Democrats' Jan. 6 subpoena-palooza sets dangerous precedent

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  51 comments

By:   Jonathan Turley (TheHill)

Democrats' Jan. 6 subpoena-palooza sets dangerous precedent
Thompson is not only refusing to name the targets, he has also asked the companies to keep the subpoenas secret.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



“We have quite an exhaustive list of people. I won't tell you who they are.”  With those words , House Select Committee Chair  Bennie Thompson  (D-Miss.) confirmed that a subpoena storm was about to be unleashed in the investigation of the Jan. 6 riot in Congress. The targets would include Republican members, including House Minority Leader  Kevin McCarthy  (R-Calif.) and Rep.  Jim Jordan  (R-Ohio), who have already been told to preserve their phone records to be surrendered to the committee. The Democrats are  reportedly  trying to prove their prior claims that Republicans conspired or assisted “insurrectionists,” even though the FBI reportedly found  no evidence of a planned insurrection .

The Democrats' move to investigate members of the opposing party is a dangerous precedent in an institution that has always protected the privacy and confidentiality of phone and office records.

Two months ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair  Adam Schiff  (D-Calif.) was on practically every network  denouncing  one of “the most dangerous assaults on our democracy” — meaning the Trump administration’s search of phone log information related to Schiff and Rep.  Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) while looking for leakers. For his part, Swalwell publicly fretted about this “fragile time for our democracy” if members could have their phone logs seized through secret surveillance orders issued to telephone companies.

After those disclosures, I  testified  in Congress on the need for greater protections for from secret surveillance for members and reporters alike. At the hearing, the Democratic members expressed nothing short of disgust at the notion of such seizures of member phone logs.

Thompson has now admitted that he has sent  letters to telecommunications companies  to preserve documents — including phone logs — for hundreds of people, including members of Congress. He would offer only a type of “the usual suspects” response when asked for specificity: “you know, in terms of telecom companies, they're the ones that pretty much you already know, maybe the networks, the social media platforms, those kinds of things.”  Reports  indicate that among the “hundreds” will be Trump family members and leading Republicans. The House has decided to subpoena them all and let God (and the courts) sort them out.

This is not the first such subpoena tsunami in the House. A couple years ago, Schiff unleashed a massive  secret surveillance order  to companies. Schiff expressly barred the companies from informing targets — another abusive tactic that was the subject of the  June House hearing . That practice was denounced by many as negating Section 222 of the Federal Communications Act which allows for targets to challenge such orders.

As with the Schiff subpoenas, Thompson is not only refusing to list names of the targets, he has also  asked the companies to keep the subpoenas secret . It is not clear that Congress has such enforcement authority for secret subpoenas. What’s more, the Democratic House  Judiciary Chairman denounced  such secrecy demands just last month, saying “they deny American citizens, companies, and institutions their basic day in court and, instead, they gather their evidence entirely in secret.”

The storm of secret subpoenas also seems to run against the thrust of recent Supreme Court decision,  Trump v. Mazars , which addressed congressional subpoenas seeking personal information of the president. In sending the case back for further consideration, the court recognized the broad authority of Congress to issue subpoenas; however, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that congressional subpoenas must address a “valid legislative purpose” and be “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.”



The “task” at hand in this subpoena storm is highly questionable. The announcement follows an extensive investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department which reportedly did not find any planned insurrection on Jan. 6 . The vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were not charged. Of the roughly 570 people arrested, virtually all face relatively minor charges for trespass or parading. Only 40 face conspiracy charges. As with violent protests in places like Portland and Seattle, a small percentage of Jan. 6 protesters came prepared and eager for violence and property destruction.


The FBI has already seized the phone records for those arrested, including the small number facing more serious charges. Nevertheless, according to  media reports , they found that “90 to 95 percent of these are one-off cases … There was no grand scheme with  Roger Stone  and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”

Moreover, despite  federal investigations , neither the FBI nor Congress found any evidence to support the much publicized  claims of Democratic members  that Republican colleagues helped plan or supplied access or “reconnaissance” tours to “insurrectionists.”

As someone who has long favored congressional authority (and once represented the House), my natural default still remains with the authority of the House to acquire records under Article I. However, even if there were a cognizable legislative purpose, it would not make this move right. Democratic leaders, it seems, clearly do not like the fact that the FBI did not establish a conspiracy to overthrow the country or identify co-conspirators among their Republican colleagues. So, Congress apparently will substitute its own investigation by a special committee entirely controlled by Democrats with virtually no Republican members.

