Topic: Sexual Abuser Donald Trump Indicted

[John C]

^ ^ ^
The Republicans were dead right about voter fraud after all, they were at it.

[jambutty]

This could be the mistake that costs Rump.

Newsweek
Pence Refusing to Get in Secret Service Car on Jan. 6 'Chilling': Raskin
Thomas Kika - Yesterday 3:55 PM

Former Vice President Mike Pence's refusal to get into a Secret Service vehicle during the January 6 Capitol riot is being called "chilling" as the House select committee prepares to reveal its findings sometime before the end of the year.

Speaking at a Thursday event hosted by the Georgetown University's Center on Faith and Justice, Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is also a member of the committee investigating the Capitol riot, accused former President Donald Trump of attempting to organize a coup to circumvent Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election and stay in power. During the talk, he called special attention to a tense moment involving Pence, NBC News reported.

After being taken to an undisclosed portion of the Capitol during the riot, Pence's Secret Service agents, whom Raskin suspected were reporting directly to Trump's security detail, asked him to enter an armored limousine. The intent, some have theorized, was to drive Pence away from the building, preventing him from certifying the election results, after he had signaled his unwillingness to go against his duties and keep Trump in power.

"[Pence] uttered what I think are the six most chilling words of this entire thing I've seen so far: 'I'm not getting in that car,'" Raskin said. "He knew exactly what this inside coup they had planned for was going to do."

This moment was previously reported during an interview for the book, I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump's Catastrophic Final Year by Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig. According to Tim Giebels, the lead agent inside of Pence's security on January 6, Pence repeatedly refused to be evacuated from the Capitol until the election results were certified, The Washington Examiner reported.

"I'm not getting in the car, Tim," Pence said, in response to Giebels' insistence that he enter the armored vehicle. "I trust you, Tim, but you're not driving the car. If I get in that vehicle, you guys are taking off. I'm not getting in the car."

Raskin discussed the House select committee's investigation further on Thursday, alleging in no uncertain terms that Trump and his closest confidants attempted to organize a coup following the 2020 election.

"This was not a coup directed at the president," the congressman said. "It was a coup directed by the president against the vice president and against the Congress."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pence-refusing-to-get-in-secret-service-car-on-jan-6-chilling-raskin/ar-AAWwuVd?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fa923ba698594c189731b942254337ab

[John C]

This could be the mistake that costs Rump.

Newsweek
Pence Refusing to Get in Secret Service Car on Jan. 6 'Chilling': Raskin
Thomas Kika - Yesterday 3:55 PM

Also, and I don't think it's widely reported, Pence's security fobs to various doors and locations in the Capitol were disabled during the attack. That's why he ended up in a car park with his family. More needs to be revealed about that and who in premises management gave the order for that to happen to purposely put Pence at risk.

[jambutty]

USA TODAY
Trump investigations set to accelerate in coming weeks: Where the inquiries stand
David Jackson and Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY - 1h ago

WASHINGTON – Two months ago, it looked like Donald Trump had – yet again– dodged a potentially deadly political bullet: a possible indictment in New York.

A pair of prosecutors heading a criminal fraud investigation in Manhattan abruptly resigned, leaving the case in limbo and inspiring celebrations by Trump and allies, albeit short-lived.

But just weeks later, more investigations are revving back up:The Justice Department is already investigating – and prosecuting – people involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and possible links to Trump as he fought to stay in office despite the vote against him.

"It's absolutely clear that they knew what they were doing was wrong, they knew that it was unlawful, and they did it anyway," said Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., a member of the Jan. 6 committee, speaking this month on CNN.

Back in January, as the New York indictment loomed, Trump told supporters in Texas that "they want to put me in jail!"

If he is indeed formally charged, Trump asked his more aggressive supporters to stage "the biggest protest we have ever had … in Washington, D.C, in New York, in Atlanta and elsewhere."

'A legal crescendo'
Charges against an ex-president would be historic, political and legal analysts said, and the political fallout is impossible to predict.

"The pursuit of Trump is very different," said Paul Rosenzweig, who worked with the Whitewater independent counsel investigation of President Bill Clinton. "But, then again, his conduct in office was pretty much different, too."

