January 6th Committee Hearings Thread of Dominance

[Fudge Nuggets 19276]

2 hours ago, kevwun said:

The House can't do shit about that investigation.  It's being run by DHS.  As long as Biden is in the White House, criminal probes run by various agencies can't be stopped.

Who needs to stop them?  Garland is doing nothing.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33917]

20 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Who needs to stop them?  Garland is doing nothing.

you know this isn't true so stop propagating it like it is. just because YOU haven't gotten what you want doesn't mean he's doing nothing. I guarantee you he's doing more than nothing and likely a lot more that's to your liking than you realize

[The Original Greaser Bob 2853]

34 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

he's doing more than nothing and likely a lot more that's to your liking than you realize

Literally what my manager tells his manager every year when he tries to squeeze out a little Christmas bonus for me.

22 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

 

That’s why I said 2024. It’s a bit assumption that Biden wins in 2024

C'mon, man!

[Longhorn_Fan68 33917]

13 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Literally what my manager tells his manager every year when he tries to squeeze out a little Christmas bonus for me.

[Fudge Nuggets 19276]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

you know this isn't true so stop propagating it like it is. just because YOU haven't gotten what you want doesn't mean he's doing nothing. I guarantee you he's doing more than nothing and likely a lot more that's to your liking than you realize

Bullshit.  The crypto nerd’s scam broke and he was wearing chrome bracelets two weeks later.  Dotard’s residence is found to have illegally obtained confidential materials (checks notes) three months ago and fuck all has been done.

[TwiceHorn 31677]

20 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Bullshit.  The crypto nerd’s scam broke and he was wearing chrome bracelets two weeks later.  Dotard’s residence is found to have illegally obtained confidential materials (checks notes) three months ago and fuck all has been done.

Yeah because securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracies to commit same are not highly intent-based offenses and Caroline Ellison and that other dbag pled out and narced on him.  There's basically a giant paper trail proving those offenses, once revealed.

These are not the same thing.  Some of yall need to go back and re-read the popehat thread posted above, if it's still there.

My suspicion on the classified documents thing is they're trying to figure out what, if anything, was done with them. And also trying to nail down his knowledge about their removal and subsequent concealment. In almost all the "espionage" cases, the defendant used the materials improperly, showing them to journalists, etc.  That's not a requirement of the offense, but it tends to bear on the prosecution decision.  Trump's so fucking weird, it appears that he kept this stuff mostly for masturbation material, but we shall see.

Edited December 31, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Longhorn_Fan68 33917]

18 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Bullshit.  The crypto nerd’s scam broke and he was wearing chrome bracelets two weeks later.  Dotard’s residence is found to have illegally obtained confidential materials (checks notes) three months ago and fuck all has been done.

if you can't see why those two are apples and oranges then I really can't help you. one of us is right. guess we'll see which one.

[Fudge Nuggets 19276]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's basically a giant paper trail proving those offenses, once revealed.

There was an FBI raid that seized physical evidence in dotard's case.

Yet nothing.

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

My suspicion on the classified documents thing is they're trying to figure out what, if anything, was done with them.

They can do that with his fat ass sitting behind bars, you know.

[Fudge Nuggets 19276]

30 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

if you can't see why those two are apples and oranges then I really can't help you. one of us is right. guess we'll see which one.

Of course they are apples and oranges.  One case looted billions from wealthy investors and crypto dorks alike.  The other put national security and the lives of intelligence agents at risk.  Yet guess which one got throwed in jail first?

[TwiceHorn 31677]

29 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

They can do that with his fat ass sitting behind bars, you know.

No, they really can't because they lose the grand jury, which is their only way of compelling witnesses to talk to them or produce documents. among other things.

And, his fat ass won't sit behind bars pretty much no matter what federal offense he commits.  Unless he happens to get indicted for child pr0n or a drug trafficking offense with a gun somewhere on the premises.

Edited December 31, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[atomheartbevo 90041]

 

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19276]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Unless he happens to get indicted for child pr0n

We got evidence for that too.

