Judge rules Trump's efforts to overturn election likely criminal

Good point. I truly hope that all can again see the majority of fellow Americans as their fellow citizens with rights and freedoms as well. That's the beauty of the constitution and small d democracy.

 

they learned from members of Congress that Trump called them, so they have a right to those records

 

What do you think the records are going to show that the members haven't already told them? If they admitted he called them, what is the issue? The records do not include transcripts of the calls.

 

they will confirm the congress members were telling the truth

 

None of that is a response to my what I posted, but it was sort of interesting anyway...

 

You're looking at that from the wrong end, LC.

 

Nope he was calling as a candidate for President who believed, rightly or wrongly, the election results included fraud and wanted electors decertified just as Dems have done it the past.

 

There is a job to oversee the positions they advise and consent upon and the various departments for legislative purposes, not the President. The attack on the Capital was a criminal event which is the job of the DOJ. They should be overseeing the persons at the Capital who were in charge of protecting it since THAT was the failure that day.

Once again

"The Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s power to issue subpoenas, saying in order to write laws it also needs to be able to investigate.

Congress’ power to issue subpoenas, while broad, is not unlimited. The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. A subpoena must potentially further some “legitimate legislative purpose,” the court has said."
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/explainer-can-congress-enforce-subpoena

"According to the committee’s own enabling resolution, which was passed by the House of Representatives in June of 2021, the purpose of the committee is purely investigatory. None of the three stated purposes mention legislation a single time. Instead, the language of the enabling resolution states that the purpose of the committee is to “investigate and report” the facts surrounding the January 6 riot, “examine” evidence collected, and to “build upon” other investigations.

The three stated functions of the committee, per the resolution, are to “investigate the facts” surrounding the riot, “identify” lessons learned, and “issue a final report” on the committee’s investigation. Not only does the enabling resolution not provide any legislative goals for the committee, it explicitly bans the committee from marking up any legislation whatsoever."
https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/2...-major-court-battle-over-executive-privilege/

As I have cited Congressional subpoenas must be for LEGISLATIVE purposes.

"....may wonder whether Congress had authority to issue that subpoena. Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court shed light on that question in its decision in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, Nos. 19-715 & 19-760.

The Court’s Decision After describing the history of how subpoena-based disputes between Congress and various presidents have been resolved, the Court discussed the basis for—and limits to—Congress’s subpoena power. Specifically, the Court affirmed that Congress’s subpoena power cannot be used for law enforcement purposes. In other words, Congress cannot use its subpoena authority to put someone on trial for a crime or wrongdoing, nor does Congress have the “power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Slip Op. at 12. Indeed, the Court confirmed that congressional investigations used solely to “punish” those investigated would be “indefensible.” Not only that, the Court reinforced the limitations to the subpoena power, including that the subpoena must serve a “valid legislative purpose,” and is proper only if it is “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress.” Slip Op. at 11. In addition, the Court reaffirmed that those subject to a congressional subpoena have both constitutional and common law privileges—including attorney-client privilege—against the subpoena."
https://jenner.com/system/assets/pu...s_Congressional_Subpoena_Power.pdf?1594417043

 

They aren't the same thing. If they were insurrectionist, why was no one charged with insurrection?

 

Annnnnnnd this means what again?

 

It's bizarre. They overlook quite a few things they chide others about constantly.

A few examples...

* Constant finger pointing and blame.
* Hyper-hypersensitive. Any criticism hurts his feelings.
* He has no manners. None. Diplomacy is important.
* He is completely tone-deaf to the average person.
* He has too many conflicts of interests in foreign countries.
* He's a pathological liar.
* He has DECADES of lying, cheating and fraud.
* He stole from his own donors' bank accounts and a judge had to FORCE him to refund their money.
* He married three hookers and cheated with other hookers.
* He ignored the Capitol police being attacked by an angry mob ("Law and Order President"? Not hardly).

 

Damn dude, I hate to burst that bubble, but there are days of 0 call logs. Do you know why?
For some strange reason the left got convinced that the president only uses the switchboard to make calls from one phone.
How they got suckered into that is beyond me.

 

The only thing on that list I would object to would be calling all three wives hookers... I understand the current one has a pretty sordid past, but I think the first 2 were OK in that regard (except for who they married)

 

Ivana was a high-priced escort.
Marla was his mistress and dabbled in prostitution for the right "customer". She confronted Ivana when she was invited along on their family vacation.
Melania was a lesbian porn nude model.

