(03-24-2023 07:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do you feel about the plan and it’s implications? After finally reading the text, I get Tanq’s disdain for it - a lawyer retained by POTUS wrote out a plan to literally ignore the will of the voters. Seems like a slippery slope we should be real concerned with.

I figure a lawyer was told to do some research and see if there was a way to make it work. So he did.

I think it's a bad idea and I'm glad it went no further.

And he asked Pence to do exactly that which was outlined. And tried to get various Senators to do that what was outlined.

He actually railed at Pence for not doing it at the infamous speech. He was promoting it, and acting on it. Actively implemented it.

Perhaps now you might understand the comment of one of the major White House attorneys (Hershmann) to Eastman, and a few others, that: "I'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life, get a great f'ing criminal defense lawyer—you're going to need it." On the record testimony at this point.

Eastman actually admitted the plan was illegal. Yet, Trump actively pressured Pence to move forward with it. Actively solicited Congressional help with it.

Pence has mentioned Trumps efforts to get him to go along with the plan severeal times, both in his book and in statements in interviews.

Sound like 'well he just had a lawyer's brief on it'? Sounds to me he made explicit efforts to implement it.

A sitting US President acting on a plan to arbitrarily remove electors, and either have them re-declared for him, or having the election called by fiat for him, of having everything in the process go up in smoke. Actively seeking a Constitutional crisis.

Again,

--- he asked, cajoled, Pence to do exactly that which was outlined;
--- and tried to get various Senators to do that what was outlined, some of which did;
--- he railed at Pence to the crowd for not doing it at the infamous speech (I can pull up that video if need be).....

Are you sure you want to stick with 'you are glad it went no further'?

Thank you for actually admitting (no matter how minimal) that it was a 'bad idea' and is 'only a plan after consulting a lawyer'.

Look at the three bullet points above and tell us that it was only a plan.

Okay, he talked to people, but nobody actually took any steps to implement anything. What crime is that?

Is it a completed crime? If so, what crime?
Is it an attempted crime?
Is it a conspiracy to commit a crime? If so who are the conspirators?

Is it unsavory? Yes. Is it criminal? I’m not sure.

Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime? Seven years of that and this is the best they have?

(03-24-2023 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Okay, he talked to people, but nobody actually took any steps to implement anything. What crime is that?

'OK, he talked to people'. Got it.

He tried to persuade the VP to declare him President by fiat, you mean. That is, by extra-legal means.

Did you re-read his speech to the crowd in light of the plan outlined in the Eastman memo?

Did you note his efforts to lobby US Senators and and Representatives to implement the steps in the Eastman memo?

Did you note the steps explicitly undertaken by Trump staff and Trump campaign to implement the alternate slates of electors, also denoted in the Eastman memo?

Are you aware of the effort to remove the acting Attorney General and replacing him with some third tier hack environmental lawyer who just happened to be at the 3 meetings discussing the Eastman memo steps in detail?

Are you aware of the issues brought forth in the California Federal (and subsequently held up on all appeals) where the Court pierced the attorney / client veil between Trump and Eastman on all counts? Here are some excerpts -- Ill hunt down the appellate decisions if wanted.

"The Court now determines whether any of the remaining eleven documents were in furtherance of the two crimes the Court found evidence of above, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States by attempting to persuade Vice President Pence to reject or delay electoral votes on January 6, 2021."

"Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory."

"The memo recommended that Vice President Pence reject electors from contested states on January 6. This may have been the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action. The draft memo pushed a strategy that knowingly violated the Electoral Count Act, and Dr. Eastman’s later memos closely track its analysis and proposal. The memo is both intimately related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021."

The record is clear on the repeated and continued attempts to cajole Pence to categorically employ a use of fiat power in the 1/6 Joint Session. Some directly from Pence himself.

The record is clear that Trump underlings actively assisted the formation of alternate slates of electors.

All of which it is clear that Eastman himself told Trump and people in the meetings that this was illegal, and then (paraphrase) 'make it go to the Supreme Court'.

Seems to go just a tad somewhat beyond your "Okay, he talked to people, but nobody actually took any steps to implement anything".

#s, in light of your questions, it is fairly obvious that you are pretty much completely in dark on the Eastman stuff. I suggest you take a gander at it in detail based on your questions. The answers are there in the records of testimony.

