January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[seacoaster]

My bad, I was being facetious. I'm more than happy to listen to Garland and then eviscerate him in the same manner AG Barr was on this forum. The content of your character means diddly squat if you serve a POTUS that is not popular. As far as Garland is concerned, he is the Mr Rogers of AGs. His calm soothing voice and very low key manner are cover for a man who is a FLP ideologue. It is better this guy serves a few years as the AG than 20 years on the SCOTUS. He should have been given an up or down vote for the SCOTUS. That vote should have been NO... highly unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS. His performance so far as AG is proof of that.

0-947

..

Maybe C&S can tell us exactly how and in what ways Garland's "performance so far as AG is proof" that he was/is unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS.

[cradleandshoot]

My bad, I was being facetious. I'm more than happy to listen to Garland and then eviscerate him in the same manner AG Barr was on this forum. The content of your character means diddly squat if you serve a POTUS that is not popular. As far as Garland is concerned, he is the Mr Rogers of AGs. His calm soothing voice and very low key manner are cover for a man who is a FLP ideologue. It is better this guy serves a few years as the AG than 20 years on the SCOTUS. He should have been given an up or down vote for the SCOTUS. That vote should have been NO... highly unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS. His performance so far as AG is proof of that.

0-947

..

Maybe C&S can tell us exactly how and in what ways Garland's "performance so far as AG is proof" that he was/is unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS.

Easy one counselor. Mitch likely knew who he was and realized he was not worthy. In any case he should have been given a vote in the Senate. Funny how you and others here have declared the last 3 SCOTUS judges to be unqualified... In YOUR OPINION of course. Your opinion trumps all other opinions why??? I remember now.. your a lawyer.. got it.. How about flipping the coin here.. why would MG have made a great SCOTUS judge? I'm guessing having a soft spoken demeanor makes a superior SCOTUS justice...got it counselor, symbolism over substance. He gets your rubber stamp seal of approval. Why does that not surprise me. The same reason the last 3 judges get your middle finger. It is a simple concept. Liberal lawyers prefer liberal judges. Conservative lawyers prefer conservative judges. Why is very simple. In every legal and ideological issue, the judges you like will agree with your opinion 98% of the time.

[old salt]

Possibly.

I think it's a big reach at this point to actually convict those most responsible for inciting the violence.

Which makes it no less important to fully investigate and understand...and if the evidence is sufficiently clear, to prosecute and convict.

Show trials have great value, especially in election years.

[seacoaster]

My bad, I was being facetious. I'm more than happy to listen to Garland and then eviscerate him in the same manner AG Barr was on this forum. The content of your character means diddly squat if you serve a POTUS that is not popular. As far as Garland is concerned, he is the Mr Rogers of AGs. His calm soothing voice and very low key manner are cover for a man who is a FLP ideologue. It is better this guy serves a few years as the AG than 20 years on the SCOTUS. He should have been given an up or down vote for the SCOTUS. That vote should have been NO... highly unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS. His performance so far as AG is proof of that.

0-947

..

Maybe C&S can tell us exactly how and in what ways Garland's "performance so far as AG is proof" that he was/is unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS.

Easy one counselor. Mitch likely knew who he was and realized he was not worthy. In any case he should have been given a vote in the Senate. Funny how you and others here have declared the last 3 SCOTUS judges to be unqualified... In YOUR OPINION of course. Your opinion trumps all other opinions why??? I remember now.. your a lawyer.. got it.. How about flipping the coin here.. why would MG have made a great SCOTUS judge? I'm guessing having a soft spoken demeanor makes a superior SCOTUS justice...got it counselor, symbolism over substance. He gets your rubber stamp seal of approval. Why does that not surprise me. The same reason the last 3 judges get your middle finger. It is a simple concept. Liberal lawyers prefer liberal judges. Conservative lawyers prefer conservative judges. Why is very simple. In every legal and ideological issue, the judges you like will agree with your opinion 98% of the time.