No self-respecting woman would marry such a loser. All of them were contractual.

 

I personally don't know if all of this ^^^ is fully accurate but I really can't doubt any of it given the 'player', Trump. Everything is transactional.

 

So, just to be clear, you seem to be claiming all the listed calls made on 1/6 before the pre-insurrection rally were official switchboard calls, then after the rally, he didn't make any switchboard calls until 7pm, then went back to the switchboard for a dozen or so more calls the rest of the night??

Does that sound remotely plausible to anybody.... besides you???

You need to think critically... that doesn't mean what you think it does...

 

Of course they were contractual, but you need to link the bold...

 

Oh, you have a list of these pre-insurrection, post insurrection, and the rest of the night call logs?
You will share those, right?

 

Have in the appropriate thread (don't know how this one got on the call gap, but oh well), but here it is, as you seem to be the only one who isn't familiar and google-friendly

https://www.businessinsider.com/who...one-on-day-of-january-6-riots-timeline-2022-3

If just one of those calls didn't go through the switchboard and still made the call log, your argument is shot to hell...

 

It's all available online. I didn't know much about him at all when I joined here. I remember seeing him on Time Magazine in a store and then he was running for POTUS. I don't watch television so I never saw whatever tv show he had or was on. Everything I learned about him and his career spans his whole life and is available online. Some of it I had to find through LexisNexis so it's not free but there are court records and anyone can get information through the FOIA.

 

Yet CNN reported that Trump developed a habit of placing calls directly from a landline or cell phone and not through the official White House switchboard while in the Oval Office that don't show up on the official White House call logs.
Go figure. CNN of all media.

Yet in lefty land, they all just found out that the president doesn't use just one phone. So the entire fakery about 7 hour off log calls is just another, look squirrel, issue.

 

Giuliani, Costello, and Bannon had copies of the HD. Also, the FBI has it, as well.

You'd think if there was evidence, G,C & B would have offered it to a court of law or to the media, or someone.

they haven't.

Why?

there isn't any.


And what about the FBI? Why haven't they offered a referral for indictment to the DOJ?

why? Because Giuliani, Costello, and Bannon tampered with it, and thus giving defense tremendous fodder to kill the prosecution's 'evidence' in cross-examination.

OR, there isn't any evidence. Since the three stooges above haven't given the media, courts of law, etc., any evidence, I'm going with the latter.

 

We've already seen multiple pieces of evidence. Where have you been? Your post reeks of not being informed on the topic.

From "10% for the big guy", which was confirmed to complaining to his daughter that 1/2 his salary goes to his Dad (Joe) and that he would never make her do that. Did you know about this evidence? Am I the first to share it with you? If you do know about it, why do you ignore and dismiss it so quickly? I'll bet none of these questions receives and answer.

 

if a democrat did what Trump did, both parties would turn on them, everyone knows what he did was wrong and dangerous

the fact that some republicans are supporting and defending this man and his actions is beyond me

 

"10% for the big guy" is not evidence. There is no context, and I'm not hearing it subjected to cross examination. All I've seen are one - sided 'jump-to-conclusions kneejerking hysterics by republicans. No, I've not seen the email, please provide a link.

the latter does not appear, in any way, related to the former, and a statement like that could be just something stated out of emotion, maybe he's paying for stuff Joe feels he's owed for something, who knows, but is sure as hell isn't evidence of wrongdoing.

Most of what Iv'w seen comes from Daily Mail, which is a questionable source:




So, any conclusions offered by DM will be dismissed by me.

all I've seen are emails that need context.

One can make all sorts of assumptions based on emails because emails often omit the context that exists in the minds of those in the conversation who don't feel the need to specify since it's just email conversation, those party to the conversation know what is being talked about, which is why context is often missing in emails which, without the backstory, can appear to be something it is not. Who knows, maybe hunter is just bitching about something, it proves nothing.

Without that context, this does not equal evidence.

After an investigation, where individuals are questioned, all sides of the story are present, then get back to me.

I am totally fine with Hunter being asked to appear before congress for questioning.

Maybe someone can interview him, and answer questions about it. But, until then, it's not evidence.

However, 1/6 is far more important, and that task must be dealt with first.