(03-24-2023 01:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Okay, he talked to people, but nobody actually took any steps to implement anything. What crime is that?

'OK, he talked to people'. Got it.

He tried to persuade the VP to declare him President by fiat, you mean. That is, by extra-legal means.

Did you re-read his speech to the crowd in light of the plan outlined in the Eastman memo?

Did you note his efforts to lobby US Senators and and Representatives to implement the steps in the Eastman memo?

Did you note the steps explicitly undertaken by Trump staff and Trump campaign to implement the alternate slates of electors, also denoted in the Eastman memo?

Are you aware of the effort to remove the acting Attorney General and replacing him with some third tier hack environmental lawyer who just happened to be at the 3 meetings discussing the Eastman memo steps in detail?

Are you aware of the issues brought forth in the California Federal (and subsequently held up on all appeals) where the Court pierced the attorney / client veil between Trump and Eastman on all counts? Here are some excerpts -- Ill hunt down the appellate decisions if wanted.

"The Court now determines whether any of the remaining eleven documents were in furtherance of the two crimes the Court found evidence of above, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States by attempting to persuade Vice President Pence to reject or delay electoral votes on January 6, 2021."

"Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory."

"The memo recommended that Vice President Pence reject electors from contested states on January 6. This may have been the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action. The draft memo pushed a strategy that knowingly violated the Electoral Count Act, and Dr. Eastman’s later memos closely track its analysis and proposal. The memo is both intimately related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021."

The record is clear on the repeated and continued attempts to cajole Pence to categorically employ a use of fiat power in the 1/6 Joint Session. Some directly from Pence himself.

The record is clear that Trump underlings actively assisted the formation of alternate slates of electors.

All of which it is clear that Eastman himself told Trump and people in the meetings that this was illegal, and then (paraphrase) 'make it go to the Supreme Court'.

Seems to go just a tad somewhat beyond your "Okay, he talked to people, but nobody actually took any steps to implement anything".

Who took what steps to implement?

You need more of a causal connection than I see here.

Lay me out the elements of a crime and the evidence that proves up those elements.

(03-24-2023 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  #s, in light of your questions, it is fairly obvious that you are pretty much completely in dark on the Eastman stuff. I suggest you take a gander at it in detail based on your questions. The answers are there in the records of testimony.

No I am not in the dark on anything. I just don’t see it rising to the level that you do.

Lay me out the elements of a crime and then indicate the evidence proving those elements.

Former Vice prezidon't Biden* not only tried to but actually did persuade the Ukrainian government to pay off his son and give to his slush fund millions of dollars. Former Vice prezidon't Biden* not only tried but actually did persuade Communist China Party to kick millions of dollars to his son's, his relatives and his own slush funds Clinton "foundation" not only tried to but did persuade millions in kickbacks to their anti-American slush funds. "Dr." Fauci not only tried to, but did persuade gain-of function research in the Wuhan Lab in collaboration with the Communist Chinese Party and not only tried to but did persuade millions of US dollars to be illegally used to fund Communist Chinese Party activities at these labs. But, don't let actual crimes against America stop anyone in this regime from almost completely ignoring them and sweeping them under the rug because "orange man bad" is sooo much more important....LOLZ! Yeah, that's A-OK.

(03-24-2023 01:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 01:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Okay, he talked to people, but nobody actually took any steps to implement anything. What crime is that?

'OK, he talked to people'. Got it.

He tried to persuade the VP to declare him President by fiat, you mean. That is, by extra-legal means.

Did you re-read his speech to the crowd in light of the plan outlined in the Eastman memo?

Did you note his efforts to lobby US Senators and and Representatives to implement the steps in the Eastman memo?

Did you note the steps explicitly undertaken by Trump staff and Trump campaign to implement the alternate slates of electors, also denoted in the Eastman memo?

Are you aware of the effort to remove the acting Attorney General and replacing him with some third tier hack environmental lawyer who just happened to be at the 3 meetings discussing the Eastman memo steps in detail?

Are you aware of the issues brought forth in the California Federal (and subsequently held up on all appeals) where the Court pierced the attorney / client veil between Trump and Eastman on all counts? Here are some excerpts -- Ill hunt down the appellate decisions if wanted.

"The Court now determines whether any of the remaining eleven documents were in furtherance of the two crimes the Court found evidence of above, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States by attempting to persuade Vice President Pence to reject or delay electoral votes on January 6, 2021."

"Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory."

"The memo recommended that Vice President Pence reject electors from contested states on January 6. This may have been the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action. The draft memo pushed a strategy that knowingly violated the Electoral Count Act, and Dr. Eastman’s later memos closely track its analysis and proposal. The memo is both intimately related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021."

The record is clear on the repeated and continued attempts to cajole Pence to categorically employ a use of fiat power in the 1/6 Joint Session. Some directly from Pence himself.

The record is clear that Trump underlings actively assisted the formation of alternate slates of electors.

All of which it is clear that Eastman himself told Trump and people in the meetings that this was illegal, and then (paraphrase) 'make it go to the Supreme Court'.

Seems to go just a tad somewhat beyond your "Okay, he talked to people, but nobody actually took any steps to implement anything".

Who took what steps to implement?

You need more of a causal connection than I see here.

Answered above #s. I see you are going into the attorney mode steadfast 'deny everything at all cost mode' that are the hallmarks of good attorney.

Like you did when you asked me did I have first hand knowledge of exactly what was in the boxes taken from MAL.

The answers you seek are in the record, if you are actually interested in knowing them. As opposed to deny and delay at all costs.

(03-24-2023 01:20 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Former Vice prezidon't Biden* not only tried to but actually did persuade the Ukrainian government to pay off his son and give to his slush fund millions of dollars. Former Vice prezidon't Biden* not only tried but actually did persuade Communist China Party to kick millions of dollars to his son's, his relatives and his own slush funds Clinton "foundation" not only tried to but did persuade millions in kickbacks to their anti-American slush funds. "Dr." Fauci not only tried to, but did persuade gain-of function research in the Wuhan Lab in collaboration with the Communist Chinese Party and not only tried to but did persuade millions of US dollars to be illegally used to fund Communist Chinese Party activities at these labs. But, don't let actual crimes against America stop anyone in this regime from almost completely ignoring them and sweeping them under the rug because "orange man bad" is sooo much more important....LOLZ! Yeah, that's A-OK.

Who said "thats A-OK" Good Owl? Please stop with the stupid schlock rhetoric.

Im not even going into the sloppy broad 'maybe real, maybe not real' avenue that permeates you uni-paragraph smorgasbord.

(03-24-2023 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  #s, in light of your questions, it is fairly obvious that you are pretty much completely in dark on the Eastman stuff. I suggest you take a gander at it in detail based on your questions. The answers are there in the records of testimony.

No I am not in the dark on anything. I just don’t see it rising to the level that you do.

Lay me out the elements of a crime and then indicate the evidence proving those elements.

#s, I will remind you that you have taken me to task for not fully believing your "The FBI/ CIA/ Dark State" is all behind every bad thing that is aimed at Donny -- which to me seems predicated on much the same level of evidence that you espouse above.

You dont believe that the Eastman issue is anything more than a blip and demand proof positive beyond every doubt to the contrary.

But you take me to task for the last few months for not joining you in your anti- Deep State crusade -- and that is Deep state conspiracy to take out DJT seems to me to be based on speciously less evidence than you say underlies the Eastman stuff (not to mention all the other deep rooted defenses of DJT) which you now demand in all the glory of defense attorney at their finest.

Even when I am on the record that Mueller was a sham, Steele dossier was a set up, FISA lie should be prosecuted -- but horrors when a President takes stuff that isnt his, lies continuously about it to the rightful owner of the documents, obstructs justice to keep it, and I dont think it is part of the conspiracy.

And horrors when I have the temerity to say 'there is a basis in the law to pursue Trump for the hush money issue'.

Seems to me I have both defended Trump, and have noted where he has done wrong. And I have objectively said that there is a basis to pursue Trump in the hush money stuff.

With all respect, your responses to every single issue about Trump is steadfast defense of anything and everything. And steadfast attack on the legal system at the Federal level, no matter what. In defense, there may *be* a basis for the position you hold on the DOJ/ FBI thing -- but interestingly as well the proof of that is far less than what you dig in your heels as 'casual connection' when it comes to the Eastman stuff. But still, you take me to task for not joining you in that insta-indictment of DOJ.