Of course, this is not what Schiff previously denounced as the “ politicization of the Justice Department .” Congress is by definition politicized, which is why such fishing expeditions targeting the opposing party are so dangerous. It is using subpoenas to try to embarrass or label members of the minority.

The use of subpoenas for political purposes is nothing new, particularly to paint others as “un-American.” In 1957, the Supreme Court reviewed the contempt conviction of a union official, John Thomas Watkins, who refused to name communist union members to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction 6-1, and Chief Justice Earl Warren  wrote  that “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Citing the statements of House members, the Court found that “the predominant result can only be the invasion of the private rights of individuals.”

As in the Watkins case, it would seem the point here is to establish that key figures of the opposing party are un-American or “insurrectionists.” Indeed, Rep.  David Cicilline  (D-R.I.) even  sought to censure members  who refused to call the riot an “insurrection.”

There are times when the Congress may have serious concerns over whether an administration scuttled or undermined an investigation. No such claim has been made here.

This is a fishing expedition on an oceanic scale.

Jan. 6 remains a national disgrace and a  desecration of our constitutional process . Many of us welcomed any further inquiries that might shed light on what occurred or what might have prevented this tragedy. However, that is no license to weaponize a national tragedy for political purposes.


R.6a34aaca558cfd6bf6a84809838f14a6?rik=IWr30pVlrq4F9A&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

The Democrats' move to investigate members of the opposing party is a dangerous precedent!

I suppose the democrats are destroying their e-mails & conversations via Hillary Clinton.


James Comey would be so proud of them!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago
The Democrats' move to investigate members of the opposing party is a dangerous precedent!

Unlike Benghazi?

Another Republican admits: Benghazi panel is political

I suppose the democrats are destroying their e-mails & conversations via Hillary Clinton.

Like the Republicans do?

Bush White House email controversy

CDC’s Redfield told staff to delete email, official tells House watchdog

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    2 weeks ago
Unlike Benghazi?

That shouldn't have been looked at?  That must have really struck a nerve. We keep hearing about it.  Which democrats were spied upon?


Like the Republicans do?

Nope. Another thing Trump was right about - Republicans never seem to play the game down & dirty like the democrats do!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    2 weeks ago

CDC’s Redfield told staff to delete email, official tells House watchdog

He practically fawned over whatshisname when he was 'president'.  

I never trusted Redfield.  

I used to work for the Division of Infectious Diseases back when he was Head of the ID Department here at the University of Maryland about 20 years or so ago.  

I knew him and had meetings with him with my Division back in the day.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
That shouldn't have been looked at?

How many times?  Nobody says it shouldn't have been looked at, but what was the purpose of 9 times?  Republican on the investigating panel even admitted it was purely political.

I assume you agree that 1/6 attempted overthrow of the government should also be looked into then?

Nope. Another thing Trump was right about - Republicans never seem to play the game down & dirty like the democrats do!

So you are totally ignoring that facts I linked?  Okey dokey....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

McCarthy says GOP "will not forget" if companies hand records to Jan. 6 committee.

E-KMbHAWYAAAj6M?format=png&name=small


 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 weeks ago

www.rawstory.com   /former-federal-prosecutor-marjorie-taylor-greenes-threat-against-telecom-companies-is-pure-corrupt-thuggery/

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s threat against telecom companies is ‘pure corrupt thuggery’: Former federal prosecutor

David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement 2-2 minutes   9/1/2021


U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene   (R-GA) made an astonishing threat against telecommunication companies Thursday night, warning them to not comply with the House January 6 Committee's   request to preserve the records   of some members of the "Sedition Caucus," and others associated with the "Stop the Steal" Rally.

"These telecommunications companies, if they go along with this, they will be shut down," Greene told Fox News personality Tucker Carlson. "And that's a promise."

Green reportedly is among those included in the Committee's request.

The   U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack   sent letters to 35 companies, detailing what records they want preserved, but did not state whose records they want.

According to   CNN , the list currently includes Greene, along with includes Republican Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Paul Gosar also of Arizona, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Jody Hice of Georgia and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.

Former federal prosecutor Ken White, now a criminal defense, white collar crime, and First Amendment litigation attorney calls Greene's threat "pure corrupt thuggery."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    2 weeks ago

Shall I start with Greene or the Raw Story?