 

[Captainant 27970]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah because securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracies to commit same are not highly intent-based offenses and Caroline Ellison and that other dbag pled out and narced on him.  There's basically a giant paper trail proving those offenses, once revealed.

These are not the same thing.  Some of yall need to go back and re-read the popehat thread posted above, if it's still there.

My suspicion on the classified documents thing is they're trying to figure out what, if anything, was done with them. And also trying to nail down his knowledge about their removal and subsequent concealment. In almost all the "espionage" cases, the defendant used the materials improperly, showing them to journalists, etc.  That's not a requirement of the offense, but it tends to bear on the prosecution decision.  Trump's so fucking weird, it appears that he kept this stuff mostly for masturbation material, but we shall see.

Ooooh weeeee you're really winding up to a long-form explanation of why trump will never be prosecuted and we're all being unreasonable for expecting anything different 

[TwiceHorn 31677]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Ooooh weeeee you're really winding up to a long-form explanation of why trump will never be prosecuted and we're all being unreasonable for expecting anything different 

No I'm not, I'm explaining to the impatient simpletons why the biggest criminal prosecutions in the history of the United States of America are going to happen on their own timeframe.  Not yours, not mine, not laypeople that have no idea what they're talking about.

I have conceded several times that it is possible that he won't be prosecuted for a number of reasons, possibly the greatest being inability to secure a conviction.  But I am still hopeful that it will happen and Smithco will do it right and nail him to the wall.

One thing that none of you nattering nabobs seem to get is that obstruction of an official proceeding, the prime felony for 1/6 was added to our criminal law by Sarbanes Oxley only 20 years ago.  It has never been used to prosecute this kind of thing until the 1/6 rioters and there are conflicting district court decisions on whether it can properly be used, pending resolution at the DC Circuit, and then possibly certiorari.  I am virtually certain that they're waiting for some clarity on that before any indictment will issue, even if it isn't Supreme Court clarity.

Smith has some scar tissue on a similar issue because some of his bigger convictions were overturned because DOJ got pretty aggressive with "honest services wire fraud" and it was held that the statute didn't support the conviction.  Skilling is one that partially skated in that debacle, but wasn't Smith's conviction.

Another factor is most of the 1/6 potential crimes are heavy on proof of specific intent to commit the crimes.  Trump is such a mental case that the circumstantial evidence of his intent is pretty all over the place, just from what we've seen.  That's going to be a challenge for any prosecutor and some of the testimony before the Committee may actually have done more harm than good.

Edited December 31, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Chewbacca 7793]

Bullshit.  The crypto nerd’s scam broke and he was wearing chrome bracelets two weeks later.  Dotard’s residence is found to have illegally obtained confidential materials (checks notes) three months ago and fuck all has been done.

Yup. I hate it, but it's true.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33917]

On 12/30/2022 at 11:36 PM, Chewbacca said:

On 12/30/2022 at 6:35 PM, Fudge Nuggets said:

Bullshit.  The crypto nerd’s scam broke and he was wearing chrome bracelets two weeks later.  Dotard’s residence is found to have illegally obtained confidential materials (checks notes) three months ago and fuck all has been done.

Yup. I hate it, but it's true.

so you're just going to ignore all the other information posted on this thread and go with this? ok.

[Chewbacca 7793]

so you're just going to ignore all the other information posted on this thread and go with this? ok.

I'll happily admit I'm wrong if he is actually held responsible. I won't hold my breath.

[Francisco 2.0 32432]

Gee, what a shame that was.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/06/social-security-numbers-jan-6-committee-documents/

 

Quote

When the House Jan. 6 committee wrapped up its work in recent weeks, it posted hundreds of records online, including interview transcripts, audio recordings and text messages.

Also buried in the massive cache was a spreadsheet with nearly 2,000 Social Security numbers associated with visitors to the White House in December 2020, including at least three members of Trump’s Cabinet, a few Republican governors and numerous Trump allies.

