DBP66 Posted October 22, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 8 hours ago, Slotback Right said: The "fake electoral votes" were those that were obtained through fraud, and illegal changes to voting rules that Blueliner referred to on page 64 of this thread. Overturning an election IS a crime, but that assumes the election was honest and fair...which it was NOT. Consider, to help your pea brain understand, that if you were a cattleman who had his cattle rustled, and then you caught up with the rustlers and took those cows back from the rustlers. It would NOT be a crime to take back your cattle from the rustlers, now would it? So if the election WAS stolen, how can attempting to overturn that possibly be considered a crime? One more thing...You leftists love to say we are a threat to "our democracy." We are not a democracy, and never have been. Do you know how many times the word democracy appears in the US Constitution? I'll give you a hint...it's less than one time. 0-59 in the courts...that means the election was fair and square....you had 59 times to explain why it was dishonest and couldn't do it once....you've been brainwashed....😪 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted October 22, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2022 This is what happens when you drink Trump Kool-Aid.... Newsmax cuts ties with Lara Logan after her QAnon-inspired, on-air rant about world leaders drinking the blood of children and making people eat insects Joshua Zitser Sat, October 22, 2022 at 7:52 AM Lara Logan in Washington, DC, in 2017.SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images Lara Logan, a war correspondent turned conspiracy theorist, went on a QAnon-inspired rant on Newsmax. She accused world leaders of dining on the blood of children and making people eat insects. Newsmax said in a statement that it has "no plans to interview her again." The right-wing news outlet Newsmax has cut ties with former war correspondent turned conspiracy theorist Lara Logan after she gave a bizarre QAnon-inspired rant on air, the company said in a statement. The Guardian reported that Logan told Newsmax host Eric Bolling that world leaders "dine on the blood of children," referring to the blood libel conspiracy theory that proliferates in QAnon circles. QAnon is a baseless far-right conspiracy theory that claims former President Donald Trump is secretly fighting a "deep state" cabal of satanic pedophiles and cannibals. During her on-air rant, The Hill reported that Logan also said: "God believes in sovereignty and national identity and the sanctity of family, and all the things that we've lived with from the beginning of time. And he knows that the open border is Satan's way of taking control of the world through all of these people who are his stooges and his servants. "And they may think that they're going to become gods. That's what they tell us. You know, the ones who want us eating insects, cockroaches, and that while they dine on the blood of children? Those are the people, right? They're not going to win." Newsmax, in a statement to The Hill on Friday, said it "condemns in the strongest terms the reprehensible statements made by Lara Logan." The news outlet said that it has "no plans to interview her again." Logan, 51, who was once Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent for CBS News, left the network after her 2012 report on the Benghazi attack was retracted after an internal review found that key elements of the story were untrue. Since then, Logan has advanced right-wing conspiracy theories, including comparing Dr. Anthony Fauci, America's top infectious disease expert, to the notorious Nazi doctor Josef Mengele. She has also linked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to "satanic, occult" practices while praising Russian President Vladimir Putin and baselessly claimed that Charles Darwin was employed by the Jewish Rothschild banking family to create his theory of evolution. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 7 hours ago, DBP66 said: 0-59 in the courts...that means the election was fair and square....you had 59 times to explain why it was dishonest and couldn't do it once....you've been brainwashed....😪 I've answered this more than once on this forum. Those cases were never allowed to get to the evidentiary phase. Those courts feared that overturning an election (justified or otherwise) would cause disastrous chaos, and they wanted no part of that, so they all went into Pontius Pilate mode, and used any excuse they could think of to wash their hands of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted October 23, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 6 hours ago, Slotback Right said: I've answered this more than once on this forum. Those cases were never allowed to get to the evidentiary phase. Those courts feared that overturning an election (justified or otherwise) would cause disastrous chaos, and they wanted no part of that, so they all went into Pontius Pilate mode, and used any excuse they could think of to wash their hands of it. and why didn't they make it to the evidentiary phase??...because there was no there there from the beginning.....nothing to base a case on...it was 100% B.S. and speculation....the courts didn't "fear" a thing....courts don't have feelings...they're blind....but they decided to turn into Pontius Pilate huh??....59 times??....to save the country??....you guys literally have an "excuse" for anything and everything.....0-59 means you had NADA...not a dam thing to argue in court as to why/how Trump got "cheated"....you've been lied to....many..many times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted October 23, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 Trump Organization to face criminal tax fraud charges in New York court on Monday Edward Helmore - 2h ago The Trump Organization is set to face criminal tax fraud charges on Monday in New York in a trial that could start to tease out the many allegations against the company and by extension its patriarch, Donald J Trump. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP© Provided by The Guardian It comes as the former US president faces a maze of legal troubles and mounting costs – by some estimates running at close to $4m a month to his leadership PAC – over his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss, the removal of government documents from the White House when he left office and a defamation case relating to a rape allegation. Monday’s case is centered on charges that his Manhattan-headquartered real estate company defrauded New York tax authorities by awarding “off the books” compensation over 15 years to company executives, including lease payments for cars, apartment rent and tuition fees for relatives in lieu of some salary, enabling the company to evade paying payroll taxes. If found guilty, the company, which is run by Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, could face $1.6m in fines and find its ability to operate hotels, golf courses and other assets impeded. But the trial will likely be most interesting for its subplots and how it intersects with a separate, civil investigation by New York state attorney general Letitia James that harvested a 200-page indictment last month accusing the Trump Organization, Trump and three of his adult children of overstating property values and Trump’s net worth to get favorable bank loans and insurance coverage. The Manhattan investigation into Trump’s company has followed its own rocky path to a jury trial. It began under district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr and is now in the hands of his successor, Alvin Bragg. Two prosecutors who led the investigation resigned in February, with one saying felony charges should be brought against the former president. Lawyers for the Trump Organization have claimed the case is a “selective prosecution” motivated by opposition to Trump’s political views – a claim that the judge overseeing the case, Juan Merchan, has rejected. They also said that prosecutors are seeking to punish Trump’s company because “a handful of its officers allegedly failed to report fringe benefits on their personal tax returns. But the stakes for both parties – prosecutor and defendant – are high. Unlike Trump’s floundering efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, the Trump Organization has brought in an A-team of lawyers to counter claims by a matched array of prosecutors to meet a high burden of proof in criminal trials. Eyes and ears will be on the testimony of the Trump Organization’s then chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, 75, who was charged in the DA’s 2021 indictment but has since pleaded to 15 counts ranging from grand larceny to tax fraud to falsifying business records in exchange for his testimony. Weisselberg has been subpoenaed to testify but he is not a cooperating witness. Still, his five-month sentence agreed to with prosecutors depends on truthful testimony. Crucially, the Manhattan DA ensured that Weisselberg’s sentencing would be deferred until after the case. To prove the company is guilty, the government is entitled to impute liability from not only Weisselberg but also other executives at the firm, potentially including Donald Trump himself, who they may try to show were aware of the alleged tax scheme. “It’s strategically a really difficult case both for Weisselberg and Trump because they could end winning the battle and losing the war,” says Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches law at New York University. “If they do a typical defense cross-examination of Weisselberg and they catch him in some sort of lie then his deal is over and the pressure on him to flip [on Trump] is going to be that much greater.” Under the circumstances, the Trump Organization’s lawyers can’t simply try to eviscerate the credibility of Weisselberg, Weissmann points out, without potentially rewarding investigators with evidence that their larger quarry, Trump himself, knew of the arrangements to reward executives with untaxed compensation. “The idea that Trump didn’t know is going to be the critical thing that Weisselberg is asked about. If he denies that Donald Trump knew, you can see the judge saying, ‘I don’t believe it and I’m going to take that into account when I sentence you.’” Under those circumstances, Merchan could kick Weisselberg’s sentence up to 15 years in prison, not five months on Rikers Island – an onerous sentence for a 75-year-old. Further, Letitia James’s civil complaint makes an allegation that Weisselberg committed fraud by make false representations to the Zurich North American insurance company. In theory, Weisselberg could be still charged by Bragg if his testimony is deemed untruthful. “Clearly, they still want Weisselberg to cooperate,” Weissmann says. But as the trial gets under way next week, there is a sense that Bragg’s case could be easier to prove than James’s complaint, which centers on building valuations but requires a lower burden of proof. “Bragg’s allegations are much more concrete because they allege making payments that were clearly part of the person’s salary, keeping track of them, but only reporting what was listed as salary,” Weissmann says. “The problem for the defense is that is they say this is a gray area and isn’t a crime, they have to say that Weisselberg is lying. If the judge agrees, Weisselberg is in a tough position.” 