What's new
By:
Filters

Donald is about to go through some things...

Sardines said:
Classic Trump! His bestie one day, he doesn't even know you the next.


Former President Donald Trump claimed Sidney Powell was “never” his attorney in a social media post Sunday, three days after she pleaded guilty in the Georgia election subversion case.

Despite Trump’s claims, Powell was briefly an official member of Trump’s legal team in 2020, and Trump stayed in contact with her on election-related matters even after she was ousted from his campaign.

“Sidney Powell was one of millions and millions of people who thought, and in ever increasing numbers still think, correctly, that the 2020 Presidential Election was RIGGED & STOLLEN, AND OUR COUNTRY IS BEING ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED BECAUSE OF IT!!! MS. POWELL WAS NOT MY ATTORNEY, AND NEVER WAS. In fact, she would have been conflicted,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Click to expand...
Yeah he's a text-book psychopath and narcissist.
 
www.yahoo.com

Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources

Former President Donald Trump's final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.

According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being "dishonest" with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in.

Trump has called Meadows, one of the former president's closest and highest-ranking aides in the White House, a "special friend" and "a great chief of staff -- as good as it gets." (trump gonna back track on that soon)

According to Meadows' book, the election was "stolen" and "rigged" with help from "allies in the liberal media," who ignored "actual evidence of fraud, right there in plain sight for anyone to access and analyze."

But, as described to ABC News, Meadows privately told Smith's investigators that -- to this day -- he has yet to see any evidence of fraud that would have kept now-president Joe Biden from the White House, and he told them he agrees with a government assessment at the time that the 2020 presidential election was the most secure election in U.S. history.

Trump was already questioning the integrity of the election months before Election Day. Then, within hours of polls closing on Nov. 3, 2020 -- as Trump was beginning to lose key states -- Trump claimed on national TV that it was all "a major fraud."

"Frankly, we did win this election," Trump declared.

Meadows told investigators earlier this year that he's long believed Trump was being dishonest when he made that statement, given the fact that votes were still being counted and the results from several states were not in yet.

But Meadows said that by mid-December, he privately informed Trump that Giuliani hadn't produced any evidence to back up the many allegations he was making, sources said. Then-attorney general Bill Barr also informed Trump and Meadows in an Oval Office meeting that allegations of election fraud were "not panning out," as Barr recounted in testimony to Congress last year.

Also by then, Trump had run out of legal options. When the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, denied his final court challenge, Trump told Meadows something to the effect of, "Then that's the end," or, "So that's it," Meadows recalled to investigators, according to sources.

Still, Trump wouldn't back down, insisting there was widespread fraud but that the Justice Department wasn't "looking for it," Barr recalled.

Aided by a ghostwriter, Meadows published his book, "The Chief's Chief," nearly a year after Trump left office.

"[T]he sheer volume of falsehoods that have been published about the president's time in the White House is astounding," the book says. "I consider this book a small opportunity to correct the record."

Trump even promoted the book himself, issuing a statement in December 2021 saying the book "rightfully spends much time talking about the large-scale Election Fraud that took place ... also known as the Crime of the Century."

But sources told ABC News that when speaking with Smith's investigators, Meadows conceded that he doesn't actually believe some of the statements in his book.

According to the sources, Meadows told investigators that he doesn't agree with what's in his book when it says "our many referrals to the Department of Justice were not seriously investigated."

Meadows went even further while promoting his book on right-wing media in November 2021. When asked by a podcast host if he believes the outcome of the 2020 election was fraudulent, Meadows responded, "I do believe that there are a number of fraudulent states ... I've seen at least illegal activity in Pennsylvania [and] in Georgia" -- referring to two key states that clinched the White House for Biden.

Under the penalty of perjury, Meadows offered a vastly different assessment to Smith's investigators, telling them he's never seen any evidence of fraud that would undermine the election's outcome, according to what sources told ABC News

Under the immunity order from Smith's team, the information Meadows provided to the grand jury earlier this year can't be used against him in a federal prosecution.
 
fishonjazz said:
www.yahoo.com

Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources

Former President Donald Trump's final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.

According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being "dishonest" with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in.

Trump has called Meadows, one of the former president's closest and highest-ranking aides in the White House, a "special friend" and "a great chief of staff -- as good as it gets." (trump gonna back track on that soon)

According to Meadows' book, the election was "stolen" and "rigged" with help from "allies in the liberal media," who ignored "actual evidence of fraud, right there in plain sight for anyone to access and analyze."

But, as described to ABC News, Meadows privately told Smith's investigators that -- to this day -- he has yet to see any evidence of fraud that would have kept now-president Joe Biden from the White House, and he told them he agrees with a government assessment at the time that the 2020 presidential election was the most secure election in U.S. history.

Trump was already questioning the integrity of the election months before Election Day. Then, within hours of polls closing on Nov. 3, 2020 -- as Trump was beginning to lose key states -- Trump claimed on national TV that it was all "a major fraud."

"Frankly, we did win this election," Trump declared.

Meadows told investigators earlier this year that he's long believed Trump was being dishonest when he made that statement, given the fact that votes were still being counted and the results from several states were not in yet.

But Meadows said that by mid-December, he privately informed Trump that Giuliani hadn't produced any evidence to back up the many allegations he was making, sources said. Then-attorney general Bill Barr also informed Trump and Meadows in an Oval Office meeting that allegations of election fraud were "not panning out," as Barr recounted in testimony to Congress last year.

