Judge rules Trump's efforts to overturn election likely criminal

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MJ Davies, Mar 28, 2022.

  1. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,906
    Likes Received:
    17,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only a liberal would boast about a legal incident being “likely”
    Sad!
     
  2. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was a civil suit asking to bar John Eastman communications from the purvue of the Jan 6th Committee. In the ruling, the judge basically said no and gave his reasons. One of those reasons is that there is a possibility that obstruciton may have occurred, which is one of the few exceptions to attorney client privledge.
     
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Was based, rightly or wrongly, on a constitutional legal basis claim under the Electoral Voting Act. It was wrong and it didn't work. It was not criminal.

    What the Clinton campaign and certain high officials in the Obama administration and the MSM will go down as a FAR more egregious and underhanded and possibly illegal attempt to overturn an election will gone down in history as the worst political scandal in the history of the country.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  4. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean if like the Dems tried to do in the preceding two elections they had gotten new slates of electors for a couple of states? It would have gone to an emergency hearing before the SCOTUS.

    They need to scrap the EVA and rewrite it specifically stating that the VP role is strictly ceremonial and not administrative and that Senators and Representatives cannot object to slates of state certified Electors.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2022
    Ddyad likes this.
  5. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know. Modern conservatives have been harping on lock Hilary up and other quaint slogans with only the possiblity of being "likely." That was 4 years and counting. When Durhan was investigating, not a day went by on Fox, Newsmaxx, and OANN kept harping that the Democrats are in trouble with long jail sentences, etc.
     
    Lucifer likes this.
  6. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Doubtful, but that'll never put the corrupt former POTUS back in office either way...
     
  7. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Part of this ruling was a response to the 1/6 committee, who made the list of probable crimes...

    He reiterated the evidence he saw and heard during the case..... in an official court ruling, which is NOT a public opinion....

    I didn't hear him say a word here.... did you? Couldn't pick this guy out of a lineup....
     
  8. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No they do not, there subpoena's are limited to legislative matters NOT criminal investigation. They cannot investigate just to investigate to see what they find. Criminal investigations are the power of the Executive Branch through the DOJ and the adjuication with the Judicial, Congress has no role in the matters. Looking for and coming across are two separate matters.

    "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
     
    glitch likes this.
  9. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "I just want all the states like AZ, MM, MI, GE, PE"

    I'm still trying to figure out what 3 of those states are.... Did Joe add some recently??
     
    dairyair likes this.
  10. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,869
    Likes Received:
    10,275
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Appointed by Clinton" and "judge with some integrity" are mutually exclusive. :cool:
     
  11. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And why do you think subpeonas are being made? If information comes across that is possibly illegal or probably illegal, then they refer it to the DC Federal District Attorney for further develop. Furthermore, why do you think Congress investigated Behghazi, the IRS 501c4 in 2013, and so forth. They were obtaining information and at the same time, trying to figure out if there is any criminal liability going on.

    Where you are getting confused is that whoever does the investigation under Congress is not the same as putting on trial. A trial is simply the ultimate conclusion to whoever and whatever the investigation leads.
     
  12. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,379
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the judge can say whatever he wants. Hearings can serve more than one goal and its Congress that gets to list what the purposes of its hearings actually is. He was not taking testimony on that question or reading briefs on it that constitutional question, because that was not the constitutional issue before him. The question before him was whether the documents requested were subject to the attorney/ client privilege and thus exempt from the committee's authority to subpoena. That is a much more narrow issue before him and that is what he was prepared to actually rule on.

    Nobody with a lick of sense, thinks that Congress does not have an absolute right to investigate the events on Jan. 6. The 'specific legislative purpose' is so self evident that even you can figure it out. They have the authority to write laws on a dozen topics based on what they learn in these hearings or discipline their own members based on their own House ethics rules. While they are at it, they can also opine about alleged criminal conduct that they discover, and yes refer findings to a prosecuter or the Attorney General about possible criminal conduct - like any other good citizen in America can!
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2022
    AKS, Lucifer and Alwayssa like this.
  13. balancing act

    balancing act Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2020
    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    3,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not sure what you are responding to.
    I didn't mention the media, and I'm not sure what compensation you're talking about. Are you typing about the suit Trump filed? Maybe you're responding to the wrong post?
    I'm confused.
    I know what you're thinking, "as usual". lol
     
    Lucifer likes this.
  14. balancing act

    balancing act Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2020
    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    3,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apparently you misread. The tirade was about Trump.
    I feel about the same between Republicans and Democrats, lean left slightly, but I can't stand Trump. He is a horrible person, and does nothing but look out for himself. He is the most narssicistic human being I know of, and if he does anything for anyone, it's only to garner something for himself. He would throw us all under the bus if it benefitted him. It's not partisan, it's loathing a single waste of human flesh.
    Feel free to idolze him if you want. That's your decision.
     
    AKS and MJ Davies like this.
  15. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    21,120
    Likes Received:
    20,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not what this is, FatBack. Remember when the Investigating Committee asked to interview the Trump kids that were given positions in the White House (it's irrelevant if they collected a salary or not, they were given access to highly confidential information and were integral parts of day to day activities).

