Seems many folk think that he is a deviant pedo and spent years raping young girls with Epstein.

Its evidence you will NEVER fully convince a TDSer, lib, CM to fully support Trump. Its a disease unlike any other. Resistant to all facts, scrutiny, explanation, rationale thought. Like they are... deranged.

This is insane. https://t.co/LKIU2yn5Wa pic.twitter.com/quovOGJLI6

— walkafyre (@walkafyre) July 23, 2025

They should also be referred to DOJ for invesetigation.

akm91 said:

---

They should also be referred to DOJ for invesetigation.

---

Schiff was pardoned as a member of the bogus Jan 6th Committee.

aggiehawg said:

---

akm91 said:

---

They should also be referred to DOJ for invesetigation.

---

Schiff was pardoned as a member of the bogus Jan 6th Committee.

---

And despite all his claims on MSNBC that he didn't walk the pardon, he never turned it down or refused it legally, and no one calls him out on it

Former Indiana congressman Dan Coates was the DNI. Remember the "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" NYT article was written by Miles Taylor, who's from Indiana. Of course, Mike Pence was the person who would have benefitted the most from Trump's… https://t.co/G3cnx0XMXo

— ghost of daniel parker (@SeekerOTL) July 23, 2025

Thread from Margot going through the documents released today.

2/ Here's the link if you want to read along, but there are so many threads that need to be wove together to understand, which I'll do below. https://t.co/SAAt4BJqyz

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) July 23, 2025

aggiehawg said:

---

akm91 said:

---

They should also be referred to DOJ for invesetigation.

---

Schiff was pardoned as a member of the bogus Jan 6th Committee.

---

Speech & Debate protects Schiff even if blatantly lying, no? I don't agree it should, but there seems to be broad, almost limitless, interpretation regarding what a sitting member of congress / senate can say in the name of political discussion.

Quote:

---

Speech & Debate protects Schiff even if blatantly lying, no? I don't agree it should, but there seems to be broad, almost limitless, interpretation regarding what a sitting member of congress / senate can say in the name of political discussion.

---

When he is in the well of the House, sure. Outside of that? Questionable.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Speech & Debate protects Schiff even if blatantly lying, no? I don't agree it should, but there seems to be broad, almost limitless, interpretation regarding what a sitting member of congress / senate can say in the name of political discussion.

---

When he is in the well of the House, sure. Outside of that? Questionable.

---

Seems to have always been very broadly interpreted. Curious as to your thoughts on the below, though I am sure you are familiar already with the ins and outs.

Schiff was always on the investigative committee so even broader interpretation of the "legislative sphere".

Again, I think this needs to be, has to be severely reigned in and I would be glad to see that happen here. But thus far SCOTUS stays miles away from even blatantly obvious balls / strikes calls regarding Trump.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013300/

Quote:

---

Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The Supreme Court has described the Speech or Debate Clause as a provision that cannot be interpreted literally,1 but instead must be construed broadly in order to effectuate the Clause's vital role in the constitutional separation of powers.

Deceptively simple phrasessuch as shall not be questioned, Speech or Debate, and even Senators and Representativeshave therefore been accorded meanings that extend well beyond their literal constructions.

Arguably, this purpose-driven interpretive approach has given rise to some ambiguity in the precise scope of the protections afforded by the Clause. Despite uncertainty at the margins, it is well established that the Clause serves to secure the independence of the federal legislature by providing Members of Congress and their aides with immunity from criminal prosecutions or civil suits that stem from acts taken within the legislative sphere.

As succinctly described by the Court, the Clause's immunity from liability applies even though their conduct, if performed in other than legislative contexts, would in itself be unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to criminal or civil statutes. This general immunity principle forms the core of the protections afforded by the Clause.

Once it is determined that the Clause applies to a given action, the resulting protections from liability are absolute, and the action may not be made the basis for a civil or criminal judgment against a Member.

In such a situation, the Clause acts as a jurisdictional bar to the legal claim.B ut this immunity is also complemented by two component privileges (an evidentiary privilege and a testimonial privilege) that emanate from the Clause and can be asserted to prevent certain compelled disclosures. Even if absolute immunity is inappropriate, the evidentiary component of the Clause prohibits the introduction of evidence of legislative acts for use against a Member, while the testimonial privilege protects Members from compelled testimony on protected acts.

The Supreme Court has not explicitly framed the protections of the Clause by reference to these two independent component privileges, but has instead implicitly recognized their existence. As a result, these privileges are neither clearly established nor described, and may further contribute to the unsettled aspects of the Clause.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

akm91 said:

---

They should also be referred to DOJ for invesetigation.

---

Schiff was pardoned as a member of the bogus Jan 6th Committee.

---

Was he or did the autopen pardon him?

Clay and Buck were talking about this today. Their take is that at best this will be a "process will be the punishment" affair. In other words, you may have some people sweating for a while and tying up time and dollars with lawyers but that it will be very hard to get a DC grand jury made up of 90%+ Democrat voters to find anything worthy of an indictment, not because there isn't evidence but more because of politics and the fact that it helps Trump.

Also based around the fact that Obama can exercise the same immunity for "official acts" that SCOTUS set for Trump.

I hope they are wrong and there are actual lawbreakers brought to justice but I'm not holding my breath. It all getting exposed will help but the MSM will refuse to cover it and focus on Epstein anyway.

SCOTUS has a well documented aversion to getting into what they believe are political questions. How to enforce or not enforce the speech and debate clause is subject rules of the House and Senate. When it comes to ethics committee, usually.

But also consider the times in which this was written and what speech and debate meant as opposed to how that was disseminated, or not disseminated. OTOH, the history of yellow journalism with participation of membersof Congress back then, indicates a looser interpretation.

However, what Schiff was doing went well beyond any yellow journalism of the past as he allegedly was acting as part of a broader conspiracy. Which leads to the question to me whether Schiff was mishandling highly classified information to which he was privy as a member Intelligence Committee. Or did he just toe that line in the sand?

Justice Department Announces Formation of Strike Force to Assess Evidence Publicized by ODNI

🔗: https://t.co/WfqeicUAIC pic.twitter.com/uT6n4KFWKB

— U.S. Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) July 23, 2025

Strike Force? WTH does that actually mean? Taint teams? A veritable crap ton of AUSAs poring over everything?

I would think Bondi appointing a Special Prosecutor would be better. Confused.

aggiehawg said:

---

Strike Force? WTH does that actually mean? Taint teams? A veritable crap ton of AUSAs poring over everything?

I would think Bondi appointing a Special Prosecutor would be better. Confused.

---

Do they mean task force? That would mean that multiple agencies can work together and not have silos.

Bondag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Strike Force? WTH does that actually mean? Taint teams? A veritable crap ton of AUSAs poring over everything?

I would think Bondi appointing a Special Prosecutor would be better. Confused.

---

Do they mean task force? That would mean that multiple agencies can work together and not have silos.

---

Good point. IDK.

aggiehawg said:

---

Strike Force? WTH does that actually mean? Taint teams? A veritable crap ton of AUSAs poring over everything?

I would think Bondi appointing a Special Prosecutor would be better. Confused.

---

Strike Forces are almost always focused on massive fraud conspiracies, which is great news for the rule of law, and very bad news for the Russia hoaxers who ran a seditious and treasonous conspiracy against the U.S. https://t.co/A3qPYuKoJa pic.twitter.com/n99NvOCbYm

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 23, 2025

Here's at least one that can still be charged til 2028.

In 2023, John Brennan testified to Congress where he denied to @mattgaetz that the Steele Dossier was included in the 2016 ICA on Russian meddling and that he wasn’t involved in even analyzing it.

Tulsi Gabbard’s latest release shows that not only was it directly cited, but that… pic.twitter.com/KJPCBiwBMx

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 23, 2025

aggiehawg said:

---

Strike Force? WTH does that actually mean? Taint teams? A veritable crap ton of AUSAs poring over everything?

I would think Bondi appointing a Special Prosecutor would be better. Confused.

---

Sorry but any time they appoint a special prosecutor or special counsel, everything comes to a grinding halt, information stops flowing and they drag it out until the SoL runs out, and or nothing ever gets done.


No thanks on appointing a special anything

Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Strike Force? WTH does that actually mean? Taint teams? A veritable crap ton of AUSAs poring over everything?

I would think Bondi appointing a Special Prosecutor would be better. Confused.

---

Sorry but any time they appoint a special prosecutor or special counsel, everything comes to a grinding halt, information stops flowing and they drag it out until the SoL runs out, and or nothing ever gets done.


No thanks on appointing a special anything

---

But what is the difference here? Why I am confused.

aggiehawg said:

---

Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Strike Force? WTH does that actually mean? Taint teams? A veritable crap ton of AUSAs poring over everything?

I would think Bondi appointing a Special Prosecutor would be better. Confused.

---

Sorry but any time they appoint a special prosecutor or special counsel, everything comes to a grinding halt, information stops flowing and they drag it out until the SoL runs out, and or nothing ever gets done.


No thanks on appointing a special anything

---

But what is the difference here? Why I am confused.

---

All special prosecutors do to spend a lot of money and write reports nobody gets prosecuted. It's all a load of crap.

Quote:

---

ll special prosecutors do to spend a lot of money and write reports nobody gets prosecuted. It's all a load of crap

---

Starr put people in jail.

Knowing what we know now about scumbag Comey- this interview hits a whole lot different pic.twitter.com/1ZSCKPaysB

— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) July 23, 2025

I really think this is how Tulsi got the evidence of Obama’s seditious traitorous act. pic.twitter.com/KEhHgTesFX

— Cassie N (@cass_nguyen_) July 23, 2025

Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:

---

Knowing what we know now about scumbag Comey- this interview hits a whole lot different pic.twitter.com/1ZSCKPaysB

— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) July 23, 2025

---

It is easy to spot when Comey is lying. He feels compelled to embellish with weird details, as if that makes him more credible. Now every good lawyer knows those embellishments that often lead to credibility issues. Answer the question, then stop.

Come on, he's so much smarter than the rest of us, and he's told us that many times.


He's an arrogant piece of ....!

The Marine Generals that were Trump 45 administration cabinet members and the CJCS are really troubling when I consider their relationships to each that go back decades and consider what may have been discussed or not discussed in December 2016 and afterwards. These men knew each other so well they could finish each other's sentences.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-marine-general-picks-iraq-war-2016-12



Mattis and Kelly did not stumble into cabinet positions with President Trump. They campaigned for them and even recommended each other for the job of SecDef. Mattis was selected as SecDef and Kelly became Secretary DHS before later moving on to succeed Reince Priebus as White House Chief of Staff.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/11/26/retired-marine-generals-recommended-each-other-to-trump-as-pentagon-chief/



Mattis resigned in protest with a public letter of resignation expressing his dissent to President Trump's intentions to withdraw US forces from Syria and statements about US commitment to defending NATO allied countries that did not meet their defense spending obligations under treaty.

Kelly famously was the source of the allegation in Jeffrey Goldberg's article in The Atlantic that Trump referred to military personnel as "suckers and losers"

I really wish I knew what Joe Dunford said during the Dec 9 2016 NSC Principals meeting if anything. I wonder if he communicated to his former boss that was by then nominated to become SecDef what as happening. I also wonder whether the motivations of Mattis and Kelly to seek cabinet positions in the Trump administration was more about protecting "alliances" than serving the President and his mandate to lead as the Chief Executive and CINC under the constitution.

Interesting take knowing your relationship with General Mattis.