Author Topic: The Jan 6 Commission  (Read 48333 times)

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #400 on: April 05, 2022, 02:45:00 PM »
I disagree.  I think that law requires all documentation of official business be preserved.  If there is no document, there is nothing to preserve.  If a president has a face to face conversation, is that required to be documented and preserved?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #401 on: April 05, 2022, 02:51:33 PM »
The fact the conversation took place, yes.  And who they took place with, yes.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #402 on: April 05, 2022, 03:07:38 PM »
I'm sure you can back that up with facts right?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #403 on: April 05, 2022, 04:55:31 PM »
In fact, Lloyd is correct. Trump's use is not illegal just unethical. It's the type of thing that usually prompts a closure of the loophole - much like emails were added to the records law.

Quote
It was unclear whether an impromptu, informal call with a foreign leader would be logged and archived. The Presidential Records Act of 1981, passed in response to the Watergate scandal, requires that the president and his staff preserve all records related to the office. In 2014, the act was amended to include personal emails.

But the law contains “blind spots” — namely, record-keeping for direct cellphone communications, said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, who specializes in public interest and national security law.

CNBC

If CNBC could have implied Trump might be breaking the law, they would have done so.

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #404 on: April 05, 2022, 06:40:28 PM »
The fact that this happened in the middle of one of the most questionable parts of his presidency may not be illegal but strongly suggests there were reasons for him to avoid normal procedures.  Is there proof of illegal activity?  We may or may never know.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #405 on: April 06, 2022, 07:36:39 AM »
What's clear is who he wasn't calling. He wasn't calling the press to make a statement condemning his supporters and telling them to go home. He wasn't calling the leaders of his supporters to tell them to go home. He just sat back and watched in satisfaction. Maybe he kept calling people to gloat and egg them on. See, if he had a call log, he'd be able to demonstrate if any of my speculations were not true. BTW, I haven't yet seen anyone try to answer the question generally. Who was he calling? He could make those cell phone records public if he has nothing to hide. But he always has something to hide. Because he's shady AF. That's why he ritualistically shreds anything on the grounds that it could make him look bad or get him indicted. He's been doing that most of his life.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #406 on: April 06, 2022, 01:14:41 PM »
Interesting really
Its seams legislations wasn't prepared for the rise of new communication technologies and that the expectation was that our Presidents would act with honor be men of character.
Acting within the expectation of the laws meant to protect us

What fools are we.


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #407 on: April 06, 2022, 01:56:21 PM »
...
If CNBC could have implied Trump might be breaking the law, they would have done so.

Don't confuse CNBC, the former home of Larry Kudlow with MSNBC.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #408 on: April 06, 2022, 03:15:52 PM »
...
If CNBC could have implied Trump might be breaking the law, they would have done so.

Don't confuse CNBC, the former home of Larry Kudlow with MSNBC.

I'm not. CNBC is still considered left or center biased, its not NY Post or Newsmax.

They recently wrote this:

Quote
Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama on Wednesday said Donald Trump had asked him to “rescind” the 2020 presidential election, “remove” President Joe Biden from his office, “immediately put” Trump back in the White House and hold a new special presidential election.

Brooks said in a statement that he had drawn Trump’s “ire” by telling the former president that his plan was not legal.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #409 on: April 06, 2022, 03:30:22 PM »
...
If CNBC could have implied Trump might be breaking the law, they would have done so.

Don't confuse CNBC, the former home of Larry Kudlow with MSNBC.

I'm not. CNBC is still considered left or center biased, its not NY Post or Newsmax.

They recently wrote this:

Quote
Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama on Wednesday said Donald Trump had asked him to “rescind” the 2020 presidential election, “remove” President Joe Biden from his office, “immediately put” Trump back in the White House and hold a new special presidential election.

Brooks said in a statement that he had drawn Trump’s “ire” by telling the former president that his plan was not legal.

Been a really long time since I've watched CNBC but they always felt center right. Kind of corporate Republican, stock market cheerleaders. Home of Kudlow and that crazy guy whose rant helped start the tea party movement. Historically I don't think that puts them left of center at all.

