Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Cheney voted with Trump's agenda more often than did Matt Gaetz or Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) who McCarthy and others pushed to assume conference chair responsibilities claiming she wasn't as good for th

That's actually good. Killing your babies is a writing not so much piece of advice but inevitability. I think it refers mostly to scriptwriters who have a bit that's funny that they just love but

Trump and his dipshit fuckwads are solely responsible for the riot. The damage caused by the riot and the response to the riot can be debated. Trump and everyone of his little minions should be in jai

Posted Images

And you are a moron

 

the bullshit after the dash does not change the nature of the message an iota. It’s just bullshit following incontrovertible evidence of election fraud by anyone who acted on it or intended it to be acted upon

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another innocent person trying to hide their innocent phone records.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/21/politics/michael-flynn-lawsuit-january-6-committee/index.html

Michael Flynn sues January 6 committee to block phone records subpoena

His lawsuit marks the eighth court challenge against the ability of the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol to gather evidence on Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Flynn's lawsuit arrives just a day after he was scheduled to testify before the committee -- and appears to be trying to hold off the consequence of his failure to appear, as well as any other fact-finding by the panel.
Link to post
Share on other sites


https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-adam-schiff-tamper-jim-jordan-jan-6-evidence-meadows-hearing-1660490

The Ruling

Fact Check - Mostly False

Mostly False.

It's true that committee staff cut short Jordan's original forwarded message for the sake of brevity and that a period was mistakenly added in place of an em dash. The committee has admitted to both. But there is no evidence that the changes were made in order for Schiff to mislead fellow committee members, nor do they alter or distort the meaning of the message. The claims of evidence tampering by Schiff are misleading because the committee said that the graphic was shared with him in that form. It has since shared the full text, which is stored in the committee's evidence trove in its original form.

ph.gifFACT CHECK BY NEWSWEEK
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Ishmael 1 - Moveable cocksucker 0

Seriously?? I doubt MB is a cocksucker.

and

why do you think “cocksucker” is a derogatory term?

Cocksuckers are wonderful….

 

anyway..

Doesn’t  this guy look happy?? 


 

94DB8C68-0190-410A-980B-17E38545615A.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Seriously?? I doubt MB is a cocksucker.

and

why do you think “cocksucker” is a derogatory term?

Cocksuckers are wonderful….

 

anyway..

Doesn’t  this guy look happy?? 


 

94DB8C68-0190-410A-980B-17E38545615A.jpeg

Now that's my idea of a snowblower!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mike G said:

Another innocent person trying to hide their innocent phone records.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/21/politics/michael-flynn-lawsuit-january-6-committee/index.html

Michael Flynn sues January 6 committee to block phone records subpoena

His lawsuit marks the eighth court challenge against the ability of the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol to gather evidence on Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Flynn's lawsuit arrives just a day after he was scheduled to testify before the committee -- and appears to be trying to hold off the consequence of his failure to appear, as well as any other fact-finding by the panel.

Who paid for the lawyer to write the suit and file it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Can anyone explain to me how omitting a false claim alleging that Alex H would support defrauding the nation and subverting our democracy in service of liars is evidence of malfeasance?

It seems to me Schiff did Gym a favor.

The goal is to cast doubt about the investigators.  

A game show host is more honest.

Honest!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Bullshitter Seditionist Flynn has delay suit dismissed by federal judge less than 24 hrs after filing it. Sorry bullshitters. 

Not much of a delay there....  Wonder how much the billable was on that filing? Who paid it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Do you have a cite please

I cannot fathom why anyone, even an extremist partisan, would defend those obviously involved in an auto-golpe de estado. 

If we lose the very flawed democracy that we still have, it's on y'all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

Did the edits change the meaning of what Jordan wrote? No. 

Not to nit pick, but that was some more disinformation.  Jordan didn’t write any of those words.  He forwarded a summary from a lawyer.   


