Txdigest.com

I wonder if they will make it a national day of Commemoration eventually!

A prominent former federal prosecutor recently said that the various criminal charges against Donald Trump "can be proved" beyond the legal standard of reasonable doubt.

Glenn Kirschner previously served as a prosecutor for the U.S. Army, and now serves as a legal analyst for various news networks, known for his outspoken criticism of the former president and analysis of his different legal woes. On Friday, the two-year anniversary of the January 6 Capitol riot, he spoke to radio host Dean Obeidallah for an interview, during which he said that criminal charges against Trump could be justified to a rigorous legal standard. His comments were in response to Obeidallah asking if he could make a case against the former president so long after the failed insurrection attempt.

"Not only could I have made a case, but let's look at what's happened," Kirschner said. "Congress, not a law enforcement agency, had to pick up the investigative slack and run with it. They have issued a report, a mega report, that documents and details so much evidence supporting the conclusion that Donald Trump committed crimes, indeed supporting the assertion that those crimes could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law."

Kirschner continued, growing more impassioned and expressing frustration over the Department of Justice's (DOJ) seemingly lack of movement against Trump.

"Where in the hell is the Department of Justice?" he asked. "It's absurd. I am sometimes DOJ's biggest fan, sometimes its most vocal critic, but I know evidence of guilt when I see it. Let me be clear: I was never a bureaucrat at the Department of Justice. I was not interested in climbing the bureaucratic ladder of success. Some might say I was incapable of climbing the bureaucratic ladder of success, but what I know, even if it's all I know, is how to put criminal cases together and prove them to 12 people in a jury box beyond a reasonable doubt. It's all I did, it's what I love, and it's what I think I had a certain aptitude for."

Kirschner added: "These cases can be proved. The only impediment to Donald Trump's conviction is a damn indictment, at this point."

The "mega report" that Kirschner referred to was the final report from the House select committee investigating January 6, which wrapped up its exhaustive investigation into the attempted insurrection last month. During its final public meeting, the committee unanimously voted to approve criminal referrals of Trump to the DOJ, for charges of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to make a false statement, and attempts to "incite," "assist," or "aid or comfort" an insurrection.

The report also named several Trump allies as potential co-conspirators meriting DOJ attention, including Rudy Giuliani, legal counsel John Eastman, and former chief of staff Mark Meadows.

So far, the DOJ has not issued any indictments against Trump, however Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel handling all potential cases against the former president.

Smith is a veteran prosecutor with nearly three decades of experience in criminal cases who has served both the state and federal level. He has also extensive experience prosecuting international political and criminal investigations.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-criminal ... er-1772064

So, his evidence is from the one-sided kangaroo court committee, made up entirely of Trump enemies? Yawn.

jellowrestling wrote:So, his evidence is from the one-sided kangaroo court committee, made up entirely of Trump enemies? Yawn.

Ah, once again, the shoot the messenger fallacy appears. Over and over and over

planosteve wrote:

jellowrestling wrote:So, his evidence is from the one-sided kangaroo court committee, made up entirely of Trump enemies? Yawn.

Ah, once again, the shoot the messenger fallacy appears. Over and over and over

Let me re-phrase my response so even dumb*sses can (potentially) understand:

He based his conclusions on propaganda. No one represented Trump, and every member was chosen specifically to railroad him.

jellowrestling wrote:

planosteve wrote:

jellowrestling wrote:So, his evidence is from the one-sided kangaroo court committee, made up entirely of Trump enemies? Yawn.

Ah, once again, the shoot the messenger fallacy appears. Over and over and over

Let me re-phrase my response so even dumb*sses can (potentially) understand:

He based his conclusions on propaganda. No one represented Trump, and every member was chosen specifically to railroad him.

Poor Baby.

And the difference in the number of documents (so far) is meaningless. All it takes is one.

jellowrestling wrote:Let me re-phrase my response so even dumb*sses can (potentially) understand:

Best of luck with that.

When the new house releases the 14 thousand hours of suppressed video the story will change

Sangersteve wrote:When the new house releases the 14 thousand hours of suppressed video the story will change

That could be interesting.

Mark wrote:

jellowrestling wrote:Let me re-phrase my response so even dumb*sses can (potentially) understand:

Best of luck with that.

Yeah, it's pretty hopeless.

Note to dumb*ss: I'm not talking about Trump, or the odds of the Cowboys winning, or anything else. I'm talking about YOU.

Calling people names is so "highschoolish".

planosteve wrote:Calling people names is so "highschoolish".

..but often accurate and necessary.

GFB wrote:

planosteve wrote:Calling people names is so "highschoolish".

..but often accurate and necessary.

I only know of 2 people here that ever do that. And one of them is you

planosteve wrote:

GFB wrote:

planosteve wrote:Calling people names is so "highschoolish".

..but often accurate and necessary.

I only know of 2 people here that ever do that. And one of them is you

Most do not find you worth engaging.

I do..I have hope for you.

GFB wrote:

planosteve wrote:

GFB wrote:
..but often accurate and necessary.

I only know of 2 people here that ever do that. And one of them is you

Most do not find you worth engaging.

I do..I have hope for you.

Most, on this page, probably don’t agree with him. Most, in the real world, likely do agree with him.

The biggest problem with “always Trumpsters” is that they continue to believe they’re in the majority. Even though that’s Looney Tumes, it’s fine. I don’t need to worry about telling a flat-earther that they’re idiots. The majority knows they are. Same with Trumpsters. They just don’t understand it yet. But, they’re a little slow, so?

But what do I know? I’m a 4th generation Texan who understands what real Texans believe in. How could I possibly compete with a Yankee transplant Californian who thinks he’s the smartest person in the room?

rusty wrote:

GFB wrote:

planosteve wrote:I only know of 2 people here that ever do that. And one of them is you

Most do not find you worth engaging.

I do..I have hope for you.

Most, on this page, probably don’t agree with him. Most, in the real world, likely do agree with him.

The biggest problem with “always Trumpsters” is that they continue to believe they’re in the majority. Even though that’s Looney Tumes, it’s fine. I don’t need to worry about telling a flat-earther that they’re idiots. The majority knows they are. Same with Trumpsters. They just don’t understand it yet. But, they’re a little slow, so?

But what do I know? I’m a 4th generation Texan who understands what real Texans believe in. How could I possibly compete with a Yankee transplant Californian who thinks he’s the smartest person in the room?

Well, I'm a fifth-generation Texan who understands what real Texans believe in.

But I fail to understand what that has to do with anything related to this post about January 6th, or the discussion that has followed regarding someone's dumb*ssery.