Biden tanks in polls

[Pete F.]

Let's be clear. There were people in the government trying to directly engineer a coup and then a violent insurrection in the Capitol. No one should be reassured about the state of American democracy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Let's be clear. There were people in the government trying to directly engineer a coup and then a violent insurrection in the Capitol. No one should be reassured about the state of American democracy.

like when trump explicitly told them to be “peaceful and patriotic”?

how violent was the insurrection, when the only person killed by violence was a tiny woman who was trespassing?

how come these traitors you say planned a coup, haven't been charged by the Biden administration? You know more than they do, is that it?

why are you such a complete coward that you never, ever answer simple questions. you keep asking me questions, i always try to answer directly, and al you do is dodge my questions. what does that say about you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

like when trump explicitly told them to be “peaceful and patriotic”?

how violent was the insurrection, when the only person killed by violence was a tiny woman who was trespassing?

how come these traitors you say planned a coup, haven't been charged by the Biden administration? You know more than they do, is that it?

why are you such a complete coward that you never, ever answer simple questions. you keep asking me questions, i always try to answer directly, and al you do is dodge my questions. what does that say about you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because you act like a teenage girl and I am not required to answer your questions.

On what basis, and why, would anyone assume DOJ 's NOT investigating this & all Trump's 1/6-related crimes? Prosecutors breach ethics rules if they comment on unindicted cases & they jeopardize the case. Only a fool would do this.

[Pete F.]

Did you forget or were not yet born when Nixon’s Attorney General, John Mitchell, and more than a dozen other Watergate-connected lawyers lost their bar licenses.

The Watergate burglary occurred in 1972, the trial was complete in 1975 a year after Nixon's resignation and pardon.

Hopefully Biden won't make the same mistake as Ford.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Because you act like a teenage girl and I am not required to answer your questions.

On what basis, and why, would anyone assume DOJ 's NOT investigating this & all Trump's 1/6-related crimes? Prosecutors breach ethics rules if they comment on unindicted cases & they jeopardize the case. Only a fool would do this.

so when you said 5 people
were murdered by rioters and i asked you to support that, that’s it exposing a liar for what he is, but rather it’s acting like a teenage girl.

makes lots of sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Did you forget or were not yet born when Nixon’s Attorney General, John Mitchell, and more than a dozen other Watergate-connected lawyers lost their bar licenses.

The Watergate burglary occurred in 1972, the trial was complete in 1975 a year after Nixon's resignation and pardon.

Hopefully Biden won't make the same mistake as Ford.

but before the trial, the country was aware of what had happened.

i don’t know anyone who is aware that there’s an investigation into charging government officials
with treason. I dare say that only exists in your head. Might be time to change the tinfoil wrapped around your head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

but before the trial, the country was aware of what had happened.

i don’t know anyone who is aware that there’s an investigation into charging government officials
with treason. I dare say that only exists in your head. Might be time to change the tinfoil wrapped around your head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, really
It wasn't till the end of July in 1974 that Hogan became the first Republican to publicly go against Nixon.
Nixon resigned two weeks later.

Watergate burglary 1972
Nixon reelected 1972
Nixon Resigns 1974
Lawyers convicted 1975

January 6 2021
Today October 8 2021

But if the Trumplicans again succeed in obstruction, the rule of law will no longer apply at all to the administrative branch.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Oh, really
It wasn't till the end of July in 1974 that Hogan became the first Republican to publicly go against Nixon.
Nixon resigned two weeks later.

Watergate burglary 1972
Nixon reelected 1972
Nixon Resigns 1974
Lawyers convicted 1975

January 6 2021
Today October 8 2021

But if the Trumplicans again succeed in obstruction, the rule of law will no longer apply at all to the administrative branch.

my point, again, is people
knew well before the convictions.

I looked it up. in August of 1972 the Post reported that a $25k check for the Nixon campaign was deposited into the bank account if one of the burglars. So by then, anyone with a brain had an idea that something fishy had taken place. the date of conviction doesn’t matter. My point, which i made explicitly, is that the public was aware. I have t seen anyone but you suggest there was a coup planned at the highest levels of the government, that’s a tough thing to keep secret.

So either they’re keeping that a secret, or you made it up ( like making up that the rioters murdered 5 people), because it’s your wet dream ending to the trump administration.

Which do you think is more likely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr.../timeline.html

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So either they’re keeping that a secret, or you made it up ( like making up that the rioters murdered 5 people), because it’s your wet dream ending to the trump administration.

It's been all over the news Jim.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/polit...emo/index.html

[Pete F.]

In a normal world, the “Eastman memo” would be infamous by now, the way “Access Hollywood” became the popular shorthand in 2016 for the damning recording of Donald Trump’s bragging about groping women.

But it’s a good bet that most people have never even heard of the Eastman memo.

