Benghazi Jr.
The joint committee hearing about Peter Strozk , the FBI agent who texted with a girlfriend about Donald Trump, has turned into a circus.
The tea party nut case Louis Gohmert began to accuse the witness of lying and even asked him if he had lied to his wife about the other woman. Accusations flew back and forth across the aisle.
What I am wondering though, is when the Republican hysterics on this committee will produce some shred of evidence that Strozk ACTED improperly on his biases against Trump. This man has now been interrogated for 16 hours and they have yet to produce a SHRED of evidence that he did anything wrong other than profess dislike of Trump.
It is entertaining though, in a Trumpian way.
Tags
Who is online
55 visitors
Louis Gohmert proved beyond a shadow of a doubt why he is known as the dumbest person in congress.
Screwy Louie is always fun when he opens his mouth to prove his unchallenged ignorance.
No, that would be Auntie Maxie.
His credibility has to be the central concern of the hearing, and Gohmert ably demonstrated that his credibility his weak.
Specifically, we have multiple texts of him not only expressing bias, but also expressing an intent to act out that bias - both in the Clinton case and the Trump case. Not only is that a problem, but then he testified that he was not biased and it's absurd to even imagine based on this evidence that he could be. That's ridiculous on its face and speaks to his poor credibility.
And, like it or not, even though it's uncomfortable to talk about, the fact of his affair goes to his moral character, particularly regarding his honesty and his own ability to judge and control his own behavior.
What this hearing has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Republicans have no evidence that Strozk acted improperly. He made some anti-Trump texts, but did not act improperly.
A colossal waste of time.
It's probably impossible to prove with the limited evidence they have. you'd have to be a mind reader, or find a document where he wrote "Because of my bias in favor of Hillary Clinton, I think we should not recommend prosecuting her." But what are the chances of any biased person ever doing that? Probably somewhere between zero and none. So demanding that level of proof is probably not reasonable.
In court, we would never wait for such proof. You can't afford to.
Here, we have a guy who wrote about how much he hated Trump on the job. He's allowed to have his feelings, but does he need to be expressing them at work and during the performance of his duty? He wrote about a plan related to preventing Trump's election that was talked about in Andy McCabe's office. He also wrote that "we" were going to do something about it. That's bias and intent to take action. We would be fools to wait for more. Just based on that, we can't know that the investigation wasn't driven by bias from multiple people and it would be irresponsible not to assume that bias.
Conversely, we have similar comments about Clinton, and an actual action taken to change existing language assessing her behavior for the express purpose (testified to today) of avoiding the perception of criminal intent. That's powerful circumstantial evidence of bias directly impacting the course of an investigation.
Much of this was teased out by other members, and Gohmer was basing his comments off of this.
It wasn't his job to recommend or not recommend prosecuting anyone. He's not a lawyer.
Hey, you all LOVED it when Comey, who wasn't hired as a lawyer, decided not to prosecute Abuela!
You need a course in reading compression, he did not write this the post said you would have to find that before you could state he had.
Can you rephrase that so maybe I can understand you?
Very simply, Tacos posted ". you'd have to be a mind reader, or find a document where he wrote "Because of my bias in favor of Hillary Clinton,", and you took it as he did write that.
Except he also posted that he should vote for Kasich.
Only in the minds of conspiracy nuts. Watch out for these guys, they might catch ya,
So, basically from one short line along the lines of we'll or I'll stop him and for having a low opinion about trump, you get that scrap up to a anti-trump "coven" in the FBI? Wow!
By the way, when and how did he try to stop trump? must have been a hellofva effort, nobody noticed.
One need not be a mind reader. The IG interviewed the whole team that investigated the Clinton emails. Since the IG report clearly states that he found NO bias in Strzok's conduct, one would presume that the IG asked members of the team if they witnessed any bias from Strzok or if he expressed any bias in their meetings during the investigation.
There is no evidence that he did and after 22 hours, they STILL didn't prove that he did.
Sure if you rely on innuendo and speculation rather than facts.
It would be irresponsible the ASSUME bias with all evidence pointing to the contrary.
Or not...
Total bullshit. NO new information on the 'change of existing language' was 'teased out' yesterday. The IG report documents everything that was said in the hearing by Strzok.
The hearing teetered on the edge from the start and Gohmer drug the hearing all the way into the gutter and everyone who witnessed it knows that.
Not sure if you really meant that for me. I said nothing about any of that.
Well, there you have it! The FBI agents say they aren't expressing bias and that their boss isn't expressing bias. Mystery solved! /s
You're kidding, right? That's all we have to do? Take their word for it?
The fact that he engaged in this bias on his work phone with fellow employees on the case indicate that there is an excellent chance it impacted his decision related to the investigation. If he had confined his remarks to his personal phone and to people not involved in the investigation, I would be more inclined to believe his bias didn't impact his work.
I am relying on facts. Everything I am referencing is in the physical evidence or something Strzok himself testified to.
