And so it has begun

[revo]

Legally, all I'll say, is "bring it on", if I'm understanding your claim correctly. Of course, that is predicated that they're defended by legal counsel with an IQ higher than a potato or Rudi Giulani.

Well, the last four cases in Georgia were "voluntarily withdrawn" by the Trump Administration's lawyers on Friday when they realized their pressure tactics on the state, to try and get some kind of settlement, would not work and they would actually have to go to court and present their "evidence" under oath -- of which they know they have nothing but speculation and lies.

Here's Brad Raffensberger again:
"Rather than presenting their evidence and witnesses to a court and to cross-examination under oath, the Trump campaign wisely decided the smartest course was to dismiss their frivolous cases," Raffensperger said in a news release. "Even in capitulation, they continue to spread disinformation."

And the acting US Attorney for Northern Georgia, Bobby Christine -- appointed by Trump himself last week after they fired the last US attorney, BJay Pak, for "not doing enough to back the election fraud" -- came out yesterday and said there's nothing in the least to the last two cases filed, and summarily dismissed them both.

What I'm saying is if any Trump official has to present any "election fraud" evidence under oath, they won't be able to, because there isn't any factual evidence, just conspiracy theories, vague videos, drunken Trump supporters claiming to be experts, all showing nothing but speculative claims.

[Teenwolf]

Well, the last four cases in Georgia were "voluntarily withdrawn" by the Trump Administration's lawyers on Friday when they realized their pressure tactics on the state, to try and get some kind of settlement, would not work and they would actually have to go to court and present their "evidence" under oath -- of which they know they have nothing but speculation and lies.

Here's Brad Raffensberger again:
"Rather than presenting their evidence and witnesses to a court and to cross-examination under oath, the Trump campaign wisely decided the smartest course was to dismiss their frivolous cases," Raffensperger said in a news release. "Even in capitulation, they continue to spread disinformation."

And the acting US Attorney for Northern Georgia, Bobby Christine -- appointed by Trump himself last week after they fired the last US attorney, BJay Pak, for "not doing enough to back the election fraud" -- came out yesterday and said there's nothing in the least to the last two cases filed, and summarily dismissed them both.

What I'm saying is if any Trump official has to present any "election fraud" evidence under oath, they won't be able to, because there isn't any factual evidence, just conspiracy theories, vague videos, drunken Trump supporters claiming to be experts, all showing nothing but speculative claims.

C'mon, that drunk lady was pretty amazing.

[heyelander]

Well, the last four cases in Georgia were "voluntarily withdrawn" by the Trump Administration's lawyers on Friday when they realized their pressure tactics on the state, to try and get some kind of settlement, would not work and they would actually have to go to court and present their "evidence" under oath -- of which they know they have nothing but speculation and lies.

Here's Brad Raffensberger again:
"Rather than presenting their evidence and witnesses to a court and to cross-examination under oath, the Trump campaign wisely decided the smartest course was to dismiss their frivolous cases," Raffensperger said in a news release. "Even in capitulation, they continue to spread disinformation."

And the acting US Attorney for Northern Georgia, Bobby Christine -- appointed by Trump himself last week after they fired the last US attorney, BJay Pak, for "not doing enough to back the election fraud" -- came out yesterday and said there's nothing in the least to the last two cases filed, and summarily dismissed them both.

What I'm saying is if any Trump official has to present any "election fraud" evidence under oath, they won't be able to, because there isn't any factual evidence, just conspiracy theories, vague videos, drunken Trump supporters claiming to be experts, all showing nothing but speculative claims.

I thought Guliani had thousands of affidavits.

Just wait, the trap is just about ready to be sprung!

[GwynnInTheHall]

From 2 threads a almost a year or so ago Armed Conflict and What are you prepared to do. I had really hoped I'd be wrong. Abd Frankly, I even with 7 days left--I don't think we've seen the end nor the worst of it. Stay Safe.


GITH.

1023/2019: There's been quite a bit of aggressive vitriol lately from a handful of people stating they're ready to take up arms if Trump is Impeached, removed or otherwise deprived of a second term. Add to that the lack of professional decorum being displayed in the White House and now parts of congress and top that off with Lawyers representing our elected officials stating as if it's a fact that the President can do ANYTHING he wants to include murdering someone....And we have to realistically ask ourselves... Is there an actual chance in hell that should Trump be impeached, removed, indicted or just not re-elected--That some people will actually pick up their guns and take to the streets in an attempt to keep him in power?

I'd LOVE to say Not a chance, no way--but with each passing day and the rhetoric spewing from Trump and those who support him, I am truly fearful shit's gonna get real bad here soon and I mean-Trumpies with guns going after anyone who opposes them. Of course if this happens some idiot Antifa wannabe is likely to fight back and then we're in store for the ugly side of all of this.

Thoughts?


1/29/2020: So, if Dershowitz's defense of Trump holds and sets precedent--That--"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment" or If the President believes he's the best thing for the country--He can do whatever he likes.

