• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,659
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 would fuel a 'much graver threat,' Liz Cheney says

iu

7.3.22
The Justice Department should not avoid prosecuting Donald Trump in relation to the Jan. 6 Capitol attack if a prosecution is warranted, Rep. Liz Cheney said in an interview with ABC News' "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl. While bringing charges against the former president -- who may challenge President Joe Biden in 2024 -- would be unprecedented and "difficult" for the country, not doing so would support a "much graver constitutional threat," Cheney said Wednesday in an interview at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library that aired Sunday on "This Week." "Are you worried about what that means for the country, to [see] a former president prosecuted? A former president who was a likely candidate; who may in fact be running for president against Biden?" Karl asked Cheney.

"I think it's a much graver constitutional threat if a president can engage in these kinds of activities, and the majority of the president's party looks away; or we as a country decide we're not actually going to take our constitutional obligations seriously," Cheney said. "I think that's a much, a much more serious threat." "I really believe we have to make these decisions, as difficult as it is, apart from politics. We really have to think about these from the perspective of: What does it mean for the country?" she said. Cheney said during last week's hearing that some witnesses had told investigators Trump aides attempted to influence their testimony before the panel. Hutchinson was among those to receive messages about protecting the former president, sources later told ABC News. "Witness tampering is a crime. Are you making a criminal referral to DOJ on this?" Karl asked. "We'll make a decision as a committee about that," Cheney replied.


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

iu




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
Geezuz. This woman sure knows what side her bread is buttered.
If she was going after the Biden crime family as arduously she wouldn't be getting this attention, would she.
 
Liz Cheney is right, if Trump gets away with all this without being charged at all it would be an invitation for Trump to turn up the wick and really install an totalitarian aristocracy unseen in all of American history.
 
She's right. But Garland is too big a coward to prosecute Trump.
 
i have 5 bucks that says that many members of the cult push to lock up guys who steal a bottle of liquor while giving those who attempted a coup a pass.

and that's just totally messed up.
 
Geezuz. This woman sure knows what side her bread is buttered.
If she was going after the Biden crime family as arduously she wouldn't be getting this attention, would she.
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 too sure about that. If he going to bring a case, it had better be airtight. Evidence and witness are still coming forward.
We'll see what he does once the hearings are finished and all the evidence is turned over to the DOJ. One can see a half dozen prosecutable offenses just watching the hearings. But naysayers are always coming up with this "It goes to his state of mind" bullsh*t. "Did he know he was committing a crime when he encouraged rioters to storm the capitol, when he tried to get a secretary of state to turn votes in Georgia his way instead of Biden, when he tried to bribe Zelensky to get dirt on Biden, when he stood by watching the rioters tear the Capitol apart and refused to sent help, when he agreed that Pence should be hung because "he deserves it"? I mean come on! Nobody would be prosecuted under that standard.
 
Don't be too sure about that. If he is going to bring a case, it had better be airtight. Evidence and witness are still coming forward.
Garland is corrupt, but he's not stupid.

There's no way he's going to take Trump to court and trot out Hutchinson so she can say that she was told something by someone who was told something by someone who saw and experienced something and then watch the defense trot out the guy she says told her something...and he denies telling her anything...and trot out the guy she says saw and experience something...and he denies seeing or experiencing anything...and then they bring in ANOTHER guy who was there and HE says nothing happened.

And that pretty much sums up the basis of the entire dog and pony show narrative. Spin, speculation, hyperbole, innuendo and lies. A prosecutor would have to be a blithering idiot to take that nonsense to court...and Garland isn't an idiot.
 
Garland is corrupt, but he's not stupid.

There's no way he's going to take Trump to court and trot out Hutchinson so she can say that she was told something by someone who was told something by someone who saw and experienced something and then watch the defense trot out the guy she says told her something...and he denies telling her anything...and trot out the guy she says saw and experience something...and he denies seeing or experiencing anything...and then they bring in ANOTHER guy who was there and HE says nothing happened.

And that pretty much sums up the basis of the entire dog and pony show narrative. Spin, speculation, hyperbole, innuendo and lies. A prosecutor would have to be a blithering idiot to take that nonsense to court...and Garland isn't an idiot.
Garland doesn't need Hutchinson or the story about the incident in the SUV. What happened was Trump being his jerky self but that is not a criminal act and Garland isn't the least bit interested in it. Don't forget Meadows et al don't get to say no to subpoenas from a grand jury like they have done with the Committee......they just get to plead the 5th.
 