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., a former federal prosecutor who has sued Trump over Jan. 6, said it would be unprecedented to bring formal charges against an ex-president. But these are unprecedented times; if the evidence is there, he said, Trump should have to face a judge and jury just like anyone else.

"Before Donald Trump, no president had ever led an insurrection against the United States," Swalwell said in a telephone interview. "He changed everything."

Swalwell, who has created a political action committee to help Democrats campaign on efforts to protect democracy, said the nation is "building up to a legal crescendo," and Trump's legal fate will be a big issue in the fall elections.

"Trump is absolutely on the ballot," Swalwell said. "There is no way around it."

The Georgia case
Trump will stump for his endorsed candidates in a series of Republican primaries scheduled for May – the same month that prosecutors in Georgia plan to amp up their investigation of Trump.

A criminal investigation examining election interference by the former president enters a new phase next month when a special grand jury is formally empaneled to weigh evidence and testimony from more than two dozen witnesses.

The seating of the special panel, approved earlier this year by a local judge, is set to begin May 2. The assistance was sought by Atlanta-area District Attorney Fani Willis, who cited the need for additional authority to compel witnesses to cooperate with authorities.

Since Willis announced the local inquiry last year, investigators have interviewed about 50 witnesses, Willis spokesman Jeff DiSantis told USA TODAY. Another 30 could require grand jury subpoenas, while 60 others may be sought for additional voluntary interviews, he said.

The witness breakdown was first reported earlier this week by the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Yet Wills had signaled in February in an interview with USA TODAY that the inquiry had significantly expanded and the pace of investigation was set to accelerate.

"There is a significant enough number of people, who when we're calling ... politely to say we'd like an opportunity to sit down and talk to you about matters related to this (investigation), refrained from wanting to do that. And some even specifically requested subpoenas," Willis told USA TODAY in February.

Willis and DiSantis have declined to elaborate on who they planned to subpoena, including whether they would include former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows or other members of the former president's administration.

Referring to previous discussions with Trump’s lawyers, Willis said they "could rely on" a decision on possible charges by the end of this year.

Trump's phone tag
Last year, Willis disclosed that local prosecutors had launched a wide-ranging investigation of possible election fraud, false statements, conspiracy, oath of office violations, racketeering and violence associated with threats to the election process.

A major focus of the inquiry has been Trump's Jan. 2, 2021, telephone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which the former president urged the state official to tilt the 2020 statewide vote in his favor. 

"So look, all I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state," Trump told Raffensperger, according to audio of that call.

Raffensperger is also on the Georgia ballot next month; he is being challenged by Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., who has Trump's backing.

Separately, Trump also urged a Georgia election investigator in a phone call in December to "find the fraud."

Willis also is examining a November 2021 call in which Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a prominent Trump ally, allegedly asked Raffensperger whether he had the authority to disqualify mail-in ballots from certain areas of the state.

Graham has denied making such a request.

On a related matter, Willis has said that local prosecutors would also be examining the submission of an alternate slate of electors by Republicans in Georgia, one of seven states in which officials allegedly sought to reverse Trump's defeat.

The Jan. 6 case 
June may also mark the first in a planned series of public hearings from the select House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and Trump's responsibility.

The committee hopes to complete its work by the end of the year, and must decide whether to issue a criminal referral to the Department of Justice – a determination that  Trump's attempts to overturn his election loss to Joe Biden amount to possible crimes.

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., one of two Republicans on the panel, said "It’s absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing, what a number of people around him were doing, that they knew it was unlawful."

Trump says he was exercising his rights to protest the election and that the "unselect committee" is strictly political.

The New York cases
Developments in New York have been a good news bad news situation for Trump.

While the New York district attorney's office criminal investigation of Trump's past financial dealings appears to be in an uncertain state, state Attorney General Letitia James appears to be moving forward with a potential civil case against the ex-president.

James' office had been working with the New York DA as part of joint investigation into whether Trump and his company fraudulently inflated the value of their real estate holdings to obtain loans and deflated those values at other times to get lower tax bills.

Most recently, James asked a New York state judge to hold Trump in contempt over his failure to comply with a court order to turn over documents pertaining to the investigation.

Trump reflected his concern about James' case by sending a mocking Easter message to the state attorney general: "May she remain healthy despite the fact that she will continue to drive business out of New York while at the same time keeping crime, death, and destruction in New York!"

