TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 12:38 amIf Trump or another Republican does not win in 2024, I believe this will mark the end of democracy in America.

I do not believe it is the end of democracy (or of the republic) in our country. I do believe it is an explanation of why they are trying so hard to get "weapons of war" out of the people's hands. The tree of liberty is faltering and will need to be refreshed very soon. Unfortunately that requires the blood of both patriots and tyrants. I do believe that, unfortunately, more patriots will give their blood than the tyrants, because we tend to be more merciful than we should. but we do have patriots who are willing and just waiting for the right time to start.

powerboatr wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 2:10 pm well he is to be arrainged on tuesday on charges that are still unreleased even to the plantiff

how can you be told to turn yourself in for booking on charges that you have not been made formally aware of? maybe i stated that wrong.
but if the indictments are still sealed...how can one be expected to turn yourself in on charges that you have not seen, so at the hearing you have legal representation to argue the merits of the charge or NON merits of the charge?
news says he will be formally read the indictment on tuesday at his arraignment hearing
i am very confused ...could just be my ignorance of law??

This is a misunderstanding of the way the court process works. It is caused, at least in part, by most of us learning our law from TV and not getting a real education in the process. Of course, the hope is that you will never really need to understand this process fully anyway.

In general, when a grand jury returns an indictment it is a public record. In small towns, the newspaper runs a list of the indictments (people and charges) each session of the grand jury. Most people find out the charges when they are arrested on the warrants that are automatically generated when the indictment is returned. Many people who already know about the charges (arrested and released on bond pending the indictment) get to arrange to turn themselves in to see the magistrate instead of being arrested.

An indictment can be kept sealed when there is some valid reason to not let people know about it. This could be they think the suspect would flee if he knew, or that some evidence could be destroyed, or that there are non-indicted co-conspirators that could be scared off. In this case, my gut feeling says this is why the indictment was sealed. But to arrest the first suspect, they have to unseal at least parts of the indictment because he has the right to be informed of the charges against him.

But the arraignment (or magistration as we call it) is a hearing where the suspect is told of the charges against him, read his rights to make sure he understands them, and enters his plea. The judge will then set the terms of the bail. BTW, the SCOTUS says this is the first adversarial court hearing and that you have the right to have a lawyer represent you at the arraignment )and the state must pay for it if you cannot afford it).

What I have been looking at is a real potential flaw in the procedure. If a person is indicted in one state, and is arrested in another state, he has to be extradited between the states. If someone were to arrest Trump in Florida, DeSantis has already said that Florida would not extradite him. What would Bragg do then? If Trump refused to turn him self in, would there be a warrant in the system for him? The originating state has to say if they will come pick him up from the extradition. If the originating state said no, he gets let go in his home state again. In every state Trump goes to, he could do the same thing. Let them arrest him and be cooperative with them, but not waive his extradition and make NY agree to come get him. Obviously he would need to avoid New York, but no one with any taste wants to go there anyway. It would be a fun way to campaign anyway.

My last thought on this is that it is going to backfire badly on the Democrats. It will drive more people to support Trump because of the harassment. That will help him win the whole thing. I know they are trying to help him get the nomination because they think he will be easier to defeat in the main event. If they are right, then they already have plans to steal the next election also. And that WILL touch off the revolution, IMO. It means they are plotting to destroy this country (if there was any doubt of that, we have the timeline now).

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:18 pmI don't really care how a billionaire took office and lost money. Let's see all members of congress tax returns. I would love to know how these folks take a job paying 150-175k per year and become multimillionaires within a couple years. It amazes me how the very people who wrote all the loop holes into the tax code are the ones crying about Trump taking advantage of them.

I seem to recall hearing how a fresh young congresswoman got elected in NYC and could not afford to live in D.C. on her new salary after working as a bartender to make a living. Four years later, she is not complaining and can get custom designed dresses to wear to fund raising parties that cost thousands of dollars to get a ticket to.

Yeah, seeing how to put millions of dollars in the bank on a salary of $175,00 while paying for two homes would be an interesting thing to learn. Kind of like how a community organizer can go from being almost broke to having a net worth of more than 25 million after only 8 years with a salary of $450,000 a year. Even given his not paying any living expenses during that time, that seems hard for me to understand.

Beiruty wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 1:48 pm Who came out with this nonsense, suspending the constitution?