Garland is corrupt, but he's not stupid.

There's no way he's going to take Trump to court and trot out Hutchinson so she can say that she was told something by someone who was told something by someone who saw and experienced something and then watch the defense trot out the guy she says told her something...and he denies telling her anything...and trot out the guy she says saw and experience something...and he denies seeing or experiencing anything...and then they bring in ANOTHER guy who was there and HE says nothing happened.

And that pretty much sums up the basis of the entire dog and pony show narrative. Spin, speculation, hyperbole, innuendo and lies. A prosecutor would have to be a blithering idiot to take that nonsense to court...and Garland isn't an idiot.

Don't need Hutchinson. Trump's own action and action by PAC's says it all.
 
Not prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 would fuel a 'much graver threat,' Liz Cheney says

iu




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
Most patriotic Americans agree with Cheney, including myself.
 
Garland is corrupt, but he's not stupid.

There's no way he's going to take Trump to court and trot out Hutchinson so she can say that she was told something by someone who was told something by someone who saw and experienced something and then watch the defense trot out the guy she says told her something...and he denies telling her anything...and trot out the guy she says saw and experience something...and he denies seeing or experiencing anything...and then they bring in ANOTHER guy who was there and HE says nothing happened.

And that pretty much sums up the basis of the entire dog and pony show narrative. Spin, speculation, hyperbole, innuendo and lies. A prosecutor would have to be a blithering idiot to take that nonsense to court...and Garland isn't an idiot.
You didn't watch the hearing, did you?
 
Garland is corrupt, but he's not stupid.

There's no way he's going to take Trump to court and trot out Hutchinson so she can say that she was told something by someone who was told something by someone who saw and experienced something and then watch the defense trot out the guy she says told her something...and he denies telling her anything...and trot out the guy she says saw and experience something...and he denies seeing or experiencing anything...and then they bring in ANOTHER guy who was there and HE says nothing happened.

And that pretty much sums up the basis of the entire dog and pony show narrative. Spin, speculation, hyperbole, innuendo and lies. A prosecutor would have to be a blithering idiot to take that nonsense to court...and Garland isn't an idiot.
How is Garland corrupt?
 
Not prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 would fuel a 'much graver threat,' Liz Cheney says

iu




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
Although I think it would be a good thing to charge and put Trump on trial, I don’t think most Americans care about this except Democrats and avid anti-Trumpers. What do I base this believe? First Trump has a higher favorable rating among all Americans than other elected officials.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/other/FavorabilityRatingsPoliticalLeaders.html

Two, if the election were held today, Trump would defeat Biden or Harris.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...us/general_election_trump_vs_harris-7386.html

On the committee itself, 53% of all Americans think it’s biased with 54% thinking the committee is a partisan affair. More important than all Americans, 58% of independents, the non-affiliated, the less to non-partisan think the hearings are biased with 57% thinking they’re a partisan exercise. 63% of all Americans think congress should be concentrating on other things other than the 1-6 hearings. Probably most important is 58% of all Americans see the hearings as an excuse to silence political voices on the right.


A ton of other information is in the poll, link above if anyone is interested. I’ve concluded that most independents don’t give an owl’s hoot what happens to Trump. Sent to jail or walks. Too may other problems, issues affect them more than what happens to Trump. To most of them, Trump is ancient history.

Personally, just charge the man. He needs to go. A backlash at the polls is certainly possible if independents view this as a political vendetta against Trump. Although the opposite effect is also possible which could enhance the Democrats chances this midterm. Time will tell. I think most Americans just want Trump to go away, they're tired of hearing about him and from him.
 
Although I think it would be a good thing to charge and put Trump on trial, I don’t think most Americans care about this except Democrats and avid anti-Trumpers. What do I base this believe? First Trump has a higher favorable rating among all Americans than other elected officials.

Rule of Law isn't a popularity contest.
 
Not prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 would fuel a 'much graver threat,' Liz Cheney says

iu




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

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.
 
If Trump is not prosecuted then some future liberal president could act just as bad.

Maybe AOC.
 
Back
Top Bottom