A big media event that should be ignored. Republicans = media domination. To contest that formula, please focus on more important topics.
Besides, from the materials and comments here, it's doubtful that many of the folks reading this today have read the indictments - critical documents that our media won't adequately inform about. Republ…
A big media event that should be ignored. Republicans = media domination. To contest that formula, please focus on more important topics.
Besides, from the materials and comments here, it's doubtful that many of the folks reading this today have read the indictments - critical documents that our media won't adequately inform about. Republicans would be happy to know that people are watching their media events rather than reading indictments about their criminal conduct. And with our media generally - that's the whole objective - to weaken the intellect, distract and confuse.
The fact that President Trump had the single longest telephone call ever conducted by a president with a back office IT worker is more important than any of this, especially on the day after that maintenance worker flipped on him.
Newspeak is designed to narrow the range of potential thought, eventually making any unorthodox thought impossible - acc to Orwell.
First, understand that the House committee focused more on the insurrection and related conduct, and until the indictments were filed, there wasn't a coherent story about how this fairly large group of republicans conspired to change the results of the election.
That story is laid out in the dc and ga indictments - and they go state by state showing you all the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy - hundreds of them.
The indictments take the form of "speaking indictments," meaning that they are written in narrative form, and intended for a public audience. As you may know the prosecutors said very little when announcing the indictments but strongly encouraged "everyone" to read them.
One thing to bear in mind about this -
There's no gag order (yet) on trump, and the republican media machine will keep churning away spewing lies and distractions.
But due to prosecutorial ethics and laws the prosecutors really can't say much about the cases or defendants right now.
So media-wise there is a very uneven playing field for the dissemination of media about the cases, defendants and witnesses, and as we know, the media lives and dies by trump as he's their goose that laid a golden media egg.
There are many great expert sources as well - now doing day by day updates - I recommend Glenn Kirschner and Legal AF as among the best specialized coverage.
Look for and read the dec 13 email from Chresebro to Eastman and definitely enjoy learning all about how criminal and malevolent these lawyers are - chesebro participated in Jan 6, walked around with Alex jones - the stuff is mind boggling.
Basic to my initial impression about the whole "stop tge steal" strategy is that a president and his attorney general have very little to do with state by state voting. On what basis does the attorney general "look into" the alleged problems with state elections? The voting rights act? Nobody seemed to question this, even though in our constitutional system the framers specifically avoided allowing the president to have ANYTHING to do with presidential elections.
The media of course missed the whole point and constantly carried coverage of trump and Giuliani - never saying or indicating in any way that in the USA's system of government, presidents and their White House staffs or attorneys are not and cannot be involved in presidential election and voting issues.
It's so basic, but it was so missed in all of the media that never even talked about this problem.
It's now playing out in some of the appeals for example. Meadows is trying to argue that his case should be removed into federal court because he was in federal government, federal government policy or executive privilege... but of course he wasn't conducting any business of the government , he was conducting campaign business - and after the campaign was OVER.
To further the point is seems to me from the beginning there is this huge hole in our media - in that trump's game easily becomes the ball field. From the beginning, they should've pointed out that a president has no business becoming involved in these things - that a president cannot be directly involved himself or through any attorneys that work privately with him, in contacting state representatives or even publicly commenting on these types of things, as there are appropriate legal channels but not the ones they used. The constitution specifically takes the president away from any involvement in even counting the electoral votes and it's improper for this president to have inserted himself in anyway .... if federal law like the voting rights act had anything to say about it than the Attorney General in the department of justice, would need to handle that according to their own set policies - and presidents interference could be harmful to it and is unwarranted.
The point is even if there was fraud and whatever they claimed ( which they knew there was not) they attacked the rule of law, they committed crimes - none of which are permitted remedies.
Another point to add to the end - which is being raised by Fani Willis in the removal hearings set for next week - is that none of their activities were legitimate federal government activities because of the hatch act of 1939 which broadly prohibits use of federal office for campaign or political activities.
The hatch act is widely known and acknowledge and its yet another reason the media should have been questioning whether it's legal for a sitting president and his private attorney to directly deal with political and electoral matters using government personnel and property.