Yeah, really bad, almost completely non-responsive answer -- and the fun part is you don't really understand that. There is nothing in your little rant that relates to Garland's performance as AG...at all.

Instead, you assert -- in a whirlwind of irrelevant whataboutism -- that I ("and others here") have "declared" Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett to be unqualified. As to Gorsuch and Barrett, if you can find that for me, as to me, I'd appreciate seeing it. Gorsuch is a smart, experienced former lower court judge. His bona fides to be on the Court were of the same approximate caliber as a few of the other Supreme Court justices. Barrett's qualifications are not quite as good. For me, Kavanaugh essentially disqualified himself with his performance at the hearings. I am doubtful I agree with any of the three on their views of the issues of the day, but that isn't the same as qualified or unqualified.

And of course, none of that is germane -- except in your bobbing head, on your couch in Rochester -- to the question you raised about Garland's qualifications to be on the SCOTUS. You want to try again? The question was the one you raised: exactly how and in what ways Garland's "performance so far as AG is proof" that he was/is unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS? Then I'll answer your question (why would Garland have made a good SCOTUS justice).

[old salt]

Get ready for a minutiae-laden discussion of where the National Guard was, all the while overlooking the President watching live television footage of those he incited over the previous two months, to say nothing of that morning, and doing nothing.

...don't sweat the small stuff, like expecting the Capitol Police to actually protect the Capitol.
What matters is what the President was watching on tv.

[old salt]

You know there was a big BLM protest at the Capitol in 2020, right, months before the coup attempt? Actually, you probably don't know that, since most of your info seems to come from Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.

There was MASSIVE presence and show of force in the Capitol city that day. They DO in fact know how to do protection...but then, some protests are actually lawful and peaceful...

Does it make you wonder AT ALL why there was a difference in the preparations for the two events??

No, i guess it doesn't...cause, well, "it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood..."

Come on dis, be honest. You know who's in charge of security for the Capitol vs the rest of Fed DC & who determines what preparations & security forces are necessary. Hint -- & how "militaristic' they appear.

[jhu72]

Hannity is being ask for voluntary cooperation, as to his foreknowledge of the Jan 6 insurrection. They haven't subpoenaed him yet.

[seacoaster]

Get ready for a minutiae-laden discussion of where the National Guard was, all the while overlooking the President watching live television footage of those he incited over the previous two months, to say nothing of that morning, and doing nothing.

...don't sweat the small stuff, like expecting the Capitol Police to actually protect the Capitol.
What matters is what the President was watching on tv.

Yes, this is about priorities. But thanks for arranging the deck chairs so sweetly.

[get it to x]

Get ready for a minutiae-laden discussion of where the National Guard was, all the while overlooking the President watching live television footage of those he incited over the previous two months, to say nothing of that morning, and doing nothing.

...don't sweat the small stuff, like expecting the Capitol Police to actually protect the Capitol.
What matters is what the President was watching on tv.

Yes, this is about priorities. But thanks for arranging the deck chairs so sweetly.

Too bad Joe hadn't been sworn in already. He could have nuked them from orbit.

[cradleandshoot]

My bad, I was being facetious. I'm more than happy to listen to Garland and then eviscerate him in the same manner AG Barr was on this forum. The content of your character means diddly squat if you serve a POTUS that is not popular. As far as Garland is concerned, he is the Mr Rogers of AGs. His calm soothing voice and very low key manner are cover for a man who is a FLP ideologue. It is better this guy serves a few years as the AG than 20 years on the SCOTUS. He should have been given an up or down vote for the SCOTUS. That vote should have been NO... highly unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS. His performance so far as AG is proof of that.

0-947

..

Maybe C&S can tell us exactly how and in what ways Garland's "performance so far as AG is proof" that he was/is unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS.

