From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:

It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.

Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about..

He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."

The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.

Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."

"Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.

Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."

He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.

Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."

"The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."

On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

>From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>
>It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>
>Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
>
>He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
>
>The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
>
>Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>
>"Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
>
>Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>
>He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>
>Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>
>"The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."

What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
from him anyway.

On 7/1/22 2:27 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>>
>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>>
>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
>>
>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
>>
>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
>>
>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>>
>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
>>
>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>>
>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>>
>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>>
>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
>
> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
> from him anyway.

1. it isn't a witch hunt, except to trumpers.
2. trump's word is worthless.
3. de santis is as much of a shitbucket as trump.
--
* I just want to find 11,780 votes... *

Keyser Söze <KeyserSöze@whitehouse.com> Wrote in message:r
> On 7/1/22 2:27 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:> >>From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible.">>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible.">>>> "Because after some
of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president.">>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear.">>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."> > What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this> whole witch hunt evapora
tes. De Santis may be taking that option away> from him anyway.1. it isn't a witch hunt, except to trumpers.2. trump's word is worthless.3. de santis is as much of a shitbucket as trump.-- * I just want to find 11,780 votes... *

Spoken like a true lemming. Does Karen know you have a toilet for
a mouth?
--
lets go Brandon...

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
> >
> >It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
> >
> >Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
> >
> >He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
> >
> >The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
> >
> >Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
> >
> >"Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
> >
> >Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
> >
> >He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews..
> >
> >Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
> >
> >"The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
> from him anyway.

==
witch-hunt
/ˈwiCH ˌhənt/
nounhistorical
noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural noun: witchhunts

a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch.
b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views.

I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never have to deal with his toxic influence again.

"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com>
Wrote in message:r
> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT), > "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today: > > > >It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff. > > > >Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about. > > > >He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible." > > > >The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice. > > > >Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently cred
ible." > > > >"Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote. > > > >Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president." > > > >He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews. > > > >Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear." > > > >"The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't runn
ing in 2024, this > whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away > from him anyway.===witch-hunt/?wiCH ?h?nt/nounhistoricalnoun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural noun: witchhunts a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch. b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views.I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never have to deal with his toxic influence again.

You say Trumps criminality is real but you can't prove it. You say
he has a cult mystique. You say that the Republican party has
been annihilated. You don't buy into the FACT that the whole
process going on now is a witch hunt. Can you at least say that
you buy in to the bullshit the democratic party is promoting? Can
you at least say you hate Trump for reasons you aren't clear on.
--
lets go Brandon...

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:40:41 -0400, Keyser Söze
<KeyserSöze@whitehouse.com> wrote:

>On 7/1/22 2:27 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>>>
>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>>>
>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
>>>
>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
>>>
>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
>>>
>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>>>
>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
>>>
>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>>>
>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a
reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>>>
>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>>>
>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
>>
>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
>> from him anyway.
>
>
>1. it isn't a witch hunt, except to trumpers.

They have basically chosen the defendant before they have been able to
find a charge. That is a witch hunt.

>2. trump's word is worthless.

Probably true but if the penalty would be proceeding with charges he
understands a deal.

>3. de santis is as much of a shitbucket as trump.

Too bad he might run huh?
Who do the Democrats have?
Do you really think they will dredge up Hillary and start that witch
hunt up again?
Biden is a dead man walking with Trump like approval ratings.
The rest of the dwarfs are empty suits. Booker? Buttigieg? Abrams?
Beto?

Ronnie is saying "bring it on". Personally I would rather have him in
Tallahassee but I don't get to make that decision.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>> >
>> >It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>> >
>> >Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
>> >
>> >He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
>> >
>> >The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
>> >
>> >Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>> >
>> >"Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
>> >
>> >Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>> >
>> >He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>> >
>> >Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>> >
>> >"The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
>> from him anyway.
>
>===
>
>witch-hunt
>/?wiCH ?h?nt/
>nounhistorical
>noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural noun: witchhunts
>
> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch.
> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views.
>
>I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never have to deal with his toxic influence again.
>

The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is
designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one
after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th
amendment)
Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters?
Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections?
I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by
margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at
his base.
I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit
and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the
slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024.
The court would still be hearing motions by then.
I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in
2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to
present a defense.
Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has
always been surrounded by lawyers.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

>From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>
>It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>
>Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
>
>He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
>
>The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
>
>Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>
>"Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
>
>Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>
>He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>
>Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>
>"The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."

