?"

Putin controls all the court rooms in Russia.
The DOJ and FBI are clearly taking part in politics.

[abc3643]

@Quigly * sigh *
You are young.
You still have a lot to learn about reality and human nature.
These things will come.
Good luck, son.

[goaded]

Since I already wrote this to the wanker who blocked me... I hate that feature of G@G.

That's cute that you think none of the Steele dossier's claims were true because some couldn't be confirmed, a standard right-wing fallacy.* You probably still think it was the reason for the investigation into Trump's links to Russia, when it was a loudmouth boasting about Russians having damaging material on Clinton.

Getting back to the Jan 6 findings, which are based on testimony under oath from over 1000 witnesses, mostly Republicans:

1) Trump made false claims which aides told him were untrue
2) Trump's rhetoric brought rioters to Washington
3) Trump failed to act during the riot
4) Far-right groups planned - then acted
5) Trump tried to pressure his vice-president to overturn the results
6) Trump should be barred from holding public office

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64071723

The only reason it's focused mostly on Trump and not his enablers in Congress, is because Republicans on the committee wouldn't sign off on those aspects.

* It's called the fallacy of the excluded middle. In this case, you claim the dossier has to either be 100% true, or it's 100% false, leaving out the most likely case that some of it is true.

[kespethdude]

As usual, I agree 100%, bro.

[Quigly]

The Steele dossier was proven untrue and Funded by Hillary Clintons' campaign. It's been proven in a court of law along with convictions.

The left wing are profesional Hollywood story tellers. It's always a work of fiction. They can't be bothered with truth and reality. They want ignorant dreamers and believers like yourself.

[goaded]

@Quigly No, it hasn't. The Durham investigation, which was about the origins of the investigation into Russian interference (which really has been proven), not the Steele dossier, got precisely one conviction of a lawyer about whom the judge said:

"[Clinesmith] likely believed that what he said about Mr. Page was true" and that he had taken "an inappropriate shortcut." He also said the IG inspection did not establish that "political considerations played a role in Clinesmith's actions.".

The dossier, far from being "proven untrue" has been verified in many parts. Specifically, Vladimir Putin favored Trump over Hillary Clinton, and many Trump campaign officials and associates had numerous secretive contacts with Russian officials and spies. Other parts have been disproven, and still more is unverified, which is not unusual for raw intelligence.

Saying something is 100% wrong if it's not 100% right is the fallacy of the excluded middle; the middle being some or most of it is true. It's used a lot by right-wingers.

[monorprise]

When will Congress release their political prisoners and Democrats stop their insane chasing Moby-Dick?

There are very real consequences for there being a future country when the politicians in power:

A: Disregards the 1st amendment.
B: Take such political prisoners.
C: Persecute former presidents and potent al poetical challenger.

At some point you need to let your insane hate go and look at what your doing.
1: How many future presidents are going to just refuse to give up power peacefully as Trump in fact DID knowing they might be treated like this if they did so?
2: How can you have a democracy when the faction in power censored, persecutes, and denies ballot access their main challengers?
3: How can you have justice when the people in power can simply ignore recorded video, text, and audio proof of the fiction of their claims?

[abc3643]

Well, personally, I don't have any hate for Trump but I no longer have any respect for him.
Like Trump, I am a native New Yorker and we have been watching the antics of he and his father - mostly him - since October 1973 when the Federal Government filed a lawsuit against them for violating the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The lawsuit was settled out of court. He's been the Emperor With No Clothes since then.

As for this:
"How can you have justice when the people in power can simply ignore recorded video, text, and audio proof of the fiction of their claims?"

You need to look in the mirror. It is Trump's supporters who "can simply ignore recorded video, text, and audio proof of the" facts against Trump. Had you been watching the hearings, you might actually understand that. It convinced enough voters in 2022 who came to realize who Trump and his ilk actually are.

[monorprise]

@abc3643 So you point out anther example "1968 Fair Housing Act" of corrupt and lawless politicians in Washington D. C. passing anther act far beyond their legitimate power to impose upon the people as if they were state legislators. Imperialist in D. C. care not for law only their own power over everyone else. Hence why they have numerous times over the last 200 years despite the 1st amendment passed acts attempting to restrict what speech may be said.

What evidence do you suppose you might have that could disprove what anyone can see with their own eyes in Trumps own words to peacefully protest? The January 6 committee was a political kangaroo court like most such committees in Congress unconcerned with any fact.

As for an election in which democrats did quite well in states where laws all but guarantee voter fraud while doing historically poorly in other states where republicans secured more State legislative super majorities than ever before does indeed reinforce what you would expect to see if there was voter fraud.

A more uniform election would be expected if said laws did not in fact enable fraudulent elections.