For example?
Who's word SHOULD we take? Louie Gohmert's?
The GOP decries on a regular basis that Clinton was not interviewed 'under oath' by the FBI while intentionally obscuring the FACT that it is ILLEGAL to lie to the FBI. Agents, interviewed during a IG investigation are under the SAME legal obligation.
So unless your posit is that the Agents that were interviewed LIED, yes, we should take their word for it.
Again, despite all evidence to the contrary.
You mean except the parts where he testified unequivocally that he did NOT allow his bias against Trump impact his decision making right?
I already cited the IG report. Go read it for yourself. It's searchable to save you time. Search Strzok or bias or gross negligence. The IG thoroughly covered ALL of those issues.
Every conservative here gleefully awaited the IG report agreed to accept the findings right up until the actually READ them and then, not so much.
The thing about rooting out bias is you err on the side of avoiding a problem. You don't wait for it to be proven. If you see a potential conflict of interest, you make appropriate changes.
It's not even necessary for them to lie. The impact of the bias on their actions could be unconscious. That's why people are routinely kicked off of juries for far less.
He's just not credible. He still doesn't see how he did anything wrong and there are texts he won't turn over to Congress because HE has decided they aren't relevant even though he admits he talks about Trump and Clinton and the investigations in those texts. That's a problem.
Then that is just another reason she needs to be arrested.. She lied multiple times to both the FBI and to Congress
And the 'Blue Wall' doesn't exist. Believe that and I'll sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
A conflict of interest has NOTHING to do with 'political bias'.
So what do you suggest, a Vulcan mind meld?
Investigators cannot be compared to jurists. It's an utterly false equivalency.
He IS credible and he DID admit that his use of a government communication was wrong.
Speaking of credible, WHY would ANYONE trust ANY Congressional Committee with their PRIVATE PERSONNAL emails? It's NOT like the House or Senate Committees have dealt with Strzok in good faith. They released some of his texts piecemeal to bolster their agenda and the damage was done by time the rest were released. If I were Strzok, after yesterday's 'hearing', I wouldn't piss on the Congress if they were on fire.
Another unfounded opinion that ignores all evidence to the contrary.
Oh and BTFW, why did Sessions refuse to pursue an indictment for Clinton if your case is such a slam dunk?
You mean it wasn't a lie when she said there were no classified emails on her server when they found at least several hundred?
It wasn't a lie when she said she turned over all work related emails then thousands were found?
The FBI says that you're lying about that.
They did? Link?
He had the number wrong.
104
Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence.
Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the ...
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says
So do you.
If you have a better source than the Washington Post, feel free to share!
It's called "erring on the side of caution." It's done every day.
You simply declaring it isn't very convincing.
There's no squirrel over there, and you can't make me look.
non sequitur
Again, the IG report.
So is the caution unconscious too?
Ditto.
I rally could not care less WTF you look at.
THIS IG report?
IG Report on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org
Here are some more sources you might like better:
PolitiFact Sheet: Hillary Clinton’s email controversy ...
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/
Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the ...
...
Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence.
Clinton's Handling of Classified Information - FactCheck.org
...
Her office at the time said that on Dec. 5, 2014, it gave the State Department 30,490 printed copies of work-related emails. Clinton said none of them contained classified information. Clinton, March 10, 2015: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
How did ‘top secret’ emails end up on Hillary Clinton’s ...
...
Watch video · Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton maintains she never sent classified information via email as Secretary of State, as questions arise over her instruction to have a talking points memo sent to her in 2011 by a nonsecure system after it could not be sent by secure fax.
Hillary Clinton Emails Said to Contain Classified Data ...
...
Jul 25, 2015 · Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on …
Revisiting Clinton and Classified Information - FactCheck.org
...
On July 5, FBI Director James Comey said a "very small number" of emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton over her private server “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.” We are now learning more about those emails.
Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law : It ...
...
Went over your head, eh? That was an invitation to support your claim with evidence and argument. I'm forced to assume that you can't. Not surprising.
Of course you do or you wouldn't have tried to totally change the topic.
Nope.
When I posted this:
It was an invitation to answer the question.
I didn't change the topic at all. I replied to your comment point by point.
He just kept saying "I don't believe you" and "I don't find that credible" but didn't give any evidence to prove in any way that the actions taken were effected by personal bias. He was just saying that he couldn't believe someone who had made a private comment exposing personal bias would be able to keep that separate from his work. We have 300 million Americans, police, congress, Senators, blue collar, white collar, intelligence officers and judges, and all of them are biased. We all have our own opinions, and most have a very strong opinion of the President, either good or bad, so by Gohmerts estimation not one of us could faithfully do our jobs without acting on our personal biases. It's akin to Trump claim that an Indiana born judge couldn't be impartial when dealing with a case involving Trump because of the judges Mexican heritage. It's insane. It's offensive, but here we are, the faux outrage of the right in full display.