Also by then, Trump had run out of legal options. When the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, denied his final court challenge, Trump told Meadows something to the effect of, "Then that's the end," or, "So that's it," Meadows recalled to investigators, according to sources.

Still, Trump wouldn't back down, insisting there was widespread fraud but that the Justice Department wasn't "looking for it," Barr recalled.

Aided by a ghostwriter, Meadows published his book, "The Chief's Chief," nearly a year after Trump left office.

"[T]he sheer volume of falsehoods that have been published about the president's time in the White House is astounding," the book says. "I consider this book a small opportunity to correct the record."

Trump even promoted the book himself, issuing a statement in December 2021 saying the book "rightfully spends much time talking about the large-scale Election Fraud that took place ... also known as the Crime of the Century."

But sources told ABC News that when speaking with Smith's investigators, Meadows conceded that he doesn't actually believe some of the statements in his book.

According to the sources, Meadows told investigators that he doesn't agree with what's in his book when it says "our many referrals to the Department of Justice were not seriously investigated."

Meadows went even further while promoting his book on right-wing media in November 2021. When asked by a podcast host if he believes the outcome of the 2020 election was fraudulent, Meadows responded, "I do believe that there are a number of fraudulent states ... I've seen at least illegal activity in Pennsylvania [and] in Georgia" -- referring to two key states that clinched the White House for Biden.

Under the penalty of perjury, Meadows offered a vastly different assessment to Smith's investigators, telling them he's never seen any evidence of fraud that would undermine the election's outcome, according to what sources told ABC News

Under the immunity order from Smith's team, the information Meadows provided to the grand jury earlier this year can't be used against him in a federal prosecution.
Click to expand...
How long until Trump claims he doesn't even know who that lying fraud Meadows even is?
 
True it does show the reversed image. I am really the most humble person you'll ever meet. It's actually the greatest of my many many fantastic attributes. Thanks for noticing!

Well whatever your degree of narcissism it’s not as well developed as mine. So I’m perturbed you haven’t noticed mine. Thanks for nuthin
 
The Trump party are quite religious. And quite evangelical. No wonder Trump is perfect for them and they can't break away. That under 30 crowd spells trouble for religion and Trump-types though.


1698173337327.png
 
If the case is so strong against Trump why are his co-conspirators getting a slap on the wrist? Every one of them should probably get lengthy prison sentences.
 

MSN

www.msn.com


WASHINGTON – When a divided federal appeals court upheld the conviction and 87-month sentence of a Capitol rioter, the judges did more than crush the hopes of a single insurrectionist -- they also spelled trouble for embattled former president Donald Trump's fight over the same issue.

rump's peril in his federal election conspiracy case hangs on the definition of a single word: "Corruptly."

Thomas Robertson, an Army veteran who was a Virginia police sergeant at the time of the riot, appealed his conviction for obstructing Congress by arguing he hadn't acted "corruptly." His lawyers argued that meant "for the unlawful advantage of himself or an associate."

Trump has also argued he couldn't have violated the statute because he was voicing his concerns about election fraud, as allowed under the First Amendment.

In Robertson's case, two of the three judges on the panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled his proposed definition "finds no support in the text, structure, or context of the statute." The majority upheld the definition applied in jury instructions that acting corruptly meant using "unlawful means" or "with an unlawful purpose" and "consciousness of wrongdoing."

"The evidence presented at Robertson’s trial was undoubtedly sufficient to prove that he acted 'corruptly,'" Judge Florence Pan wrote Friday for Judge Cornelia Pillard.

Appeals Judge Karen Henderson disagreed, arguing the decision "makes the commission of any crime 'corrupt' because any crime requires the use of unlawful means or an unlawful purpose or both."

"There is no evidence in the record suggesting Robertson obstructed the election certification proceeding in order to obtain an unlawful benefit for himself or someone else," Henderson wrote.

Trump also fights federal charge he acted 'corruptly'​

Robertson could potentially appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The decision carries implications for Trump because he has also challenged the definition of acting "corruptly."

"That opinion confirms that the indictment here is deficient in failing to properly allege that President Trump acted 'corruptly,'" Trump's lawyers argued Monday in a filing to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. The government has not yet replied to his argument.
 
Sardines said:
Ivanka is going to be forced to testify against Donald.

There is only one solution.

Donald must marry Ivanka.

That way she doesn't have to testify against Donald. Also, Donald finally gets to be with the person he really wants.
Click to expand...
nice
His flock would think marrying his daughter is what Jesus would do and praise him for it.
 
str8line said:
www.the-independent.com

Trump loses final bid to stop Colorado case that could see him barred from ballot

Case filed on behalf of Republican and unaffiliated voters represented by advocacy group
www.the-independent.com www.the-independent.com
Click to expand...
This case is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. The judge in this case has financially supported a political action committee called Colorado Turnout whose purpose is to remove Republicans who have voiced any support for Donald Trump. She is refusing to recuse herself despite the obvious bias and conflict. She has also ruled Trump does not get due process in that he doesn't need to be convicted of insurrection anywhere in order to be sentenced for insurrection in her court. You can bank on Trump being found guilty in this case, which will be appealed but that will cost Trump even more time and money which is the point of this persecution. I'm not saying Trump has done nothing wrong, because he has, but this case is so obvious that they aren't even trying to hide it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top