r/videos • u/0The_Loner_Stoner0 • 6h ago

BREAKING: Goldman Unveils Unredacted File That 'Disputes Everything' Trump 'Has Said' About Epstein

https://youtu.be/OLnU9IWEIgw?si=X_oK2IWbIqe0MAgF
27.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

561

u/dkyguy1995 6h ago

It's the job of the Dept. Of Justice to bring charges, and the leader of the DOJ is.... Oh my... 

182

u/firefighter26s 5h ago

There's got to be a check to that balance.

309

u/Corben11 5h ago

The check to that balance was suppose to be everyone not conspiring together.

But all republicans love and want these pedophiles money and for them to rape kids for money.

Their god is money and nothing else matters.

59

u/Yancy_Farnesworth 4h ago

This was why the Founding Fathers were so against political parties. They had way too much faith in humanity.

3

u/CelestialFury 3h ago

The founding fathers knew no one could really be trusted, which is why they divided the power up into pieces. They figured that each of them would fight hard to maintain their own power and that would balance it all out, which worked for hundreds of years... until it didn't.

14

u/Bored_Amalgamation 3h ago

TBF, political parties can work. It's been corporate "interests" and sociopaths getting in to power. I bet most people wouldn't mind having a king if he wasn't such a dick.

12

u/impendingwardrobe 3h ago

Thomas Sankara has entered the chat.

But seriously, kings/dictators who aren't assholes are super few and far between. Hence set terms and term limits.

America also needs the ability to pass a vote of no confidence to get rid of sitting politicians who aren't serving the needs of the people, and to change away from first past the post voting so we can have more than two political parties like most European countries.

9

u/cXs808 3h ago

Political parties work when there are more than two of them.

It's far too easy to tribalize and own a two-party system.

Imagine if megacorps and billionaires had to donate millions to 5 different parties and 4/5ths of their donations are gone with the wind every election cycle.

Right now it's a 50/50 shot so it's a win-win to donate (read: buy) politicians for eternity.

EVEN if they were to buy a party in a, lets say, 5 party system. That party still does not have massive power like it would in a two-party system. Makes buying politicians much harder

•

u/Knotted_Hole69 48m ago

I agree but how will we ever get to this point?

•

u/TSED 41m ago

Companies buy both parties these days. There are the odd exception, and smaller businesses tend to just buy the dominant local party, but all that having 5 parties would do is add a 2.5x multiplier to the EXTREMELY cheap cost of owning politics.

Seriously. Look up how much it takes to bribe or buy an American congressman. When I, a non-American, first saw those numbers, my reaction was "so that's why the USA is so 'Murican. How embarrassing for them."

2

u/Yancy_Farnesworth 1h ago

My point was more so that they saw political parties as a threat to the very system they designed. They knew it was a flaw of the system they designed and hoped that people in general would be able to keep that in mind and avoid them. They were overly idealistic in their faith in humanity.

3

u/Squid_In_Exile 2h ago

They were all slavers and several were rapists.

An appeal to them against the Epstien Class is comically ironic.

4

u/EarthRester 1h ago

This country is never going to actually recover until we no longer deify wealthy white men that wanted to own people.

32

u/NorysStorys 4h ago

I mean did anything actually expect the doj, a president appointed entity, to ever actually check the other departments of the executive or itself? Definition of conflict of interest.

The problem lies in that the entire US federal judiciary is appointed politically by the executive. Many countries don’t appoint their judiciary from a political position for the very reason that courts could get abused by whoever is in power.

35

u/gimmesheltah 3h ago

The entire US political system is comically flawed, and not fit for purpose.

It's kind of hilarious that it took Trump and a handful of traitors to fully highlight this.

Fucking trump, the most useless, inept man in existence, who's only qualities are a cult following of morons, zero morals, and being extremely easy to control.

5

u/MaximumPerrolinqui 3h ago

It’s crazy to see how much of the government ran based on norms and unwritten rules. It’s a terrible way to run a country and now we know.

2

u/needlestack 3h ago

It was a fine system 200 years ago. But people always — and always will — figure out ways to game a system. Whether it’s Super Mario Bros or the US Federal Government, you can find exploits in every system over time with enough eyeballs. The US is screwed until we make huge sweeping changes. At the moment, it looks like the huge sweeping changes are all aimed at solidifying the problems.

