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

[MDlaxfan76]

progressives BAAAD....

I see you’re sticking with the ludicrous ‘I’m a Republican’ on another thread.

There isn’t a far, FAR left social issue you disagree with. No matter how insanely batty the position, you’re down with it. Can’t call out BLM violence. Can’t call out Antifa violence.

Trump broke you for good.

It’s really a stunning display.

Always wrong, never in doubt.

I've voted for many more Republicans for POTUS than you have Petey, much less Joe.

But hey, Liz Cheney apparently shouldn't be a Republican, so apparently it's not about 'conservatism'. .

No, I strongly condemned the violence of the summer protests, no matter who was doing it. I objected to the characterization of "BlM violence" as that was BS, but there were certainly opportunists who were violent who took advantage of those protest periods. Antifa expressly said they would meet violence with strength in return, and some were downright nuts...I condemned any such.

So, your characterizations are yet another lie.

But yes, Trump and Trumpism definitely broke the GOP. Time will tell if I'm right, but when Liz Cheney isn't welcome, it clearly isn't about conservative ideology.

What is a “woman”, MD?

We all know the answer; the overriding issue is, are you comfortable, ‘as a Republican’, answering?

I've already posted extensively on that particular ridiculous "issue".

In other words, you won’t answer the question because answering the question (the most simple of questions, btw, ‘what is a woman?’), puts you on the ‘wrong’ side of the woke Olympics. Appreciate it.

‘Republican’.

Idiocy from you again, Petey.
Being as offensive and dumb as you can.

viewtopic.php?f=66&t=724&p=347612&hilit=woman#p347612

Out of curiosity MD... have you asked your wife what a woman is??? It is not a dumb question. It is a very simple question unless you find the need to obfuscate and dodge and bob and weave around the answer. FTR... your not Muhammed Ali and your rope a dope does not work on some of us..

Well....do you remember how it was when you were a kid?

How did they handle it? Did you ever take a test of any kind? No, right?

They took your word for what you said you are----you got to define if you were a man or woman. Seems to have worked just fine.

Up until recently on this forum, i never thought it was an issue. FTR, i do not give a flying fig how a person identifies their sex as. So if I decide tomorrow that i am a girl can i use the ladies restroom? It sounds like an idiotic question because the concept is idiotic IMO. Maybe I am too old and set in my ways. i lack the enlightenment to comprehend this issue. So much for that old cliche of boys will be boys.. or was that some boys might be boys.. or some boys were never boys or some boys are really girls or some girls are really boys or some girls might be boys or some girls were never girls....

Here's a UNC biologist's explanation on the subject....

https://didyouknowfacts.com/biology-pro ... le-at-all/

Thanks. Good explanation.

I'm not sure what the psychological issues are that prevent some folks from wanting to learn about such complexities...it's not as if we're telling our fellow posters they, individually, aren't a man or that their wife is not a woman. Are our fellow posters feeling threatened that way?

[Peter Brown]

progressives BAAAD....

I see you’re sticking with the ludicrous ‘I’m a Republican’ on another thread.

There isn’t a far, FAR left social issue you disagree with. No matter how insanely batty the position, you’re down with it. Can’t call out BLM violence. Can’t call out Antifa violence.

Trump broke you for good.

It’s really a stunning display.

Always wrong, never in doubt.

I've voted for many more Republicans for POTUS than you have Petey, much less Joe.

But hey, Liz Cheney apparently shouldn't be a Republican, so apparently it's not about 'conservatism'. .

No, I strongly condemned the violence of the summer protests, no matter who was doing it. I objected to the characterization of "BlM violence" as that was BS, but there were certainly opportunists who were violent who took advantage of those protest periods. Antifa expressly said they would meet violence with strength in return, and some were downright nuts...I condemned any such.

So, your characterizations are yet another lie.

But yes, Trump and Trumpism definitely broke the GOP. Time will tell if I'm right, but when Liz Cheney isn't welcome, it clearly isn't about conservative ideology.