 

Quote

While the spreadsheet with the numbers was taken down Wednesday, the high-profile nature of the people whose data was exposed probably puts them at an “elevated risk” because the information would be especially useful to intelligence agencies, said James Lee, chief operating officer of the Identity Theft Resource Center, a nonprofit organization that advises victims of identity crimes and compromises.

Lee recommended that people listed follow common tips for victims of identity crimes, including freezing their credit, using a multi-factor authentication app for their online accounts and setting up credit and account monitoring.

 

Quote

Exposed individuals don’t appear to have been notified about the leak. The Government Publishing Office (GPO), which originally published the file, did not respond to a request for comment on whether it planned to notify people whose Social Security numbers were exposed.

“To my knowledge, we were not notified. The governor was not notified,” said Ian Fury, a spokesman for South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem (R). Social Security numbers were listed alongside the names of Noem, her husband and her three children.

Many of those contacted by The Post declined to confirm whether their Social Security numbers matched the ones listed in the file, citing privacy concerns.

 

Spoiler

Representatives of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) and former health and human services secretary Alex Azar, who were listed in the spreadsheet alongside Social Security numbers, declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment.

“Whether it was a careless and sloppy handling of records or a deliberate disregard of decorum, either scenario is a perfunctory and callous display of government and a frightening reminder of the current state in Washington,” said former housing and urban development secretary Ben Carson, whose name was listed in the spreadsheet alongside a Social Security number. “President Reagan was a savant indeed — the nine most frightening words to hear are ‘I am from the government and here to help.’”

A former Jan. 6 committee aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly, said that committee “records released publicly underwent a review process to redact personal details and other sensitive information.”

“Any release of such information was inadvertent,” the aide added.

A federal district court judge and a federal appeals court judge, at least a half-dozen people who testified before the Jan. 6 committee and a lawyer who represented another witness before the committee also appear to have had their Socials Security numbers exposed.

Blame game

The Social Security numbers appeared as part of the White House visitor logs published by the committee. Many Social Security numbers in the logs were redacted, but around 1,900 of them were not. The numbers were buried several hundred rows down in the second tab of the spreadsheet, which represented visits to the White House on a day in December 2020.

The file appears to have been added to the GPO’s collection of Jan. 6 materials, which are available for download on its website, sometime this week. It’s not clear how many people had downloaded the spreadsheet by Wednesday, when the GPO removed it from its website shortly after The Post notified the agency of the numbers’ existence. GPO has since re-uploaded the spreadsheet with the Social Security numbers redacted.

There is now a bit of finger-pointing over whose responsibility it was to make sure personal data wasn’t exposed as part of the committee’s investigation into the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, by supporters of then-President Donald Trump.

The most intriguing revelations, new evidence from Jan. 6 transcripts

GPO spokesman Gary Somerset said in a statement that the office “does not edit or alter materials provided by Congress for publication.” As a “temporary measure,” the GPO had removed the logs from its site while “our teammates scan other documents” for personally identifiable information, Somerset said.

The White House said in a letter last year that the committee agreed to accept the records — in redacted form — from the National Archives. In a Feb. 15, 2022, letter to Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, then-White House lawyer Dana Remus wrote that the Jan. 6 committee “agreed to accept production of these records with birth dates and social security numbers removed” in order to “ensure that personal privacy information is not inadvertently disclosed.”

The National Archives appeared to cast some blame on the Jan. 6 committee. The Archives’s public and media communications office told The Post in a statement that “while we took affirmative steps to redact personally identifiable information (PII), we did not expect that the Committee would publicly release records that still may have contained PII.”

The statement added that The Post’s request for comment “was the first we had heard of a potential inadvertent release of personally identifiable information” and that “we are assessing the situation and any necessary steps to address an inadvertent release.”

A spokesperson for Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), who chaired the committee, did not provide comment. Former congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a member of the committee, said he wasn’t aware of the release of Social Security numbers and didn’t know how it happened.

