Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Bye-bye, baby': Experts affirmatively conclude 'yes, it's happening' — Trump is getting indicted


Grim Reaper 6

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, sirfiroth said:

How shamefully UN-American! Should I assume this thread represents Judge Who Who/s kangaroo court of public opinion? In the Court of Public Opinion there are no Judges to determine the admissibility or efficacy of the evidence. Sadly, this same thing happened in history once before in prewar Germany during the 1930's.

If so in the interest of fair play, may you all receive the same form of presumed innocent until proven guilty justice you advocate for others!

What’s so shamefully un-American,  this thread is about the first American President in the history of the United States of America. Who was directly or indirectly responsible for an Insurrection, now what could possibly be more un-American that? 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

What’s so shamefully un-American,  this thread is about the first American President in the history of the United States of America. Who was directly or indirectly responsible for an Insurrection, now what could possibly be more un-American that? 

Ahem…. Second. Washington lead an insurrection against the King. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Ahem…. Second. Washington lead an insurrection against the King. 

Obviously he wasn’t our excepted King, and it’s different in another way also!:yes:

To show you how screwed up Trump actually is, for few more days after the Insurrection he was still the American President. So, since Trump lead the Insurrection against the Government, in effect the Idiot fomented and participated in a Insurrection against himself!:unsure::wacko::blink::w00t:

Now, I thought 45 was a Genius with an IQ of 150+, well after that brilliant stunt I think it’s safe to say that the reason he loves being called 45 is because that’s his actual IQ.:lol:

Edited by Grim Reaper 6
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

We are not stressed at all. It’s more than obvious with the obsession you folks are terrified of the man. 
 

I can just imagine how much worse it will be when he is announced president again. 1.7 trillion, smh. Why don’t the Dems just give it to him now. 

He isn't on the list of registered candidates yet and the list is long.  Kanye isn't on the list of registered contenders either.    :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong, but, isn't the OP linked articles only about the Mar Lago documents? No insurrection in the OP.

Has there been news of a insurrection charge? It's been two years. I think several of the J6 rioters were charged with insurrection though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh. Honestly won't believe it until I see it 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the lame J6 committee is asking DOJ for charges on Trump, including insurrection. I think unless the DOJ signs on many former Trump WH people to testify, that it won't stick. This isn't a Democrat House kangaroo court issuing an impeachment. It's a actual court of law proceeding, that requires actual evidence, not just people being triggered.

That said, I do hope Trump shuffles off to the shadows and let's DeSantis take the reins of the GOP.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

 

That said, I do hope Trump shuffles off to the shadows and let's DeSantis take the reins of the GOP.

lol The entire basis for the GOP picking their party leader is to just find the biggest peice of **** imaginable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Occupational Hubris said:

lol The entire basis for the GOP picking their party leader is to just find the biggest peice of **** imaginable.

Wow! You sure told me. I'm going to vote Dumb-ocrat now.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Wow! You sure told me. I'm going to vote Dumb-ocrat now.

You're already voting faciscim. Can't get mouch worse. 

 

lol "Dumb-ocrat". Absolute gold. 

Edited by Occupational Hubris
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but, isn't the OP linked articles only about the Mar Lago documents? No insurrection in the OP.

Has there been news of a insurrection charge? It's been two years. I think several of the J6 rioters were charged with insurrection though.

 

Iirc those charged with j6 insurrection said to the effect they did as they thought BOM wanted them to do. Hum.

Those involved investigators, commities, DOJ etc dont want to bumble it when charges start falling on trump they will stick.

Be it for stolen docs or his stirring up the j6.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sirfiroth said:

How shamefully UN-American! Should I assume this thread represents Judge Who Who/s kangaroo court of public opinion? In the Court of Public Opinion there are no Judges to determine the admissibility or efficacy of the evidence. Sadly, this same thing happened in history once before in prewar Germany during the 1930's.

If so in the interest of fair play, may you all receive the same form of presumed innocent until proven guilty justice you advocate for others!

