Cassidy Hutchinson. A true American hero

I am going to ignore your invectives, because that is just a silly waste of time, and will instead respond to only the parts with a at least a semblance of substance. From what little I have seen of your posting in the past, I seem to recall you always having a hate filled tone and tenor in addition to constantly throwing around invectives. I am not one of those types. Please refrain from such petty nonsense. It accomplishes nothing.

So you would rather opt for the words of another that BTW happened to be further into our conversation and was NOT what was originally being discussed because I started the conversation and these were an attempt to expland the conversation about something that it did not begin, but that is perfectly fine. I suppose he did make a stronger argument than you so I suppose on some level I do not blame you...

OK
-Calling state election officials and pressuring them to produce more votes. That is phrased with such ominous language. One could also say pressuring them to audit their vote totals. If you could prove that he was trying to get them to produce fraudulent votes you could probably muster up a crime there, but has that been proven? Or is this just more of the silly TDS that we see on a daily basis?

-Working on alternate set of electors. While I do not know all of the details of this assertion, what law are you saying was broke by "working" on an alternate set of electors? What exactly does that mean?

-Sending a mob to the capital.... Hmmm. You mean the one he told to be peaceful. If you TRULY were going to pin that on him legally, you would have an incredibly hurdle to overcome, but being a lawyer, you already know that. To prove that as a crime is NEVER going to happen. A person can have a rally and then not be responsible of some of the people in that rally subsequently break a law.

-Cheering on his mob to hang Mike Pence.... LOL cmon. Not even you truly believe this as being serious, and certainly not a crime. YOUR TDS is showing again.

So thats it? Thats your big reveal? LOL....cmon. After more than a year of a lopsided policial with hunt, i had expected better than that if you really want to pretend like this committe has found anything of actual substance. I am not surprised that they have put out some allegations, but for you and you ilk to be running around and acting like this is some sort of slam dunk?...LOL. That is RIDICULOUS.

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO ASSERT A LEGAL PRIVILEGE THAT ENDS UP BEING DENIED. You are playing with words here. If the legal privilege ends up being denied, then yes, what was being asserted is not legal, but that does NOT make the act of trying to assert it and making your argument illegal as well, and it most certainly does not make the act of CONTEMPLATING asserting an incorrect privilege illegal. This is an enormously important distinction, that surely you understand, but at the same time have no problem hiding behind the confusing language associated with such.

For starters, it is not accurate to call me a Trump worshipper. As a Conservative, I like a lot of what he accomplished, but I could take him or leave him as a person. With that being said, I CAN see the nonsense that the TDS crowd has tried to pin on him literally every day since 2016, and I cannot help but giggle at their futility.

Did you see in another thread where a person took his words that "they arent here to hurt me"? He took the sentence and said "they arent here to hurt ME" and then on the basis of his capitalization, he concluded that therefore what he really meant was that they werent here to hurt him, rather they are here to hurt those that stand in their way. This nonsense never stops with these people.

I mention this because to whatever extent that you are envisioning in your head that I am a Trump worshipper, in reality, I am just pushing back against the folks that try to push that nonsense, and at this moment, you certainly are not exempt from the TDS label.

Life is short. Be happy. There isnt time for all of the anger that you project. Oh, and not one of these accusation is going to stick. You know that right? Also, an accusation without a conviction means nothing. You know that right? You also know that a one sided congressional investigation is much different than atrial where witnesses are actually cross examined? As a lawyer of course you do. Some amongst the TDS crowd do not seem to understand this reality.

 

When someone sees absolutely nothing wrong with the multitude of criminal acts this insane beast has perpetrated and has a contrived excuse for every single one of them despite the incontrovertible and overwhelming evidence, it's 100% accurate to label you a Trump worshipper and a cultist.

There's no point in any further discussion on this topic. As I said it's an exercise in futility to discuss anything Trump with a Trump worshipper.

 

I love how in your mind everything is incontrovertible yet there has never been an actual trial where evidence is actually fleshed out, cross examined, and the credibility of various claims and witnesses determined by a jury. Hell, there isnt even anyone serving as the defense in this nonsensical hearing.