Sorry Tacos, but Trump's numerous affairs and infidelities to his numerous wives were not the focal point of the discussion brought up by MENSA NOT Gohmert.
No, of course not. But they are worth illuminating for the very reason Gohmert said. i.e. they go to his honesty and personal character, and therefore to his credibility.
Of course, if the Head of Chicago detectives was revealed to be the head of the KKK, I'm sure John would have no problem with him investigating black Chicago politicians and trusting that his work was bias free.
This guy testified before Congress last week. To bring him back again one would have thought they had something substantial. This is a big embarrassment. Unfortunately those who need to be embarrassed are incapable of feeling shame.
Kinda like what we witnessed today during the hearing? The republicans showing their contempt and bias towards a witness. Calling the witness a liar and impugning his character without any evidence. Unable to even present a fair and balanced showing. Cutting off the witness, not allowing him to respond or defend himself, allowing the republican members to go well beyond their allotted time while keeping the democratic members to the previously agreed upon time.
If you cannot see the bias from this Congress then you are being intentionally obtuse.
So you believe that someone's personal beliefs will ALWAYS impact their job??? What a sad world you live in.
Breaking news! There is more than one person in the FBI that doesn't like trump. When will those hearings start?
Sure was a lot of talk today about bias and all the rest.
Not a word on Russian money. Was this intentional?
I'll just drop this right here.
Maybe you can get some help here screaming fake news.
Absolutely true. And R. Reagan received one million dollars to speak at the Chinese Parliament three months after leaving office. But these fees were publicly announced and any taxes required were paid. None of these were campaign contributions.
Russian money did come into the US during the 2016 election cycle. That money has not been followed. Why? Except, I do believe much of it has been followed/traced. And we will know where it came from, to whom it went and where it now resides.
For the exact same reason the GOP has banned the CDC from collecting statistics on crimes committed with guns. They don't want the public to know the truth. Simple as that. There really is no other explanation.
WTF does Reagan and China have to do with Russian money the snowflake left is crying about?
LMFAOAY
I think we will find a lot of this in the millions of papers procured from Michael Cohen.
Except, if the Russian money allegations are true-------------it will come out. And some of the GOPERS may have some of that money sticking to their shoes. Rohrabacher for one. Nunes, Jordan, King for others. A couple in the senate too. McConnell?
Not Gohmert though. He's too stupid---Russians wouldn't waste the time or money.
You brought up the money. Don't like where a statement leads????????????????-----------------don't make the statement.
This Vietnam Veteran is weary of you Russian defenders on American soil.
Piss off.
This son of a father who gave his ultimate sacrifice in the Vietnam War so some douche on a anonymous chat board can call him a commie sympathizer deleted
Have a good night. I'm done with the snowflakes myself.
There has to be a reason they are all trying to discredit the investigation.
It is like they are trying to hard and doing everything they can in their power to give it a black eye.
They are more transparent than they think.
I think tempers are frayed today. There's been a lot going on in our government this week. It's making all of us a bit touchy. I thank bbl for his service and your father and your family for his life. You and bbl have a connection through the Vietnam war. That should bridge some differences I hope.
Have a good night.
He could be what the CIA calls a "useful idiot".
My comment was to you.
Nah. Useless idiot.
Well, yeah, he is that too.
Damnit, beat me to it.. LOL
Let's face it guys, Gohmert is an idiot in any sense.
It is amazing. I will be 71 this year. 1968 was a long time ago. The War...…..sometimes not so long. And it still brings pain. It is like it never ends. I am tired of all of this. I regret even replying to KD. Let the Trumpers lay where they want. That bed belongs to them.
Well, Eric Trump DID say that his dad used a lot of russian money for his golf courses around the globe because the US banks refused to give him any more loans....because he never paid them back, (how shocking). So really not a stretch to see trumpy taking money for his campaign from russia. Might be why to this day trump never EVER, says anything bad about putin.. Because putin owns trump's orange fat ass.
Amen... Good grief, what an unhinged lunatic. I did like that one lady's response... "You need to be on medication!!!!!!!!" Well played Ma'am...
The demise of Trumpism will be the money. Americans do not have the courage to admit they ( elected ) a traitor.
I also liked the points of order that were given, especially when the gentleman from Virginia asked if Bannon was going to be put under contempt of Congress as well.
Today was definitely not good for republicans, they look like even bigger fools and assholes than yesterday. One republican used that stolen information for his campaign benefit, he must be sweating bullets. How far up the chain will this go? Wonder what's next.
Well, bye!
Because even Democratic representatives are smart enough not to believe in conspiracy theories?
Conspiracy theory?
We will see. Won't we?
Yes we will, just like we saw other predictions come true--like Trump can't and won't win, the Blue Wall will hold, the Dems took back the House and Senate, etc., etc.
Or my personal favorite..."Hillary will be arrested any day now.." Heard that one for a good 15 years. LOL
Okay, and we can also add these:
Unemployment will skyrocket under Trump, the stock market will crash, a second great recession will happen, Trump will have us in a war, Trump will use a nuclear weapon, Trump won't last 3 months, er, 6 months, er, a year, er, his first term.
