Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, March 20, 2023

Far-right broadcaster Pete Santilli called on members of the military to execute former President Barack Obama, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice if former President Donald Trump is arrested.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Santilli responded on his show by calling for Trump's supporters in the military to rise up and round up Obama and his former administration officials and shoot them against a "concrete wall."

"Get the military, whatever few are left that are gonna side with the people. You military personnel and you people with guns and badges and law enforcement will succumb to the will of the people," Santilli said in a clip flagged by Right Wing Watch.

"And ultimately, we demand, we absolutely demand that the criminals, the criminals in this country, if you want them held accountable, the criminals are Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Susan Rice," he continued.

"This entire criminal cabal that came about as a result of the murder of John F. Kennedy, the people that perpetrated the murder of John F. Kennedy, rise up to that."

"Military, join us and put all of them up against a concrete wall...and do what we must do to save not just our country, the entire world," he pleaded."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2023-03-20 07:49 PM | Reply

Extrajudicial executions?

What a patriot, that Pete!

#2 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-20 08:02 PM | Reply

I would have liked to have seen his rant in its entirety but kudos to Salon for proving 61 seconds of it. Based on that snippet this guy sounds like he needs a straight jacket.

#3 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-20 08:15 PM | Reply

Living with whites

#4 | Posted by fresno500 at 2023-03-20 11:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Obama was just the first n----- that came to mind, right?

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-21 12:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advocating for the execution of a former president is a serious offense and can have legal consequences. According to an article on Mediaite.com, Santilli's statement has been met with widespread condemnation[1]. It is possible that he could face legal action for making such statements. However, it would ultimately depend on the specific circumstances and whether his statements are deemed to be a credible threat.

There are several legal codes that could be applied to Santilli's statement. According to the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, 18 U.S. Code 879 makes it a crime to threaten a former president[1]. Additionally, threatening the president of the United States is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871[2]. Other relevant legal codes include Chapter 115 of Title 18, which covers treason, sedition and subversive activities[3], and seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 2384[4]. It would ultimately depend on the specific circumstances and whether his statements are deemed to be a credible threat.

www.mediaite.com
www.findlaw.com
uscode.house.gov
www.law.cornell.edu

#6 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-21 12:36 AM | Reply

Pete is living in the wrong country for that kind of thing.

At least at the moment.

#7 | Posted by Twinpac at 2023-03-21 12:38 AM | Reply

"#6 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2023-03-21 12:36 AM | FLAG: "

Good stuff. We do NOT joke around about this kind of thing. Period.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-21 12:41 AM | Reply

"Pete is living in the wrong country for that kind of thing.
#7 | POSTED BY TWINPAC"

If Trump is arrested, it is exactly that type of country. Rule of law no longer will have any meaning.

#9 | Posted by Claudio at 2023-03-21 01:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

#9 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO

If Trump broke the law, you don't think he should be held to account?

#10 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-21 01:09 AM | Reply

#9 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO
If Trump broke the law, you don't think he should be held to account?
#10 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

You know Republicans don't think the law applies to them.

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2023-03-21 01:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"If Trump broke the law, you don't think he should be held to account?
#10 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11"

If this same situation involved anyone but Trump, would it be prosecuted as the statute of limitations has already passed and the feds (the rightful ones to prosecute) have not pressed charges? If your answer is 'no', then we have selective prosecution for political reasons - basically, a banana republic.

And before you answer, think back to the fed just giving Hillary a fine for basically doing the same thing over the classification of the Steele Dossier in her expenses.

#12 | Posted by Claudio at 2023-03-21 01:15 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

#12 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO

Why are you dodging a very basic question: If Trump broke the law, you don't think he should be held to account?

#13 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-21 01:17 AM | Reply

"Why are you dodging a very basic question: If Trump broke the law, you don't think he should be held to account?
#13 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11"

So long as it is enforced the same way for all people - which in this case it clearly is not. Just like how your 'he stole documents' nonsense disappeared when Joe's garage turned out to be stuffed with them. All any conservative wants is for the law to be applied equally to all.

