J6 circus "bombshells" range from witness tampering to manslaughter charges!!

During her commission of a crime. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

That’s a funny thing to say, purportedly from a lawyer. When exactly did we start shooting criminals for ANY crime, let alone a misdemeanor, during the commission of the crime without any adjudication whatsoever. Last I checked we don’t do that to serial killers, yet here you are, playing judge, jury and executioner for a girl who was trespassing. I’m starting to rethink my ‘leftists are soft on crime’ position, if we apply that to drug dealers I might be on board.

There's a lot of footage out there of this Jan 6th. deal. If you look closely you'll see a lot of unusual things happening. Even a scatter brain like AOC isn't sure if some of what took place wasn't staged.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/VsTFnEH2vdvs/ Originally Posted by Levianon17

You didn’t answer my questions. What you did is called a dodge.

That’s a funny thing to say, purportedly from a lawyer. When exactly did we start shooting criminals for ANY crime, let alone a misdemeanor, during the commission of the crime without any adjudication whatsoever. Last I checked we don’t do that to serial killers, yet here you are, playing judge, jury and executioner for a girl who was trespassing. I’m starting to rethink my ‘leftists are soft on crime’ position, if we apply that to drug dealers I might be on board. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Are you claiming this was an assassination?

Also, that would assume you would similarly want to disarm law enforcement officers, lest they judge a violent actor in the commission of a crime.

That’s a funny thing to say, purportedly from a lawyer. When exactly did we start shooting criminals for ANY crime, let alone a misdemeanor, during the commission of the crime without any adjudication whatsoever. Last I checked we don’t do that to serial killers, yet here you are, playing judge, jury and executioner for a girl who was trespassing. I’m starting to rethink my ‘leftists are soft on crime’ position, if we apply that to drug dealers I might be on board. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Your position on Babbit is nonsensical which I’m sure you know. But let’s play anyway.

Was the window she was crawling through open or was it smashed open allowing her to access it?

Was she warned by an officer prior to his discharging his sidearm?

Did others she was with or around commit acts of violence while or in order to attain access to the interior of the Capitol?

Were any of the people she was with or around have makeshift weapons with which they could harm officers or legislators?

Could the purpose of her window entry to have been to open the door to the further interior chambers?

Unless you answer the above with outright lies, Babbit wasn’t trespassing. She was doing far worse and deserved to be shot.

She wasn’t the only one who deserved it.

Watching this committee is like watching a toddler eat a piece of birthday cake. Things just go flying in all directions while adoring onlookers talk about how great it is. And yeah, it’s a big show, but what are you left with in the end except for cake smeared everywhere?

So what was the big “bombshell” this go around? Apparently, Donald Trump tried to call someone who didn’t answer the phone. Yes, that’s what’s leading the news out of the latest hearing.

The person whom former President Donald Trump was accused of having contacted following the Jan. 6 hearing when former administration aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified was a member of the White House support staff, sources told ABC News.

Trump’s alleged contact with the individual was described on Tuesday by the House Jan. 6 committee’s vice chair, Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, who did not name the person.

“After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation — a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings,” she said at the close of the most recent committee hearing.

Cheney said the witness did not answer the call.

“Their lawyer alerted us, and this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice,” she said.

There are a few things to note here, that in order to illegally tamper with a witness, you’d need to actually talk to the witness about the specific matter at hand, right? In this case, the accusation is that Donald Trump tried to call someone and that they didn’t answer. For some reason, the committee then felt the need to report that to the Department of Justice. I guess Trump will be charged with malicious intent to make a phone call or something?

You don’t even have to go that far, though. How would Donald Trump know who is on the witness list for the January 6th Committee? The committee’s entire act is to keep the names hidden, rolling out witnesses in slow motion in order to generate the most press hype. So even if Trump had gotten in contact with this supposed staffer, he would have no intent to tamper with a witness because there was no way he could know the person was a witness.