I haven't heard those, you have a very vivid imagination, congrats!
Where have you been?
You haven't been paying attention then.
Wow, wait until Gohermet finds out that trump has cheated on all of his wives and banged a porn star while his wife was home caring for their 10 month old baby.... I am sure he will come unhinged when he finds out... Oh wait, republicans are exempt...
Or that Trump refuses to use a secure phone......
That gets me too. There has been reports that he uses his personal phone to conduct official business, then it is off record.
Not a peep from his enablers.
The other day Trump and his WH enablers all got pwned by a comedian posing as Rep Bob Menendez. If it's that easy for some random comedian just imagine how easy it is for Putin and his SVR to manipulate Trump. All they need to do is tweet the right code words to trigger the blithering moron.
I didn't know that. Jeezus! And they bitched about Hillary and her private servers!
I guess you all forgot that Clinton refused to use the approved government provided secure cell phone but used an insecure commercially available Blackberry. All 13 of them that she destroyed.
I guess you forgot that she requested a secure phone but was turned down?
Hillary Clinton's 2009 Request for Secure Smartphone Rejected by NSA
Or That Trump himself uses a private email server for official communications?
TRUMP WHITE HOUSE SENIOR STAFF HAVE PRIVATE RNC EMAIL ACCOUNTS
You still want to talk about Hillary???
Thanks, Ozzwald
What right wingers really seem to be whining about is that Clinton was not only concerned about data security but very effective at insuring it despite Trump's pleas to his Russian handlers to hack her data.
This isn’t Benghazi jr because Benghazi was, in my opinion, a coverup by the Obama administration. There may be something to uncover in this case but the hearing was a waste of time.
Gohmert is a dope so I listened to Gowdy instead. The whole point of the questioning (bordering on badgering) was to draw an inference that, if someone has a personal political view, then he is incapable of being unbiased in the performance of his duties when his duties affect politics. This is total nonsense.
There are many people performing jobs every day in government and they do it without letting their personal political bias interfere with their work even when it could affect politics. They should get the benefit of the doubt and be presumed to be performing their duties properly, absent proof to the contrary, rather than presumed to be acting improperly. The witness cannot prove a negative so presuming that he acted improperly, unless he can prove otherwise, amounts to public character assassination and I thought it was disgraceful.
More importantly, this inference of impropriety is contrary to the assumption that these same people will put forward with regard to Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. They will say (and correctly so) that a Supreme Court Justice’s personal views are irrelevant because he should put his personal views aside and preside without bias. Kavanaugh can absolutely do that and so can the witness.
All nine times? And every single time, republican led. You really think Gowdy would just say, "Ok Obama, we found her guilty but we'll just not say anything"? Please, give it a rest. Your wet dream of "locking her up", failed miserably, several times.
You think that investigation was carried out by just one or two people? It was covered by hundreds of people, from both parties. If there was a cover up, believe me, someone would have said something a long time ago. The right has beaten that horse so much there is nothing left but bones.
The worst part is that the horse was dead to begin with!
I’m not sure what you’re talking about but all I was doing was briefly commenting on the comparison, implied by the title of the article. This thread is not about Benghazi but I absolutely believe that the Obama administration covered it up and I have many times explained why I think it. And every time I see it, I’ll say the same thing. Lying is not a crime, unless it’s under oath, so I was never talking about locking anybody up over it.
You are welcome to think that all you like, the FACT is that;
1) there is no proof of any cover up.
2) If there was an attempt at a cover up, Gowdy and the other republicans that investigated for over 800 days, would have found the cover up and most certainly said something.
3) The right wing has never even made the claim that there was a cover up, the only ones making that claim are people that have zero connection to the case and simply want to provide an excuse for Hillary not being even CHARGED with a crime, much less convicted of anything.
Let me say that again... Over 800 days of investigations and she was never even CHARGED. And again, you lost, get over it and move on.
Here, here.
Unless of course your intent is to conduct a Kangaroo court.
The difference is that the agents opinions won't effect millions of Americans for 40 years or, more. They won't take rights away from women when it comes to making decisions about their body's or, the rights of the LGBTQ community to marry or, to eat where they want or, conduct business where they want without being discriminated against by bigots.
I still have questions about this.
It’s the Court’s job to determine whether the right exists under the constitution or a statute, not make up rights as though it’s a legislature. If the right isn’t there, then it isn’t there. I expect all employees of the federal government, whether they are judges or not, to perform their duties without interjecting their personal political bias into their decisions.
You mean like the 14th and 5th Amendments? That's why your side lost on things like marriage equality.
We do not have tho ask the state's permssion before we act and the idea that we do have to ask permission is fascist. When do you plan to understand that freedom means that we have the right to act unless there is a compelling interest for the state to say no? The state doesn't get to say what rights that we have according to a 220-year-old document. The Constitution was created as a limit of the power of the government and was in no way an absolute list of our rights. The idea that the constitution is a complete and concrete list of our rights is bullpucky.
What rights do we currently have that you disagree with?
If only the Judges on the SCOTUS had to follow those rules. They don't.
What you've described is the opposite of how America works but more like how authoritarian governments work. Given your love for Christian sharia law I guess that makes sense.
No, it’s just the basic separation of powers doctrine established in the constitution itself. But given your confusion regarding something as basic as gender, then the concept of separating legislative and judicial functions must be a real challenge for you.
In drafting those amendments, nobody remotely considered anything as ridiculous as a samesex marriage, especially since it would legitimize a sexual,act that was illegal in all the states. But a liberal court, acting as a super legislature, invented the right by legislating from the bench and then imposed its will on all 50 states. The solution is to replace activist judges with conservative judges who understand their constitutional role. Eventually all the damage done by activist judges can be undone and things turned right side up again.
Your notion that you have some inherent constitutional right to do whatever you want unless state has a compelling reason to say no is RIDICULOUS. So in answer to your question, I’m never going to accept it. The constitution says quite clearly that the federal government only has those rights which were delegated to it by the states. Nobody delegated marriage or abortion and the constitution doesn’t mention them at all. That means the issues should be left to the states.
Interracial marriage is arguably different. Race, unlike homosexuality, is not a behavior. The 14th amendment was intended to eliminate second class citizenship for blacks not normalize a sexual perversion.
Marriage is a purview of the federal government since there are secular rights attached to it. Marriage has never been purely a religious action and the government can't force any religion to marry anoyne. The inherent privacy right to make personal decisions without government interference also under the purview of the Supreme Court to determine via their interpretation of constitutionality. This is the very reason that the SCOTUS exists.
What is it about LGBT people having the same marriage rights that everyone else enjoys that bothers you so? Are LGBT people inferior to you and as such deserve fewer rights? Do you also oppose interracial marriage because those two marriage decisions are based on the very same idea? Why should the individual states be permitted to trample the constitutional rights of a minority under the guise of states rights? Do you think that some people are more deserving of rights than others, or do you believe that we have too many rights? Do you believe that there is an inherent hierarchy of social power, starting with white male Christians men at the top and that caste must be preserved?
Homosexuality was far from being unknown at the time of the Constitution's drafting and nothing was said about banning it. Cross-gender behavior was also common and not banned at the time. You want a judge that shares the same bias that you do and you want to hide that bigotry behind the claim of originalism. I can make the originalist claim that the ownership of semi-automatic weapons was not mentioned at the time of the 2nd amendment and they must also be banned.
Any decision by the SCOTUS can be claimed to be legislating from the bench, and that includes your support of denying women and LGBT people equal rights. You want to filter the rights of others through your own conservative biases because you don't think that they are your equals and are undeserving of the same rights that you enjoy.
The 14th was never limited to just equal rights for former slaves. They said that any person and not just black Americans. Are rights apply to all people equally, regardless of your agreement. If it applied to only black Americans then that could have easily been stated as such.
Homosexuality and gender identity are innate to the person and is not a choice, any more that heterosexuality is. They are not second-class citizens just because of your opinions. Is anal sex among heterosexuals also a perversion to be banned?
Actually that's not correct epistte. If I remember correctly the 14th amendment was passed in 1868, it wasn't until 1924 that American Indians were made citizens and at that time the ''all rights'' were kinda passed to Indians.
No, what it means is that the states need at a minimum a rational basis in order to deny equal protection to an individual or to a class of persons. And as we've repeatedly seen there is no rational basis for the sharia laws which bible-babbling Christian extremists try to use our government to enforce. That's why those superstitious loons have lost on all these issues.
.
We've discussed your disorders in this area before. Needless to say there is no support for your peculiar views in medical science or in the constitution or our laws. SCOTUS also rejects your bizarre theory.
.
That's a completely inaccurate representation of the issue according to the Congressional record. Perhaps you should read it some time? Your notion that the 14th Amendment was only about race is not only wrong based on the text of the Amendment and the record, but it's a view held primarily by white supremacists.
Yeah, apparently they didn't even consider mixed-race marriage which was illegal for the same reasons. But that's the great thing about how those Amendments were written - they were designed to protect not just the liberty of all but in particular the liberty of disfavored minorities. As Justice Kennedy so wisely noted: "Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
.
It's also worth noting that your comments reveal a true obsession with the private consensual sex lives of other people, something only a theocrat and a nosy busybody would have any interest in. It's certainly not an appropriate area for a secular government to interfere or restrict. It also shows that you've confused the property and kinship rights of marriage with sex. That's truly bizarre.
The native tribes were not considered to be citizens or eligible to become citizens until 1924.
I believe that is what I said in my comment. The 14th amendment didn't apply to us so not all people were covered by the 14th. Actually Indians were not considered ''people'' until 1879 when Standing Bear gave one of the great civil rights speech's in U.S. history..''I am a Man''.
I was merely saying in my previous reply that the 14th wasn't extended to what is hadn't been originally designed to cover. The native tribes have long been considered to be second-class citizens in the US and unfortunately, that sentiment continues to this day in the eyes of many.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th is central to the idea of equal rights for all people in the US, so that critical statement of equality cannot be permitted to be rolled back to applying only to former slaves and African-Americans by a revisionist originalist interpretation of the US Constitution.
Ok, got it....Thanks
I hope that I didn't offend you because that was certainly not my goal. I am very sorry if I did.
The federal government had nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. The bill of rights is a limitation on the federal government. The states retain the authority to exercise all sovereign powers except to the extent that it violates the constitution. Prohibiting same sex marriage cannot violate the letter or even the spirit of the constitution since nobody ever considered legitimizing the marriage of two same sex people.
You have it ass backwards. My starting point is the language in the constitution not my personal opinion of gay people. .
Of course it was known. It was a criminal act.
If the behavior led ro engaging in sodomy, then it was a criminal act at the time.
My view is based on facts, not bias, while your view is just the opposite. As for the second amendment, it refers to “arms” and all arms can fall under the general meaning if that word.
You can claim anything but the question to me is whether the words in the constitution can reasonably be interpreted to mean a particular thing and that’s based on intent. If all our words today mean the opposite of what they meant at the time of the constitution, surely you would not claim that the current meaning governs. For instance, if the words at the time meant “moving forward”, I assume that you would not claim that because they now mean the opposite today, that people have a constitutional right to go backwards.
The lynch pin is the word “equal protection” which implies that people need to be first similarly situated. Homosexuals are not similarly situated because it’s a deviant behavior p.
Your view is supported by some psychologists but psychology is not now, nor has it ever been, a medical science.
You are confused. I’ll explain. Both the 13th and 14th amendments were enacted during the reconstruction period following the civil war. In response to the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, racists enacted black codes throughout the south to effectively keep blacks as second class citizens. That sparked Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The south continued to resist and many thought another amendment would be necessary so they drafted the 14th amendment. The south resisted ratification but Republicans made ratification a condition for the southern states regaining representation in Congress. Section 1 of the 14th amendment was specifically written to rebuke the SCOTUS decision in the Dred Scott case where the court said that a black man could not be a citizen even if born free. Section 1 says all men born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. Each section was designed to negate the black codes.
I didn’t say roll it back so it only applies to blacks. In order to interpret it, you have to understand intent.
It seems the courts don't share your bizarre view at all, nor do the vast majority of Americans. In fact same-sex couples have the exact same interests in marriage as opposite-sex couples. So do their dependents.
That's really the bottom line......folks like you were unable to provide even one legitimate state purpose to deny same-sex couples the same marital rights which opposite-sex couples enjoy. I guess that's why the courts say that your views are irrational, just as irrational as the views against mixed-race marriage which were held by racist bible-babblers 50 years ago.
.
In fact the Congressional record proves you wrong since they considered and rejected restricting the 14th Amendment to racial issues alone, and instead deliberately adopted the broad language which it contains. And that's precisely how the courts have used it rather than the way you want. Too bad, so sad. I suggest you learn a little about John Bingham and the role he played in formulating the text.
It was well known that Alexander Hamilton was a gay man.
Under your claim, he would have been arrested after it was ratified. You have an obvious problem with LGBT people and equal rights for minorities and are trying to go to any length to enforce your bigotry under the claim of originalism and "states rights". Cars and the internet were also not envisioned in 1795 so you need to get off the net and sell your car and your cell phone. I'd suggest that you buy a nice low mileage horse for your transportation needs.
Under your religious idea any sex that isn't procreative would be sodomy, so you need to build a lot more jails and find a way to pay for state-issued chastity belts. How do you plan to enforce your puritanical extremism?
How are you or anyone else harmed by LGBT marriage? You need to prove that you have been harmed by LGBT marriage if you want to seek a remedy from the government.
Under your idea of supposed states rights, 75% of SCOTUS decisions would be invalid because they ruled on issues of rights of citizens that were violated by state level laws. Your fundamentalist idea would throw the US legal system and the Constitution into a crisis because of your extremism that you likely claim seeks freedom. I suggest that you go live with the Amish if you want to turn the country back to the time when the Constitution was written.
The incorporation doctrine is the 14th Amendment invalidates most of your claims of states rights to being outside the purview of the SCOTUS so do you also want to throw that out as well? Do you have a degree in political science or the law?
Your euphemism is understood. You want to pick and choose it it applies to according to your personal biases.
Which is why we need conservative judges.
So might polygamists and people who want to marry their parents.
The state’s purpose only comes into play in depriving someone of a constitutional right. To assume it’s a constitutional right and then say the state must show a compelling interest begs the question. Once the liberal activists are excreted from the court, they won’t be there to say anything further.
I didn’t say the language of the 14th amendment limits its application to racial issues alone. What I provided was the purpose of the 14th amendment as context for understanding intent. The idea was to give blacks and others the same rights enjoyed by whites so everyone was treated equally. Whites did not have same sex marriages nor was there any intent whatsoever to change the definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman or legalize sodomy. Your interpretation (and the liberal activists’ view) leads to the nonsensical notion that because “marriage” was a privilege but wasn’t defined, then the 14th amendment gives people a constitutional right to engage in any kind of marriage. It doesn’t.
Stop with the slippery slope fallacies because both polygamy and incest are banned. Polygamy was banned before Utah became a state.
Incest marriages are not permitted,
.
What secular right have you been deprived of because LGBT people have the right to marry their consenting adult partner? The core concept of freedom is the right to act unless there is a compelling state interest to prevent that action. You do not support freedom because you want to define the rights of others by a literalist reading of a document that was never and could never have been a complete listing of our rights. The idea that it was a literal list of our rights would be both impossible and absurd because of the concept of freedom.
That doesn’t mean he was gay simply because he said he loved another man. I love my parents and my brothers but I’m not “in love with them” nor do I want to marry them. In any event, sodomy was still illegal and men didn’t marry each other.
It wasn’t illegal to love anybody.
If the right isn’t there, then I can’t see it. If you see what isn’t there, then you have a problem not me.
If a law specifically uses the word “horse” then you can’t apply it to a car. On the other hand, if it uses the words “any means of conveyance” then it applies to cars even if cars didn’t exist at the time.
Religion has nothing to do with it. Sodomy was defined by statute and illegal at the time. I mentioned it as context for understanding the constitution. Nobody’s talking about enforcing a sodomy law today but you.
No I don’t. I’m not harmed by anybody marrying a dog or his mother but that doesn’t mean you have a constitutional right to do it. Try it and see what happens.
States have thousands of laws that don’t rise to the level of a constitutional question at all. Your crisis is a fantasy l
All the doctrine of incorporation does is read the bill of rights (applicabke to the federal government) through the 14th amendment to make it applicable to the states. That still doesn’t mean that a same sex marriage is a constitutional right.
Unless it was a 18th-century bro'mance, Alexander Hamiton was gay. Get over it. Gio live with the Amish if you want to live by puritanical religious beliefs. Their numbers are declining so I'm sure they would welcome a convert.
Gay marriage was not uncommon more than 2000 years ago among the Greeks and Romans, so why does it bother you now?
James Buchanan was our first gay POTUS,
Abraham Lincoln was bisexual.
That is not proof that anybody was “gay” and it’s irrelevant anyway. My point was that sodomy was illegal and it was. The state of the law at that time is an incontrovertible historical fact.
Any ruling banning polygamy is on shaky ground if the 14th amendment means that people have some unqualified constitutional right to marry. If such a right exists, then there is no greater compelling state interest in banning polygamy than there is in banning a same-sex marriage.
Neither were same-sex marriages.
No, the state only has to show a compelling state interest to abridge a right if the right exists in the first place. The right to same-sex marriage didn’t exist for anyone. The idea that the 14th amendment was equalizing a right for everyone that nobody actually had is illogical.
Marriage is a secular contract between only 2 people.
Why are you obsessed with sodomy? Sodomy is a religious idea that was unenforceable except if it happened in public and it wasn't enforced if it happened between heterosexuals. The Lawrence v. Texas decision made it irrelevant.
What is your problem with LGBT people? Are you on a religious crusade to eliminate them? Should they be punished for being born LGBT?
Marriage has long been ruled to be an inherent right of the people, so what is the compeling interest to deny LGBT people that right, when the decision for interracial marriage is the very same legal argument as LGBT marriage? Do you also want to deny interracial couples the right to marry if you believe that marriage is strictly a religious idea? Shouild we also ban interfaith couples as well as those who are infertile, if you believe that sex is only for procreation?
this statement seems to show a severe ignorance on how the secular legal contract of Marriage operates and Marriage's primary purpose legally. Why are so many people (married or not) unaware of what Marriage actually does ? i suppose if you are upset over same sex marriage and it's ruling - then you must really be angry over mixed race marriage and it's ruling, huh ?
He just cannot stand them goddamned queers being allowed to marry. It's icky!
How dare they be able to marry the one they love? How dare they!!!!!!!
Lots of heterosexuals engage in anal sex. A lot of homosexuals DO NOT engage in anal sex.
what,
u mean it's not
REquired ...?
Admittedly it's not my cup of tea but to each their own.
I think that its a pain in the a**.
That joke was too easy.
No surprise that the racists made the exact same moronic arguments 50 years ago against mixed-race marriage. Are you taking cues from them?
.
You mean like denying them equal protection of the law without a legitimate secular state purpose? Or do you mean denying them a fundamental right like marriage?
.
Nowhere does the 14th Amendment restrict equal protection to racial issues alone, nor does it deny equal protection to gays. So your argument won't fly based on the text alone, nor would it fly with any conservative who claims to be an "originalist". Instead it seems that you're trying to read the US constitution through the lens of your sharia laws.
woodn't it take too to tangle in this tango missed whole debacle ?
The entire hearing was a joke. They asked one question after another that they already knew he couldn't answer, it was nothing more than partisan BS. But I hear Gulliani is happy to see so many new members of trumps defense team. The right seems to forget that Strozk was also one of the lead investigators of the Benghazi hearings...all of them. So can we say that he was biased towards Clinton and prevented her from winning the election? No? Yea, didn't think so.
Thank you for being honest. Voted up.
I will be honest and say that I don't like Kavanaugh because of his continual rulings of business interest over worker concerns.
Time for sleep...night all.
Peter Strzok made history today when he was given a Purple Heart by the Democrats for lying to Congress!!!
That is a 3rd rate photoshop attempt. They were too lazy to clean up the obvious black border.
Maybe they will award Trey Gowdy a merit of the bone spur for going above and beyond in the defense of Comrade Trump.
So you didnn't believe Strozk either, huh? I truly am shocked.
Cheers on the 'pithy' comment. /s
Another ridiculous farce just like Benghazi! Of course law enforcement people have opinions, everyone has opinions, and every normal, fair-minded person has a negative opinion of Trump.
Yup, especially when they are investigating people they hate. The main thing is that we learned so much from Peter Strzok. First we learned about the people of southern Virginia. Strzok told his girlfriend (Miss Gum disease) that he went to a Walmart in Southern Virginia and could "SMELL" the Trump support. When asked about the comment, he explained that "SMELL" was a bad choice of a word. What he really meant was that he was surprised to see the political difference between northern Virginia and a mere 150 miles away in southern Virginia. Evidently he means the difference between the average hard working people of southern Virginia and the well educated, over paid government employee elitists who inhabit what has now become a suburb of DC.
Then we learned that when he assured his girlfriend that "We will stop Trump", he really meant that "We the people" would do it, not him, the man in control of the investigation.
We also learned that If Strzok had thought that these messages between his girlfriend and himself were ever going to be exposed, he never would have done it! He was quite brazen about it, using FBI devices. Oh, I know, he thought Hillary would win and nobody would have known any of this.
Well Peter, all I can say is that your'e lucky that you still have a job with the FBI. Your'e also lucky that every time anyone was putting you in a trap, some democrat would scream "point of order"!
You have to survive one more IG investigation, Peter.
This surprised him and he is an FBI agent? How could he be an FBI agent, supposedly well trained, intelligent and generally aware of his surroundings, and not understand the difference between Northern Virginia and the rest of the state?
Yup, and another thing we learned is how accurate those text's were in describing the man who wrote them. He kept denying that his comments weren't biased even though that fact was undeniable. We learned that many democrats in congress share the same bias, as they attempted to obstruct any inquiry into the matter. We learned that the DOJ is still obstructing by not letting him answer the most trivial questions. We, at the very least, did learn that Bruce Ohr, husband of Fusion GPS operative Nellie Ohr, gave documents to the FBI related to the Russia case.
Still it's what we don't know that taints the Mueller investigation.
Whatever was it that prompted the FBI to launch the investigation?
When did it really begin?
What effect did people like Strzok, Page, and the Ohrs have on it?
Maybe the next IG report can shed some light on it. At least we know how democrats are going to act every time Congress tries to answer these questions.
"has turned into a circus."
Strzok deserves a "Purple Heart" .
IF THE REPETITIVE INSULTS DONT STOP, I AM CLOSING THIS ARTICLE
Go ahead, you've got numerous articles to attend to.
and then? lisa page flips on everyone...
Rep. John Ratcliffe reveals Lisa Page admitted her text messages with Peter Strzok “mean exactly what they say,” contrary to Strzok’s testimony
wonder no more. now you can get some sleep
bad link above... try this one
How so and WHO is 'everyone'? BTFW, WHY should we believe ANYTHING coming out of the House committees?
Oh and even if the texts do 'mean exactly what they say', there is NO evidence that either Page or Strzok took and any bias ACTIONS.
If Page's legal counsel allowed her to answer specific questions about specific texts, it clearly infers that that she had NO legal exposure. Think about that for a second...
"she" has no legal exposure... she talked to keep it that way. everyone else involved? is now fuked.
the coup attempt was exposed by a love strzok woman... how cliche.
I personally do not care what you believe.
cheers
Ridiculous.
Since you pretend to know the content of the testimony, you tell me.
'coup attempt'? If that were so, why didn't she just pick up the phone and call David Corn?
I already did.
all ya gotta do now is just sit back and watch
Watch what?
the removal of evil from the halls of power and the rebirth of our nation.
trust me, it will be good fun for everyone
Lead by Trump, McConnell and Ryan?
You should write comedy...