So should that argument win the day and result in acquittal of Trump. Does it set precedent and if so, what's to stop Trump from ignoring any election results that oust him from the Office if he believes--He's the best thing for the country?

He's inferred he'd fight any attempt to oust him as illegitimate even if he loses the election he's promised he won't go quietly.

Should this happen ( and I agree, it's quite a few steps to take logically), how would you react? What would you be prepared to do?

I only say this because very few in the Govt and none of his supporters (a Third of the County) seem like they'd get in his way if that was the course of action he took.



1/30/2020: Brian, you are a very fair minded, respectful and reasonable person who looks for/hopes for the best out of people.

I believe you vastly underestimate the blind faith and willful ignorance of Trumps base.

Did you see the idiots who showed up in full tactical gear armed to the teeth in VA? That's just a taste of what trump could rally should he try to fight "extradition"

Also, there are members of every enforcement agency civil and military, who are on board with Trump. Not saying all, but enough to cause enforcement issues should the Don decide to show is ass yet again.

This is especially true if Sanders wins--he could use the "He's a Communist/Socialist" battle cry to rally his MAGA Army.

Again, not saying it's a for sure thing--but should trump get over because it's decided that crimes aren't committed as long as he feels he was acting in the best interest of the country, the possibility of him puling a stunt like this (which was mentioned even before the impeachment trial) starts looking more and more plausible.

[GwynnInTheHall]

bush.jpg

I still don't know how to imbed pictures

[chancellor]

Well, the last four cases in Georgia were "voluntarily withdrawn" by the Trump Administration's lawyers on Friday when they realized their pressure tactics on the state, to try and get some kind of settlement, would not work and they would actually have to go to court and present their "evidence" under oath -- of which they know they have nothing but speculation and lies.

Here's Brad Raffensberger again:
"Rather than presenting their evidence and witnesses to a court and to cross-examination under oath, the Trump campaign wisely decided the smartest course was to dismiss their frivolous cases," Raffensperger said in a news release. "Even in capitulation, they continue to spread disinformation."

And the acting US Attorney for Northern Georgia, Bobby Christine -- appointed by Trump himself last week after they fired the last US attorney, BJay Pak, for "not doing enough to back the election fraud" -- came out yesterday and said there's nothing in the least to the last two cases filed, and summarily dismissed them both.

What I'm saying is if any Trump official has to present any "election fraud" evidence under oath, they won't be able to, because there isn't any factual evidence, just conspiracy theories, vague videos, drunken Trump supporters claiming to be experts, all showing nothing but speculative claims.

Ah, if you're saying that election fraud can't be proven under a legal standard, then I agree. I thought you meant that Trump's "They stole the election" canard was causally linked to the riot and that Trump by making that statement, under law, caused the riot. That part, as I said, should he have a lawyer smarter than a potato or Rudy (and that might be insulting to the potato), will be an easy win for Trump in a court. I'm sure the Dems will still impeach him, but if someone tries to go after Trump in a real court of law, they'll get stomped like bug on that charge.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Ah, if you're saying that election fraud can't be proven under a legal standard, then I agree. I thought you meant that Trump's "They stole the election" canard was causally linked to the riot and that Trump by making that statement, under law, caused the riot. That part, as I said, should he have a lawyer smarter than a potato or Rudy (and that might be insulting to the potato), will be an easy win for Trump in a court. I'm sure the Dems will still impeach him, but if someone tries to go after Trump in a real court of law, they'll get stomped like bug on that charge.

wasn't a girl convicted of encouraging her boyfriend on social media to kill himself? Hasn't Trump encouraged violence on SM?

[chancellor]

wasn't a girl convicted of encouraging her boyfriend on social media to kill himself? Hasn't Trump encouraged violence on SM?

They had far stronger evidence in the suicide case - texts directly to the boyfriend, repeated, phone calls, and personal testimony. Causally linking his speech - and one point I do agree with revo on is the only possible tie is the "they stole the election" line - to the riots is a giant reach in the legal arena.

To Biden's credit, he's handled this one well - basically told the Dems on The Hill that if they want to impeach, go ahead, but he's not pushing for it. It's pretty apparent he and/or his advisers see this as a political loser.

[Kevin Seitzer]

They had far stronger evidence in the suicide case - texts directly to the boyfriend, repeated, phone calls, and personal testimony. Causally linking his speech - and one point I do agree with revo on is the only possible tie is the "they stole the election" line - to the riots is a giant reach in the legal arena.

To Biden's credit, he's handled this one well - basically told the Dems on The Hill that if they want to impeach, go ahead, but he's not pushing for it. It's pretty apparent he and/or his advisers see this as a political loser.

Are you saying that you don't think Trump caused/incited the riot, or just that you think he would get off legally on a technicality were he subject to the ordinary process of law?

[DMT]

How is it a political loser when 57% want him removed from office? And Biden is a bit preoccupied to be wading in this cesspool.