Better a late "YAY!!!!", than never uttering a " YAAAAAAY!!!!!!"
tRUMP's trials will give me more will to live in the next few years.
Now go bury the SOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2
For a moment I will indulge myself: I'm a dancing banana!!!
Busted again. Go Georgia. PE#1? Or an alien among us? We know the hair is non-biological.
1
Join me in raising a glass, of your favorite beverage, for Indictment Day. It's finally here.
We should start a pool on the identity of Co-conspirator #6 ("I am not a number, I am a free man!" – sorry I couldn't resist). I've heard: Steve Bannon, Ginni Thomas, Boris Epshtyn, and others I don't remember.
2
Ill put my money on Ginni Thomas. It's pretty much established that Mark Meadows was the major roll over and it was Ginni Thomas who was supplying Meadows with all the particulars of the fake electors aspect of the scheme.
One thing we know for certain is that all the fake electors who claimed they were duped spilled their guts out to get clear from their involvement in Trump's criminality. That's a lot of pertinent information going back up the food chain.
1
Yes; Ginni T. When she's convicted, she'll appeal up to the Supremes, but by that time, congress will apply moral standards to them, and Clarence will have to recuse himself.
Please, please, please let it be Ginni & Tonic.
I hope it is Stephen Miller, I'd love to see that miscreant get his comeuppance!
I finished reading the indictment. This will be the trial of the century.
The co-conspirators (not named in the indictment) seem to be:
1) Rudy Giuliani
2) John Eastman
3) Sidney Powell
4) Jeffrey Clark
5) Kenneth Chesebro
6) unknown
I'm sure they will all be charged. What's interesting that almost all are lawyers (not Chesebro.) None are likely to represent themselves at trial but all of them can evaluate the risk of prison considering the evidence Jack Smith seems to have. They can all see that Jack Smith would welcome any of them to flip on inside conversations with Trump. But Jack doesn't need ALL of them. So the first two might be able to make a deal but like musical chairs, you don't want to be the last one standing. Everyone will play it cool until they all have discovery and the evidence is out there.
For Trump, the only defense is the claim that he (Trump) has evidence that strongly offsets the multiple reports that there was/is no evidence of widespread fraud. Trump will have to prove that he relied on reputable sources. Who might those sources be?
Giuliani and Powell? Yeah, he'll throw them under the bus if they are loyal enough to not give evidence in the trial. Trump won't take the stand. There's no evidence of election fraud. If the jury decides that Trump was aware he lost and he tried to steal the election, Jack won't have to work very hard to get a "guilty" on every charge.
If the jury isn't convinced of Trump's willful deceit, there's the problem of the criminal schemes in furtherance of taking back the election by illegal methods. Trump laid out his defense on J6 when he said, "When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules." I think that will be played back to the jury – there was no election fraud by Democrats. By Trump's definition, there was no excuse for the 'different rules' he played by.
The big question is how quickly the case will go to trial.
3
And remember: we’ve gutted most of the domestic terrorist groups since 1/6 — leaders of the Proud Dorks and the Oath Breakers are already behind bars, where they belong. More work to do, but things are looking up.
Better a late "YAY!!!!", than never uttering a " YAAAAAAY!!!!!!"
tRUMP's trials will give me more will to live in the next few years.
Now go bury the SOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For a moment I will indulge myself: I'm a dancing banana!!!
Busted again. Go Georgia. PE#1? Or an alien among us? We know the hair is non-biological.
Join me in raising a glass, of your favorite beverage, for Indictment Day. It's finally here.
We should start a pool on the identity of Co-conspirator #6 ("I am not a number, I am a free man!" – sorry I couldn't resist). I've heard: Steve Bannon, Ginni Thomas, Boris Epshtyn, and others I don't remember.
Ill put my money on Ginni Thomas. It's pretty much established that Mark Meadows was the major roll over and it was Ginni Thomas who was supplying Meadows with all the particulars of the fake electors aspect of the scheme.
One thing we know for certain is that all the fake electors who claimed they were duped spilled their guts out to get clear from their involvement in Trump's criminality. That's a lot of pertinent information going back up the food chain.
Yes; Ginni T. When she's convicted, she'll appeal up to the Supremes, but by that time, congress will apply moral standards to them, and Clarence will have to recuse himself.
Please, please, please let it be Ginni & Tonic.
I hope it is Stephen Miller, I'd love to see that miscreant get his comeuppance!
I finished reading the indictment. This will be the trial of the century.
The co-conspirators (not named in the indictment) seem to be:
1) Rudy Giuliani
2) John Eastman
3) Sidney Powell
4) Jeffrey Clark
5) Kenneth Chesebro
6) unknown
I'm sure they will all be charged. What's interesting that almost all are lawyers (not Chesebro.) None are likely to represent themselves at trial but all of them can evaluate the risk of prison considering the evidence Jack Smith seems to have. They can all see that Jack Smith would welcome any of them to flip on inside conversations with Trump. But Jack doesn't need ALL of them. So the first two might be able to make a deal but like musical chairs, you don't want to be the last one standing. Everyone will play it cool until they all have discovery and the evidence is out there.
For Trump, the only defense is the claim that he (Trump) has evidence that strongly offsets the multiple reports that there was/is no evidence of widespread fraud. Trump will have to prove that he relied on reputable sources. Who might those sources be?
Giuliani and Powell? Yeah, he'll throw them under the bus if they are loyal enough to not give evidence in the trial. Trump won't take the stand. There's no evidence of election fraud. If the jury decides that Trump was aware he lost and he tried to steal the election, Jack won't have to work very hard to get a "guilty" on every charge.
If the jury isn't convinced of Trump's willful deceit, there's the problem of the criminal schemes in furtherance of taking back the election by illegal methods. Trump laid out his defense on J6 when he said, "When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules." I think that will be played back to the jury – there was no election fraud by Democrats. By Trump's definition, there was no excuse for the 'different rules' he played by.
The big question is how quickly the case will go to trial.
And remember: we’ve gutted most of the domestic terrorist groups since 1/6 — leaders of the Proud Dorks and the Oath Breakers are already behind bars, where they belong. More work to do, but things are looking up.