    Trump went to court to try to stop that on the grounds that the system was targeting his kids. That's not true. Tiffany and Barron weren't requested. So, he wanted them to be involved but he doesn't want their involvement questioned which is illegal. He crossed that line when he put them in those positions. Had he not, they wouldn't have been questioned unless they were involved peripherally in some way (Ivana and Trump, Jr. have some pending issues due to mismanagement of money).

    Trump had his attorneys go back to court to claim that his notes and communications leading up to and including the riot and its aftermath were "privileged" communications. A judge overruled that saying that they were not because he held the rally at the Capitol that day as part of his campaign for re-election, NOT acting as our POTUS. Therefore, there can't be "executive privilege".

    He was happy about that ruling and opted to turn over tattered and torn and otherwise damaged documents in an effort to make the information unreadable and stall the investigation while he tried other tactics to kill it behind the scenes.

    Trump has been using the US court system as a way to bully people he owes money or have cheated in some way because he has much deeper pockets for DECADES. He hit a roadblock in trying to just strongarm his way through legal trouble because our Founding Fathers set up our Constitution and Government body to include checks and balances just for these reasons*. Trump doesn't like to answer for his dirty dealings so he has been publicly pretending like he's being targeted and he's not. Every President in the history of this country had to follow proper procedures and he chose not to. He doesn't play by the rules because he's never really had to. He gets fined or admits fraud but it's usually been all over the country and wasn't big "news" because he wasn't our POTUS.

    So, the bottom line is, this judge's statements aren't a detailed indictment of specific criminal codes or policy violations. In summary, what he's saying is there is enough evidence at this point in time to definitely say that Trump and/or his representatives engaged in illegal behaviors relative to the 2020 election and subsequent events (and uncooperative behaviors to obstruct investigation of those events).


    * By the way, Trump isn't being singled out. Just the other day Biden said that Putin shouldn't remain in power and a bunch of the people in place "checks and balances" had to step in and clarify for Putin and us and the world that he was not making a declaration of war.
     
    balancing act likes this.
  16. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    21,120
    Likes Received:
    20,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think he made a mistake in the lawsuit against Clinton. He's lashing out and showing his hand a bit too much.
     
  17. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    21,120
    Likes Received:
    20,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not how "standing" works. One has to have "standing" in order to present an argument.
     
  18. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think he is using the lawsuits as campaign fodder to get donations.
     
    MJ Davies likes this.
  19. MJ Davies

    MJ Davies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2020
    Messages:
    21,120
    Likes Received:
    20,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, he's always grifting. I'm still upset that he took money from his donors' bank accounts without authorization and some of them couldn't pay their bills or get their medications. It's unconsciousable. He completely disgusts me.
     
  20. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's because the donors did not read the fine print when they were gifting to him. No one's fault but their own IMO.
     
  21. apexofpurple

    apexofpurple Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    5,552
    Likes Received:
    7,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Remember when I was saying this to you earlier? Bold parts in ours posts are synced and you now understand.

    Leftist judge, educated at leftist schools, appointed by leftist President, serving in the largest leftist district in the country, thinks a crime was committed because leftists who argued before him want to find evidence of a crime they are convinced exists but cant prove because they don't have evidence (fun circular logic there) and this leftist clown judge went along with it because their leftist narrative resonated well with his persona leftist ideals.
    Democrats are terrified, absolutely terrified of a Trump return. Things in America became just as bad under leftist control as everyone predicted and it didn't even take a year. Democrats in Congress are going to be absolutely shredded here in 8 months and 2 years after that their control of the Presidency will follow. They have nothing to offer America except riots and TDS investigations but its not going to save them no matter how many buildings burn or how many bogus legal challenges are heard.
     
  22. Sahba*

    Sahba* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    2,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    <Rule 2/3>
    When "Standing" works, it means that one is pertinent to the 'case' in question... obviously therere were some ommissions on the state level... !
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 29, 2022
    Ddyad likes this.
  23. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I should think someone ruling on law all day long knows a thing or to about the law.

    Well, it's not like he's some yahoo on PF declaring it's "only an opinion."

    Hah!

    FYI, what the judge is doing is that he is sending an official nudge to the AG, it's like, 'we got your back' (because of the fact that it would be a historical act, one of monumental significance with Garland's credibility and career on the line, so, it's no easy decision, and some judges are calling upon themselves, with their approval, you know, 'hey, we understand what you are going through, but you got our back, we're giving you the go signal, you have our blessings) that sort of thing. .

    That's what is going on here, it's not a message for you or me. It's for Garland.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2022
  24. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,306
    Likes Received:
    48,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I did read all of your posts and I think the key takeaway sentences this..... He doesn't play by the rules and he never has because he doesn't really have to......

    You just described every individual in this country with money who is above the law and that includes all of our politicians no matter what side they are on.

    Even if you just have money or influence..... Look at this jussie Smollett case..... He was actually let out of jail because they said that by the time his appeal went through he would have been in jail longer than the sentence.....

    Never mind that they were pretending that the outcome of his appeal would be a foregone conclusion that he were innocent. Poor folks black white yellow or purple or any other color.... NEVER get treated that way....
     
  25. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,306
    Likes Received:
    48,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It sounds almost as though you would agree that a judge should not be giving his opinion without proving what his opinion is based in on the law.

    We all have lots of opinions here at PF don't we? Some seem to present a lot more opinion than others
     

Share This Page