Kansas Crimson

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 7:52 am Just a reminder to our conspiracy kooks here, the vast majority of evidence and testimony that will be used by Jack Smith will be from Trump, his phone and his fellow Republicans. This isn't a bunch of Dems trying to pin nonsense to him.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:02 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 7:52 am Just a reminder to our conspiracy kooks here, the vast majority of evidence and testimony that will be used by Jack Smith will be from Trump, his phone and his fellow Republicans. This isn't a bunch of Dems trying to pin nonsense to him.

RINOs, the lot of ‘em. WEF plants. Double agents.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:07 am also, a reminder that this investigation is more than 2 years old, and the evidence is coming out now ONLY because of the SCOTUS’ rulings in the late spring and early summer

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:07 am also, a reminder that this investigation is more than 2 years old, and the evidence is coming out now ONLY because of the SCOTUS’ rulings in the late spring and early summer

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 7:52 am Just a reminder to our conspiracy kooks here, the vast majority of evidence and testimony that will be used by Jack Smith will be from Trump, his phone and his fellow Republicans. This isn't a bunch of Dems trying to pin nonsense to him.

also, a reminder that this investigation is more than 2 years old, and the evidence is coming out now ONLY because of the SCOTUS’ rulings in the late spring and early summer

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:12 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:07 am also, a reminder that this investigation is more than 2 years old, and the evidence is coming out now ONLY because of the SCOTUS’ rulings in the late spring and early summer

In hindsight, it was good of the Supreme Court to make their ruling when they did so that Jack Smith had time to frame his entire case in preparation for review by the Supreme Court. It will ultimately save time in getting Trump into prison where he belongs. Better to have the details on what the Supreme Court is going to be considering now rather that have to start over in a year when it hits their desk.

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:17 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 7:52 am Just a reminder to our conspiracy kooks here, the vast majority of evidence and testimony that will be used by Jack Smith will be from Trump, his phone and his fellow Republicans. This isn't a bunch of Dems trying to pin nonsense to him.

This ^ and this

also, a reminder that this investigation is more than 2 years old, and the evidence is coming out now ONLY because of the SCOTUS’ rulings in the late spring and early summer

repeat and repeat and repeat

It can be claimed that this is a Dem plot and October surprise. It is just was easy to make the case that this is important info for voters to have before the election that Rs have suppressed in an attempt to squelch and discredit.

Read the indictment if you think it might be bullshit. Think about what sort of receipts Smith has to be holding to write this out and put it before eventually the Supreme Court.

Tina Peters is going to be sentenced today in Colorado. Another trump flunky taking the fall while the plumpty one collects money from the rubes.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:24 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:12 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:07 am also, a reminder that this investigation is more than 2 years old, and the evidence is coming out now ONLY because of the SCOTUS’ rulings in the late spring and early summer

In hindsight, it was good of the Supreme Court to make their ruling when they did so that Jack Smith had time to frame his entire case in preparation for review by the Supreme Court. It will ultimately save time in getting Trump into prison where he belongs. Better to have the details on what the Supreme Court is going to be considering now rather that have to start over in a year when it hits their desk.

This isn’t remotely close to what I do.

So what happens here? Chutkan rules that some or all of the charges can go ahead, and some subset of the evidence Smith presented can be used, and Trump appeals both of those decisions, and those appeals inevitably end up in front of the Court?

There is a somewhat-confusing sliding scale of standards of appellate review, and the game each side is playing here is to try to get the more-favorable of those standards to attach at the relevant time(s). And I think the standard for overturning a jury verdict is much higher than for reversing a judge’s interpretive ruling.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:44 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 9:24 pm

defixione wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 8:51 pm

If one includes the .com, it's been at least 20 years of hate speech hemorrhaging from his mouth. It's always someone else's fault that he is where he is.

My life’s great! Thanks for asking. Our country, on the other hand, not so much.

