On Jan 6th, the only theme preached to the crowd of trumptards was that the election result was "Stolen" and was therefore "illegal" and that they had to fight to "Take America back."

Yep, sounds like an insurrection to me.

 

Apparently the liberal propaganda pushers missed this little tidbit today

Pence defense upheld by court (msn.com)

Pence defense upheld by court
Opinion by Don Wolfensberger, opinion contributor • Yesterday 5:00 PM


Former Vice President Mike Pence startled some legal observers when he invoked congressional immunity to resist a subpoena for testimony before a grand jury looking into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Pence was relying on his position as president of the Senate to argue he could not be compelled to testify in any other place regarding his duties as a constitutional officer of Congress. It was the first time that a vice president has relied on that shield from legal process.


Pence defense upheld by court © Provided by The Hill
The “speech or debate” clause in Article I, section 6, of the Constitution states that senators and representatives are privileged from arrest in going to and coming from sessions of Congress and “shall not be questioned in any other place” for “any speech or debate in either house.” The only exceptions are “cases of treason, felony and breach of the peace.”

The legal experts were perhaps less surprised by the time U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg ruled on March 28 that Pence did have limited “speech or debate” immunity from testifying about his specific duties and actions on Jan. 6, 2021, when he presided over the electoral vote count for president and vice president before a joint session of Congress. The actual language and reasoning behind that ruling remain under seal. Pence had previously indicated a willingness to answer other questions relating to his activities and interactions with the president leading up to the Jan. 6 count, much of which he had already disclosed in his recently published book, “So Help Me God.”

Judge Boasberg also reportedly rejected without qualification former President Trump’s effort to extend executive privilege protection on behalf of Pence – something the vice president made clear he did not wish embrace. Other Trump attempts to shield former White House and political aides from grand jury testimony have also been rebuffed by the courts.

The peculiar positioning of vice presidents as officers of both the executive and legislative branches was practically an afterthought on the part of the 1787 constitutional convention, There was no mention of a vice president in earlier drafts. It didn’t appear until the final days of the convention as a suggestion from “the Committee on Unfinished Business” which was charged with addressing some key remaining issues left unaddressed up to that point. One such issue was the method of presidential election and succession.

What emerged was the electoral college system in which state electors would cast two ballots, one of which could not be for someone from the same state (to allow for other than just same-state “favorite son” votes). The vice presidency was created at this point to accommodate the runner-up (who would not necessarily be of the same party as the president). The problem was the delegates did not provide any specific duties for the vice president. As Roger Sherman of Connecticut lamented, “he would be without employment.” So, the convention relegated the vice president to the make-work job of presiding over the Senate with his only responsibility being to break tie votes.

And, for the first century or so, the VPs sat in the chair of the Senate chamber, occasionally ruling on points of order or casting tie-breaking votes. The first vice president, John Adams, was never invited to attend any of President George Washington’s cabinet meetings. When Adams became the next president, his vice president, Thomas Jefferson (of the opposing political party), spent most of his time in the Senate compiling his “Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States,” based mostly on precedents from the British Parliament.

While creation of the U.S. vice presidency came late in the convention, the “speech or debate” clause was included in the original draft of the document, with its roots in the early British Parliament and all subsequent American legislative bodies. It was considered a key element in protecting legislatures from disruption and destabilization by arbitrary legal assaults from the sovereign.

It is clear from the language that the clause was intended to protect sitting members of the House and Senate from being way-laid from their official duties by arrests and trials. The doctrine was gradually extended by precedent to the elected officers of Congress and to members’ office and committee staff. The new Pence precedent is simply a logical extension of coverage of congressional officers.

The specific responsibility of the vice president to preside over the electoral count for president and vice president is a clear constitutional duty covered by the “speech or debate” protection. In recently amending The Electoral Count Act, Congress made clear the vice president’s role is strictly ceremonial in nature, with no discretion to alter or pass judgment on any of the state results —as much as President Trump tried to persuade Pence otherwise.

At this writing, Pence has not indicated any intention to appeal to the Supreme Court the district court’s ruling, though Judge Boasberg’s specific ruling, once unveiled, could change that. However, as Yogi Berra might have said (but did not), “Once you’ve won, stop playing.”