This is an interesting problem. Everyone is jumping to either indict or defend Trump. And both sides seem to ignore that we have been suspending or ignoring the Constitution for a long time. Where in the Constitution does it give the government any powers that allow for an "emergency" to be declared and rules imposed? This was considered by the authors and it shows because they specifically mentioned the one right that could be suspended in an emergency and what would constitute the emergency (writ of habeas corpus during an insurrection). So during all of COVID, we have suspended the Constitution.

And that does not include as suspended or ignored how it has been twisted in cases like Wickard v. Filburn? We have not had a constitutional government since at least the depression of the 1930s.

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 3:46 pmhttps://www.cnn.com/2022/11/13/politics ... index.html

This is to me the most damaging thing someone has said about Trump. Comes from Kelly his chief of staff.

This is a CNN story naturally.

He wanted the IRS to audit The two FBI guys Andrew McCabe and James Comey.

What proof, well apparently they were both audited.

This is very damaging to Trump, if you accept it without question. There is a glaring hole in this story that I cannot believe was left there, other than from malice.

What were the results of the audits? If both audits revealed problems and collected money for the government, then Trump was right and the audits were justified. Even if only one audit did recover money, then it must be assumed Trump knew something other than they were "writing bad things about him" and the audits were justified. If neither audit revealed any problems and nothing was there to recover money for, then Trump was wrong and you can assume he did it for political reasons, as alleged.

And the fact that there was no mention of the results of the two audits leads me to think, considering the source of the article, that it was done specifically to malign Trump, even though he was right and the audits were justified. Another point is that there is nothing in the article that even claims Trump did anything about his desire. Did he call the IRS? did he send something to the IRS? Or did the IRS select the two on their own? The article points out that the odds are pretty low that a person will be selected for an audit but does not mention that there are certain warning flags the IRS uses to help trigger an audit. If something was wrong in the returns, it is much more likely that they both ran afoul of one of the flag trigger points.

It seems that Twitter did not like a post by the Nigerian President and deleted it. In response, Twitter was banned completely from Nigeria by the government. Twitter quickly tweeted that this was unfair and access to them and a fair and unbiased internet is a human right. They were immediately roasted for their ban on conservatives, especially naming Pres. Trump.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/twitter-h ... servatives

BigGuy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 2:48 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:45 pm

ELB wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 11:10 am

Pawpaw wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:08 pm

ELB wrote: ↑Sat Feb 27, 2021 12:14 pm This is a plan I could get behind. Have to grab the Senate back too of course.

I can't see the image.

Odd. The original image appears, and I can also see it in the quote in your post. ??

I see the word image. But in quoting this post I see a web address bing.com/images etc.

Most likely it's someplace we don't have access to. Like a private post on FB. You can see it because you have permission to that file. We don't.

I thought it was some setting in my browser or something. When I get it, I just hit quote the post like I was going to reply and it shows the URL for the image. I highlight it and click open in a new tab. I have always seen it then. When I get back to the thread, I just hit previous page and abandon my "reply".

srothstein wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:00 am

Flightmare wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:25 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:18 pm https://www.click2houston.com/news/poli ... for-trump/

Dems licking their chops to indict Trump on criminal charges for the riot.

Since he was acquitted by the senate, wouldn't a trial for the same thing run afoul of double jeopardy?

No, the impeachment clause of the Constitution specifically allows for an indictment and criminal trial. I am theorizing that since impeachment was limited to just removal from office and bar from holding office, they did not consider it "jeopardy of life or limb" as referenced in the Fifth Amendment.

Here is the specific wording:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Edit: Reading that again I note it says the party convicted can be tried. It does not say that about a party not convicted. It might be a very interesting court case to see.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:25 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:18 pm https://www.click2houston.com/news/poli ... for-trump/

Dems licking their chops to indict Trump on criminal charges for the riot.

Since he was acquitted by the senate, wouldn't a trial for the same thing run afoul of double jeopardy?

No, the impeachment clause of the Constitution specifically allows for an indictment and criminal trial. I am theorizing that since impeachment was limited to just removal from office and bar from holding office, they did not consider it "jeopardy of life or limb" as referenced in the Fifth Amendment.

Here is the specific wording:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 4:17 pm https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... s-n1207411

Fact Check on Trump statement that Coronavirus vaccine could come by year end.

NBC News says would take a miracle by the end of the year. It will take 18 months say experts.

Anyone mentioning this now.

I did see a few articles on this, mainly on Fox. Quite a few commenters were asking if the liberals will now agree that this proves that Trump is a miracle worker.