Things could have changed. But it bothers me that Republicans consider anything isn't explicitly pro right wing all the time as left of center.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #410 on: April 06, 2022, 04:19:01 PM »
I'm not a republican either.

Chart it out

CNBC is considered balanced according to Ad Fontes. But if you look up their individual content, the news program with Shepard Smith is considered left skewed. Can't say I'm familiar with it, watching news makes me want to claw my eyes out. Washington Post is considered left of center compared to outlets like Associated Press. They have opinions, and those opinions tend to be more favorable to left-leaning policy ideas. The point isn't to arbitrarily decide where a news outlet is on the scale, my point is that CNBC in its political coverage wouldn't be likely to bury a story about Trump doing something illegal.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #411 on: April 08, 2022, 12:22:14 PM »
Proud Boys leader pleads guilty.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/proud-boys-senior-member-plead-143400421.html

All of these AnitFa types pleading guilty.  The power that Soros and Gates have is just mind boggoling.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #412 on: April 12, 2022, 08:02:33 AM »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #413 on: April 25, 2022, 03:06:49 PM »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #414 on: April 29, 2022, 03:36:48 PM »
And a fresh one.

Quote
"Did you do that, agree with [Oath Keepers leader Stewart] Rhodes and develop a plan to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power, by force, on January 6, 2021" US District Judge Amit Mehta asked during the hearing on Friday.

"Yes, your honor" Ulrich said.

Rhodes, who is also charged with seditious conspiracy, has pleaded not guilty.

Ulrich, who at times appeared to be crying during the hearing, also agreed that he "intended to influence and affect conduct of the United States government and to retaliate against the United States government."

At one point, Mehta asked whether Ulrich needed time to gather himself. Ulrich initially declined, saying that "it's not going to get any easier," but later accepted -- taking a moment to audibly weep and gasp for air.

Ulrich, who is from Georgia, was part of an Oath Keepers leadership Signal chat where he, Rhodes and others planned for January 6. The messages, which are quoted in court documents, show how Ulrich repeatedly asked about bringing guns to DC as part of a quick reaction force.
"Someone can tell me if I'm crazy but I'm planning on having a backpack for regular use and then a separate backpack with my ammo" Ulrich messaged the leadership chat in late December, adding that "I will be the guy running around with the 'budget AR.'" In another message days later, Ulrich asked Joshua James about firearms and a potential plan to "stage them in VA."

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #415 on: April 30, 2022, 08:01:37 AM »
More guilty pleas in the sedition cases against the Oath Keepers.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/oath-keeper-emotional-accepts-2nd-193024571.html

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #416 on: May 02, 2022, 01:53:22 PM »
Another Jan 6 insurrectionist gets convicted of all 6 counts. This one had been a police officer. So much for respect for those in Blue.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/retired-nypd-cop-convicted-assaulting-163640109.html

These trials are not going well for those who did not plead guilty are they? I think only 1 case has been found in favor of the defendant and the rest have all been guilty verdicts.  It looks like they are moving up the food chain.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #417 on: May 09, 2022, 11:17:04 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/02/1095521376/jan-6-panel-asks-three-new-house-republicans-to-testify-voluntarily

Quote
House Republican Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama, Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Ronny Jackson of Texas on Monday rejected requests from the House select Jan. 6 committee to testify voluntarily regarding the attack on the Capitol.

I have nothing to hide but won't say anything under oath.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #418 on: May 09, 2022, 11:53:08 AM »
Well Hannity was a mouth piece for the Trump Admin

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/yes-sir-sean-hannity-took-181403983.html

Attack after attack, neh? Why are you so incensed over Hannity, who saw the many eyewitness reports as newsworthy saying he agreed with others about what was important. You call it "taking orders." A normal, honest person just sees "agreeing with."

Where is your reposting of anything to do with the hundreds of riots that burned government buildings and killed people during the Democrat Summer of Love? Where are your repostings of Democrat operatives in the Justice Department who lied about Trump, Russian collusion (except for Hillary), and paid-for intelligence reports that lied about Trump? Why isn't Hillart prosecuted for violation of laws that Comey refused to prosecute because of "lack of intent" for violations that specifically said that intent is not relevant. The submarine snap-shotter spent time behinf bars - Hillary skated.

