The Jan. 6 Investigation - Page 74

Skeptic Ginger · 21st June 2022, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Moss and Freeman can't sue because the Orange Turd made his accusations while he was still POTUS:

"In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office."
Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Defamation is a civil, not a criminal, tort.

I don't think trying to steal the election is an official act.

jimbob · 21st June 2022, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Moss and Freeman can't sue because the Orange Turd made his accusations while he was still POTUS:

"In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office."
Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Defamation is a civil, not a criminal, tort.

The highlighted. I would take that to mean that if the POTUS decided to authorise the building of a road or a pipeline, say, those adversely affected couldn't sue the person who was the POTUS for such a decision, as it was part of their presidential acts.

Defaming someone should not be considered part of that. ETA: Anymore than failing to pay personal bills incurred for personal acts whilst holding the office of president but unrelated to the job of President

Segnosaur · 22nd June 2022, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by jimbob

Quote:

Moss and Freeman can't sue because the Orange Turd made his accusations while he was still POTUS:

"In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts.

The highlighted. I would take that to mean that if the POTUS decided to authorise the building of a road or a pipeline, say, those adversely affected couldn't sue the person who was the POTUS for such a decision, as it was part of their presidential acts.

Defaming someone should not be considered part of that. ETA: Anymore than failing to pay personal bills incurred for personal acts whilst holding the office of president but unrelated to the job of President

True. I suspect what will happen in that case is that Trump will launch various court challenges/appeals, it will find its way to the supreme court, where they will probably sit on it for a while until they issue a ruling that is less than crystal clear. (Much like their "can they have Trump's taxes? We won't say but we will give guidelines, which will result in more court cases").

Delay delay, until Trump dies. Or becomes president, giving him all the more reason to appeal.

All this should be handled quickly. (After all, Clinton v. Jones was a fairly clear precedent.) But it won't be.

jimbob · 22nd June 2022, 12:37 AM

https://twitter.com/maddowblog/statu...A3rvNWEEUBDYDQ

Quote:

Maddow Blog
@MaddowBlog
Normal
0%
Sen. Ron Johnson so much didn't want to talk to reporters about his office trying to pass fake elector lists to the vice president's office that he tried to pretend he was on the phone.

Video in link

smartcooky · 22nd June 2022, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Moss and Freeman can't sue because the Orange Turd made his accusations while he was still POTUS:

"In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office."
Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Defamation is a civil, not a criminal, tort.

That was Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). It dealt with immunity for officials performing discretionary functions when their actions did not violate clearly-established law.

Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald, an American engineer, member of the Senior Executive Service in the United States Air Force, and prominent U.S. government whistleblower, filed a lawsuit against government officials. claiming that he had lost his position as a contractor for the US Air Force because of testimony he made before Congress in 1968. Fitzgerald alleged that the action taken against him later by President Richard Nixon represented unlawful retaliation for his congressional testimony.

In this sort of discussion, it is often useful to go back to the actual decision and see what it says, rather than just look at someone's summary of it.
Here are the important sections of the actual rulings in that case (I have highlighted salient points and emboldened the significant parts)

Held:

2. Petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.

2 (b) The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts.

2 (c) The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office.

2 (d) (d) A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn re-election, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature.

Are lying about election results, attempting to overthrow an election, and calling down his mob to do violence on individual citizens part of POTUS "discretionary functions", or "official duties" or "within the outer perimeter of his duties of office"?

I would not have thought so!

Did The Fat Orange Turd's "desire to earn re-election" protect these people from his misconduct.

Definitely not!!

smartcooky · 22nd June 2022, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by jimbob

https://twitter.com/maddowblog/statu...A3rvNWEEUBDYDQ

Video in link

Not wishing to defend Ron Johnson, but this bit "he tried to pretend he was on the phone." is likely BS. That looks like its an Android phone Johnson is using, and almost without exception, the proximity detector deactivates the touchscreen and turns the screen black when you put the phone up to your ear during a phone call, to prevent you from accidentally tapping any buttons

Now, he may well have been pretending to be on a phone call, but the black screen is irrelevant to that.

jimbob · 22nd June 2022, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Not wishing to defend Ron Johnson, but this bit "he tried to pretend he was on the phone." is likely BS. That looks like its an Android phone Johnson is using, and almost without exception, the proximity detector deactivates the touchscreen and turns the screen black when you put the phone up to your ear during a phone call, to prevent you from accidentally tapping any buttons

Now, he may well have been pretending to be on a phone call, but the black screen is irrelevant to that.

He started answering questions after that, so tacitly acknowledged it.

smartcooky · 22nd June 2022, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by jimbob

He started answering questions after that, so tacitly acknowledged it.

True. I was merely pointing out that what the reporter said, "Not you're not, I can see your phone... I can see your screen" was irrelevant. It did not mean he was not on a call.