What is a “woman”, MD?

We all know the answer; the overriding issue is, are you comfortable, ‘as a Republican’, answering?

I've already posted extensively on that particular ridiculous "issue".

In other words, you won’t answer the question because answering the question (the most simple of questions, btw, ‘what is a woman?’), puts you on the ‘wrong’ side of the woke Olympics. Appreciate it.

‘Republican’.

Idiocy from you again, Petey.
Being as offensive and dumb as you can.

viewtopic.php?f=66&t=724&p=347612&hilit=woman#p347612

Out of curiosity MD... have you asked your wife what a woman is??? It is not a dumb question. It is a very simple question unless you find the need to obfuscate and dodge and bob and weave around the answer. FTR... your not Muhammed Ali and your rope a dope does not work on some of us..

Well....do you remember how it was when you were a kid?

How did they handle it? Did you ever take a test of any kind? No, right?

They took your word for what you said you are----you got to define if you were a man or woman. Seems to have worked just fine.

Up until recently on this forum, i never thought it was an issue. FTR, i do not give a flying fig how a person identifies their sex as. So if I decide tomorrow that i am a girl can i use the ladies restroom? It sounds like an idiotic question because the concept is idiotic IMO. Maybe I am too old and set in my ways. i lack the enlightenment to comprehend this issue. So much for that old cliche of boys will be boys.. or was that some boys might be boys.. or some boys were never boys or some boys are really girls or some girls are really boys or some girls might be boys or some girls were never girls....

The left wants you to agree the most simple question in history isn’t so simple (‘what is a woman?’), for two reasons:

1. Like always, follow the money. There are a ton of grifting bozos stoking this sh!tshow, without an honest means to generate an honest income, who latch onto the next most stupid movement of the left’s hysterics where the left can’t help themselves in its bizarrely manic dive to the bottom of cultural destruction. So, you get sophisticated marketing (Adidas trans commercial) validating the stupidity, and the FLP become more emboldened to claim previously acknowledged lunacy like 1 is 2, black is white, war is peace, a man is a woman, etc…. And certain reprehensible people on the left collect the money. Look no further than this board to see some on the left who now can’t distinguish gender identity from biological sex…it’s irrelevant to them any longer. The left clutches on to the dumbest ideas and always takes it to its furthest illogical extension…this is perhaps the political world’s most natural law, the end game idiocy and cultural ruination by leftist politics.

2. They actually don’t care about the privacy, safety, and equality of girls. As they call you bigoted and wacko-religious, please always recall they are the ones compromising the safety of young girls. Anyone promoting or embracing the lunacy of a Lia Thomas or Tifanny Abreu competing against young girls is someone you should be very wary of.

[dislaxxic]

WHINGER VERBS: TO INVESTIGATE … TO PROSECUTE … TO INDICT

We know part of why Trump hasn’t been charged for political crimes: because Trump ensured the FEC remained dysfunctional and Republicans have voted not to pursue them (something that whingers might more productively spend their time pursuing).

It seems nutty to suggest that Trump should be “prosecuted” already for taking classified documents to Mar-a-Lago when that was referred just weeks ago. It’s also worth considering whether it would be easier to prosecute Trump for obstruction for these actions, tied to one of his other malfeasance, and then consider where investigations related to that malfeasance already exist.

Bizarrely, Atkins doesn’t consider it a possibility that it would take Merrick Garland’s DOJ more than 380 days to prosecute the former President. It took months to just wade through Stewart Rhodes’ Signal texts. It has taken 11 months, so far, to conduct a privilege review of Rudy’s phones (for which DOJ obtained a warrant on Lisa Monaco’s first day on the job). DOJ has six known cooperators in the Oath Keeper case (at least four with direct ties to Roger Stone) and one known cooperator in the Proud Boys case (and likely a bunch more we don’t know about). Particularly in the Oath Keeper investigation, DOJ has been rolling people up serially. But that process has taken longer because of COVID, discovery challenges, and the novelty of the crime.

