What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Will the Justice Department indict Donald Trump? (1 Viewer)

No. Not because they shouldn’t but because they fear it would look political. And it wouldn’t matter what evidence they had over 25%-40% would say it was a witch hunt. 
 

Liz Cheney “Democracy only survives if citizens are willing to defend it”

Unfortunately close to half the country are not willing if it means going after Trump.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
flapgreen said:
The walls are still closing in!!! :lmao:
Click to expand...
Is anyone claiming that?  Seems all are saying nothing will come out of this...not because of lack of evidence mind you...but that he won't face charges from the DOJ.

So why a false narrative like this to mock others...or the other narrative that people only care because its Trump or a Republican and would not support justice against a Republican?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck said:
Have the usual suspects accused him of being an alias of a recently suspended poster?  Or do they only do that to posters they disagree with?
Click to expand...
My only alias is Art Vandelay... or Buck Naked... or Koko. But NOT T-Bone, unfortunately Your choice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ruffrodys05 said:
Doing the right thing would improve my faith in our institutions, not erode it further. I don't care what anyone says, this should not be a "sides" thing. Any former President, from either side, who is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of felonious crimes should have charges brought and be convicted. Period.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was inartful in my wording. I completely agree with you.   

 
This is another branch of the same conspiracy to obstruct the certification proceeding that a federal judge found more likely than not existed between Trump and Eastman yesterday.

The log also indicates that Trump placed this mysterious call.

I mean, really…. If scumbags like Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, and Mike Flynn are still walking around scot-free, I wouldn’t get your hopes up that Trump will see any accountability…

But, at least there is enough “in your face” evidence that he committed crimes so that we ALL know the truth…

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dozer said:
This is another branch of the same conspiracy to obstruct the certification proceeding that a federal judge found more likely than not existed between Trump and Eastman yesterday.

The log also indicates that Trump placed this mysterious call.

I mean, really…. If scumbags like Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, and Mike Flynn are still walking around scot-free, I wouldn’t get your hopes up that Trump will see any accountability…

But, at least their is enough “in your face” evidence that he committed crimes so that we ALL know the truth…
Click to expand...
Yet millions will still vote for him and support him.

 
BladeRunner said:
I'm sure you got 'eem this time.
Click to expand...
So…just no real answer for any of it?  Why is it that hard to comment in the actual allegations?  Instead we get whataboutisms  and comments like this portraying a sentiment nobody is proclaiming.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who Fueled Donald Trump’s Stolen Election Myth?

PBS Frontline's “Plot to Overturn the Election” documentary premieres Tuesday, March 29, at 10/9c on PBS & online

Trailer

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I doubt it.

1. The standard in a criminal court isn't "more likely than not," but "beyond a reasonable doubt."

2. Even if the DOJ thinks it's beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed a felony, what's the likelihood that twelve jurors will think so? At least some of the jurors are likely to be MAGA people. If the DOJ is going to go through the circus of criminally indicting a former president (with aspirations to run again), it should arguably be sure not only that he's guilty, but that he'll be convicted.

While there should definitely not be a hard and fast rule against indicting former presidents (because nobody is above the law), I do think the political awkwardness should be a factor to consider. Criminally charging the previous leader should be exceedingly rare in countries that aren't banana republics. If it's a slam dunk case, fine, but charges that require proving intent will seldom be slam dunks.
Click to expand...
So there shouldn’t be a rule, just an understanding.  Like we had with the Supreme Court.  Like we had with hiring your kids into the cabinet.  Like we all pretty much understood Russia was an enemy? 

 
Would it be worth it to indict just to get Two Scoops under oath?  He’d perjure himself before jury selection.   

 
sho nuff said:
So…just no real answer for any of it?  Why is it that hard to comment in the actual allegations?  Instead we get whataboutisms  and comments like this portraying a sentiment nobody is proclaiming.
Click to expand...
He’s so gleeful when I’m his side gets away with crimes.  Disgusting. 

 
The General said:
It's unusual that there are no calls in the record for 7 hours while the mob of maga people were breaking into the Capitol building, no?

