[W:#394]Judge rules Trump's efforts to overturn election likely criminal

[notquiteright]

I wish this administration would just get on with things, arrest Trump, charge him, find him guilty and have him hung in front of the Capitol. Then, maybe, we could move on to something more important like rounding up all his supporters and having them hung too. If we hang enough Trump supporters then, maybe, we can finally have freedom and democracy and everybody will feel good about themselves again...as long as nobody else gets out of line and has some rogue idea on what "freedom" entails.

We finally agree, well all except the spelling of the second to last word- change it to Freedumz and we are in lock step. Time for the farcical MAGA myth to end...

Like a western song from my childhood- 'hang 'em, it will teach 'em a lesson'...

 

[Chomsky]

Fine.


Well, other than many of the left leaning here on these forums, for example:

It is this prejudgment and pre-conclusion of guilt which I push back against.

I think the bolded's fair.

However the truth of the matter is this will all be for naught, due to the House most likely changing hands at the end of the year. Unless of course the Committee does a criminal referral before that; I suppose that is possible.

 

[Callen]

Perhaps you could explain how this applies to the specific situation.

When the the Attorney General, at the time, met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Arizona, that was an obvious appearance (if not direct) conflict of interest and frankly wholly inappropriate.

I totally agree it was inappropriate. If you recall, as a result of the appearance of impropriety, she removed herself from any decision to prosecute or not prosecute H Clinton.

 

[post]

Why would Thomas recuse himself, he did not do anything.

This is not analogous to Kagan, where SHE HERSELF was the one who had the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Are not the husbands and wives of many of the most powerful people in the country politically active? Are they allowed to have a political preference?

This is just another specious attack on Clarence Thomas, by attacking his wife. Just more of the same from the left.

I guess I am more sensitive in reaction to this sort of corrupt, partisan, delusional "activity" than you appear to be...
You attempt to normalize what is unprecedented....

Among Those Pressing Trump to Weed Out Disloyalty: Clarence Thomas’s Wife (Published 2020)

A group led by Ginni Thomas has targeted officials in the administration, and lobbied for its own preferred choices. As the president’s distrust in those serving him has grown, so has its sway.

www.nytimes.com

Among Those Pressing Trump to Weed Out Disloyalty: Clarence Thomas’s Wife​

A group led by Ginni Thomas has targeted officials in the administration, and lobbied for its own preferred choices. As the president’s distrust in those serving him has grown, so has its sway.
By Maggie Haberman
Published Feb. 24, 2020
"...
The memos from Ms. Thomas were first reported by Axios.

Among Ms. Thomas’s top targets have been officials at the National Security Council, the former head of the White House personnel office, Sean Doocey, and other top White House aides. Another target was Jessie K. Liu, who recently left her job as the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for a job in the Treasury Department that was later withdrawn by the White House.

Ms. Thomas, a politically active conservative who for nearly seven years has led a group called Groundswell, also successfully lobbied for a role for Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the former attorney general of Virginia who is now the acting deputy secretary of homeland security...."

Exclusive: Trump's "Deep State" hit list

The White House and its allies have assembled detailed lists of officials to oust and loyalists to replace them.

www.axios.com

Feb 23, 2020 - Politics & Policy

Exclusive: Trump's "Deep State" hit list​

Jonathan Swan
"...

• While Trump's distrust has only intensified since his impeachment and acquittal, he has long been on the hunt for "bad people" inside the White House and U.S. government, and fresh "pro-Trump" options. Outside advisers have been happy to oblige....I have been briefed on, or reviewed, memos and lists the president received since 2018 suggesting whom he should hire and fire. Most of these details have never been published. A well-connected network of conservative activists with close ties to Trump and top administration officials is quietly helping develop these "Never Trump"/pro-Trump lists, and some sent memos to Trump to shape his views, per sources with direct knowledge. Members of this network include Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Republican Senate staffer Barbara Ledeen.

The big picture: Since Trump's Senate acquittal, aides say the president has crossed a psychological line regarding what he calls the "Deep State." He feels his government — from Justice to State to Defense to Homeland Security — is filled with "snakes." He wants them fired and replaced ASAP.

• "I think it's a very positive development," said Rich Higgins, who served on Trump's National Security Council in 2017. H.R. McMaster removed Higgins after he wrote a memo speculating that Trump's presidency faced threats from Marxists, the "Deep State," so-called globalists, bankers, Islamists, and establishment Republicans. (This was long before the full scope of the FBI's Russia investigation was known to Trump and his aides.)
• Higgins told me on Sunday he stands by everything he wrote in his memo, but "I would probably remove 'bankers' if I had to do it over and I would play up the intel community role — which I neglected."

