Time To Pay The Piper: Stick A Fork In Tangerine…

The evidence will show that when warned that Mike Pence, his sitting Vice President might be put in mortal danger -- including direct attempts on his life -- by Tangerine's scheme to overturn the election results, Tangerine responded "So what?".

That makes out a case for the felonies, all by itself -- and more importantly -- is clearly disqualifying, for ever seeking office again, in any capacity. Here's the 165 pager, one he's been claiming it is "unfair" to unseal. What is unfair, is that he thinks he should be able to conduct his felony trials in secret. No, the people have a Constitutional right to observe and report on his felony trials. That the GOP thought he should be nominated. . . is clearly. . . bonkers. Here's the Special Counsel, tonight:

. . .The defendant [Trump] asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so.

Although the defendant [Trump] was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted -- a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role.

In Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312 (2024), the Supreme Court held that presidents are immune from prosecution for certain official conduct -- including the defendant’s use of the Justice Department in furtherance of his scheme, as was alleged in the original indictment -- and remanded to this Court to determine whether the remaining allegations against the defendant are immunized. The answer to that question is no.

This motion provides a comprehensive account of the defendant’s private criminal conduct; sets forth the legal framework created by Trump for resolving immunity claims; applies that framework to establish that none of the defendant’s charged conduct is immunized because it either was unofficial or any presumptive immunity is rebutted; and requests the relief the Government seeks, which is, at bottom, this: that the Court determine that the defendant must stand trial for his private crimes as would any other citizen. . . .

If nothing else, the people should have the right to review this highly damning evidence, before they decide to cast their votes in November. Even if one can suspend disbelief long enough to argue that maybe he is not guilty of these felonies -- no rational person can conclude that he was not (at best), indifferent to putting his second in command in mortal danger -- from his own mob.

As I say. . . that alone is. . . disqualifying. So, let's even just forget the applicable federal criminal law implications, for a moment -- who might vote. . . for such a sociopath?

नमस्ते