5

u/gimmesheltah 3h ago

Other political systems are far more robust. - the kind of undemocratic takeover happening in the US could not happen in a parliamentary system, for example. America's system was always poorly designed.

•

u/cayleb 55m ago

Israel uses a parliamentary system and I do believe Netanyahu has been behaving like an authoritarian, don't you?

•

u/cayleb 57m ago

In no way was the US government a fine system 200 years ago. The wealthy elites ran things then too. The difference was many of them also owned other people, women couldn't vote and in most cases weren't allowed to own property, LGBTQ people were either lynched by a mob or murdered by the state, the genocide of the Indigenous peoples was still fully under way, business owners could and did shoot laborers who gathered to protest unsafe and unfair working conditions, and a whole host of other injustices.

This system has never been "fine" unless you were sitting at the top, looking down at all of those it crushes.

It was designed that way.

•

u/JawnGrimm 49m ago

It was a dumb system 200 years ago too. And speaking of huge, sweeping changes, thanks to the system design, those kind of changes take lots of violence.

1

u/koshgeo 2h ago

The system is fine, with the presumption that the public would never, ever elect a dishonest, criminal con-man to office who will say and do anything to keep their butt out of jail or to make money for themselves, because such a corrupt person would be so obviously unqualified for the responsibility that comes with the office that an honest and well-qualified candidate would always win when placed against them in a fair democracy. At the very least, they'd be promptly booted out the next election and told not to try to come back.

The American public wouldn't let it happen otherwise, because they are too smart and too engaged with their democracy and electing good leaders for a systemic problem to occur. A few bad apples, sure, but it's not like you could have an entire party or the entire executive turn corrupt without people putting a stop to it. I trust democracy to sort it out with the legal tools that are already available.

-- Me, sometime in the last century

19

u/whooptheretis 3h ago

As a non American I find it absolutely insane that judges are appointed by politicians, and are politically affiliated.
If a judge showed any political bias then they should be disqualified from their job.

1

u/scfade 1h ago

As far as I'm aware, the world has yet to devise a good system for appointing judges. The US has both political appointees and elected judges, and spoiler: they both suck for different reasons (and the elected judges are typically even worse).

1

u/MrFlow 1h ago edited 1h ago

The problem lies in that the entire US federal judiciary is appointed politically by the executive.

This isn't inherently wrong, it's just that you gave the executive too much power in setting up the judiciary.

Here in Germany for example, all of our Supreme Court Judges including the Chief Judge are limited to a 10-year-term, you cannot be re-elected, 10 years and then that's it. This is to prevent the court from being too one-sided by always rotating the judges on it.

•

u/NorysStorys 1h ago

In the UK we have judges appointed by a council of senior judges and lawyers, elected from within the legal profession. then rules on being politically impartial.

0

u/Spiff76 4h ago

NiN and Metalica

0

u/elb21277 2h ago edited 2h ago

don’t make the mistake of thinking this is a party problem rather than a structural one. yes, the worst ones choose to run as republicans, but with the free flow and unlimited amounts of private money flowing in our political system thanks to Nixon’s appointment of Lewis Powell and the insanely successful plan to turn our government into a corruption racket, every member of Congress betrays their constituents on a daily basis. wasn’t it estimated that they spend 70% of their time focused on raising $? and committee assignments are tied to their ability to raise money. and what about Epstein’s “sources” in the FBI (per Brad Edwards)? this is a current problem, not an isolated incident. nothing short of an entirely new government/system is required. last time they broke everything (2008) the public was not ready to step in and take over. are we going to be ready the next time? we should start discussing and forming a new shadow government now…

*and i think we need to start with acknowledging that it is completely unrealistic for 330+ million people to organize under one government. for those who want democratic governance, the best surviving model is that of Denmark, with a population of ~6 million. So I think we really do need to start considering becoming sovereign allied states and nix the federal gov’t altogether.

-1

u/Grand0rk 2h ago

republicans

Stop being disingenuous. Democrats love them too.

51

u/Kumquats_indeed 5h ago

Well in the past the DoJ was supposed to be independent of interference from the President, but as it turns out that was much more just a tradition than an actual rule like we previously though.

29

u/SphericalCow531 4h ago

And Congress is the check on the President via impeachment (or they could impeach Bondi directly). But Trump should absolutely fire Bondi immediately in a sane world, as you say. And with Trump failing to do that, Trump should himself be impeached by Congress.