Politico published a chronology about chesebro's role in formulating and carrying the plan to steal the election. As noted in another comment, the dec 13 email is a key document that everyone should read and it's only a couple of pages. Anyway this helps to explain the basics now of what we did not previously know before the indictments - the amount of planning and conspiring as well as the multitude if overt acts comprising this criminal conspiracy.
This has a chronology of Chesebro’s key documents and proposals, which show how his thinking evolved from philosophical discussions to operational plans -
Stop the steal and false electors are a red herring. The charge is sedition and insurrection, of which there is ample evidence from TV tapes alone. Garland hasn't charged even one of those inside Congress like Boebert who gave the go signal on her iPhone (1776) and he didn't need to to wait until the J6 committee did it's thing either, but was shamed into it by the J6 committee, And still, the guilty in congress have not been indicted, not even Matt Gaetz, probably because Kevin needs him to maintain his role as speaker, just as he keeps George Santos on, who has also broken federal law and is not even being investigated by your man Merrick.
The essence of your comment is that Jan 6 insurrection is all that matters and that the wide-ranging conspiracy to steal the election (which began and was conducted mostly in December and did not involve the new members of congress being seated in January) is a "red herring."
With regard to members of congress you also seem to be unaware of the basic separation of powers principles in the text of the constitution which generally make each house of congress the sole arbiter of its members actions. Yes tgere are campaign finance and other laws that doj handles but there is a basic separation of powers issue you are not aware of even though it's in the text of constitution. This I would point out, although it's somewhat less relevant than the basic point that these conspiracies operated primarily in December and primarily without any involvement by the members of congress you mention.
When you come to nyc you will also find some squirrels who steal peoples food and you can write about how garland never went after THEM either.
Another indictment that's important to read is the documents case in fl. If you read it you might notice for example what the case - and the charges brought - have to do with classified information.
Every media narrative calls this the "classified documents case" but reading the indictment - maybe even just for 10 minutes - will show you that the changes have nothing to do with the classification status of the documents, whether they were classified etc.
It's my assertion this should more appropriately be called the "national security information" case, and if it were, the media coverage would create a different impression than just "classified documents."
Why does the media - even lefty media - stick with "classified documents" to describe the case? I can't answer that question but I do note that making an issue out of the classification status of the documents was a huge Trump media narrative for some time and Trump seasoned and baked the media coverage of this which fits his original narrative.
"Text on paper" or "paper documents" or "stapled documents" describes the case just as well as "classified documents" but doesn't allow for the kind of false equivalence you get when someone equates the case with other classified documents cases. That's right - there are separate, different federal statutes governing national security information and violating those statutes is whats charged. NOTHING related to whether the docs were classified or their status - nothing!
Again, the only way to cut through media bullshit is to read primary source documents, especially the critical ones that are written in plain English.
I agree with you, this time. especially the National Security information case. It is evident that Trump shared classified material with others, probably MBS, that is why Jared and Ivanka were gifted 2 billion dollars, but how do we prove that.
The breakthrough between you and I is that I absolutely agree with your statement.
The problem with people reading the indictments is that for most, with no legal training, and the length of the indictments is that their eyes glaze over.
The same with many of your's, mine and other posts: TL:DR
I made a note of this before but I'll throw it out there again on the evening that the Mueller report was released Rachel Maddow went on television and said ....hey, this document is 1500 pages long so you're not gonna read it - that's why you're watching this show.
Of course but she didn't tell anyone was that there was a small executive summary of just a few pages sitting on top of that 1500 page report, or that this small executive summary had a really important point in it - which Mueller made to fight the trump narratives - which is this .....
That "collusion" has nothing to do with any of it, and that collusion is not a legal term. Collusion doesn't determine whether or not Trump broke any laws.
So what you see is someone in the media like Rachel Maddow discouraging people from reading the kind of really important and really short documents that they could read even during a commercial break.
And what, in fact happened is that Bill Barr deceived the entire country and misled the entire country about what was in the report and in fact what was in that executive summary!
