Monday, December 19, 2022

US House Committee To Vote On A Criminal Referral For Former President Donald Trump

 

Daily Mail: Adam Schiff says ‘evidence is there’ to charge Trump over Capitol riot: January 6 committee member does NOT rule out ‘criminal referral’ for GOP lawmakers accused of helping ex-president overturn 2020 

* Schiff is the House Intelligence Committee chairman and a Jan. 6 panel member 

* He declined to go into what referrals the committee will make on Monday  

* The Jan. 6 committee is widely expected to refer Trump for criminal charges 

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said on Sunday that he believes the 'evidence is there' for the Justice Department to charge Donald Trump with 'multiple' crimes linked to attempts to overturn the 2020 election. 

He spoke with CNN's State of the Union a day before the likely final public meeting of the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. Lawmakers on the panel are reportedly going to vote on referring criminal charges against Trump to the Justice Department.    

Read more .... 

WNU Editor: When this heavily stacked committee against former President Trump was first convened this blog predicted the result would be a criminal referral for the former President. So there will be no surprises when this Committee votes to make a criminal referral.

The real key question that still remains unanswered is when will the US Justice Department move forward in formally charging the former President. 

My gut tells me that it will happen when the Republican controlled Congress starts to investigate President Biden and his business relationship with his son Hunter Biden, and the media will focus more on the former President rather than on the current occupant of the White House. 

US House Committee To Vote On A Criminal Referral For Former President Donald Trump  

Jan. 6 panel pushes Trump’s prosecution in forceful finish -- AP  

Trump a target as U.S. Capitol riot probe votes on criminal referrals -- Reuters 

Jan. 6 Panel to Vote on Criminal Referral for Donald Trump Over Capitol Riot -- Bloomberg  

January 6 Committee holds final meeting Monday, expected action against Trump, allies -- FOX News

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Waste of time

Anonymous said...

Heavily stacked.


1) D Bennie Thompson
2) D Adam Schiff
3) D Jamie Raskin
4) D Elaine Lurid
5) D Elaine Luria
6) D Zoe Lofgren
7) D Stephanie Murphy
8) R Adam Kinzinger
9) R Liz Cheney

1) The 117TH Congress began on January 3, 2021

218 Democrats
213 Republican

Democrats are 50.058% on the congress. So normally they would head the committee and would have the majority on the committee. that would mean there should be 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans

4 versus 2

2) It gets better, Normally, the Republican leader would pick the Republicans to be on the committee. Those are the usual rules and customs. Not this time.


3) It get even better. The usual rules of evidence and right to defense do not apply to this kangaroo court.


The committee is illegitimate. If or when America falls the seating and workings of this committee will be a cause and a milestone along that road.

Ten to twenty years from Baroness Liz Cheney will not believe nor espouse but a few many conservative principles if any at all. But she is a "Republican" on the committee.



List of Kangaroo court Members
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics/january-6-committee-members/index.html

fred said...

It is not the House group that will or will not make charges but the Attorney General. It is not the Attorney General who decides the outcome but a court of law.
ps: in addition, there may well be charges brought by Georgia for interference with election results.

It then remains to be noted that the courts and not this or that party will make decisions about the former president.

Matthew Putnam said...

But top democrats like Polosi and Maxine Waters, who explicitly told people to riot, confront republicans in the streets, not to let them or their children sleep at night at their homes or share public spaces with them etc and dismantle the current system, and then refused to look into the BLM/ANTIFA worst riots in history that had done orders of magnitude worse than Jan 6th in terms of nation wide casualties and irreparable damage, are pushing for criminal referral to prevent the reelection of a previously elected president?

Bernie sanders incited the congressional baseball mass shooter by the shooters own admission.

Obama incited the execution of 5 Dallas police officers in 2016 by admission of the shooter as well.

All of this is still infinitely worse than Jan6, where the only person who died was an unarmed white protestor shot by a black agent, and a couple thousand dollars in damage to state property (barriers and a window?) and a few hundred thousand of CNN's staged and abandoned camera equipment.

But beware of the 65 year old neo nazi who has had both of his feet hacked off from diabetes who said something racist 12 years ago, and ignore the tens of thousands of BLM/ANTIFA revolutionary murderous larpers the next time some piece of shit who should have been aborted gets shot by cops after pulling a gun on them. Democrats are fucking disgusting and republicans cant even hold a candle to these people. Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney ar de facto democrats and can hang with the rest of them.

Anonymous said...

Matthew:
distinguish between things that might have taken place and were p[punished by the law. Or not. And an attempt to overturn an election for the president of the nation. Insurrection is a totally different issue than the incidents you point to. The closest we have come to this is the Civil War in 1860.
And note too that what the committee is doing is NOT indicting but passing on materials to the chief law official of the land. Now you might argue that he is "biased," but then that or related issues would go to the Supreme Court, biased and/or Right -leaning

Anonymous said...

