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

[a fan]

Don't need to dissolve anything or create a new agency or bureaucracy., or involve the military.
The Capitol Police leadership just needs to do it's job, or resign if their political hack leaders don't let them do it.

Agree to disagree.

[MDlaxfan76]

Don't need to dissolve anything or create a new agency or bureaucracy., or involve the military.
The Capitol Police leadership just needs to do it's job, or resign if their political hack leaders don't let them do it.

Agree to disagree.

Instead of casting aspersions at the Capitol Police, I wonder whether Salty would be fine with having a much, much larger Capitol Police Force, with military level capabilities and the attendant budget?

Would they have the capabilities necessary to combat a well organized, militarized terrorist attack?

[old salt]

Don't need to dissolve anything or create a new agency or bureaucracy., or involve the military.
The Capitol Police leadership just needs to do it's job, or resign if their political hack leaders don't let them do it.

Agree to disagree.

Instead of casting aspersions at the Capitol Police, I wonder whether Salty would be fine with having a much, much larger Capitol Police Force, with military level capabilities and the attendant budget?

Would they have the capabilities necessary to combat a well organized, militarized terrorist attack?

Let's see how they do after they update their weapons quals & read their intel.

[a fan]

Let's see how they do after they update their weapons quals & read their intel.

This doesn't make my point.....how?

Sorry, back to agree to disagree.

[Farfromgeneva]

Who mans the DMZ???

Killing our own guys?

The situation in Guantanamo Bay has exactly ZERO to do with a so called DMZ in the conventional sense. You want a tense DMZ situation you need look no further than the DMZ between North and South Korea. That is where the chit will hit the fan someday. Most American citizens don't know that the only active US Army firebase is called Warrior Base. Grunts from I still believe the 2nd ID operate recon patrols into the no mans land called the DMZ. They have been doing so for decades. Some of my former soldiers in A company 2/508 airborne infantry drew the unlucky short straw and wound up via the need for infantry soldiers in Korea. The game is still played for real and roaming firefights between the Nork army still happen.

I mean Korea when I said DMZ because that’s how a bifurcation of this country should be viewed. And those like MTG arguing to split aren’t S Korea…

I’m the movie Nicholson’s character lied and covered up our own killing of an American citizen soldier and only flipped to aggressive attack mode when caught. Sound familiar?

The movie was awesome. Nicholsons character only became relevant in that last courtroom scene. The drama used by his character made me sick. The Marines on Guantanamo are not worried about being invaded by the Cuban army. There is no wall that needs to be defended. I'm not sure on any specifics when you ask me if the scenario sounded familiar. I'm interested in knowing what specific event you are referring to. FTR if your regular army or marine you are not a citizen soldier or citizen marine.... You are not a citizen anything. The thought of being a citizen again doesn't begin until your DD 214 form is in your hot little hands.

You don't remember the entire point of being in court and the movie plot?????

Of course I do. I'm guessing you remember what a huge risk Tom Cruises character took during his line of questioning. If he didn't break him and get him to blurt out he ordered the code red against Santiago he would have been in deep chit and likely would have been court martialed for insubordination to a superior officer. He took a huge gamble knowing his arrogance would be his downfall.

Will keep pounding you with links to good stuff but while Bad Religion originally did this I like Sublime's version better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsX3Ybe062A

[Farfromgeneva]

Even better, Nicholson supposedly ad libbed the line.

Did Christian Slater fail ultimately for being too much like Nicholson or other reasons? Because Heathers, Pump up the Volume and True Romance was a pretty good early run....

[njbill]

Beats me, but for my money, he could never hold a candle to Nicholson.

[Farfromgeneva]

Beats me, but for my money, he could never hold a candle to Nicholson.

I just loved those three movies as a kid and still don’t understand how he didn’t have any Renaissance the way Robert Downey Jr or Mickey Rourke did. The rest of his CV is mostly trash.

Nicholson is great but the last decade or two became a caricature like Pacino where every role was just Scent of a Woman.

Wonder how many folks who went into the capital think the way Nicholson goes out late in Easy Rider makes that movie a romantic comedy?

[njbill]

After “hold it between your knees,” all the diners allowed substitutions.

[cradleandshoot]

Who mans the DMZ???

Killing our own guys?