The full message was a short summary of a legal briefing Jordan forwarded from lawyer Joseph Schmitz to Meadows on Jan. 5, meaning that a "lawmaker" did not write the message at all, the report added.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

Not to nit pick, but that was some more disinformation.  Jordan didn’t write any of those words.  He forwarded a summary from a lawyer.   


The full message was a short summary of a legal briefing Jordan forwarded a summary from lawyer Joseph Schmitz to Meadows on Jan. 5, meaning that a "lawmaker" did not write the message at all, the report added.

Why would he forward it if he didn't agree with it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mark K said:

Why would he forward it if he didn't agree with it? 

He may very well have agreed with it, but there is a difference in writing the words and forwarding someone else’s words.  Maybe that’s what the committee wants to ask? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not to nit pick, but that was some more disinformation.  Jordan didn’t write any of those words.  He forwarded a summary from a lawyer.   


The full message was a short summary of a legal briefing Jordan forwarded from lawyer Joseph Schmitz to Meadows on Jan. 5, meaning that a "lawmaker" did not write the message at all, the report added.

Try to keep up.  It’s been acknowledged several times in this thread that he didn’t write it.  That changes nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Then direct your complaint to the person who stated Jordan wrote it.  

Other than "DEMOCRATS=BAD!!" do you have a point?

Jordan sent the message. It was a part of a chain of communications planning/executing the Jan 6th insurrection, which makes it very likely to be criminal conspiracy.

Unless you hate America, you want to get to the bottom of this.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Jordan sent the message. It was a part of a chain of communications planning/executing the Jan 6th insurrection, which makes it very likely to be criminal conspiracy.

Unless you support criminal conspiracy you want to get to the bottom of this.

Fixed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Then direct your complaint to the person who stated Jordan wrote it.  

I'm sorry, but a forwarded tweet is basically adding your imprimatur to it. "I endorse this message" sort of thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Joker said:

He may very well have agreed with it, but there is a difference in writing the words and forwarding someone else’s words.  Maybe that’s what the committee wants to ask? 

Maybe they want to ask if the words were edited or he made any punctuation changes from the original.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I'm sorry, but a forwarded tweet is basically adding your imprimatur to it. "I endorse this message" sort of thing. 

Well there is that little thing called context, as I already said that may be why the committee wants to hear from him.   Not sure why they played the editing game, it just fuels the fire that the committee is partisan.   Adding that it once again involves a proven liar, like Schiff will only add to the effort to dismiss  their findings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Maybe they shouldn’t have deliberately edited it and allowed Schiff to present it. 

They didn’t edit it. They truncated it, and the stuff they didn’t present didn’t change or add context  what he suggested.

but you knew that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guido, read this:

"Businesses who don't pay protection money get burned down, their owners get beaten, and their cars get stolen"

 

Your honor, I was just forwarding random texts, I had no idea Guido was going to burn down the Taco stand, kick the owner in the ass, and steal his car. I have no idea where he got an idea like that :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

Maybe they shouldn’t have deliberately edited it and allowed Schiff to present it. 

 Jordan edited it too. In both cases the edits did not change the meaning. It's BS to deflect you from considering what the message said. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Can we move past this BS already?
okay, so some people did something......

turn the damn page and look ahead people.

Sorry, but this isn't some kids getting raped by their coaches in the showers, Jim doesn't get to just brush this one off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Not to nit pick, but that was some more disinformation.  Jordan didn’t write any of those words.  He forwarded a summary from a lawyer.   


The full message was a short summary of a legal briefing Jordan forwarded from lawyer Joseph Schmitz to Meadows on Jan. 5, meaning that a "lawmaker" did not write the message at all, the report added.

Thanks. I didn’t know that.

But I’m of the opinion that half of what led the GOP’s decline is due to none of them taking personal responsibility for their actions and thoughts.

They are hiding behind lawyers, “just asking questions”, pleading the fifth, acquiescing to the POTUS or caving to their racist lunatic base.