Can we agree there is an appearance of conflict of interest?

 

[Callen]

That situation is not analogous to the circumstances of Mrs. Thomas. On the merits, she did absolutely nothing wrong and certainly nothing worth her husband recusing himself.

I am not saying she did anything wrong. I am not even saying Justice Thomas did. What I am saying is that there is a very real appearance of a conflict and that alone is justification for recusal. I am confident that Cheif Justice Roberts we'll help Justice Thomas understand that the Supreme Court can not be seen as having a political bias.

 

[Paradoxical]

Got it.

 

[Rawley]

The specific purpose of the hearing was too determine if Congress had sufficient reason to posses the documents requested. He justified their request.

By speculating that the President may have committed a felony? How do you figure on that?

 

[Paradoxical]

Snort. Well, you said it wasn't and it was regardless of who is or isn't charged.
FYI:
in·sur·rec·tion
noun
a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Okeeeeyyy. So, why no charges by this far-left AG?

 

[Callen]

By speculating that the President may have committed a felony? How do you figure on that?

Maybe you need to start with understanding the basis for the suit to release the documents. It might be helpful in your understanding of why this was mentioned in the ruling.

 

[Chomsky]

By speculating that the President may have committed a felony? How do you figure on that?

Rawley, as I earlier stated, you simply do not understand the judicial process here.

 

[Rawley]

Rawley, as I earlier stated, you simply do not understand the judicial process here.

Yup I'm too stooooopid Too many big words.

 

[post]

Sorry, Post. I'm not going to ascribe to a President or Presidential candidate using an ad hominem against 37% of my fellow Americans.

It is simply conduct unbecoming of a President, in my book.

It was 18-1/2 percent and you are kidding yourself if you believe they are "your" fellow Americans!

It can't simply be that if it's not happening to you, personally, you can downplay how deplorable he and they really are!

Nothing "fellow" or "American" about them! Wake up to that or pull me under, with you. The "rest of us" are
like Siamese twins. Maybe read more Breitbart, listen to Bannon's podcasts, watch more of the prosecution's video
evidence of what happened on January 6 at the Capitol, and consider that this "vermin" attracted his base with
his racist, birther nonsense, "Mexicans are rapists" and long before Hillary's characterization of Trump's supporters,

Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S. | CNN Politics​

https://www.cnn.com › 2015/12/07 › donald-trump-musli...
Dec 8, 2015 — Donald Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, has called for barring all Muslims from entering the United States.

Trump website takes down Muslim ban statement after ...​

https://www.cnbc.com › 2017/05/08 › trump-website-ta...
May 8, 2017 — In the statement, Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives ...

Trump's 'Muslim ban' harmed health of Muslim Americans ...​

https://news.yale.edu › 2021/07/30 › trumps-muslim-ba...
Jul 30, 2021 — The Yale-led study provides evidence that an abrupt change in federal immigration policy can directly affect health outcomes among people ...

 

[SuperDS77]

I am not saying she did anything wrong. I am not even saying Justice Thomas did. What I am saying is that there is a very real appearance of a conflict and that alone is justification for recusal.

Can you explain the "appearance" and how it relates to any cases before the court?

I am confident that Cheif Justice Roberts we'll help Justice Thomas understand that the Supreme Court can not be seen as having a political bias.

That ship has sailed.

 

[mrjurrs]

Fine.


Well, other than many of the left leaning here on these forums, for example:

It is this prejudgment and pre-conclusion of guilt which I push back against.

I accept court verdicts. Doesn't mean I can't look at available facts and come to a conclusion. It's possible djt has a defense, I haven't seen it.

Show me where this caution has been applied to other issues (Hunter Biden's laptop for example), or I'll just continue to believe you are looking at this from a partisan position.

 

[Callen]

Can you explain the "appearance" and how it relates to any cases before the court?

I said any case coming before the court not currently before the court and that would include any case involving Trump and/or the events of January 6th. As an example if the decision against Eastman ever gets to the Supreme Court then Thomas must recuse himself.

 

[mrjurrs]

An 'expert lawyer' opinion is now equal to a court verdict? Didn't think it was.


Nice strawman. Looks good on you.


See my immediately preceding post.

I never said it was equal to a court verdict. Do you deny that expert opinions add gravitas to a claim?