You note your disappointment with my bias, but I seem to be the one here that can be anti-Trump where the record shows, Trump-defender when the record indicates that, and Trump agnostic (ie. the Stormy Daniels, where I really dont have an opinion, but yet where I actually can acknowledge that the issue isnt 'not a crime' as you projected). I cant see anything from your quarter that is anything but 'deny Trump wrong doing' at full force, *and* 'make excuses for Trump because of Mueller' stuff. Please tell me if I am incorrect in that last statement -- I will gladly retract, *and* 'mea culpa', if incorrect.

Yet I am the one taken to task for a 'bias' by some.

I find that interesting.

What is the crime? What are the requisite elements of that crime? Where is the evidence to prove them?

For one -- try Judge Carter's rundown in his series of orders re: Eastman. Or not.

So, those facts are there if you want if you care to look. If not, have fun typing your 'prove it to me beyond a preponderance right here and now' stuff that seems to be the stock answer to anything 'not in favor of Trump'.

If thats the tact you want, prove to me the crime, the elements, and all the evidence to prove your contstant assertion of the giant country-wide Deep State/ FBI/ Garland/ DOJ conspiracy that you raise so prominently in your castigation of all that is negative of Trump.

You know, the one *you* mention ad infinitum with apparently your zero bias....

Goose, gander.

To help you out #s:

================

18 U.S.C. § 1512©(2), which criminalizes obstruction or attempted obstruction of an official proceeding. It requires
three elements: (1) the person obstructed, influenced or impeded, or attempted to obstruct, influence or impede (2) an official proceeding of the United States, and (3) did so corruptly.

A. Obstruction

Section 1512©(2) requires that the obstructive conduct have a “nexus . . . to a specific official proceeding” that was “either pending or was reasonably foreseeable to [the person] when he engaged in the conduct.” President Trump attempted to obstruct an official proceeding by launching a pressure campaign to convince Vice President Pence to disrupt the Joint Session on January 6.

President Trump facilitated two meetings in the days before January 6 that were explicitly tied to persuading Vice President Pence to disrupt the Joint Session of Congress. On January 4, President Trump and Dr. Eastman hosted a meeting in the Oval Office with Vice President Pence, the Vice President’s counsel Greg Jacob, and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff Marc Short. At that meeting, Dr. Eastman presented his plan to Vice President Pence, focusing on either rejecting electors or delaying the count. When Vice President Pence was unpersuaded, President Trump sent Dr. Eastman to review the plan in depth with the Vice President’s counsel on January 5. Vice President Pence’s counsel interpreted Dr. Eastman’s presentation as being on behalf of the President.

On the morning of January 6, President Trump made several last-minute “revised appeal[s] to the Vice President” to pressure him into carrying out the plan. At 1:00 am, President Trump tweeted: “If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency . . . Mike can send it back!” At 8:17 am, President Trump tweeted: “All Mike
Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!” Shortly after, President Trump rang Vice President Pence and once again urged him “to make the call” and enact the plan.

Just before the Joint Session of Congress began, President Trump gave a speech to a large crowd on the Ellipse in which he warned, “[a]nd Mike Pence, I hope you’re going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you’re not, I’m going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now.” President Trump ended his speech by galvanizing the crowd to join him in enacting the plan: “[L]et’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue” to give Vice President Pence and Congress “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”

Together, these actions more likely than not constitute attempts to obstruct an official proceeding for the first element.

B). Official proceeding
Do we really need to analyze and prove the Joint Session of Congress is an 'official proceeding'? Or will you require a deep down, proof beyond a reasonable doubt on that?

The United States Code defines “official proceeding” to include “a proceeding before the Congress.” If more is needed for your satisfaction, please indicate.

C. Corrupt Intent
A person violates § 1512© when they obstruct an official proceeding with a corrupt mindset. The Ninth Circuit has not defined “corruptly” for purposes of this statute. However, the court has made clear that the threshold for acting “corruptly” is lower than “consciousness of wrongdoing,” meaning a person does not need to know their actions are wrong to break the law. Because President Trump likely knew that the plan to disrupt the electoral count was wrongful, his mindset exceeds the threshold for acting “corruptly” under § 1512©.