“Obviously it’s something we’ll have to look into,” he said. “It’s unfortunate.”

A race to finish

In recent weeks, the Jan. 6 committee raced to complete its work, with minor errors appearing in the long-awaited report it released Dec. 22. It has published more than 200 deposition and interview transcripts, with many names redacted in those documents.

White House visitor logs were cited just three times in the committee’s final report, all in reference to a Dec. 21, 2020, meeting attended by House Republicans planning to object to the certification of the electoral college vote.

Jan. 6 committee issues final report, suggests banning Trump from office

Trump had argued that the logs were subject to executive privilege, but Remus called that assertion “not justified” in her February 2022 letter.

Trump’s White House didn’t post any visitor logs online, a break from the Obama administration, which began posting logs in 2009. President Biden has continued that practice. Logs posted by Obama and Biden have omitted sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers.

 

[wildcat09 29453]

Lol, that fucking rules.

[TexasEd 8142]

Funny but not funny

[jimmyjazz 46470]

[Pig Bellmont 8746]

On 1/6/2023 at 1:58 PM, Francisco 2.0 said:

Whether it was a careless and sloppy handling of records or a deliberate disregard of decorum, either scenario is a perfunctory and callous display of government and a frightening reminder of the current state in Washington,” said former housing and urban development secretary Ben Carson, whose name was listed in the spreadsheet alongside a Social Security number. “President Reagan was a savant indeed — the nine most frightening words to hear are ‘I am from the government and here to help.’”

I’m sorry. I could use without the sanctimonious lecturing about the efficiency of government from the guy who had his wife spend over $30,000 of public money on a dining set. 

[TwiceHorn 31677]

On 1/1/2023 at 10:54 PM, Chewbacca said:

On 1/1/2023 at 2:44 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so you're just going to ignore all the other information posted on this thread and go with this? ok.

I'll happily admit I'm wrong if he is actually held responsible. I won't hold my breath.

Whether he will be held responsible is an entirely different question than whether the "timeline" of prosecution indicates that he will or won't be indicted.  Unless your definition of "held responsible" means something like indicted without conviction.  To be really held responsible is to have him convicted.

Fani Willis' investigative grand jury, which is not in the control of Merrick Garland (and did not have nearly 1000 1/6 rioters to prosecute) just concluded its investigation and has made recommendations.  I would expect indictments there to come in the next several months, about the same as for DOJ.

[Chewbacca 7793]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Whether he will be held responsible is an entirely different question than whether the "timeline" of prosecution indicates that he will or won't be indicted.  Unless your definition of "held responsible" means something like indicted without conviction.  To be really held responsible is to have him convicted.

Fani Willis' investigative grand jury, which is not in the control of Merrick Garland (and did not have nearly 1000 1/6 rioters to prosecute) just concluded its investigation and has made recommendations.  I would expect indictments there to come in the next several months, about the same as for DOJ.

To me, held responsible means, at minimum, him being barred from ever holding public office again.  

[DDD Dad 14369]

There was a time in my life (most of my younger life, frankly) where I held the belief that smaller government was better and that private industry was better suited to handle the things that Democrats push for government to control.  

In my middle age, having learned from experience, I've reached the conclusion regardless of its inefficiencies, at least governmental agencies/services actually attempt to address issues.  If we were to leave all of the social needs to private industry none would be addressed.  Shareholder value and executive compensation would, of course, be maximized, however.

Sort of like the quote attributed to Churchill about democracy being the worst form of government except for all others.  Government is the worst at providing for the common welfare, except for all others.

[atomheartbevo 90041]

On 1/6/2023 at 2:27 PM, TexasEd said:

Funny but not funny

Let's not kid ourselves, if some dude in Connecticut who is here illegally can get his hands on my Social Security # and use it with a fake name because he paid some other dude a few hundred bucks, then anybody who is important already has their private info, Social Security #s, etc., already in the hands of foreign agents.