#14 | Posted by Claudio at 2023-03-21 01:19 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

#14 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO

They both stole documents, chit head. If you've been paying attention, I've been demanding the head of Joe Biden for fnkcin' months now. Just as I did Trump.

You can find the receipts. Just be sure to shove them up your fnkckin' ------ when you're done making yourself look like an idiot.

Sike!

That's never been the contention of issue for me, and THAT'S what you can look up in my post history. Obstruction, chit head. The fnkcin' guy either lied to his lawyers and influenced them to sign affidavits that ALL the documents had been returned OR he told them to sign affidavits that ALL the documents had been returned, even though they AND Donald were all fully aware that such a statement would be false. And I'm sure you know what that means? Yeah? YEAH!?

Swallow it.

#15 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-21 01:27 AM | Reply

"They both stole documents, chit head. If you've been paying attention, I've been demanding the head of Joe Biden for fnkcin' months now. Just as I did Trump.
#15 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11"

What YOU care and think is of no consequence to me or anyone else. What is important was the ramp up in rhetoric from the those in law enforcement to arrest Trump that went silent when Brandon was caught with the same. Those are people that can actually make arrests - not you, who seems little more than a low IQ clown that likes to yell at his computer screen.

#16 | Posted by Claudio at 2023-03-21 01:32 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

You right Wingers are hilarious bunch. You think you can order the military to murder a man when you have a hard time ordering a cheese pizza.

#17 | Posted by Tor at 2023-03-21 02:16 AM | Reply

Pete Santilli will soon receive a visit from the FBI.

Then he'll cry about government oppression.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-03-21 02:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Why are you dodging a very basic question: If Trump broke the law, you don't think he should be held to account?
#13 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Pretty simple really.

He's beholden to Trump.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2023-03-21 02:40 AM | Reply

"#19 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK"

I think I was pretty explicit in my response. ALL PEOPLE should be treated the same under the law. When one person's house get raided with advance notice for the news networks while the other gets a silent search only reported weeks lates, it is not equal justice. When a crackhead lies on a federal firearms application and then the wife of his dead brother that he is banging steals the gun and leaves it in the trash near a school, this couple of losers should be treated the same as any other crackhead and whore would be treated for doing the same regardless of their father. Same should apply to Hillary - if I, or anyone else, would take evidence under federal subpoena and bleach bit it and then destroy it with hammers, we would be in jail for obstruction of justice at a minimum.

So, fine - arrest Trump - but arrest him only if you would arrest ANYONE ELSE accused of the same crime. That is the fundamental basis of the US Justice System - a fundamental basis the liberals used to defend and believe in until their TDS overwhelmed their systems.

#20 | Posted by Claudio at 2023-03-21 03:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

" arrest Trump - but arrest him only if you would arrest ANYONE ELSE accused of the same crime."

Well, it is okay to put one valuation down when I'm applying for a loan, and a different evaluation completely when I'm fighting a tax assessment?

"When one person's house get raided.."

It's because they haven't been co-operating with law enforcement. If you'll notice, Mike Pence wasn't subject to a raid, either. Was HE being treated differently, or was he treating LEO differently?

"When a crackhead lies on a federal firearms application and then the wife of his dead brother that he is banging steals the gun and leaves it in the trash near a school, this couple of losers should be treated the same"

I agree. And Trump's kids should have been thrown in jail for "misappropriating" charity funds...just like you or I would've been.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-21 03:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Same should apply to Hillary "

What a riot.

HRC was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It's not her fault she either didn't commit any crimes, or was the object of the longest, worst criminal investigation in American history.

Trump promised to "lock her up". Why did he lie to us???

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-21 03:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Well, it is okay to put one valuation down when I'm applying for a loan, and a different evaluation completely when I'm fighting a tax assessment?"

Is this what he is being charged with? Please try to keep up if you must spout off.

"When one person's house get raided.."
It's because they haven't been co-operating with law enforcement."

Joe Biden had insecurely stored documents a decade old that he NEVER had the right to remove. That is cooperating?