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 9:00 am https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/1 ... -happened/

This at least answers some of my doubts about the raid. It notes the work with the German government on the raid. More importantly, the photo shows the BKA members (the Polizei patches on their uniform tell me this), not our soldiers doing the raid. If we assume the picture in this article is from the raid and not a stock photo from something else, then I can see how this could have happened. Our Army combining and working with BKA.

Now the question is what happens if it is all true and we prove that the counting of the ballots was fraudulent. I don't think the law allows for this situation other than court cases to invalidate the election. Do we redo the election or does a court declare a winner? And remember that the election is really a show in many cases, as the Constitution still says the election that counts in on December 14.

Ruark wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 9:44 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:17 pm https://phibetaiota.net/2020/11/robert- ... s-triumph/

Well this is a little more tin foil hat than I usually go, but SOF ( special operation forces?) has captured Dominion servers in Germany with tons of fraud evidence, Trump plans to burn the deep state with the evidence.

Sounds like it’s ready for a feature length movie.

I do know Dominion has servers in Germany, but this wild story needs, uh, confirmation.....

This is the first I have heard of this and I cannot get a confirmation from a source I trust enough to rely on. Closest I came in a google search for it was a thread on AR15.com, but it was based on links to the same sources i don't trust fully. I concur that I would not believe this until I saw confirmation.

And since all the sources say it was a US Army raid in Germany, I have a lot of doubts about it. Germany is too close an ally for us to do that without their cooperation, so I would expect to see news of the Polizei in on the raid.

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:18 am https://www.marketwatch.com/story/repub ... 2020-11-08

Republicans must break with Trump and reach out to Biden says Market watch.

Doesn’t mention where to turns guns in at.

I think I will wait to see the Democrats reach out to me. I will adopt the motto they did four years ago and RESIST. In addition to learning from the Democrats, I must point out two fallacies in the article. The first is the unqualified statement that the Republican belief that there was election fraud is "utterly baseless." There is no way this is true, though the amount of fraud may be debatable. Even if there was no fraud, there is enough evidence of questionable behavior that the belief is in no way baseless.

The second is that there might be violence. This is called projecting. The Democrats started protesting the night Trump was elected four years ago. The violence got out of hand about six months ago and it was all led by Democrats. One of the memes I saw in the police forums is that there are now 70 million upset republicans and there are zero burned out cities or riots. This says something to me about all of the Democrats worrying about violence from Republicans.

philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:49 am https://projects.economist.com/us-2020- ... /president

91% chance Trump will lose says the Economist. This is a much better chance than he had in 2016 against Hillary. In that election the Washington Post said at about the same point that he had no chance whatsoever of winning.

The problem appears to be that they are basing the prediction on the results of polls. The mainstream media has never yet admitted that a large portion of the public has no faith or trust in them. There was always a problem in polling that a certain percentage of the people polled tell the pollster what the person thinks they want to hear instead of how they really feel. As the distrust of the pollster goes up, more people lie or refuse to answer at all.

The mainstream media has let its bias against Trump become very clear. They have also reported on people being attacked and even injured because they support Trump. This has three effects: some people might be convinced not to vote for Trump or to not vote at all (intimidation does work sometimes), some people read stories like this and decide to support Trump or at least to vote against who they perceive to be the intimidators (not many but a few), and many decide that they will not be intimidated in their voting but that there is no need to provoke people so they hide their Trump support (there is a lot to be said for this point of view but it is giving in at least a little to the intimidation).

So, between the media working to intimidate people who support Trump by what and how they report, and the lack of trust in pollsters and the media in general that increases people not telling them that they support Trump, the pollsters find Biden winning by a large margin.The media likes to report these polls because there are two more psychological factors at play. One is the pollsters not believing that a large percentage of people are willing to lie to them. They see themselves as honest seekers of the truth and want to be liked, so they want to believe that the number of liars is small. The second is much more important and it is a principle well known in advertising. The media knows that the public in general likes to see themselves as part of the In crowd and to be one of the winners. Reporting that Biden is going to win by a landslide may convince some people to vote for him and some Trump supporters to just stay home (it won't do any good anyway).

My opinion, and I make no guarantees of value or accuracy, is that the polls are way off again. I think it will be another close race, maybe even another where the electoral college is not in agreement with the national popular vote. I think Trump will be reelected and the control of the two houses of congress will stay as it is also. It will be close, but this is my call on it.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:52 pmI just saw him being interviewed on Tucker by Dr. Siegal. President Trump said he was going to make one of the treatments he received available to the public at no charge. I hope he can actually do this.

He can't do it because TANSTAFFL. He might make it available to people withut their paying for it directly, but their taxes, along with mine and yours, will pay for it.