The situation in Guantanamo Bay has exactly ZERO to do with a so called DMZ in the conventional sense. You want a tense DMZ situation you need look no further than the DMZ between North and South Korea. That is where the chit will hit the fan someday. Most American citizens don't know that the only active US Army firebase is called Warrior Base. Grunts from I still believe the 2nd ID operate recon patrols into the no mans land called the DMZ. They have been doing so for decades. Some of my former soldiers in A company 2/508 airborne infantry drew the unlucky short straw and wound up via the need for infantry soldiers in Korea. The game is still played for real and roaming firefights between the Nork army still happen.

I mean Korea when I said DMZ because that’s how a bifurcation of this country should be viewed. And those like MTG arguing to split aren’t S Korea…

I’m the movie Nicholson’s character lied and covered up our own killing of an American citizen soldier and only flipped to aggressive attack mode when caught. Sound familiar?

The movie was awesome. Nicholsons character only became relevant in that last courtroom scene. The drama used by his character made me sick. The Marines on Guantanamo are not worried about being invaded by the Cuban army. There is no wall that needs to be defended. I'm not sure on any specifics when you ask me if the scenario sounded familiar. I'm interested in knowing what specific event you are referring to. FTR if your regular army or marine you are not a citizen soldier or citizen marine.... You are not a citizen anything. The thought of being a citizen again doesn't begin until your DD 214 form is in your hot little hands.

You don't remember the entire point of being in court and the movie plot?????

Of course I do. I'm guessing you remember what a huge risk Tom Cruises character took during his line of questioning. If he didn't break him and get him to blurt out he ordered the code red against Santiago he would have been in deep chit and likely would have been court martialed for insubordination to a superior officer. He took a huge gamble knowing his arrogance would be his downfall.

Will keep pounding you with links to good stuff but while Bad Religion originally did this I like Sublime's version better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsX3Ybe062A

Sorry but not my flavor in music. I'm still old school 1970s. The first time my mom saw an Alice Cooper album in my collection she was positive I was a disciple of Satan. I'm 18 was the anthem of my generation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXZcJojTucg
If you were a fan of Alice Cooper in 1972 you were about as radical as you could get. David Bowie was right up there for us die hard rockers.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Even better, Nicholson supposedly ad libbed the line.

Did Christian Slater fail ultimately for being too much like Nicholson or other reasons? Because Heathers, Pump up the Volume and True Romance was a pretty good early run....

I don’t know what happened to Christian Slater. I though he would have been at Johnny Depp’s level. Those were three great films.

[Farfromgeneva]

Who mans the DMZ???

Killing our own guys?

The situation in Guantanamo Bay has exactly ZERO to do with a so called DMZ in the conventional sense. You want a tense DMZ situation you need look no further than the DMZ between North and South Korea. That is where the chit will hit the fan someday. Most American citizens don't know that the only active US Army firebase is called Warrior Base. Grunts from I still believe the 2nd ID operate recon patrols into the no mans land called the DMZ. They have been doing so for decades. Some of my former soldiers in A company 2/508 airborne infantry drew the unlucky short straw and wound up via the need for infantry soldiers in Korea. The game is still played for real and roaming firefights between the Nork army still happen.

I mean Korea when I said DMZ because that’s how a bifurcation of this country should be viewed. And those like MTG arguing to split aren’t S Korea…

I’m the movie Nicholson’s character lied and covered up our own killing of an American citizen soldier and only flipped to aggressive attack mode when caught. Sound familiar?

The movie was awesome. Nicholsons character only became relevant in that last courtroom scene. The drama used by his character made me sick. The Marines on Guantanamo are not worried about being invaded by the Cuban army. There is no wall that needs to be defended. I'm not sure on any specifics when you ask me if the scenario sounded familiar. I'm interested in knowing what specific event you are referring to. FTR if your regular army or marine you are not a citizen soldier or citizen marine.... You are not a citizen anything. The thought of being a citizen again doesn't begin until your DD 214 form is in your hot little hands.

You don't remember the entire point of being in court and the movie plot?????

Of course I do. I'm guessing you remember what a huge risk Tom Cruises character took during his line of questioning. If he didn't break him and get him to blurt out he ordered the code red against Santiago he would have been in deep chit and likely would have been court martialed for insubordination to a superior officer. He took a huge gamble knowing his arrogance would be his downfall.