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 4 hours ago, DBP66 said: Trump Organization to face criminal tax fraud charges in New York court on Monday Edward Helmore - 2h ago The Trump Organization is set to face criminal tax fraud charges on Monday in New York in a trial that could start to tease out the many allegations against the company and by extension its patriarch, Donald J Trump. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP© Provided by The Guardian It comes as the former US president faces a maze of legal troubles and mounting costs – by some estimates running at close to $4m a month to his leadership PAC – over his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss, the removal of government documents from the White House when he left office and a defamation case relating to a rape allegation. Monday’s case is centered on charges that his Manhattan-headquartered real estate company defrauded New York tax authorities by awarding “off the books” compensation over 15 years to company executives, including lease payments for cars, apartment rent and tuition fees for relatives in lieu of some salary, enabling the company to evade paying payroll taxes. If found guilty, the company, which is run by Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, could face $1.6m in fines and find its ability to operate hotels, golf courses and other assets impeded. But the trial will likely be most interesting for its subplots and how it intersects with a separate, civil investigation by New York state attorney general Letitia James that harvested a 200-page indictment last month accusing the Trump Organization, Trump and three of his adult children of overstating property values and Trump’s net worth to get favorable bank loans and insurance coverage. The Manhattan investigation into Trump’s company has followed its own rocky path to a jury trial. It began under district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr and is now in the hands of his successor, Alvin Bragg. Two prosecutors who led the investigation resigned in February, with one saying felony charges should be brought against the former president. Lawyers for the Trump Organization have claimed the case is a “selective prosecution” motivated by opposition to Trump’s political views – a claim that the judge overseeing the case, Juan Merchan, has rejected. They also said that prosecutors are seeking to punish Trump’s company because “a handful of its officers allegedly failed to report fringe benefits on their personal tax returns. But the stakes for both parties – prosecutor and defendant – are high. Unlike Trump’s floundering efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, the Trump Organization has brought in an A-team of lawyers to counter claims by a matched array of prosecutors to meet a high burden of proof in criminal trials. Eyes and ears will be on the testimony of the Trump Organization’s then chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, 75, who was charged in the DA’s 2021 indictment but has since pleaded to 15 counts ranging from grand larceny to tax fraud to falsifying business records in exchange for his testimony. Weisselberg has been subpoenaed to testify but he is not a cooperating witness. Still, his five-month sentence agreed to with prosecutors depends on truthful testimony. Crucially, the Manhattan DA ensured that Weisselberg’s sentencing would be deferred until after the case. To prove the company is guilty, the government is entitled to impute liability from not only Weisselberg but also other executives at the firm, potentially including Donald Trump himself, who they may try to show were aware of the alleged tax scheme. “It’s strategically a really difficult case both for Weisselberg and Trump because they could end winning the battle and losing the war,” says Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches law at New York University. “If they do a typical defense cross-examination of Weisselberg and they catch him in some sort of lie then his deal is over and the pressure on him to flip [on Trump] is going to be that much greater.” Under the circumstances, the Trump Organization’s lawyers can’t simply try to eviscerate the credibility of Weisselberg, Weissmann points out, without potentially rewarding investigators with evidence that their larger quarry, Trump himself, knew of the arrangements to reward executives with untaxed compensation. “The idea that Trump didn’t know is going to be the critical thing that Weisselberg is asked about. If he denies that Donald Trump knew, you can see the judge saying, ‘I don’t believe it and I’m going to take that into account when I sentence you.’” Under those circumstances, Merchan could kick Weisselberg’s sentence up to 15 years in prison, not five months on Rikers Island – an onerous sentence for a 75-year-old. Further, Letitia James’s civil complaint makes an allegation that Weisselberg committed fraud by make false representations to the Zurich North American insurance company. In theory, Weisselberg could be still charged by Bragg if his testimony is deemed untruthful. “Clearly, they still want Weisselberg to cooperate,” Weissmann says. But as the trial gets under way next week, there is a sense that Bragg’s case could be easier to prove than James’s complaint, which centers on building valuations but requires a lower burden of proof. “Bragg’s allegations are much more concrete because they allege making payments that were clearly part of the person’s salary, keeping track of them, but only reporting what was listed as salary,” Weissmann says. “The problem for the defense is that is they say this is a gray area and isn’t a crime, they have to say that Weisselberg is lying. If the judge agrees, Weisselberg is in a tough position.” He’s like Fred G. Sanford….Elizabeth it’s the Big One!