[monorprise]

@abc3643 The real problem is not the limits of the written law but what will happen in its absence. Particular now that men who have been given such effectively broad power as the presidency, have also been given a compelling reason not to give it up after an ugly election.

Whatever you do to your political enemies you are in fact doing to democracy itself. Frankly i think its already too late the move against a former president's house and case against him for his actions while president has made it quite clear the dangerous of giving up said power peacefully.

Its only a matter of time now before a president simply decides not to risk it. If Trump were the man you claim him to be , its quite likely he wishes he didn't choose to risk it at this point already.

Ultimately this power must be totally abolished if we are to have any kind of hope for a free republic.

Those in power must have no power over their challengers, and must be encouraged to leave power peacefully with immunity to try again later or you can be sure they will be much more likely to choose not to do so.

[abc3643]

@monorprise

You wrote:
"So you point out another example '1968 Fair Housing Act' of corrupt and lawless politicians in Washington D. C. passing another act far beyond their legitimate power to impose upon the people as if they were state legislators."

You need to brush up on your Constitution.
The 1968 Fair Housing Act is completely constitutional and is not beyond Congress's legitimate power.

Why?

In short, because the Constitution says that people need to be treated fairly and gave Congress the power to make sure that happens.

1. Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses in Amendment 14, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Amendment 14, Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

3. Necessary and Proper Clause, Article I Section 8 Clause 18

[The Congress shall have Power. . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

==================

3/4 of the States ratified the original Constitution
3/4 of the States ratified the 14th Amendment
They gave Congress that power because they wanted Congress to have that power.
Why?
Because everyone wants to be treated fairly and equally and that (functional, mature, intelligent) adults understand that each and every one of us, at some time and in some way, is going to be in the minority.

[abc3643]

I forgot to include Article VI Paragraph 2 aka The Supremacy Clause:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

==================
One ramification of the Supremacy Clause is that it lets the Federal Government overrule the states if the states exercise power (or fail to exercise it) that is contrary to the Constitution. States can balk at that through the ambiguously written 10th Amendment, but then the US Court System will resolve the dispute.

Just as an example that you might be interested in... it goes back to when you were about pre-K age...

(more)

[abc3643]

The federal court case South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

Before 1984, each state had its own drinking age and that varied considerably from state to state with young people often crossing borders to get drunk and then getting killed. So, in 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act.

Congress didn't have the authority to establish a national minimum drinking age because of the 10th Amendment, but it did have some powers under Article I, Section 8 including the Taxing and Spending Clause (Clause 1) . So, it used a carrot-and-stick approach. States that did not have a minimum drinking age of 21 would be adversely affected when it came to receiving highway funding from the Federal Government.

South Dakota balked saying that the Federal Government didn't have that power because of the 10th Amendment. Well, because highway accidents ARE related to drunk driving and that is connected with the drinking age, Congress had a vested interest in trying to keep the money from being spent unnecessarily due to excessive drunk driving. And that's why the US Supreme Court ruled for "Dole", Elizabeth Dole who, at the time, was the Secretary of Transportation because of the Taxing and Spending Clause.

[abc3643]

That was awkward...
Elizabeth Dole was the Transportation Secretary.
The US Supreme Court (aka "SCOTUS") ruled in favor of the Federal Government because of the Taxing and Spending Clause also known as the General Welfare Clause and Uniformity Clause.

Here is Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

www.law.cornell.edu/.../section-8

[monorprise]

@abc3643 There are 2 problems with the equal protection clause argument:
1: The '1968 Fair Housing Act' does not prohibit state law but individual freedom of association, trade, and broad property rights.

2: Even if a state had passed such a law the clause does not define "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" in fact there is no definition anywhere.

As the first supreme court opinion on the matter made clear assuming any definition outside of written and agreed upon law is giving the goverment unlimited power making the constitution pointless.
The Slaughter-House Cases (14 Apr 1873)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/83us36

Which is why they refused to do any kind of incorporation until progressives court 50 years later in the 1920 thought they had the wisdom to do so in a controllable way. This is exacly what they been doing selectively on a case by case basis ever since. Of course the first court was entirely correct as we now know from experence as well as logic.

That power effectively turned the court into un-elected oligarchs by the 1960s with effectively unlimited power over everything. A fact we all recognize in the increasingly desperate effort to control that unlimited power.

The last problem is the 14th amendment was never legitimately ratified having been rejected by several northern states, and voted on only under blackmail by 11 more. If voting no doesn't count and holding a gun to someones head does then your system of 'voting' has nothing to do with the consent of we the people or our States.

[abc3643]

There are NO problems with the Equal Protection Clause.
Once you get rid of it, we cease being a nation of laws but a nation of people - the kind of nation we had a revolution against.

[monorprise]

@abc3643 Are you just here to make statements or are you going to back them up with reasoning and address the problems I pointed out?