U suggest we know someone for what he/she is for what they ignore, as much as for what they pass along as truth, which is actually political disinformation.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #419 on: May 09, 2022, 12:02:29 PM »
I see the whole "storming od the Capitol" as a Democrat version of the Reichstag Fire.  (The Reichstag Fire was a dramatic arson attack occurring on February 27, 1933, which burned the building that housed the Reichstag (German parliament) in Berlin. - it was set by the Nazi's and blamed on Jews to cause the same kind of reaction the Dems were hoping for the Jan 6 protest that wasn't violent until Democrat agitators and Pelosi-commanded security urged them into the Capital Building, where they didn't set fires or vandalize property like the Democrat mobs did in the summer riots pretending to defend BLM. Let's not go to the million-dollar mansions bought by the BLM leaders with donations that were supposed to help the Black Lives affected by racism.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #420 on: May 09, 2022, 12:10:51 PM »
...
Where is your reposting of anything to do with the hundreds of riots that burned government buildings and killed people during the Democrat Summer of Love? Where are your repostings of Democrat operatives in the Justice Department who lied about Trump, Russian collusion (except for Hillary), and paid-for intelligence reports that lied about Trump? Why isn't Hillart prosecuted for violation of laws that Comey refused to prosecute because of "lack of intent" for violations that specifically said that intent is not relevant. The submarine snap-shotter spent time behinf bars - Hillary skated.

U suggest we know someone for what he/she is for what they ignore, as much as for what they pass along as truth, which is actually political disinformation.

Plenty of people discussed the riots after the George Floyd murder. Everyone condemned the violence of the looters and provocateurs. People looting the local 7-11 just isn't a lasting news story and concern like the President pointing a mob at the congress and watching joyfully while they erected gallows and sent them away with much love.

Let's send Hillary and Trump to jail for storing classified information incorrectly. Hillary had her under-encrypted email server and Trump had boxes full of materials sitting around Mara Lago. I wouldn't lose sleep about either being hauled before a jury for their actions.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #421 on: May 09, 2022, 12:27:56 PM »
Did I trigger you Wm?  What type of snowflake are you?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #422 on: May 09, 2022, 12:57:12 PM »
...Let's send Hillary and Trump to jail for storing classified information incorrectly. Hillary had her under-encrypted email server and Trump had boxes full of materials sitting around Mara Lago. I wouldn't lose sleep about either being hauled before a jury for their actions.

Reading the actual laws are important:

UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL AND RETENTION OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS OR MATERIAL
18 U.S.C. § 1924 Class: A misdemeanor
Possible penalty: imprisonment for 1 year and/or $100,000 fine
"Knowingly removing materials containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain said info at an unauthorized location without the ability to do so."

GATHERING, TRANSMITTING OR LOSING DEFENSE INFORMATION
18 U.S.C. § 793 Class: Felony
Possible penalty: imprisonment for 10 years and/or $250,000 fine
"Allowing (by means of gross negligence) any document relating to the national defense to be removed from its proper place of custody or destroyed -or- willfully retaining unauthorized documents relating to national defense and failing to deliver them to the United States employee entitled to receive them -or- failure to report that unauthorized documents relating to national defense were removed from their proper place of custody or destroyed."

CONCEALING, REMOVAL, OR MUTILATION GENERALLY
18 U.S.C. § 2071 Class: Felony
Possible penalty: imprisonment of no more than 3 years, a fine, or both
"Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same."

____________________________________

The New York Times on March 2, 2015, reported that Clinton  exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state.  The emails were stored on a private server at her New York home. At the State Department s request, Clinton turned over 30,490 work-related emails totaling roughly 55,000 pages, and deleted 31,830 emails she deemed personal. Clinton s defense of her unusual email arrangements resulted in numerous false and misleading claims.

Clinton said she  fully complied with every rule that I was governed by in preserving her emails. But department policy says all  correspondence and memorandums on substantive U.S. foreign policy issues  should be retained  at the end of the Secretary s tenure or sooner.  Clinton left office Feb. 1, 2013; she gave her emails to the department on Dec. 5, 2014. The department s Office of Inspector General in a May 26 report confirmed that  Clinton should have surrendered all [work-related] emails  before leaving government and, by not doing so,  she did not comply  with the Federal Records Act.