James office responded: "Like all Americans, Donald J. Trump is entitled to defend himself in court. However, this attorney general will not be bullied or intimidated by the former president."

The district attorney's investigation appeared to be on hold after the two top prosecutors resigned in February. One of them, Mark Pomerantz, told U.S. Attorney Alvin Bragg that he should pursue a case because he believes Trump "is guilty of numerous felony violations" with respect to statements of his financial condition.

But earlier this month, Bragg sent out a statement claiming the Trump investigation is continuing. "While the law constrains me from commenting further at this time," he said, "I pledge that the Office will publicly state the conclusion of our investigation – whether we conclude our work without bringing charges, or move forward with an indictment."

That inspired a counter-blast from Trump, who again said he is "being treated extremely unfairly."

No Nixon or Clinton
Trump isn't the first ex-president to face potential legal problems – but there is no precedent for the volume and intensity of the investigations he still faces more than a year and a half after he left office.

President Richard Nixon faced the prospect of indictment after he resigned the presidency over Watergate in 1974. Successor Gerald Ford short-circuited that threat with a preemptive pardon. (Nixon was ensnared in civil litigation and testified in the trial of FBI officials charged with civil rights violations.)

Decades later, President Bill Clinton faced legal peril over his testimony in the investigation of his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky. But he cut a deal with Special Counsel Robert Ray to avoid indictment by acknowledging false testimony, paying fines and surrendering his law license.

Trump is different. "It's most certainly unprecedented," said Barbara McQuade, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at the University of Michigan.

The investigation surrounding the Jan. 6 insurrection is probably the highest profile investigation.

There are risks to bringing charges against an ex-president; for one thing, Trump could win an acquittal, strengthening his claim that these investigations are all politically motivated.

McQuade, however, said that "to allow him to escape accountability would be worse," and might encourage future presidents and other lawmakers "to try and do the same things in the future."

'A very difficult situation'
Other observers said the danger is the perception that governments are targeting Trump for political reasons if the cases are seen as weak.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University Law School, said prosecution of Trump could lead to a world in which parties seek to put their opponents in jail for any reason.

"There is a danger in stretching the criminal code," Turley said.

Others stress that no one is above the law. Should prosecutors flinch about charging Trump with a crime, millions could lose faith in the system's ability to hold powerful people accountable.

There will be protests regardless of whether Trump is charged or not, said Jennifer Mercieca, an historian of political rhetoric who teaches at Texas A&M University.

"If he’s charged, his supporters will lose even more faith in those processes," she said. "If he’s not charged then Democrats will lose faith in those processes. Our nation is in a very difficult situation, brought on by Trump’s Big Lie and his failure to accept the election results."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-investigations-set-to-accelerate-in-coming-weeks-where-the-inquiries-stand/ar-AAWz0jp?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ad56e609129a499f969ccf9fe9d62bab

Turley is a Repug shill.

[jambutty]

The New York Times
Judge Holds Trump in Contempt Over Documents in New York A.G.’s Inquiry
Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess and William K. Rashbaum - 43m ago

A New York judge on Monday held Donald J. Trump in contempt of court for failing to turn over documents to the state’s attorney general, an extraordinary rebuke of the former president.

The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, ordered Mr. Trump to comply with a subpoena seeking records and assessed a fine of $10,000 per day until he satisfies the court’s requirements. In essence, the judge concluded that Mr. Trump had failed to cooperate with the attorney general, Letitia James, and follow the court’s orders.

“Mr. Trump: I know you take your business seriously, and I take mine seriously,” Justice Engoron remarked, before holding Mr. Trump in contempt and banging his gavel.

The ruling represents a significant victory for Ms. James, whose office is conducting a civil investigation into whether Mr. Trump falsely inflated the value of his assets in annual financial statements.

In January, Ms. James, a Democrat, said her office had concluded that the Trump Organization had engaged in “fraudulent or misleading” practices involving the statements. But she said she would continue to investigate before deciding whether to sue Mr. Trump or his company.

Although Ms. James does not have the authority to file criminal charges, her civil inquiry is running parallel to a criminal investigation led by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who is examining some of the same conduct.

