- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pelosi will be called as a J6 witness by Trump. He will prove she orchestrated J6!!
Posted on 8/8/23 at 1:58 pm to boogedy
Posted on 8/8/23 at 1:58 pm to boogedy
quote:He is one of the half-dozen brightest posters on this forum.
You sir are a moron and a troll.
Other posters are making stupid, unsupported claims, and he is holding their feet to the fire to prove their assertions.
Frankly, this forum could use a LOT more of that.
2
Posted on 8/8/23 at 1:58 pm to CelticDog
quote:
be sure to bring that up at sentencing.
There will not be any sentencing
Posted on 8/8/23 at 1:59 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
What.
Does.
That.
Have
To
Do
With
Pelosi?
I already told you.
just because that doesn't put reasonable doubt into your mind, doesn't mean it won't in someone else's mind.
and that's one of the routes the defense will take.
the he was trying to stop anything from happening at all.
Which in the minds of some will be enough to doubt that he "used" it.
the prosecution will then go the same route you are taking.
saying ok, yeah he tried to stop it, but once it happened, he did .....
which side will present the better argument?
hell if I know,.
this isn't that difficult to figure out.
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
He is one of the half-dozen brightest posters on this forum.
because he must agree with you!
Pelosi turned down the protection that would have stopped everything.
end of story
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:01 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
the he was trying to stop anything from happening at all.
And the prosecution will object to and successfully prevent that testimony. Because it does not bear at all on whether or not he used it once it happened.
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
He is one of the half-dozen brightest posters on this forum.
Other posters are making stupid, unsupported claims, and he is holding their feet to the fire to prove their assertions.
Frankly, this forum could use a LOT more of that.
He may be Hank but that does not mean he is totally correct in this argument.
This post was edited on 8/8/23 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:02 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Well that’s not a charge
OH ??
What was all the 'insurrection' bullshite the prosecutor spilled out about the 'brave men defending the capitol' from an "insurrection Trump planned and encouraged" = not relevant??
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:03 pm to rhar61
quote:
Pelosi turned down the protection that would have stopped everything. end of story
Let’s just say you are correct. And no protester even showed up on J6.
All four charges would stand as they are, with a handful of factual paragraphs being edited in the indictment.
This post was edited on 8/8/23 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:03 pm to rhar61
quote:He and I disagree as often as we agree on subjective matters. That has zero bearing upon his objective intelligence.
He is one of the half-dozen brightest posters on this forum.quote:
because he must agree with you!
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:03 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
What was all the 'insurrection' bullshite the prosecutor spilled out about the 'brave men defending the capitol' from an "insurrection Trump planned and encouraged" = not relevant??
Correct. Nothing Smith said at his press conference is relevant.
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:05 pm to Warboo
quote:
There will not be any sentencing ?
so far many hundreds were sentenced. 900?
1,000 have been identified via video but not yet indicted, arrested.
many hundreds are in prison waiting their days in court.
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:07 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
She will lie under oath. Why wouldn't she - she'll never be prosecuted.
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:11 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No, at least beyond the mere fact that it happened.
Wow. Ok. Now I understand your level of thinking. Thinking that goes against what is already out there in the indictment.
Now, regarding Pelosi. I never opined on her in these posts, I just pointed out that you were incorrect in saying the indictments did not involve the riots.
But let's look at a few questions...and I do not know the answers, but I do think they are relevant if the prosecution is going to use J6 has evidence as they have outlined in the indictment.
Did Pelosi turn down requests for more security?
Did Pelosi actually have fewer Capitol Police on site than normal?
Were there Feds in the crowd?
If so, did these individuals incite the crowd and provoke them into entering the Capitol?
Who unlocked the doors? Who gave that order?
I am just a common sense individual. It seems to me that a certain combination of answers to these questions could shoot a very big hole into exactly what a portion of the indictment alleges. And that is that people other than Trump led to the obstruction of the proceedings. Who knows? It is certainly plausible.
Now, why is it being pitched that Pelosi would be called as a witness...? Politics. Just like the indictment of Trump. Politics.
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:13 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And the prosecution will object to and successfully prevent that testimony. Because it does not bear at all on whether or not he used it once it happened.
that very well may happen.
again, I never said it was a winning argument.
just one that would be used.
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:14 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
It seems to me that a certain combination of answers to these questions could shoot a very big hole into exactly what a portion of the indictment alleges.
And I guess we will just agree to disagree. None of the charges rely on Trump inciting or leading the riots. They all have other, independent grounds outside of that which would sustain the charges even if the J6 riot never happened. That’s what I mean when I say none of the charges “rely” on the riot.
This post was edited on 8/8/23 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:15 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And no protester even showed up on J6.
With a stolen election it is an impossibility. Hence, Trump calls Pelosi referencing the National Guard.
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:18 pm to Timeoday
Or she’ll just lie considering no one will enforce perjury
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:21 pm to TBoy
quote:
TBoy
For someone that 100% believed Russia collusion and took Adams Schiffs word as Gospel, you might want to sit down.
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:27 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
None of the charges rely on Trump inciting or leading the riots.
count 2 is that he (and his co-conspirators) planned to "obstruct and impede" an official proceeding.
count 3 is that he actually did attempt to "obstruct and impede" an official proceeding.
asking, begging, even bribing, threatening, or blackmailing someone to vote a certain way is neither "obstructing" no "impeding".
Those are all asking for a certain result to the proceeding itself. Many of those are themselves crimes. Just not the crime of "obstructing" or "impeding"
allowing or inciting a riot to happen inside the building where it happened to pause, cancel, or delay the proceeding would definitely be considered " obstructing" or "impeding" that proceeding.
Posted on 8/8/23 at 2:30 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
count 2 is that he (and his co-conspirators) planned to "obstruct and impede" an official proceeding. count 3 is that he actually did attempt to "obstruct and impede" an official proceeding.
Right, and both of those charges could be levied if the riot never happened.
That’s my point. The riot isn’t a central point of any of the charges. It’s gravy and insinuation.
quote:
asking, begging, even bribing, threatening, or blackmailing someone to vote a certain way is neither "obstructing" no "impeding". Those are all asking for a certain result to the proceeding itself. Many of those are themselves crimes. Just not the crime of "obstructing" or "impeding" allowing or inciting a riot to happen inside the building where it happened to pause, cancel, or delay the proceeding would definitely be considered " obstructing" or "impeding" that proceeding.
We have a different of opinion on that I guess. We’ll see what Smith ultimately does and how it shakes out.
The point remains though, that whether or not the riot could have been prevented beforehand has zero bearing whatsoever on whether Trump attempted to use it once it was occurring.
This post was edited on 8/8/23 at 2:31 pm
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News