Merrick Garland's Dilemma
There is a nationwide audience for the revelations that keeping coming forth from the House Select Committee on January 6th, but the most important audience these hearings really have is Attorney General Merrick Garland (and all the people in the Department of Justice who have also been investigating the insurrection attempt). What will Garland do when the hearings conclude and (a few months later) when the committee's final report is publicly issued?
So far, the Justice Department has been extremely successful in prosecuting the rioters who stormed the United States Capitol on that dark day, securing many guilty pleas and convictions in court cases. Their record on doing so is admirable, considering how many people were involved (the Justice Department says this is the "biggest investigation ever," and with something like 800 people charged, it is easy to see why).
But even the most serious of the charges so far -- probably "seditious conspiracy" -- have all been brought against fairly low-level defendants. The foot soldiers and the leaders of the various foot-soldier groups has been as high as things have gone, to date.
That may be changing. Garland has always said he's going to conduct the investigation thoroughly and methodically, which always means starting at the bottom and working your way up (in the hopes of flipping people to testify against their higher-ups, along the way). But that has begun to shift since the House Select Committee's hearings began. The day after the hearing which examined the plot to create "fake electors" in seven states, some of those instrumental in doing so at the state level were raided by the F.B.I. Once the public hearings wrap up, the committee is expected to turn over the mountains of evidence they have collected (including full transcripts of all interviews and testimony) to the Department of Justice. That may be a treasure trove for the Justice lawyers to dig through. Or maybe they're already aware of most of it already, having conducted their own parallel investigation.
The hearings, obviously, have a tighter focus. They've put together the building blocks around the edges, but they are also directly exposing Donald Trump and all his most-trusted allies, and they are doing so in quite specific terms. Legal experts have been having a field day on cable news and elsewhere in the media, examining and opining on what specific crimes Trump (and his henchmen) may be charged with -- or convicted of.
That is going to be Merrick Garland's dilemma, of course. He can't just spin wild legal theories on cable, he has to think in terms of: "What could I convince a jury of 12 Americans of, beyond a reasonable doubt?" He's got to make the prosecutorial decision, in other words.
He may continue working his way up the chain, too. He could lean on everyone who participated in the fake elector scheme, since they are all at risk of defrauding the federal government at the very least (just by signing their name to an obviously-falsified legal document). Some of them may decide to flip on those in Washington who were either egging them on or were actually telling them what to do and directing the whole plot.
That would move the focus back to Washington -- and directly to Trump's inner circle, most likely. Flipping any one of these players would be incredibly hard (they would all know full well that the wrath of Trump would descend on them like a lead balloon if they did start singing like a canary) -- but maybe not impossible.
Trump's inner circle is already in danger of being charged with a whole range of crimes. Even the fact that a person asked for a pre-emptive pardon is considered knowledge of one's own guilt. After all, if you weren't guilty of a crime, then why would you ever even ask for one?
Some of those in the inner circle are already being prosecuted for contempt of Congress (for ignoring the committee' subpoena), but that's not the same thing as having to face the music for what these people actually did both before and during January 6th.
The biggest question is whether to prosecute Trump himself, of course. And that is a highly-charged political question as well as a legal one. Are sitting presidents effectively "above the law"? Was Richard Nixon right ("when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal") or not?
There is the absolute fact that if Trump is prosecuted his followers will all cry "witch hunt" and "banana republic" and "kangaroo court" and maybe even "star chamber session" -- but that really shouldn't faze Garland much. If he not only thinks Trump is guilty of a crime (or crimes) and he is convinced that he could obtain a conviction in court -- that he had absolute proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- then he is pretty much duty-bound to bring charges. He would be shirking his responsibilities to the Constitution if he decided not to prosecute, to put it another way (unless it was for a very minor crime or infraction of the law). But that "beyond a reasonable doubt" bar is high even in normal federal cases, and it'd be a lot higher for the first-ever prosecution of a former president. Garland might feel that the bar is so high that he doesn't have enough solid proof to meet it -- in which case he would be doing his job correctly by not prosecuting Trump.
The calendar is going to start to matter, too. If Garland does stick to his "work your way up the chain" plan, then it could easily be into next year before he even decided he had all the evidence he was ever going to get. None of the fake electors has been charged yet, and their trials would get pushed out perhaps half a year just as a function of the clogged court system.
But by next year -- perhaps by the end of this year, after the midterms -- Donald Trump might have officially announced he is a presidential candidate for 2024. Even if he doesn't announce, the closer we get to the election the harder it is going to be to take any legal action against Trump. The Justice Department has regulations about investigating candidates for federal office, and they usually back off long before the end of an election cycle, except in the most extreme cases. They don't always stick to these internal rules, of course (see: Justice Department announcement on Hillary Clinton only weeks before the 2016 election, for proof). But it's easy to see that the decision to prosecute Trump becomes harder and harder the closer to the 2024 election we get.
Garland plays his cards pretty close to the vest. The fact that raids have started on the mid-level players in the plot to steal a presidential election is a positive development, to be sure. But the clock is ticking, and the House committee's hearings have certainly turned up the heat on Garland to act faster.