This is a perfect example of how ridiculous the January 6th Committee is. All of their “evidence” boils down to marginal innuendo. They take the most mundane revelations, package them as game-changing, and then have the media pretend like dots are being connected. But dots aren’t being connected. In fact, several months into this charade, we are still not an inch closer to having proof Donald Trump planned January 6th or was aware it would occur, which was the committee’s chief accusation going into this.

Amazingly, though, news of that phone call isn’t the dumbest thing to come out of Tuesday’s hearing. MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade now believes Trump could be charged with manslaughter.

During a panel discussion on MSNBC, McQuade asserted that Trump and his associates could not rely on free speech arguments to protect them from criminal charges.

“If you can make that connection that this was a planned attack, you could supersede that seditious conspiracy indictment to add Trump or [Roger Stone] or anyone else who was involved in the planning,” she explained.

“The other thing that is coming clear to me is there is a potential charge here against Donald Trump for manslaughter,” McQuade said, referring to the seven deaths connected to the Jan. 6 attack.

Astonishingly, McQuade is a former US attorney. These are the caliber of people who are given the power to destroy people’s lives on a whim at the DOJ. And how does her theory make sense anyway? Has anyone in the history of the United States ever been charged with manslaughter because the cops shot someone during a riot they weren’t even present at? And again, what evidence is there that this was a planned attack, led by Donald Trump?

We are so far down the rabbit hole with this committee that nothing even begins to make sense anymore. Far from laying out a concise, fact-based case against Trump, we now have analysts ranting about manslaughter charges and Liz Cheney pretending that not talking to a witness is witness tampering. It’s parodical. Originally Posted by bb1961

I'll go you one better than that.


https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/17/without-any-doubt-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-beyond-any-doubt-tribe-declares-trump-committed-attempted-murder/



“Without any Doubt, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Beyond any Doubt”: Tribe Declares Trump Committed Attempted Murder

In past columns, we have discussed how Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe seems intent upon running through the entire criminal code in declaring clear evidence of every federal crime by former President Donald Trump and/or his family. Just for the purposes of keeping score, Tribe declared evidence supporting criminal charges of witness tampering, obstruction of justice, criminal election violations, Logan Act violations, extortion,espionage, and treason by Trump or his family. He has now added attempted murder in an interview on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront.” In addition to declaring former President Donald Trump clearly guilty of the attempt to murder Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021, Tribe is again assuring viewers that “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt, and the crimes are obvious.” I guess there is no doubt. There is also no compelling legal basis for the claim. Nevertheless, Tribe is promising more if needed: “There are other crimes that have been proven. Those are plenty to start with.”


It is a curious thing that these crimes “have been proven” but Trump has not been charged with them. After the riot, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging them with incitement. So what happened to that prosecution? The failure of Racine to charge Trump was not due to any affection or loyalty to the former president. It was due to the paucity of direct evidence of a crime that would hold up in court.


Tribe notably cuts directly to the punishment for attempted murder rather than the elements. The elements of attempted murder require specific intent to kill and the commission of some direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing.


I know of no case where a speech of this kind was treated as sufficient to establish attempted murder. Indeed, such a claim would contradict controlling Supreme Court precedent.


In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
It is common for political leaders to call for protests at the federal or state capitols when controversial legislation or actions are being taken. Indeed, in past elections, Democratic members also protested elections and challenged electoral votes in Congress.


The problem for prosecutors is that Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”


Trump also stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”
Yet, Tribe declared “What we saw with the president egging the crowd on, telling them that, basically, his own vice-president was a traitor while he knew that the mob had gallows waiting for him, that’s pretty serious stuff. You don’t have to go to law school to know that there’s something seriously criminal about that.”


As a factual matter, it has not been suggested by the Committee that Trump knew that protesters brought that gallows to the scene. Most of us found about about the gallows and chant after the start of the riot.
Tribe further predicted that Attorney General Merrick Garland would criminally charge Donald Trump.
If so, Garland may want to consult with other experts before including this particular charge. Tribe’s suggestion that Trump could be prosecuted for attempted murder on this evidence is utter nonsense.


