The writing is on the wall and many Americans can't see it.

[fightforfreedom]

People like Eastman, Rudy, Powell and others, are being disbarred for what they did during the Coup of Fools. This is a clue. The evidence to disbar them is overwhelming and this evidence will one day be used in their trials.

At least 40 people were indicted for Watergate. I have no idea how many people are going to be indicted for the Coup of Fools, It could be more than 40. One day it is going to rain indictments and many Americans are going to be shocked.

Things are happening. Things are taking shape. You just have to look and then you can see it.

[mucifer]

1. I'm hopeful. But, so many under reagan were indicted and went to prison . Yet most Americans see

reagan as a hero and not corrupt.

[fightforfreedom]

2. You can't compare Reagan to Trump.

You can't compare Trump and what he did to anyone.

[ShazzieB]

4. Correct.

What Trump did was utterly without precedent. We are in uncharted waters with the7 Orange Hellbeast.

[housecat]

6. Because Reagan was a soft-spoken wolf in sheep's clothing. Trump is just a rabid wolf in your face

[patphil]

7. I agree with your analysis. Both were/are dangerous. Trump is simply more overt in his actions.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

16. Those of us who are of a certain age and have intact memories and who lived in CA

may remember a time before Reagan was "soft-spoken."

I was pretty young when he was the Governor of California, but I recall what a rhetorically rabid extremist he was during that era. Sending troops into UC Berkeley, etc.

He did learn to dial-back his public face, but Reagan has his day as a firebrand.

[OMGWTF]

25. St. Ronnie Raygun also did away with free public college in CA.

[housecat]

46. Yes you are right and thanks for refreshing my memory!

[Just A Box Of Rain]

51. No problem. In the 60s Ronnie was one right bastard.

The dopey sunny-dispositioned Reagan of later years was quite a re-fashioning.

Easy to forget.

[NBachers]

48. I was shot at by the tin soldiers of Reagan's army in UC Berkeley.

I watched the volley of shots that killed James Rector, and shot Alan Blanchard‘s eyes out.

I saw an interview with a team of angry and outraged doctors on TV. They were holding the double ought buck shot that they had taken out of a victim’s heart. And then I saw Reagan come on TV an assure Californians that all shooting had been done by the demonstrators.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

53. Oh god, I'm sorry.

I was a student at UC Berkeley when this asshole was first elected president.

We had a long march through the town that night and I had remembrances of what he'd done...what he'd ordered---to happen on our campus, all those years before, swirling in my mind the whole time.

I despised that man.

Respect for being there. I did not forget the sacrifices.

Peace.

[NBachers]

59. I watched the olive drab helicopter fly low over campus, spreading teargas that then drifted into an

Elementary school nearby. The war came home.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

60. The war certainly did come home.

Thank you for sharing your experience. It means a lot to me.

[housecat]

56. Of course, just like Putin and all republicans. Sorry you had to go through that.

[Cheezoholic]

64. Yes! And lest we forget even before his totalitarian rule began he was spying on his fellow actors

and turning the "leftist" artists in to the good 'ol boyz McCarthy and Trump mentor Roy Cohn (who ironically died of HIV during Rayguns presidency, can't make that shit up) as communists ruining the lives of many of his "peers". The fucker was the perfect fascist corporate tool. A fucking greasy haired weasel.

[Permanut]

67. Reagan spoke in Portland Oregon in 1962..

I was a junior in high school, didn't know much about politics or Reagan. He railed on for a half hour about those horrible commies we have to look out for. John Birch Society was active then too, and both impressed me as dangerous.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

71. I remember the Birchers too. We had some in my neighborhood when I was a kid.

The "Better Dead Than Red" bumper stickers on their cars and the cultic look in their eyes. Scary people. Dangerous, indeed.

So you got to see Reagan when he made no pretense of being anything other than a hard-ass SOB?

It is like the latter-day Reagan had a personality transplant, or his acting improved, or the dementia that become complete in his last years had already begun softening his public expressions while president. Not sure which.