Easy one counselor. Mitch likely knew who he was and realized he was not worthy. In any case he should have been given a vote in the Senate. Funny how you and others here have declared the last 3 SCOTUS judges to be unqualified... In YOUR OPINION of course. Your opinion trumps all other opinions why??? I remember now.. your a lawyer.. got it.. How about flipping the coin here.. why would MG have made a great SCOTUS judge? I'm guessing having a soft spoken demeanor makes a superior SCOTUS justice...got it counselor, symbolism over substance. He gets your rubber stamp seal of approval. Why does that not surprise me. The same reason the last 3 judges get your middle finger. It is a simple concept. Liberal lawyers prefer liberal judges. Conservative lawyers prefer conservative judges. Why is very simple. In every legal and ideological issue, the judges you like will agree with your opinion 98% of the time.

Yeah, really bad, almost completely non-responsive answer -- and the fun part is you don't really understand that. There is nothing in your little rant that relates to Garland's performance as AG...at all.

Instead, you assert -- in a whirlwind of irrelevant whataboutism -- that I ("and others here") have "declared" Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett to be unqualified. As to Gorsuch and Barrett, if you can find that for me, as to me, I'd appreciate seeing it. Gorsuch is a smart, experienced former lower court judge. His bona fides to be on the Court were of the same approximate caliber as a few of the other Supreme Court justices. Barrett's qualifications are not quite as good. For me, Kavanaugh essentially disqualified himself with his performance at the hearings. I am doubtful I agree with any of the three on their views of the issues of the day, but that isn't the same as qualified or unqualified.

And of course, none of that is germane -- except in your bobbing head, on your couch in Rochester -- to the question you raised about Garland's qualifications to be on the SCOTUS. You want to try again? The question was the one you raised: exactly how and in what ways Garland's "performance so far as AG is proof" that he was/is unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS? Then I'll answer your question (why would Garland have made a good SCOTUS justice).

I'll give you the same simple answer counselor. Ask Mitch, unless it was nothing but politics, he chose not to give Garland a vote. IMO Garland would have been a FLP liberal activist justice. His record as AG has shown him to be a typical lap dog for what the POTUS wants. He does have a wolf in sheeps clothing demeanor. I can understand why you admire him. I did think the goal was to keep activist judges off the court. Justice Roberts defined that as calling balls and strikes. Today the litmus test is knowing a judge will rule the proper way on the cases you want him/her.

[seacoaster]

So we can agree now that you have no basis — based on his performance as AG — for Garland being unqualified. You’re simply an ill-informed keyboard jockey talking about things you know nothing about. Check. Being old and white and unhappy is, anyway, in vogue these days.

[kramerica.inc]

So we can agree now that you have no basis — based on his performance as AG — for Garland being unqualified. You’re simply an ill-informed keyboard jockey talking about things you know nothing about. Check. Being old and white and unhappy is, anyway, in vogue these days.

The irony here is fantastic.

[seacoaster]

So we can agree now that you have no basis — based on his performance as AG — for Garland being unqualified. You’re simply an ill-informed keyboard jockey talking about things you know nothing about. Check. Being old and white and unhappy is, anyway, in vogue these days.

The irony here is fantastic.

Clever. Thanks for stepping into the fray...with your usual.

[kramerica.inc]

So we can agree now that you have no basis — based on his performance as AG — for Garland being unqualified. You’re simply an ill-informed keyboard jockey talking about things you know nothing about. Check. Being old and white and unhappy is, anyway, in vogue these days.

The irony here is fantastic.

Clever. Thanks for stepping into the fray...with your usual.

Likewise, great to see some self-awareness in the new year.

[tech37]

It's a conspiracy cradle...Pelosi and Pence were in cahoots and wanted the rednecks to break into the building and threaten everyone's lives, heck they wanted to be martyrs...apparently, it was a huge error to shoot a first amendment protestor climbing through a window, spoiled the plan...

The sad part is that some people would believe what you are saying. IMO the answer is much more simple. The government did not see bad people crashing planes into our buildings. 20 years later our government never thought our own people would assault our own capital. In failing to prepare we have prepared to fail. If no other lesson was learned maybe this will be the last time any enraged horde of angry people ever choose to or be allowed to assault our capital building. It sounds like you have a wonderful relaxing cruise. My wife and I hope to do a Mediterranean cruise next year. Spain and Southern Italy are two places we want to see.