The party of “personal responsibility” needs to grow a pair and say what they mean, mean what they say, and represent their citizens.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Can we move past this BS already?
okay, so some people did something......

turn the damn page and look ahead people.

Yes good idea.

The committee released part of a text message from Gym Jordan. Then they released all of it. The remaining part didn't materially change the meaning of the initial part.

Now, as QU suggests, let's move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nice! said:

Yes good idea.

The committee released part of a text message from Gym Jordan. Then they released all of it. The remaining part didn't materially change the meaning of the initial part.

Now, as QU suggests, let's move on.

Before they find any more incriminating shit. Instead, let's move on to finding more incriminating shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordan's original January 5 text:

On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all – in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence. ‘No legislative act,’ wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, “contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.’ The court in Hubbard v Lowe reinforced this truth: ‘That an unconstitutional statute is not a law at all is a proposition no longer open to discussion.” 226 F. 135, 137 (SDNY 1915), appeal dismissed, 242 U.S. 654 (1916). Following this rationale, an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally enacted statute, is no elector at all.

Schiff's version:

On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.

Actually, Jordan's version dices + slices Hamilton's Fed 78 like a ransom note. This full paragraph is:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Hamilton is making an argument about a delegated authority which Jordan slices off. There is a therefore after all. The next line is about deputy and principle which gets sliced off as well. Jordan just found some pretty words and absconded with them.

Lastly, it isn't upon Jordan to determine anything is unconstitutional.

Schiff was doing Jordan a favor as the remainder makes Jordan look even more intellectually dishonest.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

Hamilton is making an argument about a delegated authority. Hence the next line about deputy and principle. Jordan just found some pretty words and absconded with them.

Lastly, it isn't upon Jordan to determine anything is unconstitutional.

Schiff was doing Jordan a favor as the remainder makes Jordan look even more intellectually dishonest.

Jordan has the intellectual depth of an amoeba. He's a natural follower.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 Jordan edited it too. In both cases the edits did not change the meaning. It's BS to deflect you from considering what the message said. 

Here is what was in the full tweet.  Sounds like legal twisting and turning to me.  They believe some of the electors were not valid under the constitution,  therefore Pence shouldn’t accept them.  I disagree with that position as did Pence, but that doesn’t mean that view can’t be put forward.   Regardless nothing in that tweet talks about a plan to storm the capital and force Pence to act.   I have no doubt every losing presidential candidate reviews every legal option before conceding.    That Trump and others continued long after it was clearly over does not prove a deliberate attempt to use violence to overthrow the election.  Still need a smoking gun that this was anything more than a protest rally that got out of hand.  
 

On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence,” Schmitz's original text read. “‘No legislative act,’ wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, ‘contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.’ The court in Hubbard v. Lowe reinforced this truth: ‘That an unconstitutional statute is not a law at all is a proposition no longer open to discussion.’ 226 F. 135, 137 (SDNY 1915), appeal dismissed, 242 U.S. 654 (1916).”

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Jordan has the intellectual depth of an amoeba. He's a natural follower.

Yeah, he didn't author that. But the staff writer who wrote it was bullshitting and the Jordans were just lighting it up and smoking it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ishmael said:

Jordan has the intellectual depth of an amoeba. He's a natural follower.

Hey, he got the Medal of Freedom um, *checks notes* 2 days after the Jan 6 touristy thingy.

He must have earned it SOMEHOW.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Yes good idea.

The committee released part of a text message from Gym Jordan. Then they released all of it. The remaining part didn't materially change the meaning of the initial part.

Now, as QU suggests, let's move on.

QU would prefer we just move on from the entire January 6th investigation.  

That "look forward" bullshit just shows he disagrees with Santayana.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

QU would prefer we just move on from the entire January 6th investigation.  

That "look forward" bullshit just shows he disagrees with Santayana.

I know that. I just reframed what he said.

What these guys don't understand is that there is a team of highly-positioned individuals who are actively, in plain view, trying to undo democracy in America.