I have no idea what he'll decide, in the end. Or when, for that matter. Merrick Garland is at some point (perhaps quite soon) going to be faced with an enormous constitutional dilemma. Where should the bar be set on prosecuting an ex-president? Nixon was pardoned by Gerald Ford, so there simply is no precedent even available. The closest might be Aaron Burr's trial for treason, but the charges brought against him were for things he did after being vice president, not while he was in office -- so that's not a direct parallel either.
When no precedent even exists, the decision must be a lot harder. But sooner or later, Merrick Garland is going to have to make that decision, and the more that the House committee reveals the higher the pressure is going to be for Garland to act sooner and not later.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The Justice Department has regulations about investigating candidates for federal office, and they usually back off long before the end of an election cycle, except in the most extreme cases.
I'm guessing that 6Jan might just qualify as one extreme case ... especially if there is a plan for a, well ... ah, a do-over. Ahem. :-)
Justice Department has regulations about investigating candidates for federal office, and they usually back off long before the end of an election cycle, except in the most extreme cases. They don't always stick to these internal rules, of course (see: Justice Department announcement on Hillary Clinton only weeks before the 2016 election, for proof).
Far from being an exception that prove the DOJ's rule, this Hillary case was a good example of extreme or, at the very least, extraordinary, so ...
Let's say that AG Garland gives the go ahead to prosecute Trump. Now, what if Trump is convicted? Will half the country revolt? What if he is not convicted, for which there is some degree of precedent? Will half the country revolt?
AG Garland must take into account the deeply and disturbingly polarized nature of America - with regard to its citizenry, its institutions ... not to mention all of its branches of government. How might his analysis of this impact his decision to prosecute a former president or not?
If the evidence against Trump is so overwhelming as to force AG Garland to choose the prosecution option, then perhaps a deal could be made whereby Trump agrees to abstain from seeking any future political office and from engaging in any public political discourse for the rest of his days and Trump finally publically conceded that Biden won the 2020 presidential election, fair and square, in return for avoiding prosecution.
I'm just trying to think out loud. :)
If Garland really takes his time in getting up the food chain, the decision on Donald himself might not occur until 2024. Now wouldn't THAT make for some must-see viewing!
Or, just a stray thought here, what if one of the January 6th defendants turns out to be Ginny Thomas? Will a republican house impeach in retaliation? It's gonna be wild!
Joshua,
Now wouldn't THAT make for some must-see viewing!
Don't you get tired of hearing and seeing the same bad movie, over and over and over again?
Damn ... you were being a bit sarcastic. It takes me a while most times but, I catch on, eventually ... :-)
There is certainly enough evidence already to support prosecution for several crimes. The hardest part might be empaneling a jury that does not contain one diehard Trump supporter who will consider it their job to acquit.
Therein really does lie the rub, ag.
not just their job, their patriotic duty.
Yep.
That 'yep' was for comments #8,9.
Okay, #10, too. :)
Off Topic, but responding to a post from yesterday.
MC: Iowa is early. We can get over a loss there (we ain't gonna get beat, just sayin').
OSU on the road? Two in a row, baby!!!
As a matter of curiosity, are comments made to Joshua and those made to nypoet made to the same person?
I've been wondering about the Joshua tag for a bit (not enough to look too hard, but...)
@speak2,
'tis i
Back to MC
I'm not happy that all three of our non-conference games or easy. One ranked team would be better.
It feels like we're doing an SEC. Take three cheap wins and call our conference record the real thing. I'd be more OK if Wisconsin were on the schedule.
Way cool, poet. I'm going to continue using nypoet, unless you object.
@speak2,
no objection here. also i just read the entire comments section of that article. fascinating stuff, and many of the comments still stand up to scrutiny ten years later.
Wow, that was you?; I remember that one. Cool.
And you know Ms Oliphant. That's Way Cooler.
He's an old-timer, long retired, but does Norm Scott sound familiar?
JL,
there's no documented evidence yet to contradict what Cassidy Hutchinson said, just a vague report that the secret service members who were present may testify to something different from her account.
Aww, com'on.. "Vague reports" my ass!!!
Hutchison's BS has been completely and utterly refuted..
The "bombshell" was a dud... Pure and simple..
about what happened in the limo on the way back from the speech on january 6th. the rest is her direct experience, and there's zero evidence contrary to any other part of her testimony.
And what was the "other part" of her testimony??
President Trump was angry.. President Trump had a temper..
Big whoop... :eyeroll:
you're entitled to hope that her evidence will be refuted in its entirety, but that doesn't seem likely. at worst (or at best from your perspective), someone told her a story they'd misheard.
Bullshit.. She claimed FIRST PERSON eyewitness status... The moderator here STATED such...
She lied about authoring a note...
I get it JL... Yer trying to mitigate and equivocate up the wazzoo.. I understand..
It's embarrassing that ya'all got taken in... It's a symptom of the PTDS.. I understand completely..
Ya'all feel as silly and as embarrassed as ya'all did when the Russia Collusion thing turned out to be such a HUGE NOTHING BURGER...
I get it.. I feel for ya, I really do...
