Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Trump Riot Aftermath (Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Proud Boys join the club)


Cooked Crack

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

 

 

Unfortunately, that only applies to people who had previously held office.  That means it should apply to Donald Trump himself, however.

 

He was a former state delegate in WV, so would be disqualified:

 

Quote

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump-appointed judge: There is 'a colorable claim of incitement' against the former president

 

A judge appointed by Donald Trump indicated this week that prosecutors may have sufficient evidence to charge the former president with inciting the January 6th Capitol riots.

 

As reported by the Washington Post, Judge Gregory G. Katsas, a Trump appointee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected claims by lawyers representing Trump that a civil lawsuit brought against the former president over the Capitol riots would inhibit future presidents from speaking out on important issues for fear of being sued.

 

“How many cases will there be with a colorable claim of incitement against the president?” Katsas asked. “It seems like that is not going to hamstring the president in his day-to-day job.”

 

As defined by Cornell University's Legal Information Institute, a colorable claim is "a plausible legal claim" that "is 'strong enough' to have a reasonable chance of being valid if the legal basis is generally correct and the facts can be proven in court."

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice Department seeking to hold Trump in contempt over classified documents

 

The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to hold Donald Trump in contempt of court for failing to comply with a subpoena issued this summer ordering the former president to turn over records marked classified, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

 

The development comes after Trump’s legal team said it conducted searches at four locations just before Thanksgiving, finding two documents with classified markings at a storage facility in Florida. The Trump team turned over those two documents to the FBI and announced to a federal judge in Washington, DC, that they believed Trump was now in compliance with a 6-month-old subpoena.

 

But the Justice Department disagreed. And in an escalation last week, department prosecutors told DC District Chief Judge Beryl Howell, who oversees federal grand jury proceedings there, that the searches weren’t satisfactory. The contempt proceedings before Howell are under seal.

 

The proceedings ratchet up the pressure on Trump as he faces possible criminal liability in the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation being conducted by special counsel Jack Smith. It also adds another chapter to the ongoing struggle for federal officials to reclaim government records – especially those that contain national security secrets – from Trump after his administration ended.

 

More recently, prosecutors have insisted that sensitive government documents are still missing and that Trump was obligated to return them.

 

The Justice Department has not disclosed to Trump’s legal team which materials it believes have not been returned, according to one source.

 

A hearing is set for Friday, when Howell will consider whether to hold Trump and his post-presidency office in contempt of court. If held in contempt, he could rack up fines. Being held in contempt over subpoenas for documents has become a feature of Trump’s court tangles since he left office.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, China said:

Justice Department seeking to hold Trump in contempt over classified documents

 

The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to hold Donald Trump in contempt of court for failing to comply with a subpoena issued this summer ordering the former president to turn over records marked classified, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

 

The development comes after Trump’s legal team said it conducted searches at four locations just before Thanksgiving, finding two documents with classified markings at a storage facility in Florida. The Trump team turned over those two documents to the FBI and announced to a federal judge in Washington, DC, that they believed Trump was now in compliance with a 6-month-old subpoena.

 

But the Justice Department disagreed. And in an escalation last week, department prosecutors told DC District Chief Judge Beryl Howell, who oversees federal grand jury proceedings there, that the searches weren’t satisfactory. The contempt proceedings before Howell are under seal.

 

The proceedings ratchet up the pressure on Trump as he faces possible criminal liability in the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation being conducted by special counsel Jack Smith. It also adds another chapter to the ongoing struggle for federal officials to reclaim government records – especially those that contain national security secrets – from Trump after his administration ended.

 

More recently, prosecutors have insisted that sensitive government documents are still missing and that Trump was obligated to return them.

 

The Justice Department has not disclosed to Trump’s legal team which materials it believes have not been returned, according to one source.

 

A hearing is set for Friday, when Howell will consider whether to hold Trump and his post-presidency office in contempt of court. If held in contempt, he could rack up fines. Being held in contempt over subpoenas for documents has become a feature of Trump’s court tangles since he left office.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Federal judge declines to hold Trump in contempt of court

 

A federal judge declined to hold former President Donald Trump in contempt of court in a closed-door hearing on Friday, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

 

The sources also told CNN that Chief Judge Beryl Howell instead pressed the Trump team and the Justice Department to work together to find a mutually agreeable resolution.

ABC News first reported the judge had urged the teams to resolve the matter themselves.

 

The contempt proceedings for Trump ended after almost 90 minutes behind closed doors on Friday afternoon at a Washington, DC, courthouse.

 

CNN observed prosecutors, including the Justice Department’s counterintelligence chief Jay Bratt, and attorneys for Trump exiting the courthouse just before 3:30 p.m. ET. The two legal teams had gathered in the chambers area for Howell, who was set to consider whether to hold Trump in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena ordering him to turn over classified records, according to CNN’s reporting.