ZiprHead · 22nd June 2022, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Seeing a clip of Ivanka's testimony I think it's clear that she used some sort of blur/beauty filter to hide any skin imperfections.

It looked like CGI to me. Talk about uncanny valley!

Stacyhs · 22nd June 2022, 12:20 PM

I think the problem is in defining what are 'official duties' and the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office.

Freeman and MOss sued OAN and Giuliani for defamation. OAN settled out of court a couple months ago so only Giuliani remains as a suit defendant in that case.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/two...ca-2022-04-21/

They are also suing Gateway Pundit. There is no suit against Trump so I suspect their lawyers have advised them against suing him, perhaps for the reason I gave.

stanfr · 22nd June 2022, 06:11 PM

Good news! The hearings are apparently having an impact on voters...in the latest polls, and in a huge reversal from last year, Desantis is leading Trump in New Hampshire.

Oh wait...that's not good news.

slyjoe · 22nd June 2022, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

He may have threatened me, bullied me, cajoled, harassed and intimidated me.

He may have sent dozens, hundreds, multitudes of his lunatic minions to come after not only me but also my wife and dying child.

He, and Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman, may have tried every trick in the book to force me, as Arizona's secretary of state, to cheat, lie, and steal the state for him.

I'm still backing him for president in 2024.

Katie Hobbs is Secretary of State. Bowers is speaker of the AZ House.

stanfr · 22nd June 2022, 09:37 PM

I did not buy Bowers' 'coming to Jesus' moment in the hearings yesterday.

He has been on the Trump train all along and was actively involved in supporting the ridiculous and illegal efforts to question the election results here in AZ.

For once, T might have been the truthful party when he said Bowers told him that the election had been rigged.

So why would he change his tune? Perhaps he recognizes a sinking ship and wants to gain favor with whomever takes Trump's place.
ETA: or he could be trying to save his own butt

Stacyhs · 22nd June 2022, 10:38 PM

Mitch McConnell: "“I think I have an obligation to support the nominee of my party.”

That's about as blatant a "Party of Country" declaration I've ever read. And probably one of the most honest things McConnell has ever said.

Bill Barr : Trump should not be the Republican nominee in 2024 but that he would support him if he were: “I believe that the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party. It’s inconceivable to me that I wouldn’t vote for the Republican nominee.”

So the Dems are more dangerous to the country with their 'progressive agenda' than a pathological liar, malignant narcissist, disconnected from reality sociopath who has done his best to destroy the very bedrock of our democracy: the peaceful and lawful transference of power as chosen by the American people by a free and honest election.

Gotcha, Bill.

ChrisBFRPKY · 23rd June 2022, 12:08 AM

That's almost as insulting as participating in the Jan 6th made for TV drama to save our mid terms show.

Stacyhs · 23rd June 2022, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

That's almost as insulting as participating in the Jan 6th made for TV drama to save our mid terms show.

Yeah, all those Republicans like Rusty Bowers, Brad Raffensperger, and Ronna McDaniel, getting up there and lying about how Trump and his minions tried to get them to subvert the election with fake pro-Trump electors. And what about those fake phone calls to Georgia GOP election officials where Trump tried to get them to just find him the amount of votes he needed to win the state? Crisis actors! And those two women, Moss and Freeman! They were so obviously lying. No way did they get death threats even though they were passing around USB ports with votes on them like vials of heroin or cocaine. And if anyone knows what a vial of coke looks like, it's Patriot Rudy so he should know!

The next thing those libtards on the committee are going to tell us is that there's no such thing as Bigfoot! Sheesh.

Delphic Oracle · 23rd June 2022, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

That was Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). It dealt with immunity for officials performing discretionary functions when their actions did not violate clearly-established law.

Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald, an American engineer, member of the Senior Executive Service in the United States Air Force, and prominent U.S. government whistleblower, filed a lawsuit against government officials. claiming that he had lost his position as a contractor for the US Air Force because of testimony he made before Congress in 1968. Fitzgerald alleged that the action taken against him later by President Richard Nixon represented unlawful retaliation for his congressional testimony.

In this sort of discussion, it is often useful to go back to the actual decision and see what it says, rather than just look at someone's summary of it.

Here are the important sections of the actual rulings in that case (I have highlighted salient points and emboldened the significant parts)

Held:

2. Petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.

2 (b) The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts.

2 (c) The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office.

2 (d) (d) A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn re-election, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature.

Are lying about election results, attempting to overthrow an election, and calling down his mob to do violence on individual citizens part of POTUS "discretionary functions", or "official duties" or "within the outer perimeter of his duties of office"?

I would not have thought so!

Did The Fat Orange Turd's "desire to earn re-election" protect these people from his misconduct.

Definitely not!!

Some thoughts that floated through my head while reading that:

It is disruptive to the operation of government that the President might have to think about the consequences of his actions on citizens?