Will keep pounding you with links to good stuff but while Bad Religion originally did this I like Sublime's version better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsX3Ybe062A

Sorry but not my flavor in music. I'm still old school 1970s. The first time my mom saw an Alice Cooper album in my collection she was positive I was a disciple of Satan. I'm 18 was the anthem of my generation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXZcJojTucg
If you were a fan of Alice Cooper in 1972 you were about as radical as you could get. David Bowie was right up there for us die hard rockers.

Gotta keep open and learning.

I’m more of a “schools out” guy-and played it for me son maybe six months ago and he agrees.

They’ve loved Bowie for ages (me too) since my kids were 3 & 5 and a cover band played our local fall fest in full androgynous gear and colorful wigs. They also listen to new things too…

[Farfromgeneva]

Even better, Nicholson supposedly ad libbed the line.

Did Christian Slater fail ultimately for being too much like Nicholson or other reasons? Because Heathers, Pump up the Volume and True Romance was a pretty good early run....

I don’t know what happened to Christian Slater. I though he would have been at Johnny Depp’s level. Those were three great films.

Johnny Depps movie level? Because at one point he was close to Johnny Depp as described in Amber Heard deposition level…

[Typical Lax Dad]

Even better, Nicholson supposedly ad libbed the line.

Did Christian Slater fail ultimately for being too much like Nicholson or other reasons? Because Heathers, Pump up the Volume and True Romance was a pretty good early run....

I don’t know what happened to Christian Slater. I though he would have been at Johnny Depp’s level. Those were three great films.

Johnny Depps movie level? Because at one point he was close to Johnny Depp as described in Amber Heard deposition level…

Didn’t know that!

[Farfromgeneva]

Even better, Nicholson supposedly ad libbed the line.

Did Christian Slater fail ultimately for being too much like Nicholson or other reasons? Because Heathers, Pump up the Volume and True Romance was a pretty good early run....

I don’t know what happened to Christian Slater. I though he would have been at Johnny Depp’s level. Those were three great films.

Johnny Depps movie level? Because at one point he was close to Johnny Depp as described in Amber Heard deposition level…

Didn’t know that!

Heathers was so great, can’t believe they’re remaking it.

I still jones for Winona Ryder because of it too.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Even better, Nicholson supposedly ad libbed the line.

Did Christian Slater fail ultimately for being too much like Nicholson or other reasons? Because Heathers, Pump up the Volume and True Romance was a pretty good early run....

I don’t know what happened to Christian Slater. I though he would have been at Johnny Depp’s level. Those were three great films.

Johnny Depps movie level? Because at one point he was close to Johnny Depp as described in Amber Heard deposition level…

Didn’t know that!

Heathers was so great, can’t believe they’re remaking it.

I still jones for Winona Ryder because of it too.

Yep.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Michael Luttig exposes the weakness and hypocrisy that is Mike Pence:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/24/opin ... -jury.html

“Former Vice President Mike Pence recently announced he would challenge Special Counsel Jack Smith’s subpoena for him to appear before a grand jury in Washington as part of the investigation into former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the related Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Pence claimed that “the Biden D.O.J. subpoena” was “unconstitutional” and “unprecedented.” He added, “For me, this is a moment where you have to decide where you stand, and I stand on the Constitution of the United States.” Mr. Pence vowed to take his fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

A politician should be careful what he wishes for — no more so than when he’s a possible presidential candidate who would have the Supreme Court decide a constitutional case that could undermine his viability in an upcoming campaign.

The former vice president should not want the embarrassing spectacle of the Supreme Court compelling him to appear before a grand jury in Washington just when he’s starting his campaign for the presidency; recall the unanimous Supreme Court ruling that ordered Richard Nixon to turn over the fatally damning Oval Office tapes. That has to be an uncomfortable prospect for Mr. Pence, not to mention a potentially damaging one for a man who — at least as of today — is considered by many of us across the political spectrum to be a profile in courage for his refusal to join in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election in the face of Donald Trump’s demands. And to be clear, Mr. Pence’s decision to brand the Department of Justice’s perfectly legitimate subpoena as unconstitutional is a far cry from the constitutionally hallowed ground on which he stood on Jan. 6.

