WrestlingRasta

Agree on both these. CNN wanted Trump on the Republican ticket thinking that would bold very well for Clinton (which at the time I thought that would too and it scared the shit out of me).

That’s why it is a committee hearing and not a trial. The purposes are not the same. Likewise an indictment is not a trial, the burden is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden is reasonable evidence to go to trial. He will have every opportunity to produce witnesses. It will be interesting, and very challenging, because the testimony and evidence against him comes predominantly from his inner circle. So the interesting thing will be…..who’s going to have evidence that disproves his own words and the words of the people he was in direct communications with? That’s going to be very interesting.

That would follow along with the fact that the DOJ had more subpeona power than the committee, and therefore was able to get more evidence from more directly involved individuals. So…that would make perfect sense.

In all seriousness, urge you to read it fully, and objectively. I believe the most important part of the indictment again is where the evidence and testimony is drawn from. I agree with you totally that a grand jury does not have the benefit of cross examination, which is why I’m trying to stick with words like allegedly, seemingly, etc. BUT again I think where this evidence comes from is a huge piece, relative to how legitimate these charges are or are not.

I’ll ask you the same question. Have you read the full indictment?

Uuggggh…..here we go again. I never said Trump gets attacked more or less than Biden, I didn’t compare attacks on trump to anyone other individual. I said presidents and candidates being attacked heavily has been going on since the 90’s. I’ll add…..it’s a cry baby excuse for the actions he has taken (allegedly). The same people who are joking about ‘mean tweets’ are letting attempts to overthrow the election slide because ‘they were just so mean to him’ Entertaining.

I was referring to the people who went on the attack at the idea of him as president because they knew of his history of: bankruptcies, sexual abuse, detachment from truth, and the fact that so many associated with his business would end up being convicted felons, and basic reputation for getting what he wants by any means necessary. These are the characteristics and traits of his, that he had exhibited over decades, that had people believing we would be in a nightmare if trump would become President. Did the level of hate for him grow as this persona amplified throughout his Presidency….absolutely. But none of that answers the question: if they are proven to be right in multiple courts of law in multiple venues…..does that still hold water that the attacks against him justify his actions?

For that matter, going back to the 90's (development of internet)......if you decided you wanted to run for President, you started getting widely attacked, Republican or Democrat. The level of which you are attacked is relative to the level of success you are having in your campaign/elections.

Which is where the “based on his actions prior to deciding to run for President” comes in to play.

Topic for discussion: this talk about those who were coming for Trump since ‘the moment he came down the escalator’ There’s no denying that, that is very true. And many of those (at least more public people) gave their reasons for feeling how they felt, based on his actions before he decided to run for president. If their notions turn out to be true, and proven in multiple courts of law in multiple venues, does that wipe out the whole notion of going after him for seven years make his actions acceptable?

Another interesting tidbit I just read. There’s been a lot of talk about Jan 6 case being about nothing more than bringing down Trump. Well, Trump is now Jan 6 defendant number 1,097. Over 1000 people have been charged with actions related to Jan 6. It’s not just all about bringing down Trump folks. It’s about doing whatever we can to make sure what happened doesn’t happen again.

haha I was going to go with that, but went with what my background actually was instead.

There’s a lot of speculation that #6 is Ginni Thomas.

Even more to the point, in the indictment the prosecutors specifically lay out their belief the defendant “has a right to lie to the public” about the results. However the charging is not in the lies but in the actual operational plans. This is important for people who are not going to read the indictment but rather get their information from right wing media and influencers, because they’re talking point already this morning is that he is being charged for his first amendment right of free speech.

I do not have a legal background. My background is completely and solely athletics.

Agree. I actually started to write that I believe that was a very specific charging tactic for that reason. There’s a lot of evidence what happened was his intent, but going to be real hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt. I’ll be honest in that I thought proving he knew the election wasn’t stolen was going to be real hard to prove. But reading the indictment and the testimony that has come out…..it’s pretty damning. Three words in that evidence I believe is most damning: “You’re too honest” in response to Pence when Pence told him he could not do what Trump wanted him to do. How can you say you didn’t know it is a lie, when your rebuttal is ‘your’e too honest’? That doesn’t leave much reasonable doubt.

Yes, I am aware of the reporting around that issue, as it is obviously a big piece of this case in whole. I’m aware that there’s a lot of differing stories depending on who is commentating. I’m aware it’s been proven Flynn and Piatt lied to Congress about their involvement in the decision making around NG deployment. But I don’t think there’s really a whole lot of concrete info as to who did what in regard to the NG. More completely varying reports than anything else. One interesting thing about this indictment, if you read it, is that the charges don’t lead a whole lot to the violence and storming of the building, but more the planning and scheming involved in trying to overturn the results through Congress.

The tides are turnin ‘round here my friend

I’m talking specifically about this case. We could go on and on about the last seven years from both sides, but that’s already been done ad nauseum. I’m talking specifically about this case, how it is playing out in the courts of law and not how it’s playing out on Twitter. There’s plenty of spaces for that if you want to have those conversations.

Okay so do me a favor, read all 45 pages of the indictment, including the supporting evidence and testimony, and most importantly who that evidence and testimony came from, before ranting on me about being extreme and just buying into mainstream media, and then come back and let’s have a conversation. To clarify ‘hatred for trump’, just want to clarify that’s not at all accurate. First, I don’t have hatred period, there’s no benefit to it. I have concern, concern for what could happen to the US if someone who wants authoritative control succeeds in gaining it. Which leads me to the second piece, it’s not trump that interests me in the case, it’s a former president who, by the evidence and testimony of his own people seems to have attempted to overturn the election on multiple fronts, and thereby overthrow the government (I’ll keep it at seems to until there is a verdict). If you replace the name trump with Clinton or Obama or Biden, and everything else remains the same….the evidence, testimony, and who it derives from……my concern and interest in this case is exactly the same. So just read the whole indictment, objectively, and come back and let’s chat.

Did you read the indictment?

An investigation into the attempted overthrow of the U.S. govt in 2021 started seven years ago? I think I’m the one who does not understand.

Until that loser of the election tries to overthrow the US government and the results of an election that are at the very basis of our constitutional republic…. Then you go after them. Because if you don’t and there’s no accountability, what’s to stop the next (or same) nut job from trying again, and learning from the previous attempt’s failures.

Couple little pieces that don't look too good when it comes to this trail: The assigned judge has sat for 11 Jan 6 cases thus far, all 11 convicted by the jury. In those, the judge matched the prosecution recommended sentence four times, and went heavier than the prosecution recommendation in the other seven. Also interesting, the indictment specifically says that he knew, all of the election claims were false and he spread them anyway, which means they will have to absolutely prove what he did or did not believe, which is pretty difficult to do right. Where it gets interesting is the prosecution will go first, and they will have tons of evidence and testimony, from his own people, that will say he was told repeatedly by his team that the election was not stolen. (They are going to put a long line of admin officials and legal counsel on the stand to hammer this point down). The only way he is going to be able to combat that is to take the stand himself. Oh my.

I dont think there's any chance they go after the death penalty.