[atomheartbevo 90041]

 

[pacman 7426]

https://www.gofundme.com/f/michael-fanone-support?utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet&utm_content=undefined&utm_medium=copy_link_all&utm_source=customer&utm_term=undefined

Quote

For simply telling the truth about what happened on that horrific day, Mike was threatened and harassed by fellow officers and former friends when he returned from medical leave.

Turns out the Thin Blue Line is actually selective, just not in a way that benefits American citizens.

Edited January 11, 2023 by pacman

[TwiceHorn 31677]

On 1/9/2023 at 4:05 PM, Chewbacca said:

To me, held responsible means, at minimum, him being barred from ever holding public office again.  

Well, don't hold your breath, then, because that is a remedy the criminal law does not provide. 

[TwiceHorn 31677]

On 1/9/2023 at 4:22 PM, DDD Dad said:

There was a time in my life (most of my younger life, frankly) where I held the belief that smaller government was better and that private industry was better suited to handle the things that Democrats push for government to control.  

In my middle age, having learned from experience, I've reached the conclusion regardless of its inefficiencies, at least governmental agencies/services actually attempt to address issues.  If we were to leave all of the social needs to private industry none would be addressed.  Shareholder value and executive compensation would, of course, be maximized, however.

Sort of like the quote attributed to Churchill about democracy being the worst form of government except for all others.  Government is the worst at providing for the common welfare, except for all others.

Same.  And our "timeline" seems to coincide with the most socially irresponsible private world that we have had, since at least WWII.

Edit to add:  One of the reasons I didn't stay an engineer was that I felt like a corporate cog mired in bureaucracy, while even the biggest law firm was a tiny fraction of the size of the average "corporation" or typical engineer employer.  And I have never worked for a giant or even big law firm. 

I think I was correct in that smaller outfits tend to be more nimble than bigger entities and made the "mistake" of extending that reasoning to the government.  It's a mistake because once an entity achieves a certain size, it becomes mired in bureaucratic inefficiency, whether it's government or the private sector.  But, there are limitations in that a small outfit often just flat can't do what a big outfit can do.

And, so while it may be true that smaller is better in many cases, the government, or the private sector acting instead, has to service the larger part of 330 million people and that is going to necessitate an organization of the size that implicates a lot of bureaucratic bullshit and inefficiency.

And, I might add, the government generally does a better job of evaluating and taking into account various interests and stakeholders that are not strictly within the government or the citizens served by the government objective.  Certainly better than an organization whose current galvanizing principle is this quarter's p/l results.

Edited January 11, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[NWBuck 8590]

7 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Seriously, this dude needs to be in jail for much, much longer....

[RDCanecutter 26550]

On 1/9/2023 at 4:31 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Let's not kid ourselves, if some dude in Connecticut who is here illegally can get his hands on my Social Security # and use it with a fake name because he paid some other dude a few hundred bucks,

You could have gone to Connecticut and roofed those houses. Illegal alien picking up the slack and doing the Connecticut work you're just too damn special to do.

7 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

Seriously, this dude needs to be in jail for much, much longer....

He'll probably still make that happen.

[Captainant 27970]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Same.  And our "timeline" seems to coincide with the most socially irresponsible private world that we have had, since at least WWII.

Well at least it's all totally legal and totally cool

[DigglerontheHoof 21273]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Same.  And our "timeline" seems to coincide with the most socially irresponsible private world that we have had, since at least WWII.

Really feels like the Gilded Age 2:  Billionaire Buggaloo

[Biff Tannen 45763]

46 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Really feels like the Gilded Age 2:  Billionaire Buggaloo

Because it is.  And Teddy Roosevelt ain't walking through that door to help fix it.

[RomaVicta 30072]

On 12/30/2022 at 7:51 PM, TwiceHorn said:

No, they really can't because they lose the grand jury, which is their only way of compelling witnesses to talk to them or produce documents. among other things.

And, his fat ass won't sit behind bars pretty much no matter what federal offense he commits.  Unless he happens to get indicted for child pr0n or a drug trafficking offense with a gun somewhere on the premises.

Legit points by Fudgenuggets, and informative response from Twice. 

Fudge can harp, but these posts add to the discussion. Thanks to you both.

[RomaVicta 30072]

1. Frau Himmler's remarks were better in the original German.
2. What kind of sick shit is roiling around in Clarence Thomas that he loves and married this...this monster.
3. We're so overwhelmed by the torrent of outrages washing over us since 2016 that the above conversation (not a random nut-job letter finding its way to the mail room) with a White House chief of staff isn't a top and lasting news story doesn't trigger immediate debate in the Senate about impeachment of Thomas. 
4. Again, the politically active and influential wife of a Supreme Court Justice describes a plan for suspension of rights and summary imprisonment in a camp for terrorists where they will be isolated even further from redress, support, and acquaintances. Her husband would have a profound influence on deciding whether this outrage could be ruled actually legal.

Madness. I'm no different than the rest of the overwhelmed; this will slip into the stuffed memory folder awaiting a reminder like so many other atrocities.    

 

Am I the only person in the room seeing this sick shit?

 

[YGIFS 19453]

I remember for decades when the personal lives of SCOTUS justices were shrouded in mystery.  And for good reason.  My cousin clerked for Kennedy and I had Kennedy as a law professor one summer in California.  And to this day, I have no idea about any details on the man's personal life.  

But I read the insane ramblings of Ginni Thomas starting in the 2020 election aftermath up until now.  And all I can think of is, "You got all that sick shit bouncing around in your brain and then you go home and blow Clarence 'asshat' Thomas?"  Like one person does all that crazy shit, and it's the wife of a longest-tenured Justice.  That is so fucking weird to me.  

[DDD Dad 14369]

13 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Am I the only person in the room seeing this sick shit?

 

Who is that?

Edited January 11, 2023 by DDD Dad

[Foosters 17918]

Sid Caesar?

[RomaVicta 30072]

On 1/9/2023 at 4:01 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Fani Willis' investigative grand jury, which is not in the control of Merrick Garland (and did not have nearly 1000 1/6 rioters to prosecute) just concluded its investigation and has made recommendations.  I would expect indictments there to come in the next several months, about the same as for DOJ.

Why several months for Willis? Her case seems pretty straightforward and, I believe, other criminal indictments would not take so following the grand jury report. I don't know criminal law procedures, but it seems a bank robber caught on tape and identified by witnesses would likely be in custody and indicted.

The question above in unprejudiced. I really don't know why. 

[YGIFS 19453]

18 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Sid Caesar?

I was gonna say Liam Neeson in makeup for his new Mel Brooks biopic.  But yeah, Sid Caesar is better.  And at the time that photograph was actually taken, that's about how Sid looked back then.  What he would have been doing partying with the Trump Crew, I had no idea. 

I mean politics aside, between the jokes about dating her and talking about her breasts, and photos like this...can somebody honestly ask a MAGA relative what they think of shit like this?  I've never been able to talk about his lying or treason, let alone how creepy he is with his daughter with true MAGA acolytes.  Because I can't keep a straight face.  I assume I'd just get a "Oh, he's just affectionate with his daughter, I think it's cute" kinda bullshit.  Meantime, any other dad caught doing/saying shit like that would be cast aside by them...and rightfully so.  Please the $1mm question, if it's just Donald being lovey-dovey........whey are there no photographs of him even shaking hands with Tiffany let alone straddling his upper thigh in a mini-skirt while he talks about dating her?   

[TwiceHorn 31677]

49 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Her case seems pretty straightforward

And therein lies the rub.  While Trump's phone call seems clearly wrong and unjustifiable, it is not so clearly a criminal act like bank robbery.  And whether it falls within a particular criminal statute depends heavily on proof of "specific intent," meaning an intention to commit an unlawful act, as opposed to the mere intention to commit an act that happens to be criminal.  Some discussion on the matter here.