The thing about collusion - and even though Dan abrams and other top lawyers later specifically went out on social media and called people on this nonsense of saying there was no collusion, there .were a whole range of media stuff by Republicans, as well as Bill Barr, who kept everybody focused on the same old Trump media narrative of collusion.
I asked my cousin who is a real estate attorney to tell me what he thought the results of the Mueller report work, and he told me that he found that there was no collusion.
So even people with a legal background were deceived if they had not read a three page or whatever executive summary sitting on top of the Mueller report!
And all of that proves what, other than being a distraction. Hardly relevant now. Except that Mueller was earning his keep, by running cover for Trump. Barr is a POS,he was a big fan of a right wing unitary executive, until he wasn't.
He came in strong for Trump, that Trump was in essence a unitary executive that was above the law.
No. These indictments are written for public consumption and - as I've shown - disclose many things to the public, even the lay person, that aren't being adequately treated by the media.
It doesn't take long to read this statute, and to see it has nada to do with classification and classified docs. If you read the indictment you could easily see that this is the law he is charged with violating in the first set of counts.
As I stated, TL:DR and you overestimated the reading ability of the public. In my training as a military training instructor back in 1962, I was told to write lesson plans at an 8th grade level.
That has now degraded to a 5th grade level.
I agreed with you, even complimented you, and yet you persist in maintaining a hostile relationship.
Thanks for that, I'm glad you can appreciate the substance of it, none of this should devolve into personal attacks, we are talking about things it shouldn't be uncomfortable to talk about. Orwell said it's most important to have the courage and the right to say that 2 plus 2 equals 4 - ultimately he said he cares more about truth than anything else and I see Chomsky in the same light.
Attacking people for personal decisions or affiliations are a form of ad hominem argument, long identified as fallacies in any form of inductive reasoning.
One other thing to keep in mind is that one actually can be sued for liable in ny state for calling people names or saying false and defamatory things about someone online when the subject of it is not a "public figure" eligible for the enhanced first amendment protections afforded by Supreme Court decisions. People that participate in online chats that are published to a group often don't know this and mistakenly think that free speech protects any opinion they put online.
Big admission here - you got me, I give up. I've seen the light. You are right about everything. I'm a Putin puppet and so is Garland. We could only hide this for so long and you nailed us. Keep up the good work.
Being facetious doesn't work. No one accused Garland of being a Putin puppet (another red herring, shame on you). Garland is, by experience, record and current behavior a right wing Republican, otherwise Orrin Hatch would not have vetted him to Obama, and he has proved that by appointing a special counsel to indict Hunter, and keeping hands off Ivanka and Jared, and no even trying to prosecute Gaetz, for starters.
No, the essence of my comment is not that J6 is all that matters.
The separation of powers is the excuse that Trump is using. DOJ has the responsibility to investigate Congress.
How mature, you are, trying to trivialize a legitimate observation, by equating it with squirrels.
What is your problem. Why are you so vigorously trying to defend Garland.
And yes members of congress did conspire with the fools who wanted to kill Pence and Pelosi.
Boebert even gave the go signal, when she typed 1776 into her IpHONE, the moment that an objection was raised when the Arizona vote was pulled by Pence. The plan was to object to all of the votes cast by swing states.
1776 was the go signal to break into the Capital and hang Mike Pence, Pelosi and disrupt the reading of the electoral college votes.
That was even mentioned on TV at the time, then very swiftly swept under the rug.
Separation of powers has jack squat to do with the situation. Your relying on ignorance by throwing out a red herring.
I understand all of that, except Garland not launching his own investigation until shamed into it by the J6 Committee. He has the resources and hid behind the skirts of Congress, afraid to even investigate J6, willing to let the clock run out for statue of limitations, and yet he still has not filed charges against the traitors in Congress, like Beobert, Jordn, MTG, Comer, Biggs, Hawley, and even Matt Gaetz, who violated the Mann ACt, amongst others.