This immunity is rooted in the separation of powers? But you're the court, a separate branch enabled to act as a check on the executive.

Impeachment is nice and all, bit still doesn't address any way to recover damages by those affected. It can only prevent further potential harm, not harms already caused.

Every random statement a President makes is a "function?"

In the overall, while the Presidency* was once far more limited than a monarch in the age of absolutism, it appears far more shielded from any consequences than than its contemporaries today.

*ETA: even more to the point, the person inhabiting the office.

Lurch · 23rd June 2022, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Some thoughts that floated through my head while reading that:

It is disruptive to the operation of government that the President might have to think about the consequences of his actions on citizens?

This immunity is rooted in the separation of powers? But you're the court, a separate branch enabled to act as a check on the executive.

Impeachment is nice and all, bit still doesn't address any way to recover damages by those affected. It can only prevent further potential harm, not harms already caused.

Every random statement a President makes is a "function?"

In the overall, while the Presidency* was once far more limited than a monarch in the age of absolutism, it appears far more shielded from any consequences than than its contemporaries today.

*ETA: even more to the point, the person inhabiting the office.

It's long been apparent to me that, among the democracies, POTUS is regarded nearest to a king. The oft brayed, "No man is above the law" is revealed to be not just delusional, but a brazen lie. Indeed, because money is prized above all else in the US, the rich are already sheilded to a shameful degree, with the result that a craven scofflaw became President. Look at the fallout such myopic idiocy has wrought.

Even IF that prolapsed orange anus should eventually be convicted for one or more of its crimes, the trepidatious, timorous, tender tip-toeing by the DOJ exemplifies the irrational reverence for the office. Evident also is a certain pusillanimity where overwrought hand-wringing over political ramifications too heavily weighted induces inertia and delay. If not outright inaction.

That one phone recording with Raffensberger should have resulted in indictment the day following its release. Or at least the immediate ousting from office. In most any of the other democracies there would have resulted serious consequences essentially immediately had a PM, President or Chancellor done such a thing.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd June 2022, 01:22 PM

Once again, it's not that the gist is new in today's hearing, but OMG the extent Drumpf went to promote the Big Lie is shocking. He was obsessed!

Today we get to see which legislators asked for pardons. My guess, Drumpf was pouting and wasn't about to let any of the 'losers' off the hook. They all failed him including the 'mob'. Before today I would have thought Drumpf didn't give pardons because it would look like he himself was guilty. But now it looks like he was so obsessed, day after day, that when it was over he probably went into a depression and blamed all the people he felt failed him.

dudalb · 23rd June 2022, 01:49 PM

Petty clear that one thing the investigations have done is put McCarthy permanenly in Trump's dogshouse, and this time a trip to Marg Largo to kiss the ring won't be enough.
I am sure the idea is, if the GOP gets the House back, to remove him and put a 100% Trump loyalists in his place. Ring and even Butt kissing will no longer be enough.

ZiprHead · 23rd June 2022, 06:15 PM

ABC News announced that Jeffrey Clark, Trump's pick to take over the DOJ because he was willing to do Trump's bidding, had his home raided and searched this morning. They said Clark was standing in the street watching in his pajamas.

Is that the sound of toilets flushing in Mar A Lago I hear?

smartcooky · 24th June 2022, 01:57 AM

So Louis Gohmert, Matt Gaetz, Mo Brooks, Andrew Biggs and Scott Perry all asked for presidential pardons... all testified to, under oath.

Has anyone heard if Scott Perry still denies asking for a presidential pardon?

Captain_Swoop · 24th June 2022, 02:38 AM

Brit Hume on Fox said "Far from proving Trump nearly blew up our democracy, the testimony has shown his effort collapsed because Republican officials who voted for him refused to go along."

Is that the defence? Trump tried to overthrow democracy but a couple of guys stopped him so it's OK?

smartcooky · 24th June 2022, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Brit Hume on Fox said "Far from proving Trump nearly blew up our democracy, the testimony has shown his effort collapsed because Republican officials who voted for him refused to go along."

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Is that the defence? Trump tried to overthrow democracy but a couple of guys stopped him so it's OK?

Its the standard GOP "no harm = no foul" defence. The Zelenskyy extortion scandal showed that... "So what if Dear Leader tried to extort Zelenskyy by withholding weapons to get dirt on Joe Biden. It didn't work... he didn't get what he wanted, and Ukraine got the weapons, so he didn't do anything wrong."

The Great Zaganza · 24th June 2022, 04:43 AM

It's Monopoly Rules: if you get caught stealing from the Bank, your punishment is to have to return the money, nothing more.

It's called Privilege, aka Private Law for Republicans, common law for everyone else.

TofuFighter · 24th June 2022, 04:44 AM

Brit Hume's also on record in January saying trump's claims of widespread fraud are utter balderdash and likely led to the event on January 6.