This is a common problem with all of this shit and that is that it doesn't necessarily squarely fall into an easily proven criminal law like wire fraud or bank robbery.

At the federal level, the "prime crime" for Trump and Trumpists is "obstruction of an official proceeding" 18 USC 1512.  This isn't a commonly prosecuted crime like wire fraud or bank robbery.  In fact, it was added only 20 years ago by Sarbanes-Oxley, which you may recall was enacted in response to Enron and some other corporate malfeasances.  Because it hasn't been frequently prosecuted, and never in this particular context, there is a current split on court authority as to whether it can properly be used against 1/6 rioters who were actually present there, much less one who just incites them.

And, when you have a guy like Trump that lies and misspeaks and talks utter bullshit about 90% of the time, just taking his words at face value as showing his criminal intent in a criminal trial that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not a slam-dunk proposition.  So gathering evidence of non-public statements of intention and actions that corroborate what his words seem to say is key.  And that then becomes dependent on witnesses' recall of what he said to whom or did and when and under what circumstances, and that is often less than crystal clear.

And, Trump isn't the only target of these investigations.  There's Eastman and Chesebrough and others who are conspirators at best/worst, and may also hold key evidence as to what Trump's true intentions and state of knowledge were.

And that's before you get to some of the "defenses" that are unique to a sitting/former POTUS that have never been considered by the courts, because a sitting/former POTUS has never been indicted and criminally tried.  Simply stating that "no person is above the law" doesn't answer these questions.  It's a guiding principle, yes, but it doesn't supply the answers to these novel questions.

None of this is as straightforward as it may initially appear to laypeople.

Edited January 11, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[DigglerontheHoof 21273]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And therein lies the rub.  While Trump's phone call seems clearly wrong and unjustifiable, it is not so clearly a criminal act like bank robbery.  And whether it falls within a particular criminal statute depends heavily on proof of "specific intent," meaning an intention to commit an unlawful act, as opposed to the mere intention to commit an act that happens to be criminal.  Some discussion on the matter here.

This is a common problem with all of this shit and that is that it doesn't necessarily squarely fall into an easily proven criminal law like wire fraud or bank robbery.

At the federal level, the "prime crime" for Trump and Trumpists is "obstruction of an official proceeding" 18 USC 1512.  This isn't a commonly prosecuted crime like wire fraud or bank robbery.  In fact, it was added only 20 years ago by Sarbanes-Oxley, which you may recall was enacted in response to Enron and some other corporate malfeasances.  Because it hasn't been frequently prosecuted, and never in this particular context, there is a current split on court authority as to whether it can properly be used against 1/6 rioters who were actually present there, much less one who just incites them.

And, when you have a guy like Trump that lies and misspeaks and talks utter bullshit about 90% of the time, just taking his words at face value as showing his criminal intent in a criminal trial that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not a slam-dunk proposition.  So gathering evidence of non-public statements of intention and actions that corroborate what his words seem to say is key.  And that then becomes dependent on witnesses' recall of what he said to whom or did and when and under what circumstances, and that is often less than crystal clear.

And, Trump isn't the only target of these investigations.  There's Eastman and Chesebrough and others who are conspirators at best/worst, and may also hold key evidence as to what Trump's true intentions and state of knowledge were.

And that's before you get to some of the "defenses" that are unique to a sitting/former POTUS that have never been considered by the courts, because a sitting/former POTUS has never been indicted and criminally tried.  Simply stating that "no person is above the law" doesn't answer these questions.

None of this is as straightforward as it may initially appear to laypeople.

All I know is that it’s frustrating as hell and since none of it is apparently illegal, we appear to be straight proper fucked.

[TwiceHorn 31677]

3 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

All I know is that it’s frustrating as hell and since none of it is apparently illegal, we appear to be straight proper fucked.

It's not that it's not illegal, it's just that it's not as plainly illegal as people want to think it is.

I've said it many times, but we don't have a real robust set of criminal laws relating to offenses against the government by government officials.