The 14th amendment is the most poorly and thus irresponsibly written amendments of the lot.

This is of course fitting because it was written by the most reckless and irresponsible extremist our former federation had yet known, extremest who were promptly throw out of office for the deed.

The extremist in question did this in hast because believed their "Civil rights act" would be unconstitutional otherwise. As if they hadn't already threw the Constitution out with the war they just fought to deny millions of people the same exact inalienable right of self-determination we exercised in the revolution of 1776.

To say nothing of the criminal double standard and hostage taking they used to get it passed.

Still we should support the effort to at least try to amend the constitution. In the 13th amendment they did a fair job having taken the text from the far wiser and more considered Thomas Jefferson.

But the sort of imprudent domestic restrictions they wished with the 14th amendment having no precedent among wiser men they had to write themselfs. As such we ended up with the 14th amendment as is.

Who's equal protection clause either means everything to the abolition of the constitution or it means nothing. As it was after all written by idiots who having just killed off half a million people in their grand effort to retain the rest in the chains of unconditional submission naturally had no idea the domain of rights was inherently infinite.

Thus is why the wiser men who wrote the original constitution and most of the other amendments only did so a in negative way relative to the goverment.
IE Congress shall not etc..

[monorprise]

@abc3643 the The Supremacy Clause Article 6 section 2 only applies to laws made in pursuance of the Constitution. The federal Constitution grants congress only 30 enumerated powers:
tenthamendmentcenter.com/.../

Dictating how individuals manage their own property is not among said powers.

[monorprise]

@abc3643 So what your describing is a way in which congress abuses its post Roads power in order to black mail states into carrying out its will.

Why is this relevant to the conversation, beyond establishing undisputed fact Congress is consistently full of power hungry jackasses who have no respect for anyone else's opinions or rights?

[abc3643]

That's your view.
Not of the Supreme Court and the voters.

[monorprise]

@abc3646 it clearly is the view of the voters who not only try to have different kind of laws in the first place, and put soo much effort into controlling said oligarchs.

As for the Oligarchs in black robes formerly called the U. S. Supreme court, they too are coming around to this reality although you could hardly expect them to change at this point. Hence the over turning of Roe V. Wade rather than simply reversing it to protect the right to life.

[Anonymous]

Christmas is a magical season of hope. It brings people together like no other time of the year. It gives us a moment to catch our breath, it step away from the complexities of our bustling modern world and to reaffirm the important things in life. As you reflect on days gone by and look forward to all your bright tomorrows I hope that you find peace and contentment and that you carry the spirit of Christmas with you... always.

[WindAtMyBack]

Let me get this straight. The people who stormed the Capital spent two years digging through everything Trump did and said. After studying it for two years, and reading as much as they could from between the lines, they came to the conclusion that Trump told them to storm the Capital.

Or maybe the people investigating what Trump said are extraordinarily stupid and it takes them two years to figure out what he said. While the insurrectionists figured it out in two days, not two years.

What exactly is all this investigation about? What are they digging for. What is there to see? If it takes so much investigation to figure out what he said, how is it possible for the insurrectionists to act on it?

[abc3643]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk57uK3Fa4I

[abc3643]

You asked:
"What exactly is all this investigation about?"

The answer is in written form in House Resolution 503 of the 117th Congress (the Congress about to expire).
www.congress.gov/.../text

Section 3 explains the purpose.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

Consistent with the functions described in section 4, the purposes of the Select Committee are the following:

(1) To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex (hereafter referred to as the “domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol”) and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region and other instrumentalities of government, as well as the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.

(2) To examine and evaluate evidence developed by relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist attack.

(3) To build upon the investigations of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts by reviewing the investigations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of other executive branch, congressional, or independent bipartisan or nonpartisan commission investigations into the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol, including investigations into influencing factors related to such attack.

[WindAtMyBack]

How is any of that relevant in any way? There is no question that he asked them to come. So what? Is that a crime? Of course not. If it was a crime then the organizers of the hundreds of protests in DC each year would all be in jail.

The question remains. Why does Congress have to spend two years investigating this? If there is some sort of hidden message, why does it take Congress so long to figure out out, yet the insurrectionists figured it out right away?

If Trump DID tell people to go to DC and overthrow the government, I'd have a hell of a lot of respect for him. But that's not what he did, and I have damn near zero respect for him.

[goaded]

"The people who stormed the Capital" were Trump supporters. Republicans refused, in general, to investigate it at all. If it had been left-wingers attacking, they'd have had dozens of investigations, the fact that they didn't showed they weren't (and the messages from Ingraham and Hannity show everyone knew damn well at the time that they weren't).

[abc3643]

Is that a crime?
That's a good question.
I'm not sure ex-President Trump could be convicted on inciting the riot and I don't believe he was part of planning it, per se.

