╌>

On the Ropes

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  83 comments

On the Ropes
Mr. Biden said the decision means "any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law."

Last night and angry, jacked up Joe Biden condemned the SCOTUS. It seems that the Court got so fed up with the lawfare directed at a former President that they took on a case they normally would have shied away from. It was the politicized DOJ and a handful of ideologically driven prosecutors that brought this issue to the SCOTUS. The Court found that Presidents do actually have limited immunity. The decision was a bit stronger than some had thought. The three leftist justices were the dissenting voices. The decision was one for the hereafter and thus future President's will no longer have to worry about being prosecuted for policy decisions after they leave office. In the context of Monday’s Supreme Court decision, the Court found that Presidents are absolutely immune to prosecution for actions taken while exercising their “core constitutional powers,” and entitled to the presumption of immunity for their official acts. It does not provide a shield for private or unofficial acts.

It will now be up to the trial judge in the lower court case against Trump, the very judge who has been so friendly to the prosecution, to now hold hearings on whether the charges against Trump were based on official acts by the then-president or unofficial ones. It will be a time-consuming process and presents another obstacle to the illegally appointed Jack Smith. For Joe Biden it is yet another gut punch coming after his debate disaster.

In his divisive, angry speech last night Biden put a target on the back of the SCOTUS while lying about January 6, lying about Donald Trump, and lying about what the Supreme Court ruled yesterday. He and his fellow democrats are willing to destroy the reputation of the Court simply to maintain power. In a speech that was clearly written by someone else, we can only wonder who, Biden not only attacked the Court, but inadvertently made it obvious to any rational human being that it was he who unleashed the DOJ and all these rogue prosecutors against Trump. Biden is only left with trying to defame Trump and responding to all the events now coming back to haunt him. It is now obvious to everyone that lawfare was a democrat campaign strategy (one that bit them in the ass) and unless something strange happens in the next 4 months, Biden is the underdog in the 2024 election.


In other news:

 House Republicans have sued AG Merrick Garland and asked a federal judge to force him to turn over audio of Biden’s interview with the special counsel who investigated his handling of classified documents. The DOJ doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

As Israel’s military runs low on munitions, some Israeli Generals now want a cease fire in Gaza. Gee, how did they run low on munitions?

Large flows of investment have helped turn Ukraine into a Silicon Valley for autonomous drones and fueled a potential new era of killer robots.

The Netherlands swore in its first Conservative government today, after nearly 14 years under its previous prime minister.

The defeat of Emmanuel Macron’s party in the first round of parliamentary elections has effectively dissolved his center-left party. 

The judge declared a mistrial in the case of Karen Read, who was accused of killing her boyfriend, a Boston police officer.

A significant heat wave will begin in California today, and forecasters said high temperatures would last well through the holiday weekend.

In litigation involving the FDA’s approval process for the medication abortion drug mifepristone, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the plaintiff-doctors and medical associations lacked standing to challenge the FDA’s actions regarding mifepristone, thus taking it off the table for the Biden campaign.


Tags

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

Good morning

GRcLL6qaYAAF14W?format=jpg&name=small

Question of the day: Was Joe Biden's attack on the SCOTUS a threat to democracy?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

I did smile when I read this:

"He and his fellow democrats are willing to destroy the reputation of the Court simply to maintain power."

Reputation?  What reputation?   Allowing a Justice to sit who has already Accepted millions of dollars in "gifts" has already destroyed the court's reputation.  So now, the POTUS is entitled to "officially" commit murder wtihout penalty.  Oh, how I wish I were a fly on the wall of the Justices' common room of the Supreme Court of Canada.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1    2 weeks ago
So now, the POTUS is entitled to "officially" commit murder wtihout penalty.

Heard of extra judicial drone killings? They were very popular with Bush Jr, Obama, Trump, and now Biden. Obama even had two US citizens killed w/o due process using drone strikes. Are any of them ever going to be held accountable- even when they hit the wrong target and killed civilians?