I hope for your sake your life really is great but I have a strong feeling your life is not great as great as you like to think it is - or at least feel the need to tell other people it is.
Jut as my life is not as horrible as I don't like to think it is - or at least as I don't like to tell others it is.
Yesterday was a really shitty day for me and I let it be known to others who were involved and one person who was not involved but who cares about me. When I put it in perspective, it wasn't nearly as shitty as it could have been.
Anyways.... Tell us, when has/had our country ever been "Great"? MAGAts voted for a man who ran on Make America Great Again. People chanted it at his "rallies", people wore it (and still wear it) on their hats, and their shirts, and heck - probably their underwear, people put it on their cars, and trucks, and boats, and in their front yards and actually on their homes, etc., etc., etc. I really hope you and all of them didn't think it was so "great" when he served his 4 years. It wasn't. Let me ask you this, you say YOUR life is great. Was it as great 3.5 years ago? Who was our President?
People care more about THEIR and THEIR loved one's lives than they do about our country. As they probably should. THAT is why we have a close race right now. You are 100% right in thinking "our country" - really meaning "our country" but ALSO meaning "individuals" lives in this country, are not so great in some ways, and people want "hope" and "change". Gee, where is Obama when we need him?
Like you, I believe our country isn't great right now, and hold on to your hat, in a FEW ways I feel it MIGHT improve FOR ME under Trump more than it MIGHT under Harris. That being said, as dumb as I am, I'm not dumb enough to believe our country, and all the individual citizens living in it, will be "great" under Trump - and that he's some sort of orange Messiah.

Overlander wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 12:41 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 9:24 pm

defixione wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 8:51 pm

If one includes the .com, it's been at least 20 years of hate speech hemorrhaging from his mouth. It's always someone else's fault that he is where he is.

My life’s great! Thanks for asking. Our country, on the other hand, not so much.

Then why do you bitch so much?

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:34 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:24 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:12 am

In hindsight, it was good of the Supreme Court to make their ruling when they did so that Jack Smith had time to frame his entire case in preparation for review by the Supreme Court. It will ultimately save time in getting Trump into prison where he belongs. Better to have the details on what the Supreme Court is going to be considering now rather that have to start over in a year when it hits their desk.

This isn’t remotely close to what I do.

So what happens here? Chutkan rules that some or all of the charges can go ahead, and some subset of the evidence Smith presented can be used, and Trump appeals both of those decisions, and those appeals inevitably end up in front of the Court?

There is a somewhat-confusing sliding scale of standards of appellate review, and the game each side is playing here is to try to get the more-favorable of those standards to attach at the relevant time(s). And I think the standard for overturning a jury verdict is much higher than for reversing a judge’s interpretive ruling.

Did you read the document released yesterday? Smith does an excellent job in characterizing ALL of the charges against Trump as being the actions of a candidate, not of a President.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:39 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:44 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 9:24 pm

My life’s great! Thanks for asking. Our country, on the other hand, not so much.

I hope for your sake your life really is great but I have a strong feeling your life is not great as great as you like to think it is - or at least feel the need to tell other people it is.
Jut as my life is not as horrible as I don't like to think it is - or at least as I don't like to tell others it is.
Yesterday was a really shitty day for me and I let it be known to others who were involved and one person who was not involved but who cares about me. When I put it in perspective, it wasn't nearly as shitty as it could have been.
Anyways.... Tell us, when has/had our country ever been "Great"? MAGAts voted for a man who ran on Make America Great Again. People chanted it at his "rallies", people wore it (and still wear it) on their hats, and their shirts, and heck - probably their underwear, people put it on their cars, and trucks, and boats, and in their front yards and actually on their homes, etc., etc., etc. I really hope you and all of them didn't think it was so "great" when he served his 4 years. It wasn't. Let me ask you this, you say YOUR life is great. Was it as great 3.5 years ago? Who was our President?
People care more about THEIR and THEIR loved one's lives than they do about our country. As they probably should. THAT is why we have a close race right now. You are 100% right in thinking "our country" - really meaning "our country" but ALSO meaning "individuals" lives in this country, are not so great in some ways, and people want "hope" and "change". Gee, where is Obama when we need him?
Like you, I believe our country isn't great right now, and hold on to your hat, in a FEW ways I feel it MIGHT improve FOR ME under Trump more than it MIGHT under Harris. That being said, as dumb as I am, I'm not dumb enough to believe our country, and all the individual citizens living in it, will be "great" under Trump - and that he's some sort of orange Messiah.