But I am also embarrassed for ya'all..
Ya'all REALLY need to get yer PTDS under control..
This hysterical Trump/America hate simply CAN'T be healthy eh? :^/
that doesn't negate the plate throwing, table tossing, wiping ketchup from the wall, or even that donald asked to go to the capital and had to be convinced otherwise by his security detail.
If she lied about the big things (which it's documented she did) she has no credibility for ANY of it..
Except, of course, with those who WANT to believe it.
Those who would believe ANYTHING about President Trump as long as it's bad...
PTDS.... Such a sad sad disease... :eyeroll:
The USSS agents have publicly stated that they are willing to testify to the Cardassian Show Trial AKA the 6JC...
But the question is, will the Cardassians SEAT the witnesses??
The Cardassians are on record as avoiding ANY witnesses that refuted the required narrative..
HUNDREDS of cops were willing to testify that it was Congressional leadership and their unpreparedness and incompetence that actually was the cause of the 6 Jan riot..
Of course, the 6JC refused to allow THOSE cops to testify...
So, will the committee seat ANY witness that refutes the predetermined narrative??
Betcha they won't..
Which simply PROVES beyond ANY doubt..
The 6JC is nothing but a Cardassian Show Trial...
Pure and simple...
Russ,
Read the ketchup on the wall; Trump is toast!
Yea, ya'all said that during the Russia Collusion delusion..
Ya'all were completely and utterly WRONG...
Ya'all said that during the 1st impeachment where Dumbocrats had to actually MAKE UP "crimes" to impeach President Trump over..
Ya'all were COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG...
Ya'all said the same thing during the 2nd impeachment..
Guess what happened?? Oh yea.. I remember.. Ya'all were WRONG.. AGAIN...
Again and again and again and again and again..
When it came to President Trump??
Ya'all were WRONG... As WRONG as WRONG can be.. :D
And you'll be WRONG again this time..
AND the next.. AND the next..
Yunno WHY ya'all are ALWAYS wrong??
Because you speak from hate... Pure and simple, you speak from HATE.. And your hate blinds ya'all to the FACTS.. And to reality..
This Hutchison bimbo's testimony is a PERFECT example..
Ya'all hate SOOO much and WANT SOOO MUCH to believe that you'll swallow ANY BS story without even a SEMBLANCE of critical thinking...
Right off the bat, ya'all should have realized that the grabbing the steering wheel claim was completely and utterly BOGUS...
It was not in The Beast, it was in one of their SUV’s.
Again, NOT FACTUALLY ACCURATE...
Secret Service Is Reportedly Prepared to Testify Trump Didn’t Try to Commandeer Limo on Jan. 6, Despite Hutchinson Account
Your response is so much bullshit, Russ..
I get it.. Like JL, yer embarrassed that you got taken AGAIN. Your Trump/America hate blinded you to REALITY..
I understand and I pity you...
But this lame and inane attempt to equivocate and mitigate just makes it all worse..
Admit ya scroo'ed up.. Ya hate and hoped so much and it blew up in your face...
That's the long and short of those whole sad debacle..
Ya'all hate SOOO much and ya'all wanted to to be factually SOOOO much...
And it blew up in yer faces...
Pure and simple..
As to THIS commentary??
Garland ain't going to be basing ANY investigation on the Cardassian Show trial AKA the 6JC...
It's been proven to be a complete and utter farce and political witch hunt..
I know, I know.. Ya'all's hate compels you SOOOO much to want to see something that isn't there...
The Cardassian Show trial is irrevocably tainted and discredited..
Garland ain't gonna do crap with it...
Democrats and Trump/America haters lost..
AGAIN....
What you WON'T see at the Cardassian Show Trial AKA the 6JC..
The Cardassian Show trial won't allow ANY facts that don't support the pre-determined narrative..
JUST like a REAL Cardassian Show trial...
So let's look to the future..
There are 2 big cases left to be resolved in the Supreme Court today..
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency
This case is about the federal government's ability to create environmental regulations. The challengers are a group of 27 Republican attorneys general, many from states with traditions in the fossil fuel industry, including West Virginia.
Previous rulings have embraced the Chevron Doctrine which states, in part, that deference should be given to federal agencies in imposing rules and regulations..
This is especially important to Democrats because they want to impose their hysterical Global Warming agenda...
Chevron is on the chopping block today.. :D
The only REAL question is will the SCOTUS rule narrowly and preserve Chevron?? Or will the SCOTUS rule broadly and throw the Chevron Doctrine on the trash heap of history with Roe V Wade and Democrat Eugenics V Casey... :D
If the SCOTUS rules broadly (which is the prevailing opinion that they will) this will likely have broader repercussions for the Democrat anti-America agenda than RvW...
Biden v. Texas
This is the case that will decide whether President Trump's awesome and prescient REMAIN IN MEXICO policy will remain.. Biden's Handlers and Democrats have been wanting to erase President Trump's immigration policies even though Democrat town leaders along the border LOVE the policies..
I think it's an easy call as to which way the SCOTUS will go on this case.. :D The majority have signaled quite clearly that President Trump's immigration policies are good for America and they will likely rule for Texas...