“All of that stuff he said for weeks on end after the election — that he’d won it in a landslide, and that it was all stolen from him, and that Mike Pence had the authority, which he most certainly did not, of reversing the results at the last minute last week,” Hume told host Tucker Carlson. “That was utter balderdash and he fed it into the veins of his supporters, and one could make a pretty good case that that’s part of what got them into a fever that led to last week’s events.”

So it seems he's more defending the Republicans than trump on this one.

smartcooky · 24th June 2022, 09:15 PM

Looks like Mo Brooks is willing to talk to the Jan 6 select committee. Of course if, like me, you have been following the US Senate primaries, it won't be very hard to guess why he's had this change of heart.... Trump first endorsed him in his bid to become a Senator for Alabama, then "un-endorsed" him and endorsed his opponent, Katie Britt instead.

https://www.al.com/news/2022/06/mo-b...onditions.html

Maybe Marjorie Taylor-Green wasn't far off with her "gazpacho" comments. After all, isn't revenge supposed to be a dish that is best served cold!?

sarge · 25th June 2022, 02:54 PM

This thread is about the Investigation into the Jan 6 insurrection. It is not about gas prices, Biden, or even Trump generally.

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:sarge

plague311 · 27th June 2022, 11:14 AM

The Jan. 6th committee is going to have a meeting that was scheduled last minute due to new information. I'm not sure what it could be, but it must be important, or at least interesting. Link, quote:

Quote:

The Jan. 6 committee will hold a last-minute public hearing Tuesday to present new evidence and hear witness testimony, after having previously said it would take a break until mid-July.

The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday at 1 p.m. ET, according to an advisory the committee sent out Monday. In an unusual move, the committee has not identified the witness, as it did for previous hearings.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th June 2022, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by plague311

The Jan. 6th committee is going to have a meeting that was scheduled last minute due to new information. I'm not sure what it could be, but it must be important, or at least interesting. Link, quote:

Thanks. I heard a snippet of this in my background radio noise and now I don't have to look up when the hearing will be.

plague311 · 27th June 2022, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Thanks. I heard a snippet of this in my background radio noise and now I don't have to look up when the hearing will be.

Glad I could help!

dudalb · 27th June 2022, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by plague311

The Jan. 6th committee is going to have a meeting that was scheduled last minute due to new information. I'm not sure what it could be, but it must be important, or at least interesting. Link, quote:

Now everybody is expecting another bombshell tommorow.

shemp · 27th June 2022, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Now everybody is expecting another bombshell tommorow.

There better be one. If there isn't, people will be asking why they did this. If you're promising people a Beatles reunion, you better not give them William Hung.

Craig4 · 27th June 2022, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

That's almost as insulting as participating in the Jan 6th made for TV drama to save our mid terms show.

I do hope they show the Babbit **** dying again. That's my favorite part of the whole show.

ZiprHead · 27th June 2022, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Craig4

I do hope they show the Babbit **** dying again. That's my favorite part of the whole show.

Haven't you heard? According to Empty G Babbitt was trying to keep people from going into the chamber.

Craig4 · 27th June 2022, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by ZiprHead

Haven't you heard? According to Empty G Babbitt was trying to keep people from going into the chamber.

She was partly successful. Her body did good service as a tripping hazard, the one useful thing she ever did.

smartcooky · 27th June 2022, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Now everybody is expecting another bombshell tommorow.

My guess(es) would be

a. Trump's former White House Counsel, Pat Cipillone.

b. Mark Meadows’ former top aide, Cassidy Hutchinson (the women who testified on video in the last hearing to several Congressman applying to The Fat Orange Turd for pardons.)

Perhaps both.

lionking · 28th June 2022, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Craig4

She was partly successful. Her body did good service as a tripping hazard, the one useful thing she ever did.

Really? Look I’m on your side. Solidly. But why this rubbish?

Stacyhs · 28th June 2022, 02:16 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

My guess(es) would be

a. Trump's former White House Counsel, Pat Cipillone.

b. Mark Meadows’ former top aide, Cassidy Hutchinson (the women who testified on video in the last hearing to several Congressman applying to The Fat Orange Turd for pardons.)

Perhaps both.

That's my guess, too. it must be something important or they wouldn't have added a new session early like this. I know I'll be watching.
Can't wait to see how our resident troll handwaves this away.

kookbreaker · 28th June 2022, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Craig4

She was partly successful. Her body did good service as a tripping hazard, the one useful thing she ever did.

Flippant, but not entirely wrong. All the rioters at the door stopped to video her dying.