One reason is Garlands DOJ is staffed by Trump humpers, the other is Garland is himself a right wing Republican. I've read your apologia for Garland's employment by the Federalist Society, you introduced a lot of non sequiturs, however you glossed over the fact that the notorious right winger Orrin Hatch R-UT vetted Garland to Obama, because Obama didn't care about anything but claiming a win, by appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.
I doubt whether you (or any non-experts in the media) know when the investigations were launched, and to think that no investigations were launched at all until after Jan 6 committee report is simply unrealistic given the number of witnesses and the amount of evidence involved.
It's a nice media narrative ("garland dithered") but like many media narratives it's based on a lack of knowledge about the subject matter.
The thing that really matters - the standard your sources won't inform you of - is whether doj followed its standard policies in terms of opening, investigating and charging these cases. If you or your media sources have no idea that doj even has an enforcement manual and certain policies, it's gonna be kinda hard to know whether their policies were followed.
Instead we get this nonsense media narrative that Merrick Garland is in charge of everything and he can just bring whatever cases he wants - there's no rules really. This is false!
Let alone that to bring conspiracy cases against a large group it's never the case tgat you can just proceed directly against the head of the group. The whole point of RICO law is to deal with situations like this where there's a criminal enterprise and a bunch of different defendants and witnesses involved. That takes a lot of time. This is not just a single event or a single crime - far from it - it's a wide-ranging conspiracy that took place over months and several states.
It took even more time for Fani Willis to finalize her indictments but somehow it was only Garland that "dithered."
Moreover I have repeatedly corrected your statements about doj and the Jan 6 prosecutions - your media-based narratives somehow omit the over-1000 cases brought by doj and the fact that doj has been arguing for tougher / longer sentences for Rhodes and some of the worst perpetrators.
In any event in the end I recognize the futility of trying to discuss this with people who won't even read the operative documents but still think they can base strong opinions on various other aspects of reality, like whether garland ever attended federalist society events, a complete joke - anyone who follows Supreme Court could probably tell you tgat willuam Brennan is listed as a federalist society contributor. What does this tell you about Brennan? NOTHING!
You haven't corrected a thing. Part of my complaint has been that Garland and his Trump Humping DOJ,only prosecuted low level fools, that smashed down doors and broke windows, and even then only recommended what is essentially a slap on the wrist, misdeamenors, yes a handful of the worst actors got charged with felonies and series jail time.
That doesn't count because he hasn't even investigated much less indicted the leaders of the inssurection in Congress.
And as regards his investigation, he did wait until J6 did it's job, and had, while J6 committee was doing it's job, asked the committee to hand over it's records, (I suspect) to hide them.
You are hell bent on defending Garland, why is that, he hasn't even begun to investigate Jared and Ivanka, while appointing a special counsel to prosecute Hunter.
The Kushners are more guilty than Hunter, much more, receiving a 2 billion dollar gift from MBS, and using Trumps name to get copyrights and patents in China.
I took your advice and read the Jack Smith indictment of Trump, all 54 pages, I see nothing in it, that exculpates your constant harrasment.
So I ask you again, and will keep asking until you answer, what is in the indictment that is so important that you insist on trying to shame me and others,
If you're not interested in the conspiracy to steal the election, and associated false statements, perjury and criminal conduct by the highest-level members of the White House, then I agree - there is no need to read the indictment.
You also wouldn't be interested in news from legitimate sources about how the doj opened hundreds of cases while the doj supposedly dithered.
I have read, am interested by that is beside the point, I won't let you turn the question, by turning it back on me.
You said in a previous post, that all people want to do is to get their info from the TV, and haven't read the indictment. I have read the indictment, so what is so significant. TV news readers and host, simply do a Readers Digest of the Indicment.
Yep there are some conservatives who have better things to do than fellate Trump, the Federalist Society is anti Democratic, as well as carrying the raciest, homophobic, misogynistic and participial.
A big media event that should be ignored. Republicans = media domination. To contest that formula, please focus on more important topics.