But the left has jumped the shark and is never coming back if they think this ruling allows a President to simply kill US citizens. Or doesn't allow presidents to be held accountable for violating the law. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1.2  George  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
Obama,

"It turns out that I'm really good at killing people"

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1.3  George  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1    2 weeks ago
Allowing a Justice to sit who has already Accepted millions of dollars in "gifts" has already destroyed the court's reputation.

Are you talking about Sotomayer who took millions of dollars from a publisher and then refused to recuse herself from a case involving said publisher?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  George @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

Democrats/leftists aren't held to the same standards. What are you thinking!?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  George @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

He was better at it than Bush Jr and Trump. 

Can't tell with Biden as they have clammed up about their "Over the horizon" extrajudicial drone killings after that Afghanistan debacle post withdrawal; where they killed (executed is a better word) an ally aid worker and his family. They didn't even apologize for their mistake- just an "Oops, and we will try to get the remaining family members out of Afghanistan."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1    2 weeks ago

I hate to say it, but 50 years of activism couldn't diminish the Court, so why does a fair ruling?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.6    one week ago

I'd venture to say that maybe the previous courts were made up of justices who weren't so corrupt or biased.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    one week ago

When Obama became POTUS I thought it was a great moment for America.  Unfortunately I eventually learned to be disappointed. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  George @1.1.3    one week ago

If that's true, it only helps prove my opinion that the court is corrupt, and political loyalties are not a factor.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.7    one week ago

They were ideologues. The worst kind of corruption.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.8    one week ago
When Obama became POTUS I thought it was a great moment for America.

Why?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.11    one week ago

Why?  On TV I watched him speak at the Democratic National Convention which really impressed me, and I thought then he could be a great PotUS.  At his inauguration I heard or read Dubya who attended say he was there to watch history being made, and when the camera zeroed in on Oprah with tears streaming down her face it made me tear up as well and I thought then that America was really making its high mark in history.  But eventually, with some of the things, one of which was stabbing Israel in the back, I lost it.  Until Trump, every PotUS promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but never kept their promise.  Only Trump kept the promise he made and although I would never vote for him, I give him credit for keeping that promise. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1.12    one week ago

That DNC Convention was in Boston in 2004 I believe. That same speech impressed me too. It was then I knew that he would eventually be a Presidential candidate and if he was, he would be hard to beat. I can understand people getting emotional, especially black Americans over it, and the first time he ran in 2008, he was the beneficiary of the "October surprise" with the financial crisis/housing crisis of 2008. He could have been a great President. Instead, he divided the country, politicized the federal government and tried to move the country to the left. He also was the first President to have issues with the Israeli government.

All of that being said, it would seem that the only thing that fulfilled it being a great moment was America electing a black President. 

As you point out: 

 But eventually, with some of the things, one of which was stabbing Israel in the back, I lost it.  Until Trump, every PotUS promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but never kept their promise.  Only Trump kept the promise he made and although I would never vote for him, I give him credit for keeping that promise. 

Some may ask, based on that alone, why you would never vote for Trump. I however know the answer to that why.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

"Rage has again replaced reason as commentators race to the bottom in reckless rhetoric. The threats and attacks will not work. The court is designed to stand against everyone and everything except for the Constitution. It was forged for this moment." .... Jonathan Turley

wPg5UEiZ?format=jpg&name=360x360

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

R ep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) said Monday he will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court ruling issued Monday, which largely shields former presidents from criminal prosecution for actions in office.

“I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS’ harmful decision and ensure that no president is above the law. This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy,” Morelle wrote  on the social platform X .

New York Dem will introduce amendment to reverse Supreme Court immunity ruling (msn.com)

Let us all wish him good luck with that.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    2 weeks ago

They seem to forget that the ruling, which was issued according to the Constitution and the law, will help Biden when the time comes for him to be investigated for high crimes, misdemeanors, and acts of treason.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1    2 weeks ago

The ironic part of it is that Joe Biden is probably the biggest beneficiary of that ruling.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1    2 weeks ago
They seem to forget that the ruling, which was issued according to the Constitution and the law

Which part of the Constitution gives POTUS the right to break the laws of this country?  Care to cite those parts?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

Care to site what laws were broken?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
3.1.4  charger 383  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

A police officer can speed to give you a speeding ticket

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution referring to presidential immunity to the ramifications of criminal conduct. The right wing court made it up out of thin air. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
3.1.6  George  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    2 weeks ago

So you are for indicting Obama for conspiracy to commit murder? or if your outrage limited to just trump?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  George @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

If you think you can get Obama convicted for that, go for it. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.2    2 weeks ago
Which part of the Constitution gives POTUS the right to break the laws of this country? 

Have you always been a strict Constructionist?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.8    2 weeks ago

Have you always been a strict Constructionist?

You are now the 3rd person to reply to my question, yet none have even tried to answer.  That should be answer enough, there is nothing in the Constitution about Presidential immunity, and you all know that which is why you are evading and deflecting from the question.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.1.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.9    2 weeks ago
there is nothing in the Constitution about Presidential immunity, and you all know that which is why you are evading and deflecting from the question.

The word “privacy” does not appear anyone in the Constitution, do you have a right to privacy?

The phrase "The separation of church and state" doesn't appear either, do you believe in the separation?

What about the right to remain silent?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.10    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.10    one week ago

You seem to be confused again.  I am asking where in the Constitution it states that a President can break the laws in this country.  Nowhere have I asked for a verbatim quote.

Either answer the question or don't, but stop trying to evade and deflect.  It just shows your ignorance in the matter.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.1.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.12    one week ago
You seem to be confused again.

No.

I am asking where in the Constitution it states that a President can break the laws in this country.  Nowhere have I asked for a verbatim quote.

You questioned implies that if an activity or freedom isn't discussed in the Constitution, it doesn't exist.

Either answer the question or don't, but stop trying to evade and deflect. 

I've done neither.

 It just shows your ignorance in the matter.

Perhaps, I've had long standing issues with the imperial presidency and I think that SCOTUS went way to far with this one.  It's not the first time that SCOTUS had made a dubious decision.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.13    one week ago
You questioned implies that if an activity or freedom isn't discussed in the Constitution, it doesn't exist.

SCOTUS has ruled that it does.  SCOTUS only addresses Constitutional questions.

I've done neither.

If you truly believe that, then your reading comprehension is lacking.

Perhaps, I've had long standing issues with the imperial presidency and I think that SCOTUS went way to far with this one.

Yet in all your comments, you have never stated or implied that.  SCOTUS has taken the 1st step into turning the Presidency into a dictatorship.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    2 weeks ago

A solution looking for a problem.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  author  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Joy Reid is not coping well with the latest events.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
4.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    2 weeks ago

She doesn't cope well with the smell of air.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1    2 weeks ago

Too bad, she could sure use it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.2  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    2 weeks ago

Yep, such an angry, nasty thing.    
Only a matter of time before her crashing ratings shit can her “show” for good.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @4.2    2 weeks ago

She has now gone to a crew cut

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5  Sparty On    2 weeks ago

What a maroon!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago
 The decision was one for the hereafter and thus future President's will no longer have to worry about being prosecuted for policy decisions after they leave office.

Now we are in pure fantasy land

'Say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me'

Donald Trump to DOJ officials.

-

That evidence has now been barred by the corrupt Supreme Court, one of which members flies traitor flag over his house, and another whose wife was urging on the Trump steal of the election. She is , by the way, the Supreme Court justices "best friend". 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6    2 weeks ago
That evidence has now been barred by the corrupt Supreme Court,

Is that kept with the J6 committee, Russia Collusion and Inciting A Riot evidence?  Asking for a friend.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1    2 weeks ago

Since you know absolutely nothing about the J6 committee findings there's no sense and no reason to make a reply to you

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
Since you know absolutely nothing about the J6 committee findings there's no sense 

So, it is with all that fictional / deleted "evidence".  Good to know.

and no reason to make a reply to you

And yet here you are.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

you are in over your head

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

No.  Just not falling for your attempt to gaslight me into your point of view.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.5    2 weeks ago

not one of you do, or can, address what i said

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.4    2 weeks ago
'Say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me'
-
Donald Trump to DOJ officials.

that is not gaslighting, it is the fact

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.7    2 weeks ago

No link, nothing to back up your claims and you actually expect me to believe that?

Do better.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.8    2 weeks ago
it’s been done many times here.

Really? this is what i said

Now we are in pure fantasy land

'Say The Election Was Corrupt And Leave The Rest To Me'

Donald Trump to DOJ officials.

-

That evidence has now been barred by the corrupt Supreme Court, one of which members flies traitor flag over his house, and another whose wife was urging on the Trump steal of the election. She is , by the way, the Supreme Court justices "best friend". 

Please point to even one of the replies to me that addresses what i said

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.9    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.9    2 weeks ago

I have literally posted  thousands of more links on this forum than you have.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.13  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

You know even less.

You believe a produced for prime time, highly edited, over coached witnesses, and only TDS suffering morons on the committee is reality.

They presented only evidence that fit their narrative.

They purposely withheld any evidence or testimony that ran counter to that narrative.

Then they tried to hide or destroy the evidence to keep it from getting out.

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.13    2 weeks ago
You believe a produced for prime time, highly edited, over coached witnesses, and only TDS suffering morons on the committee is reality.

Keep spouting nonsense like that and people will start comparing you to Joe Biden.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.12    2 weeks ago
I have literally posted  thousands of more links on this forum than you have

We've all seen your "smoking gun" and "we got him now" articles that amounted to nothing.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.14    2 weeks ago
They presented only evidence that fit their narrative.

Trump has had three and a half years to present his side of the story.  So far nada. 

He was asked at the debate about his inaction after the riot was underway and he immediately tried to change the subject to the border and Nancy Pelosi.  He is a piece of shit. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.11    2 weeks ago

Somebody's notes?  Really? 

Donoghue told the committee Thursday that was a “direct quote” from the then-president, according to his notes.

So you are relying on something somebody told somebody that told somebody?  Are we playing "Telephone"?

Do better.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.17    2 weeks ago

talking to you is an utter waste of time. unfortunately this happens a lot on newstalkers

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.18    2 weeks ago

All I'm asking you to do a simple task.  You claim you've posted "thousands" of links.  If that is truly the case, you should have no problem using them to complete that simple task.  Just keep in mind, I, and others will call you on it every time. 

Delving into childish comments like "talking to you is an utter waste of time" will cause people to interact with you as you present yourself.  Act like a child, you'll be treated as a child.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.19    2 weeks ago
You claim you've posted "thousands" of links. 

people have posted hundreds of links about jan 6th on this website, BUT , every time, you claim no one has any evidence against trump. 

it is a shame this sort of garbage is continuously allowed on newstalkers

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.21  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.20    2 weeks ago

Once again.  You claim you've posted "thousands" of links.  If that is truly the case, you should have no problem using them to complete that simple task.  Just keep in mind, I, and others will call you on it every time. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.22  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.14    2 weeks ago

You have no credibility left after buying the Russia collusion hoax hook line and sinker.

Point out which part of the statement is not factual?

The Jan 6th committee was hand picked by Pelosi to get Trump at all costs. All of the members hated Trump beyond call (hence the TDS).

The panel comprises seven Democrats and two Republicans all appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She previously   rejected   several GOP members originally selected for the panel by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy — Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio — citing "statements and actions" made by the pair that she felt would "impact the integrity of the committee." Both Banks and Jordan had publicly expressed concerns over the panel itself. McCarthy called Pelosi's move "an egregious abuse of power" and pulled all of his picks from the panel. The two Republicans who Pelosi appointed — Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger — have paid a high political price for their participation. And Cheney had already lost her top post within her party before the appointment.

Pelosi hired a tv executive/producer to edit it so it was ready for prime time and stayed on message

A group of House Republicans questioned Wednesday whether the committee investigating the   Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol   violated rules when it hired a former news executive.

The five representatives wrote in a letter to the committee's Democratic leadership that they are seeking confirmation that former ABC News president James Goldston is working for the committee.   Axios   first reported Monday that Goldston is an "unannounced advisor" to the committee, which is holding the first of at least six public hearings in a rare prime-time session Thursday. 

The Republicans wrote that they are unaware of whether a required letter requesting approval of Goldston's hiring has been submitted to the Committee on House Administration.

"To our knowledge, the Committee has not received or considered such a request," wrote the representatives, who include Committee on House Administration Ranking Member Rodney Davis, and four others who in July 2021 were recommended by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to join the Jan. 6 committee. Those recommendations were later   rescinded   by McCarthy after Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two of the five, Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Jim Banks.

The Republicans noted in their letter that Goldston would be barred from working for the Jan. 6 committee for free.

Only you believe the committee didn't coach witnesses. Especially their star witness- who wasn't a witness at all. She just had hearsay testimony.

Still think the Jan 6th committee didn't hide evidence that disproved their narrative; and try to destroy it once the investigation was over.

Keep posting the same bullshit TDS driven articles over and over and people will start to accusing you of a being a bought and paid for Democrat shill.

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.23  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.22    2 weeks ago

No, congressman did not say J6 panel destroyed records | Fact check (usatoday.com)

The claim: Jan. 6 House committee was caught destroying records

An Aug. 9 Facebook post ( direct link ,   archive link ) shows clips of several members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“Now that the J6 Unselect Committee has been caught destroying their records, let’s see what they said in their own words about destroying evidence during their made-for-TV show trial of President Trump,” reads part of the post.

It was shared more than 300 times in 12 days. Similar versions of the claim have been shared on other social media platforms   by former President   Donald Trump   and by   Rep. Lauren Boebert , a Colorado Republican.

Follow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks

Our rating: False

The Republican congressman overseeing the investigation into the committee’s work has not said any records were destroyed, and there have been no reputable reports of such destruction. What Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia did say is that some video recordings are missing, and he does not know what happened to them.

Committee provided transcripts of some interviews, depositions

The issue centers on   the whereabouts   of some video recordings   of interviews and depositions from   the committee’s investigation   into the riot at the Capitol   on Jan. 6, 2021. The committee   issued its final report in December 2022   before it disbanded.

Loudermilk and   Rep. Bennie Thompson , the Mississippi Democrat who chaired the Jan. 6 committee, traded letters in June and July.

Loudermilk wrote   that some recordings were not archived or transferred to the Committee on House Administration. Written transcripts of them were provided, however.

House Rule VII   outlines the requirements for preserving House records at the end of each two-year term, and   a footnote to Thompson’s response to Loudermilk   outlines why Thompson says those written transcripts comply with that rule.

The committee was not obligated to archive all video recordings of interviews or depositions that were transcribed, he wrote. He cited guidance from the House clerk’s office that says the information contained in a document – and not necessarily that document’s format – make it a permanent record.

Because those interviews and depositions were transcribed by “nonpartisan, professional official reporters” and were reviewed for errors by both the witnesses and committee staff, those transcripts qualify as the official, permanent records and follow House rules for record-keeping, he wrote.

Fact check :   Debunking false narratives about the Jan. 6 Capitol riot two years later

Nowhere in the letter does Loudermilk say the recordings were destroyed. There are no reputable news reports that he made that claim and no evidence of the destruction of the records.