Clinton claimed the  vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately  by the State Department. The department s IG report said that is  not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. 

Clinton has frequently remarked that her decision to use a personal email account exclusively for government business was  allowed  and  permitted  by the State Department. But the IG report cited department policies dating to 2005 that require  normal day-to-day operations  to be conducted on government servers. The IG report also said Clinton, who was secretary of State from January 2009 to February 2013,  had an obligation  to discuss her email system with security and information technology officials, but she did not and, if she had, the request would have been denied.

Clinton said  turning over my server  to the government shows  I have been as transparent as I could  about her emails. But she did so in August of 2015 after the FBI opened an investigation. Five months earlier, she rejected calls to turn over the server to a neutral party, saying  the server will remain private. 

Clinton has said that previous  secretaries of State  did the  same thing  in using personal emails for government business. But the State Department has said that only Colin Powell used a personal email account for official business, and Powell did not use a private server. In addition, the IG report said the rules governing personal email and the use of nongovernment systems were  considerably more detailed and more sophisticated  during Clinton s tenure, making comparisons to her predecessors invalid.  Secretary Clinton s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives,  the report said.

____________________________________


Comparing Hillary's willful violations to hide her Clinton Crime Family details  is not at all in the same mold as Trump (who held the power and authority of all security settings and clearances) legally putting anything he wanted, anywhere. As for the effect of these separate actions, Hillary's actions killed people:

____________________________________

Hillary Clinton recklessly discussed, in emails hosted on her private server, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was executed by Iran for treason.
On "Face the Nation." Clinton was speaking about Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran's nuclear program.

Iran confirmed on Sunday that Amiri had been hanged for treason. He was convicted of spying charges in a death sentence case that was upheld on appeal, according to the Associated Press.

"This person who had access to the country's secret and classified information had been linked to our hostile and No. 1 enemy, America, the Great Satan" a spokesman for the Iranian judiciary said. "He provided the enemy with vital and secret information of the country."





wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #423 on: May 09, 2022, 01:07:15 PM »
Did I trigger you Wm?  What type of snowflake are you?

You sadden me, because you act like you have enough brains not to be an idiot moron - yet you repeat the most easily rebuttable disinformation and re-post enough almost factual info to skew basic facts.

The January 6th protest was a valid exercise in people's rights to freely express their distrust of how the election was handled. Pelosi disallowed the security that was asked for, and it was her people that directed people (hers?) into the building. (We have that on video so it is unarguable.) The Doctrine of Laches says such an action allows all entries to be legal, and permitted by the Speaker.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #424 on: May 09, 2022, 01:30:51 PM »
...
Comparing Hillary's willful violations to hide her Clinton Crime Family details  is not at all in the same mold as Trump (who held the power and authority of all security settings and clearances) legally putting anything he wanted, anywhere. As for the effect of these separate actions, Hillary's actions killed people:
...

This was after he quit being President. He lost all those rights. So he stole classified material from the US government and stored it at his private residence. But again, I'm fine if you want to try Hillary as a felony and Trump under the misdemeanor statute.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #425 on: May 09, 2022, 01:33:06 PM »
...

You sadden me, because you act like you have enough brains not to be an idiot moron - yet you repeat the most easily rebuttable disinformation and re-post enough almost factual info to skew basic facts.

The January 6th protest was a valid exercise in people's rights to freely express their distrust of how the election was handled. Pelosi disallowed the security that was asked for, and it was her people that directed people (hers?) into the building. (We have that on video so it is unarguable.) The Doctrine of Laches says such an action allows all entries to be legal, and permitted by the Speaker.

I mean this with no irony or sarcasm. I am glad you are here engaging with people you disagree with.

Welcome to ornery, you are wrong.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #426 on: May 09, 2022, 01:43:51 PM »
The difference is that the Right has already convicted Clinton so there is no need for a trial. Her guilt is so obvious that she should just LOCK HER UP tm.