What the Demo(n)s want is not difficult to figure out. In fact, it's very simple: TOTAL CONTROL AT ANY COST.

Matthew Putnam said...

12:11


No one tried to do anything remotely resembling an insurrection on JAN6, aside from some three letter agents inciting a few hundred republicans to go into the capital and hopefully do worse. Absolutely zero threat to the democratic process took place. I dont care how many times you've heard it, I dont care how much you want to believe it. I dont have to accept your premise to have this conversation. Just because some democrats like AOC had photos taken of them pretending to cower behind chairs for a few minutes doesnt mean that "democracy was on the line" or whatever hyperbolic take you have on that event, supported by zero evidence aside from repeating the narrative that MUST be accepted. The biggest issue you run into talking to a democrat about things like this is that it doesnt compute to them why someone wont recite the narrative they so loyally yet mindlessly follow. They use whataboutism guided by false equivalency amongst countless other fallacies. No JAN6th was NOT IN ANY WAY worse than the democrat ANTIFA/BLM riots that caused THOUSANDS of casualties and irreparably hurt this country. Oops, sorry you believe that. Whoops thats on you. Sorry that you cant come up with an objective metric for "bad" and be philosophically consistent with it.

Anonymous said...

These people are idiots playing other idiots. Let stupid do what stupid does! LOL

Amp1776 said...

6 years of investigations, and not one legitimate charge. This one will fail too. Either the leftists will be held to account at some point, or America is dead.

Anonymous said...

I Love Fred Lapides' arguments


* There is is filler or maybe supporting detail and proof of "this or that"

* Question: What is the referral from a corrupt Congressional committee to an equally corrupt AG to an equally corrupt court mean?

It has been demonstrated that the Congressional committee was illegally constituted and corrupt. Fred Lapides would you be happy is the committee had 8 democrats and 1 token Republican or would it be better and more legitimate if it had 9 Democrats and 0 Republicans?

* There is the issue of corrupt AG and the raid on Mar-a-Lago. The story keeps shifting on what was found. So it seems more of a psyop then legit law enforcement that raid is the only reason Biden went up 10 points.

We know the FBI took photos of the docs after they spread them out on the floor and the added documents and further photoshopped it. Yes it is a Kangaroo court.

* This case will be tried in DC and so Trump will not be tried in court of his peers. In a 50 50 nations to judge national known person before a deep blue jury pool is unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

"So then. If nothing illegal was done, then nothing to worry about"

The above has to be Fred Lapides. He wont reply once he is questioned under his own name.

The term lawfare has meaning. You use lawfare to bankrupt your opponent, opposition or enemy.

Trump's enemies are not using their own money they are using the public's money. Infinity versus a billion and infinity wins,

Lawfare- Wikipedia

"The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money (e.g. SLAPP suits ), or winning a public relations victory."

Nothing to worry about. We just sue and sue until you have no money.


Yes, Fred you are swell guy.

Anonymous said...

"The charges are an attempt to overturn an election."

Trump said to go to the capital building peacefully. He di not say anything about breaking in.

Now FBI agents or informants riled some in the crowd up and got them to enter.

One such FBI informants was Ray Epps. He is heard on tape telling people to go in.


Unless you want to discuss Ray Epps and crowd psychology, I take it you will do nothing but snipe with comments and never come clean.

Anonymous said...

If the former president is indicted, it will be by the attorney General. His salary etc paid for by American taxes. Do you now imagine that he ought not indict anyone because he is using tax money? If that were the case, then no reason to have an attorney general.
why not simply accept a simple fact/truth:
if Trump is indicted, the prosecuter will have to prove beyond doubt, ie with solid evidence, his case.
You simply can not accept that simple truth of the legal system and so fudge about to make a comment seem useless when in fact it is your comment that is meaningless.

Matthew Putnam said...

Yea wow this guy is dense. You cant argue with stupid, but youll be driven insane doing so. Nothing but single factor analysis from one angle without consideration to everything else including externalities. Guess it makes navigating his own bullshit easier for him. Fucking nail painting troglodyte. According to him it all comes down to a court and no one can have an opinion or state/argue obvious facts/patterns until its formally concluded as bullshit, and the next made up scandal gets put under the microscope; and we cant talk about that until other people are allowed to think for us and give us their opinion. The hive mind is strong with this one. Where were you after the Trump-Russia Conclusion hoax concluded? And the Q Anon conspiracy that manifested as the Epstein death and eventual trial of maxwell and the lack of interest in the long list of democrat child fuckers who visited there? Oh Trump and Epsteain laughed in a photo? Guess he fucked children to. Hitler had a dog and so do most people, therefore most people have things in common with Hitler so why not get the 4th reich started already hahaha. Im done.


Out.

Anonymous said...

"If the former president is indicted, it will be by the attorney General. His salary etc paid for by American taxes. Do you now imagine that he ought not indict anyone because he is using tax money? "

The point not whether a good and honest AG should use public money to prosecute someone. He or she should.

The problem is when you get a corrupt AG and they use public money to prosecute someone. they have an unlimited supply of money to launch corrupt attacks.


So you did not answer the question. You threw up strawman.

Anonymous said...

"if Trump is indicted, the prosecuter[sic] will have to prove beyond doubt, ie with solid evidence, his case."

Ummmm No, that is not how that works. He merely has to present a case mouth some words and liberal jury will convict based on anything and everything.

Anonymous said...

"You simply can not accept that simple truth of the legal system and so ..."

If the legal system is anywhere near as corrupt as the FBI (see FBI and Twitter collusion), the simple truth is the legal system would/will convict Trump or Winston Smith.

You know Fred, I remember you arguing with WNU about whether social media was corrupt and censoring stuff,. Tat was about 4 years ago, Yu have not gotten any wiser and you know the truth less now than then.

Anonymous said...

ha ha...now the jury (not yet put together) is liberal...that is they are liberal if they convict. Otherwise they are ok. Fact: the court could be anywhere in America and there will be pro and anti trump people. The Defense and the prosecution will pick.
Your arguments are pure bullshit because you have nothing to say to this simple fact: The House sent info on to Dept Justice. They will decide to prosecute or not. Then a jury will decide if there is a trial.

Anonymous said...

The sedition trial of former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio is ramping up in Washington, D.C., this week, with jury selection due to begin Monday.

The federal government charges that Tarrio, along with four key deputies, conspired to oppose the transition of power from President Donald Trump to President-Elect Joe Biden by force — with several Proud Boys members wreaking havoc on Jan. 6, 2021, and celebrating afterward.

Following the conviction last month of Oath Keeper founder Stewart Rhodes, the Tarrio trial marks the Department of Justice’s second attempt to nail a right-wing militant leader for sedition. Sedition trial are rare and convictions even rarer. The successful prosecution of Rhodes and Kelly Meggs, a top Oath Keepers deputy, were the first sedition guilty verdicts in more than a quarter of a century. (A second sedition trial of Oath Keeper subordinates is also underway.)

CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOSTR

Anonymous said...

It is not working Fred Lapides. Evidenced gathered by the FBI that colluded with Twitter to suppress free speech and also to violate federal election law. That FBI?

I still remember about a year or a year or or years ago liberals swore up and down that Tarrio was a white supremacist. If yo can get 33% to 50% of the population to believe that, you can shovel anything in court.

Just remember. the Democrat Party is the party for Drag Queens.

Anonymous said...

Address the issue. If you dislike the legal system here, then move to another nation. If Trump is indicted--that is still unknown--and found guilty, he can appeal...after all, he got his own people on the Supreme Court.
Now here is what the House found and made public today:

The summary of the final report from the U.S. House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol revealed the total number of weapons the Secret Service seized even before a mob of Donald Trump's supporters stormed the building.

The weapons, confiscated from the 28,000 spectators who passed through metal detectors to see Trump's speech on the Ellipse hours before the attack, included:

269 knives or blades
242 canisters of pepper spray
30 batons or blunt instruments
18 brass knuckles
18 tasers
6 pieces of body armor
3 gas masks
17 miscellaneous items like scissors, needles, or screwdrivers

Anonymous said...

You are wrong wrong wrong. And also wrong about Ray Epps!

Ray Epps Jan. 6 Conspiracy Theory Undercut by New Evidence
He was not an FBI guy urging a charge on the Capitol!

and Fox news notes this:

Trump lunged at Secret Service agent after being told he couldn't go to Capitol on January 6: aide
Former Mark Meadows aide said Trump insisted on going to the Capitol on January 6, lunged at Secret Service agent who said no

Anonymous said...

I have seen the video of Ray Epps urging people to enter the capitol. So here you are telling me not to believe my lying eye and my lying ears.

If you were the president and you saw what liberals CLASSIFYT AS A RIOT, YOU WOULD WANT TO GO THERE TOO AND TELL THEM STAY OUTSIDE.

Liz Cheney whined that he did nothing and here you tell me he wanted to do something. Now we will never know, which way it would have gone.


And we all know that talking of Benford analysis is useless, because you and numbers do not get along. Good thing that it is chic to wear sandals in America, because now you will be able to count to 20.

Anonymous said...

Even Fox notes what Epps said and did and was...you saw nada and live in dream world. You can't handle truth!!!
the chickens coming home to roost
how many perps have now pleaded guilty? that is fake, right?
how many jailed? fake, right?
Secret Service testimony fake, right?
Hope Hicks testimony fake, right?
dream on

Anonymous said...

Ray Epps: Viral video shows ex-marine urging Jan 6 crowd to storm Capitol

FBI, FSB, freelance troll,,, whatever you are you are just sick