Injecting campaign-style politics into the criminal investigatory process with his rhetorical characterization of Mr. Smith’s subpoena as a “Biden D.O.J. subpoena,” Mr. Pence is trying to score points with voters who want to see President Biden unseated in 2024. Well enough. That’s what politicians do. But Jack Smith’s subpoena was neither politically motivated nor designed to strengthen President Biden’s political hand in 2024. Thus the jarring dissonance between the subpoena and Mr. Pence’s characterization of it. It is Mr. Pence who has chosen to politicize the subpoena, not the D.O.J.

As to the merits of his claim, The New York Times and other news media have reported that Mr. Pence plans to argue that when he presided over the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 as president of the Senate, he was effectively a legislator and therefore entitled to the privileges and protections of the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause. That clause is intended to protect members of Congress from questioning and testifying about official legislative acts. Should the courts support his claim, Mr. Pence would not be required to comply with Mr. Smith’s subpoena. Mr. Pence may also be under the impression that the legal fight over his claim will confound the courts, consuming months, if not longer, before he receives the verdict — but it’s unclear what he hopes to gain from the delay. One would have thought Mr. Pence would have seized the propitious opportunity afforded him by Mr. Smith, most likely weeks or months before he even decides whether he will run for the presidency.

If Mr. Pence’s lawyers or advisers have told him that it will take the federal courts months and months or longer to decide his claim and that he will never have to testify before the grand jury, they are mistaken. We can expect the federal courts to make short shrift of this “Hail Mary” claim, and Mr. Pence doesn’t have a chance in the world of winning his case in any federal court and avoiding testifying before the grand jury.

Inasmuch as Mr. Pence’s claim is novel and an unsettled question in constitutional law, it is only novel and unsettled because there has never been a time in our country’s history where it was thought imperative for someone in a vice president’s position, or his lawyer, to conjure the argument. In other words, Mr. Pence’s claim is the proverbial invention of the mother of necessity if ever there was one.

Any protections the former vice president is entitled to under the “speech and debate” clause will be few in number and limited in scope. There are relatively few circumstances in which a former vice president would be entitled to constitutional protection for his conversations related to his ceremonial and ministerial roles of presiding over the electoral vote count. What Mr. Smith wants to know about are Mr. Pence’s communications and interactions with Mr. Trump before, and perhaps during, the vote count, which are entirely fair game for a grand jury investigating possible crimes against the United States.

Whatever the courts may or may not find the scope of any protection to be, they will unquestionably hold that Mr. Pence is nonetheless required to testify in response to Mr. Smith’s subpoena. Even if a vice president has speech or debate clause protections, they will yield to a federal subpoena to appear before the grand jury. This is especially true where, as here, a vice president seeks to protect his conversations with a president who himself is under federal criminal investigation for obstructing the very official proceedings in which the special counsel is interested.

Mr. Pence and his inner circle should be under no illusion that the lower federal courts will take their time dispensing with this claim. The courts quickly disposed of Senator Lindsey Graham’s speech or debate clause claim, requiring him to testify before the grand jury empaneled in Fulton County, Ga. — and his claim was far stronger than Mr. Pence’s. In the unlikely event that Mr. Pence’s claim were to make it to the Supreme Court, it, too, could be expected to take swift action.

Mr. Pence undoubtedly has some of the finest lawyers in the country helping him navigate this treacherous path forward, and they will certainly earn their hefty fees. But in cases like this, the best lawyers earn their pay less when they advise and argue their clients’ cases in public than when they elegantly choreograph the perfect exit in private — before their clients get the day in court they wished for.

Mr. Pence’s lawyers would be well advised to have Jack Smith’s phone number on speed dial and call him before he calls them. The special counsel will be waiting, though not nearly as long as Mr. Pence’s lawyers may be thinking. No prosecutor, least of all Mr. Smith, will abide this political gambit for long. And Mr. Pence shouldn’t let this dangerous gambit play out for long. If he does, it will be more than he wished for.