Besides, from the materials and comments here, it's doubtful that many of the folks reading this today have read the indictments - critical documents that our media won't adequately inform about. Republicans would be happy to know that people are watching their media events rather than reading indictments about their criminal conduct. And with our media generally - that's the whole objective - to weaken the intellect, distract and confuse.
The fact that President Trump had the single longest telephone call ever conducted by a president with a back office IT worker is more important than any of this, especially on the day after that maintenance worker flipped on him.
Newspeak is designed to narrow the range of potential thought, eventually making any unorthodox thought impossible - acc to Orwell.
Most of us lack your legal expertise, Could you please inform me what is or is not critical in the indictments. That would help
First, understand that the House committee focused more on the insurrection and related conduct, and until the indictments were filed, there wasn't a coherent story about how this fairly large group of republicans conspired to change the results of the election.
That story is laid out in the dc and ga indictments - and they go state by state showing you all the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy - hundreds of them.
The indictments take the form of "speaking indictments," meaning that they are written in narrative form, and intended for a public audience. As you may know the prosecutors said very little when announcing the indictments but strongly encouraged "everyone" to read them.
One thing to bear in mind about this -
There's no gag order (yet) on trump, and the republican media machine will keep churning away spewing lies and distractions.
But due to prosecutorial ethics and laws the prosecutors really can't say much about the cases or defendants right now.
So media-wise there is a very uneven playing field for the dissemination of media about the cases, defendants and witnesses, and as we know, the media lives and dies by trump as he's their goose that laid a golden media egg.
There are many great expert sources as well - now doing day by day updates - I recommend Glenn Kirschner and Legal AF as among the best specialized coverage.
Look for and read the dec 13 email from Chresebro to Eastman and definitely enjoy learning all about how criminal and malevolent these lawyers are - chesebro participated in Jan 6, walked around with Alex jones - the stuff is mind boggling.
Basic to my initial impression about the whole "stop tge steal" strategy is that a president and his attorney general have very little to do with state by state voting. On what basis does the attorney general "look into" the alleged problems with state elections? The voting rights act? Nobody seemed to question this, even though in our constitutional system the framers specifically avoided allowing the president to have ANYTHING to do with presidential elections.
The media of course missed the whole point and constantly carried coverage of trump and Giuliani - never saying or indicating in any way that in the USA's system of government, presidents and their White House staffs or attorneys are not and cannot be involved in presidential election and voting issues.
It's so basic, but it was so missed in all of the media that never even talked about this problem.
It's now playing out in some of the appeals for example. Meadows is trying to argue that his case should be removed into federal court because he was in federal government, federal government policy or executive privilege... but of course he wasn't conducting any business of the government , he was conducting campaign business - and after the campaign was OVER.
To further the point is seems to me from the beginning there is this huge hole in our media - in that trump's game easily becomes the ball field. From the beginning, they should've pointed out that a president has no business becoming involved in these things - that a president cannot be directly involved himself or through any attorneys that work privately with him, in contacting state representatives or even publicly commenting on these types of things, as there are appropriate legal channels but not the ones they used. The constitution specifically takes the president away from any involvement in even counting the electoral votes and it's improper for this president to have inserted himself in anyway .... if federal law like the voting rights act had anything to say about it than the Attorney General in the department of justice, would need to handle that according to their own set policies - and presidents interference could be harmful to it and is unwarranted.
The point is even if there was fraud and whatever they claimed ( which they knew there was not) they attacked the rule of law, they committed crimes - none of which are permitted remedies.
Another point to add to the end - which is being raised by Fani Willis in the removal hearings set for next week - is that none of their activities were legitimate federal government activities because of the hatch act of 1939 which broadly prohibits use of federal office for campaign or political activities.
The hatch act is widely known and acknowledge and its yet another reason the media should have been questioning whether it's legal for a sitting president and his private attorney to directly deal with political and electoral matters using government personnel and property.
Politico published a chronology about chesebro's role in formulating and carrying the plan to steal the election. As noted in another comment, the dec 13 email is a key document that everyone should read and it's only a couple of pages. Anyway this helps to explain the basics now of what we did not previously know before the indictments - the amount of planning and conspiring as well as the multitude if overt acts comprising this criminal conspiracy.