"And Trump's kids should have been thrown in jail for "misappropriating" charity funds...just like you or I would've been.
#21 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

If that is the standard way this is handled as opposed to making them pay a fine, then I am okay with it. Now, provide a link that the standard remedy for misappropriating charity funds is jail time...because I just saw the multiple homes of the BLM scammers and I don't think any of them saw jail time - and that was outright theft. I think in the case of Trump's kids, it is inflated billing (which is more of opinion vs. fact based argument).

#23 | Posted by Claudio at 2023-03-21 03:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"HRC was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
#22 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

She intentionally destroyed evidence under subpoena. If you are not going to make a serious argument, just state that up front.

#24 | Posted by Claudio at 2023-03-21 03:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

If Trump is arrested, it is exactly that type of country. Rule of law no longer will have any meaning.

POSTED BY CLAUDIO AT 2023-03-21 01:07 AM | REPLY

Claudio talking out of his bungholio again.

#25 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2023-03-21 06:00 AM | Reply

Warning: RussianTroll @ #24

"She [Hillary Clinton] intentionally destroyed evidence under subpoena."

Fact Check, the FBI and 11 hours of intensive interrogation under oath disagree with you.

Whatever Russian Troll farm that writes your retreaded material isn't doing you any favors.

#26 | Posted by Twinpac at 2023-03-21 06:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

""She [Hillary Clinton] intentionally destroyed evidence under subpoena."
Fact Check, the FBI and 11 hours of intensive interrogation under oath disagree with you.
#26 | POSTED BY TWINPAC"

Is it standard liberal procedure here to outright lie and just assume no one will fact check you? Good lord, you people seem totally clueless about the most basic items.

www.factcheck.org

"The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted "between March 25-31, 2015" " three weeks after the subpoena. The campaign now says it only learned when the emails were deleted from the FBI report."

You truth factcheck.org, correct? You want to issue a retraction/apology now or just continue carrying on like a todler throwing a tantrum because your diaper is full?

#27 | Posted by Claudio at 2023-03-21 06:24 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Claudio talking out of his bungholio again.

#25 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Yeah. You'd think he'd try to exercise some control over those stinky drizzles.

#28 | Posted by Twinpac at 2023-03-21 06:29 AM | Reply

Claudio ~ We know the rest of the story, dumbass. This is the last minute of my time I intend to spend on your attempt to judicate ancient history.

#29 | Posted by Twinpac at 2023-03-21 06:44 AM | Reply

"Claudio ~ We know the rest of the story
#29 | POSTED BY TWINPAC"

If you know it, then why did you post such an easy to dis-prove lie? Did you have a brain fart or do you just routinely lie and no one calls you on it? You made a false statement - you got your ass handed to you. Now, you are throwing the tantrum I posted above. Have Larry change your diaper loser.

#30 | Posted by Claudio at 2023-03-21 06:50 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

LAURA ~ He don't take a hint too well, do he?

#31 | Posted by Twinpac at 2023-03-21 07:15 AM | Reply

Nah he don't. It's the Russian way.

#32 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2023-03-21 07:43 AM | Reply

Awful people like Claudio are just angry that their type of awful people like Trump can't get away with their crimes.

They only care about "law and order" when "law and order" are used similarly to the Constitution and their religion-as a cudgel against others for whom standards apply, but not themselves.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2023-03-21 07:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

JPW

That works for me.

#34 | Posted by Twinpac at 2023-03-21 08:30 AM | Reply

All any conservative wants is for the law to be applied equally to all.

#14 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO

You people cast out the conservatives among you. You hate them more than you do liberals.

You fascists don't believe in the law. You believe in power and your murderous idea of purity.

#35 | Posted by Zed at 2023-03-21 09:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

HRC was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The lying sack of ---- had FOUR YEARS to prosecute her for her crimes. Why didn't he Clodio? Surely if she was guilty of destroying classified evidence it would be a slam dunk case.

All any conservative wants is for the law to be applied equally to all.