Greene is an activist - equal to the squad on the left. She is what was once referred to as a loose cannon. Thus the constant focus by certain partisans on Greene.

As for "the Raw Story:"

  • Overall, we rate Raw Story Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to half-true, false, and unproven claims, as well as the promotion of mild pseudoscience misinformation.

    MBFCMixed.png?resize=355%2C131&ssl=1

    left5.png?resize=600%2C67&ssl=1

    These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.




    Note: I can do it too!
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    2 weeks ago

Sounds like she and McCarthy have a lot to hide!  Plus the others you've listed John.  What did I tell folks, time and time again, regarding 1/6/21 - those fighting it are complicit.

I DON'T DOUBT THAT FOR A SECOND.    

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

whoop de doo

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

Whatshisname has set the dangerous precedent!

McCarthy is quite the thug who is complicit in 1/6/21.  

Funny how some folks think that the gop will regain the house in 2022 . . .

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Turley seems to have no interest in learning what happened on Jan 6. 

Why would that be?  Oh yeah, he is a toad to the political right. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago
Turley seems to have no interest in learning what happened on Jan 6. 

His opinion has to do with precedent. Pelosi is spying on the opposition.

How much more can the left milk out of Jan 6?

The end for Pelosi & co is only a year away. Don't forget if she gets to do this, so will the Republicans. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    2 weeks ago

I dont know about getting records from "hundreds" of people. I would have to see the relevance of that. But getting the phone or email records of Trump, his family, his inner circle , his lackeys in Congress (Gaetz, Jordan, Gohmert, etc) , Giuliani, Powell, Lindell, and other assorted crackpots, ..... absolutely. 

Trump was proud of the Jan 6 riot as he sat in the White House watching it that afternoon. He was hoping it would succeed in changing Pence's mind. 

We want to know what else was going on. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

Ya, John, that was always a priority. We all knew it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

Vic, do you seriously believe there should be no consequences for the behavior of Trump and his associates in the time period from Nov 4 - Jan 6 ? 

They tried , at first with bs and lies and sham lawsuits , and ultimately with a violent riot, to overturn the results of a free and fair American election. There has to be consequences. 

Hold your nose if you like, but take your medicine. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    2 weeks ago
Vic, do you seriously believe there should be no consequences for the behavior of Trump and his associates in the time period from Nov 4 - Jan 6 ? 

That is an enormous question John.

Let me start with Trump. Trump was destined to win the 2020 election before the pandemic hit. He took the advice of Dr Fauci and shut down the economy. Then he actually warned Republican State Legislatures about the democrats well coordinated push to change election laws in key battleground states. Thus, when he lost an election he expected to win he felt cheated. He misled the massive following that he created. He got them motivated for a big display of disapproval. Did he think extreme elements would actually enter the Capitol building?  I say absolutely not. We can disagree, but any actions taken against Trump must be regarded as political. The left fears another Trump candidacy.

As for those who were at the Capitol on Jan 6th: Most have been charged with trespassing. They have been held for over 7 months without a trial. They have more than paid a price. Others have been intimidated by that unusual punishment. I think Das Leader Pelosi has mined Jan 6th for everything she could get out of it. It was truly her favorite event!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

Trump never led Biden in any poll, before or after the pandemic hit. 

The Democrats never campaigned on Trumps bribery of Ukraine, because right after that impeachment ended news of covid broke and that superseded Trumps bribery as a campaign issue. 

Trump never had to defend himself as an impeached president because it was hardly ever brought up after the impeachment trial ended. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

Trump was destined to win the 2020 election before the pandemic hit.

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
Trump never led Biden in any poll, before or after the pandemic hit. 

The same polls that had Trump losing big time in 2016. As a matter of fact, Nate Cohn said the polling was even more flawed: 

"But, before I say that, I do want to agree that this was a much bigger polling miss, in important ways, than in 2016. It was a bigger polling miss in the national surveys. It was a bigger polling miss for the industry’s most prominent and pricey survey houses. The state polling error will be just as bad, even though, as you mentioned, many state pollsters took steps to increase the number of white voters without a degree in their surveys. And state polls look a lot like they did in 2016.