Trump on the other hand is so obviously innocent that no investigation should be done, ever, for anything he has ever done in the past, since he is such a good Christian and so obviously pure of heart and soul. Any one who questions this is either a political hack/extremist or a communist, or more likely both.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #427 on: May 09, 2022, 02:20:53 PM »
Quote
The January 6th protest was a valid exercise in people's rights to freely express their distrust of how the election was handled.

(I've always wanted to use this line.)

Hey, let me know where you live sometime, so I can exercise my right to freely express my opinion, too. 

I'll remember to bring my sledgehammer with me.  ;D

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #428 on: May 09, 2022, 02:26:07 PM »
But the peaceful protest in front of the houses of the SC Justices are violent protest that should not be allowed.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #429 on: May 09, 2022, 02:28:14 PM »
But the peaceful protest in front of the houses of the SC Justices are violent protest that should not be allowed.

Actually, I don't like protests in front of private residences, no matter how justified and peaceful they are. Protest at the SC, you can make your voice heard without being threatening. Because no matter how peaceful and calm a protest a group of angry people on your front lawn is threatening.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #430 on: May 09, 2022, 02:37:17 PM »
They've put up some significant barricades at the SC.  There may be issues making their voices heard. Not to mention at some point you have to start threatening the government.

There's also a difference between protesting the Supreme Court versus ordinary trial judges. By the time a case gets to the Supreme Court, the only questions are matters of law, not fact. Especially since objective interpretation of the law has clearly gone by the wayside. Since the Supreme Court has become the extra-legislative arm of the Republican party, it's a valid target for protests.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #431 on: May 09, 2022, 02:46:54 PM »
They've put up some significant barricades at the SC.  There may be issues making their voices heard. Not to mention at some point you have to start threatening the government.
...

Other ways. Vote the people who put them in charge out of power. Gerrymandering and unequal representation in the Senate complicate those issues. But thinking that threatening SC justices whose whole careers have been groomed by the right to overturn Roe is going to have any impact is absurd. Fight at the state level. Win elections. Don't become Trumpists who violently attack the government like toddlers throwing a temper tantrum.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #432 on: May 09, 2022, 03:00:11 PM »
There's a world of difference between a mob trying to storm the capitol because of a fantasy about the election and people protesting the ongoing attempt to create a theocratic white ethnostate.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #433 on: May 09, 2022, 03:03:58 PM »
There's a world of difference between a mob trying to storm the capitol because of a fantasy about the election and people protesting the ongoing attempt to create a theocratic white ethnostate.

Yes, but no reason for violence or threats of violence against SC justices. Because literally short of killing them protesting/threatening them does nothing. This is their whole life's work to overturn Roe. So leave the threats (implicit or explicit) aside and work the problem like a rational member of a democracy. We need a big Senate and House majority. The solution maybe to abolish the filibuster and expand the court to 15 justices. Its drastic but constitutional and legal.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #434 on: May 09, 2022, 03:21:29 PM »
We need a big Senate and House majority. The solution maybe to abolish the filibuster and expand the court to 15 justices. Its drastic but constitutional and legal.

I get that politics is a battlefield and the biggest battles require use of any weapons necessary to win. However I guess my question is: what happened to the idea that the other side simply has a different belief about life? In other words, yes, the left-wing side is losing this battle in certain states if Roe is overturned, but isn't that merely reflective of the fact that many people disagree with the left on this?

While it's obviously a big deal that this precedent should be overturned, what if it's actually the legally correct move, putting aside the politics of it? Sure, you could argue it's only happening now because of the SCOTUS composition, but that doesn't automatically imply the ruling is invalid (if they do proceed and make it). Maybe it's best for the matter to be settled the correct way, by voters expressing their views locally rather than a body of unelected officials deciding for everyone based on, presumably, their own biases?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #435 on: May 09, 2022, 03:49:13 PM »
We need a big Senate and House majority. The solution maybe to abolish the filibuster and expand the court to 15 justices. Its drastic but constitutional and legal.

I get that politics is a battlefield and the biggest battles require use of any weapons necessary to win. However I guess my question is: what happened to the idea that the other side simply has a different belief about life? In other words, yes, the left-wing side is losing this battle in certain states if Roe is overturned, but isn't that merely reflective of the fact that many people disagree with the left on this?

While it's obviously a big deal that this precedent should be overturned, what if it's actually the legally correct move, putting aside the politics of it? Sure, you could argue it's only happening now because of the SCOTUS composition, but that doesn't automatically imply the ruling is invalid (if they do proceed and make it). Maybe it's best for the matter to be settled the correct way, by voters expressing their views locally rather than a body of unelected officials deciding for everyone based on, presumably, their own biases?


Expanding the court would be the only option if they go one step further and decide fertilized eggs to be humans with all the protections afforded under the constitution. And since the draft opinion explicitly refers to the life of the fetus being of particular concern here it isn't outside the realm of possibility to think that today is overturning Roe and next year they SC says instead of abortion being a right, it is actually illegal everywhere.

Also there is an issue when we begin to allow majorities to vote away the rights of others. Less than 50% of voters are capable of conceiving. Teen girls have no vote but are probably some of the largest impacted by such decisions. Rape victims could be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. I'm not saying it isn't a complex moral issue. But the burdens of lack of choice are not felt universally. And the way many legislatures have worded laws and personhood amendments in the past would actually outlaw most forms of birth control that simply prevent implantation instead of feralization. If the SC goes extreme, expanding the court or amending the constitution is the only solution.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #436 on: May 09, 2022, 04:12:36 PM »
Expanding the court would be the only option if they go one step further and decide fertilized eggs to be humans with all the protections afforded under the constitution. And since the draft opinion explicitly refers to the life of the fetus being of particular concern here it isn't outside the realm of possibility to think that today is overturning Roe and next year they SC says instead of abortion being a right, it is actually illegal everywhere.

So to prevent a hypothetical wrong ruling in the future a wrong ruling now should be upheld to prevent momentum? That seems to be what you're implying. Again note that you're replying within my premise that Roe was a badly constructed ruling, i.e. not a good interpretation of the law. I'm not arguing that it was (I'm not a lawyer) but asking what if it was.

Quote
Also there is an issue when we begin to allow majorities to vote away the rights of others.

This seems to be a circular argument? It's not voting away a right of others if it's not actually a right. And it's not a right if huge amounts of people disagree that it's even morally legitimate, no less an inalienable right. Unless by "right" you just mean a thing people can do because a court said so. But that would be a highly problematic definition in our context.

Quote
Less than 50% of voters are capable of conceiving. Teen girls have no vote but are probably some of the largest impacted by such decisions. Rape victims could be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. I'm not saying it isn't a complex moral issue. But the burdens of lack of choice are not felt universally. And the way many legislatures have worded laws and personhood amendments in the past would actually outlaw most forms of birth control that simply prevent implantation instead of feralization. If the SC goes extreme, expanding the court or amending the constitution is the only solution.

That's all fine, but doesn't really address my question about why 9 people should decide on these things for the people. Whether it's liberal justices legislating by fiat in one direction, or conservatives in another, it seems to be ridiculous that the SCOTUS should be deciding on this at all. By even saying it's a court-oriented issue implies that legislators (i.e. the people) are excluded from the process, which is totally weird for a moral issue. Btw I should add in that I don't believe for a second that the judges know much of anything about moral philosophy, biology, religion, or anything else actually relevant to the moral consideration of the issue. Their job is to explain what the law says, not what is right and wrong. In the event of an issue which boils down to right and wrong they should stay out of it IMO and let voters decide. If the law somehow already has something to say on this, then fine. The arguments about striking down Roe would appear to argue that the law never enshrined abortion. Assuming this premise is true, putting aside whether in fact abortions should be allowed, it seems to me reasonable for the court to - in essence - pass the ball back to the legislators on this issue.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #437 on: May 09, 2022, 04:27:16 PM »
I should have moved my argument back into the other thread, sorry everyone. I lost track of which thread we were in.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #438 on: May 09, 2022, 04:31:15 PM »
I should have moved my argument back into the other thread, sorry everyone. I lost track of which thread we were in.

I lost track of the thread too  :o

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #439 on: May 09, 2022, 04:31:55 PM »
Contact OrneryMod. They might be able to move it.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #440 on: May 27, 2022, 05:13:32 PM »
Another one bites the dust.

