President Trump Indicted on Federal Charges

[jwamplerusa]

This is starting to have a strong stench of the Stalin show trials. A REALLY strong stench.

The J6 protestors, and who and who was not prosecuted, along with the charges was just the precursor. Now the Communists (AKA Democrats) are going directly after their opposition. Is the next step Polonium?

The first amendment, and the ability of constitutionalist to speak and protest is being restricted and destroyed. The Communists are going after the second Amendment hard as evidenced by the table top FFLs being shut down.

The judiciary appears compromised, or unable and or unwilling to engage and shut down unconstitutional behavior.

With the soapbox compromised, The ballot box increasingly looking like it has been compromised, the judiciary increasingly appearing to be compromised I fear the Communists are making a concerted effort to drive some group to the 4th box. My gut tells me that those who desire total control believe if they can just get a group to go to the fourth box they can justify martial law and the final subjugation and destruction of the United States of America.

I fear for my children.

 

[Route 45]

Can you imagine?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Can you imagine?

Frankly Im surprised that clown even knows those names. But the fact that he doesnt know the whole story makes sense. (I didnt watch)

 

[HoosierLife]

Yeah I was just about to post this article about Trump’s attorney making these same claims.

First time? A little fishy.

Second time? Possibly coordinated.

Four times in the last year? This is getting stupid.

Biggest problem is that only a quarter of the population will even hear about stuff like this and even less will care.

Watch -- Trump Attorney: 'Not a Coincidence' that Charges Filed

Former Trump attorney Alina Habba told reporters that it was "not a coincidence" that charges have been filed following negative news about Joe Biden.

www.breitbart.com

 

[jamil]

so what are they gonna do once they run out of indictments?

The only thing limiting the number of indictments is how many trees there are to make the paper to print them on.

 

[BugI02]

Can you imagine?

George III could not be reached for comment

 

[Ingomike]

This seems blatantly unconstitutional and will never survive a trip to SCOTUS.

But as Dershowitz explained, Jack Smith was in trouble there, that this was a “blatant lie.”

But he describes the speech in the indictment, and deliberately and willfully leaves out the keywords of the speech, namely that the president told his people to protest peacefully and patriotically. By leaving out those words, it’s a lie by omission.

In an interview with Larry Kudlow, Dershowitz also pointed out how it could be dangerous to the Sixth Amendment as well.

[T]his is a very, very dangerous indictment, dangerous to the First Amendment and also dangerous to the Sixth Amendment because it directly goes after Trump’s lawyers, names them as unindicted coconspirators without giving their names, but basically says they’re criminals for giving him advice on how to challenge the election.”

Dershowitz Points to Big 'Lie' in Jack Smith's Indictment Against Trump

We're way down that slippery slope with this indictment.

redstate.com

 

[Ingomike]

Can Trump get a fair trial in DC?

How Can Trump Get a Fair Trial in a City That Voted 92% for His Opponent?

Judge Chutkan is not likely to change the trial's venue, although an appeals court may feel differently. Nevertheless, the left's sanguinity about rabidly partisan

pjmedia.com

 

[Ingomike]

The Biden DOJ trying to take first amendment rights away. Spend years leaking crap in the court of public opinion but now the opposition cannot say their opinions or release actual information on to the public.

Biden DOJ Attempts to Muzzle Trump Over His 'Threatening' Social Media Posts

townhall.com

 

[Cameramonkey]

The Biden DOJ trying to take first amendment rights away. Spend years leaking crap in the court of public opinion but now the opposition cannot say their opinions or release actual information on to the public.

Biden DOJ Attempts to Muzzle Trump Over His 'Threatening' Social Media Posts

townhall.com

And also claim that his statements like “if you go after me, I’ll come after you.“ That he means physical violence so therefore, he must be muzzled because they are threats.

 

[ghitch75]

is free speech breaking the law????

 

[DoggyDaddy]

is free speech breaking the law????

No.

 

[Cameramonkey]

is free speech breaking the law????

Only when its the wrong speech.

 

[KLB]

And also claim that his statements like “if you go after me, I’ll come after you.“ That he means physical violence so therefore, he must be muzzled because they are threats.

Another example of Trump sticking his foot in his mouth.

Does a threat have to be one of violence? Would political retribution count?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Another example of Trump sticking his foot in his mouth.

Does a threat have to be one of violence? Would political retribution count?

Apparently not when it comes from the Democrats.

 

[Expat]

There is no down side for any of this. Why not do it? What’s going to happen? A few people on the internet complain? A couple people may even stamp their feet? Some higher court will say “you shouldn’t have done that” in a couple of years?

 

[BugI02]

Another example of Trump sticking his foot in his mouth.

Does a threat have to be one of violence? Would political retribution count?

Now do Schumer's threat to Trump about the perils of taking on the security establishment ('six ways to Sunday', remember?) and his threat to two SCOTUS justices ('reap the whirlwind', remember?)

Weren't those 'threats' under this RoE? Anything happen to Schumer?

This two tier justice system; do you want vigilantism? Because that's how you get vigilantism

 

[BugI02]

There is no down side for any of this. Why not do it? What’s going to happen? A few people on the internet complain? A couple people may even stamp their feet? Some higher court will say “you shouldn’t have done that” in a couple of years?

In 'All sides carefully considered' world, I think we're supposed to take no action because the boot on our neck might stamp down even harder if we do

 

[KLB]

Now do Schumer's threat to Trump about the perils of taking on the security establishment ('six ways to Sunday', remember?) and his threat to two SCOTUS justices ('reap the whirlwind', remember?)

Weren't those 'threats' under this RoE? Anything happen to Schumer?

This two tier justice system; do you want vigilantism? Because that's how you get vigilantism

You don't honestly think I am supporting what that idiot says.

One big difference though. Dumba** wasn't under indictment, Trump is. It doesn't take a genius to see the difference there.

 

[red_zr24x4]

Threats a threat
I'm not under indictment, but if I said I was going to find where you live and shoot you it doesn't count right?