But that goes to Atkins’ curious choice of the word “prosecute” here. I generally use the verb to refer to what happens after an indictment — the years long process of rebuffing frivolous legal challenges, but for an organized crime network, “prosecute” might also mean working your way up from people like militia members guarding your rat-forker to the militia leaders planning with your rat-forker to the rat-forker to the crime boss.

I think what Atkins actually means, though, is “indict,” or “charge.” But his entire post betrays a fantasy where one can simply arrest a white collar criminal in the act after he has committed the act.

..

[cradleandshoot]

The kicker from that explanation:

It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.

Read the full article to see why this biologist makes that conclusion. Then understand why it is _complicated_!

I understand why it is complicated. It does not change my basic premise. If someone asks me what a woman is I'm not confused as to what my answer is. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. I've lived 64 years on this planet I figured out the boy girl thing a very long ago. What your discussing now is something different. The different biological interpretations of the XY, XX chromosomes are a deflection away from a basic understanding I'm guessing. That gets really complicated really quick.. I'm still stunned at Justice Brown and her deer in the headlight look when answered a very simple question. She chose to answer it by playing dumb and not understanding the question. Her answer should have been very very simple. All she had to say was I understand in my mind who a woman is. In the world of science that question is more complicated and I understand it is very complicated at face value.

[RedFromMI]

The kicker from that explanation:

It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.

Read the full article to see why this biologist makes that conclusion. Then understand why it is _complicated_!

I understand why it is complicated. It does not change my basic premise. If someone asks me what a woman is I'm not confused as to what my answer is. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. I've lived 64 years on this planet I figured out the boy girl thing a very long ago.

I think for the most part you have met people with such confused genetic expression, but you had no idea that was the case. And you accepted the result in the sense of what gender that was presented was the one you took as the correct one.

[cradleandshoot]

The kicker from that explanation:

It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.

Read the full article to see why this biologist makes that conclusion. Then understand why it is _complicated_!

I understand why it is complicated. It does not change my basic premise. If someone asks me what a woman is I'm not confused as to what my answer is. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. I've lived 64 years on this planet I figured out the boy girl thing a very long ago.

I think for the most part you have met people with such confused genetic expression, but you had no idea that was the case. And you accepted the result in the sense of what gender that was presented was the one you took as the correct one.

My wife spent 6 months working in the anal dysplasia clinic at Strong Memorial Hospital. I didn't meet any of her patients. I did deal with the aftermath of my wifes frustration every day. She dealt with and treated patients that dealt with sexual abuse, physical abuse by parent / sibling, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, prostitution and other number of personal issues. It was a real effing picnic Red having to console her when she cried out of her frustration because she thought she was failing. Maybe your right and I'm not enlightened enough to understand this conversation on an elitist level. I did live with the repercussions of a dedicated nurse whose frustrations trying to help her LBGTQ patients made her quit after 6 months. What would you understand about life in the trenches? You ever been in the front lines? It ain't a pretty site.

FTR, my wife also has no trouble figuring out the boy / girl issue.

[jhu72]

[cradleandshoot]

You have a PhD numbnutts. Do you need a high school graduate to explain it to you??? I will if it helps you out.

[Peter Brown]

You have a PhD numbnutts. Do you need a high school graduate to explain it to you??? I will if it helps you out.

These loons will lose so hard this fall; I guarantee every political debate this Fall, the question of ‘what is a woman?’ will come up. Not because anyone is a bigot, but because a certain group of Americans have decided to no longer protect young girls, to wreck their dreams and make them unsafe. It’s time to make them decide what’s important and to defend (or not) American values.

[CU88]

Reuters: U.S. JUDGE SAYS FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP LIKELY COMMITTED FELONY OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ON JAN. 6, 2021 - COURT RULING


https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .260.0.pdf

[dislaxxic]

This is YUGE!

