Coup Co-Conspirator Cooperates With AZ AG

[g5000]

As you may recall, one of Trump's January 6 coup co-conspirators, Jenna Ellis, was laughing in her Georgia mug shot.

When she was convicted, she bawled like a baby.

FAFO.

Ellis was also facing nine felony counts in Arizona for her part in the coup there.

So she cut a deal. In exchange for her cooperation in hanging her fellow conspirators, all charges against Ellis have been dismissed.

Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, and Trump's personal lawyer, Weird Rudy Giuliani, are among the 17 criminals charged with felonies in Arizona.

Jenna Ellis flips to help Arizona prosecutors in 2020 election case​

​

In a statement, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) called the agreement a “significant step forward” in the case.

“I am grateful to Ms. Ellis for her cooperation with our investigation and prosecution,” Mayes said. “Her insights are invaluable and will greatly aid the State in proving its case in court. As I stated when the initial charges were announced, I will not allow American democracy to be undermined — it is far too important. Today’s announcement is a win for the rule of law.”

As part of the deal, Ellis agreed to testify “completely and truthfully at any time and any place,” including at a criminal trial. She also vowed not to “protect any person or entity” through false information or omissions.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't know how they are going to prosecute this with Trump having blanket immunity for his plans, threats and statements to the AG, DoD and anyone else that is a government official.

SCOTUS killed this case and we should never fail to remember that.

 

[g5000]

SCOTUS killed this case

You wish.

This is a state case.

What these conspirators did was not part of their official duties.

 

[FA_Q2]

You wish.

This is a state case.

What these conspirators did was not part of their official duties.

Do I wish? Where do you get that asinine idea. But I do not expect you to address the actual point, SCOTUS giving those conversations blanket immunity, you have never addressed a point here before.

 

[g5000]

Do I wish? Where do you get that asinine idea. But I do not expect you to address the actual point, SCOTUS giving those conversations blanket immunity, you have never addressed a point here before.

SCOTUS did not grant blanket immunity. Who is telling you these lies?

The cases are proceeding forward. Get a clue.

 

[FA_Q2]

SCOTUS did not grant blanket immunity. Who is telling you these lies?

The cases are proceeding forward. Get a clue.

They granted absolute immunity with ANY conversation that could be construed as 'official.' That would include ANY orders given to the AG, DoD, military and various other institutions under his command. I have no idea how this would not extend to conversations with governors or other officials. They would get at presumed immunity at the very least.

Do you dispute this?

Do you think that there is a good case without any of those orders or conversations being used as evidence? How do you establish intent? How do you establish anything when such conversations are not allowed? Do you dispute that they grated this immunity?

Do you think that this court will not enforce this ruling because it is a state case? Do you dispute the SCOTUS would be able to hear it?

So far we just have assertions here, what do you actually dispute? I can easily cite where such immunity was given in the case itself.

 

[g5000]

They granted absolute immunity with ANY conversation that could be construed as 'official.' That would include ANY orders given to the AG, DoD, military and various other institutions under his command. I have no idea how this would not extend to conversations with governors or other officials. They would get at presumed immunity at the very least.

Do you dispute this?

Do you think that there is a good case without any of those orders or conversations being used as evidence? How do you establish intent? How do you establish anything when such conversations are not allowed? Do you dispute that they grated this immunity?

Do you think that this court will not enforce this ruling because it is a state case? Do you dispute the SCOTUS would be able to hear it?

So far we just have assertions here, what do you actually dispute? I can easily cite where such immunity was given in the case itself.

The immunity applies to the president. No one else.

And only for official acts.

A coup is not an official act.

This is very easy to understand. If you want to.

 

[excalibur]

There was no coup, except for Coup-mala Harris and her co-conspirators pushing Biden out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So she cut a deal. In exchange for her cooperation in hanging her fellow conspirators, all charges against Ellis have been dismissed.

Another victory for democracy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, and Trump's personal lawyer, Weird Rudy Giuliani, are among the 17 criminals charged with felonies in Arizona.

The Trump Crime Organization.