So, 18 U. S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection and 18 U. S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy might be difficult to prosecute and convict.

But, his advocating turning-off the metal detectors to let armed people in might be considered aiding an insurrection. I don't think he'd be convicted on that.

However, he is likely guilty of:
18 U. S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
and
18 U. S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
18 U. S. Code § 1512(c)(2)

This is because of:
1) His direct pressure on Pence and, furthermore, inciting the crowd who then targeted Pence.
2) His calling on state elected election officials to "find votes". He's facing legal problems in Georgia over this too.
3) His not immediately taking action to stop the riot when he was duty-bound as President to do so.
4) ... and this may not be Trump directly but his underlings... the witness tampering that has come to light. Specifically, witness and Trump ethics lawyer Casey Hutchison who was told "the less you remember, the better".
This is from today's The Hill, the nonpartisan newsmedia dedicated to news involving the Federal Government.
thehill.com/.../
Her testimony can be found embedded in that article or from the J6 Committee website who released it this morning (22 DEC 2022).
january6th.house.gov/.../release-select-committee-materials-0
january6th.house.gov/.../...chinson%20REDACTED.pdf
january6th.house.gov/.../...ACTED2_Redacted2_1.pdf
Unfortunately, because of the redaction efforts, these PDFs are image PDFs so you can't search for text.

[WindAtMyBack]

@goaded
You still haven't answered my question.

If Republicans refused to investigate, it's because there was no reason to. Or at least if they wanted to investigate it shouldn't take more than a day. Whatever message Trump did or didn't send was understood by the insurrectionists in that time. It should be understood by anyone else in the same amount of time.

If my wife says, "Go to the store and buy some milk and bread", I go to the store and buy milk and bread. It doesn't require two years to figure out what she said. How is it possible for me to figure it out, but some other group requires two years? Maybe THEY can read between the lines and see something, but I didn't. I just went to the store because that's what she wanted me to do.

[goaded]

What was your question?

Since there's plenty of evidence that Trump is guilty of everything the committee has recommended charges be brought for, there was obviously reason to investigate.

We all understood at the time what Trump was asking, but a watertight legal case takes time to develop. They have.

[Malgaran]

Surprisingly quiet from the Trump supporters. This site seem to have much more supporters than not. But it's obvious at this point logic or proof have no meaning to people who Support Trump. They wouldn't support him to begin with if that was the case. What im curious about is what makes people so gullible, I notice it's often older people that fall for the Trump propaganda. It's pretty sad, you would think older people would have some wisdom in their bones but apparently not. They are probably waiting on being told what to think, what the excuse is. Like bunnies controlling the mind of trump or something. I jest and joke, but somehow It doesn't sound absurd enough. Cause reality, sadly would be much more absurd.

They literately believe everything their propaganda news network tell them what to think. You shouldn't be afraid to think. It's okay to think on your own.

[kespethdude]

That's because he rightfully disabled anonymous replies, so that the cowards can't talk shit without consequences.

[NewtoTheSouth]

"Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both."

I think a fine is most appropriated. And it's consistent with the law.

[exitseven]

The key word in all this is that the committee has no power to try or convict President Trump fpr anything. It was done purely for show. They know that Trump is running for president again and if he does he will most likely win. The objective is to discredit him and try to deny him the Constitutional right to run for president.

[goaded]

No, the objective is to bring the first American president ever to break their oath of office and refuse to peacefully hand over power to justice.

[abc3643]

You don't remember Watergate, do you?
If you remembered the Watergate hearings - I do - then you'd know that they weren't done for show. They had a significant impact on history and led to Nixon's resignation because the sordid illegal underbelly of his otherwise rather good administration came to light and even the GOP (back when they actually were still patriotic) recognized he had to go.

And Trump needs to go - or, better, not ever come back. He's WORSE than Nixon. This is why people like Liz Cheney chose to be on the committee. She was raised in a family that understood what public service was about and that's why she, a GOPer of all people and the daughter of a GOP Vice President (who was IN the Nixon Administration, no less), felt compelled to act. Adam Kinzinger too - a military man in Congress who understands what patriotism actually is. Even Nixon, himself, understood patriotism which is why he chose to resign instead of ruining the country.

[exitseven]

When you look at how Obama did illegal wiretaps on the Trump campaign and how democrats used the FBI to collude with social media to bury the Biden family corruption scandal just before the 2020 election all of a sudden Watergate does not seem like such a big deal.
Trump did nothing but help this country. And now that the democrats are showing his tax returns I find it ironic that Trump actually lost money during his presidency. Obama and Biden as well as Nancy Pelosi have become incredibly rich

[goaded]

Maybe you should look into the lies you've been told, rather than repeat them.