Emminently credible hearsay. Right.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:40:41 -0400, Keyser Söze
<KeyserSöze@whitehouse.com> wrote:

>On 7/1/22 2:27 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>>>
>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>>>
>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
>>>
>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
>>>
>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
>>>
>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>>>
>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
>>>
>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>>>
>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>>>
>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>>>
>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
>>
>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
>> from him anyway.
>
>
>1. it isn't a witch hunt, except to trumpers.
>2. trump's word is worthless.
>3. de santis is as much of a shitbucket as trump.

"That's not a baby kicking, Karen dear, it's just a fetus!"

On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 16:58:20 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT),
>"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>>> >
>>> >It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>>> >
>>> >Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
>>> >
>>> >He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
>>> >
>>> >The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
>>> >
>>> >Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>>> >
>>> >"Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
>>> >
>>> >Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>>> >
>>> >He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>>> >
>>> >Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>>> >
>>> >"The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
>>> from him anyway.
>>
>>===
>>
>>witch-hunt
>>/?wiCH ?h?nt/
>>nounhistorical
>>noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural noun: witchhunts
>>
>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch.
>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views.
>>
>>I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never have to deal with his toxic influence again.
>>
>
>The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is
>designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one
>after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th
>amendment)
>Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters?
>Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections?
>I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by
>margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at
>his base.
>I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit
>and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the
>slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024.
>The court would still be hearing motions by then.
>I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in
>2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to
>present a defense.
>Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has
>always been surrounded by lawyers.
>

Well said!

On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 17:32:01 -0400, John H <jherring@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
>"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>>
>>It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>>
>>Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
>>
>>He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
>>
>>The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
>>
>>Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>>
>>"Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
>>
>>Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>>
>>He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>>
>>Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>>
>>"The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
>
>Emminently credible hearsay. Right.

You are credibly stupid.

--
lets go Brandon...

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 16:58:20 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT),
>"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>>> >
>>> >It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>>> >
>>> >Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
>>> >
>>> >He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
>>> >
>>> >The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
>>> >
>>> >Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>>> >
>>> >"Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
>>> >
>>> >Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>>> >
>>> >He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>>> >
>>> >Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>>> >
>>> >"The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
>>> from him anyway.
>>
>>===
>>
>>witch-hunt
>>/?wiCH ?h?nt/
>>nounhistorical
>>noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural noun: witchhunts
>>
>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch.
>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views.
>>
>>I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never have to deal with his toxic influence again.
>>
>
>The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is
>designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one
>after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th
>amendment)
>Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters?
>Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections?
>I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by
>margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at
>his base.
>I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit
>and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the
>slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024.
>The court would still be hearing motions by then.
>I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in
>2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to
>present a defense.
>Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has
>always been surrounded by lawyers.
>

I would imagine that Trump's little dick up your ass doesn't bother
you at all!

--
lets go Brandon...

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On 7/1/2022 4:58 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT),
> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>>>>
>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>>>>
>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
>>>>
>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
>>>>
>>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
>>>>
>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>>>>
>>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
>>>>
>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>>>>
>>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>>>>
>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>>>>
>>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
>>> from him anyway.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> witch-hunt
>> /?wiCH ?h?nt/
>> nounhistorical
>> noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural noun: witchhunts
>>
>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch.
>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views.
>>
>> I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never have to deal with his toxic influence again.
>>
>
> The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is
> designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one
> after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th
> amendment)
> Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters?
> Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections?
> I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by
> margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at
> his base.
> I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit
> and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the
> slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024.
> The court would still be hearing motions by then.
> I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in
> 2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to
> present a defense.
> Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has
> always been surrounded by lawyers.
>

Even Biden the Bozo isn't blaming Trump for much anymore.
It's all "Russia, Russia, Russia".