This has a chronology of Chesebro’s key documents and proposals, which show how his thinking evolved from philosophical discussions to operational plans -
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/09/ken-chesebro-memos-trump-coconspirator-00110458
Stop the steal and false electors are a red herring. The charge is sedition and insurrection, of which there is ample evidence from TV tapes alone. Garland hasn't charged even one of those inside Congress like Boebert who gave the go signal on her iPhone (1776) and he didn't need to to wait until the J6 committee did it's thing either, but was shamed into it by the J6 committee, And still, the guilty in congress have not been indicted, not even Matt Gaetz, probably because Kevin needs him to maintain his role as speaker, just as he keeps George Santos on, who has also broken federal law and is not even being investigated by your man Merrick.
The essence of your comment is that Jan 6 insurrection is all that matters and that the wide-ranging conspiracy to steal the election (which began and was conducted mostly in December and did not involve the new members of congress being seated in January) is a "red herring."
With regard to members of congress you also seem to be unaware of the basic separation of powers principles in the text of the constitution which generally make each house of congress the sole arbiter of its members actions. Yes tgere are campaign finance and other laws that doj handles but there is a basic separation of powers issue you are not aware of even though it's in the text of constitution. This I would point out, although it's somewhat less relevant than the basic point that these conspiracies operated primarily in December and primarily without any involvement by the members of congress you mention.
When you come to nyc you will also find some squirrels who steal peoples food and you can write about how garland never went after THEM either.
So tell me what is it in the Smith Indictment that is such significance
You just refuse to answer that question..
Another indictment that's important to read is the documents case in fl. If you read it you might notice for example what the case - and the charges brought - have to do with classified information.
Every media narrative calls this the "classified documents case" but reading the indictment - maybe even just for 10 minutes - will show you that the changes have nothing to do with the classification status of the documents, whether they were classified etc.
It's my assertion this should more appropriately be called the "national security information" case, and if it were, the media coverage would create a different impression than just "classified documents."
Why does the media - even lefty media - stick with "classified documents" to describe the case? I can't answer that question but I do note that making an issue out of the classification status of the documents was a huge Trump media narrative for some time and Trump seasoned and baked the media coverage of this which fits his original narrative.
"Text on paper" or "paper documents" or "stapled documents" describes the case just as well as "classified documents" but doesn't allow for the kind of false equivalence you get when someone equates the case with other classified documents cases. That's right - there are separate, different federal statutes governing national security information and violating those statutes is whats charged. NOTHING related to whether the docs were classified or their status - nothing!
Again, the only way to cut through media bullshit is to read primary source documents, especially the critical ones that are written in plain English.
I agree with you, this time. especially the National Security information case. It is evident that Trump shared classified material with others, probably MBS, that is why Jared and Ivanka were gifted 2 billion dollars, but how do we prove that.
The breakthrough between you and I is that I absolutely agree with your statement.
The problem with people reading the indictments is that for most, with no legal training, and the length of the indictments is that their eyes glaze over.
The same with many of your's, mine and other posts: TL:DR
I made a note of this before but I'll throw it out there again on the evening that the Mueller report was released Rachel Maddow went on television and said ....hey, this document is 1500 pages long so you're not gonna read it - that's why you're watching this show.
Of course but she didn't tell anyone was that there was a small executive summary of just a few pages sitting on top of that 1500 page report, or that this small executive summary had a really important point in it - which Mueller made to fight the trump narratives - which is this .....
That "collusion" has nothing to do with any of it, and that collusion is not a legal term. Collusion doesn't determine whether or not Trump broke any laws.
So what you see is someone in the media like Rachel Maddow discouraging people from reading the kind of really important and really short documents that they could read even during a commercial break.
And what, in fact happened is that Bill Barr deceived the entire country and misled the entire country about what was in the report and in fact what was in that executive summary!
The thing about collusion - and even though Dan abrams and other top lawyers later specifically went out on social media and called people on this nonsense of saying there was no collusion, there .were a whole range of media stuff by Republicans, as well as Bill Barr, who kept everybody focused on the same old Trump media narrative of collusion.