But that scary 1960s Reagan was anything but sunny and avuncular fellow he tried to play during his presidency.

Cool--in its own way--that you got to see that first hand.

[lindysalsagal]

19. More like snarling weasel

[DownriverDem]

32. Same as DeSantis

He is like trump in better clothes using better words. This is why I don't want DeSantis to be their nominee.

[housecat]

47. and white boots

[Cheezoholic]

14. The hell you can't

Almost every one of these fucks were knee deep in the underbelly of Rayguns bullshit. These traitors have been committing seditious treason for 40 years. I'm not going to list them all here but just look at Fat Mans "pardon" list, Stone and Manafort, too much evil shit to list, Flynn shit stank deep in Iran Contra. John Eastman (insert scary link https://www.prageru.com/presenters/john-eastman) was a holy shit fuckwad Director of Congressional & Public Affairs at the United States Commission on Civil Rights on the hill for these fuckers back in the 80's (follow that bread crumb). All you need to do is google man, it's all there. They've been setting this up for over 40 fucking years. Stone and Manafort are probably more guilty than all of them combined and they are both masturbating in their hot tubs. It's disgusting. Over and over they've been working towards this goal and they almost did it. Trump IS Reagan and Reagan IS Trump in the grand scheme of this plot.

Take the time, pull the names of the key players from the 1/6 report. All roads lead back to Raygun. Laying all of this at the foot of Trump while ignoring the true infection is criminal in and of itself and this will not end with the Fat Man martyred. The preparations were made for 40 years, the first shot has been fired.

It takes a village to overthrow a government
(Apologies to Hillary for the bastardization)

[Autumn]

30. Best post I have seen on this BS. Thanks.

[fightforfreedom]

31. You win the craziest post of the year award.

[ancianita]

41. +100 The book I've been reading on the history of the CIA proves you right about Reagan.

AND Trump.

[Scrivener7]

73. What's the title? I'd like to read it.

[ancianita]

75. It's by Chris Whipple, the same guy that wrote "The Fight of His Life," about Biden.

I read it just to see the author's bias about the CIA under different presidents, and can say it's well written but not a page turner. I got the paperback from amazon for $13.

[Scrivener7]

76. Thank you! Putting it on the list.

[housecat]

52. "Raygun." Has a ring to it

[Cosmocat]

63. Spot on

Great post.

[FSogol]

21. Bullshit. Reagan was just a politer version of Trumpy. n/t

[fightforfreedom]

35. I remember Reagan, he was no Trump. Not even close.

[FSogol]

37. You are wrong. He ignored a health crisis that killed millions. He worked a deal to

keep American hostages in Iran until after the election, he sold weapons to our enemies who used them kill US Marines.
His cabinet had more corruption and indictments than any in US history. He began the dismantling of the social safety net that continues today. He closed Federal Mental hospitals, dumping those people (many of them veterans) out on the street.

Reagan supporters can fuck off and die.

[housecat]

49. well said

[llmart]

54. You nailed it.

Some of us of a certain age have never bought into that "heroic Reagan" b.s. the so-called liberal media has fed the public. I, for one, will never forget how horrible he was.

[housecat]

57. He refused to admit there was an AIDS crisis. How many died because of raygun?

[SomedayKindaLove]

61. Reagan was the seed

Trump was the fruit

Time to chop the tree down

[infullview]

9. Not to mention

that Reagan was implicated, but by then was also diagnosed with Alzheimer's so they decided to leave him alone.

[wnylib]

66. MOST Americans? Not Dems and we outnumber the rest.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

3. Well said. The kind of overwhelming evidence that convicted militia after militia

Last edited Fri Jan 27, 2023, 03:14 PM - Edit history (1)

exists for lawyer after lawyer and wannabe dictator after dictator.

How much more do folks need that the writing is indeed on the wall, just take a look!

Its all there in plain English!

Though most of the nation not be so much shocked on Indictment Day 2023 as relieved.