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 7/2/22 7:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
> On 7/1/2022 4:58 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT),
>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which
>>>>> may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he
>>>>> committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of
>>>>> Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most
>>>>> worried about.
>>>>>
>>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as
>>>>> "eminently credible."
>>>>>
>>>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on
>>>>> Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President
>>>>> Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of
>>>>> obstruction of justice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president
>>>>> against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in
>>>>> relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty
>>>>> maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's
>>>>> testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that
>>>>> hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former
>>>>> president," Mulvaney wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one
>>>>> real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or
>>>>> credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And
>>>>> it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>>>>>
>>>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming
>>>>> toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that
>>>>> January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their
>>>>> depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team
>>>>> player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a
>>>>> reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages
>>>>> during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that
>>>>> people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate
>>>>> witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is
>>>>> obstruction of justice."
>>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
>>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
>>>> from him anyway.
>>>
>>> ===
>>>
>>> witch-hunt
>>> /?wiCH ?h?nt/
>>> nounhistorical
>>> noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural
>>> noun: witchhunts
>>>
>>>     a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch.
>>>     b) informal:  a campaign directed against a person or group
>>> holding unorthodox or unpopular views.
>>>
>>> I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its
>>> implication of a search for something that isn't real.  In my mind,
>>> and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real.  The
>>> question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it.  I'm not
>>> sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a
>>> good start.  I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win
>>> sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never
>>> have to deal with his toxic influence again.
>>>
>>
>> The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is
>> designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one
>> after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th
>> amendment)
>> Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters?
>> Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections?
>> I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by
>> margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at
>> his base.
>> I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit
>> and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the
>> slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024.
>> The court would still be hearing motions by then.
>> I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in
>> 2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to
>> present a defense.
>> Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has
>> always been surrounded by lawyers.
>
> Even Biden the Bozo isn't blaming Trump for much anymore.
> It's all "Russia, Russia, Russia".
>
>
>
I'd love to see Trump convicted of this one:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or
insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and *shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.*

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§ 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

--
* I just want to find 11,780 votes... *

On Saturday, 2 July 2022 at 09:44:35 UTC-3, Keyser Söze wrote:
> On 7/2/22 7:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
> > On 7/1/2022 4:58 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT),
> >> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
> >>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which
> >>>>> may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he
> >>>>> committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of
> >>>>> Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most
> >>>>> worried about.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as
> >>>>> "eminently credible."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on
> >>>>> Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President
> >>>>> Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of
> >>>>> obstruction of justice.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president
> >>>>> against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in
> >>>>> relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty
> >>>>> maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's
> >>>>> testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that
> >>>>> hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former
> >>>>> president," Mulvaney wrote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one
> >>>>> real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or
> >>>>> credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And
> >>>>> it is the one that should most worry the former president."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming
> >>>>> toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that
> >>>>> January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their
> >>>>> depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team
> >>>>> player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a
> >>>>> reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages
> >>>>> during the hearing was "crystal clear."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that
> >>>>> people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate
> >>>>> witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is
> >>>>> obstruction of justice."
> >>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
> >>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
> >>>> from him anyway.
> >>>
> >>> ===
> >>>
> >>> witch-hunt
> >>> /?wiCH ?h?nt/
> >>> nounhistorical
> >>> noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural
> >>> noun: witchhunts
> >>>
> >>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch.
> >>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group
> >>> holding unorthodox or unpopular views.
> >>>
> >>> I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its
> >>> implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind,
> >>> and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The
> >>> question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not
> >>> sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a
> >>> good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win
> >>> sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never
> >>> have to deal with his toxic influence again.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is
> >> designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one
> >> after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th
> >> amendment)
> >> Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters?
> >> Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections?
> >> I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by
> >> margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at
> >> his base.
> >> I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit
> >> and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the
> >> slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024.
> >> The court would still be hearing motions by then.
> >> I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in
> >> 2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to
> >> present a defense.
> >> Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has
> >> always been surrounded by lawyers.
> >
> > Even Biden the Bozo isn't blaming Trump for much anymore.
> > It's all "Russia, Russia, Russia".
> >
> >
> >
> I'd love to see Trump convicted of this one:
>
> 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
>
> Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or
> insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
> thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
> title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and *shall be
> incapable of holding any office under the United States.*
>
> (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
> § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
> --
> * I just want to find 11,780 votes... *

I wonder if "gives aid or comfort thereto" could apply to the hoard of repugnants who still make excuses for Trumps crimes?