[exitseven]

@goaded What lies? Name me one thing that I said that is a lie? Did Obama get rich while he was president? (YES) Did Biden get rich in public office?(YES) How about Pelosi? (YES). Did Obama illegally spy on the Trump campaign? (YES) Did Trump lose money while he was president? (According to his tax returns he did.)/

[goaded]

"Obama did illegal wiretaps on the Trump campaign" Lie.
"democrats used the FBI to collude with social media to bury the Biden family corruption scandal" Lie.
"Trump did nothing but help this country" Opinion, but really?

"Did Biden get rich in public office?" Not particularly, $2.5m at the beginning of 2017. He and his wife made about $15m while he was out of office.
www.forbes.com/.../

"Did Obama get rich while he was president?" No. He was well off before and made much more afterwards.
www.gobankingrates.com/.../

Pelosi is another matter, but she's been in Congress since 1987, 35 years.

You believe what Trump's tax returns say? You did get that his corporation was found guilty of 17 counts of tax fraud, didn't you?

[abc3643]

You wrote:
"Did Obama illegally spy on the Trump campaign? (YES)"
What evidence do you have on this?
Why wasn't there a prosecution, then, once Trump was elected?
Wouldn't the Trump Administration's Justice Department act on this fact?

and

"Did Trump lose money while he was president? (According to his tax returns he did.)"
Actually, no. Over the 4 years while he was President, he netted money.

ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME
2017 -$12,916,948
2018 +$24,339,696
2019 +$4,380,714
2020 -$4,795,757

Over those 4 years, that's a net of +$11,007,705.

He did take large losses for the two years before he was President:
2016: -$32,409,674
2015: -$31,756,435

Mr. Trump took losses all those years in real estate. His "other business" took a huge hit in 2015 and 2016, together, over almost $122 million. Throw in 2017, and he lost anothe $12.3 million, but he did make a $4 million profit on those in 2018. In his defense, "other business" is "a category that includes losses carried over from previous years"

You can read it all here in the 15 DEC 2022 report by The House Ways and Means Committee:
waysandmeans.house.gov/.../jctreport.pdf

[loveslongnails]

@goaded Remember who you're talking to, goaded. Every day his hero says something more delusional than the day before, and he laps it up like a starving dog.

[loveslongnails]

"When you look at how Obama did illegal wiretaps on the Trump campaign". False.
Many of Trumps associates at the time, especially the Russians, were already being surveilled and recorded. Anything Trump said about his campaign was fair game.

"Trump did nothing but help this country" . If you Google "all the good things Trump did" vs "all the bad things Trump did", you'll get some very interesting results. 90% of the former are Right-Wing hyperbole and opinion, while the remaining 10% is evidence based. With the ladder, the reverse is true.

For example, one of Trump's accomplishments is listed as "getting Coney appointed to the SCOTUS". Considering that every important member of Congress, including those from his own party, openly stated they'd do "no such thing" when an election was looming, you might consider that "an accomplishment". Those with a brain know that it was not.

Trump made a mockery of the administration and the rule of law, second only to Cheney/Bush and worse even than Nixon, who had the good sense to resign.

[loveslongnails]

LOL this is what happens when you can't read or do research. Obama's net worth was estimated at 8 million when he took office. The Republic*nts screamed that when he left office, he had over $70 million in his account! Wow! Hmmmm... guess they forgot about the $65 MILLION book deal he received, paid in advance !!! Ooops.

Well, why let the truth get in the way of misinformation, huh seven?

[exitseven]

@goaded So Dr Jill is a teacher at a community college and Joe (the big guy) was unemployed and they made 15 million dollars?

[loveslongnails]

Exit.,.. here's the deal. The Jan 6 recommendations themselves carry no legal power. It's up to the DOJ. It's not "all for show". The point is to "show" that he committed crimes. Hopefully the DOJ will decide to prosecute, because the evidence is overwhelming. Your ignorance and denial that your hero is a bad man is your issue.

[exitseven]

@loveslongnails When Trump was president we had low gas prices, energy independence, secure borders, better trade deals, muddle class tax cut, record stock market performance, low crime, and we got out of the Paris Climate hoax, Iran Nuclear deal. Made NATO deadbeats pay what they owed, imposed tariffs on China, fixed the VA and rebuilt the military. I could go on but lets face it, Trump was by far the best president iin modern times. The fact that he pissed off so many foreigners only proves that the right guy was in the White House.

[loveslongnails]

I've debunked all your shit, especially about the stock market. It's like you're a down syndrome kid who keeps repeating the same thing no matter what evidence is given you to the contrary. You're a fucking idiot.

[exitseven]

@loveslongnails myself and everybody i know have seen their 401K plans do extremely well when Trump was in the white house as opposed to the last 2 years. That is all the proof I need, not an article from some leftist publication that is in the tank for the democrats. I believe what is right in front of my eyes before I would believe anything the fake news says.

