USA Today: Trump in new Peril

They faced a minimum of 5 years in prison in Georgia for racketeering, if they were convicted in court, by a jury of their peers... and possibly losing their law licenses. No one to pardon them for their crimes like a future Trump, they could not afford being found guilty, so they plead guilty to get a lesser conviction, in exchange for all of their emails and documents turned over and sworn testimony in the trials of others.

They plead guilty because going to court is expensive and with kangaroo courts like you support they will not only lose anyway but it will cost them a lot more money. If it's a choice between your family staying solvent or going bankrupt, you take the plea and/or the smaller fine. We all know that, including you, so quit pissing on our legs, we know it ain't raining.
 
So? Everyone already knows about that and his support only grows.

So? Everyone already knows about that and they haven't put him in jail yet.

What did he say that was election tampering, and what criminal statute did him saying something on the phone violate?

Oooh, are you going to be the one to finally give a logical answer to what criminal statute Trump violated and by what specific action?

Can't wait . . .
whistling past a Graveyard
 
I'm uncertain on Sidney because in Georgia, her crimes there only involves stealing voting machines from Coffee County. I think she will help convict Giuliani for his part, with her testimony and all of her emails.
Georgia is a RICO case showing criminal conspiracy.

Powell was involved in many phone calls with Trump to discuss strategy. If that strategy was illegal, Trump is liable
 
They are going to prove, Trump knew he lost the election, and then lied and lied and lied and committed all of these nefarious crimes with his co conspirators to illegally steal my vote and the vote of 81 million other citizens across the Nation.....by illegally installing himself.
By the testimony of someone who the prosecution intimidated into testifying the way the prosecution demanded?

Good luck proving that to the American people.
 
By the testimony of someone who the prosecution intimidated into testifying the way the prosecution demanded?

Good luck proving that to the American people.
Cassidy Hutchinson testified freely
So did Bill Barr

Many sources have testified that Trump was well aware that he lost
 
Cassidy Hutchinson testified freely
That Trump could stretch like Mister Fantastic

1697983217837.png

And he reached from the backseat of The Beast and wrestled the Secret Service agent trying to get the wheel and drive to the Capitol. From the backseat!

Very realistic.

We have no way to know what the committee threatened her with, since all the prep for the testimony was behind closed doors.


So did Bill Barr

Many sources have testified that Trump was well aware that he lost
All under duress.
 
That Trump could stretch like Mister Fantastic

View attachment 846792
And he reached from the backseat of The Beast and wrestled the Secret Service agent trying to get the wheel and drive to the Capitol. From the backseat!

Very realistic.

We have no way to know what the committee threatened her with, since all the prep for the testimony was behind closed doors.



All under duress.
Cassidy Hutchinson never claimed to be in that Limo.

She only recounted what was told by someone who was
 
Cassidy Hutchinson never claimed to be in that Limo.

She only recounted what was told by someone who was
Then there is no value in such testimony, whatsoever. If the stretch part was wrong, why would the rest of it be right?

What duress?
You are making shit up
The were taken for several hours long closed door sessions, after which they roboticly testified exactly as the Dems wanted them to. So, I make a logical conclusion.

If you disagree, tell me what did happen when the Democrats took the witnesses behind closed doors before their testimony? Answer with proof, please.
 
Last edited:
Then there is no value in such testimony, whatsoever. If the stretch part was wrong, why would the rest of it be right?


The were taken for several hours long closed door sessions, after which they roboticly testified exactly as the Dems wanted them to. So, I make a logical conclusion.

If you disagree, tell me what did happen when the Democrats took the witnesses behind closed doors before their testimony? Answer with proof, please.

You are fantasizing again
There is ZERO evidence they testified under duress
 
Actually, Cassidy Hutchinson has reported her duress came from Trump people pressuring her not to talk
But she reported that under duress. She reported exactly what the Democrats wanted her to say, no more no less.

You know she told a story that is impossible - the story of wrestlying the Secret Service agent from the back seat of The Beast - and yet you accept it as truth.

Why would that be?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top