Except for Trump, or his kids, or Rudy, or Mike Pillow, or any of the Jan 6 terrorists. But other than that, yes.

#36 | Posted by Nixon at 2023-03-21 11:45 AM | Reply

"She [Hillary Clinton] intentionally destroyed evidence under subpoena."

Then why didn't the Trump Administration prosecute her? They had the opportunity, and controlled the DOJ for years.

What's the reason? Giant PABs?

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-21 12:04 PM | Reply

"Is this what he is being charged with?"

It's another example, a parallel, where Trump does something which would get you or I arrested immediately.

In this case, Trump paid hush money (perfectly legal in most instances) and then wrote it off as business expenses on his taxes.

If a client of mine took a $130,000.00 deduction they knew they shouldn't have, they'd probably go to jail for attempted tax fraud. And if I suggested it or facilitated it, I'd lose my ability to practice.

Let's see Weisselberg and Trump face the same.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-21 12:09 PM | Reply

"If that is the standard way this is handled as opposed to making them pay a fine, then I am okay with it"

No you're not. You didn't make a peep when Trump's kids got off with a slap and classes on how not to steal from a charity.

If you "misappropriated" $2 million, you'd go to jail. If I did it, I'd go to jail.

Good to know you'll be pro-actively taking the same stand, going forward.

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-21 12:16 PM | Reply

" She [Hillary Clinton] intentionally destroyed evidence under subpoena."

Then why didn't the Trump Administration prosecute her? They had the opportunity, and controlled the DOJ for years. "

The Obama "DOJ" already "exonerated" her. It was absurd but the issue ended there. To go after her after the fact would have been akin to what Bragg is doing now.

#40 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-21 12:18 PM | Reply

" #38 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2023-03-21 12:09 PM | FLAG: "

It's a misdemeanor that has exceeded the statute of limitations.

On that narrow ground it would have been iffy to succeed in court. The attempt to elevate it to a felony rests on extremely shaky ground. No sane prosecutor goes through with this especially given the unprecedented nature of what he's attempting.

This is designed to fail. Dems and most of the media (apologize for the redundancy) desperately want him to be the GOP nominee. A corrupt prosecution elevates Trump on the GOP side of the aisle. The fact that prosecutors in Georgia are pursuing possibly legitimate serious crimes and this crap hampers that? Screw all of that! Further, now the precedent has been set that it's okay to hound former presidents AND candidates on dubious grounds because partisanship.

Democrats suck balls. Way too frequently they can't see past the ends of their noses and consider the longer term implications of their actions. It's all about raw power right now. Law fare has been their newest, shiny toy. Before Trump we had Rick Perry, Tom Delay and Ted Stevens, among others.

#41 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-21 12:31 PM | Reply

Every day I pray that God will make Russian trolls stupid.

#42 | Posted by Tor at 2023-03-21 12:38 PM | Reply

#16 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO

Still going to ignore the massively significant difference between the two cases, eh?

BTW, how did the National Archives become aware Biden had "stolen" documents in the first place?

Significant difference.

How many of those documents did Biden try to hide after notifying the NA that were his possession?

Significant difference.

How many times was Biden subpoenaed for the "stolen" documents?

Significant difference.

ALL of which you're conveniently choosing to ignore.

Stay ignorant.

It suits you.

Swallow it.

#43 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-21 03:25 PM | Reply

#20 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO

More willful ignorance. You either have zero critical thinking skills or you're a outright political hack.

Which is it?

#44 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-21 03:26 PM | Reply

Joe Biden had insecurely stored documents a decade old that he NEVER had the right to remove. That is cooperating?
#23 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO

The NA wouldn't have known about Biden's "stolen" documents WITHOUT HIS COOPERATION.

Get a clue and swallow it.

#45 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-21 03:29 PM | Reply

"It's a misdemeanor that has exceeded the statute of limitations. "

Tax fraud doesn't have a statute of limitations.

Why do you barf shcittt out of you --- when you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about?