You sure are hard to follow are you suggesting trump is trying to follow as a modern Hitler?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but, isn't the OP linked articles only about the Mar Lago documents? No insurrection in the OP.

The insurrection on January 6, information can be found in a link in the source article in the OP! However, the main article is concerning the stolen, illegally stored, and possibly exposed to an individual or individuals with out the necessary security clearance to view them or even copy them because of unsecured  storage. So, on this point I will give it to you even though there are links within the OP Article to the Insurrection!:nw: 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Has there been news of a insurrection charge? It's been two years. I think several of the J6 rioters were charged with insurrection though.

Yes the one of the four charges preferred Against Trump by the January 6, Committee that were forwarded to the Attorney General and the Justice Department for indictment was for Insurrection. They took there time to word the charge in such way that there are literally 3 ways which are outlined in the Constitution. 

Insurrection Charges preferred against Trump and sent to the Justice Department for indictment:

The committee voted unanimously to recommend Trump be prosecuted on four charges: obstruction of an official proceeding of the United States government, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to make a false statement, and inciting, assisting, or aid and comforting an insurrection. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/12/january-6-committee-recommends-four-charges-against-donald-trump-capitol-attack

Rebellion - Insurrection directly from the Constitution:

§2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-1999-title18-section2383&num=0&edition=199

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I guess the lame J6 committee is asking DOJ for charges on Trump, including insurrection. I think unless the DOJ signs on many former Trump WH people to testify, that it won't stick.This isn't a Democrat House kangaroo court issuing an impeachment. It's a actual court of law proceeding, that requires actual evidence, not just people being triggered.

Well it appears your a little confused because above you quoted me asking if there were insurrection charges against Trump and here you say it will take people fro the White House to Testify or that it won’t stick. Obviously, you need to either watch the January 6 recorded videos of the testimony videos on YouTube or at least research the topic. Because, there already has been White Staffers that were present before January 6 and during the entire ensuing insurrection who have testified including the White Chief of Staffs ( Mark Meadows ) Secretary,  Trumps White House Lawyer who resigned on  January 7 after the insurrection because he would no longer defend Trump after the Insurrection and many many other White House Staffers, along wit intercepted tweets and cell phone conversations.  All the White Staffers were directly present and were able to present first hand information.

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

That said, I do hope Trump shuffles off to the shadows and let's DeSantis take the reins of the GOP.

I am also fully behind DeSantis, and he is beating Trump in polls Nationwide and what’s hilarious is Trump is doing everything from rallies to the ridiculous Socialtruth site to campaign. DeSantis, hasn’t he stated he would run, and has done no campaigning i am aware of and he’s beating Trump, why because he is the Republican Party’s golden boy shining very bright!:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Well it appears your a little confused because above you quoted me asking if there were insurrection charges against Trump and here you say it will take people fro the White House to Testify or that it won’t stick. Obviously, you need to either watch the January 6 recorded videos of the testimony videos on YouTube or at least research the topic. Because, there already has been White Staffers that were present before January 6 and during the entire ensuing insurrection who have testified including the White Chief of Staffs ( Mark Meadows ) Secretary,  Trumps White House Lawyer who resigned on  January 7 after the insurrection because he would no longer defend Trump after the Insurrection and many many other White House Staffers, along wit intercepted tweets and cell phone conversations.  All the White Staffers were directly present and were able to present first hand information.

I am also fully behind DeSantis, and he is beating Trump in polls Nationwide and what’s hilarious is Trump is doing everything from rallies to the ridiculous Socialtruth site to campaign. DeSantis, hasn’t he stated he would run, and has done no campaigning i am aware of and he’s beating Trump, why because he is the Republican Party’s golden boy shining very bright!:tu:

Desantis is like the GOP answer to the starwars trilogy "a new hope" no doubt a lot of GOP were worried about how to repair the damage BOM did to them desantis might be that answer.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Well, sadly your very wrong Treason isn't the only crime that can prevent someone from holding Office.

I disagree and more importantly multiple Constitutional law scholars do as well.  There are only a handful of requirements spelled out in the Constitution for POTUS.  Native born, at least 35 years of age, cannot have been removed after impeachment, and conviction for TREASON as defined in the Constitution.  Now, I understand how desperate the Dems are to keep him from even having a chance to win again and as a result, they will likely gin up a charge for some kind of insurrection or sedition and, as I said, the judge will never allow a change of venue from DC even though DC voters are roughly 92% Democrat and no possibility of a fair trial exists. Trump WILL be convicted for whatever charge is brought against him.  It's an absolute foregone conclusion.

Of course it will be appealed to the SCOTUS and unless that body has also fallen to corruption, it will be overturned due to the CLEAR LANGUAGE in the Constitution.

For your edification, if you are so inclined:

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39

First, the definition:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Take the time to actually read that article and you'll see just how high a standard the Founders set for Treason.  They had seen for themselves how the Crown had misused that particular crime over the years and they wanted to ensure that political hit jobs couldn't be easily accomplished.

So, the first part of the clause is very simple.  It cannot be changed on political whim by one party or another.  It is clear.  Trump would have had to be leading soldiers/civilians in WAR against the country.  The interpretations we've seen in the media are outright silly and would never meet the standard required.

"Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war. Rather, a person could be convicted of treason for levying war only if there was an “actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.” In so holding, the Court sharply confined the scope of the offense of treason by levying war against the United States."   A DC jury would cheerfully find that he had an "actual assemblage of men to execute a treasonous design".  Fortunately, Twitter and FB can't decide how to define this ;) 

The second part of the clause is explained in such a way that it too cannot be successfully argued for a conviction of Trump:

"the Court explained that a person could be convicted of treason only if he or she adhered to an enemy and gave that enemy “aid and comfort.” As the Court explained: “A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country’s policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason."

THIS^ refers not to giving a speech that one party considers to be incitement.  For treason to occur, the POTUS has to actually LEAD an enemy against America during time of war, again making the clear case that Trump was not guilty of treason.  He wasn't even close to such an outrageous claim.  I recommend this article sincerely.  The reason I think it would be good for Americans to truly understand what our Founders wanted is that WHEN a biased DC jury convicts Trump of some kind of crime related to the 14th amendment, it might stop them from being used by media shills to enrage the public that treason was proven but SCOTUS was corrupted by 3 Trump appointees.  Media is going to be totally willing to foment a real insurrection if that's what it takes to stop the outsider from being chosen again.  Considering the chaos that the Left took part in on Trump's inauguration day, it's easy to imagine them using the 14th amendment to rally their followers in the aftermath of a Trump win.  America really needs to avoid that outcome.  Too much is on the line and sadly, this time around, the Left wouldn't be in the streets alone. :(

ETA - The 14th was created by the legislative branch and as such cannot be used to change an aspect of the Constitution so fundamental to another coequal branch.  The constitution is clear and if the Left destroy it in an effort to get Trump, this nation won't survive for long afterwards.

Edited by and-then
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and-then said:

I disagree and more importantly multiple Constitutional law scholars do as well.  There are only a handful of requirements spelled out in the Constitution for POTUS.  Native born, at least 35 years of age, cannot have been removed after impeachment, and conviction for TREASON as defined in the Constitution.  Now, I understand how desperate the Dems are to keep him from even having a chance to win again and as a result, they will likely gin up a charge for some kind of insurrection or sedition and, as I said, the judge will never allow a change of venue from DC even though DC voters are roughly 92% Democrat and no possibility of a fair trial exists. Trump WILL be convicted for whatever charge is brought against him.  It's an absolute foregone conclusion.

Of course it will be appealed to the SCOTUS and unless that body has also fallen to corruption, it will be overturned due to the CLEAR LANGUAGE in the Constitution.

For your edification, if you are so inclined:

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-iii/clauses/39

First, the definition:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Take the time to actually read that article and you'll see just how high a standard the Founders set for Treason.  They had seen for themselves how the Crown had misused that particular crime over the years and they wanted to ensure that political hit jobs couldn't be easily accomplished.

So, the first part of the clause is very simple.  It cannot be changed on political whim by one party or another.  It is clear.  Trump would have had to be leading soldiers/civilians in WAR against the country.  The interpretations we've seen in the media are outright silly and would never meet the standard required.

"Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war. Rather, a person could be convicted of treason for levying war only if there was an “actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.” In so holding, the Court sharply confined the scope of the offense of treason by levying war against the United States."   A DC jury would cheerfully find that he had an "actual assemblage of men to execute a treasonous design".  Fortunately, Twitter and FB can't decide how to define this ;) 

The second part of the clause is explained in such a way that it too cannot be successfully argued for a conviction of Trump:

"the Court explained that a person could be convicted of treason only if he or she adhered to an enemy and gave that enemy “aid and comfort.” As the Court explained: “A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country’s policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason."

THIS^ refers not to giving a speech that one party considers to be incitement.  For treason to occur, the POTUS has to actually LEAD an enemy against America during time of war, again making the clear case that Trump was not guilty of treason.  He wasn't even close to such an outrageous claim.  I recommend this article sincerely.  The reason I think it would be good for Americans to truly understand what our Founders wanted is that WHEN a biased DC jury convicts Trump of some kind of crime related to the 14th amendment, it might stop them from being used by media shills to enrage the public that treason was proven but SCOTUS was corrupted by 3 Trump appointees.  Media is going to be totally willing to foment a real insurrection if that's what it takes to stop the outsider from being chosen again.  Considering the chaos that the Left took part in on Trump's inauguration day, it's easy to imagine them using the 14th amendment to rally their followers in the aftermath of a Trump win.  America really needs to avoid that outcome.  Too much is on the line and sadly, this time around, the Left wouldn't be in the streets alone. :(

ETA - The 14th was created by the legislative branch and as such cannot be used to change an aspect of the Constitution so fundamental to another coequal branch.  The constitution is clear and if the Left destroy it in an effort to get Trump, this nation won't survive for long afterwards.

First let me say clearly and plainly your comments in the very last paragraph concerning the 14th Amendment Section 3, the Disqualification Clause was fully ratified in 1868 and it is a valid and legally binding Amendment that part of the Constitution: You can make any comments you choose but no matter how loud or redundantly ridiculous your threats of violence like those in you last paragraph above will change the truth. Because there is nothing you say or post that will prove my comments or contribution of the sources I have provided wrong! https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S3-1-1/ALDE_00000848/

Now, will add this if war does break out because of this nonsense I will be watching it unfold with my own eyes through a scope somewhere in the United States, I feel that strongly about the violence that is being threatened by the Extreme RightWing Extremist of our Republicans Party. I took a Military oath that I live by today so unlike comments my comments are not a threat they are a fact::gun:

I, Grim Reaper 6, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; 

You still have not proven me wrong prove me wrong!:lol:
 

You sincerely wasted a great deal of time writing this post because your previous comments I quoted were that a charge of Treason is the only charge that could prevent Trump if anyone else from holding office, but that’s completely wrong. While like I stated yes Treason will prevent someone from holding office it’s not the only charge that while prevent someone from holding office WHERE AGAIN here your making the same claim which no matter how many time you say will never make your previous comments correct. SEE BLOW - this same information was included before did you miss it of are you have problems with eyes???

14th Amendment Section 3: Amdt14.S3.1 Disqualification Clause was fully ratified in 1868 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

If you take a moment to actually read this you will find that one office holder is not mentioned.  Care to guess who?

Also, this is my last post on the topic because YOU basically made an accusation against me that I was threatening violence and you sir, are a pathetic liar.  I'll be quite content to wait to see how all of this unfolds.  YOUR opinion of my words does not change what I actually said.  You seem willing to make such accusations as a means of shutting me down.  Only Marxist/Globalist agents are unable to live with freedom of speech without trying to destroy the individual who disagrees with them.  

I'll also point out that YOU referred to using a rifle, not I.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, and-then said:

If you take a moment to actually read this you will find that one office holder is not mentioned.  Care to guess who?

I have no idea who, and I am not being sarcastic so please tell me who.

3 minutes ago, and-then said:

Also, this is my last post on the topic because YOU basically made an accusation against me that I was threatening violence and you sir, are a pathetic liar.  I'll be quite content to wait to see how all of this unfolds.  YOUR opinion of my words does not change what I actually said.  You seem willing to make such accusations as a means of shutting me down.  Only Marxist/Globalist agents are unable to live with freedom of speech without trying to destroy the individual who disagrees with them. 

I'll also point out that YOU referred to using a rifle, not I.  

The quote of your comments that I was referring concerning violence is veiled but, it's threat that is very similar to other threats you frequently make in political posts across this forum: I Quote ""The constitution is clear and if the Left destroy it in an effort to get Trump, this nation won't survive for long afterwards."" Here is my response to your quote, in that my previous post and it is also a veiled threat not to you or anyone on this forum, I am surprised you missed it I expected you to comment on it!

Now, I will add this if war does break out because of this nonsense I will be watching it unfold with my own eyes through a scope somewhere in the United States, I mean that sincerely!

If that is not a veiled threat explain why the Nation will not live afterwards, what's going to kill it??

If, that was not your intention, please explain what your intention was and if I am wrong, I will apologize and ultimately understand you better, so I don't make comments like that again!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

 

I am also fully behind DeSantis, and he is beating Trump in polls Nationwide and what’s hilarious is Trump is doing everything from rallies to the ridiculous Socialtruth site to campaign. DeSantis, hasn’t he stated he would run, and has done no campaigning i am aware of and he’s beating Trump, why because he is the Republican Party’s golden boy shining very bright!:tu:

DeSantis is not beating Trump in the polls. Most polls have Trump beating DeSantis by a good margin. A couple left wing sources where mostly democrats voted had DeSantis beating Trump. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

DeSantis is not beating Trump in the polls. Most polls have Trump beating DeSantis by a good margin. A couple left wing sources where mostly democrats voted had DeSantis beating Trump. 

OK please post a source of information, you far too often make comments without sources which tells me your only offering an opinion nothing else!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here it is ground breaking earth shattering report from msm and proof the BOM worshippers are correct hes innocent and never did anything wrong hes a saint and will be back in the white house any day now.

witch hunt

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

DeSantis is not beating Trump in the polls. Most polls have Trump beating DeSantis by a good margin. A couple left wing sources where mostly democrats voted had DeSantis beating Trump. 

I agree, Trump's snake like hypnotic allure on the MAGA crowd still persists and DeSantis does not stand a chance to upend him. Having said that, the Republican rank and file would rather a normal candidate. Man do they have some soul searching to do. But Biden will crucify Trump and prolly any other candidate the GOP throws at him at this stage.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

I agree, Trump's snake like hypnotic allure on the MAGA crowd still persists and DeSantis does not stand a chance to upend him. Having said that, the Republican rank and file would rather a normal candidate. Man do they have some soul searching to do. But Biden will crucify Trump and prolly any other candidate the GOP throws at him at this stage.  

Idk about that the magatrump kult shrunk bigly when he pulled all the cry baby sore loser stuff, some magatrumps still love America more than they love trump.

I see lifelong GOP who refused to vote trump say they would support desantis.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the13bats said:

And here it is ground breaking earth shattering report from msm and proof the BOM worshippers are correct hes innocent and never did anything wrong hes a saint and will be back in the white house any day now.

witch hunt

 

Yes, what the link actually means is the following:

1. Trumps testimony isn’t needed, I mean how times would he plead the 5th when asked questions, hundreds - thousands.:D

2. Anything he would provide concerning information or documents really are not needed, the Committee has everything they need right now, so why listen to him plead the 5th to ad nauseam.

3. The investigation is over and the necessary information and documentation is complete, charges have been preferred to the Justice Department who will indict Trump for something. However, I suspect the charges he will be indicted for are one or all three insurrection charges preferred to the Attorney General of the United States.

Thanks Bats!:tu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.