Ms. James’s office is participating in that separate investigation, which had appeared to be nearing an indictment of Mr. Trump earlier this year, before Mr. Bragg raised concerns about prosecutors’ ability to prove their case. Mr. Bragg, also a Democrat, inherited the inquiry from his predecessor after taking office on Jan. 1.

The ruling on Monday presents a roadblock for Mr. Trump as he continues to battle the attorney general’s investigation. Ms. James has sought to question the former president and two of his children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr., as part of her inquiry and lawyers for the Trump family are seeking to block the questioning. (In the fall of 2020, Ms. James questioned another of Mr. Trump’s children, Eric Trump, as part of her investigation.)

In March, Justice Engoron sided with Ms. James, ordering Mr. Trump and his children to be deposed. The Trumps have appealed that ruling.

This month, lawyers from Ms. James’s office called for Mr. Trump to be held in contempt and assessed a daily fine of $10,000 as long as he continued to not cooperate. They said that Mr. Trump had declined to turn over documents in response to eight separate requests. Mr. Trump’s lawyers had said the requests were “grossly overbroad,” and did not “adequately” describe the requested materials.

Last week, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Alina Habba, said in a document filed with the court that Mr. Trump did not have any of the documents that Ms. James had requested. Any such documents, if they existed, would be in the possession of the Trump Organization, she said.

She added that Ms. James had filed the motion for contempt without warning, “seemingly in an effort to turn this matter into a public spectacle.”

But Ms. James has said that at least some of Mr. Trump’s documents have yet to be turned over. In one filing, her lawyers mentioned a file cabinet that had been held at the company and contained the former president’s files, and noted that he used Post-it notes to pass messages to employees.

According to Ms. James, Mr. Trump’s lawyer said that a file of Mr. Trump’s correspondence had not been searched, in part because the business had determined that Mr. Trump was not involved in preparing his own financial statements.

Ms. James called that assertion improbable, and referred to a statement affixed to the financial statements that says: “Donald J. Trump is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation” of the valuations.

In a separate case in federal court, Mr. Trump sued Ms. James, seeking to halt her civil inquiry and have her removed from the Manhattan district attorney’s criminal investigation. That case is ongoing.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-holds-trump-in-contempt-over-documents-in-new-york-ags-inquiry/ar-AAWzYlm?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBnb7Kz

[Boston always unofficial]

This stuff about the texts to Meadows that's breaking now.They really are a bunch of dumb asses.dangerous as fuck but dumb.

[KillieRed]

I have very little confidence that the disgraced former President will ever have to face legal repercussions for his actions before he pops his clogs. And after that we’ll probably have to listen to his spawns garbage for decades. He’s just doing what he always does: delay delay delay & hope the poor people give up.

[jambutty]

Kimmel:  Perjury Taylor Greene

[jambutty]

I've got a real good feeling about the Congressional 1/6 hearings.

Foot soldiers getting convicted of bigger and bigger transgressions.

Subpoenas will be going out (Dr. Ronny, lol).  Eventually they'll show up and misremember, Then the exhibits will come out.

All these fuckers have their sedition in writing.

Hoist, eh wot?

Anyone heard from Jim Jordan lately?

This is gonna go on throughout the election season.

[Red Beret]

Still doesn't explain why Merrick Garland hasn't appointed a special prosecutor who can cover the gaps the 1/6 Committee can't.

Oh yeah, it's because he's scared.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Still doesn't explain why Merrick Garland hasn't appointed a special prosecutor who can cover the gaps the 1/6 Committee can't.

Oh yeah, it's because he's scared.

Scared of what?

[Red Beret]

Scared of what?

Scared of the words "political witch hunt".

He seems to harbour the same, naive belief of Biden that the current crop of Republicans can be reasoned with if you play nice with them.  Garland is probably concerned that if he goes after Trump, a future GOP President might exploit the "precedent" to use the DoJ unethically.

The reality is that the Republicans will do all of these things regardless, And by not using a special prosecutor he's just kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with.

[jambutty]

Business Insider
Oath Keepers leader Elmer Stewart Rhodes asked to speak with Donald Trump on January 6: court filing
rbarber@businessinsider.com (C. Ryan Barber) - 3h ago

On the night of January 6, 2021, the leader of the far-right Oath Keepers armed group tried to speak with President Donald Trump and directly implore him to call on groups to help stop the certification of President-elect Joe Biden's electoral victory, according to court records.

In a court filing Wednesday, prosecutors said Oath Keepers leader Elmer Stewart Rhodes gathered with members of the far-right militia at a Washington, DC, hotel and placed a call over speakerphone to an unidentified individual. During the call, "Rhodes repeatedly implored the individual to tell President Trump to call upon groups like the Oath Keepers to forcibly oppose the transfer of power," according to the court filing.

In November, Summer Zervos, who had accused Trump of sexual assault following her appearance on "The Apprentice," dropped her lawsuit against him before he was forced to sit for a deposition. At around the same time, a New York state judge dismissed a lawsuit from Michael Cohen seeking to have the Trump Organization reimburse his legal fees for work he did on Trump's behalf.

But greater dangers loom. The Trump Organization is the subject of a sprawling investigation from the Manhattan district attorney's office and the New York attorney general's office into alleged financial misconduct.

In Atlanta, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is weighing charges over his conduct in the 2020 election. Those investigations are proceeding as the Justice Department comes up on the five-year deadline to prosecute Trump over acts of possible obstruction that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller III scrutinized as part of his investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is sending a steady stream of Trump's White House records to the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. And Trump — along with many of his allies — face federal investigations and lawsuits stemming from the January 6 insurrection. Expect the judges in those cases to set court dates later this year.

After the recipient of the call refused to connect him with Trump, Rhodes told the group, "I just want to fight," according to the court filing.

The court filing came in the case of William Todd Wilson, an Oath Keeper who pleaded guilty Wednesday to seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a congressional proceeding — a pair of felonies each carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison — in connection with the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

As part of the plea deal, Wilson, 45, admitted that he conspired with Rhodes and other Oath Keepers to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in early 2021. The plan included a cache of weapons stored in a hotel just outside Washington, DC, and so-called "quick reaction force" teams prepared to forcibly halt the certification of Biden's victory.

Wilson agreed as part of the plea deal to cooperate with the Justice Department's ongoing investigation into the January 6 insurrection. He is expected to testify Thursday before a grand jury.

His lawyer declined to comment Wednesday.

The revelation of Rhodes' attempt to contact Trump offers insight into ties between the Oath Keepers and members of the then-sitting president's orbit. On the morning of January 6, Trump's longtime political ally Roger Stone appeared outside a hotel in Washington, DC, flanked by members of the Oath Keepers militia.

In previous court filings, Rhodes indicated himself that the Oath Keepers were awaiting some official action from Trump in the aftermath of January 6. Rhodes' lawyers said in a February court filing "that there was a belief that President Donald Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act, necessitating a need for militias and other groups to defend that declaration" ahead of the inauguration set for January 20, 2021.

"When that invocation did not come, Rhodes took no action, before or after, that could be considered seditious by any rational observer," Rhodes' lawyers said.

The Insurrection Act allows the president to order the US military and National Guard troops to respond to rebellions inside the US, and does not pertain to armed civilian groups like Oath Keepers.

With his guilty plea Wednesday, Wilson became the third Oath Keeper to admit to engaging in a seditious conspiracy.

Brian Ulrich, 44, pleaded guilty last week to seditious conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding, as part of a deal requiring him to provide "substantial assistance" to the Justice Department. Ulrich had been indicted in January along with 10 others, including Rhodes, on charges they coordinated a wide-ranging plot to forcibly impede the certification of the 2020 election results.

In March, Joshua James pleaded guilty as part of a similar deal with the Justice Department requiring him to cooperate with the January 6 investigation.

The seditious conspiracy charge is perhaps the most significant prosecutors have brought in the nearly 800 criminal prosecutions stemming from the January 6 attack on the Capitol. In the months since the insurrection, multiple members of the pro-Trump mob have pleaded guilty to charges related to the Capitol siege, and prosecutors have secured guilty verdicts in each of the four jury trials related to January 6.

In the new court filing, prosecutors said Wilson heard Rhodes discuss on multiple occasions the potential need to s to "engage in force, up to and including lethal violence, in order to stop the transfer of power."

Prosecutors have alleged that Rhodes and other Oath Keepers began plotting to oppose Biden's victory shortly after the 2020 election. Rhodes communicated directly over an encrypted messaging app with Wilson, whom prosecutors described as a "military and law enforcement veteran."

In one phone call, Rhodes confirmed Wilson's hotel accommodations and urged him to "come prepared," prosecutors said in the court filing. Based on that directive, prosecutors said, Wilson drove from North Carolina to Washington, DC, with an AR- 15-style rifle, a 9-millimeter pistol, about 200 rounds of ammunition, body armor, a camouflaged combat uniform, pepper spray, a pocketknife, and a large walking stick intended for use as a weapon."

Weeks earlier, on November 9, Wilson dialed into a "national call" Rhodes organized in which he outlined a plan to stop the certification of Biden's victory and urged other Oath Keepers to join him.

"You're from Oath Keepers. You got a responsibility and duty. You raised your freaking right hand. You swore that oath . . . You got to fight," Rhodes said, according to the court filing.

On Wednesday, Wilson raised his right hand as he was placed under oath and admitted to the facts laid out in the court filing.

"Are you pleading guilty because you are, in fact, guilty?" Judge Amit Mehta asked him.

"Yes, your honor," he replied.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/oath-keepers-leader-elmer-stewart-rhodes-asked-to-speak-with-donald-trump-on-january-6-court-filing/ar-AAWVCLy?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=46bf8b178df942c989fbd87c69f5cc11

[Chakan]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-rules-gop-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-stay/story?id=84314352

An administrative law judge in Georgia on Friday ruled that GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene can stay on the ballot for the state's 14th Congressional District following a challenge to her reelection candidacy.

A group of Georgia voters had argued that Greene was not eligible to run for reelection under the "disqualification clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment due to her alleged support for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

In his 19-page opinion, Judge Charles Beaudrot said that the burden of proof is on the challengers and that they "failed to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence."

Beaudrot also said that the evidence in the case was insufficient to establish that Greene "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or [gave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."

The judge's ruling is a recommendation; the final decision on whether Greene stays on the ballot for the May 24 primary will be made by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Free Speech For People, the legal organization representing the challengers, released a statement saying that the judge's "decision betrays the fundamental purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s insurrectionist disqualification clause and gives a pass to political violence as a tool for disrupting and overturning free and fair elections." The statement also urged Raffensperger to take a "fresh look" at the evidence and to reject the judge's recommendation.

Passed after the Civil War, the disqualification clause bars any person who has "engaged in insurrection" against the United States or "given aid or comfort" to its "enemies" from holding federal office if they have previously taken an oath to protect the Constitution. That includes members of Congress.

In his opening statement at Greene's hearing, Ron Fein, a lawyer representing the five voters and the legal director of Free Speech For People, argued Jan. 6 was an insurrection and was Greene was one of its leaders.

"This was not the type of insurrection where the leaders were standing in Richmond, Virginia, giving long-winded speeches," Fein said. "Rather, the leaders of this insurrection, of whom there were a number, were among us -- on Facebook, Twitter and corners of social media that would make your stomach hurt. The evidence will show that Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of them."

"The most powerful witness against Marjorie Taylor Greene's candidacy, the most powerful witness in establishing that she crossed the line into engagement of insurrection, is Marjorie Taylor Greene herself," he said.

In his opening statement, Greene's attorney James Bopp, argued that the voters of Georgia's 14th Congressional District have the "right to vote for the candidate of their choosing. And they have a right to have their vote counted," adding that Greene was not a perpetrator but a "victim" of the attack, which he argued was "despicable" but not an insurrection.

"Her life was in danger, she thought," Bopp said. "She was scared and confused.

Greene said that while in lockdown she went inside the cloakroom and made a video directed at those storming the Capitol.

"Obey the law," Greene said in the video, also played in the courtroom. "This is not a time for violence. This is a time to support president trump and support election integrity. God bless."

Greene repeatedly denied that she or her office gave tours to or met with protesters ahead of the Jan. 6 rally or that she provided maps of the Capitol building.

"I would have to talk to people on my campaign, but I don't think we did," she said. "How would we have done that? We didn't do anything like that."

She also insisted she didn't recall sending tweets and making other social media posts presented as evidence, or the circumstances around many of her statements that were shown on a video monitor in the courtroom.