[loveslongnails]

Had it not been for Obama, your 401K would be worth half of what it is. I'm convinced you don't understand that the market is cyclical, nor do you understand that the RESIDUE of Trump's actions has as much as anything else to do with our current inflation. Do you realize how MUCH he increased the National Debt? Understanding that is too much to ask of you, I know.

[exitseven]

@loveslongnails the market underperformed under the Obama administration. Most of the time I would be happy if I only lost a little.

[loveslongnails]

Good Lord, wtf is WRONG with you?
The closing price for the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) on January 20, 2009 was $7,949.09, the day Obama took office.
The closing price for the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) on January 20, 2017 was $19,827.25
That's an increase of 147% !!! ONE HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN PER CENT.

The closing price for the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) on January 20, 2021 was $31,186.20.
That's a 57% increase. FIFTY SEVEN per cent.

These numbers are real, dude, written in historical stone. It's not fake news, its not any of the bullshit you rely on to justify your denial of what actually took place. I repeat - your 401K would be NOWHERE were it not for Obama. Yes, it increased under Trump. I don't deny that because guess what - The Numbers Don't LIE !! It increased, but not nearly as much as it did under Obama.

[loveslongnails]

If you had done NOTHING with your portfolio from 2009 to 2017, you'd have re-doubled what you LOST under your boy Bush in 2008. THAT'S where everyone got killed, so Wtf are you talking about "underperformed" during his admin? LMAO. It only went from 7,949 to 19,827.

If you lost money during that time, it's nobody's fault but your own and whoever was managing your money!

[supercutebutt]

Mr. @exitseven is either a troll or a gentleman battling severe mental illness.

[exitseven]

@supercutebutt hey, long time no see. Merry Christmas. Happy New Year.

[supercutebutt]

Merry Christmas, you cRaZy bastard! LOL. :)

[exitseven]

@supercutebutt 😊😊😊😊

[genericname85]

trump actually told people NOT to invade the capitol. but twitter conveniently deleted these messages to make him look bad. elon musk recently republished these tweets to show everyone that media lied about trump. i'm not a trump fan. but i'm much less a biden fan. and i think that they are all lying criminals. tho i would argue at least trump tried to do good for "the average American person".

[abc3643]

Well if Trump tweeted that then that will cone out in any court case. But Tweeting is not the be all and end all. When the Capitol is being attacked, you don't tweet to stop it. You go send in military and get on the fucking TV, not watch it happen.

[genericname85]

Well he didn't invite them to do it. If they do it, that's on them.

[abc3643]

Actually, in testimony under oath, they came because he told them to via his tweets.

[genericname85]

XD well I'm not saying that they didn't feel like he wanted them to do it. They may have genuinely felt like that. But that doesn't mean they're right about it.

[AviatorTom]

Very well presented, thank you. Now we'll get to see politics in action and see what, if anything, happens with these recommendations. It's important to note that they have no legal effect and DOJ will do (or not do) whatever it decides.

[monorprise]

Joe Biden was the one who suggested using the FBI to spy on the Trump Campaign in 2016, and raided trump's house for dirt in 2022. He clearly does not care about the law or consequences of said actions on the country.
I see no reason to beleive he would not try to have a show trial on the issue, this is what dictators do to control and suppress their political enemies.

[goaded]

@monorprise No he wasn't, you're just making shit up.

[exitseven]

@monorprise Obama was complicit in the crime. As usual no democrat went to prison for it.

[goaded]

@exitseven That would be because they weren't guilty. There's been a whole Republican-instigated investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, which wasn't terminated as soon as Democrats came to power, unlike Republicans would have done with Jan 6, and it was pathetic.

The judge in the one and only conviction Durham obtained was stated that Clinesmith "likely believed that what he said about Mr. Page was true" and that he had taken "an inappropriate shortcut." He also said the IG inspection did not establish that "political considerations played a role in Clinesmith's actions.""

Meanwhile, the Mueller report convicted dozens, including some of Trump's closest advisors, of obstruction.

[kespethdude]

Hope you banned anonymous replies on this one, that would weed out 99% on the insurrectionist scum on this site.

[LiamJHayden]

"Peacefully and patriotically."
"Go home"
Offered Pelosi 20K National Guards.

This gets tossed at summary judgment, if it ever gets that far.

[abc3643]

When did he do that? At 2:25 PM? Because the rioting started right after the 2:24 PM tweet. Once the rioting started, it was incumbent upon him to stop it. Instead, he watched TV. (*)

(*)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc

[Sparks32]

So every other politician on earth gets a pass on lying except the most truthful one? I can't see any liberal bias here at all.

[goaded]

It's not about Trump's lies (which are countless), it's about his attempt to steal the presidency from the people.

[Sparks32]

It all about rigging the election again in order to forever change the demographics.