True North <princecraft49@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
> On Saturday, 2 July 2022 at 09:44:35 UTC-3, Keyser Söze wrote:> On 7/2/22 7:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: > > On 7/1/2022 4:58 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > >> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT), > >> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT), > >>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today: > >>>>> > >>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which > >>>>> may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he > >>>>> committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of > >>>>> Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff. > >>>>> > >>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most > >>>>> worried about. > >>>>> > >>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as > >>>>> "eminently credible." > >>>>> > >>>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on > >>>>> Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President > >>>>> Donald Trump was e
vidence that might lead to accusations of > >>>>> obstruction of justice. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president > >>>>> against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in > >>>>> relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty > >>>>> maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's > >>>>> testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible." > >>>>> > >>>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that > >>>>> hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former > >>>>> president," Mulvaney wrote. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one > >>>>> real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or > >>>>> credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And > >>>>> it is the one that should most worry the former president." > >>>>> > >>>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming > >>>>> toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that > >>>>> January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their > >>>>> depositions. The messages included allus
ions to being a "team > >>>>> player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a > >>>>> reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages > >>>>> during the hearing was "crystal clear." > >>>>> > >>>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that > >>>>> people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate > >>>>> witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is > >>>>> obstruction of justice." > >>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this > >>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away > >>>> from him anyway. > >>> > >>> === > >>> > >>> witch-hunt > >>> /?wiCH ?h?nt/ > >>> nounhistorical > >>> noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural > >>> noun: witchhunts > >>> > >>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch. > >>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group > >>> holding unorthodox or unpopular views. > >>> > >>> I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its > >>> implication of a search for somet
hing that isn't real. In my mind, > >>> and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The > >>> question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not > >>> sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a > >>> good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win > >>> sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never > >>> have to deal with his toxic influence again. > >>> > >> > >> The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is > >> designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one > >> after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th > >> amendment) > >> Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters? > >> Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections? > >> I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by > >> margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at > >> his base. > >> I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit > >> and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the > >> slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024. > >> The court woul
d still be hearing motions by then. > >> I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in > >> 2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to > >> present a defense. > >> Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has > >> always been surrounded by lawyers. > > > > Even Biden the Bozo isn't blaming Trump for much anymore. > > It's all "Russia, Russia, Russia". > > > > > >> I'd love to see Trump convicted of this one: > > 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection > > Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or > insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws > thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this > title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and *shall be > incapable of holding any office under the United States.* > > (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103?322, title XXXIII, > §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)> -- > * I just want to find 11,780 votes... *I wonder if "gives aid or comfort thereto" could apply to the hoard of repugnants who still make excuses for Trumps crimes?

Do you lie awake at night dreaming up new ways to suck Fat Harry's
arse?
--
lets go Brandon...

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Saturday, 2 July 2022 at 10:04:30 UTC-3, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
> True North <prince...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
> > On Saturday, 2 July 2022 at 09:44:35 UTC-3, Keyser Söze wrote:> On 7/2/22 7:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: > > On 7/1/2022 4:58 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > >> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT), > >> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT), > >>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today: > >>>>> > >>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which > >>>>> may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he > >>>>> committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of > >>>>> Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff. > >>>>> > >>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most > >>>>> worried about. > >>>>> > >>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as > >>>>> "eminently credible." > >>>>> > >>>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on > >>>>> Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President > >>>>> Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of > >>>>> obstruction of justice. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president > >>>>> against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in > >>>>> relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty > >>>>> maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's > >>>>> testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible." > >>>>> > >>>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that > >>>>> hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former > >>>>> president," Mulvaney wrote. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one > >>>>> real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or > >>>>> credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And > >>>>> it is the one that should most worry the former president." > >>>>> > >>>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming > >>>>> toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that > >>>>> January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their > >>>>> depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team > >>>>> player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a > >>>>> reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages > >>>>> during the hearing was "crystal clear." > >>>>> > >>>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that > >>>>> people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate > >>>>> witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is > >>>>> obstruction of justice." > >>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this > >>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away > >>>> from him anyway. > >>> > >>> === > >>> > >>> witch-hunt > >>> /?wiCH ?h?nt/ > >>> nounhistorical > >>> noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural > >>> noun: witchhunts > >>> > >>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch. > >>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group > >>> holding unorthodox or unpopular views. > >>> > >>> I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its > >>> implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, > >>> and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The > >>> question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not > >>> sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a > >>> good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win > >>> sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never > >>> have to deal with his toxic influence again. > >>> > >> > >> The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is > >> designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one > >> after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th > >> amendment) > >> Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters? > >> Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections? > >> I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by > >> margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at > >> his base. > >> I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit > >> and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the > >> slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024. > >> The court would still be hearing motions by then. > >> I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in > >> 2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to > >> present a defense. > >> Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has > >> always been surrounded by lawyers. > > > > Even Biden the Bozo isn't blaming Trump for much anymore.. > > It's all "Russia, Russia, Russia". > > > > > >> I'd love to see Trump convicted of this one: > > 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection > > Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or > insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws > thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this > title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and *shall be > incapable of holding any office under the United States.* > > (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103?322, title XXXIII, > §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)> -- > * I just want to find 11,780 votes... *I wonder if "gives aid or comfort thereto" could apply to the hoard of repugnants who still make excuses for Trumps crimes?
>
> Do you lie awake at night dreaming up new ways to suck Fat Harry's
> arse?
> --
> lets go Brandon...
>
>
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

SNERK!
Knew I was referring to all y'all?