With the militias firmly in jail the clear signal sent to future wannabe militias and Gunners on any interruption of Indictment Day, lets proceed.

To me all played out as perfectly as can be in a democracy where rule of law applies equally to all…causes impatience because waiting in the age of Twitter for the Rule of Law and the collection of Evidence beyond reasonable doubt to catch up is hard stuff, I get it.

[Ligyron]

11. It's people like you who give me hope and keep me sane.

[CrispyQ]

5. You are way more optimistic than I am.

We broke rule of law when we decided not to challenge that a sitting president can't be indicted or prosecuted. Building a solid case, collecting evidence & testimony, yeah, I see why the J6 investigation takes time, but the documents case was a slam dunk & we did nothing. Now, with confidential docs being found pretty much everywhere & every day, my guess is despite the difference in Trumps case vs Biden & Pence, he will walk on the docs case, too. The media is already ignoring the differences when they discuss the cases. And why didn't Biden's team do a thorough search in few days instead of dribbling the info out like this?

I hope you're right & I'm wrong, but we don't have a good track record of holding the other side accountable.

[Beastly Boy]

12. An argument can be made against not indicting a sitting president, but that doesn't extend to the

documents case (I presume you mean the classified documents found in Trump's possession). In neither event, however, can anyone claim that the rule of law has been broken.

When it concerns a sitting president, the rule of law, as it currently stands, demands that in order to be indicted, the sitting president needs to be unseated first. The Constitution provides for accomplishing that. If an attempt to indict a sitting president in violation of the Constitution takes place, THAT would be breaking the rule of law. We can decide to challenge this without violating the rule of law: amend the Constitution. But any challenge outside this remedy, not the decision to have the standing rule unchallenged, would constitute breaking the rule of law. There are two other, arguably less likely ways to challenge this rule: one is for the President to direct DOJ to strike this rule, and the other is for Congress to pass a law nullifying it. Either one is sure to end up in SCOTUS, and the decision, most likely to uphold the rule, would be binding and irrevocable. In any event, upholding the status quo of not indicting a sitting president constitutes upholding the rule of law, not breaking it.

On the other hand, the documents case, since Trump is no longer president, is irrelevant to and cannot be lumped with any of the above. And DOJ appointing a special counsel to investigate the case cannot be seriously represented as doing nothing.

[fightforfreedom]

15. Correct. Let me add this this.

Trump committed a major felony after he left office, as a civilian. He defied a Federal Grand Jury subpoena and then hid evidence. That's what Smith can charge him with. Biden And Pence cannot be charged with this.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

55. Where do you get this?

"If an attempt to indict a sitting president in violation of the Constitution takes place, THAT would be breaking the rule of law."

That makes no sense.

[Beastly Boy]

62. US Constitution, Article 2, Section 4

Last edited Sat Jan 28, 2023, 12:29 AM - Edit history (1)

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

and the following commentary to it:

While judicial precedents inform the effective substantive meaning of various provisions of the Constitution, impeachment is at bottom a unique political process largely unchecked by the judiciary.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachment-overview


Further, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-3/jury-trials


Since cases of impeachment, including that of a sitting president, are exempt from trial by jury, any attempt to indict a sitting president by a grand jury is unconstitutional by definition, and, although there is no precedent for this, will likely be prevented from taking place in a court of law.

(edited to provide links)

[Hermit-The-Prog]

78. The Constitution does not preclude indictment

Nothing in the quotes you provided prevent indicting a President. Removal from office and indictment (or conviction) of a felony are separate matters.

If the intent was to protect a President from indictment, it would be spelled out in the Constitution. The only basis for the current idea of such protection is a memo the DoJ came up with during Watergate.

It seems Constitutional scholars and lawyers continue to debate this.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president [ By Laurence H. Tribe ]
[ ... ]

Nothing in the Constitution supports treating amenability to the criminal process as something that kicks in only after a civil officer has been impeached and removed. To treat a sitting president as immune to that process until his presidency ends is to superimpose upon the impeachment framework—a framework designed as the way to remove a president who commits an impeachable offense that might or might not also be a federal crime—something quite extraordinary in a system priding itself on the axiom that no one is above the law.