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-21 03:29 PM | Reply

"On that narrow ground it would have been iffy to succeed in court. "

Since "that ground" didn't exist, you're back at square one.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-21 03:30 PM | Reply

"You either have zero critical thinking skills or you're a outright political hack."

With Clod, you can't rule out both.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-21 03:31 PM | Reply

"Tax fraud doesn't have a statute of limitations."

I'm not saying you're wrong...but I found this...

kretzerfirm.com

"The federal tax statute of limitations describes the time the IRS has to file charges against you if you are suspected of tax fraud. In most cases, the IRS can audit your tax returns up to three years after you file them, which means the tax return statute of limitations is three years. However, if the IRS discovers that you omitted more than 25 percent of your income on your tax return, the federal tax fraud statute of limitations becomes six years."

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2023-03-21 03:32 PM | Reply

A corrupt prosecution elevates Trump on the GOP side of the aisle. The fact that prosecutors in Georgia are pursuing possibly legitimate serious crimes and this crap hampers that?
#41 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You're telling me Bragg is going to soil his entire reputation through running a corrupt investigation and (possibly) prosecution just in hopes of elevating Trump to the republican candidacy for POTUS?

What ever the fnkc you're smoking, pass it to the left hand side.

#50 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-21 03:36 PM | Reply

of tax fraud involved. In the United States, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) generally has three years to audit and assess additional taxes. However, there are some exceptions where the statute of limitations is extended:

Substantial understatement of income: If a taxpayer has understated their income by more than 25%, the statute of limitations increases to six years.

Fraudulent tax return or willful attempt to evade taxes: If a taxpayer is found to have filed a fraudulent return or willfully attempted to evade taxes, there is no statute of limitations, meaning the IRS can pursue the case at any time.

Failure to file a tax return: If a taxpayer does not file a tax return, the IRS can assess taxes and penalties indefinitely, as the statute of limitations never begins.

In general, the statute of limitations for criminal tax fraud is longer than for civil tax fraud. In the United States, criminal tax fraud usually has a statute of limitations of six years. However, in some cases, as mentioned above, there may be no statute of limitations.

26 U.S. Code 6501 (Internal Revenue Code) - This section covers the statute of limitations on assessment and collection. www.law.cornell.edu

6 U.S. Code 6531 (Internal Revenue Code) - This section covers the statute of limitations for criminal offenses related to taxes. www.law.cornell.edu

IRS Publication 1035 (Internal Revenue Service) - This publication provides an overview of the statutes of limitations for assessment and collection. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1035.pdf

#51 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-21 03:40 PM | Reply

the statute of limitations has already passed

If that's true, a motion to dismiss will be filed on day one and your cult leader will be off the hook. Congrats!

#52 | Posted by JOE at 2023-03-21 03:48 PM | Reply

"I'm not saying you're wrong."

Just the wording is.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-21 03:57 PM | Reply

Let's cut to the salient part:
Fraudulent tax return or willful attempt to evade taxes: If a taxpayer is found to have filed a fraudulent return or willfully attempted to evade taxes, there is no statute of limitations, meaning the IRS can pursue the case at any time.

Did Trump willfully attempt to evade taxes by writing off hush-money payments as a legitimate business expense?

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-21 03:59 PM | Reply

" You're telling me Bragg is going to soil his entire reputation through running a corrupt investigation and (possibly) prosecution just in hopes of elevating Trump to the republican candidacy for POTUS?"

Absolutely. He will take the "L" and fail upwards like so many prominent Dems.

#55 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-21 06:58 PM | Reply

Bellringer, where'd you go? I boiled it down for you.

Were you right, or wrong?

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2023-03-21 06:59 PM | Reply

"Did Trump willfully attempt to evade taxes by writing off hush-money payments as a legitimate business expense?"

Seeing how often they get caught doing tax things, I can completely understand why Republicans hate taxes.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-21 07:03 PM | Reply

I was right, of course. I'm always right. Just ask Truthhurts. He will vouch for that.