President Trump and Dr. Eastman justified the plan with allegations of election fraud—but President Trump likely knew the justification was baseless, and therefore that the entire plan was unlawful. Although Dr. Eastman argues that President Trump was advised several state elections were fraudulent, there has been evidence introduced that points to numerous executive branch officials who publicly stated and privately stressed to President Trump that there was no
evidence of fraud. By early January, more than sixty courts dismissed cases alleging fraud due to lack of standing or lack of evidence, noting that they made “strained legal argument without merit and speculative accusations” and that “there is no evidence to support accusations of voter fraud.” President Trump’s repeated pleas for Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger clearly demonstrate that his justification was not to investigate fraud, but to win the election: “So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.” Taken together, this evidence demonstrates that President Trump likely knew the electoral count plan had no factual justification.

The plan not only lacked factual basis but also legal justification. Dr. Eastman’s memo noted that the plan was “BOLD, Certainly.” The memo declared Dr. Eastman’s intent to step outside the bounds of normal legal practice: “we’re no longer playing by Queensbury Rules.” In addition, Vice President Pence “very consistent[ly]” made clear to President Trump that the plan was unlawful, refusing “many times” to unilaterally reject electors or return them to the states. In the meeting in the Oval Office two days before January 6, Vice President Pence stressed his “immediate instinct [] that there is no way that one person could be entrusted by the Framers to exercise that authority.”

The illegality of the plan was obvious. Our nation was founded on the peaceful transition of power, epitomized by George Washington laying down his sword to make way for democratic elections. Ignoring this history, President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election. As Vice President Pence stated, “no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority.” Every American—and certainly the President of the United States—knows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed. With a plan this “BOLD,” President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle.

============

Shall I go on with the "conspiracy to defraud the United States" charge? 18 U.S.C. § 371 for reference...

Is Judge Carter, in this opinion, and the three following opinions and orders relating to other tranches of documents a ringleader the 'get Trump conspiracy'?

Is the appellate circuit that reviewed this analysis (and three other trips regarding differing sets of documents) all part of a massive conspiracy to "get Donald Trump"?

Is a plan to subvert the mechanism of certification in a total manner and declare an alternate winner by installation by fiat a 'mere process crime'?

If a plan to usurp the the Constitutional process to certify the election is a mere 'process crime', what *would* rise to a 'real crime' in your view?

As an added note, what word would you use to describe an activity designed to set the leadership of a sovereign country simply by fiat and by extralegal means?

(03-24-2023 05:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  18 U.S.C. § 1512©(2), which criminalizes obstruction or attempted obstruction of an official proceeding. It requires three elements: (1) the person obstructed, influenced or impeded, or attempted to obstruct, influence or impede (2) an official proceeding of the United States, and (3) did so corruptly.

I'll grant you (2).

I don't think he actually obstructed, and I'm not sure that talking to people actually constitutes an attempt to obstruct. I tend to look more for obvert actions than words.

As for (3), I'm not sure. Obviously, if you take the position that everything DJT does is corrupt, then you get there easily. If he had a reasonable belief that he was correct in his assertions regarding election fraud, I don't think you can get there. I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

The one place that I think you could have him is if you could 1) establish that the entry into the capitol was an armed insurrection aimed at obstructing the business of congress, and 2) establish a causal connection between DJT's speech and that event. If, on the other hand, that event is viewed as a mostly peaceful protest that got a bit out of hand on the fringes, I'm not sure you can make that work.

At this point, I have a very low level of trust in our criminal justice system, at least the federal one at the top end. I am very well aware that you have a much higher level of trust and confidence in it than I do. That causes me to take with a very large grain of salt things that you appear to see as proved conclusively. I don't have to prove crimes to conclude that I don't trust it. When I look at the consequences to Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton for violations far more serious than anything DJT has done, then I know that at that level justice is playing with somebody's thumb on the scale.

Im interested that Trump and Eastman telling the VP to use his power to illegally thwart the ECA isnt an attempt to obstruct Congress.

If I ask the controller of a company to divert 5k to me personally, that is an actual solicitation at that crime. Notwithstanding it was 'only words'. And it actually is a chargeable attempt -- see below.

In an attempt, there has to be a substantial step, beyond mere preparation. The completed action of the crime is 'getting Mike Pence to declare a winner by fiat', or 'getting the controller to divert 5k to me.'

The preparation is, in this case, making the Eastman plan, and hashing it out. The substantial step in furthering the plan appears to actually asking Mike Pence to complete and execute the illegal plan.

I would also say tweeting that Mike Pence is going to do it for us, isnt a preparation of the plan. It too is a step in furtherance of the plan. As are the multiple sessions of trying to cajole Mike Pence to commit the action.