My life is pretty great. I have a beautiful wife and an amazing two-year old daughter who love me. I get to go to work and do what I enjoy doing every day, and I have a skillset that allows me to do side work that pays enough so that I can make my mortgage payment, own a car and a pickup outright, and set aside money for retirement. I work harder than I'd like, but that's most people today.

I don't think Trump is a messiah. I do think he is the only one of the two candidates who acknowledges there is a problem and is willing to do something about it other than giggle and obfuscate. It's not perfect, but it is the better of the two choices.

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:52 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:39 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:44 am

I hope for your sake your life really is great but I have a strong feeling your life is not great as great as you like to think it is - or at least feel the need to tell other people it is.
Jut as my life is not as horrible as I don't like to think it is - or at least as I don't like to tell others it is.
Yesterday was a really shitty day for me and I let it be known to others who were involved and one person who was not involved but who cares about me. When I put it in perspective, it wasn't nearly as shitty as it could have been.
Anyways.... Tell us, when has/had our country ever been "Great"? MAGAts voted for a man who ran on Make America Great Again. People chanted it at his "rallies", people wore it (and still wear it) on their hats, and their shirts, and heck - probably their underwear, people put it on their cars, and trucks, and boats, and in their front yards and actually on their homes, etc., etc., etc. I really hope you and all of them didn't think it was so "great" when he served his 4 years. It wasn't. Let me ask you this, you say YOUR life is great. Was it as great 3.5 years ago? Who was our President?
People care more about THEIR and THEIR loved one's lives than they do about our country. As they probably should. THAT is why we have a close race right now. You are 100% right in thinking "our country" - really meaning "our country" but ALSO meaning "individuals" lives in this country, are not so great in some ways, and people want "hope" and "change". Gee, where is Obama when we need him?
Like you, I believe our country isn't great right now, and hold on to your hat, in a FEW ways I feel it MIGHT improve FOR ME under Trump more than it MIGHT under Harris. That being said, as dumb as I am, I'm not dumb enough to believe our country, and all the individual citizens living in it, will be "great" under Trump - and that he's some sort of orange Messiah.

My life is pretty great. I have a beautiful wife and an amazing two-year old daughter who love me. I get to go to work and do what I enjoy doing every day, and I have a skillset that allows me to do side work that pays enough so that I can make my mortgage payment, own a car and a pickup outright, and set aside money for retirement. I work harder than I'd like, but that's most people today.

I don't think Trump is a messiah. I do think he is the only one of the two candidates who acknowledges there is a problem and is willing to do something about it other than giggle and obfuscate. It's not perfect, but it is the better of the two choices.

Sounds like your world is just fine, similar to me. That's why I vote to make sure that other people have an opportunity for the same quality of life that I have, not to put a couple extra bucks in my pocket. I have more than enough; I want those who don't have enough to have some additional help in getting to my point in life.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 9:38 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:52 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2024 8:39 am

My life is pretty great. I have a beautiful wife and an amazing two-year old daughter who love me. I get to go to work and do what I enjoy doing every day, and I have a skillset that allows me to do side work that pays enough so that I can make my mortgage payment, own a car and a pickup outright, and set aside money for retirement. I work harder than I'd like, but that's most people today.

I don't think Trump is a messiah. I do think he is the only one of the two candidates who acknowledges there is a problem and is willing to do something about it other than giggle and obfuscate. It's not perfect, but it is the better of the two choices.

Sounds like your world is just fine, similar to me. That's why I vote to make sure that other people have an opportunity for the same quality of life that I have, not to put a couple extra bucks in my pocket. I have more than enough; I want those who don't have enough to have some additional help in getting to my point in life.

I'm in the same boat. The MICHs of the world will tell you that people get more conservative as they age (and pay more taxes, etc.).

That hasn't been the case for me.

My needs are met. So, frankly, are most of my wants. Raising my taxes by a couple points won't affect anything important.

It is so hard for me to understand people who make what I make - who make MULTIPLES of what I make - having their panties in such a goddamn twist over the mere notion of taxes on high earners being even moved directionally toward what they are in comparable economies.

And the cold reality of it is that our REAL revenue problem isn't that income taxes on, say, the best-off 5% of us aren't high enough. It's that there's a super-class at the very VERY top that pays effectively nothing while amassing 9+ figures of wealth.

