LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Kismet wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 6:58 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:58 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:05 am While there is certainly more than enough blame to go around in the response - perhaps it is time for you to acknowledge the elephant in the room - that the former DOPUS contributed to the incitement of the mob and did very little, if anything, to deal with the situation once it accelerated and to stop whitewashing his pitiful performance or lack thereof. Not only Orange Cheato but many parts of his WH staff and the allleged conspirators at the Willard Hotel.

Lastly while you routinely diss the DC mayor for wanting to avoid a debacle like Lafayette Square - you conveniently don't seem to have the same opinion about the rioters in the two cases nor the response where you endorsed low flying helos to disperse unarmed crowds( Many Jan 6 rioters were armed with guns and rifles, as well as bear spray, poles and other fabricated items into weapons.

Don't play your dishonest smear game with me. You are just wrong. Read my previous posts. I blamed Trump for inciting the mob & criticized him for everything he did post election, including even holding a Jan 6 rally. My criticism was the absence of security preparations for Jan 6 by the CPB & DC Mayor. There was a better way to do it, as AG Barr showed in the BLM riots the previous May/June. The CPB is responsible for security on the Capitol grounds. The DC Mayor for the adjoining streets. All the Exec branch could do in advance was offer Fed police assistance & the NG, which they did. They were turned down because of the "optics" of a "militarized" response.

I've offered no excuses for the violent rioters & said they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I said the use of deadly force should have been authorized & defended the shooting of former Airman Babbitt who was a disgrace to the DC ANG.
I've posted that low flying helos' rotorwash would have been a useful tactic to clear the Capitol steps.
Had the Capitol been prepared & defended as the WH & Laf Pk were during the BLM riot, the Capitol would not have been breached.
Speaker Pelosi & the Mayor Bowser need to answer for their failure to defend the Capitol because of their concern for "optics".
Stop making sh!t up & attributing it to me.

Quite the overreaction - perhaps a nerve was hit or you were in DDS - Durham Derangement Syndrome and otherwise generally having a bad day with the people you routinely support around here. I'm real sorry you're offended.

BTW looks like you gave Orange Cheato a pass for his role in this situation.

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 6:18 am Not really a shock:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... man-jan-6/

"Former president Donald Trump and his political allies understood that their allegations of widespread voter fraud in Georgia were baseless but continued to push the unfounded claims in courts and the public, according to recent federal court filings.

The revelations came in an 18-page opinion Wednesday over Trump ally and conservative lawyer John Eastman’s resistance to a subpoena for emails from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob.

U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter found that several documents between Trump’s allies must be made public, as they showed that the group participated in a “knowing misrepresentation of voter fraud numbers in Georgia when seeking to overturn the election results in federal court.”

“The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public,” Carter wrote. “The Court finds that these emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

A spokesman for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

In March, Carter said Trump “more likely than not” committed federal crimes in trying to obstruct the congressional count of electoral college votes on Jan. 6. That determination came in a ruling addressing scores of sensitive emails Eastman had resisted turning over to the House committee.

Eastman wrote key legal memos aimed at denying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory and later cited attorney-client privilege as a shield against turning over the documents sought by the committee, saying he was representing Trump at that time.

The committee had argued in its filing that Eastman’s claim of privilege was voided by the “crime/fraud exemption.” That exemption means communication between a lawyer and their client does not have to be kept confidential if the attorney is found to be helping the client commit a crime. To resolve the dispute, the committee asked Carter, the judge, to privately review the documents to see whether he thought Eastman had, in fact, been assisting Trump in criminal acts.

In the Wednesday filing, Carter concluded from the collective documents that Trump’s legal team currently “make clear that President Trump filed certain lawsuits not to obtain legal relief, but to disrupt or delay the Jan. 6 congressional proceedings through the courts.”

In one email, Eastman wrote that Trump signed paperwork for a lawsuit in Georgia on Dec. 1 but has “since been made aware that some of the allegations” in it are “inaccurate.” Eastman then wrote that for Trump to sign new paperwork for that lawsuit “with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate.”

But, Carter wrote, “Trump and his attorneys ultimately filed the complaint” with the knowingly inaccurate numbers. Carter also wrote that Trump signed a legal document, under oath, attesting to the court in Georgia that the numbers “are true and correct” to the best of his knowledge.

Carter has ordered Eastman to disclose more than 30 documents sought by the House committee by 2 p.m. on Oct. 28."

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:20 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 6:18 am Not really a shock:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... man-jan-6/

"Former president Donald Trump and his political allies understood that their allegations of widespread voter fraud in Georgia were baseless but continued to push the unfounded claims in courts and the public, according to recent federal court filings.

