User Controls
THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2022-03-28 at 7:55 PM UTCLanny. would you please change my title to "LANNY IS FRALA'S CUCK"?
Thanks!
"WE GOT HIM THIS TIME!"
The Washington Post
Here’s how a federal judge believes Trump likely broke the law
Philip Bump
They are astonishing words to read just above the signature of a federal judge.
Here’s how a federal judge believes Trump likely broke the law
“Dr. [John] Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter wrote in an opinion published on Monday. “Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory.”
Eastman, you’ll recall, is the legal scholar who advocated that Vice President Mike Pence simply reject electoral votes submitted by a number of states as Congress convened to finalize the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021. Carter’s summary of Eastman’s efforts — championed eagerly by Trump — was that it was not sincere advocacy of a novel theory of allocating power but, instead, a contrived rationale aimed at the goal of preserving Trump’s presidency.
This is not particularly surprising, even if it is stark. What’s more important is what precedes those words in Carter’s opinion: a detailed argument, hinging at one critical point on Trump’s own words, explaining why it’s likely that Donald Trump broke federal law in trying to retain power.
Carter’s ruling is part of a legal fight over documents in Eastman’s possession that focus on the effort to reject the outcome of the 2020 election. The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack subpoenaed material from Eastman related to the effort and he withheld it, citing attorney-client privilege. Carter was asked to determine if that privilege should apply to the material. In the end, he found that it overwhelmingly did not. But not because he thought Eastman was mostly not acting as counsel to Trump or Trump’s campaign and not solely because he thought most of the material was not related to litigation.
The judge was also asked by the House committee to evaluate if the material might need to be turned over because it was not protected by privilege due to the “crime-fraud” exception. In other words, if an attorney is discussing the commission of a crime with a client, that material may not be subject to being withheld under privilege. And earlier this month that’s precisely what the committee alleged: Trump and Eastman were engaged in an effort to violate more than one federal law and, therefore, communication related to that effort should not be privileged.
Carter agreed. The standard in a civil case is that a “preponderance of the evidence” shows that a crime was likely committed, meaning the evidence needed to show that it was “more likely than not.” And when considering the components of two crimes identified by the committee, Carter felt such a preponderance existed.
The first allegation was that Trump had tried to obstruct an official proceeding. In order for such a crime to be committed, Carter wrote, it needs to be shown that three things happened:
“the person obstructed, influenced or impeded, or attempted to obstruct, influence or impede”
“an official proceeding of the United States, and”
“did so corruptly.”
The second allegation — that there was a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. — has similar requirements: that “at least two people entered into an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the government ... by deceitful or dishonest means, and ... that a member of the conspiracy engaged in at least one overt act in furtherance of the agreement.”
In each case, two of the three stipulations are easy to meet. Trump’s effort to obstruct (#1) an official proceeding (#2) — the counting of electoral votes — is obvious, though Carter outlines the specific path by which that occurred. Similarly, the first and third components of the conspiracy allegation are fairly trivial to identify: Trump and Eastman worked to twist Pence’s arm and called on the crowd outside the White House to march to the Capitol and pressure Congress, among other things. Again, the full filing makes each case explicitly.
As I noted when the committee first alleged the violation of these laws (as it sought to apply the crime-fraud exception to Eastman’s privilege claims), the more challenging aspect of each allegation lies in the intent. Did Trump try to obstruct the electoral-vote count corruptly; that is, knowing that it was dishonest to do so? Did the conspiracy to obstruct the function of government occur thanks to “deceitful or dishonest means” — or did Trump perhaps sincerely believe that the election had been stolen?
The House committee, arguing for the former, pointed to the various officials and experts who’d rejected the idea that the election had been stolen as evidence that Trump must have known it hadn’t been. But Eastman, replying to that filing, argued that just as many advisers to Trump were insisting that the opposite was true, that there was rampant fraud that demanded the election results be reconsidered. That perhaps Trump existed in some liminal space between truth and falsehood making his objections sincere.
That’s why Carter’s isolation of Trump’s comments in his phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state on Jan. 3, 2021, is so important.
You probably remember that call. Trump phoned the man in charge of Georgia’s elections, Brad Raffensperger, and repeatedly tried to cajole him into identifying enough “fraudulent” votes that Trump could win the state. In short order, the audio of the call was obtained by The Washington Post and published.
During the conversation, Trump repeatedly tried to claim that various buckets of votes were questionable and Raffensperger repeatedly indicated that the claims were unfounded or unproven. Then Trump, who lost the state by fewer than 12,000 votes laid his cards on the table, telling Raffensperger, "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”
“President Trump’s repeated pleas for Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger clearly demonstrate that his justification was not to investigate fraud, but to win the election,” Carter wrote in his opinion. He quoted Trump: "So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”
“Taken together, this evidence demonstrates that President Trump likely knew the electoral count plan had no factual justification,” Carter continued.
In other words, Trump let the veil drop. He wasn’t concerned that fraud might have occurred and that the will of the voters was lost. He was simply worried about getting those votes he needed — and wanted the Republican secretary of state to play ball. This is a corrupt intent. This is dishonest.
“The illegality of the plan was obvious,” Carter wrote of the obstruction allegation. “... President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election. As Vice President Pence stated, ‘no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority.’ Every American—and certainly the President of the United States—knows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed. With a plan this ‘BOLD’” — quoting Eastman — “President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle.”
There were legal implications from the ruling for the House committee and for Eastman. But, particularly when coupled with the finding last month that Trump probably entered into a civil conspiracy with extremist groups similarly aimed at blocking the 2020 election, Carter’s assertion that a preponderance of evidence suggested that Trump violated the law is historic and enormously significant.
A crime was likely committed by the sitting president in order to retain power.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-03-28 at 8:24 PM UTCGlad to see you copy and pasting again.
I guess at your age it's more difficult to chew and swallow, especially if it's your pride (insert infinityshock post here) -
2022-03-28 at 8:26 PM UTCI voted for Biden at least 7 times, and that was just in wisconsin, if you only knew what I did to the ballot box in Pennsylvania it would make your pillow explodeThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2022-03-28 at 8:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 Lanny. would you please change my title to "LANNY IS FRALA'S CUCK"?
Thanks!
"WE GOT HIM THIS TIME!"
The Washington Post
Here’s how a federal judge believes Trump likely broke the law
Philip Bump
They are astonishing words to read just above the signature of a federal judge.
Here’s how a federal judge believes Trump likely broke the law
“Dr. [John] Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter wrote in an opinion published on Monday. “Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory.”
Eastman, you’ll recall, is the legal scholar who advocated that Vice President Mike Pence simply reject electoral votes submitted by a number of states as Congress convened to finalize the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021. Carter’s summary of Eastman’s efforts — championed eagerly by Trump — was that it was not sincere advocacy of a novel theory of allocating power but, instead, a contrived rationale aimed at the goal of preserving Trump’s presidency.
This is not particularly surprising, even if it is stark. What’s more important is what precedes those words in Carter’s opinion: a detailed argument, hinging at one critical point on Trump’s own words, explaining why it’s likely that Donald Trump broke federal law in trying to retain power.
Carter’s ruling is part of a legal fight over documents in Eastman’s possession that focus on the effort to reject the outcome of the 2020 election. The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack subpoenaed material from Eastman related to the effort and he withheld it, citing attorney-client privilege. Carter was asked to determine if that privilege should apply to the material. In the end, he found that it overwhelmingly did not. But not because he thought Eastman was mostly not acting as counsel to Trump or Trump’s campaign and not solely because he thought most of the material was not related to litigation.
The judge was also asked by the House committee to evaluate if the material might need to be turned over because it was not protected by privilege due to the “crime-fraud” exception. In other words, if an attorney is discussing the commission of a crime with a client, that material may not be subject to being withheld under privilege. And earlier this month that’s precisely what the committee alleged: Trump and Eastman were engaged in an effort to violate more than one federal law and, therefore, communication related to that effort should not be privileged.
Carter agreed. The standard in a civil case is that a “preponderance of the evidence” shows that a crime was likely committed, meaning the evidence needed to show that it was “more likely than not.” And when considering the components of two crimes identified by the committee, Carter felt such a preponderance existed.
The first allegation was that Trump had tried to obstruct an official proceeding. In order for such a crime to be committed, Carter wrote, it needs to be shown that three things happened:
“the person obstructed, influenced or impeded, or attempted to obstruct, influence or impede”
“an official proceeding of the United States, and”
“did so corruptly.”
The second allegation — that there was a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. — has similar requirements: that “at least two people entered into an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the government … by deceitful or dishonest means, and … that a member of the conspiracy engaged in at least one overt act in furtherance of the agreement.”
In each case, two of the three stipulations are easy to meet. Trump’s effort to obstruct (#1) an official proceeding (#2) — the counting of electoral votes — is obvious, though Carter outlines the specific path by which that occurred. Similarly, the first and third components of the conspiracy allegation are fairly trivial to identify: Trump and Eastman worked to twist Pence’s arm and called on the crowd outside the White House to march to the Capitol and pressure Congress, among other things. Again, the full filing makes each case explicitly.
As I noted when the committee first alleged the violation of these laws (as it sought to apply the crime-fraud exception to Eastman’s privilege claims), the more challenging aspect of each allegation lies in the intent. Did Trump try to obstruct the electoral-vote count corruptly; that is, knowing that it was dishonest to do so? Did the conspiracy to obstruct the function of government occur thanks to “deceitful or dishonest means” — or did Trump perhaps sincerely believe that the election had been stolen?
The House committee, arguing for the former, pointed to the various officials and experts who’d rejected the idea that the election had been stolen as evidence that Trump must have known it hadn’t been. But Eastman, replying to that filing, argued that just as many advisers to Trump were insisting that the opposite was true, that there was rampant fraud that demanded the election results be reconsidered. That perhaps Trump existed in some liminal space between truth and falsehood making his objections sincere.
That’s why Carter’s isolation of Trump’s comments in his phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state on Jan. 3, 2021, is so important.
You probably remember that call. Trump phoned the man in charge of Georgia’s elections, Brad Raffensperger, and repeatedly tried to cajole him into identifying enough “fraudulent” votes that Trump could win the state. In short order, the audio of the call was obtained by The Washington Post and published.
During the conversation, Trump repeatedly tried to claim that various buckets of votes were questionable and Raffensperger repeatedly indicated that the claims were unfounded or unproven. Then Trump, who lost the state by fewer than 12,000 votes laid his cards on the table, telling Raffensperger, "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”
“President Trump’s repeated pleas for Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger clearly demonstrate that his justification was not to investigate fraud, but to win the election,” Carter wrote in his opinion. He quoted Trump: "So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”
“Taken together, this evidence demonstrates that President Trump likely knew the electoral count plan had no factual justification,” Carter continued.
In other words, Trump let the veil drop. He wasn’t concerned that fraud might have occurred and that the will of the voters was lost. He was simply worried about getting those votes he needed — and wanted the Republican secretary of state to play ball. This is a corrupt intent. This is dishonest.
“The illegality of the plan was obvious,” Carter wrote of the obstruction allegation. “… President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election. As Vice President Pence stated, ‘no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority.’ Every American—and certainly the President of the United States—knows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed. With a plan this ‘BOLD’” — quoting Eastman — “President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle.”
There were legal implications from the ruling for the House committee and for Eastman. But, particularly when coupled with the finding last month that Trump probably entered into a civil conspiracy with extremist groups similarly aimed at blocking the 2020 election, Carter’s assertion that a preponderance of evidence suggested that Trump violated the law is historic and enormously significant.
A crime was likely committed by the sitting president in order to retain power.
↑Cum Lickin' Fagit -
2022-03-28 at 8:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by POLECAT selling can cause harm to others tho so that part is Unconstitutional, immoral and a crime.
Nobody would make it if it couldn't be bought and sold. Nobody would do anything if you can't buy or sell it.
There are very few things in this world that cannot be bought or sold like for example noxious weeds, who is buying dandelions by the kilogram? You can just go in a field and fill sacks of the stuff for free, in fact people would probably pay you to do so.
There is nothing to small or unimportant to be involved in economic activity and unfair regulations on these things just because they are harmful doesn't help anyone except the ones that make money by keeping things illegal. -
2022-03-28 at 8:44 PM UTC
-
2022-03-28 at 9:47 PM UTC
-
2022-03-28 at 9:53 PM UTCI DEMAND you take that crap off slti's profile RIGHT AWAY!! GOD DAMN YOU WOMAN DO AS I SAY RIGHT GOD DAMN NOW!!
-
2022-03-28 at 9:54 PM UTCOH and would you please post a pic for me in the what are you doing thread?
I have bear tracks to show thiese faggots -
2022-03-29 at 1:23 AM UTC
-
2022-03-29 at 8:01 AM UTC*********IMPORTANT POST BELOW*********The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2022-03-29 at 8:03 AM UTC
Please thank this post in recognition of my godly skills.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-03-29 at 8:03 AM UTCnigger
-
2022-03-29 at 8:04 AM UTC
-
2022-03-29 at 8:14 AM UTCive got a hole in none because I hit the bitch in a bunker and paid my caddy to drop that sucka in the greens hole in one no bird +69 par yearly champ at my own golfcourse btw beat that ya fucking chump I kick the ball like pele I give no fucks you poor faggot
-
2022-03-29 at 8:30 AM UTCDon't hate the player hate the game. You all are just jealous of my skills.
-
2022-03-29 at 10:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo I voted for Biden at least 7 times, and that was just in wisconsin, if you only knew what I did to the ballot box in Pennsylvania it would make your pillow explode
I took a part time gig in an undisclosed processing center where my job was to burn boxes full of Trump ballots all day long for $12/hr. -
2022-03-29 at 11:23 AM UTC
-
2022-03-29 at 1:59 PM UTC
-
2022-03-29 at 2:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 Lanny. would you please change my title to "LANNY IS FRALA'S CUCK"?
Thanks!
"WE GOT HIM THIS TIME!"
The Washington Post
Here’s how a federal judge believes Trump likely broke the law
Philip Bump
They are astonishing words to read just above the signature of a federal judge.
Here’s how a federal judge believes Trump likely broke the law
“Dr. [John] Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter wrote in an opinion published on Monday. “Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory.”
Eastman, you’ll recall, is the legal scholar who advocated that Vice President Mike Pence simply reject electoral votes submitted by a number of states as Congress convened to finalize the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021. Carter’s summary of Eastman’s efforts — championed eagerly by Trump — was that it was not sincere advocacy of a novel theory of allocating power but, instead, a contrived rationale aimed at the goal of preserving Trump’s presidency.
This is not particularly surprising, even if it is stark. What’s more important is what precedes those words in Carter’s opinion: a detailed argument, hinging at one critical point on Trump’s own words, explaining why it’s likely that Donald Trump broke federal law in trying to retain power.
Carter’s ruling is part of a legal fight over documents in Eastman’s possession that focus on the effort to reject the outcome of the 2020 election. The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack subpoenaed material from Eastman related to the effort and he withheld it, citing attorney-client privilege. Carter was asked to determine if that privilege should apply to the material. In the end, he found that it overwhelmingly did not. But not because he thought Eastman was mostly not acting as counsel to Trump or Trump’s campaign and not solely because he thought most of the material was not related to litigation.
The judge was also asked by the House committee to evaluate if the material might need to be turned over because it was not protected by privilege due to the “crime-fraud” exception. In other words, if an attorney is discussing the commission of a crime with a client, that material may not be subject to being withheld under privilege. And earlier this month that’s precisely what the committee alleged: Trump and Eastman were engaged in an effort to violate more than one federal law and, therefore, communication related to that effort should not be privileged.
Carter agreed. The standard in a civil case is that a “preponderance of the evidence” shows that a crime was likely committed, meaning the evidence needed to show that it was “more likely than not.” And when considering the components of two crimes identified by the committee, Carter felt such a preponderance existed.
The first allegation was that Trump had tried to obstruct an official proceeding. In order for such a crime to be committed, Carter wrote, it needs to be shown that three things happened:
“the person obstructed, influenced or impeded, or attempted to obstruct, influence or impede”
“an official proceeding of the United States, and”
“did so corruptly.”
The second allegation — that there was a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. — has similar requirements: that “at least two people entered into an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the government … by deceitful or dishonest means, and … that a member of the conspiracy engaged in at least one overt act in furtherance of the agreement.”
In each case, two of the three stipulations are easy to meet. Trump’s effort to obstruct (#1) an official proceeding (#2) — the counting of electoral votes — is obvious, though Carter outlines the specific path by which that occurred. Similarly, the first and third components of the conspiracy allegation are fairly trivial to identify: Trump and Eastman worked to twist Pence’s arm and called on the crowd outside the White House to march to the Capitol and pressure Congress, among other things. Again, the full filing makes each case explicitly.
As I noted when the committee first alleged the violation of these laws (as it sought to apply the crime-fraud exception to Eastman’s privilege claims), the more challenging aspect of each allegation lies in the intent. Did Trump try to obstruct the electoral-vote count corruptly; that is, knowing that it was dishonest to do so? Did the conspiracy to obstruct the function of government occur thanks to “deceitful or dishonest means” — or did Trump perhaps sincerely believe that the election had been stolen?
The House committee, arguing for the former, pointed to the various officials and experts who’d rejected the idea that the election had been stolen as evidence that Trump must have known it hadn’t been. But Eastman, replying to that filing, argued that just as many advisers to Trump were insisting that the opposite was true, that there was rampant fraud that demanded the election results be reconsidered. That perhaps Trump existed in some liminal space between truth and falsehood making his objections sincere.
That’s why Carter’s isolation of Trump’s comments in his phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state on Jan. 3, 2021, is so important.
You probably remember that call. Trump phoned the man in charge of Georgia’s elections, Brad Raffensperger, and repeatedly tried to cajole him into identifying enough “fraudulent” votes that Trump could win the state. In short order, the audio of the call was obtained by The Washington Post and published.
During the conversation, Trump repeatedly tried to claim that various buckets of votes were questionable and Raffensperger repeatedly indicated that the claims were unfounded or unproven. Then Trump, who lost the state by fewer than 12,000 votes laid his cards on the table, telling Raffensperger, "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”
“President Trump’s repeated pleas for Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger clearly demonstrate that his justification was not to investigate fraud, but to win the election,” Carter wrote in his opinion. He quoted Trump: "So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”
“Taken together, this evidence demonstrates that President Trump likely knew the electoral count plan had no factual justification,” Carter continued.
In other words, Trump let the veil drop. He wasn’t concerned that fraud might have occurred and that the will of the voters was lost. He was simply worried about getting those votes he needed — and wanted the Republican secretary of state to play ball. This is a corrupt intent. This is dishonest.
“The illegality of the plan was obvious,” Carter wrote of the obstruction allegation. “… President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election. As Vice President Pence stated, ‘no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority.’ Every American—and certainly the President of the United States—knows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed. With a plan this ‘BOLD’” — quoting Eastman — “President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle.”
There were legal implications from the ruling for the House committee and for Eastman. But, particularly when coupled with the finding last month that Trump probably entered into a civil conspiracy with extremist groups similarly aimed at blocking the 2020 election, Carter’s assertion that a preponderance of evidence suggested that Trump violated the law is historic and enormously significant.
A crime was likely committed by the sitting president in order to retain power.
Previously on Niggas in Space
Originally posted by stl1 I wrote Lanny that I would not post under the heading of "Cum Lickin' Fagit".
Another lying democrap who can't keep his word.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