The hearing heated up when Andrew Celli, another lawyer for the voters, pressed Greene about whether she encouraged former President Donald Trump to impose martial law after the riot.

"And you had meetings with him between the election in 2020 and January 20th of 2021, right?" he asked.

"Yes," Greene responded.

"And in those meetings, you discussed with him your advocacy for the idea that there should be martial law declared in the United States?" Celli pressed.

"No, I don't recall ever discussing that," she responded.

"Are you saying it didn't happen or you're saying you don't recall one way or the other?" Celli continued.

"I don't recall ever discussing that," Greene repeated.

Bopp objected to the line of questioning, but the judge allowed it to continue.

Celli then asked Greene whether she ever advocated for martial law in conversations with then-chief of staff Mark Meadows or Trump prior to President Joe Biden's inauguration.

"I don't recall," Greene said.

Evidence later emerged showing Greene did have conversations with Meadows advocating for martial law to keep Trump in power.

"In our private chat with only Members, several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall law [sic]," Greene texted Meadows on Jan. 17, 2021, 11 days after the pro-Trump mob attacked the U.S. Capitol to try to stop the certification of the vote.

"I don't know on those things," Greene continued. "I just wanted you to tell him. They stole this election. We all know. They will destroy our country next. Please tell him to declassify as much as possible so we can go after Biden and anyone else!"

[John C]

^ ^ ^
That's really disappointing, lets hope the fucking witch gets ousted anyway.

[Jiminy Cricket]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-rules-gop-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-stay/story?id=84314352

Disappointing.

[Chakan]

Everyday I have less and less faith that these people will actually get "what's coming to them"

Depressing.

[jambutty]

RawStory
Trump slammed by former Pentagon chief: 'He believes he has Putin-esque like powers'
Raw Story - 5h ago

Former Defense Secretary Bill Cohen said Friday that he was not surprised by new claims from former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who is alleging in his book that former President Donald Trump once proposed launching a missile attack on Mexico.

“I must say I'm not surprised," Cohen said during an appearance on MSNBC. "We saw evidence of this, that former President Trump has no respect for the rule of law. He believes he has Putin-esque like powers.”

Cohen added, citing what he described as "high-level sources," that one of Trump's advisors had informed the president that his plans were illegal. "And he said, 'So what?' And the individual said, 'Well, you could be prosecuted." And he said, 'By whom?'"

"So the attitude is I can do anything," Cohen continued, "and I have absolute power. So this doesn't surprise me, that he would even talk about this."

According to excerpts cited by the New York Times, Trump believed the United States could pretend it wasn't responsible for launching missiles across its southern border, Esper, who was Pentagon head between July 2019 and November 2020, writes.

In 2020, Trump reportedly asked twice if the military could "shoot missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs," Esper writes in his book titled "A Sacred Oath."

According to the Times, Esper was left "speechless" at the requests.

Trump dismissed Esper in November 2020, just days after the results of the US presidential election were announced, in which President Joe Biden won.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-slammed-by-former-pentagon-chief-he-believes-he-has-putin-esque-like-powers/ar-AAX04V3?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=672191ebcbd54e54b96a28ddfe180148

Truth is, Rump was correct.  No one would've stopped him.

Safeguards must be made.

[John C]

And nobody should be buying Mark Esper's book. He's just another shithouse profiting from his cowardice by writing a book now rather than speaking out then.

[Chakan]

Musk says he’ll reverse Trumps twitter ban if his deal to buy twitter goes Banning Trump "was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme," the billionaire said at a Financial Times conference on Tuesday.

[KillieRed]

Hopefully people leave in droves & destroy his investment.

[hide5seek]

Hopefully people leave in droves & destroy his investment.

Is there a similar site to twitter?

[Chakan]

Is there a similar site to twitter?

There's trumps truth media thing which is an utter failure, otherwise not really.

[KillieRed]

Is there a similar site to twitter?

Nothing good.

[TSC]

Musk says he’ll reverse Trumps twitter ban if his deal to buy twitter goes Banning Trump "was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme," the billionaire said at a Financial Times conference on Tuesday.

The orange one will be celebrating considering his pathetic efforts at launching his own social media. Has that Musk deal to buy Twitter completed? 