 

No outcome was publicly announced.

 

According to sources, the judge questioned prosecutors on how she could hold Trump’s team in contempt given the steps Trump’s lawyers have taken to alleviate the Justice Department’s concerns that there may still be records in Trump’s possession.

 

She also questioned why prosecutors were quibbling over the necessity for a custodian of records to attest that all documents had been returned when Trump’s lawyers had already informed the Justice Department that they had searched four locations, found two documents with classified markings and returned those documents to investigators, according to two sources.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MELTDOWN: Trump Bizarrely Cites ‘Well Established Clinton Socks Case’ in Bonkers Statement About Seized Docs from Mar-a-Lago

 

Former President Donald Trump appears to be having an unpleasant Friday morning, evidenced by some angry ALL CAPS early morning messages that, well, are beginning to look eerily similar to the sort of conspiratorial rants shouted by homeless people outside Penn Station.

 

Trump started his Friday communications strategy by asking, “WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE FBI & ‘JUSTICE’ DEPARTMENT?” 

 

Screen-Shot-2022-12-09-at-8.40.06-AM.jpg

 

Trump then pivoted to the second drop of “Twitter Files” released Thursday night by Bari Weiss, thanking Elon Musk for what he saw as a “revelation, in a very powerful fashion,  the FBI and ‘Justice’ colluding, proving conclusively, in one very powerful way, that the 2020 Presidential Election was Rigged & Stolen.”  It did not show that however, though Trump appears to believe that putting that sort of false assertion into the universe will make it so….

 

And finally, Trump cited what he called “the very well-established Clinton Socks Case” which is neither about the Clinton cat named Socks nor is it “very well established”…

 

Screen-Shot-2022-12-09-at-8.40.24-AM.jpg

What is the Clinton Socks Case? Great question that was very well answered in September by Rachel Maddow producer Steve Benen:

 

Quote

During his White House tenure, Bill Clinton spoke at some length with Pulitzer Prize-winning author Taylor Branch, and as part of the project, there were many recordings of their conversations. According to one 2007 account, tapes were at one point stored in a sock drawer.

 

A conservative group called Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit, demanding that Clinton be forced to turn over the recordings. In 2012, a federal court rejected the organization’s claims, concluding that the tapes were personal records, not official presidential materials.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Updated:

 

The Lying Liar's List of Lies
1. There were no boxes at Mar-a-Lago
2. Other people brought those boxes to Mar-a-Lago
3. Archives could have retrieved the boxes anytime they wanted
4. All the documents in the boxes were declassified
5. I was protecting the boxes for the Archives (I bought a padlock)
6. The boxes were planted by the FBI
7. Obama had more boxes
8.The documents should not have been classified in the first place
9. The documents were already returned.
10. They were my documents
11. There was a standing order that any documents I took out of the Oval Office were automatically declassified
12. Mishandled and rushed move by GSA
13. Invented hoax because J6 Committee ratings were dropping
14. Laws against espionage are wrong
15. Documents are protected by Client-attorney Privilege
16. Documents are protected by Executive Privilege
17. Not only were the FBI wrong in taking them - they better give them back
18. The sensitivity of the documents has expired.
19. Like President Nixon said, "if the president does it, then it is not illegal."
20. I don't believe in the classification system
21. It was an assassination plot
22. Charging Trump would cause so much mayhem it would be a monstrous mistake
23. Every President takes classified documents with them when they leave
24. Mark Meadows planted the documents.
25. I couldn't trust National Archives with the documents because they're controlled by Biden and Obama
26. Only a limited number of Mar-a-Lago staff had access to the documents
27. The documents were for a personal memoir.
28. If it was so serious, why did the FBI take so long to search Mar-a-Lago?
29. Not serious because affidavit for warrant didn't mention nuclear secrets.
30. Nothing illegal was happening, it was only about documents.
31. Trump is not stupid enough to have committed such a crime.
32. Liz Cheney went back in time after losing the primary to order the FBI to raid Trump.
33. DoJ was actually looking for Hillary's E-mails.
34. NARA could have simply kept asking for the documents to be returned.
35. The crime of espionage is really quite mundane.
36. It was the FBI who took the documents out of the cartons, dropped them and spread them on carpet.
37. I couldn't trust the Pentagon to store and dispose of these documents so I HAD to keep them.
38. Keeping government documents at Mar-a-Lago is like having overdue library books.
39. The classified documents at Mar-a-Lago were en route to his Presidential Library.
40. The real issue are leaks to the media that Trump had these top secret documents.
41. Government has to prove documents are classified.
42. Cannot talk about declassifying documents because it could be our criminal defense.
43. DoJ has to give the classified documents back because I wrote on them.
44. The documents were mostly newspapers.
45. I can declassify documents just by thinking about it.
46. I'm protected by God as a bastion against the evils of a secular world.
47. George H. Bush hid government docs in a Chinese restaurant in a bowling alley.
48. Hunter Biden.
49. I designated seized Mar-a-Lago documents as personal records
50. They can't charge me because I'm running for President.
51. It's OK because I stole the documents openly and transparently.
52. Law enforcement should focus on murders instead of this.
53. Bill Clinton use to keep tapes in sock drawer.

