What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.65: I'm Just Here For The Lincoln Project Ads

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's interesting to me is the timing of Powell/Flynn's pardon/work-that-wasn't-work. Powell was Flynn's attorney and allegedly there's evidence that she didn't want a pardon for Flynn yet, but then she starts working with Rudy, Trump sort-of endorses her with the above tweet, and a few days later Flynn is pardoned. So it's entirely possible that Powell never officially worked for Trump and maybe even took zero money from the campaign (which, let's be honest, no one but the Trumps took money), but got involved to assist her client, who Trump apparently loves.

There's kinda a lot going on in the world right now, but I hope some journalists look into this. I highly doubt there's anything criminal and I think it would be incredibly tough to prove even campaign finance violations, but it sure is dirty.
 
Swansong said:
What's interesting to me is the timing of Powell/Flynn's pardon/work-that-wasn't-work. Powell was Flynn's attorney and allegedly there's evidence that she didn't want a pardon for Flynn yet, but then she starts working with Rudy, Trump sort-of endorses her with the above tweet, and a few days later Flynn is pardoned. So it's entirely possible that Powell never officially worked for Trump and maybe even took zero money from the campaign (which, let's be honest, no one but the Trumps took money), but got involved to assist her client, who Trump apparently loves.

There's kinda a lot going on in the world right now, but I hope some journalists look into this. I highly doubt there's anything criminal and I think it would be incredibly tough to prove even campaign finance violations, but it sure is dirty.
Click to expand...

Don't overthink it. He always immediately distances himself from anyone who gets in trouble for his crimes. He demands total loyalty and gives none.

He is a sociopath and malevolent narcissist. Literally. That's what they do.

Signs-and-Traits-of-a-Sociopath.png


Narcissistic-Personality-Disorder-Symptoms.png
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Jenna Ellis is taking a plea deal lmfao
Click to expand...

Maybe you should pay your lawyers. Makes it less likely that they will turn on you. Imagine not being paid AND seeing jail time for what you did not getting paid.

Shocking that the funds that were to be raised for legal fees didn't actually go towards legal fees. Or even the campaign donations that were to go to legal fees didn't go to legal fees.
 
She’s crying, throwing dump under the bus and blaming lawyers above her

oh god into my veins

when will Rudy flip?
 
MichVandal said:
Maybe you should pay your lawyers. Makes it less likely that they will turn on you. Imagine not being paid AND seeing jail time for what you did not getting paid.

Shocking that the funds that were to be raised for legal fees didn't actually go towards legal fees. Or even the campaign donations that were to go to legal fees didn't go to legal fees.
Click to expand...

If you pay them you might have to admit they worked for you. The entire strategy appears to be that Trump didn't do anything wrong, his lawyers did it all. I wonder if it will work.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
If you pay them you might have to admit they worked for you. The entire strategy appears to be that Trump didn't do anything wrong, his lawyers did it all. I wonder if it will work.
Click to expand...

But that means any lawyer-client communications are open to the court and can be required to talk about. Seems a LOT more risky to not be a client and claim they are all lying vs. any communication with them can not be probed. Even though lawyers who break the law are supposed to not have legal protection, by saying they are not your lawyers just waives any right to challenge it.

Especially when you have multiple lawyers, who are theoretically bound to states by their bar standing, vs. a private citizen. Doesn't seem all that hard to determine who has more credibility.
 
MichVandal said:
But that means any lawyer-client communications are open to the court and can be required to talk about. Seems a LOT more risky to not be a client and claim they are all lying vs. any communication with them can not be probed. Even though lawyers who break the law are supposed to not have legal protection, by saying they are not your lawyers just waives any right to challenge it.

Especially when you have multiple lawyers, who are theoretically bound to states by their bar standing, vs. a private citizen. Doesn't seem all that hard to determine who has more credibility.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the crime-fraud exemption is pretty easy to use to pierce privilege when the lawyers themselves attest that they were criming.


And now we have three White House and Trump attorneys convicted of an insurrection. Which means, legally speaking, there was an actual insurrection. I mean, people with functioning cerebral cortexes knew that, but now it's formally recognized by the US Federal Court system.
 
Swansong said:
Yeah, the crime-fraud exemption is pretty easy to use to pierce privilege when the lawyers themselves attest that they were criming.


And now we have three White House and Trump attorneys convicted of an insurrection. Which means, legally speaking, there was an actual insurrection. I mean, people with functioning cerebral cortexes knew that, but now it's formally recognized by the US Federal Court system.
Click to expand...

It's kind of incredible that we have law breaking admission in a US Federal Court, but there are people who are trying to be Speaker of the House who think that the election was stolen and all of the interference that happened was the right thing to do.

When lawyers tell you that THEY broke the law when "fighting" for the election, maybe one should reconsider if all that was done was the right thing to do.

Ask for recounts- exactly what should have been done, so this is totally ok.
Go to court to present that fraud happened- again, this is exactly what should be done as it's the next step to show election problems. But going 0-fer because the "evidence" you presented wasn't real- well....

Then asking to find new votes or randomly throw out votes- not ok.
Demanding people to storm the capitol to interrupt the process- not ok.
And holding things up thinking that some other process can elect the guy who didn't win- not ok.
Especially when you accuse other states of doing wrong without any evidence that things were done wrong.

What sucks is that of the above list, only the people involved with the first three can be held accountable for breaking the law. The congress people who wanted to prevent the process from happening when they had zero evidence of anything wrong- the worst that can happen is that they lose an election. Being humiliated by their fellow republicans is pretty minor, all things considered.
 
Swansong said:
Yeah, the crime-fraud exemption is pretty easy to use to pierce privilege when the lawyers themselves attest that they were criming.


And now we have three White House and Trump attorneys convicted of an insurrection. Which means, legally speaking, there was an actual insurrection. I mean, people with functioning cerebral cortexes knew that, but now it's formally recognized by the US Federal Court system.
Click to expand...

Except they haven't been convicted of insurrection.

Waaaay out over your skis there, bud.

Funny though, all these people pleading guilty to what they say was just a disagreement over politics. Disagreements aren't illegal, are they?
 
rufus said:
Except they haven't been convicted of insurrection.

Waaaay out over your skis there, bud.

Funny though, all these people pleading guilty to what they say was just a disagreement over politics. Disagreements aren't illegal, are they?
Click to expand...

I misspoke, confusing this with one of the federal charge sets.

So the State of Georgia know has acknowledged that an insurrection occurred, and that we have three people pleading guilty to their part in it.
 
rufus said:
Except they haven't been convicted of insurrection.

Waaaay out over your skis there, bud.

Funny though, all these people pleading guilty to what they say was just a disagreement over politics. Disagreements aren't illegal, are they?
Click to expand...

Well, it sure is looking more and more likely that the attempted coup via changing the election in Georgia did happen and was a crime.

It's amusing they are calling it a disagreement over politics while they are admitting that they broke the law, and there is a judge who has to accept that admission of guilt of breaking a law.

As for the insurrection- many others have both admitted to doing that as well as being found guilty doing that. Or more correctly, the insurrection is the act of preventing the Congress of the United States of certifying a legal election as certified by each State of this Union.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top