You made the claim, I pointed out the ridiculousness of it.

 

[Brack]

"Likely Criminal" ..... So is it or is it not criminal?
Remember Trump was trying his hardest to get in front of the Courts to investigate all his information/evidence, but most of
his cases were avoided because of Procedural issues ! ....

There wasn't any evidence of widespread election fraud.

Attorney General William Barr and officials in each of the 50 states found no evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities in the election.[21][22] Federal agencies overseeing election security said it was the most secure in American history.[23][24][25]

 

[SuperDS77]

Can we agree there is an appearance of conflict of interest?

What case that is before the SCOTUS would apply to this supposed conflict?

Also, all of this dot-connecting is totally non-existent when it comes to the most obvious situations where there is a much more substantial appearance, if not direct, conflict of interest. Hunter Biden being example #1. Yet most leftists will not even acknowledge that obvious and unmistakable example.

 

[SuperDS77]

I said any case coming before the court not currently before the court and that would include any case involving Trump and/or the events of January 6th. As an example if the decision against Eastman ever gets to the Supreme Court then Thomas must recuse himself.

I couldn't disagree more. That is one thin thread. Despite the fact the Eastman did NOTHING wrong. Considering all of the different possible options between a lawyer and a client, is not illegal and frankly should not be public. Secondly, those options were discussed before the election was certified.

Remember in 2000, 2004 and 2016 when one democrat after another challenged the electoral counts? Good times!

 

[post]

By speculating that the President may have committed a felony? How do you figure on that?

"Speculating"? How does a judge in a civil court proceeding arrive at a ruling on whether documents are protected from disclosure
unless there is a crime exception negating their protection by the court, without a finding of fact as to whether a serious crime was likely
committed?

Eastman ruling

3/28/22

www.documentcloud.org

 

[American]

I am a bit surprised you even ask this question. Do you understand why judges recuse themselves from certain cases? It is paramount that justice must be administered in a way that is not just fair and unbiased but is seen to be fair and unbiased. There must be no appearance of a conflict even if there isn't one. Thomas' wife is entitled to her own political beliefs and even to share those beliefs with her husband. Those rights, as long as within the law, must never be questioned. However, defendants have rights too and one of those rights is to feel confident that the judge judging their case carries no personal bias. Judges recusing themselves from cases happens regularly.

When you Pelosi to stop setting up her husband's company, get back to me.

Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, buys Tesla stock worth $2.2M

On March 17, Paul Pelosi, a venture capitalist, purchased 2,500 shares of Tesla stock by exercising 25 call options at a $500 strike price

nypost.com

Alphabet stock's big day could mean a windfall for Nancy Pelosi's husband

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, an investment manager and options trader, could be up big on Wednesday with Alphabet's equity pop.

www.cnbc.com

Pelosi's husband grabs stocks days after she pushed for lawmakers' ability to trade

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and her husband, Paul Pelosi arrive at the State Department for the Kennedy Center Honors gala dinner on Saturday, Dec. 3, 2016 in Washington. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

thenationaldesk.com

Firm Linked to Pelosi’s Husband Got Virus Loan, Data Show

Firm Linked to Pelosi’s Husband Got Virus Loan, U.S. Data Show

www.bloombergquint.com

 

[American]

Because all the DC judges are busy with other Trump cases.

Really, how many are there?

 

[Lutherf]

Really, how many are there?

11

 

[Atomic Kid]

This is the first time I have stumbled into this thread. The very first thing I recognized is the same folks getting a hard on over this judge's, selected statements are the same ones who were salivating over every damn false story that has since been debunked the media pushed in hopes of taking down Donald Trump. Daily on this forum for four/five forking years these same people salivated over every false headline thinking that would be the one that would take Trump down. It isn't just pathetic. but all telling.

Oooohhh... look at you talking dirty. Well dear you've been salivating over everything Trump said or did for 4 or 5 years. So maybe salivating is the eye of the beholder.

 

[Callen]

I couldn't disagree more. That is one thin thread. Despite the fact the Eastman did NOTHING wrong. Considering all of the different possible options between a lawyer and a client, is not illegal and frankly should not be public. Secondly, those options were discussed before the election was certified.

Remember in 2000, 2004 and 2016 when one democrat after another challenged the electoral counts? Good times!

I am not commenting on the merits of the Eastman case, I'm talking recusal of a Justice who may not appear to be totally impartial. To be honest, if you can't grasp the concept of recusal then there isn't much more to discuss.