The fact that the Constitution does indeed embody that axiom is illustrated by the care it takes to grant immunities from the law expressly and with relatively precise contours, rather than by implication and with striking imprecision. Consider, for instance, the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I, Section 6, specifying that senators and representatives “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses ... and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Note that no such privilege is accorded to the president of the United States and that, even when it is accorded to members of the House and Senate an exception is made for felonies.

If a parallel immunity were to be created by implication for the president by virtue of that officer’s unique place in our government’s structure, any such implied immunity would need to carve out at least those cases involving felonies committed to facilitate winning that high office. To imply presidential immunity without simultaneously excluding those pre-inaugural crimes that were committed in order to become president would be manifestly unjust. It would create a perverse incentive structure, telling those seeking the presidency that the more successful they become in fraudulently obtaining and holding onto it, the less likely they would be to be held fully accountable for their perfidy.

[ ... ]

[Beastly Boy]

79. As you almost rightfully noted, the Constitution doesn't EXPLICITLY prohibit indictment. By the same

token, it does not explicitly permit indictment either. However, what Laurence Tribe argues is a bit of a careless stretch: there IS something in the US Constitution that supports treating amenability to the criminal process as something that kicks in only after a civil officer has been impeached and removed. Tribe builds his best argument almost entirely on his claim to the contrary, which makes it a faulty argument based on a faulty premise (I will disregard other arguments Prof Tribe is advancing, like the DOJ rules he is so dismissive of, or issues relating to state prosecution vs federal prosecution, or the likelihood of anyone being pardoned by a successor President, because none of this is necessary to argue the unconstitutionality of indicting a sitting president).

As Prof. Bobbit noted in his rebuttal to Prof. Tribe,

Professor Tribe’s argument depends on an artful reading of Article I, Section 3, which provides that “the Party convicted [by the Senate in an impeachment proceeding] shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment.” The natural import of these words—their textual meaning to the ordinary reader—would assume, I think, that “the Party convicted” must be someone who has in fact been convicted, i.e., who has gone through an impeachment process prior to being subject to indictment.
Professor Tribe’s point, however, ignores the plain import of the text and relies instead on an implied intent.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-president-be-indicted-response-laurence-tribe

Tribe's strongest argument is that it is inconceivable for the framers of the constitution to permit a system "priding itself on the axiom that no one is above the law" to not have an instrument for indicting a sitting president. That is an upside-down argument. While it may be inconceivable to Tribe, he doesn't take into account that the framers may disagree with is view of how "no one is above the law" relates to the Constitution. The Constitution is the ultimate arbiter of what the boundaries of the law are. It does not create or enumerate the laws, it sets the rules for adopting and enforcing them, and the entire fabric of the Consitution is full of examples of how the Constitution differentiates the boundaries of the law from one instance to another. It is thus very disingenuous to argue that the "no one is above the law" axiom permits to improvise on the content of the Constitution. If it is not there, it is not there, and what is not there is the first and foremost indicator what is above the law. The axiom does not determine what's in the Constitution, it is the Constitution that determines the extent of the axiom.

There IS something in the quotes I provided that, if not explicitly prohibits indicting a sitting President, renders any attempt to indict unenforceable. And to this effect all I can do is refer you to my previous post: https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17596623

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-3/jury-trials

which flies in the face of claims that there is nothing in the Constitution that makes indictment of a sitting president exempt from trial by jury.

I am by no means an originalist, but in this case I can't find anything in the Constitution or in precedent that would contest Article 2, Section 4 or Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3

[Hermit-The-Prog]

80. How do you read that clause as making a president exempt from trial by jury?

Impeachment and indictment are not mutually exclusive. A president can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" but the Constitution does not grant immunity to criminal indictment or trial.