True North <princecraft49@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
> On Saturday, 2 July 2022 at 10:04:30 UTC-3, Justan Ohlphart wrote:> True North <prince...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r > > On Saturday, 2 July 2022 at 09:44:35 UTC-3, Keyser Söze wrote:> On 7/2/22 7:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: > > On 7/1/2022 4:58 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > >> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT), > >> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT), > >>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today: > >>>>> > >>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which > >>>>> may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he > >>>>> committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of > >>>>> Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff. > >>>>> > >>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most > >>>>> worried about. > >>>>> > >>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as > >>>>> "eminently credible." > >>>>> > >>>>> The former acting White House chief of st
aff Mick Mulvaney wrote on > >>>>> Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President > >>>>> Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of > >>>>> obstruction of justice. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president > >>>>> against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in > >>>>> relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty > >>>>> maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's > >>>>> testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible." > >>>>> > >>>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that > >>>>> hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former > >>>>> president," Mulvaney wrote. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one > >>>>> real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or > >>>>> credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And > >>>>> it is the one that should most worry the former president." > >>>>> > >>>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming > >>>>> toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages th
at > >>>>> January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their > >>>>> depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team > >>>>> player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a > >>>>> reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages > >>>>> during the hearing was "crystal clear." > >>>>> > >>>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that > >>>>> people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate > >>>>> witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is > >>>>> obstruction of justice." > >>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this > >>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away > >>>> from him anyway. > >>> > >>> === > >>> > >>> witch-hunt > >>> /?wiCH ?h?nt/ > >>> nounhistorical > >>> noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural > >>> noun: witchhunts > >>> > >>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch. > >>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group > >>> holding unorthodox or unpopular views. >
>>> > >>> I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its > >>> implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, > >>> and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The > >>> question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not > >>> sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a > >>> good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win > >>> sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never > >>> have to deal with his toxic influence again. > >>> > >> > >> The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is > >> designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one > >> after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th > >> amendment) > >> Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters? > >> Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections? > >> I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by > >> margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at > >> his base. > >> I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit > >> and the social upheaval it might cause
is not worth the risk for the > >> slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024. > >> The court would still be hearing motions by then. > >> I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in > >> 2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to > >> present a defense. > >> Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has > >> always been surrounded by lawyers. > > > > Even Biden the Bozo isn't blaming Trump for much anymore. > > It's all "Russia, Russia, Russia". > > > > > >> I'd love to see Trump convicted of this one: > > 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection > > Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or > insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws > thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this > title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and *shall be > incapable of holding any office under the United States.* > > (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103?322, title XXXIII, > §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)> -- > * I just want to find 11,780 votes... *I wonder if "gives aid or comfort thereto"
could apply to the hoard of repugnants who still make excuses for Trumps crimes? > > Do you lie awake at night dreaming up new ways to suck Fat Harry's > arse?> -- > lets go Brandon... > > > ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- > https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.htmlSNERK!Knew I was referring to all y'all?

I dont waste my time reflecting on what comes out of your empty head.
--
lets go Brandon...

