By Curt_Anderson July 26, 2022 4:34 pm Category: Crime (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

(WaPo)People familiar with the probe said investigators are examining the former president’s conversations and have seized phone records of top aides

The Justice Department is investigating President Donald Trump’s actions as part of its criminal probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, according to four people familiar with the matter.

The prosecutors have asked hours of detailed questions about meetings Trump led in December 2020 and January 2021; his pressure campaign on Pence to overturn the election; and what instructions Trump gave his lawyers and advisers about fake electors and sending electors back to the states, the people said. Some of the questions focused directly on the extent of Trump’s involvement in the fake-elector effort led by his outside lawyers, including John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, these people said.

The Washington Post and other news organizations have previously written that the Justice Department is examining the conduct of Eastman, Giuliani and others in Trump’s orbit. But the degree of prosecutors’ interest in Trump’s actions has not been previously reported, nor has the review of senior Trump aides’ phone records.

Cited and related links:

1. washingtonpost.com

Comments Start Below

by oldedude on July 26, 2022 6:38 pm In order to actually have a case here, you have to prove incitement. "Why incitement is hard to prove – and why that’s a good thing" "In the wake of the assault on the U.S. Capitol last week, many have called for the prosecution of President Trump for inciting a riot. That’s not likely. The bar required to prosecute someone for incitement is very high, and for good reason. The protection of political speech is at the heart of the First Amendment, and courts have long shown tolerance for outrageous speech that is critical of government." "Can You Prove Incitement" In this case, it must past the LEGAL THRESHOLD to induce the act. Read below, SCOTUS overturned a violence induced tirade in 1964 under the premise of the First Amendment. "The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence" In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court made history by ruling that, to merit conviction, the violence advocated must be intended, likely and imminent." "Clarence Brandenburg, a 48 year-old television repair shop owner and leader of the Ku Klux Klan’s Ohio branch, held a rally in the summer of 1964 to articulate and celebrate his white supremacist ideology. Brandenburg proclaimed in front of local TV cameras: “if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken.” Indicating an impending Independence Day march on Washington, DC, the speech included such statements as, “the nigger should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel.” While Brandenburg was not evidently armed, other Klansmen at the rally were." mtsu.edu legalprox.com by oldedude on July 26, 2022 6:39 pm Sorry, the Brandenberg case. bing.com by Curt_Anderson on July 26, 2022 6:42 pm OD, I don't think the DOJ is focusing now on an incitement case. I suspect they are going after an election fraud case. by oldedude on July 26, 2022 6:48 pm 1. I didn't recognize Foshay. 2. So Okaaayyy. How did he interfere illegally? Again, I'm not really asking for a reply on this. Again. I already know the outcome. Just like in the obomber administration, I know what the outcome will be. by Curt_Anderson on July 26, 2022 6:56 pm If you are interested you can Google Wilbur Foshay. Among other things he promoted Salida Colorado by claiming there were fur bearing trout there. The fake electors, pressure on Pence and state secretaries of state and Eastman's other crazy schemes are probably at the heart of the criminal investigation into election fraud. by HatetheSwamp on July 27, 2022 4:58 am Some of the questions focused directly on the extent of Trump’s involvement in the fake-elector effort led by his outside lawyers When right wing media covers J6 it's almost always with sneers, guffaws and kneeslapping chortles. Step back for moment. They're busting their guts over the fact that you in the TDS crowd were celebrating the fact, and not so long ago, that Trump was going to be busted for planning an insurrection. And, now, with the cover of the progressive SwampMedia, you've quietly moved on, pretending that the whole J6 Committee was formed to look into Trump's SILENCE...SILENCE...for three hours and seven minutes. C'mon Jack. Gimme a break! Be serious. The Committee has presented testimony of a fraction of the people, all of whom now hate Trump, with Trump during the three hours. The testimony of those witnesses was to leading questions and allowed hearsay and rumor and gossip, and accepted personal impressions and opinions as fact. I'd just love to be the defense attorney if any of this goes to Court. Perhaps the most useful legal expert to appear regularly in right wing media is Andrew McCarthy who's, say, a Reagan conservative. He's definitely GOP. He's pretty much a pb GOP. He doesn't like Trump would never vote for nearly any Dem. He makes the point that if the House Dems had focused on dereliction of duty and not the insane myth that Trump planned an insurrection, back in 020,... ...IOW, what the J6ers are doing now,... ...and they'd be able to make the case in that short time, the GOPs in the Senate may well have convicted Trump in the second impeachment trial. But, a criminal prosecution? When Trump can tell his story? Bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh. by oldedude on July 27, 2022 6:21 am That's been my point this entire time. There's no real proof of anything. For the dims to say that "it's not a trial so we can do what we want to 'prove' a case" is total bullsht. All I'm asking for is integrity, which liberals don't have. Again, when you look at the New Liberal World Order Doctrine, it's much like dealing with radical Islam or the Chinese. It' perfectly legal and acceptable to lie if it gets you what you want. So everything they say is only what they want you to hear. This case and the 2 prior cases are just more examples of that. Along with CRT, sexual exploitation and grooming children in our schools, and the switching of the dollar to e-currency. by HatetheSwamp on July 27, 2022 6:38 am For the dims to say that "it's not a trial so we can do what we want to 'prove' a case" is total bullsht. All I'm asking for is integrity, which liberals don't have. Technically, Dems own the House and can do what they want to do...and, they are. But, most of America, beyond people with Stage 4 TDS see this for what it is. Your word, "integrity" is bang on. I'm luvin watching THE FIVE and GUTFELD!. The hearings are now so much a meaningless exercise in pointless fascism that they are the stuff from which comedy routines are made. And, I'll add this, Fox and right wing talk radio would not be mocking if the J6 Committee was legitimate. If both sides called their own witnesses, the right would be fully engaged, and the GOPs might be in trouble. Trump is despicable. That's true. And, if the House was doing a legitimate investigation of the J6 debacle, the nature of Trump's character would be a serious concern for everyone. As it is, the right is mocking the Committee. Last week, only 17 million people watched. 90% have TDS. Most of the rest are like us, OD, and are laughing at the Committee...and the people who take it seriously. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page