21st June 2022, 11:38 PM	#2922
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 26,164	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Moss and Freeman can't sue because the Orange Turd made his accusations while he was still POTUS: "In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office." Nixon v. Fitzgerald Defamation is a civil, not a criminal, tort. The highlighted. I would take that to mean that if the POTUS decided to authorise the building of a road or a pipeline, say, those adversely affected couldn't sue the person who was the POTUS for such a decision, as it was part of their presidential acts. Defaming someone should not be considered part of that. ETA: Anymore than failing to pay personal bills incurred for personal acts whilst holding the office of president but unrelated to the job of President
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK Last edited by jimbob; 21st June 2022 at 11:40 PM.

22nd June 2022, 12:13 AM	#2923
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 18,774	Originally Posted by jimbob Quote: Moss and Freeman can't sue because the Orange Turd made his accusations while he was still POTUS: "In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The highlighted. I would take that to mean that if the POTUS decided to authorise the building of a road or a pipeline, say, those adversely affected couldn't sue the person who was the POTUS for such a decision, as it was part of their presidential acts. Defaming someone should not be considered part of that. ETA: Anymore than failing to pay personal bills incurred for personal acts whilst holding the office of president but unrelated to the job of President True. I suspect what will happen in that case is that Trump will launch various court challenges/appeals, it will find its way to the supreme court, where they will probably sit on it for a while until they issue a ruling that is less than crystal clear. (Much like their "can they have Trump's taxes? We won't say but we will give guidelines, which will result in more court cases"). Delay delay, until Trump dies. Or becomes president, giving him all the more reason to appeal. All this should be handled quickly. (After all, Clinton v. Jones was a fairly clear precedent.) But it won't be.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

22nd June 2022, 12:37 AM	#2924
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 26,164	https://twitter.com/maddowblog/statu...A3rvNWEEUBDYDQ Quote: Maddow Blog @MaddowBlog Normal 0% Sen. Ron Johnson so much didn't want to talk to reporters about his office trying to pass fake elector lists to the vice president's office that he tried to pretend he was on the phone. Video in link
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK

22nd June 2022, 02:33 AM	#2925
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 21,506	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Moss and Freeman can't sue because the Orange Turd made his accusations while he was still POTUS: "In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office." Nixon v. Fitzgerald Defamation is a civil, not a criminal, tort. That was Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). It dealt with immunity for officials performing discretionary functions when their actions did not violate clearly-established law. Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald, an American engineer, member of the Senior Executive Service in the United States Air Force, and prominent U.S. government whistleblower, filed a lawsuit against government officials. claiming that he had lost his position as a contractor for the US Air Force because of testimony he made before Congress in 1968. Fitzgerald alleged that the action taken against him later by President Richard Nixon represented unlawful retaliation for his congressional testimony. In this sort of discussion, it is often useful to go back to the actual decision and see what it says, rather than just look at someone's summary of it. Here are the important sections of the actual rulings in that case (I have highlighted salient points and emboldened the significant parts) Held: 2. Petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts. 2 (b) The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts. 2 (c) The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office. 2 (d) (d) A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn re-election, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature. Are lying about election results, attempting to overthrow an election, and calling down his mob to do violence on individual citizens part of POTUS "discretionary functions", or "official duties" or "within the outer perimeter of his duties of office"? I would not have thought so! Did The Fat Orange Turd's "desire to earn re-election" protect these people from his misconduct. Definitely not!!
	__________________ 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!

22nd June 2022, 02:42 AM	#2926
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 21,506	Originally Posted by jimbob https://twitter.com/maddowblog/statu...A3rvNWEEUBDYDQ Video in link Not wishing to defend Ron Johnson, but this bit "he tried to pretend he was on the phone." is likely BS. That looks like its an Android phone Johnson is using, and almost without exception, the proximity detector deactivates the touchscreen and turns the screen black when you put the phone up to your ear during a phone call, to prevent you from accidentally tapping any buttons Now, he may well have been pretending to be on a phone call, but the black screen is irrelevant to that.
	__________________ 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! Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd June 2022 at 02:46 AM.

21st June 2022, 11:26 PM	#2921
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,223	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Moss and Freeman can't sue because the Orange Turd made his accusations while he was still POTUS: "In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office." Nixon v. Fitzgerald Defamation is a civil, not a criminal, tort. I don't think trying to steal the election is an official act.

22nd June 2022, 03:09 AM	#2927
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 26,164	Originally Posted by smartcooky Not wishing to defend Ron Johnson, but this bit "he tried to pretend he was on the phone." is likely BS. That looks like its an Android phone Johnson is using, and almost without exception, the proximity detector deactivates the touchscreen and turns the screen black when you put the phone up to your ear during a phone call, to prevent you from accidentally tapping any buttons Now, he may well have been pretending to be on a phone call, but the black screen is irrelevant to that. He started answering questions after that, so tacitly acknowledged it.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK

22nd June 2022, 04:02 AM	#2928
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 21,506	Originally Posted by jimbob He started answering questions after that, so tacitly acknowledged it. True. I was merely pointing out that what the reporter said, "Not you're not, I can see your phone... I can see your screen" was irrelevant. It did not mean he was not on a call.
	__________________ 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!

