Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
To those who have been following since 2020, there weren't any real whopper surprises in the indictment at all. A brisk 45 page read that encompasses much of what the Jan 6 House Investigation already had determined; the only real aha's come in the form of realizing that DOJ has cooperation from Pence and others who had, apparently, kept meticulous contemporaneous notes during the administration because you know, Trump is gonna Trump. One surprising instance is the indictment cites something Trump said in the middle of a secure briefing about national security:
Another I found pretty damning is the Jeffrey Clark stuff, Witness 4, a DOJ subordinate who was told by Acting AG an Acting AAG, repeatedly, to not have off books contact with the White House - and he violated this in at least what, 4 instances, leading up to January 6, culminating in Trump apparently wanting to appoint him as the Acting AG because Clark was willing to weaponize the DOJ and release missives on DOJ letterhead that would falsely claim to the public that DOJ had actual and widespread evidence of outcome-determinative voter fraud and such and would publicly urge legislature to decertify the election (a political matter).
What the indictment barely touches on is the details of the violence at the capital. Nowhere in the indictment is a mention about seizing voting machines, weapons at the rally, or Trump wanting to wave people through magnetometers, or the assaulting of any police officers per se, or the death of persons like Ashli Babbit (which is a big **** deal when it comes to sentencing under the Denial of Rights statute, if the denial of rights results in death(s)), or the claims that he put his tiny hands around his driver to demand he be driven to the Capitol and such. So, as Chris Christie was saying in an interview about the previous Federal Indictment, and his insight into being a former Federal Prosecutor himself, that the indictment isn't the whole deck of cards. Since this mostly relates to the Sentencing portion however, it's the sort of thing that might only be presented to the court during an eventual sentencing hearing. The indictment also does not fixate on anything that happens prior to the election, nothing about the USPS for example is in there.
What the indictment really hones in on, is not the Ellipse Speech, or "The Big Lie" with regard to his free speech but rather the conspiracy to send false electors, knowing with overwhelming certainty that he had duly lost the election. The Indictment breaks down, per each state, how he shook down each, how he lost GA by 11,779 votes, how he pressed for them to come up with 11,780, how in some cases he also defrauded the fake electors, some of the fake electors were smart and secured declaratives that said their alternate votes were not to be used unless in the case of an adjudication by the courts to that effect - Trump and coconspirators proceeded to transmit the slate anyway.
Also there's nothing in there about the Green Bay Sweep, or Peter Navarro, ie. the Congressional portion of the conspiracy. Sadly, their involvement might boil down to the Speech and Debate clause: they all had the legal right to object, they were just going along with it. Trump to AG and AAG: "Just say the election was corrupt and leave it to me and the Republican Congressman." Which means to me, some of these gerrymandered seditionist chucklefucks will probably stay latched onto their seats, which might be one of the most revolting things about this whole process. Nor is there anything about his blatant obstruction of the transition of power in the form of things like ie. reading in the President-elect to intelligence briefings, which there isn't a law against doing, but it also is indicative of the efforts he went to to try and stay in power, even to the point where WH Legal Counsel were having to tell the Trump team things you would never expect to hear them have to say to an outgoing administration, and being told chilling things as clapback you'd never want to hear:
The indictment makes the case that the conspirators wanted to flout the rule of law, "You're too honest" etc., and have the election fought out on the streets. "Trial by combat," as CC1, Rudy Giuliani, put it.
As CC2 put it, John Eastman, violence was a necessary part of the plan:
Just frankly chilling stuff. They really wanted blood spilled and civil war, they apparently thought the Gravy Seals could win it for them.
The indictment also touches on defendants published claims that "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules" etc.
Which, given the fact he and is CCs attempted to defraud the whole of the United States, it's a wonder any of them have the temerity to complain about the venue, the judge, or similar minutiae.
8 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