I asked my cousin who is a real estate attorney to tell me what he thought the results of the Mueller report work, and he told me that he found that there was no collusion.
So even people with a legal background were deceived if they had not read a three page or whatever executive summary sitting on top of the Mueller report!
And all of that proves what, other than being a distraction. Hardly relevant now. Except that Mueller was earning his keep, by running cover for Trump. Barr is a POS,he was a big fan of a right wing unitary executive, until he wasn't.
He came in strong for Trump, that Trump was in essence a unitary executive that was above the law.
No. These indictments are written for public consumption and - as I've shown - disclose many things to the public, even the lay person, that aren't being adequately treated by the media.
It doesn't take long to read this statute, and to see it has nada to do with classification and classified docs. If you read the indictment you could easily see that this is the law he is charged with violating in the first set of counts.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
As I stated, TL:DR and you overestimated the reading ability of the public. In my training as a military training instructor back in 1962, I was told to write lesson plans at an 8th grade level.
That has now degraded to a 5th grade level.
I agreed with you, even complimented you, and yet you persist in maintaining a hostile relationship.
Well done.
Thanks for that, I'm glad you can appreciate the substance of it, none of this should devolve into personal attacks, we are talking about things it shouldn't be uncomfortable to talk about. Orwell said it's most important to have the courage and the right to say that 2 plus 2 equals 4 - ultimately he said he cares more about truth than anything else and I see Chomsky in the same light.
Attacking people for personal decisions or affiliations are a form of ad hominem argument, long identified as fallacies in any form of inductive reasoning.
One other thing to keep in mind is that one actually can be sued for liable in ny state for calling people names or saying false and defamatory things about someone online when the subject of it is not a "public figure" eligible for the enhanced first amendment protections afforded by Supreme Court decisions. People that participate in online chats that are published to a group often don't know this and mistakenly think that free speech protects any opinion they put online.
Big admission here - you got me, I give up. I've seen the light. You are right about everything. I'm a Putin puppet and so is Garland. We could only hide this for so long and you nailed us. Keep up the good work.
Being facetious doesn't work. No one accused Garland of being a Putin puppet (another red herring, shame on you). Garland is, by experience, record and current behavior a right wing Republican, otherwise Orrin Hatch would not have vetted him to Obama, and he has proved that by appointing a special counsel to indict Hunter, and keeping hands off Ivanka and Jared, and no even trying to prosecute Gaetz, for starters.
No, the essence of my comment is not that J6 is all that matters.
The separation of powers is the excuse that Trump is using. DOJ has the responsibility to investigate Congress.
How mature, you are, trying to trivialize a legitimate observation, by equating it with squirrels.
What is your problem. Why are you so vigorously trying to defend Garland.
And yes members of congress did conspire with the fools who wanted to kill Pence and Pelosi.
Boebert even gave the go signal, when she typed 1776 into her IpHONE, the moment that an objection was raised when the Arizona vote was pulled by Pence. The plan was to object to all of the votes cast by swing states.
1776 was the go signal to break into the Capital and hang Mike Pence, Pelosi and disrupt the reading of the electoral college votes.
That was even mentioned on TV at the time, then very swiftly swept under the rug.
Separation of powers has jack squat to do with the situation. Your relying on ignorance by throwing out a red herring.
I understand all of that, except Garland not launching his own investigation until shamed into it by the J6 Committee. He has the resources and hid behind the skirts of Congress, afraid to even investigate J6, willing to let the clock run out for statue of limitations, and yet he still has not filed charges against the traitors in Congress, like Beobert, Jordn, MTG, Comer, Biggs, Hawley, and even Matt Gaetz, who violated the Mann ACt, amongst others.
One reason is Garlands DOJ is staffed by Trump humpers, the other is Garland is himself a right wing Republican. I've read your apologia for Garland's employment by the Federalist Society, you introduced a lot of non sequiturs, however you glossed over the fact that the notorious right winger Orrin Hatch R-UT vetted Garland to Obama, because Obama didn't care about anything but claiming a win, by appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.