If you go back to the time of the DNC primaries, you could hear the concern over on MSNBC & CNN that the dems had nobody who could beat him. Sorry, John it was the pandemic and a bunch of election rule changes that beat Trump. As a matter of fact, Biden miraculously won exactly where he had to win and came up short just about everywhere else. I told you before, the 2020 election will be looked at for years to come. One day they will write books about it.


The Democrats never campaigned on Trumps bribery of Ukraine, because right after that impeachment ended news of covid broke and that superseded Trumps bribery as a campaign issue. 

Despite the two faux impeachments, Trump had a stellar record as President, a vibrant economy and a secure border. The pandemic and Mr Fauci ended the Trump economy. There is a lot more, but I hate covering the same points.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

[removed] 

There were no "faux" impeachments.  The impeachment managers proved that Trump had attempted to bribe /extort Ukraine.  He was let off on the ruse that the crime did not "rise to the level" of an impeachable offense. 

Trumpsters have absolutely no standards of decency. ZERO. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
4.1.9  Ronin2  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1.6    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

Right back at you.

Strong economy (no thanks to the Democrats). No new foreign wars (Though you would have thought Trump was going to bring an end to the world the way the left talked). Ending the Afghanistan war (no thanks to the Democrats). Border secured (no thanks to the Democrats).

What did Democrats have to run on. Two partial impeachments that further divided the country; and a whole lot of TDS that wasn't going to overcome a strong economy. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
4.1.11  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.9    2 weeks ago

What did Democrats have to run on.

All anyone needed to win the race was to not be named Donald Trump.  His first win was so shockingly unexpected that even he couldn’t hardly believe it, thus he had no plans on how to do the job.  Then for four years he made it strikingly obvious that he had no clue how to do it.  By 2020 a dead squirrel had a better chance at winning than Donald Trump.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago

Another day, another left wing witch hunt. The Dem Gestapo hard at work...

From the article: " The “task” at hand in this subpoena storm is highly questionable. The announcement follows an extensive investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department which reportedly did not find any planned insurrection on Jan. 6 .

The Democrats are  reportedly  trying to prove their prior claims that Republicans conspired or assisted “insurrectionists,” even though the FBI reportedly found  no evidence of a planned insurrection .

Moreover, despite  federal investigations , neither the FBI nor Congress found any evidence to support the much publicized  claims of Democratic members  that Republican colleagues helped plan or supplied access or “reconnaissance” tours to “insurrectionists.”

This is a fishing expedition on an oceanic scale."

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
4.2.1  Hallux  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    2 weeks ago

The Gestapo has done its work when 'reportedly' is mentally erased.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Expert
4.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago
Turley seems to have no interest in learning what happened on Jan 6.

What in the hell do you mean "what happened"? We all saw what happened. Ad nauseum on the news. He wasn't sleeping nor was anyone else I know. A bunch of morons got all worked up and fucked up by thinking they may accomplish some won't ever happen goal. Period. Nothing else..

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
5  Hallux    2 weeks ago

I doubt that Turley et al fear some some inane slippery slope abstract precedent, they just don't want to lose the inane 1984 game that they've turned into a navel gazing quagmire of fear posing as patriotism. The America I lived in a decade ago was stronger than this, alas from Bidenistas to Trumpaholics it has succumbed to the poverty of populism.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
5.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Hallux @5    2 weeks ago

Yep....old fashioned establishment politics has gone bye-bye. Long live Trumpian populism!

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
5.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1    2 weeks ago

For you, I could wish no other fate.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Hallux @5    2 weeks ago

Do you believe that Trump and his family, close white house aides and key figures in the GOP congress should be 'forced' to turn over communications records to the committee? 

They are not going to produce them voluntarily. 

Trump was fine with the result of the Jan 6th 'rally'. He liked to see people fighting (literally) for him. It made him feel good. It is time to make him feel bad. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
5.2.1  Hallux  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    2 weeks ago

Forced? That depends on where one wants to win, in the legal Courts or in the abstract Court of Public Opinion. As of now Dems are proving to be close to woeful in the public court which relies upon 'testimonials'.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
5.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    2 weeks ago

John Russel wrote: "'Do you believe that Trump and his family, close white house aides and key figures in the GOP congress should be 'forced' to turn over communications records to the committee?"

Absolutely not. It would set a bad precedent that could be used against the Democrats

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Hallux @5.2.1    2 weeks ago

So we should not learn what the communications were in the Trump camp leading up to and during the insurrection?  If that is what you are saying it is a surprise. 