The revelations came in an 18-page opinion Wednesday over Trump ally and conservative lawyer John Eastman’s resistance to a subpoena for emails from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob.

U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter found that several documents between Trump’s allies must be made public, as they showed that the group participated in a “knowing misrepresentation of voter fraud numbers in Georgia when seeking to overturn the election results in federal court.”

“The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public,” Carter wrote. “The Court finds that these emails are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

A spokesman for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

In March, Carter said Trump “more likely than not” committed federal crimes in trying to obstruct the congressional count of electoral college votes on Jan. 6. That determination came in a ruling addressing scores of sensitive emails Eastman had resisted turning over to the House committee.

Eastman wrote key legal memos aimed at denying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory and later cited attorney-client privilege as a shield against turning over the documents sought by the committee, saying he was representing Trump at that time.

The committee had argued in its filing that Eastman’s claim of privilege was voided by the “crime/fraud exemption.” That exemption means communication between a lawyer and their client does not have to be kept confidential if the attorney is found to be helping the client commit a crime. To resolve the dispute, the committee asked Carter, the judge, to privately review the documents to see whether he thought Eastman had, in fact, been assisting Trump in criminal acts.

In the Wednesday filing, Carter concluded from the collective documents that Trump’s legal team currently “make clear that President Trump filed certain lawsuits not to obtain legal relief, but to disrupt or delay the Jan. 6 congressional proceedings through the courts.”

In one email, Eastman wrote that Trump signed paperwork for a lawsuit in Georgia on Dec. 1 but has “since been made aware that some of the allegations” in it are “inaccurate.” Eastman then wrote that for Trump to sign new paperwork for that lawsuit “with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate.”

But, Carter wrote, “Trump and his attorneys ultimately filed the complaint” with the knowingly inaccurate numbers. Carter also wrote that Trump signed a legal document, under oath, attesting to the court in Georgia that the numbers “are true and correct” to the best of his knowledge.

Carter has ordered Eastman to disclose more than 30 documents sought by the House committee by 2 p.m. on Oct. 28."

That the judge ruled/wrote that seems like a huge deal. I’m sure Trump typifies fashion will be to plead ignorance and sloppiness because he is both so that’s very plausible but at some point a human judge or jury has to look through consistent intentional ignorance and see that pattern is the conspiracy itself.

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:16 am Trump adviser Steve Bannon sentenced to four months in jail for contempt of Congress


Why would anyone ever go in front of Congress if this is the only penalty for not doing so?

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:16 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:16 am Trump adviser Steve Bannon sentenced to four months in jail for contempt of Congress


Why would anyone ever go in front of Congress if this is the only penalty for not doing so?

Let’s see, 120 days x 3 “meals” a day. Is he going to have any teeth left when he gets out?

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:16 am Trump adviser Steve Bannon sentenced to four months in jail for contempt of Congress


Why would anyone ever go in front of Congress if this is the only penalty for not doing so?

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:53 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:16 am Trump adviser Steve Bannon sentenced to four months in jail for contempt of Congress


Why would anyone ever go in front of Congress if this is the only penalty for not doing so?

+1

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 2:47 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:53 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:16 am Trump adviser Steve Bannon sentenced to four months in jail for contempt of Congress


Why would anyone ever go in front of Congress if this is the only penalty for not doing so?

+1

Wasn't the max penalty 6 months?

Judge seemed to be sympathetic to Bannon, but the contempt case was awful strong.

Agreed that Bannon is better off with martyr status and serving short time than having gone under oath.
He's very, very dangerous.

Unless he's going to do hard time, which I doubt.

I'd be fine with Trump doing 4 months for contempt of Congress...but he's facing many other charges more serious.

Predictions? Will he just take the 5th or take his chances with being convicted ala Bannon and refuse to show?

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 3:22 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 2:47 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:53 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:16 am Trump adviser Steve Bannon sentenced to four months in jail for contempt of Congress


Why would anyone ever go in front of Congress if this is the only penalty for not doing so?

+1

Wasn't the max penalty 6 months?

Judge seemed to be sympathetic to Bannon, but the contempt case was awful strong.

Agreed that Bannon is better off with martyr status and serving short time than having gone under oath.
He's very, very dangerous.

Unless he's going to do hard time, which I doubt.

I'd be fine with Trump doing 4 months for contempt of Congress...but he's facing many other charges more serious.

Predictions? Will he just take the 5th or take his chances with being convicted ala Bannon and refuse to show?

... DOJ asked for 6 months, but judge can go as much as 24 months. No one expected the max, but 6 months seemed reasonable.

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 1:42 pm Anyone surprised by this? https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/politics ... index.html