I doubt whether you (or any non-experts in the media) know when the investigations were launched, and to think that no investigations were launched at all until after Jan 6 committee report is simply unrealistic given the number of witnesses and the amount of evidence involved.
It's a nice media narrative ("garland dithered") but like many media narratives it's based on a lack of knowledge about the subject matter.
The thing that really matters - the standard your sources won't inform you of - is whether doj followed its standard policies in terms of opening, investigating and charging these cases. If you or your media sources have no idea that doj even has an enforcement manual and certain policies, it's gonna be kinda hard to know whether their policies were followed.
Instead we get this nonsense media narrative that Merrick Garland is in charge of everything and he can just bring whatever cases he wants - there's no rules really. This is false!
Let alone that to bring conspiracy cases against a large group it's never the case tgat you can just proceed directly against the head of the group. The whole point of RICO law is to deal with situations like this where there's a criminal enterprise and a bunch of different defendants and witnesses involved. That takes a lot of time. This is not just a single event or a single crime - far from it - it's a wide-ranging conspiracy that took place over months and several states.
It took even more time for Fani Willis to finalize her indictments but somehow it was only Garland that "dithered."
Moreover I have repeatedly corrected your statements about doj and the Jan 6 prosecutions - your media-based narratives somehow omit the over-1000 cases brought by doj and the fact that doj has been arguing for tougher / longer sentences for Rhodes and some of the worst perpetrators.
In any event in the end I recognize the futility of trying to discuss this with people who won't even read the operative documents but still think they can base strong opinions on various other aspects of reality, like whether garland ever attended federalist society events, a complete joke - anyone who follows Supreme Court could probably tell you tgat willuam Brennan is listed as a federalist society contributor. What does this tell you about Brennan? NOTHING!
You haven't corrected a thing. Part of my complaint has been that Garland and his Trump Humping DOJ,only prosecuted low level fools, that smashed down doors and broke windows, and even then only recommended what is essentially a slap on the wrist, misdeamenors, yes a handful of the worst actors got charged with felonies and series jail time.
That doesn't count because he hasn't even investigated much less indicted the leaders of the inssurection in Congress.
And as regards his investigation, he did wait until J6 did it's job, and had, while J6 committee was doing it's job, asked the committee to hand over it's records, (I suspect) to hide them.
You are hell bent on defending Garland, why is that, he hasn't even begun to investigate Jared and Ivanka, while appointing a special counsel to prosecute Hunter.
The Kushners are more guilty than Hunter, much more, receiving a 2 billion dollar gift from MBS, and using Trumps name to get copyrights and patents in China.
I took your advice and read the Jack Smith indictment of Trump, all 54 pages, I see nothing in it, that exculpates your constant harrasment.
So I ask you again, and will keep asking until you answer, what is in the indictment that is so important that you insist on trying to shame me and others,
If you're not interested in the conspiracy to steal the election, and associated false statements, perjury and criminal conduct by the highest-level members of the White House, then I agree - there is no need to read the indictment.
You also wouldn't be interested in news from legitimate sources about how the doj opened hundreds of cases while the doj supposedly dithered.
Pathetic, really.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/12/956145727/doj-opens-nearly-200-cases-into-pro-trump-riot-on-capitol-hill
I have read, am interested by that is beside the point, I won't let you turn the question, by turning it back on me.
You said in a previous post, that all people want to do is to get their info from the TV, and haven't read the indictment. I have read the indictment, so what is so significant. TV news readers and host, simply do a Readers Digest of the Indicment.
A couple of top scholars, federalist society members -writing that trump can be barred from running under the 14th amendment.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-08-16/donald-trump-constitution-federalist-society-14th-amendment-insurrection
Yep there are some conservatives who have better things to do than fellate Trump, the Federalist Society is anti Democratic, as well as carrying the raciest, homophobic, misogynistic and participial.
Here's a story about the chesebro email. I do suggest reading the actual email too.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-news-giuliani-kenneth-chesebro-email-plan-january-6/
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution