It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lawsuits against Trump over the Jan. 6 riot can move forward, an appeals court rules

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 11:11 AM
link   
In there desperation to get the bad orange man... they are turning us into a banana republic.

Do you think the Gop will never try these things (assuming they dump rhona mcdaniel) we are now getting at best sketchy legal precedent against pretty much everyone up there.

Will the BAMN people on this thread cheer when the ultra corrupt on the left are subjected to the same sketchy legal proceedings to remove someone the right considers problematic.

Doubtful, I see some of the same intellectually bankrupt people that think if you just cooperate no charges get brought for illegally removing classified documents or storing them incorrectly.



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Sure but he only said this AFTER he was put in charge of the records at MAL. He, nor Trump ever mentioned any other docs in 18 months after he left office. He was not put in charge of any records that sit with the current administration.

But ok, he and Trump were going to work with the current administration to declassify records. That makes sense.

You do know when he was President the only thing that requires additional approval is anything that falls under the Atomic Energy Act. Now certainly some classified records require redactions, which he was well aware of, as he agreed to the redactions in the Crossfire Hurricane docs, which is well documented online. We would as those docs do, have the approval to declassify from Trump certainly noted.

So again, you think he had no classified docs he hid from the subpoena and he and Kash were going to work on getting docs Declassified with the Biden Administration apparently.

Guess we have to wait for the trial.

No.
Trump had already declassified everything.
It was the unelected bureaucrats imbedded throughout the different agencies that stalled it and blocked it from happening.
Biden need not be involved at all.
This was already done per executive decision.

All the stuff on the Kennedy assassinations.
All the stuff on 911.
All the stuff on binladen raid where they killed a body double.
And more.
Lots more.
All declassified while Trump was POTUS.

BUT stalled by agencies full of hired for life unelected bureaucrats.
And now we have to deal with the present administration blocking and stalling because they obviously have everything to lose from everything being declassified for the average American who deserves to know.

edit on 2-12-2023 by FarmerSimulation because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI




a reply to: Mahogani
In other words, he was at a rally, campaigning,


Exactly...protected speech.


Not the issue. The issue is whether or not his "speech" was compelled by his oath of office, The President of the United States. The courts says it wasn't. It was speech on behalf of candidate Donald Trump, the private individual, not the actions of The President of the United States executing his duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

In fact, Trump called for the suspension of the Constitution!



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI



Say trump was being political solely. Who can tell him he wasnt? No one. Congress does not reside above the potus, not does the judiciary.


Wrong. He was impeached by the House for his action that day and the days that led up to it. The only reason the Senate did not convict, according to Mitch McConnell, was because, at that moment he wasn't The President, he was a private citizen, and he alleged that Congress can't impeach a private citizen. Then, McConnel listed all the possible legal avenues that could be taken against Trump to hold Trump accountable for that day.



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI




a reply to: Mahogani
In other words, he was at a rally, campaigning,


Exactly...protected speech.


Not the issue. The issue is whether or not his "speech" was compelled by his oath of office, The President of the United States. The courts says it wasn't. It was speech on behalf of candidate Donald Trump, the private individual, not the actions of The President of the United States executing his duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

In fact, Trump called for the suspension of the Constitution!



How was Trump a "Candidate" when the election he lost was 2 months before?

He was The President "at the time" 😀



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Both Impeachments were 100% based on hearsay and indirect stories with no evidence and loaded with over emphasized assumptions.

The "evidence" presented at The Senate "Trial" was pretty much zilch.



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

No. He doesn't. The President isn't a king. The legislative and judicial branches are there to put a curb on the President's power.


The judicial is the lowest of the 3 branches of government.
The House CREATED the Judicial Branch.
The created can never be greater than the creator


What kind of nonsense is this?
LOL


The Constitution of the United States divides the federal government into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. This ensures that no individual or group will have too much power.

Legislative branch
Executive branch
Judicial branch
The judicial branch includes the Supreme Court and other federal courts.
It evaluates laws by:
Interpreting the meaning of laws
Applying laws to individual cases
Deciding if laws violate the Constitution

www.usa.gov...