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 06:20:06 -0700 (PDT), True North
<princecraft49@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 2 July 2022 at 10:04:30 UTC-3, Justan Ohlphart wrote:
>> True North <prince...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
>> > On Saturday, 2 July 2022 at 09:44:35 UTC-3, Keyser Söze wrote:> On 7/2/22 7:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: > > On 7/1/2022 4:58 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > >> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT), > >> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT), > >>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today: > >>>>> > >>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which > >>>>> may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he > >>>>> committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of > >>>>> Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff. > >>>>> > >>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most > >>>>> worried about. > >>>>> > >>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as > >>>>>
>"eminently credible." > >>>>> > >>>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on > >>>>> Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President > >>>>> Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of > >>>>> obstruction of justice. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president > >>>>> against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in > >>>>> relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty > >>>>> maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's > >>>>> testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible." > >>>>> > >>>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that > >>>>> hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former > >>>>> president," Mulvaney wrote. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one > >>>>> real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or > >>>>>
>credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And > >>>>> it is the one that should most worry the former president." > >>>>> > >>>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming > >>>>> toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that > >>>>> January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their > >>>>> depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team > >>>>> player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a > >>>>> reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages > >>>>> during the hearing was "crystal clear." > >>>>> > >>>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that > >>>>> people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate > >>>>> witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is > >>>>> obstruction of justice." > >>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he
>wasn't running in 2024, this > >>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away > >>>> from him anyway. > >>> > >>> === > >>> > >>> witch-hunt > >>> /?wiCH ?h?nt/ > >>> nounhistorical > >>> noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural > >>> noun: witchhunts > >>> > >>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch. > >>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group > >>> holding unorthodox or unpopular views. > >>> > >>> I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its > >>> implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, > >>> and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The > >>> question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not > >>> sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a > >>> good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win > >>> sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so
that
>we never > >>> have to deal with his toxic influence again. > >>> > >> > >> The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is > >> designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one > >> after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th > >> amendment) > >> Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters? > >> Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections? > >> I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by > >> margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at > >> his base. > >> I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit > >> and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the > >> slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024. > >> The court would still be hearing motions by then. > >> I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in > >> 2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to > >> present a
>defense. > >> Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has > >> always been surrounded by lawyers. > > > > Even Biden the Bozo isn't blaming Trump for much anymore. > > It's all "Russia, Russia, Russia". > > > > > >> I'd love to see Trump convicted of this one: > > 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection > > Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or > insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws > thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this > title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and *shall be > incapable of holding any office under the United States.* > > (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103?322, title XXXIII, > §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)> -- > * I just want to find 11,780 votes... *I wonder if "gives aid or comfort thereto" could apply to the hoard of repugnants who still make excuses for Trumps crimes?
>>
>> Do you lie awake at night dreaming up new ways to suck Fat Harry's
>> arse?
>> --
>> lets go Brandon...
>>
>>
>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
>> https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
>
>
>SNERK!
>Knew I was referring to all y'all?

Were you unable to read the question?

On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 07:39:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <nothere@noland.com>
wrote:

>On 7/1/2022 4:58 PM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT),
>> "waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
>>>>>
>>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
>>>>>
>>>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>>>>>
>>>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
>>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
>>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
>>>> from him anyway.
>>>
>>> ===
>>>
>>> witch-hunt
>>> /?wiCH ?h?nt/
>>> nounhistorical
>>> noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural noun: witchhunts
>>>
>>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch.
>>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views.
>>>
>>> I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never have to deal with his toxic influence again.
>>>
>>
>> The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is
>> designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one
>> after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th
>> amendment)
>> Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters?
>> Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections?
>> I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by
>> margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at
>> his base.
>> I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit
>> and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the
>> slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024.
>> The court would still be hearing motions by then.
>> I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in
>> 2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to
>> present a defense.
>> Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has
>> always been surrounded by lawyers.
>>
>
>Even Biden the Bozo isn't blaming Trump for much anymore.
>It's all "Russia, Russia, Russia".

Biden has to be a little careful or someone will point out Russia was
pretty quiet on Trump's watch. They got frisky during Obama's watch
and started a war on Biden's watch.

On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 4:16:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 07:39:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <not...@noland.com>
> wrote:
> >On 7/1/2022 4:58 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT),
> >> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
> >>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
> >>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
> >>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
> >>>> from him anyway.
> >>>
> >>> ===
> >>>
> >>> witch-hunt
> >>> /?wiCH ?h?nt/
> >>> nounhistorical
> >>> noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural noun: witchhunts
> >>>
> >>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch.
> >>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views.
> >>>
> >>> I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never have to deal with his toxic influence again.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is
> >> designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one
> >> after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th
> >> amendment)
> >> Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters?
> >> Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections?
> >> I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by
> >> margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at
> >> his base.
> >> I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit
> >> and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the
> >> slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024.
> >> The court would still be hearing motions by then.
> >> I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in
> >> 2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to
> >> present a defense.
> >> Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has
> >> always been surrounded by lawyers.
> >>
> >
> >Even Biden the Bozo isn't blaming Trump for much anymore.
> >It's all "Russia, Russia, Russia".
> Biden has to be a little careful or someone will point out Russia was
> pretty quiet on Trump's watch. They got frisky during Obama's watch
> and started a war on Biden's watch.