Thanks, but, well...I just tested positive for COVID. Sore throat, headache, achy, a little fever yesterday...but no difficulty breathing, loss of taste or smell, so likely Omicron. Hopefully on tail end of symptoms.

I'm not big on cruising as a way to vacation, but I do see the appeal. Hope you have a wonderful cruise next year to the Mediterranean.

Let me get this straight...

You of all people went on a cruise in the middle of a pandemic when we know Omicron is surging and breaking through? Amazing...

[kramerica.inc]

It's a conspiracy cradle...Pelosi and Pence were in cahoots and wanted the rednecks to break into the building and threaten everyone's lives, heck they wanted to be martyrs...apparently, it was a huge error to shoot a first amendment protestor climbing through a window, spoiled the plan...

The sad part is that some people would believe what you are saying. IMO the answer is much more simple. The government did not see bad people crashing planes into our buildings. 20 years later our government never thought our own people would assault our own capital. In failing to prepare we have prepared to fail. If no other lesson was learned maybe this will be the last time any enraged horde of angry people ever choose to or be allowed to assault our capital building. It sounds like you have a wonderful relaxing cruise. My wife and I hope to do a Mediterranean cruise next year. Spain and Southern Italy are two places we want to see.

Thanks, but, well...I just tested positive for COVID. Sore throat, headache, achy, a little fever yesterday...but no difficulty breathing, loss of taste or smell, so likely Omicron. Hopefully on tail end of symptoms.

I'm not big on cruising as a way to vacation, but I do see the appeal. Hope you have a wonderful cruise next year to the Mediterranean.

Let me get this straight...

You of all people went on a cruise in the middle of a pandemic when we know Omicron is surging and breaking through? Amazing...

Agreed! C'mon MD. I thought a Gilman/Dartmouth grad like yourself would be smarter than that!

Seriously, hope you feel better soon and recover well. Rest up. The spring season is almost here!

[dislaxxic]

Trump cancels Jan. 6 event amid GOP complaints

aww, the Mouth That Roared has to clam up?? Pity...

..

[dislaxxic]

The Good Coup

Peter Navarro had a perfectly legal strategy to overturn the 2020 election. And he would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling insurrectionists.

..

[cradleandshoot]

So we can agree now that you have no basis — based on his performance as AG — for Garland being unqualified. You’re simply an ill-informed keyboard jockey talking about things you know nothing about. Check. Being old and white and unhappy is, anyway, in vogue these days.

I'm informed enough counselor to understand arguing with a lawyer is a waste of time. You made a career out of peddling obfuscation and bullchit to defend your client/position. That is what a good lawyer does, defend their position. I'm not taking the bait. I'm glad Garland is not sitting on the SCOTUS. You never paid attention to the fact I said all along he should have been given an up or down vote. That was Mitch's doing. Had Garland been approved, I would have no problem with it. Too bad most of you liberals on this forum never gave that same courtesy to Justice Kavanough. He was portrayed as a sexual predator and you never lifted a finger to defend his reputation. I find you counselor in contempt of court. So define for me your criteria how a SCOTUS nominee should be judged? IMO that criteria is different for Republicans and Democrats. FTR and this is my opinion, Garland has a smarmy and arrogant personality. That is why I dislike him. You disagree but that does not negate my opinion or make it less valid than yours. I rest my case...

[Kismet]

The Good Coup

Peter Navarro had a perfectly legal strategy to overturn the 2020 election. And he would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling insurrectionists.

..

Navarro is certifiably insane. The heirs and estate of Vince Lombardi should sue him for defamation for comparing the Packers sweep to an attempt to unfairly and illegally overturn an election.

He said it all out loud on live television. How many of you are OK with this plan?

Best tweet of the day - "Navarro is a dumb person's idea of smart"