They either don't see it, or they mistakenly believe that the authoritarianism that follows will only impact the people that they have "othered" in their mind.

And the only fight against it is accountability.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nice! said:

I know that. I just reframed what he said.

What these guys don't understand is that there is a team of highly-positioned individuals who are actively, in plain view, trying to undo democracy in America.

They either don't see it, or they mistakenly believe that the authoritarianism that follows will only impact the people that they have "othered" in their mind.

And the only fight against it is accountability.

 

That is the more likely scenario, IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Here is what was in the full tweet.  Sounds like legal twisting and turning to me.  They believe some of the electors were not valid under the constitution,  therefore Pence shouldn’t accept them.  I disagree with that position as did Pence, but that doesn’t mean that view can’t be put forward.   Regardless nothing in that tweet talks about a plan to storm the capital and force Pence to act.   I have no doubt every losing presidential candidate reviews every legal option before conceding.    That Trump and others continued long after it was clearly over does not prove a deliberate attempt to use violence to overthrow the election.  Still need a smoking gun that this was anything more than a protest rally that got out of hand.  
 

On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence,” Schmitz's original text read. “‘No legislative act,’ wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, ‘contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.’ The court in Hubbard v. Lowe reinforced this truth: ‘That an unconstitutional statute is not a law at all is a proposition no longer open to discussion.’ 226 F. 135, 137 (SDNY 1915), appeal dismissed, 242 U.S. 654 (1916).”

Are we pretending there is nothing wrong with saying the VP has the authority to ignore the results of an election now? What kind of a system of government would that be, that elections only count if the incumbent likes them?

That spreading BS like that was what the people who stormed the capitol had believed at the time? Are we pretending that now too? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Are we pretending there is nothing wrong with saying the VP has the authority to ignore the results of an election now? What kind of a system of government would that be, that elections only count if the incumbent likes them?

That spreading BS like that was what the people who stormed the capitol had believed at the time? Are we pretending that now too? 

Not pretending anything that was the legal scenario presented it was rejected and never implemented.  Throwing out options on legal strategies is what lawyers do.   Reasonable people rejected that scenario.  Those that stormed the capital were not reasonable people.   The biggest obstacle to making this a planned insurrection by the administration  is that on 1/6 Trump clearly said,  "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

 Trump clearly said,  "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." 
 

 

.... and fight like hell or you're never going to get your country back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not pretending anything that was the legal scenario presented it was rejected and never implemented.  Throwing out options on legal strategies is what lawyers do.   Reasonable people rejected that scenario.  Those that stormed the capital were not reasonable people.   The biggest obstacle to making this a planned insurrection by the administration  is that on 1/6 Trump clearly said,  "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." 
 

 

That's why there was so much hugging and kissing going on, so much love...

in between the bear spray and the flex-cuffs of course... oh and the pipe bombs

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Those that stormed the capital were not reasonable people.   

 

at least those idiotic barbarians walked their walk, unlike your pussy ass who flails at his keyboard hoping for the same end result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

Actually, Jordan's version dices + slices Hamilton's Fed 78 like a ransom note. This full paragraph is:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

For prosperity.

Seems as though the Rs think they're more important than the law. Which this paragraph seems to directly address.

Backfire on Jordan and the rest of the RWNJs who don't value liberty for all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not pretending anything that was the legal scenario presented it was rejected and never implemented.  Throwing out options on legal strategies is what lawyers do.   Reasonable people rejected that scenario.  Those that stormed the capital were not reasonable people.   The biggest obstacle to making this a planned insurrection by the administration  is that on 1/6 Trump clearly said,  "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." 
 

 

What you are proposing is no-fault crime. Walk into a bank and say "What would you say if I said I had a gun and you had to give me a bag full of money". You will be leaving in cuffs, saying you were just spitballing ideas to raise some funds and had no intention of robbing the bank will not work.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not pretending anything that was the legal scenario presented it was rejected and never implemented.  Throwing out options on legal strategies is what lawyers do.   Reasonable people rejected that scenario.  Those that stormed the capital were not reasonable people.   The biggest obstacle to making this a planned insurrection by the administration  is that on 1/6 Trump clearly said,  "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." 
 