Analysis of the ruling: Trump likely committed felony obstruction, federal judge rules

Part of the post:

The remarkable ruling may be the first in history in which a federal judge determined a president, while in office, appeared to commit a crime. The decision has no direct role in whether Trump will be charged criminally but could increase pressure on the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Merrick Garland, to conduct an aggressive investigation that could lead to such charges.

Thus far, Garland has promised to probe legal violations related to Jan. 6 “at any level,” but there have been virtually no outward signs that the Justice Department is investigating Trump or his top advisers over their roles in instigating the Capitol attack or otherwise scuttling or delay the electoral-vote-tallying session.

Justice Department spokespeople did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

Eastman’s strategy centered on pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to single-handedly overturn the election when Congress convened on Jan. 6 to count electoral votes. Eastman urged Pence to simply declare the election in dispute and send the process back to GOP-controlled state legislatures, who could then replace Joe Biden’s electors with Trump’s. Pence resisted that push, and his aides argued fiercely that the plan was plainly illegal.

Carter ruled that the efforts by Trump and Eastman were obviously contrary to a federal law, the Electoral Count Act, which has governed the counting of electoral votes since 1887. Eastman premised his plan on a belief that the 135-year-old law was unconstitutional and urged Pence to simply ignore aspects of it he viewed as inconvenient. Carter said the recourse to oppose the Electoral Count Act was in court, not “a last-ditch attempt to secure the Presidency by any means.”

“Our nation was founded on the peaceful transition of power, epitomized by George Washington laying down his sword to make way for democratic elections,” Carter wrote in a 44-page ruling. “Ignoring this history, President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election. With a plan this ‘BOLD,’ President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle.”

The decision also helps shore up a theory increasingly embraced by members of the Jan. 6 select committee: that Trump seized on legal strategies he knew were meritless in order to subvert the transfer of power to Joe Biden — an effort that contributed to the violence that unfolded at the Capitol. Trump allies have long assailed the select committee as a political effort led by Democrats, but Carter’s analysis now gives the committee the imprimatur of a federal court.

Among the emails Carter ordered released included documents prepared for members of Congress. Seven senators are named as the recipients of some of the documents, though they were created to persuade lawmakers, not in preparation for litigation.

Eastman had claimed attorney-client privilege over nine emails and attachments, but none of the emails listed Trump as a sender or recipient, Carter noted, and two of them blind copied a close Trump adviser. Other emails included discussion of state-level efforts about election fraud allegations.

Perhaps the most important email in the newly disclosed batch is a memo to Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, which was forwarded to Eastman, sketching out a series of scenarios surrounding the Jan. 6 session.

“This may have been the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action,” Carter noted. “The memo is both intimately related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”

..

[Peter Brown]

This is YUGE!

Analysis of the ruling: Trump likely committed felony obstruction, federal judge rules

Part of the post:

The remarkable ruling may be the first in history in which a federal judge determined a president, while in office, appeared to commit a crime. The decision has no direct role in whether Trump will be charged criminally but could increase pressure on the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Merrick Garland, to conduct an aggressive investigation that could lead to such charges.

Thus far, Garland has promised to probe legal violations related to Jan. 6 “at any level,” but there have been virtually no outward signs that the Justice Department is investigating Trump or his top advisers over their roles in instigating the Capitol attack or otherwise scuttling or delay the electoral-vote-tallying session.

Justice Department spokespeople did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

Eastman’s strategy centered on pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to single-handedly overturn the election when Congress convened on Jan. 6 to count electoral votes. Eastman urged Pence to simply declare the election in dispute and send the process back to GOP-controlled state legislatures, who could then replace Joe Biden’s electors with Trump’s. Pence resisted that push, and his aides argued fiercely that the plan was plainly illegal.

Carter ruled that the efforts by Trump and Eastman were obviously contrary to a federal law, the Electoral Count Act, which has governed the counting of electoral votes since 1887. Eastman premised his plan on a belief that the 135-year-old law was unconstitutional and urged Pence to simply ignore aspects of it he viewed as inconvenient. Carter said the recourse to oppose the Electoral Count Act was in court, not “a last-ditch attempt to secure the Presidency by any means.”