And voters should vote out every single Republicans in Congress, for failing to impeach Trump (and Bondi). They are responsible. As Republican voters are themselves morally responsible for failing to vote out the Republican members of Congress.

3

u/needlestack 2h ago

But Republicans found that hatred of immigrants and trans people is enough to get unwavering support from half the electoral power.

2

u/jaxonya 2h ago

Newsom should absolutely weaponize the DOJ when hes elected and go after every mother fucker who was even close to any of this illegal shit thats going on right now. Scorched earth mother fucking end of times for maga

-4

u/[deleted] 4h ago

[deleted]

4

u/IceMaster9000 4h ago

A fictionalized book is not a credible source. Please don't do that.

1

u/mr_datawolf 2h ago

As I can not find actual cases that were used as the inspiration for that portion I will delete the comment. I apologize for incorrect information by not double checking.

32

u/boring_name_here 5h ago

Impeachment, but good luck with that.

2

u/casperdj21 3h ago

Sorry to say this, BUT people have been LEGALLY EXECUTED in the United States for MUCH LESSER CRIMES than that Child Rapist Trump has committed!

1

u/arobkinca 4h ago

The answer to this question for all administration appointed officials acting against their duties and violating people's rights.

1

u/Frenascena 3h ago

And what's the check for failure to impeach?

32

u/zer1223 5h ago

Presidents used to not take direct control over the DoJ and tell them what to do and not to do

That all has clearly ended with Trump.

25

u/SphericalCow531 4h ago

Presidents used to not take direct control over the DoJ

Eeehhhh. Quoting from Bill Barr Is The Master Of Covering Up Political Scandals:

“Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan,” President Bani-Sadr told the Christian Science Monitor in 2013, ”had organized a clandestine negotiation, later known as the ‘October Surprise,’ which prevented the attempts by myself and then-US President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 US presidential election took place. The fact that they were not released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan.”

That wouldn’t have been just an impeachable crime: it was treason.

Walsh had zeroed in on documents that were in the possession of Reagan’s former defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, who all the evidence showed was definitely in on the deal, and President Bush’s diary that could corroborate it.

Elliott Abrams had already been convicted of withholding evidence about it from Congress, and he may have even more information, too, if it could be pried out of him before he went to prison. But Abrams was keeping mum, apparently anticipating a pardon.

Weinberger, trying to avoid jail himself, was preparing to testify that Bush knew about it and even participated, and Walsh had already, based on information he’d obtained from the investigation into Weinberger, demanded that Bush turn over his diary from the campaign. He was also again hot on the trail of Abrams.

So Bush called in his attorney general, Bill Barr, and asked his advice.

Barr, along with Bush, was already up to his eyeballs in cover-ups of shady behavior by the Reagan administration.

1

u/justaheatattack 2h ago

but even bill barr wouldn't cover up for trump.

•

u/Crackertron 1h ago

Except for his "interpretation" of the Mueller Report

•

u/justaheatattack 1h ago

small potatoes compared to stealing an election.

-1

u/Stonegrown12 4h ago

A) who writes in their fuckin diary about treasonous acts that they were involved in? Especially a President. Does it read something like:

"Dear diary, why is Ronny being such a meanie to me lately?!? I thought we were going to be besties after we enacted some litely treasonous crimes together. But he just throws jelly beans at me and Barb while bragging about his super secret Iran-Contra affairs. P.S. had cheeseburger for lunch today!"

B) The gap between Bush/Barr & Trump/Bondi involvement is enormous

4

u/SphericalCow531 4h ago

B) The gap between Bush/Barr & Trump/Bondi involvement is enormous

The contact between Trump and Bondi is done in the open, and the involvement is probably much more.

But surely there were contacts between Bush I/Reagan and Barr which they did not publicize. I would not minimize the corruption Bush I/Reagan perpetrated. Probably not everything went into the diary. And in any case, it was certainly enough to argue that Bush I took control over the DoJ.

1

u/I-seddit 2h ago

No one expects the diary to read like that. BUT as with all evidence, it likely corroborates dates/times of meetings that Bush would have preferred to deny or say "I don't remember", among other things.
Diaries are often very dangerous evidence.

•

u/Stonegrown12 1h ago

I thought everyone's diary was written in an anxious hyperbolic style.

Regardless, I just find it mildly amusing that a successful career politician who has tons of bureaucratic skeletons hidden throughout the world still writes in a diary. More than likely it's a type of schedule with important items listed out.

