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, b…
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.
"Attacking people for personal decisions or affiliations are a form of ad hominem argument, long identified as fallacies in any form of inductive reasoning."
Isn't that the essence of jurisprudence? As regards Garland, I simply stated that I don't trust him, and the reasons for my distrust are stated., and valid.
And if one is going to sue people for liable, then every court in the country will be back logged.
And as regards attacking people on line for so called free speech, is not the same as suggesting an ideological preference because of their stated positions. In other words if you infer or state something that indicts your position or ideology, don't get non plussed because others define you. You don't get a free ride.
Also all the 1st Amendment has to say about speech is "Congress shall not make a law", Nothing in it about corporations, organizations, or persons.
By the way, when one starts posting on sites, like this, they become a public figure, and when they use a screen name, they have no reason, no cause, to complain or sue for libel.
It's enough, I am not responding any further. I've taken a bunch of time to show that much of what you've posted about Garland has been not only dead wrong but also obviously based on sources unfamiliar with the doj and the kinds of cases involved. Also, for your benefit and others I've noted some really good media sources for understanding more about current cases.
On the last item you mentioned, the first amendment encyclopedia is a good basic source about public figures and defamation law. Have a good day and be well.
Good try,trying to defend Garland by hiding behind obscure and non sequitur's. I read your link, and it is irrelevant. There is nothing that said one can't express an opinion about anyone or anything, especially when one can back up their claim.
Biden could sue Fox, Boebert,Jordan, MTG, Hawley, for defamation, so could the citizens of this country, for lying about the election, and doing harm to them and the country.
Eric Prince has tried three times to sew the Intercept for libel, all three cases were dismissed and now he is trying to appeal the third denial.
If Garland doesn't like his reputation, then he should do better, do what is right, not what is politic.
But you make me curious. Why are you so invested in defending Garland? Are you related, are you one of those in his Trump humping DOJ.
Or is that another slander. Trump signed an EO 13957 on Oct 21,2020 that created Schedule F employees, that enabled him to embed his political puppets in DOJ, and simultaneously reduced the civil servants that his cronies would replace to unprotected at will employees, and the media never covered it. Not only DOJ, but all vital cabinets from DOD, DHS, to NSA and no bother with the FBI and Secret Service, because they are already chock full of Trump Humpesrs.
Want to contest that accusation, bear in mind that the Secret Service was a personal handmaiden in J6, and the FBI was and is too investigated in investigating the left, like BLM, and antifascists, and still are not really tracking white nationalist terrorists.
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.
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.
"Attacking people for personal decisions or affiliations are a form of ad hominem argument, long identified as fallacies in any form of inductive reasoning."
Isn't that the essence of jurisprudence? As regards Garland, I simply stated that I don't trust him, and the reasons for my distrust are stated., and valid.
And if one is going to sue people for liable, then every court in the country will be back logged.
And as regards attacking people on line for so called free speech, is not the same as suggesting an ideological preference because of their stated positions. In other words if you infer or state something that indicts your position or ideology, don't get non plussed because others define you. You don't get a free ride.
Also all the 1st Amendment has to say about speech is "Congress shall not make a law", Nothing in it about corporations, organizations, or persons.
By the way, when one starts posting on sites, like this, they become a public figure, and when they use a screen name, they have no reason, no cause, to complain or sue for libel.
It's enough, I am not responding any further. I've taken a bunch of time to show that much of what you've posted about Garland has been not only dead wrong but also obviously based on sources unfamiliar with the doj and the kinds of cases involved. Also, for your benefit and others I've noted some really good media sources for understanding more about current cases.
On the last item you mentioned, the first amendment encyclopedia is a good basic source about public figures and defamation law. Have a good day and be well.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1010/public-figures-and-officials
Good try,trying to defend Garland by hiding behind obscure and non sequitur's. I read your link, and it is irrelevant. There is nothing that said one can't express an opinion about anyone or anything, especially when one can back up their claim.
Biden could sue Fox, Boebert,Jordan, MTG, Hawley, for defamation, so could the citizens of this country, for lying about the election, and doing harm to them and the country.
Eric Prince has tried three times to sew the Intercept for libel, all three cases were dismissed and now he is trying to appeal the third denial.
If Garland doesn't like his reputation, then he should do better, do what is right, not what is politic.
But you make me curious. Why are you so invested in defending Garland? Are you related, are you one of those in his Trump humping DOJ.
Or is that another slander. Trump signed an EO 13957 on Oct 21,2020 that created Schedule F employees, that enabled him to embed his political puppets in DOJ, and simultaneously reduced the civil servants that his cronies would replace to unprotected at will employees, and the media never covered it. Not only DOJ, but all vital cabinets from DOD, DHS, to NSA and no bother with the FBI and Secret Service, because they are already chock full of Trump Humpesrs.
Want to contest that accusation, bear in mind that the Secret Service was a personal handmaiden in J6, and the FBI was and is too investigated in investigating the left, like BLM, and antifascists, and still are not really tracking white nationalist terrorists.
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.