So, two more wins for America and two more BRUTAL losses for Democrats and Trump/America haters.. :D Happy Happy Joy Joy!! :D
The fun begins at 1000hrs EDT and I, of course, will be spreading the glorious news!!
Work permitting, of course..
It's shaping up to be ANOTHER glorious and frabjous day!! :D
Baby Killing AKA Abortion is NOT going to be the mid-term savior that Democrats want it to be..
It's a simple FACT... Ya'all need to face reality.. :D
New York City woman pushing baby in stroller on Upper East Side shot dead
Mayor Eric Adams is going to the scene of the shooting where the woman pushing a stroller was shot dead
https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-city-woman-pushing-stroller-upper-east-side-shot-dead
New York City...
A 3rd world warzone shithole.. :^/
Another PERFECT example of Democrats' BS and horrendous DEFUND, DEMORALIZE, DEMONIZE THE POLICE policies...
Awww com'on!!
Is this going to be ANOTHER day where ya'all cede the field of battle to me??
AGAIN!!?? :(
I get it.. I really do.. The strength of ya'all's counter argument is in the toilet.. I understand that..
But we can still have fun!
We can talk Trek.. We can talk the new Dr Strange movie... Maybe BOSCH LEGACY...
Ya'll KNOW it's a bad idea to leave me to my own devices here...
Idle Hands and all that.. :D
Come out come out wherever you are... :D
That's what I like about you, Joshua..
When push comes to shove, pragmatism takes precedence over ideology...
While that's true of everyone here, to a certain extent, it's especially noticeable with you.
"The Force is strong with this one."
-Darth Vader, STAR WARS IV, A New Hope
:D
if their democratic allies betray them, they should start moving their money to the GOP. they may be corrupt to the bone, but at least those folks deliver for their benefactors.
Sounds like something I would say.. :D
Michale.....
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/05/22/guest-column-and-cartoon-teach-your-children-well/#comment-21822
Ahhhhh The good ole days...
Before the onset of President Trump Derangement Syndrome....
:D
In the interests of clarity....
Ahhhhh The good ole days...
Before the onset of President Trump Derangement Syndrome....
:D
I am reading some of the reactions to recent SCOTUS decisions while I wait for the new opinions..
Restoring the Founders’ right to bear arms
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/restoring-the-founders-right-to-bear-arms/
Especially noteworthy...
NY Officials knew that they had frak'ed up and, as Democrats are wont to do, way WAY overreached..
In a futile bid at damage control, Democrats rescinded the law that prompted the SCOTUS granted cert. hoping that the court would allow their "Never mind, we were just kidding" to go un-noticed..
"NO GOOD, THAT IS!!!"
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET
..replied the SCOTUS. You wanted this law adjudicated and by god we gonna adjudicate da bitch!!!! :D
Of course, the SCOTUS did not use those exact words.. :D
But it's a perfect example of one the BIGGEST problems that Democrats have..
They way WAY over-estimate their support and their capabilities and way WAY under-estimate the depth of opposition that every day patriotic Americans have against Democrats and their anti-America agenda..
With Dobbs and with Bruen.... The SCOTUS mightily slapped down Democrats and....
"....declared in one voice...
We will not go quietly into the night. We will not vanish without a fight. We’re going to live on. We’re going to survive. Today we celebrate our Independence Day!"
-President Whitmore, INDEPENDENCE DAY
HUZZAAAHHHH!!!
Interesting to note...
District Of Columbia used to be a MAY ISSUE district... In 2017, the lower courts in DC ruled that such MAY ISSUE status is unconstitutional...
So, DC became a SHALL ISSUE, a MUST ISSUE district..
The DC AG at the time allowed this to stand because he was afraid that, had he challenged it to the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the 2nd and Bruen would have become a reality nationwide 5 years earlier..
In short, the DC AG was smart and knew his limitations and the limitations of his political agenda...
Unfortunately, Democrats today have lost that ability to recognize their own limitations..
"A man's got to know his limitations!!"
-Clint Eastwood, MAGNUM FORCE
:D
Democrats today.. What a joke.. :D
The only REAL question is will the SCOTUS rule narrowly and preserve Chevron?? Or will the SCOTUS rule broadly and throw the Chevron Doctrine on the trash heap of history with Roe V Wade and Democrat Eugenics V Casey... :D
If the SCOTUS rules broadly (which is the prevailing opinion that they will) this will likely have broader repercussions for the Democrat anti-America agenda than RvW...
Regardless of whether the SCOTUS rules narrowly and preserves Chevron or rules broadly and throws out Chevron...
The Democrat anti-America Global Warming agenda is history...
GONE BABY!!! :D
Ketanji Brown Jackson to be sworn in as first Black woman on the Supreme Court
And, in the non-racist and non-sexist world that Democrats CLAIM they want to live in...
The collective response to the above headline would be, "Yea?? So??"
Hypocrisy.. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature.
Cardassian Show Trial is a MUCH better analogy because.. well.. It's Trek!! :D
But the season finale of this hollywood "blockbuster" was yesterday..
And it went over as well as the Series Finale of GAME OF THRONES..
It totally and irrevocably tainted and discredited then entire process...
Every "fact" the Cardassian Show Trial put forth is now called into question..
As with the Russia Collusion Delusion, there is no 'there' there... It's a huge NOTHING BURGER...
A rather apt ending of the 6JC given what happened to ya'all's Russia Collusion Delusion, eh?? :D
"Oh what a beautiful morning...
Oh what a beautiful day...
I've got a beautiful feeling....
Everything's going my way..."
OK, I'll concede the mic for a few to give someone else a chance???
Any takers?? :D
Good morning. This is not a field of battle, it's a field of discussion. You don't "win" by shooting more talking points.
I'll try to sift through the shell casings and find an argument i can respond to.
Ooops.. Sorry.. New information...
Exactly...
The entire 6JC is NOTHING but *ONE* side of the story..
The Trump/America haters' side..
It's EXACTLY like a Cardassian Trial....
ONLY the state's case is presented and guilt is pre-determined...
I actually hope SCOTUS wannabe Garland DOES try and prosecute President Trump..
Because NOTHING would guarantee President Trump's re-election by landslide MORE than Garland prosecuting President Trump and President Trump WINNNING...
AGAIN...
And ya'all just HAVE to know that President Trump will win..
Because, while Democrats and Trump America haters have the upper hand in this Cardassian Show Trial...
When the proceedings are moved into a REAL Federation Court, A> the *OTHER* side of the story will be heard and B> the ONE side that has already been presented can be torn apart and mutilated with the FACTS...
So, yea... SCOTUS Wannabe Garland... Go ahead..
Prosecute President Trump on this flimsy and bigoted Cardassian so-called "evidence"...
I double dog DARE you to do it!!!
OK... NOW the mic is open.. :D
JL,
Good morning. This is not a field of battle, it's a field of discussion.
You obviously haven't read any of Kick's comments to and about me, eh?? :D
I'll try to sift through the shell casings and find an argument i can respond to.
Sure... Sift thru the facts.. :D I'll be around.. :D
Good morning.
Oh, and... Good morning Jean Luc... :D
Tonight's episode of ST SNW looks pretty awesome...
Wanna lay bets on how many red-shirts bite the dust??? :D
END OF WATCH
Sergeant Richard Lopez
Yavapai County Sheriff's Office, Arizona
End of Watch: Tuesday, June 28, 2022
And remind the few...
When ill of us they speak..
That we are all that stands between..
The monsters and the weak...
Re: trump derangement - I'd posit that his supporters suffer from that affliction just as much if not moreso than his detractors. Whether to his detriment or his defense, common sense seems to go out the window equally for all parties.
January 6 being a case in point
- I'd posit that his supporters suffer from that affliction just as much if not moreso than his detractors. Whether to his detriment or his defense, common sense seems to go out the window equally for all parties.
I am sure you would.. :D
But "derangement" has negative connotations so it's not really applicable for those who fervently support all the good that President Trump has done..
January 6 being a case in point
The Russia Collusion Delusion is a much better example..
But the 6JC is a good example of PTDS as well...
Bullshit.. She claimed FIRST PERSON eyewitness status...
For most of the events to which she testified under oath, that is accurate. She was backstage during the speech, and in the west wing afterward. The one aspect of the testimony that's in serious doubt is the report of what she was told, i.e. hearsay. As any kid who's ever played telephone can tell you, messages can get skewed between multiple tellings. I understand why you want that to be more than it is, but that's not rational, it's just as much trump derangement as for who want to treat it like a smoking gun.
jl
I understand why you want that to be more than it is, but that's not rational, it's just as much trump derangement as for who want to treat it like a smoking gun.
And, conversely, I understand why ya'all want this "bombshell" to be more than it is..
It's a dud... The facts PROVE it's a dud..
ALL ya'all have for a FACT is that President Trump was angry that Democrats cheated..
Big whoop...
But the FACTS are on my side.. As is usually the case.. :D
Not the j6c, the events themselves. January 6 wasn't just proud boys, oath keepers and other terrorist groups, it was also regular people so deranged by their support of Donald Trump that they beat up cops and scaled the walls of the capitol
I didn't call it a bombshell. To the extent that it's true, it's certainly a disturbing anecdote, among many.
The FACT that Hutchison lied taints and discredits EVERYTHING she says..
I know you don't want to believe that... But it's a fact..
I didn't call it a bombshell.
Everyone else did..
So would you agree that it's not a bombshell??
Especially given the fact that a LOT of it was a lie...
15 Minutes til another Democrat come-uppance :D
<iThe FACT that Hutchison lied
Not lied, reported on hearsay, the veracity of which has YET to be ascertained by any under oath testimony. that IS a fact.
taints and discredits EVERYTHING she says..
You can wish that, but it's not very realistic.
So would you agree that it's not a bombshell??
I'd agree to THAT even if it turns out to be, in your parlance, 1000% factually accurate.
Not lied, reported on hearsay, the veracity of which has YET to be ascertained by any under oath testimony. that IS a fact.
No.. She lied..
She stated that she wrote some kind of note or narrative or release..