The Trial of all Crimes (such as a president committing armed robbery of a liquor store), except in Cases of Impeachment (which might be undertaken after the robbery becomes known), shall be by Jury'...

Certainly, a president is entitled to a jury trial, before or after impeachment.

[Beastly Boy]

82. The clause refers explicitly to all crimes and it explicitly excepts cases of impeachment from that

clause. It is pretty clear from the language of the clause that impeachments are not subject to a criminal trial by jury.

But I am beginning to see your point: what if the crime in question is a petty crime or misdemeanor not subject to impeachment? And what if the subject of impeachment never comes up in Congress while the president remains in office?

In these two exceptions, the process becomes wide open and untested. To begin with, Congress can claim, depending on circumstances, conflict of interests or violation of separations of powers even before any grand jury is seated or impeachment proceedings are announced. if Congress doesn't but announces their intent to impeach for identical charges, at any time before the verdict is reached in court, it is highly likely that the outcome will be the same: the court will have to yield jurisdiction to Congress. This will not preclude the federal prosecutors from investigating the case, but it will likely prevent the courts from seating a grand jury or reaching a verdict.

Petty crimes and misdemeanors are usually adjudicated on a state level, and wouldn't involve federal prosecutors. In this case , it would be up to individual states to seek an indictment or not, as long as the crime in question occurred on the territory of that state.

And, of course, nothing (except a presidential pardon) precludes federal prosecutors from indicting a former president.

So I must concede, indicting a sitting president is conceivable, however unlikely and fruitless, with SCOTUS eventually getting involved. In practical terms, however, I don't see it amounting to anything more than a difference without distinction.

[LittleGirl]

8. Then HURRY UP already! eom

[infullview]

10. Still taking the I'll believe it when I see it road.

[Beastly Boy]

13. There are clear signs of Eastman, Rudy, Powell and others being disbarred.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/24/rudy-giuliani-law-license-new-york-suspended
https://abcnews.go.com/US/dc-bars-disciplinary-counsel-recommends-giuliani-disbarred/story?id=95370350
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/26/politics/john-eastman-attorney-disciplinary-charges/index.html
https://www.newsweek.com/sidney-powell-fights-disbarment-claims-conspiracy-theories-could-true-1677389

You can't unsee them.

Still don't believe it?

[gab13by13]

18. The states are stepping up to the plate.

Good on them.

[Cheezoholic]

20. Eastman was on this train before he was a lawyer plus

Thomas has always been his lighthouse, his guiding hand through the cavalcade of the legal system we call Justice. Sure, coincidence some will say. Lmao that shit right there is enough for me to throw them both into the dungeons forever.

[Beastly Boy]

23. On the train of being disbarred before he was a lawyer?

I don't think I understand this.

[ancianita]

43. Not a fair to ask for what amounts to a timeline of his turpitude. But maybe this will help.

Chapman College is a far right wing private college in Orange County. So right wing they don't offer anything in the way of Black Lit or Black Hy -- all white bread privileged richie kids go there.
Eastman was head of its law school, and even Chapman kicked him out. The U of Colorado let him go, too.

He was a sloppy interpreter of the Constitution, and believed his own anti 12th Amendment hype. He's going to be nailed by law one way (as a lawyer) or the other (as a conspirator to defraud the US).

The California bar directly connects Eastman’s speech to the insurrection, saying he “contributed to provoking a crowd to assault and breach the Capitol to intimidate then-Vice President [Mike] Pence and prevent the electoral count from proceeding.”