They are not going to produce those communications voluntarily so of course the other alternative is some kind of 'force'. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
5.2.4  Hallux  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.3    2 weeks ago

I believe you should rip the reins from their hands and whip their flanks for being cowards. Fair warning, if you start don't stop no matter how much they whine ... let up and they will flay you alive.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Hallux @5.2.4    2 weeks ago

I generally find your comments insightful and clever. 

Irony and quips are not the answer to everything though. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
5.2.6  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.5    2 weeks ago

“Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing.

 ~ Clive James

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @5.2.6    2 weeks ago

I dont disagree. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
5.2.8  Hallux  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2.5    2 weeks ago

They get me through the days of diminishing horizons.

John, I entered the fray on the Web well over a decade ago steeped in a vat of vim and vigor and convinced that my partisan wisdom would send the world to the shadier side of the sun. I started with posting lengthy pieces which, alas in the world of politics, always carry a phrase or two worthy of demolition ... and that is all it takes and woe be it to the writer if those mistakes are repeated in some vain attempt to cast them as correct.

In 10 years I have changed no minds and none have changed mine, so I have worked myself down to a sentence or two and hope within the next 10 years to paraphrase my comments to an erudite 'Fuck off'!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Hallux @5.2.8    2 weeks ago

I gotcha. 

These things are really more a platform for self expression than for changing anyone's mind. I really cant think of anyone here over the years that did a 180 on something. 

We are a tiny cog in a big wheel however, and it all adds up, much like ones individual vote doesnt really matter  -   until they are all added together. Then there is something there. 

Donald Trump is running for president again. He's already started.  Most of this country, and we see it to an extent on NT, is far too apathetic about this.  Just my opinion. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
5.2.10  r.t..b...  replied to  Hallux @5.2.8    2 weeks ago

“…to paraphrase my comments to an erudite 'Fuck off'!”

bret ef concis

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
6  Hal A. Lujah    2 weeks ago

Sure would make sense for all these innocent Republicans to produce these exculpatory phone records.  Being that they are so obviously innocent of any traitorous wrongdoing, it is a genuine mystery why they aren’t interested in defending themselves in the most conclusive way possible.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6    2 weeks ago

Why don't you post all your phone records on this site to prove you aren't guilty of a crime?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    2 weeks ago

If I am accused of what they are suspected of then you’re damn right I’m going to defend myself in the most conclusive terms possible.  Unlike these traitors I have nothing to hide.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

Lol.  How unamerican.  I remember when progressives used to pretend to care about civil liberties.  At least you've made your embrace of authoritarianism public. 

I have nothing to hide.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
6.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

If you want to something sensational to read, try your diary.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

Are your suspicions based on something other than nothing?  Of course they aren’t.  The NSA has the capabilities to obtain phone records on anyone who is within three hops of a person of interest, and there are plenty of people of interest when it comes to Jan. 6.  I am not in that subset but anyone who is should be subject to the same policies regardless if they are a civilian or an elected government representative.  That’s why they know that their only defense is to try and generate public opinion and fear of reprisal against anyone who complies with the same laws that govern the plebes.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

Skirting the CoC [Split Personality]

Is this a joke? Try learning to read before moderating..

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
6.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6    2 weeks ago

From the article: "Of the roughly 570 people arrested, virtually all face relatively minor charges for trespass or parading."

Also: " Democratic leaders, it seems, clearly do not like the fact that the FBI did not establish a conspiracy to overthrow the country or identify co-conspirators among their Republican colleagues. So, Congress apparently will substitute its own investigation by a special committee entirely controlled by Democrats with virtually no Republican members."

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
6.2.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    2 weeks ago

I guess they aren’t interested in owning the libs on this issue, huh?  No better way to stick it to your accuser than to demonstrate how wrong they are.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    2 weeks ago

There were 'roughly' over 600 people arrested.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
6.2.3  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.2    2 weeks ago

Care to tell us what the charges were/are? 99% of them are for illegal trespass; and for that they have had people sitting in prison for 7 months and counting waiting for their yet to be announced trial date. So much for a fair and speedy trial in the Merrick Garland two tier justice system.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

exexpatnowinTX
Vic Eldred
Snuffy
squiggy
JaneDoe
Jack_TX
cjcold
Gordy327
Greg Jones


44 visitors