 

Not without having a good old crack at it first.

You are literally arguing that the powers that be weren't conspiring, by presenting evidence that they were.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

What you are proposing is no-fault crime. Walk into a bank and say "What would you say if I said I had a gun and you had to give me a bag full of money". You will be leaving in cuffs, saying you were just spitballing ideas to raise some funds and had no intention of robbing the bank will not work.

 

Let’s take your scenario.  You walk up to a couple of homeless people in the street and suggest they go rob a bank to pay for a hotel.  You would not be guilty of inciting them because the reasonable expectation is they will not rob the bank. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A proposal to consider the results of an election “Unconstitutional” without basis might go to confirming a conspiracy within the executive branch of government to obstruct the work of Congress.

It is not action, but speaks of communications with criminal intent.

1 hour ago, The Joker said:

I have no doubt every losing presidential candidate reviews every legal option before conceding.

This tweet was sent January 4th 

To attempt whataboutism on this point is complete horseshit. Trump never conceded his loss until Jan 7th… after his supporters stormed the Capitol and after the Senate approved the votes of the electors which had been delivered from Congress.

Nothing like this has occurred in history.

Only the Republican Party are such unAmerican losers who fight against democracy on behalf of a whoremonger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, phillysailor said:

A proposal to consider the results of an election “Unconstitutional” without basis might go to confirming a conspiracy within the executive branch of government to obstruct the work of Congress.

It is not action, but speaks of communications with criminal intent.

This tweet was sent January 4th 

To attempt whataboutism on this point is complete horseshit. Trump never conceded his loss until Jan 7th… after his supporters stormed the Capitol and after the Senate approved the votes of the electors which had been delivered from Congress.

Nothing like this has occurred in history.

Only the Republican Party are such unAmerican losers who fight against democracy on behalf of a whoremonger.

Trump conceded his loss? I must have been asleep for that part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The elements of a conspiracy require that at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime and that at least one of them does some act towards committing that crime.

Jordan's message can form an element of a conspiracy. That's why former Assistant US Attorney now Congressman Schiff cited it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

A proposal to consider the results of an election “Unconstitutional” without basis might go to confirming a conspiracy within the executive branch of government to obstruct the work of Congress.

It is not action, but speaks of communications with criminal intent.

This tweet was sent January 4th 

To attempt whataboutism on this point is complete horseshit. Trump never conceded his loss until Jan 7th… after his supporters stormed the Capitol and after the Senate approved the votes of the electors which had been delivered from Congress.

Nothing like this has occurred in history.

Only the Republican Party are such unAmerican losers who fight against democracy on behalf of a whoremonger.

Not conceding has certainly happened in the past.  Hillary was still complaining several years after the election.    A riot storming the capital was certainly something new and should never be repeated.   Your problem is the at broad brush you always paint with   Republicans like myself were shocked and appalled by what happened.  I’ll admit I was embarrassed by what my fellow republicans did.    But the more you condemn 72 million of us for the actions of a few hundred the less relevant your argument becomes and the harder we will fight to win future elections.    Because the rhetoric from some of your Elk is becoming just as scary as what happened in DC on 1/6.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

The elements of a conspiracy require that at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime and that at least one of them does some act towards committing that crime.

Jordan's message can form an element of a conspiracy. That's why former Assistant US Attorney now Congressman Schiff cited it.

In what way?  There certainly were enough unusual elements, in the election and changes made outside the constitutional requirements, because of Covid to ask those questions.  Under the Covid changes Asking if the electors are constitutional is not a crime. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Let’s take your scenario.  You walk up to a couple of homeless people in the street and suggest they go rob a bank to pay for a hotel.  You would not be guilty of inciting them because the reasonable expectation is they will not rob the bank. 