We know he was in contact with numerous people that day.
Click to expand...
was going to comment that you GOT HIM now, but you have been fairly consistent with you fairness over the last year so yes if that is true then find out.  Problem I have with the 1/6 committee is that it is partisan all the way.  Repubs were supposed to appoint people on the committee.  Pelosi didn't let them.  she appointed 2 rhinos of her ilk.  this bothers me as this committee is entirely partisan to the hilt.  remember Schiff on the Russian collusion?  every other day he was spouting "hard evidence, he has seen it", done deal, etc., etc., etc on national TV.   of course CNN, MSNBC, et al repeated the same.  WE GOT HIM NOW.  Schiff turned out to be  nothing but a liar & pure partisan with no regard for anything but party affiliation.  this sniffs of the same thing.

over & out.

 
shadrap said:
was going to comment that you GOT HIM now, but you have been fairly consistent with you fairness over the last year so yes if that is true then find out.  Problem I have with the 1/6 committee is that it is partisan all the way.  Repubs were supposed to appoint people on the committee.  Pelosi didn't let them.  she appointed 2 rhinos of her ilk.  this bothers me as this committee is entirely partisan to the hilt.  remember Schiff on the Russian collusion?  every other day he was spouting "hard evidence, he has seen it", done deal, etc., etc., etc on national TV.   of course CNN, MSNBC, et al repeated the same.  WE GOT HIM NOW.  Schiff turned out to be  nothing but a liar & pure partisan with no regard for anything but party affiliation.  this sniffs of the same thing.

over & out.
Click to expand...
But much of this isn’t Schiff…its Judges and prosecutors and now seeing a gaping hole in records produced.

 
Sabertooth said:
He’s so gleeful when I’m his side gets away with crimes.  Disgusting. 
Click to expand...
I don't see you in the Biden thread all fake outraged considering all the shady deals that we're going on in Ukraine with him and his son.

Disgusting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
shadrap said:
was going to comment that you GOT HIM now, but you have been fairly consistent with you fairness over the last year so yes if that is true then find out.  Problem I have with the 1/6 committee is that it is partisan all the way.  Repubs were supposed to appoint people on the committee.  Pelosi didn't let them.  she appointed 2 rhinos of her ilk.  this bothers me as this committee is entirely partisan to the hilt.  remember Schiff on the Russian collusion?  every other day he was spouting "hard evidence, he has seen it", done deal, etc., etc., etc on national TV.   of course CNN, MSNBC, et al repeated the same.  WE GOT HIM NOW.  Schiff turned out to be  nothing but a liar & pure partisan with no regard for anything but party affiliation.  this sniffs of the same thing.

over & out.
Click to expand...
Yep!!  1000% .

 
BladeRunner said:
I don't see you in the Biden thread all fake outraged considering all the shady deals that we're going on in Ukraine with him and his son.

Disgusting.
Click to expand...
Because its his son and not him with shady deals.  Have a federal judge claiming Biden likely committed a felony?   And why not just comment on the thread…which has nothing to do with Biden?  Why always trying to take shots at other posters?

 
shadrap said:
was going to comment that you GOT HIM now, but you have been fairly consistent with you fairness over the last year so yes if that is true then find out.  Problem I have with the 1/6 committee is that it is partisan all the way.  Repubs were supposed to appoint people on the committee.  Pelosi didn't let them.  she appointed 2 rhinos of her ilk.  this bothers me as this committee is entirely partisan to the hilt.  remember Schiff on the Russian collusion?  every other day he was spouting "hard evidence, he has seen it", done deal, etc., etc., etc on national TV.   of course CNN, MSNBC, et al repeated the same.  WE GOT HIM NOW.  Schiff turned out to be  nothing but a liar & pure partisan with no regard for anything but party affiliation.  this sniffs of the same thing.

over & out.
Click to expand...
I have appreciated your responses over the years as well. It is a fair point that Pelosi rejected Republican selections and went with her Republican choices. I believe that was in response to the Republicans filibustering the creation of an independent committee and so the wheel turns...

Reporteres getting out in front of this story made be at play here I don't know. But there should be records of these 7 hours and they shouldn't be hidden.

 
shadrap said:
was going to comment that you GOT HIM now, but you have been fairly consistent with you fairness over the last year so yes if that is true then find out.  Problem I have with the 1/6 committee is that it is partisan all the way.  Repubs were supposed to appoint people on the committee.  Pelosi didn't let them.  she appointed 2 rhinos of her ilk.  this bothers me as this committee is entirely partisan to the hilt.  remember Schiff on the Russian collusion?  every other day he was spouting "hard evidence, he has seen it", done deal, etc., etc., etc on national TV.   of course CNN, MSNBC, et al repeated the same.  WE GOT HIM NOW.  Schiff turned out to be  nothing but a liar & pure partisan with no regard for anything but party affiliation.  this sniffs of the same thing.

over & out.
Click to expand...
The “Republican selections” that Pelosi overruled would have made a mockery of the committee. The Republicans have done everything they could to marginalize this committee, boycott it, vote against its existence. They did not act in good faith from the beginning. 

I also strongly disagree with your characterization of Adam Schiff. From what I can see he was never once dishonest with the American people, and his role in President Trump’s first impeachment was masterful- his arguments at the time as to why Trump should be removed were dead on correct and never answered. 

But even if I accepted all of your points and agreed with you that the committee is highly partisan and that Schiff is not to be trusted, it still doesn’t change anything: either the facts are going to show that Donald Trump committed crimes, including treason against the USA and the Constitution, or they won’t. At some point you’re going to have to respond to the facts rather than your skepticism over who is investigating them. 

 
timschochet said:
The “Republican selections” that Pelosi overruled would have made a mockery of the committee. The Republicans have done everything they could to marginalize this committee, boycott it, vote against its existence. They did not act in good faith from the beginning. 

I also strongly disagree with your characterization of Adam Schiff. From what I can see he was never once dishonest with the American people, and his role in President Trump’s first impeachment was masterful- his arguments at the time as to why Trump should be removed were dead on correct and never answered. 

But even if I accepted all of your points and agreed with you that the committee is highly partisan and that Schiff is not to be trusted, it still doesn’t change anything: either the facts are going to show that Donald Trump committed crimes, including treason against the USA and the Constitution, or they won’t. At some point you’re going to have to respond to the facts rather than your skepticism over who is investigating them. 
Click to expand...
Schiff made a mockery along with kinzinger trying to line up a good job after he got screwed by the dems who redrew his district even after trying to show what a good rino he is.    And I'm not sure why darth Cheneys  daughter decided to get tossed.   But that's her business.   Besides I don't care that much so whatever.

 
quick-hands said:
Schiff made a mockery along with kinzinger trying to line up a good job after he got screwed by the dems who redrew his district even after trying to show what a good rino he is.    And I'm not sure why darth Cheneys  daughter decided to get tossed.   But that's her business.   Besides I don't care that much so whatever.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what this has to do with my post. 
 

But I do find it both sad and amusing that your sole reason for regarding Kizinger as a “rino” is his opposition to Trump. 

 
quick-hands said:
He's a rino cuz he's a rino.   
Click to expand...
Kinzinger voted with trump's agenda ~90% of the time, and voted against the first impeachment.

Cheney voted with trump's agenda ~90% of the time, and voted against the first impeachment.

If they are RINO's, please explain to me what it takes to be a Republican in more than name?  Based on those numbers, it appears the only way to be a true Republican in your view is fealty, which as a country, we have historically frown upon.

 
Mene said:
Kinzinger voted with trump's agenda ~90% of the time, and voted against the first impeachment.

Cheney voted with trump's agenda ~90% of the time, and voted against the first impeachment.

If they are RINO's, please explain to me what it takes to be a Republican in more than name?  Based on those numbers, it appears the only way to be a true Republican in your view is fealty, which as a country, we have historically frown upon.
Click to expand...
90% <> 100%

 
Mene said:
Kinzinger voted with trump's agenda ~90% of the time, and voted against the first impeachment.

Cheney voted with trump's agenda ~90% of the time, and voted against the first impeachment.

If they are RINO's, please explain to me what it takes to be a Republican in more than name?  Based on those numbers, it appears the only way to be a true Republican in your view is fealty, which as a country, we have historically frown upon.
Click to expand...
In previous times, Kinzinger and Cheney would both be far right Republicans. However in today's GOP, you must buy into and support the "stolen election" narrative. Kinzinger and Cheney however acknowledge what happened and see Trump for what he is. They're putting country over Party - so, RINO.

ETA: Didn't Cheney vote with Trump more than Bobert? Yet one is praised as a true Republican and the other is a pariah within the party.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
Yeah, that's very bad.   He'll lose even more support now.
Click to expand...
He might. Not everyone is such a partisan all in for their "team" that they wouldn't draw the line at siding with a traitor. It won't take much support to fall away for the election to be out of his reach, he never won the popular vote anyway so losing any support around the edges in PA & WI in particular will sink his chances even further.

It's interesting, the all-in on Trump mindset. I remember seeing the "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat" t-shirts at Trump rallies. I guess that really is true for some. Ironically many of those same folks like to call themselves patriots. 

But, to the point of the thread, will he be more likely to be indicted? I don't think this particular episode will tip that in either direction. I think it's still leaning towards "no". I haven't seen what the specific charge would be.

 
The General said:
It's unusual that there are no calls in the record for 7 hours while the mob of maga people were breaking into the Capitol building, no?

We know he was in contact with numerous people that day.
Click to expand...
& of course this 7 hour thing has been debunked.   Surprise!  fake news again & again. 

 
So the question for Trump supporters is, do you think he is unjustly held to stricter standards and that past presidents have done the same or worse? Or are you happy that he gets away with pushing beyond the behavioral norms? Or something else?

 
shadrap said:
& of course this 7 hour thing has been debunked.   Surprise!  fake news again & again. 
Click to expand...
It hasn't really been debunked. There is still that gap where calls to the president weren't recorded in the daily call log record for that specific day. Transparency and accountability are the issues at hand here. Two issues which reared their heads quite early in his administration. 

The General said:
So what was the story here with the no calls on the record? I have read an article twice and it still makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Calls most definitely were made and received during the time frame in the official daily call log where none are shown. (We know this due to voluntary & forced disclosure of documents and phone records of individuals already being investigated by the J6 Commission, and their own sworn testimony.) The difference is that those calls made/received did not come through the White House Switchboard. They were made/received using other methods.

DJT (and his staff) circumvented the switchboard by using personal cell phones and the like. I do not believe that it is illegal to do so. It may not even be illegal to not log these communications into the official daily call log, I'm unsure. Communications not done through the official switchboard are supposed to be recorded in the daily log as a matter of record, I'm just not sure if any actual law presides here. What I am sure about is that failing to do so leaves the impression (rightly) that DJT was not being transparent about his conversations that day and who he had them with. In fact, it appears (rightly so) as though he was attempting to hide such communications. 

So, the questions remain. Why aren't those communications made outside of the White House Switchboard documented in the Official Daily Call Log for January 6, 2021? What legitimate reasons are there for the omission of that information? What is DJT trying to hide?

 
Debunked equals admitting Trump often went around the system to avoid having a record of the phone calls he was making.

 
Man oh man the establishment is still scared to death of Trump, coming at him with anything they can dig up and say ''hey this might stick '' , and yet he continues to brush the accusations of like a man brushes dandruff of his shoulder .

Heres a list the Dems created and so far hes batting a 1,000 of non convictions or proof of guilt. This is after failed Russian conspiracies and 2 failed removals thru Impeachments .

 

President Trump’s tax returns

Trump family businesses — and whether they comply with the Constitution's emoluments clause, including the Chinese trademark grant to the Trump Organization

Trump's dealings with Russia, including the president's preparation for his meeting with Vladimir Putin

The payment to Stephanie Clifford — a.k.a. Stormy Daniels

James Comey's firing

Trump's firing of U.S. attorneys

Trump's proposed transgender ban for the military

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's business dealings

White House staff's personal email use

Cabinet secretary travel, office expenses, and other misused perks

Discussion of classified information at Mar-a-Lago

Jared Kushner's ethics law compliance

Dismissal of members of the EPA board of scientific counselors

The travel ban

Family separation policy

Hurricane response in Puerto Rico

Election security and hacking attempts

White House security clearances

And on Sunday night's "Axios on HBO

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
GordonGekko
OP/ED: J6 Committee's Liz Cheney Embodies The Worst Character Traits Of Donald Trump (6/24/22 18:05 PST)
Replies
26
Views
806
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Newsweek: Muslim & Christian Parents Unite In Michigan Against "Sexually Explicit" School Books (10/14/22 02:46 PST)
2
Replies
53
Views
1K
Captain Cranks
Captain Cranks

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top