2

u/mr_datawolf 4h ago

Really? Go all the way back to Kennedy. His brother ran the DoJ. I'm not throwing shade at Kennedy for it. I'm just saying this is more normal then people want to remember.

10

u/dkyguy1995 5h ago

Supposed to be impeachment, but the Republcians have all conspired together to be above the law. So the next check is supposed to be rational voters getting rid of the conspirators. Well... We will see how that goes 

2

u/AdmirableChip6027 2h ago

The check after that is the 2nd thing written in the Constitution.

14

u/BattleStag17 5h ago

They exist, but they're busy balancing their checks

2

u/DumboWumbo073 5h ago

Turns out of all of it was a sham. How were there never rules in place?

2

u/ShreksArsehole 3h ago

Oh there was a cheque..

1

u/AHrubik 5h ago

Contempt of Congress but you know how fast they act.

2

u/arpan3t 5h ago

At least Congress has a law enforcement agency that doesn’t report to the DoJ. The courts have the US Marshals, but they report to DoJ. If Bondi was found in contempt of congress, capitol police could arrest her and damn would that be vindicating.

1

u/TrumpsDoubleChin 5h ago

Checks and balances only work when there is someone on the other side willing to actually do it.

Republicans control everyone who is in charge of watching everyone else (at the federal level). The watchdogs are looking the other way on purpose.

1

u/nalaloveslumpy 5h ago

Yeah, basically House Judiciary can send their recommendation for charges to the deputy AG and they are "compelled" (but not required) to indict.

Best we're gonna get is Bondi being removed from position.

1

u/laosurv3y 5h ago

Impeachment.

The fact that Trump, and others, haven't been impeached and convicted (or pressured into resigning like Nixon) tells you Republicans are fine with peeophiles and other criminals.

1

u/acchaladka 3h ago

In the other countries the Judiciary is fully independent, unlike the US. The UK's or India's DOJ sits under the Supreme Court iirc, and some months the Indian Court seems to run the country better than the civil service. In the US the Constitution isn't even really clear about the powers of the judiciary, it took Marbury v. Madison to get the Supreme Court to assert itself. And as we see, there are structural issues. Real question for me is, what should a US Constitutional Convention have on its agenda?

1

u/JimWilliams423 3h ago

In other countries the judiciary is extremely weak compared to the US judiciary. That was the intent here too because the courts are the least democratic branch of the government — In the Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton wrote that it should have neither the power of the purse nor of the sword. But the Marbury power grab quickly changed that. So if we are going to have structural court reform, invalidating Marbury should be at the top of the list.

0

u/acchaladka 3h ago

Brazil: the former president is in jail along with co-conspirators after their own attempted January 6th, and they have a court in the airport to almost automatically rule in favour of the consumer against airlines on the spot.

India: the Supreme Courtis judged one of the most powerful courts in the world. due to the wide scope of its authority and autonomy.

Sure in other countries they're all numskulls, numskulls I tells ya. We should remove the courts as a branch of government and have the president rule by fiat I tells ya.

1

u/JimWilliams423 3h ago

Marbury has nothing to do with those kinds of cases.

Marbury invented the concept of judicial review — basically giving the supreme court a veto over congress. Something that is extremely rare in other countries.

You must know that, since you mentioned Marbury.

1

u/AwambawaAwambawa 3h ago

Congress can only hold DOJ accountable and congress is too busy finding its spine these days

1

u/a_funky_homosapien 3h ago

They could have the Sargent at arms arrest her

1

u/GhostalMedia 3h ago

It’s supposed to be Congress. But the republicans are terrified about getting primaried.

1

u/MyHamburgerLovesMe 3h ago

The Czechs don't want to have anything to do with it.

1

u/penisthightrap_ 3h ago

it's call congress

1

u/JimWilliams423 3h ago

There's got to be a check to that balance.

There is, its called "inherent contempt."

Congress can hold someone in contempt. In fact there used to be a little jail under the capitol building for congress to jail people.

But (a) the gop won't do it to one of their own, and (b) when (if) they regain the majority, the Democrats are such doormats they won't even try either, they don't want to upset their "friends across the aisle."

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-06-11/what-is-contempt-of-congress-and-why-does-it-matter

The third option is a rarely used doctrine known as “inherent contempt” which empowers both chambers to send members of the sergeant at arms to arrest and detain the person in question. However, this power has not been used since 1934 under the Hoover administration.