If people who have made their way into what are presently the >30% brackets are concerned about their income taxes going up, their REAL beef should be with the uber-wealthy who don't pay income tax at all (and who, through various intentionally-opaque and byzantine methods, can shield that wealth from taxes in what is effectively perpetuity).

We just got the most extensive new detail in years about former president Donald Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 election, in the form of a much-anticipated filing from special counsel Jack Smith.

The 165-page partially redacted filing, which was unsealed by U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, lays out the evidence Smith’s team would like to present in the long-delayed Jan. 6 federal criminal case against Trump. What evidence Smith can use and what charges can stand are disputed after the Supreme Court recently gave presidents including Trump extensive immunity from criminal prosecution.

But the filing also doubles as a sort of blueprint for the case ahead. It features some significant revelations and quotes that could be important not just for the legal battle, but for the 2024 election.

Below are some takeaways from the filing.

1. ‘Make them riot’: A prescient comment two months before Jan. 6

A big part of the case against Trump is making clear that he and those around him knew their plan was corrupt — that it wasn’t just them really believing the election was stolen.

One detail in particular stands out.

The filing cites a scene from Nov. 4, 2020, at the TCF Center in Detroit. It says a colleague of a Trump campaign official and an alleged co-conspirator informed them that a batch of votes that heavily favored Joe Biden was apparently correct.

The alleged co-conspirator, whose description matches that of Trump’s Election Day operations chief Mike Roman, allegedly responded by saying: “find a reason it isnt” and “give me options to file litigation.” Then in a mangled message, the co-conspirator seems to suggest that they are not concerned if the claims are frivolous — “even if itbis.”

The colleague suggested such things could lead to a repeat of the so-called Brooks Brothers riot, a fraught scene in South Florida during the contested 2000 presidential election.

The Trump campaign official and co-conspirator allegedly responded: “Make them riot” and “Do it!!!”
It’s an eerily prescient comment, given that just two months later, Trump’s false and often nonsensical claims of voter fraud would lead to a large-scale riot at the U.S. Capitol. (It’s worth noting that whether the Brooks Brothers riot was actually particularly violent is disputed.)

It could certainly help prosecutors drive home the point that the people behind the effort to contest the 2020 election didn’t actually care about the evidence and whether they were right; they just wanted to sow doubt.

2. ‘So what?’: Trump’s seeming lack of concern

The filing fills out some key details of what happened after the Capitol riot touched off on Jan. 6, 2021. It repeatedly reinforces the idea that Trump was well aware of what was taking place even as he — for hours — resisted reining in his supporters and even launched an attack on Vice President Mike Pence at 2:24 p.m.

The timeline here was filled out somewhat by the House Jan. 6 select committee, but the filing contains even more detail.

It says that around 1:30 p.m., Trump settled into the dining room next to the Oval Office and “spent the afternoon there reviewing Twitter on his phone,” while Fox News played on TV. It suggests that prosecutors have forensic evidence from the activity logs on Trump’s phone to back up that he was “consistently” using his Twitter application.

A footnote says that, before Trump’s tweet attacking Pence, advisers told him that “there’s a riot, and there are people inside the Capitol Building,” and “someone’s gotten into the Capitol.”
The filing goes on to say that Trump was alone when he tweeted at 2:24 p.m. that Pence “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.” (Rioters at one point chanted for Pence’s hanging, and Pence had been evacuated at 2:13 p.m.)

All of those are crucial to establishing that Trump had reason to believe Pence could be in danger and that he knew things had gotten out of hand, and that he pressed forward with attacking Pence anyway. It also builds on extensive evidence suggesting Trump declined for hours to do something about the violence. He didn’t tell people to go home until 4:17 p.m.

But perhaps the most vivid new detail comes from shortly after Trump’s Pence tweet. It says an aide relayed a phone call to Trump stating that Pence had been taken to a secure location. The aide hoped Trump would do something to help, according to the filing.

Instead, Trump allegedly responded, “So what?”

It’s hardly the first evidence that Trump might have been indifferent to Pence’s fate and might have even seen utility in the unrest when it came to his efforts to overturn the election. But it might be among the most striking pieces of evidence on that front.