New York University law school professor and legal ethic expert Stephen Gillers termed the accusations against Eastman, "scathing," and that the Bar was charging him with failure to support the country's and California's constitutions, despite taking an oath to do so and, "The allegation that Eastman is guilty of 'moral turpitude'," is an attack on his personal and professional character. The California bar determined Eastman made, "false and misleading statements that constitute acts of ... dishonesty, and corruption." "There is nothing more sacrosanct to our American democracy than free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power." The Bar's committee chair said, "For California attorneys, adherence to the U.S. and California Constitutions is their highest legal duty,"[123] adding Eastman, "violated this duty in furtherance of an attempt to usurp the will of the American people and overturn election results for the highest office in the land — an egregious and unprecedented attack on our democracy — for which he must be held accountable."[123]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eastman

[Beastly Boy]

45. It helps indeed.

I was genuinely perplexed by the post I responded to, but your reference makes some sense out of it. I wasn't questioning Eastman's malicious incompetence, I just couldn't make out how it fits in the conversation. Thanks for providing the context.

[ancianita]

50. Cool.

He was so evil and unlawful that he was also explicitly named with Trump in 2 of the 4 criminal referrals by the Jan 6 Committe to the DOJ.

That suited scum is toast.

[jalan48]

17. Bill Clinton was disbarred for the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

It's going to take a lot more than disbarment and fines for plotting a coup attempt IMHO.

[Marius25]

22. I still haven't seen any evidence of the big names facing consequences

We know members of Congress were major players in the coup, and not only are they not arrested, they're on prime committees.

[gab13by13]

24. The insurrection is growing.

[fightforfreedom]

29. No, It is not.

[Marius25]

33. Yes it is.

People who plotted the insurrection are literally now on the Oversight, Judiciary, and Intel committees.

[fightforfreedom]

27. That means you are not paying attention.

[Marius25]

34. No, it means nothing is happening and people here are just

wishful thinking.

[fightforfreedom]

36. Top coup plotters have been named as targets in investigations.

How is that nothing happening?

[Captain Zero]

58. Maybe the slowdown with Peter Navarro has

slowed down everything?

Eastman and Clark getting indicted for anything seems like it might speed up Navarro talking and many others too, like the traitor crew at the Willard Hotel.

[former9thward]

81. Whom?

Named by who?

[Scrivener7]

77. I have been a vocal "where the hell is the paper trail against the organizers?" shouter for two

years now. But under Jack Smith a paper trail IS appearing. For example, we are finally seeing evidence of moves being made against the Willard Hotel war-room participants.

Sadly, that means we were right and that nothing was happening for two years.

But happily, it does seem to mean that some wheels are beginning to grind forward under Smith.

But yes, as to your point above about guilty Congress people now sitting on important committees, that is the horrible denial of justice resulting from this ridiculous delay of justice.

[Scrivener7]

74. Could you cut that shit out? It's one thing to post the "retribution is just around

the corner" posts five times a day for two years straight. It's another to insist that you are smarter and "paying attention" better than anyone who questions your assertions.

You are not. You are simply the holder of an opinion. As is everyone else.

[Beastly Boy]

28. Do we know that members of Congress can be proven to be major players in the coup in a court of law

to the jury of their peers beyond reasonable doubt?

Depending on just how much we know, that might explain why the authorities are trying to avoid lawsuits for making false arrests.

[peggysue2]

26. Think at the end of this, the numbers will be greater than 40

Hillary Clinton's 'vast right-wing conspiracy' has revealed itself in living color.

Things are happening. They may not be happening at the pace we would like but the gears are moving.

Personally? I waiting for the Georgia indictments to come raining down. That should lift many spirits.

[Hassler]

38. When Bill Barr and Durham go down...

[The Wizard]

39. Lest anyone forget

Giuliani was jerking off in the Borat movie.

[republianmushroom]

40. We shall see, time will tell, don't think that much will/is going to happen

[soldierant]

42. I believe that well over 100 have already been indicted ..

yes, most are footsoldiers but I believe there are some junior NCOs in that count.

Granted it gets mor interesting when they get to the senior NCO, officers, nad especially the generals.

[Joinfortmill]

44. Totally agree.

[RockRaven]

65. Thank goodness we have a prediction of imminent justice. This has been sadly lacking these

many long years. This is the first glimmer of such optimism I've seen since Donald Trump announced his candidacy. We were all fumbling around in darkness and despair, but now the path to salvation is laid clear and unobstructed before us.