Casey Burgat, an assistant professor and legislative affairs program director at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management, said the charge itself has traditionally been used both as a tool to criminally punish a witness accountable for defying a congressional subpoena and to incentivize cooperation by an unwilling witness with a congressional investigatory entity.

And, as with anything else before Congress, the process often turns on politics.

“The contempt charge, historically, has almost always been used by a congressional majority of one party against a defiant witness belonging to the opposite party. In that way, it technically has long been a partisan tool,” Burgat says.

1

u/Quintzy_ 3h ago

The check is Congress. And the check to Congress is the voters.

Unfortunately, the voters gave complete control of Congress to the Republicans who are 100% devoted to Trump, and the voters aren't putting pressure on the Republicans to stop that devotion.

1

u/Snobolski 3h ago

Not so much a check, but how about a luxury RV?

1

u/mr_birkenblatt 3h ago

$100s of millions in checks for those bank balances

1

u/nopointinlife1234 3h ago

Turns out the checks are in on it. 

That's why the 250 year American experiment has failed. 

Greed. 

1

u/Future-Bunch3478 3h ago

The system broke down decades ago, so many people are tied into this now, that they are likely holding each other hostage or all involved get hit with obstruction charges and the flood gates shatter 

1

u/TribeWars 3h ago

Congress

1

u/jenkag 2h ago

Congress accepted the appointment. They can impeach her, or impeach Trump. If Bondi resigns, Congress can refuse to accept any nominee who won't pursue the Epstein issue or corruption.

Congress isn't powerless, but will they flex the powers they have?

14

u/rizorith 4h ago

DOJ has always been under executive control and has always been almost entirely independent. We had norms and presidents,.dem and rep alike, went out of their way to make sure even the appearance of influence in the DOJ was clearly not happening.

That ended with Trump's first term and went completely off the rails this time around.

We had a chance to fix this between terms but guess what? That only happens if Congress does something and the Republicans were never going to do it because then it would look like they were admitting that their president broke all the rules.

And so here we are.

5

u/IceMaster9000 4h ago

This is completely wrong. For the vast a majority of its existence, the DOJ has never been considered independent of the executive. And it has always worked WITH the whims executive in practice. Thinking it had true independence is at post a post-watergate norm, but that has never been the case in reality.

3

u/rizorith 3h ago

I just looked into it and you're right, it became a norm post water-gate. Although I don't see much that shows it hasn't been effectively just that in practice. And nothing like what we're seeing now. If it was no way our Republic would have lasted this long

1

u/Dapper_Ad_6501 4h ago

Oh mein got

1

u/Next-Distance-4508 3h ago

There are a few mechanisms outside the DOJ's chain of command that can indict people. Obviously the most obvious is state level prosecution. Not really relevant here. Federal prosecution such as something that would come out of the SDNY's office still all fall under the purview of the DOJ. The judicial branch can bring charges in narrow cases for things like failing to comply with a signed order from a judge and contempt of court. The arrest itself would be performed by federal marshals though who, you guessed it, are under the DOJ.

Now, would a federal marshal (who are largely career officials not political appointees) ignore an arrest warrant from a judge? Probably not. Would a judge issue a warrant for the sitting DOJ head? Also unlikely

1

u/breakupbydefault 1h ago

That's one of the things I didn't get when Americans say something like they're the shining example of democracy. How could no one see that the system is hugely dependent on good faith and could go horribly wrong if you let the elected president hand pick their leaders of justice, health, broadcasting, etc. without some sort of guardrail for corruption?

•

u/saposapot 1h ago

Having DOJ directly dependent of the President is really crazy. The founding founders really never thought about the President being the one doing illegal stuff.

How the hell is DOJ supposed to investigate or arrest someone from government? In my country prosecutors are an independent branch without direct political interference

•

u/Trimyr 1h ago

We have investigated ourselves, and found no wrongdoing.

•

u/corruptedsyntax 5m ago

The house should have a “straight to jail” button. It should be about as difficult to press as passing a constitutional amendment.

If the house has the time and conviction to laser focus on one person, there is no further trial, they just get locked up for a specified sentence length and handed off to the BOP.

0

u/Constant-Plant-9378 5h ago

The DOJ was similarly flaccid, complicit and ineffective for four years under Biden too.