The Select Committee has not made such a claim but has promised that a criminal conspiracy will be established by the hearings. That evidence may still be forthcoming, but that case has not been made in my view in the last three hearings. There have been new videotapes and testimony supporting what we already knew: that Trump was told that the election fraud claims were unsupported and that he continued to assert a theory about Pence’s authority that most of us rejected as unfounded. The testimony has been powerful and gut-wrenching. Yet, there has to be more direct and substantial links to the violence to offer a compelling basis for prosecution.


Tribe has of course never lacked confidence that his lengthening list of crimes have been “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt.” Yet, if he is going to add attempted murder, he should have more than the repetition of conclusory statements to offer. “You don’t have to go to law school to know” that the law is based on evidence and elements. Indeed, students go to law school to learn the element of crimes, not just their punishment. Indeed, few of us would allow students to start a discussion of a possible crime by simply declaring the crime and stating the possible sentence. If Professor Tribe believes that a case for attempted murder is clearly established, he may want to start with the elements.

During her commission of a crime. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Well there you go! So let's not hear any more about Black men being shot or killed during the commission of a crime like trying to pass counterfeit money, trespass and shoplifting. You heard it here first people from the resident expert on crime, well, with the exception of self defense ( Rittenhouse case ) which he showed he knows nothing about.


But not being a lawyer and all, maybe the law says you can shoot an unarmed White woman trespassing but you certainly can not kill a Black man for the same crime which if Democrats had their way, would certainly be on the books.

I pity the poor fools that take ANY of this as a legitimate committee that has no other task than to "save democracy"

This is a PURELY partisan witch hunt that has ZERO basis in reality and a VAST majority of Americans know that. The sad part is they make bigger fools of themselves every day and are stupid enough to not even understand that.

Our leftwing posters on here sadly believe that Trump is going to get prosecuted from ANYTHING that comes from this three ring circus.

I love to read the fantasies of them saying that the "bombshell" is coming any day...they have been saying that ever since this shit show started. Their slow meltdown that nothing has happened to Trump is precious. These poor guys are hilarious.

It will be nice to see the committees next year that take down the brandon/cunter crime syndicate.

Are you claiming this was an assassination? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

It was boilerplate murder. That’s what we call it when someone randomly kills a persons who’s no threat to themselves.

Also, that would assume you would similarly want to disarm law enforcement officers, lest they judge a violent actor in the commission of a crime.

Cops are only allowed to use deadly force when someone’s life is being endangered, although, judging by those Uvalde cowards, they don’t use it even then.

Your position on Babbit is nonsensical which I’m sure you know. But let’s play anyway.

Was the window she was crawling through open or was it smashed open allowing her to access it?

Was she warned by an officer prior to his discharging his sidearm?

Did others she was with or around commit acts of violence while or in order to attain access to the interior of the Capitol?

Were any of the people she was with or around have makeshift weapons with which they could harm officers or legislators?

Could the purpose of her window entry to have been to open the door to the further interior chambers?

Unless you answer the above with outright lies, Babbit wasn’t trespassing. She was doing far worse and deserved to be shot. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

LOL. GTFO with that horseshit, that 90 pound girl was a threat to nobody. Crawling through a window you shouldn’t be isn’t a capital offense.

You didn’t answer my questions. What you did is called a dodge. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

What was your question?

Jazz, why didn’t you answer the questions I posed. It’s not that hard. You guys are terrible at deflecting. Anyway, your silliness bores me. She got what she deserved. More of them should have been shot before they could breach the Capitol. Or is it your position we should all force our way into the White House and the Supreme Court by breaking windows without any fear of being shot.

Does that apply to antheifa and BLDM when they burn and destroy gummet property???

So you honestly believe it was filmed with crisis actors? That it was for show rather than Trump folks actually breaking windows and pressing their way into the Capitol? That Ashli Babbit wasn’t actually shot and killed while trying to squeeze through a window? You believe it was all fake? Originally Posted by 1blackman1

What was your question? Originally Posted by Levianon17

There ya go.

You want to answer that??