3. The political impact

Trump won’t face trial before next month’s election, and it’s possible he never will if he wins. But the filing at the very least served as a late reminder of an ugly, Trump-inspired episode, with just more than a month to go before voters decided whether to return him to the White House.

Those reminders and new details have been few and far between since the Jan. 6 committee wrapped up its business nearly two years ago. Trump hasn’t appeared to pay any real political price for his four indictments, which include a financial fraud conviction in Manhattan. But many casual voters appear to be unfamiliar with these cases, and the race is looking extremely close. That makes the new disclosures untimely for Trump.

Trump posted repeatedly on Truth Social on Wednesday claiming that the filing was election interference.

“The DOJ pushed out this latest ‘hit job’ today because JD Vance humiliated Tim Walz last night in the Debate,” Trump said.

But the timing also owes to Trump’s lengthy legal challenges, which successfully delayed the trial past the election and gave Trump a significant degree of immunity but haven’t stopped the cases altogether.
And it’s worth noting that Trump’s claim about the vice-presidential debate is false. The Justice Department made its filing a week ago — long before the debate — and it didn’t unseal it; Chutkan did.

4. More evidence that Trump had nothing — and was told that

Another central question when it comes to proving Trump knew better is pointing to all the times he was told his theories were false. This is something the Jan. 6 committee also focused on, keying in on testimony from former attorney general William P. Barr and former deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue, as well as former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and some Trump aides.
But the filing adds significant new detail.

It says then-Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel cited to Trump a comment from Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield (R) calling claims about voting machines in Antrim County, Mich., “f---ing nuts.”

It says the leader of the Michigan Senate, Mike Shirkey (R), told Trump he hadn’t lost because of fraud, but because he underperformed other Republicans and lost educated women. It adds that Shirkey “could tell by the defendant’s body language that he was not happy to hear” this.

The filing also lays out many details about Pence’s handling of the claims, making clear he consistently cast doubt on them — including in Trump’s presence. Many of the quotes are from Pence’s recent book, but the filing says Pence also urged Trump as early as Nov. 12: “don’t concede but recognize process is over.”

As notably, the filing makes clear that Trump’s campaign repeatedly failed to pony up evidence to Republicans it sought to recruit — then-Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) and then-Arizona House Speaker Russell “Rusty” Bowers (R).

By Dec. 8, longtime Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller allegedly wrote a telling email.
“When our research and campaign legal team can’t back up any of the claims made by our Elite Strike Force Legal Team, you can see why we’re 0-32 on our cases,” Miller allegedly said. “I’ll obviously hustle to help on all fronts, but it’s tough to own any of this when it’s all just conspiracy s--- beamed down from the mother ship.”

The quote was cited last year in Trump’s indictment, but without attribution. Now we learn it allegedly came from one of his closest aides — then and now.

5. A telling Trump quote to sum it up

In a filing full of juicy quotes, perhaps one ties it all together. It’s from Trump himself.
“It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election,” Trump allegedly told family members and others aboard Marine One following the election. “You still have to fight like hell.”

The filing says the comment was overheard by the same aide who brought Trump news of Pence being moved to a secure location.

Trump allegedly echoed the comment when one of his election lawyers told him his claims would not hold up in court, telling them, “The details don’t matter.”

Trump has offered conflicting comments about whether he actually lost the 2020 election. He mostly says it was stolen, but he’ll sometimes talk about it as an actual loss — including recently. This could certainly be read as further proof that the evidence didn’t really matter to him. And that could help prosecutors prove corruption.

What I do know is I see a candidate out there who refused, and now again. And this, I'm pretty shocked by this. He lost the election. This is not a debate. It's not anything anywhere other than in Donald Trump's world, because, look, when Mike Pence made that decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage. What I'm concerned about is where is the firewall with Donald Trump? Where is the firewall if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election and his Vice President's not going to stand to it. That's what we're asking you, America. Will you stand up? Will you keep your oath of office even if the President doesn't? And I think Kamala Harris would agree. She wouldn't have picked me if she didn't think I would do that because, of course, that's what we would do. So, America, I think you've got a really clear choice on this election of who's going to honor that democracy and who's going to honor Donald Trump.