[goaded]

No it's not, it's about stopping 2020 being a trial run for a successful coup.

[Sparks32]

@goaded Conservatives are being censored, doxxed, cancelled, replaced, discriminated against but they have a vote and a horse in the race and now they want to take that away too? American Democracy is dead so I think a coup maybe what your country needs now.

[goaded]

Of course they are, I see them being censored daily on national TV. Nobody's taking away anyone's vote, they're putting away a criminal. "Law and order", ring a bell?

[Sparks32]

@goaded Australian media are titling it as barring him from running for office not putting him away. They don't want him to win so they are doing everything they can to stop him. I care what the mainstream media says anymore.

[goaded]

That would be Murdoch's Sky? Try a slightly less propagandist source. The charges he's accused of can carry serious prison sentences.

[Quigly]

Just like Putin, don't question the government, Don't question the election.

No matter how much evidence that you have.

[goaded]

Trump is questioning Republican secretaries of state, and America is not (yet) like Russia.

[Quigly]

@goaded Democrat tactics are no different than Putin

[abc3643]

@Quigly

Dude, I feel bad for you and I genuinely mean this in a nonpartisan, non-sarcastic, genuine-empathy kind of way. Let me explain...

First, I empathize with you. The candidates that I supported in 2016 did not win their elections, but I accepted it and the reason one lost was partly due to conspiracy - within their own party...

Anyway, sometimes people are sent (and, I do mean "sent") on these windmill quests like putting a blind Helen Keller in a circular room and then telling her the food is in the corner.

Passionate and otherwise often intelligent people are told a falsehood and they believe it with all their heart. These people become victims - victims of those who tell the lie. Unfortunately, some victims become so "Ahab-ian" in their obsession with believing the falsehood that nothing can help them - they have to help themselves.

Sadly, I know a man like this. He's a 9/11-truther. He's an older professional engineer and he's wasted the last 21 years of his life trying to spread the message that 9/11 was "an inside job". But, it's not and basic physics explains everything that happened. The physics this man should understand, but just refuses to accept. He and people like him are the undead victims of 9/11 and they will be torturing themselves until the day they die.

Don't be like that. Don't throw away your life on a lie that others told for their benefit - not yours, their's. They created the lie to use people like you to their end... and, to a certain extent, it worked. But, in the eyes of where it counts - the law and the court system - the lie is like the Emperor With No Clothes.

So, again, don't hold on to this like Captain Ahab did with the white whale, Moby Dick. In the end, Ahab died because he became entangled in the ropes attached to the spears he was throwing at Moby Dick and so, as the whale descended into the depths, Ahab died ensnarled and attached to the whale.

You deserve better than what Trump and his ilk have done to you.

[Quigly]

You're such a Fraud,

You claimed the 2016 election was stolen by Russia and were caught fabricating a Russian hoax story against Trump. You get caught in your lies repeatedly.

Stealing is who you are
Just A cowardly sellout thief with no credibility to anything you say.

[Quigly]

Here's a recap of the 2016 insurrection in congress and on the streets..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr0i6piW_ak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP4hzhxFE4g

[goaded]

"Small group of rioters... facing off against thousands of police", they weren't called there by Clinton, they didn't attempt to delay or disrupt the electoral process.

[abc3643]

Actually, about the 2016 election, I wasn't all all talking about Russia. They did influence, no doubt, but, believe it or not, I don't care because, as far as I am concerned, they have a First Amendment right to do so. They are no different than "Swift Boaters For Truth" in 2004 except that they are better funded and have different passports.

I was more concerned about conspiracy involving the Democratic Establishment itself which, in 2016, was no better than the GOP most years.

[Quigly]

Okay, well, There is no evidence of Russian interference or even influence in the 2016 election.

There is far more evidence that China is actively influencing our media to influence the elections.

[Quigly]

@goaded They were engaged in an insurrection by taking over local government buildings.

[legalboxers]

amazing but we know all his goons will fall on their own swords defending him

[jimmy2]

I doubt very much that this charge on Trump has no teeth

[abc3643]

Actually, some of the charges do.

The Federal Government has already convicted Stewart Rhodes of The Oath Keepers with Sedition.
The evidence about rioters coming all because Trump incited them to (their words) is pretty clear evidence of obstruction (the 18 USC 1512(c)(2) charge.)

Trump screwed up in a different way that he may not realize was very serious. He knew that some of "his people" were armed but he ordered the "mags" (metal detectors) not used so there would be more people at the rally at the Ellipse. He felt (rightfully so) that they were not there to hurt him but that the more people there, the better it will look on TV. The problem is that they DID riot, but, worse, he did nothing about it for hours. The Select Committee and likely the DOJ will feel that is a violation of 18 U. S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection.