It is a time-tested axiom in the law never to ask questions you don’t know the answer to. This should apply to politicians in spades. But the die has been cast by the former vice president. The only question now is not whether he will have to testify before the grand jury, but how soon. The special counsel is in the driver’s seat, and the timing of Mr. Pence’s appearance before the grand jury is largely in his hands. Mr. Smith will bide his time for only so long.“

[Seacoaster(1)]

Federal District Court decision on whether Representative Scott Perry's communications via his cell phone in aid of the January 6 assault and effort to impede the certification of Electoral Votes for President Biden are protected by the Speech and Debate Clause:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... a-combined

As to most of the communications for which Perry sought a privilege against disclosure, the Court says this:

"Rep. Perry's communications relaying or seeking information were not congressionally authorized “by [a] particular subcommittee{I” let alone initiated or received 'in a procedurally regular fashion,' so his fact-finding efforts are untethered from any formal legislative activity. Disclosing these responsive records to the government thus would not 'threaten the integrity or independence' of Congress because their disclosure would not risk 'impermissibly exposing its deliberations to executive influence.' Nor were these communications part of, let alone integral to, any legislative process or the ECA process within the House of Representatives or Joint Session of Congress mandated by the U.S. Constitution and the ECA. No matter the vigor with which Rep. Perry pursued his wide-ranging interest in bolstering his belief that the results of the 2020 election were somehow incorrect—even in the face of his own reelection—his informal inquiries into the legitimacy of those election results are closer to the activities described as purely personal or political in Brewster since this “fact-finding” was conducted entirely outside the auspices of a formal congressional inquiry or authorization."

That is, he's hiding sh*t unrelated to his legislative duties and activities, and seeking super-immunized status, which the Speech and Debate Clause does noy confer.

The order is currently on appeal to the DC Circuit.

[dislaxxic]

DOJ SAYS INCITING A RIOT IS NOT PART OF THE PRESIDENT’S JOB DESCRIPTION

When Trump appealed Amit Mehta’s ruling that he could be sued for his role in setting off an attack on January 6, Trump said he had absolute immunity from being held accountable for his role in the attack.

The DC Circuit asked DOJ what they thought about that claim.

DOJ has now responded in an amicus filing. They argued that Mehta’s opinion — which held that it is plausible that Trump incited violence at the Capitol — would not cover stuff that is part of the President’s job description.

The government specifically and repeatedly stated that they are not endorsing Mehta’s opinion. They also make it clear that they’re not stating a view about the criminal liability of anyone for January 6.

But they are saying that if Mehta’s opinion holds, then what his opinion covers (and he excluded Trump’s inaction as areas in which he might be immune) would not be covered by the President’s job description.

Of note for Scott Perry: In the midst of a passage that explains that a President’s natural incumbency position must render some reelection speech Presidential, it also notes that that’s not true for Members of Congress, because House ethics rules exclude campaign activity from a Member of Congress’ job description.

..

[dislaxxic]

HOW WOULD YOU ARREST A FORMER PRESIDENT?

As I was reading the four-journalist WaPo story noting what I noted (and provided far more details about) almost three months ago — that the investigation into Trump has been greatly complicated by the involvement of lawyers in his suspected crimes — I thought about how one might arrest Donald Trump. WaPo is interested in whether it can be done before the first debates in August. I’m interested in the logistics of it.

Especially given another temporal complication that WaPo, with all those reporters, doesn’t mention: That the DC Circuit, a panel including two Trump appointees, is taking its own sweet time ruling on DOJ’s application of obstruction to January 6, which was argued back in December. The January 6 Committee referred Trump for 1512(c)(2), which also happens to be the framework DOJ has been using since summer 2021. It’s virtually certain that no matter how the DC Circuit rules, the application can still be applied to Trump (because he corruptly sought a personal benefit involving documents). But if I were Jack Smith, I’d wait to see the guideposts Trump’s own appointees put on the application before I charged it. I have also long said that certain steps may be contingent on the Proud Boy trial, which seems like it’ll go on forever.

I’m not promising Trump will be arrested. But think about the logistical complexities of the task, if Smith were to decide to do it. How do you arrest a rich man — if not quite a billionaire — with access to several planes and his own MAGA army? How do you stage it, given all the potential or likely co-conspirators?

The question of how to arrest Trump is likely also a pressing issue given the likelihood that DOJ still hasn’t obtained all the documents Trump stole, given the multiple properties that haven’t been searched (including Trump’s jet).

Interesting Comment Section in this PMM post...

..