22nd June 2022, 11:57 AM	#2929
ZiprHead Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sag-Nasty Posts: 620	Originally Posted by alfaniner Seeing a clip of Ivanka's testimony I think it's clear that she used some sort of blur/beauty filter to hide any skin imperfections. It looked like CGI to me. Talk about uncanny valley!
	__________________ When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy. IIDB is back, baby!

22nd June 2022, 12:20 PM	#2930
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 25,326	I think the problem is in defining what are 'official duties' and the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office. Freeman and MOss sued OAN and Giuliani for defamation. OAN settled out of court a couple months ago so only Giuliani remains as a suit defendant in that case. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/two...ca-2022-04-21/ They are also suing Gateway Pundit. There is no suit against Trump so I suspect their lawyers have advised them against suing him, perhaps for the reason I gave.

22nd June 2022, 06:11 PM	#2931
stanfr Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,004	Good news! The hearings are apparently having an impact on voters...in the latest polls, and in a huge reversal from last year, Desantis is leading Trump in New Hampshire. Oh wait...that's not good news.
stanfr Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,004

22nd June 2022, 08:43 PM	#2932
slyjoe Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 3,164	Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin He may have threatened me, bullied me, cajoled, harassed and intimidated me. He may have sent dozens, hundreds, multitudes of his lunatic minions to come after not only me but also my wife and dying child. He, and Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman, may have tried every trick in the book to force me, as Arizona's secretary of state, to cheat, lie, and steal the state for him. I'm still backing him for president in 2024. Katie Hobbs is Secretary of State. Bowers is speaker of the AZ House.
	__________________ "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

22nd June 2022, 09:37 PM	#2933
stanfr Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,004	I did not buy Bowers' 'coming to Jesus' moment in the hearings yesterday. He has been on the Trump train all along and was actively involved in supporting the ridiculous and illegal efforts to question the election results here in AZ. For once, T might have been the truthful party when he said Bowers told him that the election had been rigged. So why would he change his tune? Perhaps he recognizes a sinking ship and wants to gain favor with whomever takes Trump's place. ETA: or he could be trying to save his own butt
stanfr Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,004	Last edited by stanfr; 22nd June 2022 at 09:39 PM.

22nd June 2022, 10:38 PM	#2934
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 25,326	Mitch McConnell: "“I think I have an obligation to support the nominee of my party.” That's about as blatant a "Party of Country" declaration I've ever read. And probably one of the most honest things McConnell has ever said. Bill Barr : Trump should not be the Republican nominee in 2024 but that he would support him if he were: “I believe that the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party. It’s inconceivable to me that I wouldn’t vote for the Republican nominee.” So the Dems are more dangerous to the country with their 'progressive agenda' than a pathological liar, malignant narcissist, disconnected from reality sociopath who has done his best to destroy the very bedrock of our democracy: the peaceful and lawful transference of power as chosen by the American people by a free and honest election. Gotcha, Bill.

23rd June 2022, 12:08 AM	#2935
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,867	That's almost as insulting as participating in the Jan 6th made for TV drama to save our mid terms show.
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,867

23rd June 2022, 02:05 AM	#2936
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 25,326	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY That's almost as insulting as participating in the Jan 6th made for TV drama to save our mid terms show. Yeah, all those Republicans like Rusty Bowers, Brad Raffensperger, and Ronna McDaniel, getting up there and lying about how Trump and his minions tried to get them to subvert the election with fake pro-Trump electors. And what about those fake phone calls to Georgia GOP election officials where Trump tried to get them to just find him the amount of votes he needed to win the state? Crisis actors! And those two women, Moss and Freeman! They were so obviously lying. No way did they get death threats even though they were passing around USB ports with votes on them like vials of heroin or cocaine. And if anyone knows what a vial of coke looks like, it's Patriot Rudy so he should know! The next thing those libtards on the committee are going to tell us is that there's no such thing as Bigfoot! Sheesh.