Don Wolfensberger is a Congress Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former staff director of the House Rules Committee, and author of “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays.” The views expressed are solely his own.

 

@shootersa What did Trump want Pence to do on Jan 6th? And why?

 

I will have to track more of this down because it is huge. And makes a laughingstock out of anyone trying to claim that Pence's speech or debate” clause is somehow important. Special Counsel Jack Smith doesn't need to ask Pence anything about what he said on J6. What Smith wants to know is what Pence and Trump talked about on every day leading up to J6 and the courts have said he must answer those questions. And now Pence has agreed to testify and dropped all his appeals.


Smith is zeroing in on things like this. Which is nothing less than an attempted coup to keep Trump in power after he, his inner circle, his campaign, and treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans knew he had lost a free and fair election.



Jack Smith is investigating the Trump White House meeting with Sidney Powell where a plan to seize voting machines was discussed: report

121
Charles R. Davis
Wed, April 5, 2023 at 2:59 PM MDT



Prosecutor Jack Smith listens as Hashim Thaci, not pictured, makes his first courtroom appearance before a judge at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers court in The Hague, Netherlands, Nov. 9, 2020.Jerry Lampen/Pool Photo via AP

• 
  Special Counsel Jack Smith is investigating a December 2020 meeting at the Trump White House, per CNN.
  
• At the meeting, participants, including Sidney Powell, discussed a plan to seize voting machines.
  
  
• Smith is investigating Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
  

The special counsel investigating Donald Trump's efforts to overturn his election loss has turned his attention to a White House meeting where the former president and a pair of notorious conspiracy theorists discussed a plan to seize voting machines, sources told CNN.

Federal prosecutor Jack Smith was last November appointed as special counsel to lead the Department of Justice's investigations into two separate, potentially criminal matters, one concerning Trump's handling of classified documents and the other his efforts to cling to power following the 2020 election.

Of particular interest to Smith is a December 18, 2020 meeting at the White House where Trump was joined by attorney Sidney Powell, who was falsely claiming that electronic voting machines were hacked by foreign adversaries, sources told CNN. Powell was sanctioned last year for filing a string of frivolous lawsuits claiming election fraud.

Powell was joined at the meeting by Mike Flynn, a retired three-star general who has falsely claimed COVID-19 was created to help Democrats steal the 2020 election. Trump had pardoned Flynn — his first national security adviser, convicted of lying to the FBI about his contact with a Russian diplomat — less than two weeks earlier.

Flynn, prior to the meeting, had for weeks been pushing the idea of seizing voting machines, arguing that Trump could unilaterally demand it be done. "He could immediately, on his order, seize every single one of these machines," he told right-wing media outlet Newsmax the day before the White House meeting, arguing that Trump could declare martial law and order a re-do of the 2020 election.

The December 18 meeting devolved into a shouting match between Trump's allies and White House lawyers, according to reports, with the latter informing the former president that the proposal would not be legal.

They were not the only ones counseling the former president that voting-machine scheme was unwise.

According to CNN, citing sources familiar with Smith's investigation, two former Trump officials, widely seen as staunch conservatives and loyal allies of the ex-president, were asked about the plan during their appearances before a grand jury. Ken Cuccinelli, who in 2020 was serving as the acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is said to have testified that he "made clear at all times" that DHS lacked the authority to seizing voting machines.

Appearing earlier before investigators with the House January 6 select committee, Cuccinelli had said he was contacted by Rudy Giuliani — Trump's personal attorney and another participant in the December 2020 meeting — and asked if DHS had the authority to pursue the Powell-Flynn plan. "And I told him: We don't have any authority to grab these machines," Cuccinelli said, according to a transcript of his deposition.

Chad Wolf, who served as acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, was also asked about the plan, per CNN. Robert O'Brien, Trump's national security adviser from 2019 to 2021, has also been asked about the scheme and his participation in the Powell-Flynn meeting, which he participated in via phone. O'Brien told prosecutors that he "had made clear there was no evidence of foreign interference affecting voting machines," according to the outlet.