If you were in a position to benefit from them robbing the bank, then that's conspiracy (and not spit-balling), and changes the legal implications. Particularly if those homeless people then go to the cops because you keep harassing them about robbing a bank for your benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Joker said:

In what way?  There certainly were enough unusual elements, in the election and changes made outside the constitutional requirements, because of Covid to ask those questions.  Under the Covid changes Asking if the electors are constitutional is not a crime. 

Can someone remind us how many lawsuits about all this were dismissed by judges a year ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ncik said:

If you were in a position to benefit from them robbing the bank, then that's conspiracy (and not spit-balling), and changes the legal implications. Particularly if those homeless people then go to the cops because you keep harassing them about robbing a bank for your benefit.

Nope I remembered the exact same scenario during impeachment  

here BBC

Analysis by Professor Epps

What is incitement under the law?

Incitement is not a crime under the First Amendment unless it meets certain criteria. 

First of all, it has to be intended to cause violence (and you infer that intent from the circumstances). It also has to be likely to cause violence. 

If I go downtown and I say to two drunks standing in front of a bank, "let's rob this bank right now", I haven't really incited anybody, because it's not very likely they'll rob the bank. 

If I say let's meet here tomorrow and rip things up, I'm not inciting because - in the words of the Supreme Court - where there is time for better counsels to prevail, the remedy for speech is more speech.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

A proposal to consider the results of an election “Unconstitutional” without basis might go to confirming a conspiracy within the executive branch of government to obstruct the work of Congress.

It is not action, but speaks of communications with criminal intent.

2 hours ago, The Joker said:

I have no doubt every losing presidential candidate reviews every legal option before conceding.

This tweet was sent January 4th 

To attempt whataboutism on this point is complete horseshit. Trump never conceded his loss until Jan 7th… after his supporters stormed the Capitol and after the Senate approved the votes of the electors which had been delivered from Congress.

Nothing like this has occurred in history.

Only the Republican Party are such unAmerican losers who fight against democracy on behalf of a whoremonger.

Well, every Vice President is just a dumb sucker, in the Republican viewpoint. The Vice President clearly has the power to decide which electoral votes get counted and which ones don't, thus deciding the next President.

Alexander Hamilton said so!

Maybe that's really why VP Aaron Burr shot Hamilton.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Nope I remembered the exact same scenario during impeachment  

here BBC

Analysis by Professor Epps

What is incitement under the law?

Incitement is not a crime under the First Amendment unless it meets certain criteria. 

First of all, it has to be intended to cause violence (and you infer that intent from the circumstances). It also has to be likely to cause violence. 

If I go downtown and I say to two drunks standing in front of a bank, "let's rob this bank right now", I haven't really incited anybody, because it's not very likely they'll rob the bank. 

If I say let's meet here tomorrow and rip things up, I'm not inciting because - in the words of the Supreme Court - where there is time for better counsels to prevail, the remedy for speech is more speech.

 

So... if you say to a hundred of your closest buddies, "Gosh there's an event we would benefit greatly if it was violently disrupted, and Mr X were to unfortunately die in the violent disruption" then that is not incitement even if somehow that event DOES get violently disrupted and your buddies try to kill Mr X.

It's still not incitement even if some of your helpers buy tickets to the place of the event for your buddies. It's still not incitement if you use your political influence to fire the police chief who is likely to stop any violent disruption, and install other buddies who will collude to reduce police presence and delay reinforcement at this event. It's not incitement if your son meets with these violently inclined buddies the night before.

Nope, no incitement there, not at all.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So... if you say to a hundred of your closest buddies, "Gosh there's an event we would benefit greatly if it was violently disrupted, and Mr X were to unfortunately die in the violent disruption" then that is not incitement even if somehow that event DOES get violently disrupted and your buddies try to kill Mr X.

