The Jan 6 Investigation (2) - Page 6

Trebuchet · 8th July 2022, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Shalamar

Nothing will happen to Trump. No charges, no convictions. Too dangerous.

And it will embolden the GoP

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The pessimist in me says you're probably right.

The optimist has a tiny little glimmer of hope...since in some cases, prosecutions may be carried out by individuals who are less concerned with optics/safety.

Ok, I can imagine Garland might be hesitant to charge Stubby McBonespurs based on dubious excuses. (Oh know! Bad optics to charge an ex-president! He has immunity! The GOP might retaliate! etc.) But someone like Fulton County DA Fani Willis (investigating Trump for election shenanigans) doesn't have to worry about how things look on the national stage, nor about how republicans might try to charge Democrats, since she's not a national political figure. And Leticia James doesn't seem to be backing down (although admittedly her case is civil rather than criminal).

And about three minutes after the TOP Senate confirms Trump's new AG on Jan 21, 2025, he'll be issuing indictments against Biden, Obama, and, of course, Hillary.
And I'm not being sarcastic, I actually expect that.
We're screwed.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th July 2022, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Ford got the presidency because he was VP. Nixon was going to be impeached anyway. Nixon had the support of what, 4 senators (at least according to the Goldwater conversation) ?

I'm confused, are you unaware that Spiro Agnew was the VP when Nixon was about to resign?

Pacal · 8th July 2022, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm confused, are you unaware that Spiro Agnew was the VP when Nixon was about to resign?

Spiro Agnew had been forced to resign months earlier in a unrelated scandal. Ford was appointed his replacement.

Trebuchet · 8th July 2022, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm confused, are you unaware that Spiro Agnew was the VP when Nixon was about to resign?

Nixon was nowhere near about to resign when Agnew was VP.
Agnew was forced to resign in October '73; Nixon held out until August '74. About 10 months.
That said, I'm pretty sure that there was no pre-arranged deal that Ford would pardon Nixon in exchange for being appointed Veep.
Ford's stated reason for the pardon was to put the matter to an end and not drag the country through more years of accusations and a trial. I don't think he was wrong.

ETA: Nuts, Pacal ninja'd me while I was looking up dates!

Bob001 · 8th July 2022, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm confused, are you unaware that Spiro Agnew was the VP when Nixon was about to resign?

Agnew resigned as VP on Oct. 10, 1973, the same day he pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Ford was confirmed as VP Dec. 6. Nixon didn't resign until Aug. 9, 1974, when Ford became President.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th July 2022, 12:29 AM

Well fudge, that's the 3rd or 4th time my memory from that era has failed.

Stacyhs · 9th July 2022, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Well fudge, that's the 3rd or 4th time my memory from that era has failed.

That's cuz you were not more than a wee babe then, right?

(take the lifeline I'm throwin' ya here)

Beelzebuddy · 9th July 2022, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The pessimist in me says you're probably right.

The optimist has a tiny little glimmer of hope...since in some cases, prosecutions may be carried out by individuals who are less concerned with optics/safety.

Ok, I can imagine Garland might be hesitant to charge Stubby McBonespurs based on dubious excuses. (Oh know! Bad optics to charge an ex-president! He has immunity! The GOP might retaliate! etc.) But someone like Fulton County DA Fani Willis (investigating Trump for election shenanigans) doesn't have to worry about how things look on the national stage, nor about how republicans might try to charge Democrats, since she's not a national political figure. And Leticia James doesn't seem to be backing down (although admittedly her case is civil rather than criminal).

I'll believe it when the cuffs come out. Until then I've seen zilch to think that anything is going to come of this but some good television. The little folks are going to wait on Garland, Garland is going to sit on his hands to preserve the sacred impartiality of the justice department, then no one is going to have the timing and authority to step up in his place. Just like with Mueller.

eerok · 9th July 2022, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Well fudge, that's the 3rd or 4th time my memory from that era has failed.

Those are better stats than mine.

slyjoe · 9th July 2022, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm confused, are you unaware that Spiro Agnew was the VP when Nixon was about to resign?

I'm very aware. I guess it depends on what you mean by "about to resign".

Agnew resigned on October 10, 1973.
Ford sworn in on December 6, 1973.
Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974.

So no, I don't consider the end of Agnew's time in office when Nixon was about to resign.

ETA: Sorry - Ninja'ed by multiple other people.

Ladewig · 9th July 2022, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Well fudge, that's the 3rd or 4th time my memory from that era has failed.

Well, 3rd or 4th time that you can recall.
That’s the problem with relying on your memory to determine how reliable your memory is.

ferd burfle · 9th July 2022, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

Agnew resigned as VP on Oct. 10, 1973, the same day he pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Ford was confirmed as VP Dec. 6. Nixon didn't resign until Aug. 9, 1974, when Ford became President.

Apologies for somewhat OT comment

Rachel Maddow wrote a book called Bag Man about the crisis posed by the possibility a wildly corrupt Agnew might succeed Nixon. Investigators had damning evidence of Agnew's corruption but this wasn’t widely known at the time Watergate was unfolding. I found the intrigue surrounding efforts to prevent Agnew succeeding Nixon fascinating. I didn’t read the book but instead listened to a podcast series by the same name.

First episode https://youtu.be/qXpfCpZ6CdM also available from the usual podcast sources

smartcooky · 9th July 2022, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

Apologies for somewhat OT comment

Rachel Maddow wrote a book called Bag Man about the crisis posed by the possibility a wildly corrupt Agnew might succeed Nixon. Investigators had damning evidence of Agnew's corruption but this wasn’t widely known at the time Watergate was unfolding. I found the intrigue surrounding efforts to prevent Agnew succeeding Nixon fascinating. I didn’t read the book but instead listened to a podcast series by the same name.

First episode https://youtu.be/qXpfCpZ6CdM also available from the usual podcast sources

I also listened to all seven episodes of her Bag Man podcast. It was excellent. For all the criticism Rachel cops from the right, she is a master explainer, and great storyteller.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th July 2022, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

That's cuz you were not more than a wee babe then, right?

(take the lifeline I'm throwin' ya here)

I graduated from high school in 1971 and I was politically active. It's just that I have so many memories some of them are mixed up.

Stacyhs · 9th July 2022, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I graduated from high school in 1971 and I was politically active. It's just that I have so many memories some of them are mixed up.

You were a year ahead of me. I think. I can't remember. Where are we?

Skeptic Ginger · 9th July 2022, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

You were a year ahead of me. I think. I can't remember. Where are we?

I graduated a year early. Or was it a half year? I get confused but I know it was early.

lionking · 9th July 2022, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I graduated a year early. Or was it a half year? I get confused but I know it was early.

Meh, babies. I finished high school in 1968 (a year early at 17).

Stacyhs · 10th July 2022, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I graduated a year early. Or was it a half year? I get confused but I know it was early.

Ah...got expelled, heh?

I could have graduated a semester early as I didn't need any more credits. It was a tough last semester..not: Spanish 4, French 2, and walking across the street to the elementary school to do teacher assisting for 2 hours. Out at noon. Rough.

Mike! · 10th July 2022, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Ah...got expelled, heh?

I could have graduated a semester early as I didn't need any more credits. It was a tough last semester..not: Spanish 4, French 2, and walking across the street to the elementary school to do teacher assisting for 2 hours. Out at noon. Rough.

I could have graduated early, but then I'd have never made Honor Roll, which I did the last half of my Senior year.
Of course the classes I had were Art, Commercial Art, and Stage Craft, so all were pretty easy A's.

Crazy Chainsaw · 10th July 2022, 07:09 AM

Any Information on this?
Are these claims real?
http://youtu.be/_qzRGRiF2f0

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/oath-keeper...rxGV6koMmq786z

Stacyhs · 10th July 2022, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Any Information on this?
Are these claims real?
http://youtu.be/_qzRGRiF2f0

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/oath-keeper...rxGV6koMmq786z

Yes, it's true according to several sources including Politico.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...jan-6-00044845

Skeptic Ginger · 10th July 2022, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Any Information on this?
Are these claims real?
http://youtu.be/_qzRGRiF2f0

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/oath-keeper...rxGV6koMmq786z

It's not the first I've heard of it.

Stacyhs · 10th July 2022, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's not the first I've heard of it.

Politico is reliable.

Stacyhs · 10th July 2022, 03:25 PM

Looks like Steve Bannon is going to testify in front of the J6C after all. Apparently, he claims Trump has given him 'permission' to waive his claim of executive privilege which has been his 'reason' for ignoring the J6C subpoena. He is scheduled to go on trial for that later this month. Trouble is, he had no such privilege as he did not work for Trump as "all the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the events of January 6 occurred when Bannon was a private citizen." Some legal experts are skeptical:

Quote:

"I smell a gimmick to provide a last-ditch defense in Bannon's criminal case and poison the well in the Jan 6 investigation. It's the perfect two-fer!" Barb McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote on Twitter, retweeting a post that included the letter from Trump, and the other that was addressed to the committee.

"Bannon wants his own special treatment from the January 6 committee—going straight to a public hearing where he can grandstand and refuse to answer questions," Tristan Snell, a lawyer and the founder of Main Street law firm, wrote in a tweet. "Wrong. He must be treated as any other witness: private hearing first to determine if he's truly cooperative."

Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor, told MSNBC's The Sunday Show that he believed Bannon's decision was a "ploy" to help his defense against the contempt of Congress charges.

"This whole thing feels like a ploy," Kirschner assessed. "Why? Because he's going to claim, 'Oh well, look, now I have dispensation. I have a waiver from Donald Trump. That's why I couldn't testify previously. That's why I have a legal defense to the contempt of Congress charge.'"

Kirschner dismissed the letters as "nonsense" and a "charade."

"Given Bannon's clear statements over time that he wants to burn all of government down there is no reason to treat this like a good faith offer. As with all other witnesses, he should have to speak privately with the committee, under oath, first to test his truthfulness," she wrote. "The Cmte can't evaluate whether Bannon has anything to offer that is worth consuming limited hearing time until they speak with him. Questioners need to consider whether his testimony is relevant, new (or just cumulative) & test his credibility. Doesn't deserve any favors."

In a follow-up post on Sunday, McQuade contended that the January 6 committee should reject Bannon's offer.

"J6C should tell him too late, let DOJ convict him at trial for contempt, and then DOJ can compel his testimony. Statute provides immunity from using his own statements against him, but that's not giving up much. He can still be prosecuted for his role in scheme," she wrote.

Bob001 · 10th July 2022, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

.....
Rachel Maddow wrote a book called Bag Man about the crisis posed by the possibility a wildly corrupt Agnew might succeed Nixon. Investigators had damning evidence of Agnew's corruption but this wasn’t widely known at the time Watergate was unfolding. I found the intrigue surrounding efforts to prevent Agnew succeeding Nixon fascinating. I didn’t read the book but instead listened to a podcast series by the same name.
.....

If I recall, some people considered Agnew Nixon's impeachment insurance: They thought nobody would impeach Nixon if it meant Agnew would become President.

shemp · 10th July 2022, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Looks like Steve Bannon is going to testify in front of the J6C after all. Apparently, he claims Trump has given him 'permission' to waive his claim of executive privilege which has been his 'reason' for ignoring the J6C subpoena. He is scheduled to go on trial for that later this month. Trouble is, he had no such privilege as he did not work for Trump as "all the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the events of January 6 occurred when Bannon was a private citizen." Some legal experts are skeptical:

He belongs in a hundred foot deep pit with poisonous vipers and spiders.

dudalb · 10th July 2022, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm confused, are you unaware that Spiro Agnew was the VP when Nixon was about to resign?

Agnew resigned in October of 1973; Nixon resigned in August of 1975. Just a couple months short of a Year;s difference.

slyjoe · 10th July 2022, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Looks like Steve Bannon is going to testify in front of the J6C after all. Apparently, he claims Trump has given him 'permission' to waive his claim of executive privilege which has been his 'reason' for ignoring the J6C subpoena. He is scheduled to go on trial for that later this month. Trouble is, he had no such privilege as he did not work for Trump as "all the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the events of January 6 occurred when Bannon was a private citizen." Some legal experts are skeptical:

I agree with Kirscher's assessment. Letting Bannon go straight to a public hearing? Laughable.

Stacyhs · 10th July 2022, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

I agree with Kirscher's assessment. Letting Bannon go straight to a public hearing? Laughable.

Tristan Snell said the same thing. And I agree. But, I'm not a lawyer. I only play one on ISF.

Crazy Chainsaw · 10th July 2022, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Yes, it's true according to several sources including Politico.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...jan-6-00044845

Thank you that's what I thought, want to bet this isn't the first time the Waco Whackos, Oath Keepers have done this hit list thing?

stanfr · 10th July 2022, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Tristan Snell said the same thing. And I agree. But, I'm not a lawyer. I only play one on ISF.

I dunno...could be a ploy. But neither 45 nor Bannon are the brightest lights, he could just be stupid enough to think that he can successfully spout alternative facts, or maybe Trump thinks Bannon will be uber loyal when it's more likey that Bannon is as loyal to T as T is to him. Should be interesting!

Stacyhs · 10th July 2022, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by stanfr

I dunno...could be a ploy. But neither 45 nor Bannon are the brightest lights, he could just be stupid enough to think that he can successfully spout alternative facts, or maybe Trump thinks Bannon will be uber loyal when it's more likey that Bannon is as loyal to T as T is to him. Should be interesting!

It is a ploy; that's what they're saying.
No way will the J6C allow him in front of a mic in a public hearing before they get him under oath in a videotaped interview first. If he pulls the "5th" there like Flynn did, he won't be given a public hearing. And if he actually does give answers under oath, they'll have the recording if he tries to pull any crap during the public hearing.

ferd burfle · 10th July 2022, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

If I recall, some people considered Agnew Nixon's impeachment insurance: They thought nobody would impeach Nixon if it meant Agnew would become President.

That's interesting

, a poison-pill vice president

The Great Zaganza · 10th July 2022, 08:00 PM

A contempt of Congress charge is not that scary.

Babbylonian · 10th July 2022, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

That's interesting

, a poison-pill vice president

A more recent example was Dan Quayle. There were people calling him Bush I's best protection against assassination. I don't think anyone outside Quayle's immediate family would have voted for him had Bush I won and completed a second term.

Crazy Chainsaw · 11th July 2022, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's not the first I've heard of it.

Just goes to show the Oath Keepers were always a Libertarian Constitutionalist Terrorist organization, that was ment to Promote Libertarian Constitutionalist Ideas through Violence and Intimidating Critics.

Armitage72 · 11th July 2022, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

A more recent example was Dan Quayle. There were people calling him Bush I's best protection against assassination. I don't think anyone outside Quayle's immediate family would have voted for him had Bush I won and completed a second term.

A standup comedian once joked that the Secret Service had orders to shoot Dan Qayle if Bush were ever shot.

Joecool · 11th July 2022, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by stanfr

As powerful and damning as Hutchinson's testimony was, much of it was hearsay and it would be relatively harmless in a criminal case. That concerns me, they really need someone like Cipollone to come to the plate.

For example (one of many) CNN and other MM outlets are headlining things like "Trump said Mike Pence deserved to be hung!"

Very outrageous and incriminating, if it were true. Of course, it is patently false.
Hutchinson testified that Cippolone said "He thinks Mike deserves it"
Not only is this classic hearsay (inadmissible evidence) but it is not even Trump saying "Pence deserves to be hung" it is simply Cipollone's *interpretation* of what Trump *thinks*
Not at all what was reported by CNN and others.
Useless evidence.
And a lot of the other testimony was hearsay too, that was just the best example of it.

They need a Meadows or Eastman or someone closer to turn.

Over a year and still no smoking gun that Trump incited the riot. The riot was wrong but it's being overblown compared to the riots that took place after George Floyd, including the summer of love in Seattle.

The committee will never subpoena the secret service agents that were in the car with Trump because they want to take Hutchinson's word at face value.

The committee also heard testimony from at least a few people who were with Trump, including a DOD staffer named Kash Patel who testified that Trump authorized up to 20,000 troops from the national guard to prevent any problems. and this was before January 6th. The committee of course never aired this testimony.

Nor did the committee show the written letter from the DC mayor declining the troops offered by Trump. Nor did the committee interview Pelosi or the DC Mayor who were declared off limits by the committee.

Liz "toast" Cheney also mentioned that there was intel of possible violence prior to January 6th but the committee never interviewed the security personnel and those in charge of them.

Skeptic Ginger · 11th July 2022, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Joecool

Over a year and still no smoking gun that Trump incited the riot. The riot was wrong but it's being overblown compared to the riots that took place after George Floyd, including the summer of love in Seattle.

The committee will never subpoena the secret service agents that were in the car with Trump because they want to take Hutchinson's word at face value.

The committee also heard testimony from at least a few people who were with Trump, including a DOD staffer named Kash Patel who testified that Trump authorized up to 20,000 troops from the national guard to prevent any problems. and this was before January 6th. The committee of course never aired this testimony.

Nor did the committee show the written letter from the DC mayor declining the troops offered by Trump. Nor did the committee interview Pelosi or the DC Mayor who were declared off limits by the committee.

Liz "toast" Cheney also mentioned that there was intel of possible violence prior to January 6th but the committee never interviewed the security personnel and those in charge of them.

You haven't even heard all the evidence.

Besides for most of us, we understand Drumpf tried to subvert the votes in a number of states. Georgia has him on tape doing just that.

And you are complaining he didn't direct the storming of the Capitol? Just how do you think he was going to deal with Pence not playing sucker to the Big Lie? Oh sure Drumpf was going to just give up at that point.

Good grief. Here we are a year and a half out and Drumpf is still pushing the Big Lie and fantasizing he will be installed as POTUS. He can't stand the fact he's a loser, one term POTUS. He's mentally ill. His narcissism is pathologic.

It's been a year and a half, not one year and you have at least 2 more public hearings to go to find out just what smoking gun evidence there actually is ... that is, evidence beyond what we've all seen.

Ray Charles said it years ago:

Georgia
Georgia
The whole day through ...
Just an old, sweet song
Keeps Georgia on my mind

Joecool · 12th July 2022, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You haven't even heard all the evidence.

Besides for most of us, we understand Drumpf tried to subvert the votes in a number of states. Georgia has him on tape doing just that.

I'm so sorry, I didn't realize you had heard all of the evidence.

Even if Trump tried to subvert the votes in Georgia, how does that prove that he incited the riot on January 6th?

Do you know who Stacy Abrams is? What do you think of her actions? (I doubt you will respond?)

The democrats whined and cried voter suppression and then record votes were cast in 2020. I never claimed that fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 election. Joe Biden said Geogia was Jim Crowe 2.0 but his own state of Delaware has more voting restrictions than Georgia. And what did Joe Biden do about it? Nothing.

8th July 2022, 09:12 PM	#201
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 35,644	Originally Posted by Shalamar Nothing will happen to Trump. No charges, no convictions. Too dangerous. And it will embolden the GoP Originally Posted by Segnosaur The pessimist in me says you're probably right. The optimist has a tiny little glimmer of hope...since in some cases, prosecutions may be carried out by individuals who are less concerned with optics/safety. Ok, I can imagine Garland might be hesitant to charge Stubby McBonespurs based on dubious excuses. (Oh know! Bad optics to charge an ex-president! He has immunity! The GOP might retaliate! etc.) But someone like Fulton County DA Fani Willis (investigating Trump for election shenanigans) doesn't have to worry about how things look on the national stage, nor about how republicans might try to charge Democrats, since she's not a national political figure. And Leticia James doesn't seem to be backing down (although admittedly her case is civil rather than criminal). And about three minutes after the TOP Senate confirms Trump's new AG on Jan 21, 2025, he'll be issuing indictments against Biden, Obama, and, of course, Hillary. And I'm not being sarcastic, I actually expect that. We're screwed.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

8th July 2022, 09:50 PM	#204
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 35,644	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I'm confused, are you unaware that Spiro Agnew was the VP when Nixon was about to resign? Nixon was nowhere near about to resign when Agnew was VP. Agnew was forced to resign in October '73; Nixon held out until August '74. About 10 months. That said, I'm pretty sure that there was no pre-arranged deal that Ford would pardon Nixon in exchange for being appointed Veep. Ford's stated reason for the pardon was to put the matter to an end and not drag the country through more years of accusations and a trial. I don't think he was wrong. ETA: Nuts, Pacal ninja'd me while I was looking up dates!
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant. Last edited by Trebuchet; 8th July 2022 at 09:56 PM.

9th July 2022, 03:49 AM	#208
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,272	Originally Posted by Segnosaur The pessimist in me says you're probably right. The optimist has a tiny little glimmer of hope...since in some cases, prosecutions may be carried out by individuals who are less concerned with optics/safety. Ok, I can imagine Garland might be hesitant to charge Stubby McBonespurs based on dubious excuses. (Oh know! Bad optics to charge an ex-president! He has immunity! The GOP might retaliate! etc.) But someone like Fulton County DA Fani Willis (investigating Trump for election shenanigans) doesn't have to worry about how things look on the national stage, nor about how republicans might try to charge Democrats, since she's not a national political figure. And Leticia James doesn't seem to be backing down (although admittedly her case is civil rather than criminal). I'll believe it when the cuffs come out. Until then I've seen zilch to think that anything is going to come of this but some good television. The little folks are going to wait on Garland, Garland is going to sit on his hands to preserve the sacred impartiality of the justice department, then no one is going to have the timing and authority to step up in his place. Just like with Mueller.
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,272

9th July 2022, 04:03 AM	#209
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ON Canada Posts: 5,369	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Well fudge, that's the 3rd or 4th time my memory from that era has failed. Those are better stats than mine.
	__________________ "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

9th July 2022, 05:24 AM	#210
slyjoe Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 3,427	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I'm confused, are you unaware that Spiro Agnew was the VP when Nixon was about to resign? I'm very aware. I guess it depends on what you mean by "about to resign". Agnew resigned on October 10, 1973. Ford sworn in on December 6, 1973. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. So no, I don't consider the end of Agnew's time in office when Nixon was about to resign. ETA: Sorry - Ninja'ed by multiple other people.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade Last edited by slyjoe; 9th July 2022 at 05:25 AM.

8th July 2022, 09:33 PM	#202
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,991	Originally Posted by slyjoe Ford got the presidency because he was VP. Nixon was going to be impeached anyway. Nixon had the support of what, 4 senators (at least according to the Goldwater conversation) ? I'm confused, are you unaware that Spiro Agnew was the VP when Nixon was about to resign?

8th July 2022, 09:46 PM	#203
Pacal Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,403	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I'm confused, are you unaware that Spiro Agnew was the VP when Nixon was about to resign? Spiro Agnew had been forced to resign months earlier in a unrelated scandal. Ford was appointed his replacement.

8th July 2022, 10:08 PM	#205
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,304	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I'm confused, are you unaware that Spiro Agnew was the VP when Nixon was about to resign? Agnew resigned as VP on Oct. 10, 1973, the same day he pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Ford was confirmed as VP Dec. 6. Nixon didn't resign until Aug. 9, 1974, when Ford became President.

9th July 2022, 12:29 AM	#206
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,991	Well fudge, that's the 3rd or 4th time my memory from that era has failed.

9th July 2022, 01:37 AM	#207
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 28,611	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Well fudge, that's the 3rd or 4th time my memory from that era has failed. That's cuz you were not more than a wee babe then, right? (take the lifeline I'm throwin' ya here)

9th July 2022, 06:42 AM	#211
Ladewig I lost an avatar bet. Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 28,708	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Well fudge, that's the 3rd or 4th time my memory from that era has failed. Well, 3rd or 4th time that you can recall. That’s the problem with relying on your memory to determine how reliable your memory is.
	__________________ I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly. Last edited by Ladewig; 9th July 2022 at 06:43 AM.

9th July 2022, 08:06 AM	#212
ferd burfle Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli Posts: 1,581	Originally Posted by Bob001 Agnew resigned as VP on Oct. 10, 1973, the same day he pleaded guilty to criminal charges. Ford was confirmed as VP Dec. 6. Nixon didn't resign until Aug. 9, 1974, when Ford became President. Apologies for somewhat OT comment Rachel Maddow wrote a book called Bag Man about the crisis posed by the possibility a wildly corrupt Agnew might succeed Nixon. Investigators had damning evidence of Agnew's corruption but this wasn’t widely known at the time Watergate was unfolding. I found the intrigue surrounding efforts to prevent Agnew succeeding Nixon fascinating. I didn’t read the book but instead listened to a podcast series by the same name. First episode https://youtu.be/qXpfCpZ6CdM also available from the usual podcast sources
	__________________ What are the odds something bad will happen to a submarine in a Godzilla movie?-Brandon Last edited by ferd burfle; 9th July 2022 at 08:09 AM.

9th July 2022, 04:50 PM	#213
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 22,868	Originally Posted by ferd burfle Apologies for somewhat OT comment Rachel Maddow wrote a book called Bag Man about the crisis posed by the possibility a wildly corrupt Agnew might succeed Nixon. Investigators had damning evidence of Agnew's corruption but this wasn’t widely known at the time Watergate was unfolding. I found the intrigue surrounding efforts to prevent Agnew succeeding Nixon fascinating. I didn’t read the book but instead listened to a podcast series by the same name. First episode https://youtu.be/qXpfCpZ6CdM also available from the usual podcast sources I also listened to all seven episodes of her Bag Man podcast. It was excellent. For all the criticism Rachel cops from the right, she is a master explainer, and great storyteller.
	__________________ Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so" If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

9th July 2022, 06:36 PM	#214
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,991	Originally Posted by Stacyhs That's cuz you were not more than a wee babe then, right? (take the lifeline I'm throwin' ya here) I graduated from high school in 1971 and I was politically active. It's just that I have so many memories some of them are mixed up.

9th July 2022, 11:23 PM	#215
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 28,611	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I graduated from high school in 1971 and I was politically active. It's just that I have so many memories some of them are mixed up. You were a year ahead of me. I think. I can't remember. Where are we?

9th July 2022, 11:53 PM	#216
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,991	Originally Posted by Stacyhs You were a year ahead of me. I think. I can't remember. Where are we? I graduated a year early. Or was it a half year? I get confused but I know it was early.

9th July 2022, 11:57 PM	#217
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 52,503	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I graduated a year early. Or was it a half year? I get confused but I know it was early. Meh, babies. I finished high school in 1968 (a year early at 17).
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

10th July 2022, 12:51 AM	#218
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 28,611	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I graduated a year early. Or was it a half year? I get confused but I know it was early. Ah...got expelled, heh? I could have graduated a semester early as I didn't need any more credits. It was a tough last semester..not: Spanish 4, French 2, and walking across the street to the elementary school to do teacher assisting for 2 hours. Out at noon. Rough.

10th July 2022, 04:48 AM	#219
Mike! Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it! Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not! Posts: 48,757	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Ah...got expelled, heh? I could have graduated a semester early as I didn't need any more credits. It was a tough last semester..not: Spanish 4, French 2, and walking across the street to the elementary school to do teacher assisting for 2 hours. Out at noon. Rough. I could have graduated early, but then I'd have never made Honor Roll, which I did the last half of my Senior year. Of course the classes I had were Art, Commercial Art, and Stage Craft, so all were pretty easy A's.
	__________________ "Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes... Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."

10th July 2022, 07:09 AM	#220
Crazy Chainsaw Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 7,212	Any Information on this? Are these claims real? http://youtu.be/_qzRGRiF2f0 http://ca.news.yahoo.com/oath-keeper...rxGV6koMmq786z
	Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 10th July 2022 at 07:15 AM.

10th July 2022, 10:20 AM	#221
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 28,611	Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw Any Information on this? Are these claims real? http://youtu.be/_qzRGRiF2f0 http://ca.news.yahoo.com/oath-keeper...rxGV6koMmq786z Yes, it's true according to several sources including Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...jan-6-00044845

10th July 2022, 10:42 AM	#222
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,991	Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw Any Information on this? Are these claims real? http://youtu.be/_qzRGRiF2f0 http://ca.news.yahoo.com/oath-keeper...rxGV6koMmq786z It's not the first I've heard of it.

10th July 2022, 10:43 AM	#223
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 28,611	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It's not the first I've heard of it. Politico is reliable.

10th July 2022, 03:25 PM	#224
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 28,611	Looks like Steve Bannon is going to testify in front of the J6C after all. Apparently, he claims Trump has given him 'permission' to waive his claim of executive privilege which has been his 'reason' for ignoring the J6C subpoena. He is scheduled to go on trial for that later this month. Trouble is, he had no such privilege as he did not work for Trump as "all the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the events of January 6 occurred when Bannon was a private citizen." Some legal experts are skeptical: Quote: "I smell a gimmick to provide a last-ditch defense in Bannon's criminal case and poison the well in the Jan 6 investigation. It's the perfect two-fer!" Barb McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote on Twitter, retweeting a post that included the letter from Trump, and the other that was addressed to the committee. "Bannon wants his own special treatment from the January 6 committee—going straight to a public hearing where he can grandstand and refuse to answer questions," Tristan Snell, a lawyer and the founder of Main Street law firm, wrote in a tweet. "Wrong. He must be treated as any other witness: private hearing first to determine if he's truly cooperative." Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor, told MSNBC's The Sunday Show that he believed Bannon's decision was a "ploy" to help his defense against the contempt of Congress charges. "This whole thing feels like a ploy," Kirschner assessed. "Why? Because he's going to claim, 'Oh well, look, now I have dispensation. I have a waiver from Donald Trump. That's why I couldn't testify previously. That's why I have a legal defense to the contempt of Congress charge.'" Kirschner dismissed the letters as "nonsense" and a "charade." "Given Bannon's clear statements over time that he wants to burn all of government down there is no reason to treat this like a good faith offer. As with all other witnesses, he should have to speak privately with the committee, under oath, first to test his truthfulness," she wrote. "The Cmte can't evaluate whether Bannon has anything to offer that is worth consuming limited hearing time until they speak with him. Questioners need to consider whether his testimony is relevant, new (or just cumulative) & test his credibility. Doesn't deserve any favors." In a follow-up post on Sunday, McQuade contended that the January 6 committee should reject Bannon's offer. "J6C should tell him too late, let DOJ convict him at trial for contempt, and then DOJ can compel his testimony. Statute provides immunity from using his own statements against him, but that's not giving up much. He can still be prosecuted for his role in scheme," she wrote.