“Whether the missing information has been destroyed, was sent to other entities or is still in the possession of members of Congress from the select committee is uncertain at this time,” Loudermilk said in an emailed statement to USA TODAY.

Adam Comis, a spokesperson for the   Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee , called the claim in question “very much false.” Thompson is the ranking member of that panel.

USA TODAY also reached out to the social media users who shared the claim but did not immediately receive responses.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.24  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.12    one week ago

And none of them with any evidence of Trump wrongdoing. I say Trump because pretty much every one of your seeds are about him.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6    2 weeks ago

Joe Biden would surely have been prosecuted when he left office for leaving the border open.

You should be thanking the Court.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

Donald Trump is the only President to have been indicted and prosecuted simply because every other President has had blanket immunity from prosecution.  No longer.  Obtaining a legal basis for prosecuting Trump has established a limitation on the Presidency.  (At least until liberals stack the courts again.)

Next question, does a President have a right to blanket executive privilege?  If unofficial actions are no longer immune from prosecution then why should a President be allowed to obstruct those prosecutions by claiming executive privilege?

SCOTUS has threatened the imperial nature of the Presidency that has become the status quo.  Of course Joe Biden is angry since the autocratic power of the Presidency has now been limited.  Biden is now at risk of prosecution, too.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @7    2 weeks ago

Yep, once again liberals actions weaken the union.    Problem is too many of them are either too dim and/or full of hate to make the connection.

Must suck to be them.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @7.1    2 weeks ago
Yep, once again liberals actions weaken the union.    Problem is too many of them are either too dim and/or full of hate to make the connection.

Liberals have stacked the courts to shield them from the same legal arguments they use against opponents.  That's why Trump scares the shit out of liberals.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

800

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
8.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @8    2 weeks ago

Opinions will vary.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.2  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @8    2 weeks ago

A complete load of partisan garbage.    Nothing more, nothing less.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @8    2 weeks ago

Leftists are making it easier and easier for me to never vote for any Democrat again.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Ronin2 @8.3    2 weeks ago

When you are forced to eat a shit sandwich, it’s preferable to eat only the shitty bread and not the shit.

This election is a lot like that with Trump as the bread and Biden as the shit.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @8    one week ago

After reading sototmayors dissent, I finally agree with Laurence tribe About something,   Her appeal is only for diversity purposes, she’s really not that smart and her hysterical impulses only make the “conservatives” look smarter by comparison.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
9  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 weeks ago
Mr. Biden said the decision means "any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law."

That is pretty funny coming from President Open Border, debt cancellation and mass amnesty for illegals and terrorists.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9.1  Ronin2  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9    2 weeks ago

Biden already has ignored multiple Supreme Court rulings with his rental/loan payment hold at the end of Covid (yes it was a Trump EO/EA; but Biden is the one that extended twice- once after the Supreme Court ruled against it); and his student loan forgiveness programs. 

Democrats have no problems breaking laws whenever they want to.

They also have no problem weaponizing the government at every level against anyone they don't agree with.

But they are the first ones to scream the second there is any attempt to hold Democrats/leftists accountable. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1    2 weeks ago
They also have no problem weaponizing the government at every level against anyone they don't agree with.

And anybody with a functioning brain sees that it's been happening for at least 8 years now.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
10  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Biden’s speechwriter/Puppet master is either an idiot or he thinks the people who pay attention to Biden are.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
11  Nerm_L    one week ago

Dope on a Rope.  Hey, that's kinda catchy.  

Maybe that explains the travails of Biden's handlers.  He's a slippery old sucker.

256

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
12  Sean Treacy    one week ago

i see he now claiming his international trip two weeks previously was the cause of his incoherence.   A literal week at a resort of  not working before 11;00 am with afternoon naps just wasn’t enough.

He thinks this helps him.

It’s impossible for a person who cares about this country to risk another four years of this insanity.

 
 

Who is online

MonsterMash


55 visitors