Edited by China
  • Haha 4
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

January 6 committee considers criminal referrals for at least 4 others besides Trump

 

The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection is considering criminal referrals for at least four individuals in addition to former President Donald Trump, multiple sources told CNN.

 

The panel is weighing criminal referrals for former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, right wing lawyer John Eastman, former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the sources said.

 

The committee has not officially decided whom to refer to the Justice Department for prosecution and for what offenses, sources said. The four individuals who are among those under consideration, and whose names have not been previously reported, provide a window into the panel’s deliberations.

 

Another source cautioned that while names are being considered, there is still discussion before names are finalized.

 

While the criminal referrals would largely be symbolic in nature – as the DOJ has already undertaken a sprawling investigation into the US Capitol attack and efforts to overturn the 2020 election – committee members have stressed that the move serves as a way to document their views for the record.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, China said:

MELTDOWN: Trump Bizarrely Cites ‘Well Established Clinton Socks Case’ in Bonkers Statement About Seized Docs from Mar-a-Lago

 

Former President Donald Trump appears to be having an unpleasant Friday morning, evidenced by some angry ALL CAPS early morning messages that, well, are beginning to look eerily similar to the sort of conspiratorial rants shouted by homeless people outside Penn Station.

 

Trump started his Friday communications strategy by asking, “WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE FBI & ‘JUSTICE’ DEPARTMENT?” 

 

Screen-Shot-2022-12-09-at-8.40.06-AM.jpg

 

Trump then pivoted to the second drop of “Twitter Files” released Thursday night by Bari Weiss, thanking Elon Musk for what he saw as a “revelation, in a very powerful fashion,  the FBI and ‘Justice’ colluding, proving conclusively, in one very powerful way, that the 2020 Presidential Election was Rigged & Stolen.”  It did not show that however, though Trump appears to believe that putting that sort of false assertion into the universe will make it so….

 

And finally, Trump cited what he called “the very well-established Clinton Socks Case” which is neither about the Clinton cat named Socks nor is it “very well established”…

 

Screen-Shot-2022-12-09-at-8.40.24-AM.jpg

What is the Clinton Socks Case? Great question that was very well answered in September by Rachel Maddow producer Steve Benen:

 

 

Click on the link for the full article


Wasn’t Clinton’s cat named Socks?  Are we sure he isn’t comparing federal judiciary inquiries to the trial of the century which involved a cat?  
 

 

Edited by 86 Snyder
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:


Wasn’t Clinton’s cat named Socks?  Are we sure he isn’t comparing federal judiciary inquiries to the trial of the century which involved a cat?  
 

 

hero-image.fill.size_1200x900.v162336327

Unavailable for comment (because he's dead)

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rioter who assaulted cops at Capitol gets 5 years in prison

 

A Tennessee man who authorities say came to Washington ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot prepared for violence in a car full of weapons and assaulted officers who were trying to defend the Capitol was sentenced Friday to more than five years behind bars.

 

Ronald Sandlin, 35, of Millington, Tennessee, pleaded guilty in September to conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers.

 

Two other men were separately each sentenced Friday to four years in prison Friday for their actions connected to the riot.

 

Sandlin, who authorities say adhered to the QAnon conspiracy theory, and two other men traveled from Tennessee to the Washington area in a rental car packed with two pistols, two magazines of ammunition, cans of bear mace, gas masks, body armor, several knives and other gear, according to prosecutors.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

22 hours ago, China said:

A Tennessee man who authorities say came to Washington ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot prepared for violence in a car full of weapons and assaulted officers who were trying to defend the Capitol was sentenced Friday to more than five years behind bars.

 

Ronald Sandlin, 35, of Millington, Tennessee, pleaded guilty in September to conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers.

 

  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it actually going to take?
For them to finally do it?

 

How do the ****ing media call any of that a "joke"?

 

 

Oh, and lets kill all the Jews, **** and ****.

Haha!

 

 

No seriously, lets do it.

 

 

Coming soon.

 

~HangThat****WhileWeStillCan

Edited by Bang
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...