10th July 2022, 04:08 PM	#225
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,304	Originally Posted by ferd burfle ..... Rachel Maddow wrote a book called Bag Man about the crisis posed by the possibility a wildly corrupt Agnew might succeed Nixon. Investigators had damning evidence of Agnew's corruption but this wasn’t widely known at the time Watergate was unfolding. I found the intrigue surrounding efforts to prevent Agnew succeeding Nixon fascinating. I didn’t read the book but instead listened to a podcast series by the same name. ..... If I recall, some people considered Agnew Nixon's impeachment insurance: They thought nobody would impeach Nixon if it meant Agnew would become President.

10th July 2022, 04:12 PM	#226
shemp a flimsy character...perfidious and despised Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Out back preparing the bunker for the next Civil War Posts: 52,734	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Looks like Steve Bannon is going to testify in front of the J6C after all. Apparently, he claims Trump has given him 'permission' to waive his claim of executive privilege which has been his 'reason' for ignoring the J6C subpoena. He is scheduled to go on trial for that later this month. Trouble is, he had no such privilege as he did not work for Trump as "all the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the events of January 6 occurred when Bannon was a private citizen." Some legal experts are skeptical: He belongs in a hundred foot deep pit with poisonous vipers and spiders.
	__________________ "Yes, I'll be around for many more centuries. You, meanwhile, will have long ago been turned into value dog food, despite your express wishes to the contrary." -- JihadJane

10th July 2022, 04:28 PM	#227
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 57,211	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I'm confused, are you unaware that Spiro Agnew was the VP when Nixon was about to resign? Agnew resigned in October of 1973; Nixon resigned in August of 1975. Just a couple months short of a Year;s difference.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

10th July 2022, 04:48 PM	#228
slyjoe Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 3,427	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Looks like Steve Bannon is going to testify in front of the J6C after all. Apparently, he claims Trump has given him 'permission' to waive his claim of executive privilege which has been his 'reason' for ignoring the J6C subpoena. He is scheduled to go on trial for that later this month. Trouble is, he had no such privilege as he did not work for Trump as "all the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the events of January 6 occurred when Bannon was a private citizen." Some legal experts are skeptical: I agree with Kirscher's assessment. Letting Bannon go straight to a public hearing? Laughable.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

10th July 2022, 05:02 PM	#229
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 28,611	Originally Posted by slyjoe I agree with Kirscher's assessment. Letting Bannon go straight to a public hearing? Laughable. Tristan Snell said the same thing. And I agree. But, I'm not a lawyer. I only play one on ISF.

10th July 2022, 05:11 PM	#230
Crazy Chainsaw Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 7,212	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Yes, it's true according to several sources including Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...jan-6-00044845 Thank you that's what I thought, want to bet this isn't the first time the Waco Whackos, Oath Keepers have done this hit list thing?

10th July 2022, 05:42 PM	#231
stanfr Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,259	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Tristan Snell said the same thing. And I agree. But, I'm not a lawyer. I only play one on ISF. I dunno...could be a ploy. But neither 45 nor Bannon are the brightest lights, he could just be stupid enough to think that he can successfully spout alternative facts, or maybe Trump thinks Bannon will be uber loyal when it's more likey that Bannon is as loyal to T as T is to him. Should be interesting!
stanfr Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,259

10th July 2022, 06:57 PM	#232
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 28,611	Originally Posted by stanfr I dunno...could be a ploy. But neither 45 nor Bannon are the brightest lights, he could just be stupid enough to think that he can successfully spout alternative facts, or maybe Trump thinks Bannon will be uber loyal when it's more likey that Bannon is as loyal to T as T is to him. Should be interesting! It is a ploy; that's what they're saying. No way will the J6C allow him in front of a mic in a public hearing before they get him under oath in a videotaped interview first. If he pulls the "5th" there like Flynn did, he won't be given a public hearing. And if he actually does give answers under oath, they'll have the recording if he tries to pull any crap during the public hearing.

10th July 2022, 07:08 PM	#233
ferd burfle Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli Posts: 1,581	Originally Posted by Bob001 If I recall, some people considered Agnew Nixon's impeachment insurance: They thought nobody would impeach Nixon if it meant Agnew would become President. That's interesting , a poison-pill vice president
	__________________ What are the odds something bad will happen to a submarine in a Godzilla movie?-Brandon

10th July 2022, 08:00 PM	#234
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 19,306	A contempt of Congress charge is not that scary.
	__________________ "The only true paradise is paradise lost" Marcel Proust

10th July 2022, 08:55 PM	#235
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,987	Originally Posted by ferd burfle That's interesting , a poison-pill vice president A more recent example was Dan Quayle. There were people calling him Bush I's best protection against assassination. I don't think anyone outside Quayle's immediate family would have voted for him had Bush I won and completed a second term.