-
-
Re: Jan 6 Attack of the US Capital
Do you really think the Pelosi would admit that she was the one responsible? But the Republican investigation starts in a week and a half. Nancy better get her Federal Building built in a real big hurry, before she goes to federal prison. Most of the facts just now being revealed indicate that she is the one responsible for the break in. It is starting to look like her witch hunt is going to burn her at the stake. Also it is starting to appear that Trump was correct about the 2020 election being illegal.
If they had any real prosecutable evidence, it should not have taken 2 years of grand standing. 2 to 6 months at the most.Comment
-
Re: Jan 6 Attack of the US Capital
you're listening to the half truths from extremely liberal fact check sites. The half of their reports that is true is that there was no offer made on January 6, 2021. It was made prior to that date. Also the offer was not made by President Trump, it was made by the Defense Department. CONFIRMED: DC Mayor Bowser and Nancy Pelosi Turned Down THOUSANDS Of National Guard Troops At The Capitol On January 6th | Launch LibertyComment
-
Re: Jan 6 Attack of the US Capital
Comment
-
Re: Jan 6 Attack of the US Capital
Comment
-
Re: Jan 6 Attack of the US Capital
Comment
-
Re: Jan 6 Attack of the US Capital
Comment
-
Re: Jan 6 Attack of the US Capital
The Jan. 6 committee is nothing more than a hoax that was for the sole benefit of manipulating gullible democrats.
This is from the very liberal MSNBC.com
The main problem with these key Jan. 6 committee charges against Trump
Because the Jan. 6 committee’s report is the work of politicians, it is by definition a political document.
By Noah Rothman, MSNBC Opinion Columnist
The congressional select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 concluded its business Thursday, when it issued its 845-page final report. Over the course of 10 public hearings, it produced a variety of witnesses and generated reams of evidence exposing the degree to which the violence that occurred on that day would not have happened but for the actions of former President Donald Trump.
An executive summary of the committee’s final report released on Monday provided readers with the committee’s theory of the case against Trump. Trump clung to the fabricated narrative that electoral malfeasance cost him his re-election, despite the contradictory evidence made available to him.
Regardless of what Trump wanted to believe or might have talked himself into believing, he had no reasonable expectation that his claims were true. Trump went on to pressure, coerce, and cajole state-level officials to manufacture evidence that would support his claims. His agitation whipped up a mob, elements of which had violent designs on the Capitol, according to written evidence produced for the president’s consumption.
Trump’s actions, the committee maintains, were knowingly unlawful. Accordingly, it has referred the president and other figures in his orbit to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. The violations of statute the committee wants prosecutors to pursue include the obstruction of Congress, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and make false statements, and the incitement of violent “insurrection.”
But there are a number of reasons these particular charges are likely a legal overreach.
When it comes to the charges of conspiracy and obstruction, even the publicly available evidence contributes to a seemingly airtight case. Per said evidence, Trump and his legal team did try to disrupt legislative affairs up to and on that fateful day. The president and company did produce false statements they had every reason to believe were false. But the third charge — the allegation that Trump conspired to “incite,” “assist,” or provide “aid and comfort” to a “rebellion or insurrection” — is far trickier to prove than the former president’s critics seem to believe.
The committee alleges that Trump’s public comments regarding election fraud do not constitute protected speech in light of the violence they inspired, citing the findings of a federal court to justify the claim. Trump’s speech on the Ellipse on Jan. 6 contained “plausibly words of incitement,” U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta wrote earlier this year. The committee’s allegations are further substantiated by a vote of the “majority of the Senate” to convict the president of “incitement of insurrection” during his second impeachment trial.
Mehta rendered this verdict in a civil trial — Thompson v. Trump**— in which a number of plaintiffs sued the former president and others for the emotional and physical injuries they suffered on Jan. 6. Those plaintiffs sufficiently satisfied the lower evidentiary bar reserved for noncriminal cases. And yet, the fighting words this judge deemed inciting — “we fight like hell,” “take back our country,” and “walk down Pennsylvania Avenue” — determined that they were “implicitly” designed to produce violence. Indeed, as Mehta continued, “it is reasonable to infer that he [Trump] would have known that some in the audience were prepared for violence.”
Now, via inference and implication, prosecutors are to convince a criminal jury that the president violated the standard of unprotected speech. Mehta summarily dismissed the cover Trump provided for himself by perfunctorily calling for his supporters to “remain peaceful,” but would a jury be as inclined to overlook those comments as they pertain to his intent? No criminal prosecutor would envy such a task.
The threshold for criminalizing speech is a high hurdle to clear. The seminal 1969 Supreme Court case on the matter, Brandenburg v. Ohio, established that it is not criminal even to advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government before a group of armed and menacing members of the Ku Klux Klan. Indeed, the courts have spent decades making it more difficult to prosecute people for “the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.” To convict Trump of incitement, prosecutors would have to prove to a jury’s satisfaction that Trump knew his followers were prepared for imminent lawlessness, that lawlessness was likely, and that it was his intention to incite them to violence. There’s a reason why the “Brandenburg test” is rarely applied.
The rest:
Trump'''s Jan. 6 charges likely won'''t stickAdversity temporarily visits a strong man but stays with the weak for a lifetime.Comment
-
Re: Jan 6 Attack of the US Capital
BRAVO ON BEING Duped again
By your right wing flakes news sites. some Hoax the attack on the US Capital by Trump Supporters
Criminal Referrals have been sent to DOJ
Apparently you still follow your King so did many in Germany til the end.Comment
Comment