The FACTS show that the message was written by someone else..
She LIED...
Period...
You can wish that, but it's not very realistic.
It would be if it was a GOP'er that Democrats didn't like who lied....
Just the old double standard...
OK.. So we agree...
No bombshell... No smoking gun..
Life is good.. :D
West Virginia V EPA
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Chevron is still intact..
But Democrats Global Warming agenda is dead..
WOOT!!!!!
A more restrained opinion than we might've come to expect from this court..
The EPA's view of its authority was not only unprecedented; it also effected a 'fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of . . . regulation' into an entirely different kind."
Chief Justice Roberts
"On EPA's view of Section 111(d), Congress implicitly tasked it, and it alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy implicated in deciding how Americans will get their energy. But there "is little reason to think Congress assigned such decisions to" the EPA."
-Chief Justice Roberts
Well, I'll be dipped..
I was wrong on Biden v Texas...... I guess it was bound to happen eventually that I would be wrong..
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Oh well... Doesn't dampen my mood at all.. :D
Is this going to be ANOTHER day where ya'all cede the field of battle to me??
Would that be The Black Knight school of rhetoric?
The entire 6JC is NOTHING but *ONE* side of the story..
Your team was give the opportunity for equal representation on the committee and very specifically turned it down. I have zero sympathy. Zero.
Your team was give the opportunity for equal representation on the committee and very specifically turned it down. I have zero sympathy. Zero.
Not factually accurate..
The GOP was given the opportunity to chose the same kind of morons that are Trump/America haters..
They refused to join the Cardassians...
THAT's the fact..
I accept your concession, Bashi.. :D
Michale
22
Bullshit.. She claimed FIRST PERSON eyewitness status... The moderator here STATED such...
I see you are still confused regarding the simple English verbiage. Here, let me help you:
*
Reading is fundamental.
It appears you're spending hour upon hour and are still confused about this. The very least I could do is help you out. You're welcome.
Also (from yesterday's commentary):
It appears you missed the part where she also testified that the person who was in the vehicle with Trump (eyewitness) was present at the time and did not dispute a single word of what she was told.
IE Hearsay....
Not refuted at the time by the person who was actually in the vehicle who was actually there when it was relayed to her a short time after the incident: Tony Ornato.
Anthony "Tony" Ornato worked as Trump's security detail leader, the number one guy protecting him. Trump liked this Secret Service agent Ornato so much that he gave him a political job in the White House... which broke every Secret Service tradition in the book about fraternizing. Ornato remained a Secret Service employee while Trump also employed him politically to direct the Secret Service at Trump's campaign events, political rallies, and photo opportunities, including the forcible clearing of peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square.
Ornato denied that Lafayette Square was cleared of peaceful protesters for a preplanned photo op; this is a lie. Anyone who thinks Ivanka carries around a very large Bible in her purse all the time and just so happened to have it on hand for Daddy to foist into the air (upside down like a fool)... I got a bridge to sell you. Ornato was at the center of the planning of that Trump photo op at the church.
But back to the incident in the vehicle, perhaps the story was embellished when it was relayed to Cassidy by the SS, but Agent Tony Ornato (eyewitness) was right there at the time and didn't dispute a single word of it.
What isn't in dispute is that Trump was irate when the SS wouldn't allow him to join the mob he just sent to the capitol telling them to "fight like hell," which was a preplanned conspiracy that included Trump who was fully briefed and absolutely 100% aware at the time he sent them that they were armed and dangerous. Very helpful if you're one of the multiple police officers suing Trump for monetary and punitive damages that he was most definitely directly involved in causing, but I digress.
As anyone paying attention to all the testimony could observe, the Committee obviously wants to question White House Counsel; they've played that video testimony of Kushner multiple times wherein he used the term "whiners" to describe White House counsellors. They obviously also want to get these SS agents back in under oath, and they also obviously know more already and clearly know what they're doing. Because while everyone is chasing their tails denying the SS Agent's retelling of the story to Cassidy Hutchinson, they will be, in point of fact, confirming other things that they appear to left out when they swore to tell the "whole truth" under penalty of perjury and/or refused to testify at all. You see, there is no such thing as "privilege" when crimes are being committed, and Cassidy Hutchinson was an eyewitness to White House counsel claiming over and over the illegality of multiple things.
At the end of the last hearing, the Committee dangled the fact that they are well aware that witnesses are being tampered with (illegal, obstruction of justice) and proffered multiple instances of proof. I would wager that those who illegally tampered with witnesses (and they know who they are), are being informed there's still time to clear up their inconsistencies and outright lies under penalty of perjury.
As Speak2 so rightly noted in yesterday's commentary:
*
That is dead on accurate, Speak2, and the word you were looking for was "warning." Congressman Thompson is telling them that the Committee is well aware there are those who swore under penalty of perjury to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"... but who didn't quite live up to their oath, but there is still time to remedy that felony... but WARNING, that window is closing. :)
The GOP was given the opportunity to chose the same kind of morons that are Trump/America haters..
Non-seditionists...
I accept your concession, Bashi.. :D
You truly are the Black Knight of rhetoric. Yawn.
And yet, here you are.. :D
Uh...so? I was also here when you went in to a pout and took your ball else where.
Uh...so?
Your being here puts lie to the claim that you're bored..
"I hate it when I have to spell it out.."
For the life of me I can't recall what that's from..
I picture Alan Rickman, but can't recall the movie...
It's gonna drive me batty
Cheney declines to say if January 6 committee sought Secret Service corroboration of Cassidy Hutchinson claim
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cheney-declines-say-january-6-committee-sought-secret-service-corroboration-cassidy-hutchinson-claim
Of course she didn't try to corroborate..
Cheney KNEW it was a bullshit claim...
“The sham Committee’s star witness is already discredited less than 24 hours after her testimony. It was all hearsay. This is the Russia hoax playbook. Democrats’ media allies are simply repeating their outrageous and evidence-free accusations.”
-Rep Jim Banks
Yep.. yep... yep...
Michale
23
If she lied about the big things (which it's documented she did) she has no credibility for ANY of it..
So you're saying Trump has no credibility for "ANY of it" since it's documented under oath that Trump lied about winning the 2020 election after being informed repeatedly by multiple persons and in multiple different ways that he lost... you know, the "BIG LIE."
It's so cute to watch y'all chase your tails about that vehicle incident when it's been proven under penalty of perjury Trump was involved in a conspiracy to delay the certification of Biden (illegal), strong-arm state officials to "find" votes (Georgia, taped conversation) and to put forth their own slates of fake electors (multiple states, illegal) and send fake certificates to the National Archives (illegal), conspire with others to summon a mob to Washington on a specific date in order to direct them toward the capitol to impede the mandated constitutional work of Congress (illegal) in order to undermine America's democracy... and you actually just claimed the incident in the vehicle is "big." :)
So you're saying Trump has no credibility for "ANY of it" since it's documented under oath that Trump lied about winning the 2020 election after being informed repeatedly by multiple persons and in multiple different ways that he lost... you know, the "BIG LIE."
No.. That's what YA'ALL are saying about President Trump..
I am simply applying YA'ALL's standards to this Hutichison bimbo...
See how that works?? :eyeroll:
Michale
24
Say something that proves without doubt that you're not the Jack Reacher-type super cop you keep claiming to be.
The USSS agents have publicly stated that they are willing to testify to the Cardassian Show Trial AKA the 6JC...
But the question is, will the Cardassians SEAT the witnesses??
Thank you for your cooperation.
Ornato and Engle have already testified under penalty of perjury to the Committee. You don't suppose the Committee would like to give them a chance to come back in order to clear up some discrepancies in their sworn testimony and to maybe confirm some other big details that are not so minor as the vehicle incident, do you? Rhetorical question. They were practically begging them, you know. :)
Michale
42
You obviously haven't read any of Kick's comments to and about me, eh?? :D
Cry more. :)
Like I said..
Field of battle.. :D
24
Say something that proves without doubt that you're not the Jack Reacher-type super cop you keep claiming to be.
52
BashiBazouk
65
Would that be The Black Knight school of rhetoric?
Heh. :)
“I spent nearly 30 years trying cases in an adversarial court system designed to ferret out truth. Liz Cheney knows how it’s supposed to work, but she humiliated herself and the rest of this sham committee yesterday out of uncontrollable spite for Trump.”
Rep Dan Bishop
Yep yep yep..
'I'M OUT OF HERE'
Biden hastily ends press conference as reporters shout questions
Biden hastily ends press conference as reporters shout questions
Biden White House avoids Oval Office for press events in part because it has no teleprompter: report
Biden repeatedly referenced pre-determined list of reporters he was instructed to call on
What a lame-assed leader Biden is..
It's no wonder the Democrat Party is going down in flames.... :eyeroll:
Oops Forgot the link...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-hastily-ends-press-conference-reporters-shout-questions-im-out-here
EDIT
I read my post at [22] again and need to clarify what I was trying to say because it's as clear as mud.
This should read (edits in bold):
And to clarify:
Edits in bold:
So, to recap and clarify:
(1) Ornato relayed the story to Hutchinson.
(2) Engle was the eyewitness who was in the vehicle and didn't dispute a single word of what Ornato relayed to Hutchinson (per her testimony).
_____________
That's what I get for speaking swiftly and then posting without proofreading.
Caffeine is calling my name. :)
“It looks like, you know, one more day of salacious headlines, and already today, we’re seeing Secret Service agents saying, ‘That didn’t happen’. This is why Pelosi set this up from day one to be a partisan committee, a witch hunt, just to keep going after Trump. Not to get facts, she kicked Republicans off the committee. She didn’t want the facts.”
-Steve Scalise
Yep Yep yep....
BashiBazouk
73
Uh...so? I was also here when you went in to a pout and took your ball else where.
Crying is an important way for infants to communicate. :)
Field of battle.. :D
Michale
74
Your being here puts lie to the claim that you're bored..
So you actually believe that somebody can't be here and be bored simultaneously? Well then, you must not be reading your own comments.
"I hate it when I have to spell it out.."