23rd June 2022, 06:24 AM	#2937
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 6,247	Originally Posted by smartcooky That was Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). It dealt with immunity for officials performing discretionary functions when their actions did not violate clearly-established law. Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald, an American engineer, member of the Senior Executive Service in the United States Air Force, and prominent U.S. government whistleblower, filed a lawsuit against government officials. claiming that he had lost his position as a contractor for the US Air Force because of testimony he made before Congress in 1968. Fitzgerald alleged that the action taken against him later by President Richard Nixon represented unlawful retaliation for his congressional testimony. In this sort of discussion, it is often useful to go back to the actual decision and see what it says, rather than just look at someone's summary of it. Here are the important sections of the actual rulings in that case (I have highlighted salient points and emboldened the significant parts) Held: 2. Petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts. 2 (b) The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts. 2 (c) The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his duties of office. 2 (d) (d) A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn re-election, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature. Are lying about election results, attempting to overthrow an election, and calling down his mob to do violence on individual citizens part of POTUS "discretionary functions", or "official duties" or "within the outer perimeter of his duties of office"? I would not have thought so! Did The Fat Orange Turd's "desire to earn re-election" protect these people from his misconduct. Definitely not!! Some thoughts that floated through my head while reading that: It is disruptive to the operation of government that the President might have to think about the consequences of his actions on citizens? This immunity is rooted in the separation of powers? But you're the court, a separate branch enabled to act as a check on the executive. Impeachment is nice and all, bit still doesn't address any way to recover damages by those affected. It can only prevent further potential harm, not harms already caused. Every random statement a President makes is a "function?" In the overall, while the Presidency* was once far more limited than a monarch in the age of absolutism, it appears far more shielded from any consequences than than its contemporaries today. *ETA: even more to the point, the person inhabiting the office.
	Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 23rd June 2022 at 06:50 AM.

23rd June 2022, 09:05 AM	#2938
Lurch Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Ottawa Posts: 2,176	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Some thoughts that floated through my head while reading that: It is disruptive to the operation of government that the President might have to think about the consequences of his actions on citizens? This immunity is rooted in the separation of powers? But you're the court, a separate branch enabled to act as a check on the executive. Impeachment is nice and all, bit still doesn't address any way to recover damages by those affected. It can only prevent further potential harm, not harms already caused. Every random statement a President makes is a "function?" In the overall, while the Presidency* was once far more limited than a monarch in the age of absolutism, it appears far more shielded from any consequences than than its contemporaries today. *ETA: even more to the point, the person inhabiting the office. It's long been apparent to me that, among the democracies, POTUS is regarded nearest to a king. The oft brayed, "No man is above the law" is revealed to be not just delusional, but a brazen lie. Indeed, because money is prized above all else in the US, the rich are already sheilded to a shameful degree, with the result that a craven scofflaw became President. Look at the fallout such myopic idiocy has wrought. Even IF that prolapsed orange anus should eventually be convicted for one or more of its crimes, the trepidatious, timorous, tender tip-toeing by the DOJ exemplifies the irrational reverence for the office. Evident also is a certain pusillanimity where overwrought hand-wringing over political ramifications too heavily weighted induces inertia and delay. If not outright inaction. That one phone recording with Raffensberger should have resulted in indictment the day following its release. Or at least the immediate ousting from office. In most any of the other democracies there would have resulted serious consequences essentially immediately had a PM, President or Chancellor done such a thing.

23rd June 2022, 01:22 PM	#2939
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,223	Once again, it's not that the gist is new in today's hearing, but OMG the extent Drumpf went to promote the Big Lie is shocking. He was obsessed! Today we get to see which legislators asked for pardons. My guess, Drumpf was pouting and wasn't about to let any of the 'losers' off the hook. They all failed him including the 'mob'. Before today I would have thought Drumpf didn't give pardons because it would look like he himself was guilty. But now it looks like he was so obsessed, day after day, that when it was over he probably went into a depression and blamed all the people he felt failed him.

23rd June 2022, 01:49 PM	#2940
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 55,572	Petty clear that one thing the investigations have done is put McCarthy permanenly in Trump's dogshouse, and this time a trip to Marg Largo to kiss the ring won't be enough. I am sure the idea is, if the GOP gets the House back, to remove him and put a 100% Trump loyalists in his place. Ring and even Butt kissing will no longer be enough.
	__________________ 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.

23rd June 2022, 06:15 PM	#2941
ZiprHead Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sag-Nasty Posts: 620	ABC News announced that Jeffrey Clark, Trump's pick to take over the DOJ because he was willing to do Trump's bidding, had his home raided and searched this morning. They said Clark was standing in the street watching in his pajamas. Is that the sound of toilets flushing in Mar A Lago I hear?
	__________________ When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy. IIDB is back, baby!

24th June 2022, 01:57 AM	#2942
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 21,506	So Louis Gohmert, Matt Gaetz, Mo Brooks, Andrew Biggs and Scott Perry all asked for presidential pardons... all testified to, under oath. Has anyone heard if Scott Perry still denies asking for a presidential pardon?
	__________________ 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!

24th June 2022, 02:38 AM	#2943
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 42,896	Brit Hume on Fox said "Far from proving Trump nearly blew up our democracy, the testimony has shown his effort collapsed because Republican officials who voted for him refused to go along." Is that the defence? Trump tried to overthrow democracy but a couple of guys stopped him so it's OK?