Is that what you were taught about our justice system in law school? Or do you just save your unsupportable, unproven, bombastic claims for the political chat room?

 

I never attended law school. I litigated a few cases as a sui juris party, including a federal Section 1983 lawsuit I filed against multiple parties. I've written dozens of legal briefs and even filed a Motion to Sanction an attorney in one brief. So I have a bit of experience with the legal industry. I studied the Constitution, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, many civil rights cases and read many papers written by constitutional scholars. I sensed the justice system in the US was broken a few decades ago but actually learned to what extent over the last 2 decades or so while litigating these lawsuits. I never lost any case I litigated personally despite that when one litigates his/her own case they don't take you very seriously. The strategy is to try to beat them at their own game if you have the right tools.

All that said, the 1/6 investigation is not a court of law. This forum is not a court of law. The justice system is incredibly and hopelessly corrupt. And the evidence that Trump committed multiple crimes is overwhelming and dispositive (lawyer language meaning "a no brainer"). I'm guessing despite all that this scumbag that you're defending will never see one day behind bars and may not even set foot in a coutroom. But that's just me. I hope I'm wrong because if not, the next wannabe fascist dictator will learn from all this and will succeed beyond Trump's wildest dreams. Trump still has the support of almost half this country. Hitler had the support of over 95% of Germans back in the day.

 

It clearly is not a court of law. What is going on right now with the committee hearing is preposterous. Nothing that comes out of it or is alleged means a thing. People are tuning this nonsense out for good reason, and I do not mean the right, I mean independents. There are obvious misstatements from this Hutchinson lady. What you end up with is a littany of accusations, some of them with merit, and others with literally zero merit, and all of them being gleefully accepted by the committee and leftists on this board as 100% correct, and you wonder why the opposing side dismisses your claims out of hand?

Someone like yourself takes every accusation as if it were incontrovertible and proceeds to argue as if it were, and someone like me dismisses all allegations as partisan nonsense. The notion of the boy who cried wolf is very real, and boy has the left been doing a lot of crying wolf in the last 5 years. Nobody listens anymore.

Much of this would never make into a court of law, and what does, would certainly be cross examined and perhaps explained in a different manner than the committee whose conclusions were foregone long before these hearing even started. They are clearly nothing more than a made for TV drama. Surely on some level you understand this. No matter what type of evidence that you think has been generated by this committee, the notion that this was an insurrection which is sort of the heart of the whole thing, is utterly preposterous. The only way he would have retained power was if his legal argument was validated. If it was rejected he would not have been in power. It is as simple as that. This scenario does NOT constitute an insurrection.

 

I'm hearing the committee is having a hell of a time deciding whether anything gets pushed to DOJ for real prosecution.

Just think what fun that would be. Bigger than Depp v. Heard. And all the voting corruption would finally be brought up and litigated in a court of law. On primetime TV. Oh, what fun that would be.

 

Just adding a ton more evidence. The evidence that Trump committed multiple crimes was overwhelming long before the 1/6 Committee was even formed. It's ok blind one, you can't help yourself. I completely understand.

 

WOLF! WOLF!WOLF!

Sure thing. The evidence of Russian Collusion was incontrovertible too. Until it wasnt.

 

I can tell you're FRANTIC with worry for trump. It shows right through.

 

The insurrection was televised live. It has nothing to do with the "Russian Collusion". But keep flailing if it helps.

 

"The Insurrection"....LOL. Boy we just barely saved our democracy that day!(sarcasm). WOLF!... WOLF!

Bless your little heart.

 

I understand you have no clue what that is.

Insurrection

A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence.

Under federal law, it is a crime to incite, assist, or engage in such conduct against the United States.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/insurrection

You're welcome.

What democracy? The Constitution guarantees a Republic (if you can keep it), not a democracy (2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner). Well the Republic went in the dumpster probably the day after the Constitution was ratified or for sure in 1803. In any case this form of government was never a democracy. I understand you have no clue about that either.

Maybe if you keep that up you might attract a bitch if you're not too ugly or old. However this is a discussion forum, not a kennel but you have no clue about that either.

It must suck to be clueless about just about everything.

 

I could respond point by point, but why? This conversation has played out. Its time to move on.