It can be definitely infinitely boring to watch your flailing attempts at spelling. :)
You are SOOOO desperate to bring flame wars back to Weigantia, ain't ya Kick... :D
Yer desperation is SOOO pathetic and obvious... :D
It amuses me to see you grovel soo much... :D
http://mfccfl.us/MyBody.jpg
BBBWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D
Michale
90
Field of battle.. :D
I make a simple comment about infants, and guess who whines and mewls in response? :)
Sooo desperate.... :D
Keep trying.. It cracks me up... :D
Love the continued name-checks.. :D
AOC calls Supreme Court EPA ruling on power plant emissions 'catastrophic'
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized the Supreme Court decision
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-supreme-court-epa-ruling-power-plant-emissions-catastrophic
Awwwww... Poor lil Occasional Cortex has her knickers in a twist..
Sorry kid.. You hysterical and ludicrous Global Warming agenda is on the trash heap.. Right with Roe v Wade and Democrat Eugenics v Casey and yer "assault rifle" ban...
Waaaaa Waaaaaa.... :D
Michale
92
You are SOOOO desperate to bring flame wars back to Weigantia, ain't ya Kick... :D
Said the commenter who hasn't stopped hurling insults toward others individually and never ceased spewing disparaging remarks toward everyone here preceded by the word "ya'all"... as if it's some kind of magic word that causes the prattling aspersions toward the group as a whole to somehow not have occurred.
Yer desperation is SOOO pathetic and obvious... :D
Nice bit of introspective projection from the commenter who keeps getting caught in his own loop.
It amuses me to see you grovel soo much... :D
So you're saying you're amused and therefore the anecdotal evidence of your divertissement means that neither Bashi nor anyone else could possibly be bored? Duh.
So, to recap:
If you break your leg, don't come running to me. :)
Laters.
Hope my flight isn't cancelled. :)
Soo desperate, ain'tcha... :D
Yer not going to succeed.. I simply will not allow it.
But by all means.. Continue to try....
It really is funny.... :D
The only flight I'm interested in contains small glasses of beer.
and when dems hold the senate,
this t-shirt
shouldn't get you in too much trouble with your customers.
(this was my second choice)
nypoet22
101|102
I love it. :)
Michale
99
Soo desperate, ain'tcha... :D
you speak from hate... Pure and simple, you speak from HATE.. And your hate blinds ya'all to the FACTS.. And to reality.. **
Yer not going to succeed.. I simply will not allow it.
Ya'all hate SOOO much and WANT SOOO MUCH to believe that you'll swallow ANY BS story without even a SEMBLANCE of critical thinking... **
But by all means.. Continue to try....
Your response is so much bullshit..
I get it.. yer embarrassed that you got taken AGAIN. Your hate blinded yo to REALITY..
I understand and I pity you... **
It really is funny.... :D
But this lame and inane attempt to equivocate and mitigate just makes it all worse..
Admit ya scroo'ed up.. Ya hate and hoped so much and it blew up in your face...
That's the long and short of those whole sad debacle..
Ya'all hate SOOO much and ya'all wanted to to be factually SOOOO much...
And it blew up in yer faces...
Pure and simple.. **
_______________________
** These responses to your perpetual whining were brought to you by YOU... copied from the same page (see above). If you're going to dish it out, then quit your crying and man up and prepare to take it... with the exception of persons who can spell simple English words, compose sentences that aren't fragments, form sentences into paragraphs, and aren't a perpetual mewling pussy like you.
I'm confused
If she lied about the big things (which it's documented she did) she has no credibility for ANY of it..
That YOU posted this is so rich that it has to be fattening! You worship at the zipper of the biggest liar to ever hold public office. You, yourself, lie about your own work history and only got caught because you could not keep your lies straight. So by your own reasoning here, we should simply ignore ANYTHING you post!
HUNDREDS of cops were willing to testify that it was Congressional leadership and their unpreparedness and incompetence that actually was the cause of the 6 Jan riot..
You are claiming that those officers who stood up to the failed insurrection on January 6th believe that it was their own unpreparedness and incompetence that actually was the cause of the 6 Jan riot ?!?!
REALLY? The police caused the crowds to storm the Capitol and try to stop the EC count from being finalized? I would have thought that you’d blame BLM for causing the riots before you would try to blame the police; but clearly your subservience to Trump is worse than I originally believed.
Which simply PROVES beyond ANY doubt..
The 6JC is nothing but a Cardassian Show Trial..
The entire 6JC is NOTHING but *ONE* side of the story...
You sure are proud of yourself for coming up with the whole Cardassian Show Trial analogy…but it makes absolutely no sense! This 6JC is not a trial court. They are presenting their investigations’ findings to the public… of course it is one sided! They are presenting their findings. You do not seem to understand the difference between a “trial” and a “hearing”.
Again, NOT FACTUALLY ACCURATE...
Secret Service Is Reportedly Prepared to Testify Trump Didn’t Try to Commandeer Limo on Jan. 6, Despite Hutchinson Account
Of course they will testify that Trump did not try to commandeer his limo on January 6…they were in an SUV. Whoever came up with that headline did so very intentionally.