“Our nation was founded on the peaceful transition of power, epitomized by George Washington laying down his sword to make way for democratic elections,” Carter wrote in a 44-page ruling. “Ignoring this history, President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election. With a plan this ‘BOLD,’ President Trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle.”

The decision also helps shore up a theory increasingly embraced by members of the Jan. 6 select committee: that Trump seized on legal strategies he knew were meritless in order to subvert the transfer of power to Joe Biden — an effort that contributed to the violence that unfolded at the Capitol. Trump allies have long assailed the select committee as a political effort led by Democrats, but Carter’s analysis now gives the committee the imprimatur of a federal court.

Among the emails Carter ordered released included documents prepared for members of Congress. Seven senators are named as the recipients of some of the documents, though they were created to persuade lawmakers, not in preparation for litigation.

Eastman had claimed attorney-client privilege over nine emails and attachments, but none of the emails listed Trump as a sender or recipient, Carter noted, and two of them blind copied a close Trump adviser. Other emails included discussion of state-level efforts about election fraud allegations.

Perhaps the most important email in the newly disclosed batch is a memo to Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, which was forwarded to Eastman, sketching out a series of scenarios surrounding the Jan. 6 session.

“This may have been the first time members of President Trump’s team transformed a legal interpretation of the Electoral Count Act into a day-by-day plan of action,” Carter noted. “The memo is both intimately related to and clearly advanced the plan to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”

..

You definitely have him now!!!!!

[youthathletics]

Likely?

Diss: Your Honor, he likely robbed that store and stole my ding-dongs!!
Judge: Counselor, I suggest you first prove it, before you step on your own ding-dong.

[dislaxxic]

The question before the judge was whether or not John Eastman could claim privilege to withhold documents and emails from the January 6th Committee.

The judge invoked what's called the "crime and fraud" exemption to privilege to shoot down Eastman's claim. Donald Trump VERY LIKELY..."more likely than not" committed crimes with his corrupt activity surrounding his intent to overturn a lawful election and interfere with an official congressional proceeding.

So much for the whole January 6th Committee investigation being nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. The need for an investigation now carries the imprimatur of a US federal court judge.

..

[a fan]

Likely?

Diss: Your Honor, he likely robbed that store and stole my ding-dongs!!
Judge: Counselor, I suggest you first prove it, before you step on your own ding-dong.

Nixon was removed for less...never went to a Court of Law. Remember those days.....when Republicans were bothered when their leaders did unethical stuff?

Yeah, me too. Oh well. Carry on.

[Peter Brown]

Likely?

Diss: Your Honor, he likely robbed that store and stole my ding-dongs!!
Judge: Counselor, I suggest you first prove it, before you step on your own ding-dong.

Nixon was removed for less...never went to a Court of Law. Remember those days.....when Republicans were bothered when their leaders did unethical stuff?

Yeah, me too. Oh well. Carry on.

Your mask is down, a fan. You can’t be a self identified independent when all you do is rip Republicans, especially when you’re grossly incorrect.


House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called on Rep. Jeff Fortenberry to resign on Friday, one day after the Nebraska Republican was found guilty on multiple charges of lying to the FBI.

“I’m gonna discuss with him today,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters at the House Republicans’ annual retreat in Florida. “I think he had his day in court and I think if he wants to appeal, he can go do that as a private citizen.”

“I think out of respect you can let me talk to him today, but I think when someone’s convicted, it’s time to resign.”

https://nypost.com/2022/03/25/kevin-mcc ... to-resign/


I know you’ll simply double down, but an honest man would admit his error and apologize. Your call, of course.

[a fan]

Likely?

Diss: Your Honor, he likely robbed that store and stole my ding-dongs!!
Judge: Counselor, I suggest you first prove it, before you step on your own ding-dong.

Nixon was removed for less...never went to a Court of Law. Remember those days.....when Republicans were bothered when their leaders did unethical stuff?