Indeed, days after the 2020 election, the nation's top election security officials issued a statement via the federal Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency attesting that there was "no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

Trump, meanwhile, has responded to the investigation of his post-election actions with a string of personal attacks. In a speech on Tuesday following his arraignment in New York on felony charges of falsifying business records, he described Smith as a "lunatic" and bizarrely claimed that the special counsel had changed his legal name.

https://www.yahoo.com/?guccounter=1

 

I am very glad to see this. The Secret Service aided Trump's insurrection to the highest level of leadership. And then deliberately destroyed evidence after they were told to preserve it. And then tried to whitewash it and cover it up. So that needs to be investigated and the traitors to the United States of America held accountable.


Federal watchdog probe expands to include missing Jan. 6 Secret Service texts: report

Gideon Rubin
April 06, 2023



United States Secret Service / Shutterstock.


A misconduct investigation of the Department of Homeland Security’s chief watchdog that began almost two years ago has expanded to include missing Jan. 6 Secret Service text messages, The Washington Post reports.

The probe of Office of Inspector General Joseph V. Cuffari will include his role in the missing texts.

Investigators on Monday demanded Cuffari's records of the deleted texts, which was revealed in a federal lawsuit Cuffari filed with three others including two staffers, the report said. He filed the lawsuit jointly with his chief of staff, Kristen Fredricks, his general counsel, James Read, and Joseph Gangloff, a former government official, the report said.

Cuffari, a Trump appointee, last year shut down an investigation of the missing Secret Service messages during the House’s insurrection probe.

IN OTHER NEWS: Fulton County DA responds to Trump after he smears her as a 'racist'

The Post’s Lisa Rein reports that “Democratic lawmakers have previously sought answers from Cuffari about when he learned of the missing texts, information that could shed light on what happened on Jan. 6 and during the days leading up to the attack, and why he did not more aggressively try to recover them.”

Cuffari has denied wrongdoing and said he’s gotten pushback for attempts to restore order to an office he inherited that he described as dysfunctional.

Rein reports “The probe has paralyzed the inspector general’s office, alienated Cuffari from the watchdog community and led to calls for President Biden to fire him. The president has signaled that he intends to stay out of the process until the panel from the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) completes its work. When a federal watchdog is accused of misconduct and the organization decides that it warrants attention, another inspector general is assigned to investigate, under a system set up by Congress.”



https://www.rawstory.com/federal-wa...de-missing-jan-6-secret-service-texts-report/

 

So what do we call the take-over of the state legislative house of Tennessee? Seems eerily similar, doesn't it?

Yet Libfucks are outraged that legislative members who took part are being ousted, but so far, NOBODY has been kept in jail for over two years waiting for their 'quick and speedy trial' - like, you know - the political prisoners of January 6?

 

If what you are saying is even remotely true you might have a point. But since it isn't you are just totally laughable.

 

So there.
The general has spoken.

 

What a load of turd.

 

Hey trumptards. What evidence did Trump show to repukes in congress that the 2020 election was being stolen? And on what proof did the repukes start disseminating Trump's fraud allegations to the public?

Any trumptars want to give us an answer?????

 

The same B.S. Hilabeast showed in 2016. DumbAss Dembos that you are.

 

2016? I asked any trumptard to let us know what evidence, Trump was shown that informed him there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Well?

 

Well no now this is just a great big blatant ignorant laughable lie.`


Clinton concedes to Trump: ‘We owe him an open mind’

By Nolan D. McCaskill

11/09/2016 11:56 AM EST

Updated: 11/09/2016 12:58 PM EST


https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-concedes-to-trump-we-owe-him-an-open-mind-231118

 

Yeah, member when she said she lost cause all those chauvinist deplorables made their wives vote for Trump?

Shooter tried to imagine telling SWAMBO how to vote.
He laughed.
SWAMBO laughed even more.

 

This was a pretty big one flying under the radar Lawyers for multiple J6 defendants claimed the DOJ was charging felonies for what were actually just misdemeanors. And if they had prevailed it could have blown more than a thousand cases wide open again.


Court sides with Justice Dept. on Jan. 6 obstruction charge


1 / 2
Capitol Riot Obstruction Charge
FILE - Violent insurrectionists loyal to President Donald Trump, storm the Capitol, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. A federal appeals court sided on Friday, April 7, 2023, with the Justice Department in a case that could have upended hundreds of charges brought in the Capitol riot investigation. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
ASSOCIATED PRESS
1.2k
LINDSAY WHITEHURST and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER
Fri, April 7, 2023 at 11:18 AM MDT·4 min read




WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court sided Friday with the Justice Department in a case that could have upended hundreds of charges brought in the Capitol riot investigation.