It's still not incitement even if some of your helpers buy tickets to the place of the event for your buddies. It's still not incitement if you use your political influence to fire the police chief who is likely to stop any violent disruption, and install other buddies who will collude to reduce police presence and delay reinforcement at this event. It's not incitement if your son meets with these violently inclined buddies the night before.

Nope, no incitement there, not at all.

- DSK

Just a series of unrelated co-inky-dinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not conceding has certainly happened in the past.  Hillary was still complaining several years after the election.    A riot storming the capital was certainly something new and should never be repeated.   Your problem is the at broad brush you always paint with   Republicans like myself were shocked and appalled by what happened.  I’ll admit I was embarrassed by what my fellow republicans did.    But the more you condemn 72 million of us for the actions of a few hundred the less relevant your argument becomes and the harder we will fight to win future elections.    Because the rhetoric from some of your Elk is becoming just as scary as what happened in DC on 1/6.  
 

Complaining ain’t the same as scheming to label the results of the election fraudulent in order to change the vote count. It ain’t perpetuating a lie and broadcasting it from the Oval Office. It ain’t attacking the underpinnings of democracy not only in America, but around the world by giving aid and comfort to dictators and authoritarians who would replace the choice of the people with minority and individual rule.

Words by Democrats to uphold the rule of law and shame Trumplicans are not as bad as the rhetoric of those who stormed the Capitol because we are not fighting for a lie. We are fighting for our country against those who would subvert the Constiturion.

Your pathetic whataboutism covers your shame and unAmerican impulses shared by the nearly 2/3rds of Republicans who still feel Biden’s election was illegitimate.

There is a penalty for choosing Donald Trump over the USA. Ya don’t have my sympathies.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamilton was the founder of the NY Post, for god's sake! No wonder they've been subject to ridicule for so long!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Joker said:

November can’t come soon enough. 

Because hiding the truth is the Republican way. Why even have general elections? Why not go CCP and have the state run by the one, true party?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Joker said:

November can’t come soon enough. 

Kind of like your mother, she just came and left 3 weeks ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Complaining ain’t the same as scheming to label the results of the election fraudulent in order to change the vote count. It ain’t perpetuating a lie and broadcasting it from the Oval Office. It ain’t attacking the underpinnings of democracy not only in America, but around the world by giving aid and comfort to dictators and authoritarians who would replace the choice of the people with minority and individual rule.

Words by Democrats to uphold the rule of law and shame Trumplicans are not as bad as the rhetoric of those who stormed the Capitol because we are not fighting for a lie. We are fighting for our country against those who would subvert the Constiturion.

Your pathetic whataboutism covers your shame and unAmerican impulses shared by the nearly 2/3rds of Republicans who still feel Biden’s election was illegitimate.

There is a penalty for choosing Donald Trump over the USA. Ya don’t have my sympathies.

I don’t want your sympathy.  You voted for the current POTUS who has trashed the entire country in just a few months. 
He and his side kick are going to make democrats irrelevant for a decade.   Virginia was just a start.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Because hiding the truth is the Republican way. Why even have general elections? Why not go CCP and have the state run by the one, true party?

That’s what Philly is looking for when he goes on his RANTS 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

So y’all can sweep the crimes by traitors under the rug. 

You just want us all to move on.

 

Unbelievable.

Nope I want to get back to the true threats to this country.  The Economy, jobs, Inflation, the border,  the Chinese, Covid you know the issues that effect most Americans 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Nope I want to get back to the true threats to this country.  The Economy, jobs, Inflation, the border,  the Chinese, Covid you know the issues that effect most Americans 

Treasonists like you affect most Americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans are blocking economic stimulus bills, are trying to block the proper immigration of foreign labor, and are by and large fucking up any opportunities to mitigate COVID by ignoring/banning Covid guidelines.

 Chinese? they're irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You voted for the current POTUS who has trashed the entire country in just a few months. 

Trashed?    The housing, stock and job market want to have a talk with you.   The only thing trashed are the masses who refuse to vaccine or social distance.    History won't be able to wipe away the blood on your hands.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites