So Trump wanted to obstruct the very official proceeding he was cheering on, representing the last chance to challenge the 2020 election?

[excalibur]

These J6 charges are an affront to the rule of law.

But. This has been Jack Smith's M.O. for years. Take a statute which doesn't apply and indict people. He has been rebuked by juries, courts, and SCOTUS over his actions. And yet, he was hired as Merrick Garland's hit man.

 

[surada]

These J6 charges are an affront to the rule of law.

But. This has been Jack Smith's M.O. for years. Take a statute which doesn't apply and indict people. He has been rebuked by juries, courts, and SCOTUS over his actions. And yet, he was hired as Merrick Garland's hit man.

Is this a joke? Trump knows the election wasn't stolen.

 

[mamooth]

Your title is gibberish, and your OP doesn't address reality.

You're clearly not taking current events well. If facts cause such a problem with your worldview, then your worldview probably needs adjusting.

 

[excalibur]

Your title is gibberish, and your OP doesn't address reality.

You're clearly not taking current events well. If facts cause such a problem with your worldview, then your worldview probably needs adjusting.

Troll.

 

[MaryL]

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

[excalibur]

From the OP.

So Trump wanted to obstruct the very official proceeding he was cheering on, representing the last chance to challenge the 2020 election?

Among the laughable elements of the J6 indictment, consider the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge.

Born of the Enron accounting scandal, and never applied before to political protesters until the Capitol Riot, the relevant section of the U.S. code focuses on the prohibition of "tampering with a witness, victim or informant."

DOJ notes: "It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings."

Step back for a moment.

Donald Trump had authorized significantly more security in the run-up to J6 than was ultimately on the ground.

During his J6 speech, Trump cheered on rally goers he said would be marching "peacefully and patriotically" to the Capitol to "cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women" to challenge the certification of the election.

So are we to believe then that Trump wanted to scuttle the very challenge to the certification of the election that he was encouraging -- that he wanted to obstruct the official proceeding representing his last chance to challenge the 2020 election?

There is debate over what "corruptly" means in the charge Trump faces, whether acts to "otherwise obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding" include those having nothing to do with evidence tampering, like rioting, etc., that may be dealt with at SCOTUS.

And then of course, Special Counsel Jack Smith would have to link Trump's words and actions to this charge -- hanging a riot around Trump's neck that he never charged Trump for via incitement or seditious conspiracy.

That's an awful lot of cartwheels to go through to charge the former president of the United States and current opposition leader -- something heretofore unprecedented -- for conduct when he was president with all the authority and privilege that entails, already challenged via the political process in an impeachment, as the legal henchman of his successor and chief opponent.

This tortured reading of the law reveals the brazen and hyper-political nature of the political warfare tool that is this "Show me the man and I'll find you the thought crimes" indictment.

P.S. Consider all the evidence we've learned about the willful blindness and dereliction of duty that took place on J6. The former Chief of Capitol Police Steven Sund has alleged, according to leaked footage from a never-aired interview with @TuckerCarlson, that he was obstructed from doing his job and securing the Capitol -- as he sees it to the point that all the failures and breakdowns almost look intentional.

Sund asks Carlson, "Could there possibly be actually…they kind of wanted something to happen?"

By Jack Smith's logic, an equally zealous and creative prosecutor with diametrically opposed views could bring another novel case arguing that it was those who permitted the Capitol Riot to happen who actually obstructed an official proceeding, no?​

 

[MaryL]

From the OP.

​

So Trump wanted to obstruct the very official proceeding he was cheering on, representing the last chance to challenge the 2020 election? ​

​

Among the laughable elements of the J6 indictment, consider the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge. ​

​

Born of the Enron accounting scandal, and never applied before to political protesters until the Capitol Riot, the relevant section of the U.S. code focuses on the prohibition of "tampering with a witness, victim or informant." ​

​

DOJ notes: "It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings." ​

​

Step back for a moment. ​

​

Donald Trump had authorized significantly more security in the run-up to J6 than was ultimately on the ground. ​

​

During his J6 speech, Trump cheered on rally goers he said would be marching "peacefully and patriotically" to the Capitol to "cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women" to challenge the certification of the election. ​

​

So are we to believe then that Trump wanted to scuttle the very challenge to the certification of the election that he was encouraging -- that he wanted to obstruct the official proceeding representing his last chance to challenge the 2020 election? ​

​

There is debate over what "corruptly" means in the charge Trump faces, whether acts to "otherwise obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding" include those having nothing to do with evidence tampering, like rioting, etc., that may be dealt with at SCOTUS. ​

​

And then of course, Special Counsel Jack Smith would have to link Trump's words and actions to this charge -- hanging a riot around Trump's neck that he never charged Trump for via incitement or seditious conspiracy. ​

​

That's an awful lot of cartwheels to go through to charge the former president of the United States and current opposition leader -- something heretofore unprecedented -- for conduct when he was president with all the authority and privilege that entails, already challenged via the political process in an impeachment, as the legal henchman of his successor and chief opponent. ​

​

This tortured reading of the law reveals the brazen and hyper-political nature of the political warfare tool that is this "Show me the man and I'll find you the thought crimes" indictment. ​

​

P.S. Consider all the evidence we've learned about the willful blindness and dereliction of duty that took place on J6. The former Chief of Capitol Police Steven Sund has alleged, according to leaked footage from a never-aired interview with @TuckerCarlson, that he was obstructed from doing his job and securing the Capitol -- as he sees it to the point that all the failures and breakdowns almost look intentional. ​

​

Sund asks Carlson, "Could there possibly be actually…they kind of wanted something to happen?" ​

​

By Jack Smith's logic, an equally zealous and creative prosecutor with diametrically opposed views could bring another novel case arguing that it was those who permitted the Capitol Riot to happen who actually obstructed an official proceeding, no?​

I remember what a lying sack of lies Biden was back in 88. Biden WAS a piss poor lying sack of conniving political malfeasance in 1988. He and Hunter got how much from China NOW? For WHAT? But we can't investigate that WHY? But Trump "kind of maybe sort a kinda did stuff", because Democrats say so.