 

[theHawk]

As you may recall, one of Trump's January 6 coup co-conspirators, Jenna Ellis, was laughing in her Georgia mug shot.

When she was convicted, she bawled like a baby.

FAFO.

Ellis was also facing nine felony counts in Arizona for her part in the coup there.

So she cut a deal. In exchange for her cooperation in hanging her fellow conspirators, all charges against Ellis have been dismissed.

Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, and Trump's personal lawyer, Weird Rudy Giuliani, are among the 17 criminals charged with felonies in Arizona.

Jenna Ellis flips to help Arizona prosecutors in 2020 election case​

​

In a statement, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) called the agreement a “significant step forward” in the case.

“I am grateful to Ms. Ellis for her cooperation with our investigation and prosecution,” Mayes said. “Her insights are invaluable and will greatly aid the State in proving its case in court. As I stated when the initial charges were announced, I will not allow American democracy to be undermined — it is far too important. Today’s announcement is a win for the rule of law.”

As part of the deal, Ellis agreed to testify “completely and truthfully at any time and any place,” including at a criminal trial. She also vowed not to “protect any person or entity” through false information or omissions.

Translation: The AZ AG has no evidence to convict anyone, so in a desperate last gasp effort dropped charges on one defendant due to there being no evidence against her, hoping she will lie and testify that others are guilty of these imaginary crimes. And even if she does testify, will hope a jury will convict with no evidence and solely on her testamony.

 

[FA_Q2]

The immunity applies to the president. No one else.

And that is who we were talking about, is it not.

And only for official acts.

A coup is not an official act.

This is very easy to understand. If you want to.

Then why do you fundamentally misunderstand it? Funny you are running with Fox News talking points instead of the actual law. Moronic that you think anything steeped in law is 'easy' to understand.

A conversation with the AG is an official act. Because of that you do not get to ask what the contents of that conversation is, that is what absolute immunity means. So, if Trump orders the AG to fraudulently investigate Biden, for instance, that is covered. It is covered because the order IS the act. What it CONTAINS is where the immunity applies. Otherwise, immunity would not be relevant, would it? You do not need immunity if what the order contained was open to be reviewed as immunity would be meaningless. Immunity is grated specifically to remove those conversations as evidence in the first place.

From the dissenting opinion:
"The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune"

This particular line is very cogent because the majority actually addresses things like this in the ruling opinion. That is why they share the writeups before releasing the opinion so that they can address them. In this case, however, the majority outright ignores Sotomayor's objections because they are blatantly true. They do actually say that they can use 'the public record' which is an asinine red haring because none of the hard evidence is going to be located in the public record unless there is an outright confession. At least in the documents case they have such a confession, hilariously enough. On J6, the real legal problems are all in official conversations and those conversations ARE PROTECTED. That is what the ruling means.

Even Trumps lawyers admitted as such and the court, in it asinine attempt to protect Trump, gave them MORE immunity than they were asking for. It is insane.

Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity

Former President Trump’s legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive&…

thehill.com

"Former President Trump’s legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive’s broad immunity to criminal prosecution.

The hypothetical was presented to Trump attorney John Sauer who answered with a “qualified yes” that a former president would be immune from prosecution on that matter or even on selling pardons."

And it seems you do not know what an 'official act' is. A coup is not an act whatsoever. You don't simply do a coup. You take MANY actions to perform that coup. Like ordering the AG to release a statement that there was election fraud. An actual act that was committed. A PROTECTED act because a core function of the unitary executive branch is ordering the AG to perform investigations or release information. No one argues that the president can do those things. They argue that the president cannot do them to break the law BUT....

"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would
risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose."

You cant ask why the president ordered the AG to release a statement and his core powers give him the ability to do so. From the majority opinion we see intent cannot be questioned AT ALL. Absolute immunity is absolute.


Seriously, you are not pissed off enough at what just happened. Read the decision. It is harrowing.

So, no G. I am not repeating a lie, YOU are. You do not understand what immunity, assumed or absolute, seems to mean.