LaxPower Back-Up Stick

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 4:18 pm I hope that he decides to again serve our country.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5046723/ ... ell-speech

He called out ALL

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 4:16 pm Introductory material and executive summary:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... 1/full.pdf

CU88 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 4:18 pm I hope that he decides to again serve our country.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5046723/ ... ell-speech

He called out ALL

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 4:52 pm

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 4:16 pm Introductory material and executive summary:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... 1/full.pdf

So this criminal referral now gets bumped up to DOJ to file charges and prosecute. Should be interesting to see how the DOJ prosecutes the dumpster. Where would the trial even take place? NYS and Georgia also want to have a crack at trump as well. This could outdo the OJ trial as an entertainment show for the media. I can only imagine how long it will take to find 12 jurors that don't have an opinion of trump in some form or another.

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 11:02 pm I think it would be malpractice to bring the case in Florida. There is a chance you get that whackadoodle judge again. Also a bit dicey with the jury pool down there. Much, much safer jury pool in DC. 95% of the vote in DC went to Biden in 2020. So maybe Trump gets one juror, maybe not. Prosecution could well be able to get rid of all Trump jurors were their preemptories.

CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.

The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).

What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:38 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.

The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).

What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.

Ok, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.

McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.

If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:38 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.

The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).

What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.

Ok, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.

McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.

If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".

Kismet wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:25 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:38 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.

The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).

What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.

Ok, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.

McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.

If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".

No way they are going to ignore a DoJ/Grand Jury subpoena. They might initially ask for a quash but it won't go anywhere.
After that, taking the 5th is an option or I suspect DoJ will attempt to flip some of them to get to those at the top of the alleged criminal enterprise they are investigating.

Side effect will be what they do about things when THEIR subpoenas start getting ignored in the new Congress.

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:44 am Why so little scrutiny (that we know of) of the "War Room"?

This chapter of the investigation has largely happened out of sight, yes?

..

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:48 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:38 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.

The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).

What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.

Ok, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.

McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.

If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".

Kind of a hinky observation on your part to want to indict the man for pleading the 5th. So the implied legal right granted under the 5th to not have to incriminate yourself is justification to indict the man. I thought the suspect would/should be indicted by evidence against him/her? I guess your advocating some new interpretation of the 5th amendment I have never heard of before. I'm fairly certain your not serious about advocating such a remedy. FTR, would there not be an indictment before defense counsel would allow his client to say anything. This would have plea bargain stamped all over it if not complete immunity from any prosecution.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:31 am

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 11:02 pm I think it would be malpractice to bring the case in Florida. There is a chance you get that whackadoodle judge again. Also a bit dicey with the jury pool down there. Much, much safer jury pool in DC. 95% of the vote in DC went to Biden in 2020. So maybe Trump gets one juror, maybe not. Prosecution could well be able to get rid of all Trump jurors were their preemptories.

So job #1 for the dumpsters legal team will be to petition for a change of venue. They have to believe he is screwed if the trial takes place in DC.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 11:19 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:48 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:38 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.

The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).

What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.

Ok, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.

McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.

If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".

Kind of a hinky observation on your part to want to indict the man for pleading the 5th. So the implied legal right granted under the 5th to not have to incriminate yourself is justification to indict the man. I thought the suspect would/should be indicted by evidence against him/her? I guess your advocating some new interpretation of the 5th amendment I have never heard of before. I'm fairly certain your not serious about advocating such a remedy. FTR, would there not be an indictment before defense counsel would allow his client to say anything. This would have plea bargain stamped all over it if not complete immunity from any prosecution.

You have not correctly understood what I meant, as I didn't explain adequately.

They have evidence of these guys being involved in the conspiracy. Texts, phone logs, others' testimony. My starting point is that they have plenty to indict and convict, assuming they indict the conspiracy overall.

But they'd like to have their testimony as well.
IF they take the 5th, indict...if want to testify and make an attractive proffer to do so, make a deal...or not and indict.

Only way out of indictment is to make a deal.
Yes, a good lawyer would want to make a deal prior to the testimony.

I suspect that McCarthy doesn't need to make a deal, but he'd know if he knew more about the conspiracy and had greenlit it...I'm thinking probably, 'no', but if he did know, then he better make a deal before someone else does...

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 11:25 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 11:19 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:48 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:38 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.

The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).

What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.

Ok, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.

McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.

If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".

Kind of a hinky observation on your part to want to indict the man for pleading the 5th. So the implied legal right granted under the 5th to not have to incriminate yourself is justification to indict the man. I thought the suspect would/should be indicted by evidence against him/her? I guess your advocating some new interpretation of the 5th amendment I have never heard of before. I'm fairly certain your not serious about advocating such a remedy. FTR, would there not be an indictment before defense counsel would allow his client to say anything. This would have plea bargain stamped all over it if not complete immunity from any prosecution.

You have not correctly understood what I meant, as I didn't explain adequately.

They have evidence of these guys being involved in the conspiracy. Texts, phone logs, others' testimony. My starting point is that they have plenty to indict and convict, assuming they indict the conspiracy overall.

But they'd like to have their testimony as well.
IF they take the 5th, indict...if want to testify and make an attractive proffer to do so, make a deal...or not and indict.

Only way out of indictment is to make a deal.
Yes, a good lawyer would want to make a deal prior to the testimony.

I suspect that McCarthy doesn't need to make a deal, but he'd know if he knew more about the conspiracy and had greenlit it...I'm thinking probably, 'no', but if he did know, then he better make a deal before someone else does...

First cooperator gets the prize.