==
Putin had Trump right where he wanted him and didn't want to upset the balance.

https://cdn.forumcomm.com/dims4/default/cc2560c/2147483647/strip/false/crop/3259x2423+0+0/resize/1486x1105!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum-communications-production-web.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fbrightspot%2F5d%2F6e%2F99f75ab4481499aab953bee3ff59%2Fcolor-edit-toon-trump-on-nato-and-russia.jpg

"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com>
Wrote in message:r
> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 4:16:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 07:39:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <not...@noland.com> > wrote:> >On 7/1/2022 4:58 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > >> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT), > >> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT), > >>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today: > >>>>> > >>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff. > >>>>> > >>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about. > >>>>> > >>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible." > >>>>> > >>>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence tha
t might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible." > >>>>> > >>>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president." > >>>>> > >>>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read tra
nscripts of interviews. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear." > >>>>> > >>>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice." > >>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this > >>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away > >>>> from him anyway. > >>> > >>> === > >>> > >>> witch-hunt > >>> /?wiCH ?h?nt/ > >>> nounhistorical > >>> noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural noun: witchhunts > >>> > >>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch. > >>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views. > >>> > >>> I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not sure it's enough to
just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never have to deal with his toxic influence again. > >>> > >> > >> The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is > >> designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one > >> after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th > >> amendment) > >> Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters? > >> Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections? > >> I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by > >> margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at > >> his base. > >> I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit > >> and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the > >> slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024. > >> The court would still be hearing motions by then. > >> I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in > >> 2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to > >> present a defense. > >> Trump may be a piece of
shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has > >> always been surrounded by lawyers. > >> > > > >Even Biden the Bozo isn't blaming Trump for much anymore. > >It's all "Russia, Russia, Russia".> Biden has to be a little careful or someone will point out Russia was > pretty quiet on Trump's watch. They got frisky during Obama's watch > and started a war on Biden's watch.===Putin had Trump right where he wanted him and didn't want to upset the balance.https://cdn.forumcomm.com/dims4/default/cc2560c/2147483647/strip/false/crop/3259x2423+0+0/resize/1486x1105!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum-communications-production-web.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fbrightspot%2F5d%2F6e%2F99f75ab4481499aab953bee3ff59%2Fcolor-edit-toon-trump-on-nato-and-russia.jpg

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING.
--
lets go Brandon...

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 13:53:22 -0700 (PDT),
"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 4:16:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 07:39:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <not...@noland.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On 7/1/2022 4:58 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT),
>> >> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT),
>> >>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony as "eminently credible."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that should most worry the former president."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice."
>> >>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this
>> >>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away
>> >>>> from him anyway.
>> >>>
>> >>> ===
>> >>>
>> >>> witch-hunt
>> >>> /?wiCH ?h?nt/
>> >>> nounhistorical
>> >>> noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural noun: witchhunts
>> >>>
>> >>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch.
>> >>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views.
>> >>>
>> >>> I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never have to deal with his toxic influence again.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is
>> >> designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one
>> >> after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th
>> >> amendment)
>> >> Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters?
>> >> Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections?
>> >> I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by
>> >> margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at
>> >> his base.
>> >> I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit
>> >> and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the
>> >> slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024.
>> >> The court would still be hearing motions by then.
>> >> I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in
>> >> 2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to
>> >> present a defense.
>> >> Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has
>> >> always been surrounded by lawyers.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Even Biden the Bozo isn't blaming Trump for much anymore.
>> >It's all "Russia, Russia, Russia".
>> Biden has to be a little careful or someone will point out Russia was
>> pretty quiet on Trump's watch. They got frisky during Obama's watch
>> and started a war on Biden's watch.
>
>===
>
>Putin had Trump right where he wanted him and didn't want to upset the balance.
>
>https://cdn.forumcomm.com/dims4/default/cc2560c/2147483647/strip/false/crop/3259x2423+0+0/resize/1486x1105!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum-communications-production-web.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fbrightspot%2F5d%2F6e%2F99f75ab4481499aab953bee3ff59%2Fcolor-edit-toon-trump-on-nato-and-russia.jpg

So? I bet the citizens of Kiev (the ones left alive) wish they still
had Trump in DC.
Are you still thinking taking Putin's original offer was a bad idea?

