Not prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 would fuel a 'much graver threat,' Liz Cheney says

[Linuxcooldude]

Biden never
1, obstructed an official proceeding of Congress
2 solicited foreign interference
3. conspired to defraud the US
4 engaged in seditious conspiracy
5 engaged in wire fraud

Biden: I got the Ukrainian procecuter fired!

 

[Linuxcooldude]

The rule of law has to apply equally to all or it is meaningless.

Trump included.

If Trump is allowed to get away with everything he has done that encourages more of the same in the future by some copy cat.

Reminds me of a Secretary of State and a private email server....hummmm...

 

[Peacenik]

Reminds me of a Secretary of State and a private email server....hummmm...

And that would be essentially saying that if one individual did something wrong and got away with it, that it was no longer possible to do wrong after that.

Bad reasoning. Two wrongs do not make a right. More than two wrongs still do not make a wrong thing right. Wrong is wrong.
Wrong will always be wrong.

When people do wrong, particularly high profile people, they should be held accountable for their crimes. Nobody can be above the law. High profile cases serve as an example that justice must be done.

If somebody else got away with something and was not prosecuted despite clear evidence of a crime, that does not make the crime OK, nor does it mean subsequent crimes should not be prosecuted.

If what Hillary did was so bad, and Trump promised to lock her up, why did his DOJ not file charges against her? And how many AGs did he go through? I lost count. The Trump administration had the highest turnover of people ever seen. Why is that? Because Trump routinely hired people based only on their apparent devotion to him, without checking them out fully? We know he fired good people because of their loyalty to the constitution over him.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Not prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 would fuel a 'much graver threat,' Liz Cheney says

My views on this align perfectly with those of Ms. Cheney. If there exists enough tangible evidence to prosecute, then do it. I think Donald Trump is vulnerable to at least five different criminal charges relating to J6.

It seems an aide to former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows sent a coercive note to J6 witness Cassidy Hutchinson. The scope of the witness tampering laws are broad and all are felonies.

Multiple criminal referrals of Trump possible, Cheney says

What are the key specific acts that make Trump guilty of crimes, and what evidence is there to prove he did those things?

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Give me a time mark for something significant.

0:00 to 1:53:03

 

[pocket aces]

Reminds me of a Secretary of State and a private email server....hummmm...

Yeah because that is the same as trying to pull off an illegal and unconstitutional power grab. Why would a so called Constitution loving right winger support such anti American behavior?

 

[Rogue Valley]

Elections are, however.

This thread isn't about elections.

Title: Not prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 would fuel a 'much graver threat,' Liz Cheney says

 

[Athanasius68]

if there is a solid slam dunk case against Trump, then he should be prosecuted.

but any prosecution should not be based upon some novel legal theory, or some broad brush interpretation of facts compared to some statute.
it would need to be specific.

otherwise, we simply guarantee future investigations and prosecutions of elected or potential elected officials for similar vague and creative allegations, and turn the doj into a partisan political weapon.

and nobody should want that.

 

[Perotista]

This thread isn't about elections.

Title: Not prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 would fuel a 'much graver threat,' Liz Cheney says

Okay, just pointing out that most Americans don’t care what happens to Trump outside of Democrats and a few other avid anti-Trumper. Especially independents who think congress has paid way too much attention to Trump and not enough to solving this country’s problem. 67% of independents and 63% of all Americans think congress should be focused on other things. Of course, 63% of democrats think congress should be focused on Trump and the 1-6 hearings which makes this a one-party affair. One party fixated on Trump and not much else.

 

[bubbabgone]

Biden never
1, obstructed an official proceeding of Congress
2 solicited foreign interference
3. conspired to defraud the US
4 engaged in seditious conspiracy
5 engaged in wire fraud

Don't be silly. Of course he did. He thinks it was okay because at times it was for his family. You should read about it sometime.

 

[HangLow]

Not prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 would fuel a 'much graver threat,' Liz Cheney says

My views on this align perfectly with those of Ms. Cheney. If there exists enough tangible evidence to prosecute, then do it. I think Donald Trump is vulnerable to at least five different criminal charges relating to J6.

It seems an aide to former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows sent a coercive note to J6 witness Cassidy Hutchinson. The scope of the witness tampering laws are broad and all are felonies.

Multiple criminal referrals of Trump possible, Cheney says

​

 

[Jay Falcon]

Okay, just pointing out that most Americans don’t care what happens to Trump outside of Democrats and a few other avid anti-Trumper. Especially independents who think congress has paid way too much attention to Trump and not enough to solving this country’s problem. 67% of independents and 63% of all Americans think congress should be focused on other things. Of course, 63% of democrats think congress should be focused on Trump and the 1-6 hearings which makes this a one-party affair. One party fixated on Trump and not much else.

I believe recent polls show that you're wrong on that.

 

[Razoo]

Not prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 would fuel a 'much graver threat,' Liz Cheney says

My views on this align perfectly with those of Ms. Cheney. If there exists enough tangible evidence to prosecute, then do it. I think Donald Trump is vulnerable to at least five different criminal charges relating to J6.

It seems an aide to former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows sent a coercive note to J6 witness Cassidy Hutchinson. The scope of the witness tampering laws are broad and all are felonies.

Multiple criminal referrals of Trump possible, Cheney says

applause applause

 

[Perotista]

I believe recent polls show that you're wrong on that.

You’re correct if the question is just about the 1-6 hearings. But what I did was take the generic congressional ballot from the day prior, 8 June to the public 1-6 primetime hearings and compared it to the generic congressional ballot 3 weeks later on 29 June. This let’s me know if those who support the 1-6 hearings, having Trump charges is A. Hard core support or B soft support which is basically meaningless.

8 June RCP 46.2-42.8 Republicans lead, 538 45.0-42.7 Republicans lead

29 June RCP 44.8 to 42.8 Republicans lead, 538 44.8-42.7 Republicans lead

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot/

My conclusion since there was little movement in who folks planned on voting for, whether Trump is charged, put on Trial, jailed or walks, they didn’t care enough about that to change their vote. This is soft support for charging Trump. It like, I want Trump charge, but whether he is or not, the 1-6 hearings aren’t important enough to me to change who I plan on voting for.

I can say I’m pro-charging Trump, pro-abortion, Pro-gun control if asked by a polling firm, but if none of those issues are important enough for me to change my vote from Republican to Democrat in November, me and a whole lot more folks, what good is it to be for them if those issues don’t make my top ten list of issues that will decide who’ll I vote for. I put my-self in the soft support column for those issues. I’d rather Trump be charged, but don’t care enough about it to change my vote.

In other words, it’s time to put your money or vote where your mouth is. That hasn’t happened. No one has changed who they plan on voting for because of the 1-6 hearings. Hence my conlcusion that people don't care what happens to Trump or don't care enough to put their money, vote to where their mouth was.

 

[Ikari]

Not prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 would fuel a 'much graver threat,' Liz Cheney says

My views on this align perfectly with those of Ms. Cheney. If there exists enough tangible evidence to prosecute, then do it. I think Donald Trump is vulnerable to at least five different criminal charges relating to J6.

It seems an aide to former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows sent a coercive note to J6 witness Cassidy Hutchinson. The scope of the witness tampering laws are broad and all are felonies.

Multiple criminal referrals of Trump possible, Cheney says

It is true, Trump and his brigade of Anti-American commies will only escalate unless they face repercussions.