24th June 2022, 03:40 AM	#2944
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 21,506	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Brit Hume on Fox said "Far from proving Trump nearly blew up our democracy, the testimony has shown his effort collapsed because Republican officials who voted for him refused to go along." Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Is that the defence? Trump tried to overthrow democracy but a couple of guys stopped him so it's OK? Its the standard GOP "no harm = no foul" defence. The Zelenskyy extortion scandal showed that... "So what if Dear Leader tried to extort Zelenskyy by withholding weapons to get dirt on Joe Biden. It didn't work... he didn't get what he wanted, and Ukraine got the weapons, so he didn't do anything wrong."
	__________________ 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!

24th June 2022, 04:43 AM	#2945
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 18,106	It's Monopoly Rules: if you get caught stealing from the Bank, your punishment is to have to return the money, nothing more. It's called Privilege, aka Private Law for Republicans, common law for everyone else.
	__________________ "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me." - Emo Philips

24th June 2022, 04:44 AM	#2946
TofuFighter Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,878	Brit Hume's also on record in January saying trump's claims of widespread fraud are utter balderdash and likely led to the event on January 6. “All of that stuff he said for weeks on end after the election — that he’d won it in a landslide, and that it was all stolen from him, and that Mike Pence had the authority, which he most certainly did not, of reversing the results at the last minute last week,” Hume told host Tucker Carlson. “That was utter balderdash and he fed it into the veins of his supporters, and one could make a pretty good case that that’s part of what got them into a fever that led to last week’s events.” So it seems he's more defending the Republicans than trump on this one.
	__________________ The "illusion of truth" effect: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”

24th June 2022, 09:15 PM	#2947
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 21,506	Looks like Mo Brooks is willing to talk to the Jan 6 select committee. Of course if, like me, you have been following the US Senate primaries, it won't be very hard to guess why he's had this change of heart.... Trump first endorsed him in his bid to become a Senator for Alabama, then "un-endorsed" him and endorsed his opponent, Katie Britt instead. https://www.al.com/news/2022/06/mo-b...onditions.html Maybe Marjorie Taylor-Green wasn't far off with her "gazpacho" comments. After all, isn't revenge supposed to be a dish that is best served cold!?
	__________________ 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!

27th June 2022, 11:14 AM	#2949
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 12,746	The Jan. 6th committee is going to have a meeting that was scheduled last minute due to new information. I'm not sure what it could be, but it must be important, or at least interesting. Link, quote: Quote: The Jan. 6 committee will hold a last-minute public hearing Tuesday to present new evidence and hear witness testimony, after having previously said it would take a break until mid-July. The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday at 1 p.m. ET, according to an advisory the committee sent out Monday. In an unusual move, the committee has not identified the witness, as it did for previous hearings.
	__________________ "Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

27th June 2022, 12:24 PM	#2950
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,223	Originally Posted by plague311 The Jan. 6th committee is going to have a meeting that was scheduled last minute due to new information. I'm not sure what it could be, but it must be important, or at least interesting. Link, quote: Thanks. I heard a snippet of this in my background radio noise and now I don't have to look up when the hearing will be.

27th June 2022, 12:53 PM	#2951
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 12,746	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Thanks. I heard a snippet of this in my background radio noise and now I don't have to look up when the hearing will be. Glad I could help!
	__________________ "Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

27th June 2022, 02:03 PM	#2952
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 55,572	Originally Posted by plague311 The Jan. 6th committee is going to have a meeting that was scheduled last minute due to new information. I'm not sure what it could be, but it must be important, or at least interesting. Link, quote: Now everybody is expecting another bombshell tommorow.
	__________________ 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.

27th June 2022, 02:16 PM	#2953
shemp a flimsy character...perfidious and despised Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Out back preparing the bunker for the next Civil War Posts: 48,710	Originally Posted by dudalb Now everybody is expecting another bombshell tommorow. There better be one. If there isn't, people will be asking why they did this. If you're promising people a Beatles reunion, you better not give them William Hung.
	__________________ Counting the days to Civil War II. Last edited by shemp; 27th June 2022 at 02:20 PM.

27th June 2022, 05:03 PM	#2954
Craig4 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: I live in a swamp Posts: 25,362	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY That's almost as insulting as participating in the Jan 6th made for TV drama to save our mid terms show. I do hope they show the Babbit **** dying again. That's my favorite part of the whole show.
	__________________ Fight like a Ukrainian.

27th June 2022, 07:00 PM	#2955
ZiprHead Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sag-Nasty Posts: 620	Originally Posted by Craig4 I do hope they show the Babbit **** dying again. That's my favorite part of the whole show. Haven't you heard? According to Empty G Babbitt was trying to keep people from going into the chamber.
	__________________ When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy. IIDB is back, baby!

27th June 2022, 07:33 PM	#2956
Craig4 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: I live in a swamp Posts: 25,362	Originally Posted by ZiprHead Haven't you heard? According to Empty G Babbitt was trying to keep people from going into the chamber. She was partly successful. Her body did good service as a tripping hazard, the one useful thing she ever did.
	__________________ Fight like a Ukrainian.