Now, keep in mind some other things.
1. "The Others" who may be charged... Guiliani, Eastman, Meadows, Jeff Clark,... ... these guys are going to be offered plea deals too... to turn on Trump.
2. Donald Trump Jr. is also not exactly clean in all of this either and he may be charged with 18 U. S. Code § 371 or 18 U. S. Code § 372 primarily because of, I believe, being part of the electoral fraud. Now, this is not part of the Jan 6th attack, but it is linked to it. The DOJ could sweeten the deal with Trump that they not charge Don Jr. if Trump himself takes the deal.

If they do charge him with that, he may want to do a plea deal. The prosecution will offer "Plead guilty to 18 USC Section 2383 and we will recommend a fine with no jail time."

That would be a win-win for Trump and America.
Trump wins because he gets no jail time.
America wins because Trump can never hold office again.

[goaded]

"The DOJ could sweeten the deal with Trump that they not charge Don Jr. if Trump himself takes the deal."
Sorry, but the thought that Trump would care about his children is laughable.

[abc3643]

@goaded and they might know that and thus turn on him.

[goaded]

Wouldn't that be a shame! :)

[abc3643]

Trump finally going down for Jan 6 after 50 years of criminality reminds me of the very ending of the first season episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent titled "Enemy Within".

In the episode, Rick Zainer, was the personal nurse of a Mr. Sternmann, a paranoid wealthy old man with a young trophy wife and (he likely didn't know it) gay son. Zainer wants revenge on Sternmann because he wanted Sternmann to write a letter to an expensive private school, Saint Stephen's, so Zainer's kids could go there. Sternmann never did it and Zainer found the request in the trash...

So, Zainer establishes a plan to get Sternmann's wife Kit and her step-son Edward to kill Sternmann via arson even though those two don't know it. It's complicated...

... but Detective Robert Goren figures it all out... In the interview room at the end with his partner Detective Alexandra Eames, he gives kudos to Zainer for having done the perfect crime... In principle, he did nothing wrong... The first started and he said he tried to get the paranoid Sternmann out, but couldn't because of the security measures Sternmann had in place. Anyway, Zainer is innocent for what happened to Sternmann...

... or is he?
(more)

[abc3643]

"It's the perfect crime. You said so yourself." Zainer admits to them.
They turn to face each other then back at Zainer...
"What?"
Goren: (I am doing this from memory) "You remember that lifeguard on Long Island? He was talking to girls and let a drowning man die. They convicted him of manslaughter... He had a higher sense of duty."

Zainer: "So?"

Eames reads Zainer's contract with Sternmann and that Zainer is to give care and protect etc...

Goren finishes up...

Detective Robert Goren: You watched the forces gather round Sternman to kill him.

Rick Zainer: But I didn't do anything.

Detective Robert Goren: That's right. You did NOTHING, and that my friend... is manslaughter.
Zainer, with tears, sees the cops waiting to arraign him as Goren opens the door.
Rick Zainer: But he owed me!
Detective Robert Goren: He owed you the salary he paid you.

======
Well, that's Trump. He set up the mob to riot and then he did NOTHING... for 2 hours.
He should go down... just like Zainer.

[monorprise]

You can convict any republican of anything in Washington D. C. including Prohibited by the 1st amendment speech crimes like "seditious conspiracy" that our lawless congress has nonetheless passed from time to time.

[Andres77]

Wow, they're really scared, aren't they?

[goaded]

If you think what I think you mean, they might be scared, but scared *for* democracy, not scared *of* Trump. There's a massive difference.

Trump, on the other hand, should be bricking it, because there's a mountain of evidence of dozens of laws he broke.

[Andres77]

@goaded accusations are not broken laws.
If you really think that the democrat party wants what is best for the country... I won't insult you but I just don't agree with you. You're not going to change my mind and I won't change yours.
I wish you the best.

[goaded]

Have you looked at the Jan 6 report, or any decent articles about it?

[Andres77]

@goaded do you know what "contrived" means?
Do you actually believe a bunch of lifelong politicians?
Pelosi, Biden, dick Durban, Chuck Schumer have about 150 years of political experience at the national level and Trump was elected for four years and EVERYTHING IS TRUMP'S FAULT?
Think about that for a bit.

[goaded]

Yes, I do know what it means, I also know that nobody is saying everything is Trump's fault except Liz Cheney, who wants to protect the Republican party from extinction.

Trump is the only president in US history to refuse the peaceful transition of power, but he was supported by many Republican legislators. They are all traitors.

Again, have you looked at the Jan 6 report, or any decent articles about it?

[Andres77]

@goaded have you read the Steel dossier about Trump? It's all bs. Just because the corrupt left published something doesn't make it true. Dude, you might as well be saying that elves are real.
You're so blind that you don't even realize that you should be embarrassed and should just stfu.
Let me help you