The Constitution: What Does it Say? | National Archives

Article I assigns the responsibility for making laws to the Legislative Branch
Article II details the Executive Branch and the offices of the President
Article III establishes the Judicial Branch with the U.S. Supreme Court

www.archives.gov...



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: WingDingLuey




How was Trump a "Candidate" when the election he lost was 2 months before?


His "Stop the Steal" rally was a campaign rally. He thought the election wasn't over until Mike Pence counted the electoral votes. His rally meant to use the crowd's protests to encourage Pence and member of Congress to "Stop the Count" and undo the election. In fact, Trump never stopped campaigning.



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WingDingLuey




How was Trump a "Candidate" when the election he lost was 2 months before?


His "Stop the Steal" rally was a campaign rally. He thought the election wasn't over until Mike Pence counted the electoral votes. His rally meant to use the crowd's protests to encourage Pence and member of Congress to "Stop the Count" and undo the election. In fact, Trump never stopped campaigning.


How can they prove what he was thinking?

And "Campaigning" was over 2 months earlier. 😀

Next they'll want crystal ball and tarot card evidence 🤣🤣



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: WingDingLuey




How can they prove what he was thinking?


They don't have to. They just have to present his own words, that day and the days leading up to the Jan 6th events. People who have already been convicted of crimes they committed that day, testified that it was Trump's words that invited them, brought them there to the Capitol, and incited them to do what they did. And, when Trump told them to leave, they left.
edit on 4320232023k39America/Chicago2023-12-02T12:39:43-06:0012pm2023-12-02T12:39:43-06:00 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WingDingLuey




How can they prove what he was thinking?


They don't have to. They just have to present his own words, that day and the days leading up to the and 6th events. People who have already been convicted of crimes they committed that day, testified that it was Trump's words that invited them, brought them there to the Capitol, and incited them to do what they did. And, when Trump told them to leave, they left.


You and yours can surly provide some actual quotes that led to "convictions" right.

Even so, that does not prove intent, only hearsay and assumptive from 3rd parties.

Trump was not on trial at any J6 proceedings.

⚠️⚠️



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WingDingLuey




How was Trump a "Candidate" when the election he lost was 2 months before?


His "Stop the Steal" rally was a campaign rally. He thought the election wasn't over until Mike Pence counted the electoral votes. His rally meant to use the crowd's protests to encourage Pence and member of Congress to "Stop the Count" and undo the election. In fact, Trump never stopped campaigning.


How can they prove what he was thinking?

And "Campaigning" was over 2 months earlier. 😀

Next they'll want crystal ball and tarot card evidence 🤣🤣


You’re making up excuses.

Trump can’t keep his mouth shut.

His own words are used as proof of his actions.



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogani

Before the trial establishing he is culpable? What? That doesn't seem JUST.

Even freaking Newsom says Trump is going to get the nomination. Let him run or get someone worse.

This is an exercise in Futility.

His defense lawyer has the easiest points to make.

Keep in mind I recently compared Trump to Caligula.

Trump quotes:

"we won this election, and we won it by a landslide".

That's a legal opinion. False, but still his right to say.

"We will stop the steal."

#Notmypresident 2.0

By.... doing what? A protest outside? A bake sale? An even larger internet meme campaign?

"You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore."

Still his right to believe it. While he will never accept mail in votes were 3-1 democrats, because they more often listened to Fauci like he was their God, he's allowed to believe this and be bull-headed.

(Imo, if Trump turned Bush, Romney, and McConnell, chances are THEY influenced enough swing voters to switch. Totally plausible with those Biden endorsements.)

"We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen."

Give up what? Give up contesting the outcome? Give up protesting?

"You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can't let that happen."

This is the going to picked through harshly. No
where does he direct the crowd to engage in illegal activity. I'm pretty sure you can't prosecute subtext you make a circumstantial case exists.

Political rallies are vitriolic by nature, words like that are not uncommon. Uncommon would be him explicitly providing contextual clarification for the intent of everything said.

"if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."

Fight how? By demonstration? Seems like he can argue that's what he meant.

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Trump's defense is going to highlight this. , that's the closest thing to explicit instructions he gave.

"We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them."

He did not say, "We're going to march to the capital, lose our mob mind, and follow a few people's lead who decide to interpret my words like an inducement to criminality.

His command was to Peacefully make their voices heard.

People should WANT the ones that rushed first to take the fall. Those were the ones that twisted Trump's meaning and thought he had given them a command. They were behind the insurrection.

The alternative is charging Trump for vitriolic subtext. Charging Trump for words he never explicitly said. You have to make a counter conspiracy a legal argument. He might have been pissed, and even not cared that they stormed the capital, but you have to excuse the viral nature of people and treat Trump like the sole influencer of their actions.

Just give it up, so we can move on to this RATHER ALARMING anti-American global Geopolitical landscape, with the president people seem to want back.

If we wins I'll keep telling him to put down his phone and shut up. Like last time.

This country has better things to do then the umpteenth installment of this nepotistic witch hunt.

The same defense applies to those that hold him accountable for things that happened because of the riot.
edit on 2-12-2023 by Degradation33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: WingDingLuey




You and yours can surly provide some actual quotes that led to "convictions" right.

Even so, that does not prove intent, only hearsay and assumptive from 3rd parties.


What are you talking about? Prove that the intent of Trump's Stop the Steal rally was to campaign for Trump? Give me a break!

The court already ruled. I don't have to prove anything to you. Based on Trump's words and actions, not intent or thought, people can now legally move forward with individual lawsuits against Donald Trump, the private citizen.
edit on 5720232023k31America/Chicago2023-12-02T12:31:57-06:0012pm2023-12-02T12:31:57-06:00 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Ohhh sure, ok. Weirdly Trump has never mentioned he declassified docs regarding a body double for Bin Laden, etc. I'm sure he'll tell us all about that soon. Maybe when JFK Jr shows up.



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Ohhh sure, ok. Weirdly Trump has never mentioned he declassified docs regarding a body double for Bin Laden, etc. I'm sure he'll tell us all about that soon. Maybe when JFK Jr shows up.


Maybe when the public gets to see the declassified documents being held up from being widely dispersed.

Why do you think Trump would jump in front of disclosure?
Didn't you witness what the media did to Trump when he talked about Hillary Clinton's conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya and the birth certificate was fake?

Why did Hillary get a pass on that?
It was her CT.



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66

You are aware that the majority of J6 defendants spent little to no time in jail, right? The people that are getting multiple year long sentences are the ones that have been shown to be responsible for the violence that occurred that day.



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: WingDingLuey

I'll ask again, who paid for the rally?



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Pam Hemphill the "grandma" that the RW pundits like to use an example stated if she can find a lawyer she will sue. She likens what happened to her when she started going to Maga women events is like a "cult". They love bombed her, made her feel "a part of something big", then pushed all the theories of the President. She felt the President needed her to come on J6, and riled up the crowd at the rally. She fully accepts responsibility for her actions and feels guilt about falling for all the lies and gaslighting. She is currently vilified on social media by other "Patriots" for speaking out on her experience.

We heard this same "was accepted, made a part of something important" explanation from Daniel Rodriguez in his FBI interview. He's the guy who trained with other Maga on weapons and formations before they armed themselves and traveled to the rally. He is also the one who tased Fanone 3x in the neck.
edit on 2-12-2023 by frogs453 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2023 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
Pam Hemphill the "grandma" that the RW pundits like to use an example stated if she can find a lawyer she will sue. She likens what happened to her when she started going to Maga women events is like a "cult". They love bombed her, made her feel "a part of something big", then pushed all the theories of the President. She felt the President needed her to come on J6, and riled up the crowd at the rally. She fully accepts responsibility for her actions and feels guilt about falling for all the lies and gaslighting. She is currently vilified on social media by other "Patriots" for speaking out on her experience.


1) She fully accepts responsibility for her actions and feels guilt about falling for all the lies and gaslighting.

2) She likens what happened to her when she started going to Maga women events is like a "cult" and stated if she can find a lawyer she will sue.

One of these things is not like the other.
You’re going to have to pick one or the other.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join