[RF]

Musk says he’ll reverse Trumps twitter ban if his deal to buy twitter goes Banning Trump "was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme, because us gobshites should always stick together" the billionaire said at a Financial Times conference on Tuesday.

[Jiminy Cricket]

The orange one will be celebrating considering his pathetic efforts at launching his own social media. Has that Musk deal to buy Twitter completed?

Tramp has subsequently stated that he will not return to Twitter. I'll stick my neck out with a prediction: assuming that Musk does take ownership of Twitter, he will buyout Truth Social* (and then close it) and Trump will return to Twitter at that point. Of course, there is no valuable 'technology' contained within the TS platform.

* For some pretty nominal figure - probably undisclosed - compared with the value of Twitter. Of course, no matter how 'nominal', it will be way more than the platform is truly worth. But Trump and Musk will spin the buyout as being to their mutual advantage. And it will be. Trump will claim creation of TS as a good investment and its sale as a good business decision; Musk will claim similar - though, the true 'good business decision' (as Musk sees it) will be the return of Trump to Twitter to improve engagement.

I'll make a further prediction: Musk will either destroy Twitter, or he will rapidly reverse course when it turns (even more) to shit and (influential) people start leaving left, right and centre.

[oojason]

'The Muppets Introduce "The Jan. 6th Show"' (at 17 seconds into the video):-

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/cpYv5MNpg6o" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/cpYv5MNpg6o</a>


^ or click here to watch - https://imgur.com/gallery/inpQh79

[Corkboy]

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump

Honestly, it's good to have him back. I missed his insanity.

[KillieRed]

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump

Honestly, it's good to have him back. I missed his insanity.

I felt dirty clicking on it, but when i did it said "Access Denied". Just me, or is that a level of the sites incompetence?


EDIT: They`ve limited it to USA only? What about us Truth-Starved Europeans?

[Chakan]

I felt dirty clicking on it, but when i did it said "Access Denied". Just me, or is that a level of the sites incompetence?

Unfortunately mine opened fine.

Now I feel really dirty...

[KillieRed]

Yeah, US only. Shame that.

Kinda glad i didnt see what was revealed inside his head to be honest.

[Chakan]

Yeah, US only. Shame that.

Kinda glad i didnt see what was revealed inside his head to be honest.

Same thing at twitter basically.

Conspiracy, he's right everyone else is wrong, yada yada yada...

He's protecting america everyone else is tearing it down, russia hoax, jan 6th panel hoax, etc.

[KillieRed]

Same thing at twitter basically.

Conspiracy, he's right everyone else is wrong, yada yada yada...

He's protecting america everyone else is tearing it down, russia hoax, jan 6th panel hoax, etc.

He`s such a colossal bore on top of being an utterly transparent liar. I`m convinced his supporters just like him because he`s the world`s biggest troll.

[Red Beret]

Farron Cousins on YouTube has covered Truth Social a fair bit. They've faked accounts for legitimate news outlets and a lot of people had to go on a waiting list before they could even register. Small investors stand to lose a lot of money on the project, but the people at the top are expected to make a killing.

[Chakan]

Farron Cousins on YouTube has covered Truth Social a fair bit. They've faked accounts for legitimate news outlets and a lot of people had to go on a waiting list before they could even register. Small investors stand to lose a lot of money on the project, but the people at the top are expected to make a killing.

How?

From all i've heard it's an utter catastrophic failure from start to finish.

[Corkboy]

I felt dirty clicking on it, but when i did it said "Access Denied". Just me, or is that a level of the sites incompetence?


EDIT: They`ve limited it to USA only? What about us Truth-Starved Europeans?

I could open it fine and I'm in Yurp..

[TSC]

https://nypost.com/2022/06/09/trump-said-pence-deserves-hanging-at-capitol-riot-liz-cheney/

[Red Beret]

How?

From all i've heard it's an utter catastrophic failure from start to finish.

The gist I got is that they cash in early and get out, leaving everyone at the bottom to deal with the losses. I heard it was something akin to a pyramid scheme.

[Riquende]

How?

From all i've heard it's an utter catastrophic failure from start to finish.

Didn't they receive a bunch of upfront funding that massively overinflated the share prices or something? I confess to not remotely understanding the world of imaginary finances but I remember people being shocked at the level of investment for a company that (at that time) had no product.

Or was that some other Trump grift?