Topic: Will Trump be indicted ? - page 14. (Read 3359 times)

Too right!
I knew if I bumped this thread, my deluded good buddy BADecker would set the record straight!
 

Yeah.  And Biden isn't really president.  He's on a movie set that looks like the White House.  Trump is the real president.  That's why there such a military presence on Bidens inauguration day. And Pelosi was arrested, along with the pope.  And Hillary was running a pedo sex ring out of a pizza shop.  And all the dems will be dead before the next election because they got the covid vaccine.  So you have nothing to worry about.

The vast majority of people in the US are angry with what the media did, and the Dems, in stealing the election from Trump, electronically and in other ways.

Except for all the federal judges and supreme court that have already ruled on the legitimacy of the committee and their subpoenas.  The committee is legitimate.  The subpoenas were lawful. 


The committee is legitimate.  The subpoenas are lawful.  Hopefully there will be laws passed because of it to prevent future sitting presidents that just lost an election from doing what Trump did - and is still doing.

If you're arguing that Congress shouldn't be able to conduct investigations, that's fine.  But, I doubt you had issues with the 911 investigation, or Benghazi, or Watergate  I think you really just don't like Democrats and only consume the Trumpiest media content.

Assuming that is true, which I don't think it is, any evidence gathered by the Jan 6th committee would likely be inadmissible and would likely be considered a "poisonous tree" that no evidence gathered based on any evidence from the Jan 6th committee would be admissible.

Congress has no oversight over private citizens, it is a co-equal branch of government with the executive, and there is not even a "pretend" legleslative purpose for the Jan 6th committee.

Actually there's a lot of direct evidence.

And the issue isn't really the destroyed property or injuries, it's the attempt by a sitting president to remain in power after being voted out of office.  

Most people that fell for the big lie are just more of Trumps victims.

On Monday evening the chairman of the January 6th committee, Bennie Thompson, told Punchbowl News' John Bresnahan that there would be no criminal referrals for Donald Trump or anyone else following their 'made-for-TV' hearings.

"That’s not our job. Our job is to look at Jan. 6. What caused it and make recommendations after that… We don’t have the authority," said Thompson, adding that the committee will publicly release all documents and materials - including depositions, as part of its public report.

Less than an hour later, RINO J6 committee member Liz Cheney tweeted that they have "not issued a conclusion regarding potential criminal referrals," and "will announce a decision on that at an appropriate time."

Then, Thompson walked back his comments even further through a spokesperson who said that "The Select Committee has no authority to prosecute individuals, but is rather tasked with developing the facts surrounding the January 6th riot at the Capitol…"

"Right now, the committee is focused on presenting our findings to the American people in our hearings and in our report," they continued. "Our investigation is ongoing and we will continue to gather all relevant information as we present facts, offer recommendations and, if warranted, make criminal referrals."

Thompson's initial comments and subsequent walkback are a far cry from J6 Committee member Adam Schiff (D-CA)'s claim that there is "credible evidence" to indict Trump.

...

It's all circumstantial evidence. Trump harmed nobody, nor did he ever order that anybody be harmed. Those people who harmed other people and destroyed property should be prosecuted for what they did... including the DC cops who murdered two, innocent protesters who had done no harm or damage.

The January 6 Select Committee says they have enough evidence
for the Justice Department to pursue a criminal indictment against
Donald Trump for seeking to steal the 2020 election, per AP.

You don't know that.

Yeah we know.  And Trump is an innocent victim.
And if the Clinton Foundation were indicted for exactly the same thing with identical evidence as the Trump Org case, you'd be arguing the exact opposite of what you are now.  You're unable to set politics aside and look at the facts clearly.

Ok, so I thought I'd start a new thread now that the inevitable has happened.
Trump not convicted ...what a surprise.
But now he's out of office and no longer immune from criminal prosecution, will he be indicted?
And held accountable for his actions during his presidency (among other things) in a criminal court, rather than an impeachment trial in the senate where we all knew
it was a fore gone conclusion that the spineless retrumplican toadies would vote for acquittal, no matter what evidence the house managers presented.

Both Hilary and Biden are clearly either running or have run (in the case of Clinton) bribery schemes, pretty much out in the open, and neither have faced any kind of prosecution.

No, your defense  of Trump is political.

No doubt if it were Hillary or Biden in the same situation you'd have the opposite stance.

The prosecution is very clearly political.

Looks like our dear old former impotus has dug his own grave....

[suspicious link removed]

You took a small piece of the big picture and framed it as if it were the whole picture in order to make Trump look like an innocent victim.

There has never been doubt that he lived there together with his wife for 7 years. Its an undisputed fact. After they divorced, Allen Weisselberg had his daughter-in-law evicted from the apartment. Regardless, your assertion is incorrect.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9625481/Trump-Organization-CFO-Allen-Weisselberg-EVICTED-ex-daughter-law-apartment.html

No, that's wholly incorrect. It doesn't matter where he was when the taxes were filed. Besides, we're not talking about a one-time thing, we're talking about 9 years of under-reported income.

What I said is true. I was clear that the amount was in reference to NY state taxes. NY courts do not have jurisdiction over alleged federal tax fraud.

The only reason why the federal tax amounts are listed is because of the shaky allegation of grand larceny via filing a tax return that causes a portion of tax withheld to be refunded. In addition to the problems I noted in my previous post with this allegation, I don't think NY courts have jurisdiction over federal tax laws and as such, would be unable to conclude that Weisselberg committed federal tax fraud that resulted in the alleged fraudulent tax refund. I also don't think there is any dispute the tax amounts that were refunded were actually withheld and paid to the federal government, so I think it is a stretch the alleged fraudulent tax refunds constitute grand larceny when Weisselberg could have simply had less money withheld from his pay over the year.

As noted in my previous post, the indictment offers no evidence that Weisselberg actually owes any of the NY city tax. I can't sign a lease in San Francisco, taking responsibility for the payments, saying that TwitchySeal is going to live in the apartment as his primary residence, then have the DA come after you for tax fraud if you never actually lived in the apartment sufficient to have to pay CA taxes. Even if you had signed the lease that says the apartment will be your primary residence, it would not create a tax liability unless you meet certain criteria. NY tax law appears to make it difficult to get out from having tax liability, however, to initially start having tax liability, it appears you need to live in NY (or NY city) for a certain number of days in a year.