#58 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-21 07:04 PM | Reply

f this same situation involved anyone but Trump, would it be prosecuted as the statute of limitations has already passed and the feds (the rightful ones to prosecute) have not pressed charges? If your answer is 'no', then we have selective prosecution for political reasons - basically, a banana republic.
And before you answer, think back to the fed just giving Hillary a fine for basically doing the same thing over the classification of the Steele Dossier in her expenses.

#12 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO

Statute of Limitations for state crimes goes on hold when the suspect leaves the state jurisdiction, which ------- did. Thus statute of limitations is decidedly NOT passed.

#59 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-03-21 07:07 PM | Reply

Danforth,

I would love to see Trump get his comeuppance. From what I've read from a couple of legal experts, the case is weak and given the unprecedented nature of trying to prosecute a former president and front-runner at the state level it hampers the efforts of prosecutors in Georgia who are pursuing far more serious potential crimes.

#60 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-21 07:07 PM | Reply

If Dems were serious about this I'd admonish them to pick their battles. But they aren't serious. This will fail by design and the intent is to anger the GOP base to choose Trump in the primary. Given his high level of unfavorability he is the most beatable GOP candidate. This is brilliant politicking. Hats off to the Dems on this.

#61 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-21 07:12 PM | Reply

I broke down Jeff's "logic" the other day:

Jeff is assuming the Manhattan DA is going to indict ------- on felony charge of campaign fraud/tax evasion related to the Stormy Daniels hush payments, something that -------'s attorney did time for.
With the intention that the indictment and trial FAIL, in order to boost sympathy for the twice impeached, insurrectionist, crooked, conman, so that ------- wins the Republican nomination, something he is already the front runner for.
It would take a republican to come up with this conspiracy theory. I mean this realllllly is off the rails type thinking.
the Manhattan da would be tempting all out civil war in a bid to get ------- the nomination, which if he gets has a reallllly good chance of winning the presidency, cause as well all know republicans cheat in elections and elections are razor thin.

Again, it takes a republican to come up with some a convoluted and moronic conspiracy theory, which similarly motivated 1/6

#62 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-03-21 07:14 PM | Reply

I still think it's funny that the guy said we should execute Obama.

Like how does Obama have anything to do with Trump getting indicted?

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-21 07:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

www.cnn.com

A potential indictment of Trump in New York is not affecting the pace of charging decisions in the Georgia case, a person familiar with the matter tells CNN,

#64 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-03-21 07:17 PM | Reply

"With the intention that the indictment and trial FAIL, in order to boost sympathy for the twice impeached, insurrectionist, crooked, conman, so that ------- wins the Republican nomination, something he is already the front runner for."

I wouldn't quite put it that way.

Trump wins, as a candidate, regardless of the outcome of the tax evasion thing. (Barring actual jail time.)

And that trial, either a win or a loss, makes the Georgia trial a Potential O.J. Level Event.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-03-21 07:18 PM | Reply

If Dems were serious about this I'd admonish them to pick their battles. But they aren't serious. This will fail by design and the intent is to anger the GOP base to choose Trump in the primary. Given his high level of unfavorability he is the most beatable GOP candidate. This is brilliant politicking. Hats off to the Dems on this.

#61 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You would have to be a drooling moron to think ------- would be destined to lose the presidency if he wins the republican primary.

Republicans are sheep that follow whoever is chosen their "leader" (not that dems are much different in that regard, I warrant)
Republicans cheat
Republicans are planning and implementing measures to allow them to steal the election with a fig leaf of legality.

So, no, helping ------- win the primary is NOT in the dems playbook.

Only a moron would think that, oh wait......

#66 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-03-21 07:20 PM | Reply

@#61 ... If Dems were serious about this I'd admonish them to pick their battles. ...

Why?

Serious question.

thx.

#67 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-21 07:21 PM | Reply

@#12 ... If this same situation involved anyone but Trump, would it be prosecuted as the statute of limitations has already passed ...

Gotta link for how the statute of limitations apply here?

thx.

#68 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-21 07:24 PM | Reply

If Trump isn't the nominee, and I've thought for a while he won't be, the trick will be to convince him not to run as an independent, thereby bifurcating the Republican vote.