The decision, however, leaves open the possibility of further challenges to the charge of obstruction of Congress, which has been brought against more than 300 defendants in the massive federal prosecutions following the Jan. 6, 2021, riot.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said a lower court judge was wrong in dismissing the charge in three cases in which the judge concluded it didn't cover the defendants' conduct. Those defendants may ask the full appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

The charge of obstruction of an official proceeding, which carries up to 20 years behind bars, is among the most widely used felony charges in the Jan. 6 cases. It has been brought against extremists accused of plotting to stop the transfer of presidential power from Republican Donald Trump to Democrat Joe Biden as well as in dozens of less serious cases.


Dozens of people have already pleaded guilty to the charge or been convicted at trial.

The Justice Department has argued that the offense — punishing anyone who “corruptly” obstructs or impedes an “official proceeding” — clearly fits the conduct of the rioters who halted Congress' certification of Biden's 2020 election victory.

But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols found that prosecutors stretched the law beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in the these cases. Nichols ruled that a defendant must have taken “some action with respect to a document, record or other object” in order to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.

The Justice Department appealed, arguing that Nichols’ interpretation of the law was too limited.

In her appeals court ruling, Judge Florence Pan noted that Nichols — an appointee of Trump — was the only lower court judge overseeing Jan. 6 cases to rule that way; every other judge who considered it said that it was correctly used.

"Although the opinions of those district judges are not binding on us, the near unanimity of the rulings is striking, as well as the thorough and persuasive reasoning in the decision," wrote Pan, who was appointed by Biden.

Circuit Appeals Judge Gregory Katsas, however, sided with Nichols, writing that prosecutors’ interpretation of the law was overly broad, especially for a crime that carries such a long potential sentence.

The law has been on the books for two decades and used thousands of times, but until the Jan. 6 prosecutions it had been used only against people accused of damaging or impairing evidence, the Trump appointee wrote.

If the charge covers anything that “obstructs, influences, or impedes an official proceeding,” it could also potentially criminalize other common ways that people try to convince lawmakers of their point of view, including advocacy, lobbying or protesting, he wrote.

“So while this approach would create an escape hatch for those who influence an official proceeding without committing any other crime, it also would supercharge a range of minor advocacy, lobbying, and protest offenses into 20-year felonies,” Katsas wrote.

The appeals court’s ruling suggests more legal wrangling over the law is likely. While he sided with Pan in reversing Nichols’ decision, Judge Justin Walker said the court was wrong to not address what the law means by “corruptly.”

Walker, another Trump appointee, said “corruptly” means defendants are guilty only if they act to "procure an unlawful benefit” for themselves or someone else. He used the example of a rioter who joined the riot because “he was angry at the nation’s elites” and saw it as an "opportunity to display his bravado."

“Though likely guilty of other crimes, he did not act ‘corruptly’" under the law ”because he did not intend to procure a benefit by obstructing the Electoral College vote count," he wrote.

"That rioter may not be representative of most rioters on January 6th. But in every case, the Government will need to prove at trial whether each defendant acted ‘corruptly’ in a way that my hypothetical rioter did not," he wrote.

Roughly 1,000 people have been charged with federal crimes in the attack in which rioters shattered windows, fought with police and poured into the Capitol, sending lawmakers into hiding and leaving dozens of police officers injured.

More than 600 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted after trials decided by a jury or judge. Roughly 450 have been sentenced, with over half getting terms of imprisonment ranging from seven days to 10 years.

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-...es-challenge-2c6205622672c65a4ce81b2ba4c8303c

 

Let's focus on Jan 6th. What evidence did Trump show repukes that convinced them that there was voter fraud? Surely not on Trump's word alone?

Well?

 

One trick pony.
Dismissed.

 

As usual you didn't answer the question. Now do us all a favor, and take look at the topic of this thread. Now answer the simple question of whether or not Trump was lying about widespread voter fraud.

Well?

 

One trick pony.
Same topic.
Same question.
Endlessly.
Stalkerish even.
Dismissed.

 

What does the title of this thread say?

So I'll ask again. Was Trump telling the truth when he claimed the 2020 election was stolen from him?

Well?