Yeah, me too. Oh well. Carry on.

Your mask is down, a fan. You can’t be a self identified independent when all you do is rip Republicans, especially when you’re grossly incorrect.

You’re such a bad troll.

Even after you bolded my own words, showing that Nixon was removed by republicans BEFORE Nixon went to court….

You come back with an example making my point for me. Dude—-they removed this guy AFTER going to court.

It’s just—-your partisan intellect is just a thing to behold.

As for only hitting Republicans? Nope. Called out Hillary’s unethical cr&p dozens of times now. Same for Hunter and Joes obvious corruption

Boy. That was really hard, pete. You got me pegged.

[Peter Brown]

Likely?

Diss: Your Honor, he likely robbed that store and stole my ding-dongs!!
Judge: Counselor, I suggest you first prove it, before you step on your own ding-dong.

Nixon was removed for less...never went to a Court of Law. Remember those days.....when Republicans were bothered when their leaders did unethical stuff?

Yeah, me too. Oh well. Carry on.

Your mask is down, a fan. You can’t be a self identified independent when all you do is rip Republicans, especially when you’re grossly incorrect.

You’re such a bad troll.

Even after you bolded my own words, showing that Nixon was removed by republicans BEFORE Nixon went to court….

You come back with an example making my point for me. Dude—-they removed this guy AFTER going to court.

It’s just—-your partisan intellect is just a thing to behold.

As for only hitting Republicans? Nope. Called out Hillary’s unethical cr&p dozens of times now. Same for Hunter and Joes obvious corruption

Boy. That was really hard, pete. You got me pegged.

Have you heard of a small theory called innocent until proven guilty? I assume this means nothing to you now? Republicans bad and such?

In any event, most readers would think your point was ‘Republicans aren’t bothered when their members do unethical stuff’. Clearly they are. I mean, that’s a quote of yours.

If you need to throw in qualifiers after the fact, you’ve lost the argument.

But like I said, I knew you’d plow forward with no hint of contrition. Rock on.

[a fan]

Have you heard of a small theory called innocent until proven guilty? I assume this means nothing to you now? Republicans bad and such?

In any event, most readers would think your point was ‘Republicans aren’t bothered when their members do unethical stuff’. Clearly they are. I mean, that’s a quote of yours.

It's like talking to a child.

Pete. Do you know the difference between unethical and illegal? Of course you don't.

You see, Nixon was NEVER convicted of a crime. It was allegations, and nothing more. Yet Republican leaders went to the White House, and demanded that he resign, or they'd remove him from office? Get it? Nixon was innocent until proven guilty....yet he was removed anyway.

Ya see, we still had noble men and women in the Republican party in those days. Where ethics mattered. They didn't need a freaking guilty verdict to understand that what Nixon was doing wasn't ok, Pete. No court. No indictment of Nixon. He was shamed out of office for breaking the ethical code that all of our leaders are supposed to follow.

Not anymore. And I'm sure you are just DELIGHTED that your POS pals don't follow these codes of conduct anymore.

[CU88]

I wish I could say that this "GAP" is stunning, but it is not.

Politics
Jan. 6 White House logs given to House show 7-hour gap in Trump calls
The House select committee is now investigating whether it has the full record and whether Trump communicated that day through backchannels, phones of aides or personal disposable phones, according to people familiar with the probe.
By Bob Woodward and Robert Costa
Today at 7:00 a.m. EDT

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ouse-logs/

Internal White House records from the day of the attack on the U.S. Capitol that were turned over to the House select committee show a gap in President Donald Trump’s phone logs of seven hours and 37 minutes, including the period when the building was being violently assaulted, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post and CBS News.

The lack of an official White House notation of any calls placed to or by Trump for 457 minutes on Jan. 6, 2021 – from 11:17 a.m. to 6:54 p.m. – means the committee has no record of his phone conversations as his supporters descended on the Capitol, battled overwhelmed police and forcibly entered the building, prompting lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence to flee for safety.