#69 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-03-21 07:27 PM | Reply

" Why?

Serious question.

thx.
#67 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2023-03-21 07:21 PM | FLAG: "

Because as a misdemeanor it's a weak case and elevating it to a felony is an even weaker case. And given the politics it makes it more difficult for Georgia prosecutors to bring charges when this fails.

#70 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-21 07:29 PM | Reply

" If Trump isn't the nominee, and I've thought for a while he won't be, the trick will be to convince him not to run as an independent, thereby bifurcating the Republican vote.

#69 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2023-03-21 07:27 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

That is the fear among Republicans. He will take a primary loss personally and run as an independent and burn the GOP to the ground for this cycle.

#71 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-21 07:31 PM | Reply

" You would have to be a drooling moron to think ------- would be destined to lose the presidency if he wins the republican primary."

I didn't say that. I said that among his competitors he has the narrowest path to victory.

#72 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-21 07:37 PM | Reply

That is the fear among Republicans. He will take a primary loss personally and run as an independent and burn the GOP to the ground for this cycle.
#71 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Maybe DeSantis can buy him off by promising to pardon him for any federal crimes he might be convicted of.

#73 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-03-21 07:39 PM | Reply

JUST IN: Trump Deliberately' Misled His Own Lawyers On Classified Docs, Per Report

ABC News reported on Tuesday evening the federal prosecutors in Special Counsel Jack Smith's office "presented compelling preliminary evidence" that shows former President Donald Trump "knowingly and deliberately" misled his own attorneys regarding his unlawful retention of classified documents.

The report is based on a sealed filing written by a former federal judge, which sources described to ABC News. The report notes that U.S. Judge Beryl Howell "wrote last week that prosecutors" in the special counsel's office made a "prima facie showing that the former president had committed criminal violations."
www.mediaite.com

"Buh, buh, buh muh Biden!" -- CLAUDIO

Swallow it.

#74 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-21 07:46 PM | Reply

@#70 ... it's a weak case and elevating it to a felony is an even weaker case ...

Why?

#75 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-03-21 07:50 PM | Reply

#73. I like where your mind is at, Gal Tuesday.

Why Tuesday? What is wrong with Friday?

#76 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-21 07:56 PM | Reply

Why Tuesday? What is wrong with Friday?
#76 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

When I created this username, I remember thinking that Wednesday is hump day, the middle of the week, and when you look at a calendar Tuesday is to the left of Wednesday. I didn't like the sound of Gal_Monday and didn't want to get caught up with the religious connotations of Gal_Sunday, so I went with Gal_Tuesday as being left of center.

#77 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-03-21 08:08 PM | Reply

He will take the "L" and fail upwards like so many prominent Dems.
#55 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Now you're going to hang your hat on the idea that's solely Dem behavior? If not, why would you single out the Dem party and not politicians in general?

Or did you out yourself as a hack again?

#78 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-03-21 08:15 PM | Reply

If Dems were serious about this I'd admonish them to pick their battles

The way you frame this suggests "Dems" (as a whole) have decided this is how it should go down. I can't think of a single "Dem" outside the Manhattan DA's office that wants this to be the first indictment.

#79 | Posted by JOE at 2023-03-21 09:01 PM | Reply

Honestly with Tuesday having come and gone, it makes you wonder if ---- is getting really bad for Trump, so he tried to soften the blow of some more serious things coming his way by spreading out the news coverage and claiming it's all about Stormy Daniels. If he gets indicted first for something worse, i bet half his supporters think it's all about him banging a pornstar.

#80 | Posted by JOE at 2023-03-21 09:15 PM | Reply

" 77 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2023-03-21 08:08 PM | FLAG: "

As a woman I understand the avoidance of hump day. Don't want to send the wrong signal. :-)

#81 | Posted by BellRinger at 2023-03-22 12:06 AM | Reply

"As a woman I understand the avoidance of hump day. "

#81 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

When did you transition, pardner?

#82 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-03-22 01:55 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable

Drudge Retort