I think that when you actually ask yourself what the exact act of the offense is, asking Mike Pence to appoint the President by fiat, or to throw the Joint Session into disarray, is clearly the attempt to complete that offense. And the charging statute clearly includes the attempt as the offence.

I dont think your 'mere words' really holds water when you exam exactly *what* the preparation is -- and that one seems obvious. The preparation phase is the creation of the plan. I think it hard to label getting Mike Pence to do that action (which is the offense) as merely preparation.

But I assume we are in separate corners on this, and I dont think you will necessarily budge with even that thought process above.

(03-24-2023 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im interested that Trump and Eastman telling the VP to use his power to illegally thwart the ECA isnt an attempt to obstruct Congress.
If I ask the controller of a company to divert 5k to me personally, that is an actual solicitation at that crime. Notwithstanding it was 'only words'.
In an attempt, there has to be a substantial step, beyond mere preparation. The action of the crime is 'getting Mike Pence to declare a winner by fiat'.
The preparation is, in this case, making the plan, and hashing it out. The substantial step in furthering the plan appears to actually asking Mike Pence to commit the illegal plan.
I would say tweeting that Mike Pence is going to do it for us, isn't a preparation of the plan. It too is a step in furtherance of the plan. As are the multiple sessions of trying to cajole Mike Pence to commit the action.
I don't think your 'mere words' really holds water when you exam exactly *what* the preparation is -- and that one seems obvious. The preparation phase is the creation of the plan. I think it hard to label getting Mike Pence to do that action (which is the offense) as merely preparation.

As I said, if you can establish that for those folks to enter the capitol was actually a violent insurrection aimed at shutting down government, and can further establish a causal connection to DJT's remarks to the crowd, then I think you may have him. This, I'm not sure it goes far enough.

Short of that, I'm just not sure. What I am fairly certain of is that DJT will not get a fair day in court on this, or anything else. He pissed off the deep state, and they are determined to make im pay.

(03-24-2023 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im interested that Trump and Eastman telling the VP to use his power to illegally thwart the ECA isnt an attempt to obstruct Congress.
If I ask the controller of a company to divert 5k to me personally, that is an actual solicitation at that crime. Notwithstanding it was 'only words'.
In an attempt, there has to be a substantial step, beyond mere preparation. The action of the crime is 'getting Mike Pence to declare a winner by fiat'.
The preparation is, in this case, making the plan, and hashing it out. The substantial step in furthering the plan appears to actually asking Mike Pence to commit the illegal plan.
I would say tweeting that Mike Pence is going to do it for us, isn't a preparation of the plan. It too is a step in furtherance of the plan. As are the multiple sessions of trying to cajole Mike Pence to commit the action.
I don't think your 'mere words' really holds water when you exam exactly *what* the preparation is -- and that one seems obvious. The preparation phase is the creation of the plan. I think it hard to label getting Mike Pence to do that action (which is the offense) as merely preparation.

As I said, if you can establish that for those folks to enter the capitol was actually a violent insurrection aimed at shutting down government, and can further establish a causal connection to DJT's remarks to the crowd, then I think you may have him. This, I'm not sure it goes far enough.

Short of that, I'm just not sure. What I am fairly certain of is that DJT will not get a fair day in court on this, or anything else. He pissed off the deep state, and they are determined to make im pay.

My comments have nothing to do with the crowd. They deal with the Eastman plan issue. The obstruction of Congress and the Conspiracy to defraud Congress charges. They have nothing to do with urging an armed insurrection that you seemingly are focused on.

Nice shuffle off subject, but glaringly obvious.

(03-24-2023 07:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im interested that Trump and Eastman telling the VP to use his power to illegally thwart the ECA isnt an attempt to obstruct Congress.
If I ask the controller of a company to divert 5k to me personally, that is an actual solicitation at that crime. Notwithstanding it was 'only words'.
In an attempt, there has to be a substantial step, beyond mere preparation. The action of the crime is 'getting Mike Pence to declare a winner by fiat'.
The preparation is, in this case, making the plan, and hashing it out. The substantial step in furthering the plan appears to actually asking Mike Pence to commit the illegal plan.
I would say tweeting that Mike Pence is going to do it for us, isn't a preparation of the plan. It too is a step in furtherance of the plan. As are the multiple sessions of trying to cajole Mike Pence to commit the action.
I don't think your 'mere words' really holds water when you exam exactly *what* the preparation is -- and that one seems obvious. The preparation phase is the creation of the plan. I think it hard to label getting Mike Pence to do that action (which is the offense) as merely preparation.

As I said, if you can establish that for those folks to enter the capitol was actually a violent insurrection aimed at shutting down government, and can further establish a causal connection to DJT's remarks to the crowd, then I think you may have him. This, I'm not sure it goes far enough.
Short of that, I'm just not sure. What I am fairly certain of is that DJT will not get a fair day in court on this, or anything else. He pissed off the deep state, and they are determined to make im pay.

My comments have nothing to do with the crowd. They deal with the Eastman plan issue.
Nice shuffle off subject, but glaringly obvious.

Not shuffling off at all. I'm just saying where I think there might be a case.

I'm not quite sure how anything that Eastman did constitutes a criminal violation by DJT. DJT may well be convicted. I certainly don't expect him to get a fair trial on any of this.

(03-24-2023 08:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 07:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2023 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im interested that Trump and Eastman telling the VP to use his power to illegally thwart the ECA isnt an attempt to obstruct Congress.
If I ask the controller of a company to divert 5k to me personally, that is an actual solicitation at that crime. Notwithstanding it was 'only words'.
In an attempt, there has to be a substantial step, beyond mere preparation. The action of the crime is 'getting Mike Pence to declare a winner by fiat'.
The preparation is, in this case, making the plan, and hashing it out. The substantial step in furthering the plan appears to actually asking Mike Pence to commit the illegal plan.
I would say tweeting that Mike Pence is going to do it for us, isn't a preparation of the plan. It too is a step in furtherance of the plan. As are the multiple sessions of trying to cajole Mike Pence to commit the action.
I don't think your 'mere words' really holds water when you exam exactly *what* the preparation is -- and that one seems obvious. The preparation phase is the creation of the plan. I think it hard to label getting Mike Pence to do that action (which is the offense) as merely preparation.

As I said, if you can establish that for those folks to enter the capitol was actually a violent insurrection aimed at shutting down government, and can further establish a causal connection to DJT's remarks to the crowd, then I think you may have him. This, I'm not sure it goes far enough.
Short of that, I'm just not sure. What I am fairly certain of is that DJT will not get a fair day in court on this, or anything else. He pissed off the deep state, and they are determined to make im pay.

My comments have nothing to do with the crowd. They deal with the Eastman plan issue.
Nice shuffle off subject, but glaringly obvious.

Not shuffling off at all. I'm just saying where I think there might be a case.

I'm not quite sure how anything that Eastman did constitutes a criminal violation by DJT. DJT may well be convicted. I certainly don't expect him to get a fair trial on any of this.

DJTs actions with the plan seem to fit the elements fairly well in the obstruction of an official hearing issue, at least to the attempt portion. As they do with the Conspiracy to defraud Congress.

You short shrift them with the statement of 'nothing but words' -- with not a lot of attention to what the crime might be exactly. And that is fine.

The completed crime is getting Pence to illegally act in the proceeding -- in accordance with the Eastman stuff. The attempt portion is satisified by, well, attempting to get Pence to do that.

Those meetings with Pence were just that -- they specifically asked him to do that as spelled out in memo.

Pshaw --- mere words. Next.

Wash, Rinse. repeat with Conspiracy to defraud Congress.

I guess actively engaging the person sitting in charge of a Session of Congress to illegally commit a selection of President by fiat isnt anything near a crime in your book. Sounds fun.

So yes, I view your pushout of the only crime that Trump should have an issue with is by leading the armed crowd into the Capitol and engaging in armed violence to be an attempt to shuffle off to that weird as heck view of the only crime possible.

First, I am actually rooting for Trump to get convicted of something, and the sooner the better. That is about the only way I can see republicans winning in 2024. If Trump is the nominee I don't think he can get 270 EVs, and if he is not the nominee I think he will mount a third party campaign that will make it impossible for whoever is the republican nominee to win.

Second, for that reason I don't think the left really wants to convict him of anything. They just want to harass him with indictments, which also muddy the water badly for any election planning by republicans. I don't think law enforcement is playing without substantial Orange Man Bad bias. So I think they will just keep trying to indict him on trumped-up (sorry about the pun) charges.