Quote
Hale-Cusanelli attempted to defend himself against charges by saying he didn't know that the Capitol was where the House and Senate sit — despite having described himself during the trial as a history buff who closely followed the electoral college certification process. He claimed in testimony on Thursday that he didn't realize that senators and House members were in the Capitol building on Jan. 6.

Quote
McFadden said Friday after the jury's verdict that he was open to giving Hale-Cusanelli a sentencing enhancement because he found the defendant's testimony "highly dubious.” Sentencing is set for Sept. 16.

Quote
And back in 2010, prosecutors said, Hale-Cusanelli was one of four people arrested for using a "potato gun" made out of PVC pipe and "emblazoned with the words ‘WHITE IS RIGHT’ and a drawing of a confederate flag" to shoot frozen corn at houses in Howell, New Jersey.

Now, is this a secret antifa or what?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #441 on: May 27, 2022, 07:28:22 PM »
George Soros and Bill Gates had been planning this for decades. 

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #442 on: June 03, 2022, 10:18:42 AM »
So lets take bets on how the Republicans will spin the hearing of the Jan 6 Commission over the next few weeks.  Biased?  Partisan?  Traitors?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #443 on: June 03, 2022, 10:28:20 AM »
So lets take bets on how the Republicans will spin the hearing of the Jan 6 Commission over the next few weeks.  Biased?  Partisan?  Traitors?

Yes. Yes. Yes. But you forgot. Fake news and lies.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #444 on: June 03, 2022, 11:51:30 AM »
Don't forget the tried and true.

CHOP was so much worse.
Why isn't the commission investigating antifa?
They doctored evidence
The committee is illegitimate because they didn't let Republicans pick their own members.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #445 on: June 03, 2022, 01:09:00 PM »
Well Navarro has been charged with Contempt of Congress.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/navarro-charged-contempt-of-congress-subpoena-jan-6-committee-161304828.html

When will they learn that they are not above the law.

For them being Law and Order type people they sure like to not follow it.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #446 on: June 03, 2022, 10:03:22 PM »
So lets take bets on how the Republicans will spin the hearing of the Jan 6 Commission over the next few weeks.  Biased?  Partisan?  Traitors?

Why am I not surprised that the biased, partisan, traitorous committee is befriended by those who pretend it is honest? Since there are no minority members agreed to by the opposition, subpoenas are invalid. Any other opinion ignores partisan steamrolling.

When Hillary is finally indicted, will she be perp-walked to the prison bus in leg-irons?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #447 on: June 03, 2022, 10:13:27 PM »
So those members of the House who were being investigated should have been on the committee?  Really? 

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #448 on: June 04, 2022, 03:01:22 PM »
For my part, I think most of the venal, callow douchebags speaking at the rally aren't guilty of conspiracy (barring the ones who literally conspired with others to bring weapons in order to take advantage of any violence), although a good number of them are obviously guilty of incitement. Conspiracy to overturn the election is a little trickier, because there obviously was such a conspiracy among Republican political operatives -- and one perfectly willing to use the riot as cover -- but the whole point there was to overturn the election in an arguably legal way. Conspiracy to abuse interpretations of the law and possibly even legally change the law so that an egregious wrong can be committed isn't really a crime; it's arguably, from some perspectives, the whole reason rich people bother permitting government in the first place.

That said, some of the specific accusations -- junior members of the House promising material support to a mob, for example -- are evidence of criminal conspiracy, if provable. I think proof is unlikely and prosecution even less likely, though.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« Reply #449 on: June 06, 2022, 03:40:41 PM »
...The solution maybe to abolish the filibuster and expand the court to 15 justices. Its drastic but constitutional and legal.

More attempts at a Coup? The only laws that should be changed in order to stop mass shootings would be to get rid of gun-free zones. There is no other problem as instrumental in the process.

Don't you love it when Chicago Democrats respond to having the strongest gun restrictions yet also has the highest incidents by claiming the guns are purchased in other states and brought in?

BTW, the Constitution AND the Federalist Papers say the reason for individual gun rights is for the individual to have the same weapons as contemporaneous soldiers. Not for hunting. The bigger weapons, howitzers, artillery, and the like, are stashed in armories all over the country for use of the individual when necessary to defeat any out-of-control government.