About Me

My photo
SEEKONK, MASSACHUSETTS, United States

Tuesday, August 1, 2023

Trump Indictment: Jan. 6 Riot Was ‘Fueled by Lies’ From Trump, Special Counsel Says. NY TIMES.




The special counsel accused Trump of taking part in three conspiracies.

Former President Donald J. Trump was indicted on Tuesday in connection with his far-reaching efforts to overturn the 2020 election, part of a continuing federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s attempts to cling to power after losing the presidency to Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The indictment was filed by the special counsel Jack Smith in Federal District Court in Washington. It accuses Mr. Trump of three conspiracies: one to defraud the United States, a second to obstruct an official government proceeding and a third to deprive people of civil rights provided by federal law or the Constitution. Mr. Trump is also charged with a fourth count of obstructing an official proceeding.

“Each of these conspiracies — which built on the widespread mistrust the defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud — targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election,” the indictment said.

The charges signify an extraordinary moment in United States history: a former president, in the midst of a campaign to return to the White House, being charged over attempts to use the levers of government power to subvert democracy and remain in office against the will of voters.

The indictment came more than two and a half years after a pro-Trump mob — egged on by incendiary speeches by Mr. Trump and his allies — stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in the worst attack on the seat of Congress since the War of 1812.

It contains snippets of new information, such as the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, imploring Mr. Trump to pull back objections to President Biden’s victory being certified by Congress hours after the rioters entered the building, and Mr. Trump refusing.

A federal grand jury returned the indictment a little more than eight months after Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Mr. Smith, a career federal prosecutor, to oversee both the election tampering and classified documents inquiries into Mr. Trump. It came just over a year after a House select committee held high-profile hearings on the Jan. 6 attack and what led to it that laid out extensive evidence of Mr. Trump’s efforts to reverse the election results.

Mr. Garland moved to name Mr. Smith as special counsel just days after Mr. Trump declared that he was running for president again.

In a statement, Mr. Trump denounced the new charges.

“Why did they wait two and a half years to bring these fake charges, right in the middle of President Trump’s winning campaign for 2024?” he said, calling it “election interference” and comparing the Biden administration to Nazi Germany.

Mr. Trump now faces two separate federal indictments. In June, Mr. Smith brought charges in Florida accusing Mr. Trump — the current front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — of illegally holding on to a highly sensitive trove of national defense documents and then obstructing the government’s attempts to get them back. He is scheduled to go on trial in that case in May.

The scheme charged by Mr. Smith on Tuesday in the election case played out largely in the two months between Election Day in 2020 and the attack on the Capitol. During that period, Mr. Trump took part in a range of efforts to retain power despite having lost the presidential race to Mr. Biden.

In addition to federal charges in the election and documents cases, Mr. Trump also faces legal troubles in state courts.

He has been charged by the Manhattan district attorney’s office in a case that centers on hush money payments made to the porn star Stormy Daniels in the run-up to the 2016 election.

The efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to reverse his election loss are also the focus of a separate investigation by the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga. That inquiry appears likely to generate charges this month.

Here’s what else to know:

  • The four charges in this indictment range in severity, with two carrying potential prison sentences of five years each. The other two are closely related: corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy to commit that crime. Convictions there are punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

  • The indictment said Mr. Trump had six co-conspirators, and Mr. Smith said the investigation was continuing. Although the indictment did not name those individuals, a lawyer for Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who led many of Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn his election defeat, said “it appears that Mayor Giuliani is alleged to be co-conspirator No. 1.”

  • In the next few days, Mr. Trump will be arraigned in Federal District Court in Washington, usually a brief and highly formal affair. He will most likely be asked to enter a plea to the charges. The presiding judge presiding will also set the conditions for his release, which are unlikely to be severe.

  • The indictment, and any conviction, would not bar Mr. Trump from being elected president. The Constitution establishes criteria for eligibility for president, and a clean criminal record is not one of them.


PROJECT BLUE BOOK : 1948-1969. NATIONAL ARCHIVES. CONCLUSIONS.


This study, conducted by the U.S. AIR FORCE included cases from the 40s,50s, 60s.

UFOs & PROJECT BLUE BOOK

On December 17, 1969, the Secretary of the Air Force announced the termination of Project BLUE BOOK, the Air Force program for the investigation of UFOS.

From 1947 to 1969, a total of 12, 618 sightings were reported to Project BLUE BOOK. Of these 701 remain "Unidentified." The project was headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, whose personnel no longer receive, document or investigate UFO reports.

The decision to discontinue UFO investigations was based on an evaluation of a report prepared by the University of Colorado entitled, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects;" a review of the University of Colorado's report by the National Academy of Sciences; past UFO studies and Air Force experience investigating UFO reports during the 40s, '50s, and '60s.

As a result of these investigations and studies and experience gained from investigating UFO reports since 1948, the conclusions of Project BLUE BOOK are:(1) no UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security;(2) there has been no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represent technological developments or principles beyond the range of present-day scientific knowledge; and(3) there has been no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" are extraterrestrial vehicles.

Saturday, July 29, 2023

KARI LAKE TALKS ABOUT THAT "GIANT" DONALD TRUMP. I RESPOND.


FROM TWITTER.

Kari Lake says Trump is outsmarting Jack Smith: “You can’t bring down a giant like Donald J. Trump. I think he would welcome that indictment. Welcome a trial. They’re playing checkers, and Trump is playing chess at the highest level. They don’t want to pick a fight with him.”

MY RESPONSE: Yeah, Jack Smith is terrified of Trumps vast Intellect, he just hides it by accumulating Hard Evidence that leads to more Charges leveled against Der Fuehrer. I guess that verdict that found him liable for Sexual Assault was a clever plan to scare all his opponents.

Friday, July 28, 2023

JUSTICE ALITO PROVES, AGAIN, THAT EITHER HE HASN'T READ THE ENTIRE BODY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, OR CHOSES TO IGNORE WHAT HE DOESN'T LIKE.

                                HERE IS A PICTURE OF ALITOS "DREAM" VERSION OF THE SCOTUS.

QUOTE FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE:

Justice Alito tells the @WSJ that Congress has no business policing SCOTUS. "I know this is a con­tro­ver­sial view, but I’m will­ing to say it... No pro­vi­sion in the Con­sti­tu­tion gives them the au­thor­ity to reg­u­late the Supreme Court—pe­riod."

Really? How about this:

ARTICLE III

Section 1 The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

My guess is that selling out to anyone that has a vested interest in a matter before the Court would not be considered "GOOD BEHAVIOUR." Since the Constitution says nothing about the SCOTUS being the Judge of what is "GOOD BEHAVIOUR," it must be found elsewhere. Congress can Impeach these Justices for various offenses, and they are not Immune from Criminal Charges. It therefore would make sense to allow Congress to establish Proper Moral/Ethical Guidelines.