….keep us posted DP I’m sure it’s any day now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted October 23, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 1 minute ago, Warrior said: He’s like Fred G. Sanford….Elizabeth it’s the Big One!….keep us posted DP I’m sure it’s any day now. too many Big Ones to keep count of...just ask all his lawyers $$$$....🤡 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 37 minutes ago, DBP66 said: too many Big Ones to keep count of...just ask all his lawyers $$$$....🤡 Any day now! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted October 23, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 Trump is not 'man enough' to testify in Jan. 6 probe, Pelosi says FILE PHOTO: Pelosi holds a press conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington Richard Cowan and Katharine Jackson Sun, October 23, 2022 at 1:49 PM By Richard Cowan and Katharine Jackson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Former President Donald Trump is too much of a coward to obey a subpoena from the U.S. Congress compelling him to testify to a special committee investigating his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested on Sunday. "I don't think he's man enough to show up. I don't think his lawyers will want him to show up because he has to testify under oath," Pelosi said in an interview with MSNBC. "We'll see if he's man enough to show up," she added. On Friday, the select committee announced that it had issued the subpoena to Trump, giving him until Nov. 4 to submit a wide range of documents related to his activities before and after the deadly Jan. 6 attack by the former president's supporters. The panel also informed Trump that it wants him to appear for testimony on or about Nov. 14. Since he lost the 2020 election, Trump has insisted he is the victim of widespread voter fraud, an allegation that has been dismissed by scores of court cases and audits. Nevertheless, Trump has maintained he did nothing illegal in pressing that case, including on the day of the Capitol riot. He regularly refers to the congressional panel as the "unselect committee" and has accused it of waging unfair political attacks on him. The violence at the Capitol erupted as Trump supporters attempted to stop Congress from formally certifying Democrat Joe Biden's decisive win in the 2020 presidential election. Trump and Pelosi have had a long, stormy relationship. She guided two impeachment proceedings against him and their dislike of each other sometimes was on public display during his presidency. At the conclusion of Trump's 2020 "State of the Union" speech to Congress, Pelosi disdainfully tore in half a printed copy of that address as she sat behind him during the nationally televised event. That came after Trump arrived at the House podium to begin the speech and refused to shake Pelosi's hand. The previous year, a White House meeting between Trump and congressional leaders on U.S. policy in Syria erupted in anger when Trump reportedly called Pelosi a "third-rate politician" and later said she was "unhinged." Outside the White House following the meeting that Democrats stormed out of, Pelosi told reporters Trump had suffered a "meltdown." 'CRIMINAL OFFENSES' Also on Sunday, Republican Representative Liz Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" that Trump likely has committed several criminal offenses that the U.S. Department of Justice potentially can prosecute him on. "We have been very clear about a number of different criminal offenses that are likely at issue here," said Cheney, one of two Republican members on the select House panel. "He has demonstrated his willingness to use force to attempt to stop the peaceful transition of power," Cheney said. She did not lay out specific criminal charges the committee could recommend in an upcoming report following a more than year-long investigation. Cheney, who lost her Republican leadership role over her criticisms of Trump, as well as her 2022 primary election, said, "We have put on testimony that he admitted that he lost (the 2020 presidential election). "But even if he thought that he had won, you may not send an armed mob to the Capitol. You may not sit for 187 minutes and refuse to stop the attack while it's underway. You may not send a tweet that incites further violence," Cheney said. Cheney did not say what the panel would do if Trump refuses to cooperate with the subpoena. If he testifies, she said, "he's not going to turn this into a circus." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 Another race hustler that turns out to be a racist. https://thepostmillennial.com/revealed-dems-jan-6-hero-cop-violated-civil-rights-of-black-man-in-racist-incident 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 On 10/21/2022 at 7:26 PM, Warrior said: Did you find the insurrection we’ve been hearing about? Check MSNBC I’m sure they’ll have something for you. You mean like those invaders from central America. The ones in those giant caravans? Did we win that war? How many military personnel did those women and children kill when they stormed the border? Inquiring minds want to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 18 hours ago, Slotback Right said: I've answered this more than once on this forum. Those cases were never allowed to get to the evidentiary phase. Those courts feared that overturning an election (justified or otherwise) would cause disastrous chaos, and they wanted no part of that, so they all went into Pontius Pilate mode, and used any excuse they could think of to wash their hands of it. They had no standing. That means the case was not sufficient to go to trial, according to the preponderance of evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 31 minutes ago, Wildcat Will said: You mean like those invaders from central America. The ones in those giant caravans? Did we win that war? How many military personnel did those women and children kill when they stormed the border? Inquiring minds want to know. Nice attempt, but serious fail. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted October 23, 2022 Report Share Posted October 23, 2022 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted October 24, 2022 Report Share Posted October 24, 2022 1 hour ago, Warrior said: Nice attempt, but serious fail. Sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted October 24, 2022 Report Share Posted October 24, 2022 31 minutes ago, Wildcat Will said: Sure. Admitting your problem is the first step…way to go lil willy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted October 24, 2022 Report Share Posted October 24, 2022 13 hours ago, DBP66 said: too many Big Ones to keep count of...just ask all his lawyers $$$$....🤡 And yet ?...😝 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted October 24, 2022 Report Share Posted October 24, 2022 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted October 24, 2022 Report Share Posted October 24, 2022 7 hours ago, Wildcat Will said: They had no standing. That means the case was not sufficient to go to trial, according to the preponderance of evidence. Those two things have NOTHING to do with each other. They ruled no standing (despite the fact that people in every state are affected by who gets the electoral votes from every other state). Once they ruled no standing, they dismissed the case WITHOUT looking at any evidence. They ruled in other cases that the case was filed too late...that it should have been filed before the election...case dismissed without looking at any evidence. They ruled in at least one other case that the relief being sought, would disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters (totally ignoring the fact that by NOT ruling on the complaints, legitimate votes/voters would be disenfranchised by the fraudulent votes that were counted)...again dismissing the case without looking at any evidence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted October 24, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2022 6 hours ago, Slotback Right said: And yet ?...😝 he's in court today....😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted October 24, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2022 6 hours ago, concha said: Liz Cheney is more of a Conservative than you will ever be.....she didn't drink the Trump Kool-Aid you clowns exist on...🤡 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted October 24, 2022 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2022 5 hours ago, Slotback Right said: Those two things have NOTHING to do with each other. They ruled no standing (despite the fact that people in every state are affected by who gets the electoral votes from every other state). Once they ruled no standing, they dismissed the case WITHOUT looking at any evidence. They ruled in other cases that the case was filed too late...that it should have been filed before the election...case dismissed without looking at any evidence. They ruled in at least one other case that the relief being sought, would disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters (totally ignoring the fact that by NOT ruling on the complaints, legitimate votes/voters would be disenfranchised by the fraudulent votes that were counted)...again dismissing the case without looking at any evidence. 0-59....time to throw the towel in....he LOST!.....🙄 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted October 24, 2022 Report Share Posted October 24, 2022 35 minutes ago, DBP66 said: 0-59....time to throw the towel in....he LOST!.....🙄 Give it up with the gaslighting attempt. It hasn't worked for almost two years, and it won't work now. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted October 24, 2022 Report Share Posted October 24, 2022 56 minutes ago, DBP66 said: Liz Cheney is more of a Conservative than you will ever be.....she didn't drink the Trump Kool-Aid you clowns exist on...🤡 Not surprised you're a fan of Cheney - had you pegged as a War Machine supporter. Have you ever read "Profits of War" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Will Posted October 24, 2022 Report Share Posted October 24, 2022 12 hours ago, I AM IRONMAN said: Admitting your problem is the first step…way to go lil willy! Jersey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.