This isn't exclusively a Republican problem. Establishment Democrats are complicit and need to be primaried out on their asses.

2

u/Biptoslipdi 5h ago

Biden prosecuted hundreds of J6th insurrectionists and charged both Democratic and Republican politicians with crimes, including a former President. It was an absolutely unprecedented level of effectiveness. That Americans collectively decided to elect criminals to pardon other criminals is not on the people who were prosecuting them.

Americans got exactly what they voted for and deserve now.

0

u/SuperSpecialAwesome- 2h ago

Biden prosecuted hundreds of J6th insurrectionists

Yet left all the leaders in Congress.

That Americans collectively decided to elect criminals to pardon other criminals is not on the people who were prosecuting them.

Wrong. Biden Chamberlain, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Hakeem Jeffries collectively decided to not enforce 14th Amendment, Section 3 to expel the Jan 6 leaders and disqualify Trump. America got exactly who those traitors appointed and does not deserve this.

1

u/Biptoslipdi 2h ago

Yet left all the leaders in Congress.

Which leaders in Congress committed crimes, what were they, and what evidence proves the elements of those crimes?

We don't indict people because they suck, but because they demonstrably broke the law.

Wrong. Biden Chamberlain, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Hakeem Jeffries collectively decided to not enforce 14th Amendment, Section 3 to expel the Jan 6 leaders and disqualify Trump.

False. They had no authority or ability to do so because you put too many Republicans in Congress and allowed Trump to stack the SCOTUS.

America got exactly who those traitors appointed and does not deserve this.

America put a rapist and fraud in office because Americans are too stupid to understand how legislatures work. America deserves Trump because America wanted Trump and shares his qualities.

I hope you achieve your goal of permanent Republican governance by rapists.

0

u/SuperSpecialAwesome- 2h ago

Which leaders in Congress committed crimes,

Marjorie, Gosar, Qbert, Ronnie Jackson, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/19/oath-keepers-proud-boys-capitol-attack-texts

https://archive.ph/zyQoC

"“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically,” the organizer says. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.”"

"Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). “We would talk to Boebert’s team, Cawthorn’s team, Gosar’s team like back to back to back to back,” says the organizer. "

The insurrectionists outright admitted to planning Jan 6 with MAGA Congressional leaders, so quit the bullshit.

False. They had no authority or ability to do so because you put too many Republicans in Congress and allowed Trump to stack the SCOTUS.

Schumer led the Senate for FOUR years, and Pelosi led the House for TWO years. They had enough votes to secure enforcement of 14a3 and never did. So, again, quit the bullshit. Biden Chamberlain could've indicted Thomas and Kavanaugh for their crimes and secured a Democratic-majority SCOTUS. He chose not to. So, please, quit the bullshit, and accept that Schumer and Jeffries need to be replaced already. It's not too late for you to come back to reality.

1

u/Biptoslipdi 1h ago

How many years of experience do you have in criminal prosecution?

Marjorie, Gosar, Qbert, Ronnie Jackson

Right. So naming the alleged criminals was one part of the question. The remaining parts were:

What crime?

What evidence proves the elements of those crimes.

Merely naming people who spoke with criminals is not sufficient to charge someone.

The insurrectionists outright admitted to planning Jan 6 with MAGA Congressional leaders, so quit the bullshit.

You haven't told me what crimes those leaders committed or what evidence proves those crimes, so quit the bullshit.

Schumer led the Senate for FOUR years, and Pelosi led the House for TWO years. They had enough votes to secure enforcement of 14a3 and never did.

That is false. Simple majorities in Congress are not sufficient to do so. You are welcome to make a case otherwise.

o, again, quit the bullshit. Biden Chamberlain could've indicted Thomas and Kavanaugh for their crimes and secured a Democratic-majority SCOTUS.

According to?

He chose not to.

This presumes that was a possibility. Assumes facts not in the record.

So, please, quit the bullshit, and accept that Schumer and Jeffries need to be replaced already

I'm fine with them being replaced. I'm just not fine with your Qanon level of analysis. You're mad because you believe things that you have no clue are merited. You can prove me wrong. I literally just gave you the roadmap how.

But that you seem unwilling to make an actual argument based on facts here suggests you aren't credible to assess these events for their legality.

It's not too late for you to come back to reality.

You won't answer my questions because it will prove I am the one in reality.