Coup Co-Conspirator Cooperates With AZ AG

[g5000]

As you may recall, one of Trump's January 6 coup co-conspirators, Jenna Ellis, was laughing in her Georgia mug shot.

When she was convicted, she bawled like a baby.

FAFO.

Ellis was also facing nine felony counts in Arizona for her part in the coup there.

So she cut a deal. In exchange for her cooperation in hanging her fellow conspirators, all charges against Ellis have been dismissed.

Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, and Trump's personal lawyer, Weird Rudy Giuliani, are among the 17 criminals charged with felonies in Arizona.

Jenna Ellis flips to help Arizona prosecutors in 2020 election case​

​

In a statement, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) called the agreement a “significant step forward” in the case.

“I am grateful to Ms. Ellis for her cooperation with our investigation and prosecution,” Mayes said. “Her insights are invaluable and will greatly aid the State in proving its case in court. As I stated when the initial charges were announced, I will not allow American democracy to be undermined — it is far too important. Today’s announcement is a win for the rule of law.”

As part of the deal, Ellis agreed to testify “completely and truthfully at any time and any place,” including at a criminal trial. She also vowed not to “protect any person or entity” through false information or omissions.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't know how they are going to prosecute this with Trump having blanket immunity for his plans, threats and statements to the AG, DoD and anyone else that is a government official.

SCOTUS killed this case and we should never fail to remember that.

 

[g5000]

SCOTUS killed this case

You wish.

This is a state case.

What these conspirators did was not part of their official duties.

 

[FA_Q2]

You wish.

This is a state case.

What these conspirators did was not part of their official duties.

Do I wish? Where do you get that asinine idea. But I do not expect you to address the actual point, SCOTUS giving those conversations blanket immunity, you have never addressed a point here before.

 

[g5000]

Do I wish? Where do you get that asinine idea. But I do not expect you to address the actual point, SCOTUS giving those conversations blanket immunity, you have never addressed a point here before.

SCOTUS did not grant blanket immunity. Who is telling you these lies?

The cases are proceeding forward. Get a clue.

 

[FA_Q2]

SCOTUS did not grant blanket immunity. Who is telling you these lies?

The cases are proceeding forward. Get a clue.

They granted absolute immunity with ANY conversation that could be construed as 'official.' That would include ANY orders given to the AG, DoD, military and various other institutions under his command. I have no idea how this would not extend to conversations with governors or other officials. They would get at presumed immunity at the very least.

Do you dispute this?

Do you think that there is a good case without any of those orders or conversations being used as evidence? How do you establish intent? How do you establish anything when such conversations are not allowed? Do you dispute that they grated this immunity?

Do you think that this court will not enforce this ruling because it is a state case? Do you dispute the SCOTUS would be able to hear it?

So far we just have assertions here, what do you actually dispute? I can easily cite where such immunity was given in the case itself.

 

[g5000]

They granted absolute immunity with ANY conversation that could be construed as 'official.' That would include ANY orders given to the AG, DoD, military and various other institutions under his command. I have no idea how this would not extend to conversations with governors or other officials. They would get at presumed immunity at the very least.

Do you dispute this?

Do you think that there is a good case without any of those orders or conversations being used as evidence? How do you establish intent? How do you establish anything when such conversations are not allowed? Do you dispute that they grated this immunity?

Do you think that this court will not enforce this ruling because it is a state case? Do you dispute the SCOTUS would be able to hear it?

So far we just have assertions here, what do you actually dispute? I can easily cite where such immunity was given in the case itself.

The immunity applies to the president. No one else.

And only for official acts.

A coup is not an official act.

This is very easy to understand. If you want to.

 

[excalibur]

There was no coup, except for Coup-mala Harris and her co-conspirators pushing Biden out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So she cut a deal. In exchange for her cooperation in hanging her fellow conspirators, all charges against Ellis have been dismissed.

Another victory for democracy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, and Trump's personal lawyer, Weird Rudy Giuliani, are among the 17 criminals charged with felonies in Arizona.

The Trump Crime Organization.