Seems Mr Trump is now blaming Liz Cheney for his trouble mounting a defense in the 1/6 case in DC. Seems THE 'EVIDENCE' OF HIS OFFER OF 10,000 TROOPS TO NANCY PELOSI can't be found. So in the public square this claim can seem reasonable, but in a legal proeeding it probably would not be allowed to be presented (no proof, just a claim). If there are 'facts' that can't be proven - are they really facts?
It's an interesting strtegy which will get support from some in the public without ever being truly proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It would seem Mr Trump would have some physical proof to support his claim - after all he's the one who is saying he made the offer.
Former President Donald Trump claimed on social media Monday that former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney has made it "impossible" for his legal team to mount an adequate defense against special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution.
Trump made the claim on Truth Social, where he claimed that Cheney had destroyed evidence that would prove his innocence regarding the Jan. 6 incursion at the U.S. Capitol.
"Why did American Disaster Liz Cheney, who suffers from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), and was defeated for Congress by the largest margin for a sitting Congressman or Congresswoman in the history of our Country, ILLEGALLY DELETE & DESTROY most of the evidence, and related items, from the January 6th Committee of Political Thugs and Misfits," he wrote (emphasis original, here and throughout).
"THIS ACT OF EXTREME SABOTAGE MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR MY LAWYERS TO PROPERLY PREPARE FOR, AND PRESENT, A PROPER DEFENSE OF THEIR CLIENT, ME," he added. "All of the information on Crazy Nancy Pelosi turning down 10,000 soldiers that I offered to to guard the Capitol Building, and beyond, is gone.
"The ridiculous Deranged Jack Smith case on Immunity, which the most respected legal minds in the Country say I am fully entitled to, is now completely compromised and should be thrown out and terminated, JUST LIKE THE RADICAL LEFT LUNATICS DID TO THE EVIDENCE!"
Cheney was, in fact, defeated by a healthy margin in the Wyoming Republican primary in August, losing to opponent Harriet Hageman by a margin of more than 2-to-1 according to official election results, but it wasn't "the largest margin for a sitting Congressman or Congresswoman in the history of our County," as Trump claimed.
That honor belongs to South Carolina Republican Bob Inglis, who lost a 2010 primary by 41 points to Trey Gowdy.
Trump offered no evidence of claims, nor did he suggest what "information" regarding his claimed offer to provide troops to protect the Capitol had been destroyed.
At any rate, Cheney didn't seem surprised at the former president's screed.
Seems like someone is starting 2024 hangry. @realDonaldTrump \- you and your lawyers have had the J6 cmttee materials (linked below) plus the grand jury info & much more for months. Lying about the evidence in all caps won't change the facts. A public trial will show it all. https://t.co/9IlGWIviey
Trump has insisted for years that he was prepared to send National Guard troops to the Capitol to maintain order, but that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected his offer.
Democrats and others have for just as long said those claims were untrue, and noted that the speaker of the House has no authority to counteract a presidential order to deploy Guard troops if Trump had made one.
Trump's lawyers have argued that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took regarding the Jan. 6 incursion because he was president at the time and acting within the authority of his office.
Smith's prosecution rejects that premise and on Saturday asked an appeals court to reject the idea that a former president is not subject to federal criminal law, The New York Times reported.
“The presidency plays a vital role in our constitutional system, but so does the principle of accountability for criminal acts -- particularly those that strike at the heart of the democratic process,” wrote James I. Pearce, one of Mr. Smith’s deputies. “Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant’s sweeping immunity claim threatens to license presidents to commit crimes to remain in office.
"The founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result.”
It's an interesting strtegy which will get support from some in the public without ever being truly proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It would seem Mr Trump would have some physical proof to support his claim - after all he's the one who is saying he made the offer.
Trump Says Liz Cheney's 'Act of Extreme Sabotage' Has Made it 'Impossible' for His Attorneys to Fight Jack Smith's Prosecution
Former President Donald Trump claimed on social media Monday that former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney has made it "impossible" for his legal team to mount an adequate defense against special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution.
Trump made the claim on Truth Social, where he claimed that Cheney had destroyed evidence that would prove his innocence regarding the Jan. 6 incursion at the U.S. Capitol.
"Why did American Disaster Liz Cheney, who suffers from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), and was defeated for Congress by the largest margin for a sitting Congressman or Congresswoman in the history of our Country, ILLEGALLY DELETE & DESTROY most of the evidence, and related items, from the January 6th Committee of Political Thugs and Misfits," he wrote (emphasis original, here and throughout).
"THIS ACT OF EXTREME SABOTAGE MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR MY LAWYERS TO PROPERLY PREPARE FOR, AND PRESENT, A PROPER DEFENSE OF THEIR CLIENT, ME," he added. "All of the information on Crazy Nancy Pelosi turning down 10,000 soldiers that I offered to to guard the Capitol Building, and beyond, is gone.
"The ridiculous Deranged Jack Smith case on Immunity, which the most respected legal minds in the Country say I am fully entitled to, is now completely compromised and should be thrown out and terminated, JUST LIKE THE RADICAL LEFT LUNATICS DID TO THE EVIDENCE!"
Cheney was, in fact, defeated by a healthy margin in the Wyoming Republican primary in August, losing to opponent Harriet Hageman by a margin of more than 2-to-1 according to official election results, but it wasn't "the largest margin for a sitting Congressman or Congresswoman in the history of our County," as Trump claimed.
That honor belongs to South Carolina Republican Bob Inglis, who lost a 2010 primary by 41 points to Trey Gowdy.
Trump offered no evidence of claims, nor did he suggest what "information" regarding his claimed offer to provide troops to protect the Capitol had been destroyed.
At any rate, Cheney didn't seem surprised at the former president's screed.
Seems like someone is starting 2024 hangry. @realDonaldTrump \- you and your lawyers have had the J6 cmttee materials (linked below) plus the grand jury info & much more for months. Lying about the evidence in all caps won't change the facts. A public trial will show it all. https://t.co/9IlGWIviey
Trump has insisted for years that he was prepared to send National Guard troops to the Capitol to maintain order, but that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected his offer.
Democrats and others have for just as long said those claims were untrue, and noted that the speaker of the House has no authority to counteract a presidential order to deploy Guard troops if Trump had made one.
Trump's lawyers have argued that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took regarding the Jan. 6 incursion because he was president at the time and acting within the authority of his office.
Smith's prosecution rejects that premise and on Saturday asked an appeals court to reject the idea that a former president is not subject to federal criminal law, The New York Times reported.
“The presidency plays a vital role in our constitutional system, but so does the principle of accountability for criminal acts -- particularly those that strike at the heart of the democratic process,” wrote James I. Pearce, one of Mr. Smith’s deputies. “Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant’s sweeping immunity claim threatens to license presidents to commit crimes to remain in office.
"The founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result.”