On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 17:19:02 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart
<me@yourservice.com> wrote:

>"waynebatrecdotboats@hotmail.com" <wayne.beardsley@gmail.com>
> Wrote in message:r
>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 4:16:22 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 07:39:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" <not...@noland.com> > wrote:> >On 7/1/2022 4:58 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > >> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 11:56:20 -0700 (PDT), > >> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 2:27:15 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:33:30 -0700 (PDT), > >>>> "waynebatr...@hotmail.com" <wayne.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >From an op-ed article by Mick Mulvaney in USA Today: > >>>>> > >>>>> It's quite likely that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, which may turn out to be the most serious, and most provable crime he committed according to Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; White House Chief of Staff. > >>>>> > >>>>> Per Mulvaney, such claims are the threat Trump should be most worried about. > >>>>> > >>>>> He also described a former White House aide's Tuesday testimony
>as "eminently credible." > >>>>> > >>>>> The former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney wrote on Wednesday that in his view the real threat to former President Donald Trump was evidence that might lead to accusations of obstruction of justice. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney wrote that he had previously defended the former president against claims that he did "anything illegal or criminal" in relation to the Capitol riot. He said he was having difficulty maintaining that position, however, particularly after Hutchinson's testimony, which he said he found "eminently credible." > >>>>> > >>>>> "Because after some of the bombshells that got dropped in that hearing, my guess is that things could get very dark for the former president," Mulvaney wrote. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney also said, though, that Tuesday's hearing revealed one real threat to Trump that didn't hinge on Hutchinson's words or credibility. "It is the one that jumped out at me," he wrote. "And it is the one that
>should most worry the former president." > >>>>> > >>>>> He referred to the evidence presented by Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming toward the end of the hearing consisting of two messages that January 6 panel witnesses said they received before giving their depositions. The messages included allusions to being a "team player" to "stay in the good graces in Trump world" as well as a reminder that Trump read transcripts of interviews. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mulvaney said that the implication behind displaying the messages during the hearing was "crystal clear." > >>>>> > >>>>> "The Jan. 6 committee members believe they have evidence that people within the Trump operation attempted to intimidate witnesses," Mulvaney wrote. "And that, any way you slice it, is obstruction of justice." > >>>> What do you want to bet, if Trump said he wasn't running in 2024, this > >>>> whole witch hunt evaporates. De Santis may be taking that option away > >>>> from him anyway. > >>> > >>> === > >>> > >>> witch-hunt >
>>>> /?wiCH ?h?nt/ > >>> nounhistorical > >>> noun: witch-hunt; plural noun: witch-hunts; noun: witchhunt; plural noun: witchhunts > >>> > >>> a) search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch. > >>> b) informal: a campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views. > >>> > >>> I take some exception to your use of "witch-hunt" because of its implication of a search for something that isn't real. In my mind, and the mind of many others, Trump's criminality is very real. The question is how best to prove it, and how best to punish it. I'm not sure it's enough to just keep him from running in 2024 but that's a good start. I'd like to see his cult mystique with the right win sector of the Republican party totally annihilated so that we never have to deal with his toxic influence again. > >>> > >> > >> The whole process bothers me. Even you admit, the whole exercise is > >> designed to prevent him from running again (two impeachments, one > >>
>after he left office and now you are hanging your hat on the 14th > >> amendment) > >> Isn't this supposed to be up to the voters? > >> Why are you folks so afraid of open and free elections? > >> I would much prefer that he simply gets clobbered in the primaries by > >> margins too great to protest. De Santis is already chipping away at > >> his base. > >> I still believe the risks of trying to charge this guy over bullshit > >> and the social upheaval it might cause is not worth the risk for the > >> slim chance you can get any kind of conviction by 2024. > >> The court would still be hearing motions by then. > >> I mentioned before, Cruz is still in court for a school shooting in > >> 2018 and it was a slam dunk against a kid with few resources to > >> present a defense. > >> Trump may be a piece of shit but he is a rich piece of shit who has > >> always been surrounded by lawyers. > >> > > > >Even Biden the Bozo isn't blaming Trump for much anymore. > >It's all "Russia, Russia,
>Russia".> Biden has to be a little careful or someone will point out Russia was > pretty quiet on Trump's watch. They got frisky during Obama's watch > and started a war on Biden's watch.===Putin had Trump right where he wanted him and didn't want to upset the balance.https://cdn.forumcomm.com/dims4/default/cc2560c/2147483647/strip/false/crop/3259x2423+0+0/resize/1486x1105!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum-communications-production-web.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fbrightspot%2F5d%2F6e%2F99f75ab4481499aab953bee3ff59%2Fcolor-edit-toon-trump-on-nato-and-russia.jpg
>
>YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING.

He is still duped by the Russia, Russia, Russia bullshit that has
since been debunked. The Steele dossier turns out to be as inaccurate
as he said it was.