We haven't needed them./

[jimmyjazz 46470]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And therein lies the rub.  While Trump's phone call seems clearly wrong and unjustifiable, it is not so clearly a criminal act like bank robbery.  And whether it falls within a particular criminal statute depends heavily on proof of "specific intent," meaning an intention to commit an unlawful act, as opposed to the mere intention to commit an act that happens to be criminal.  Some discussion on the matter here.

Please clear something up for me:  I always thought the standard was the intent to commit an act that is illegal, NOT that one had to additionally know the act is illegal.  Am I off base?

[Beau Vine 54837]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And therein lies the rub.  While Trump's phone call seems clearly wrong and unjustifiable, it is not so clearly a criminal act like bank robbery.  And whether it falls within a particular criminal statute depends heavily on proof of "specific intent," meaning an intention to commit an unlawful act, as opposed to the mere intention to commit an act that happens to be criminal.  Some discussion on the matter here.

This is a common problem with all of this shit and that is that it doesn't necessarily squarely fall into an easily proven criminal law like wire fraud or bank robbery.

At the federal level, the "prime crime" for Trump and Trumpists is "obstruction of an official proceeding" 18 USC 1512.  This isn't a commonly prosecuted crime like wire fraud or bank robbery.  In fact, it was added only 20 years ago by Sarbanes-Oxley, which you may recall was enacted in response to Enron and some other corporate malfeasances.  Because it hasn't been frequently prosecuted, and never in this particular context, there is a current split on court authority as to whether it can properly be used against 1/6 rioters who were actually present there, much less one who just incites them.

And, when you have a guy like Trump that lies and misspeaks and talks utter bullshit about 90% of the time, just taking his words at face value as showing his criminal intent in a criminal trial that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not a slam-dunk proposition.  So gathering evidence of non-public statements of intention and actions that corroborate what his words seem to say is key.  And that then becomes dependent on witnesses' recall of what he said to whom or did and when and under what circumstances, and that is often less than crystal clear.

And, Trump isn't the only target of these investigations.  There's Eastman and Chesebrough and others who are conspirators at best/worst, and may also hold key evidence as to what Trump's true intentions and state of knowledge were.

And that's before you get to some of the "defenses" that are unique to a sitting/former POTUS that have never been considered by the courts, because a sitting/former POTUS has never been indicted and criminally tried.  Simply stating that "no person is above the law" doesn't answer these questions.

None of this is as straightforward as it may initially appear to laypeople.

The man is literally on tape asking a state AG to "find me 11,780 votes," but I guess our pathetic little laypeople minds are not able to see how that's purely innocent.

[TwiceHorn 31677]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Please clear something up for me:  I always thought the standard was the intent to commit an act that is illegal, NOT that one had to additionally know the act is illegal.  Am I off base?

That's the general standard, yes.  But these statutes layer on a "specific intent" as well.  For example, 18 USC 1512(c)(2), which I believe is the 1/6 statute "of choice," provides the following:

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1)

alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2)

otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

 

The word "corruptly" adds the specific intention to be corrupt or unlawful.  It is a matter of some subtlety, but it exists and is a fruitful ground for acquittal if you can convince a jury that it was at least possible that no corrupt intention existed.

 

Also worth noting that the dispute over the applicability of that section to the 1/6 crimes ties into whether sub (1) limits, by use of the term "document or other object" to obstruction by use of a document or object, under sub (2), which initially seems to be much broader in application.

Edited January 11, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[YGIFS 19453]

20 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

The man is literally on tape asking a state AG to "find me 11,780 votes," but I guess our pathetic little laypeople minds are not able to see how that's purely innocent.

For a precise grasp of numbers, it's hard to believe he managed to bankrupt an Atlantic City "dealer must hit soft 17" casino.  Twice.  

[Red Five 41066]

23 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

The man is literally on tape asking a state AG to "find me 11,780 votes," but I guess our pathetic little laypeople minds are not able to see how that's purely innocent.

Demanding it. The sitting president.