As the full picture of Jan. 6 begins to come into view, I think we should consider it a kind of revolution or, at least, the very beginning of one. Joe Biden ultimately became president, but Donald Trump’s fight to keep himself in office against the will of the voters has upturned the political order. The plot itself shows us how.

Trump, we know, urged Mike Pence to reject the votes of the Electoral College, with the mob outside as the stick that would compel his obedience. “You can either go down in history as a patriot,” Trump told Pence, as recounted in this newspaper, “or you can go down in history as a pussy.”

When this was first revealed, I assumed that Trump simply wanted Pence to do whatever it would take to keep himself in power. But this week we learned that he had an actual plan in mind, devised by John Eastman, a prominent conservative lawyer who worked with the former president to challenge the election results, a job that included a speaking slot at the rally on the National Mall that preceded the attack on the Capitol.

“We know there was fraud,” Eastman said to the crowd that would become a mob. “We know that dead people voted.”

“All we are demanding of Vice President Pence,” he continued, “is this afternoon at 1 o’clock, he let the legislatures of the states look into this so we get to the bottom of it and the American people know whether we have control of the direction of our government or not!”

These weren’t just the ravings of a partisan. Eastman was essentially summarizing the contents of a memo he had written on Trump’s behalf, describing the steps Pence would take to overturn the election in Trump’s favor.

First, as presiding officer of the joint session in which Congress certifies the election, Pence would open and count the ballots. When he reached Arizona, Pence would then announce that he had “multiple slates of electors” and would defer his decision on those votes until he finished counting the other states. He would make this announcement for six other swing states — including Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — before announcing that “there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States” on account of election disputes and accusations of fraud.

At this point, Eastman explained, Pence could declare Trump re-elected, because — with seven states removed from the count — the president would have a majority of whatever electors were left, and the 12th Amendment states that the “person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.”

If, for some reason, this didn’t fly, Eastman went on, Pence could then say that no candidate had won a majority and thus the election must go to the House of Representatives, where each state has a single vote and Republicans controlled a slim majority of state delegations, 26 to 24. If Democratic objections led both houses of Congress to split into their separate chambers to resolve the dispute, then Republicans could obstruct the process in the Senate and create a stalemate that would allow Republican-controlled state legislatures “to formally support the alternate slate of electors.”

As for the courts? Eastman argued that they don’t matter. “The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter.” If Pence has the power, then Pence should act and “let the other side challenge his actions in court.”

Eastman’s confidence throughout this memo (he dismisses potential Democratic objections as “howls”) belies his shoddy legal, political and constitutional thinking. For one, his argument rests on an expansive reading of the Twelfth Amendment for which there is no precedent or justification. The vice president has never directly counted electoral votes. “Beginning in 1793, and in every presidential election since,” the legal scholar Derek Muller notes in a piece debunking key claims in the memo for the website Election Law Blog, “the Senate and the House have appointed ‘tellers’ to count the electoral votes. These tellers actually tally the votes and deliver the totals to the President of the Senate, who reads the totals aloud before the two houses after the tellers, acting on behalf of Congress, have ‘ascertained’ the vote totals.”

The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, codified that practice into the Constitution. Congress would do the counting, and the vice president would simply preside over the process.

Eastman also asserted that the vice president could disregard the procedure specified under the Electoral Count Act because the law itself is unconstitutional. That, Muller notes, is controversial (and something Eastman himself rejected in 2000, in testimony before the Florida Legislature during the dispute between George W. Bush and Al Gore). And even if it were true, the 117th Congress, on its first day in operation, Jan. 3, adopted the provisions of the law as its rule for counting electoral votes, which is to say Pence had no choice but to follow them. His hands were tied.

Which gets to the politics of this scheme. If Pence were to disregard the rules and the history and seize control of the counting process, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would presumably have suspended the joint session, which relies on the consent of both chambers of Congress. “With a stalled and incomplete count because of a standoff between Pence and Pelosi,” the legal scholar Ned Foley writes in a separate Election Law Blog post, “the Twentieth Amendment becomes the relevant constitutional provision.” Meaning, in short, that at noon on Jan. 20, Pelosi would become acting president of the United States. Pence would lose authority as vice president (and president of the Senate) and the joint session would resume, with Congress putting its stamp of approval on Biden’s victory.

And let’s not forget that a series of moves of the sort envisioned by Eastman would spark national outrage. The “howls” would not just come from congressional Democrats; they would come from the 81 million voters who Pence would have summarily disenfranchised. It is conceivable that Trump and his allies would have prevailed over mass protests and civil disobedience. But that would depend on the support of the military, which, if the actions of Gen. Mark Milley were any indication, would not have been forthcoming.

None of this should make you feel good or cause you to breathe a sigh of relief. Consider what we know. A prominent, respected member in good standing of the conservative legal establishment — Eastman is enrolled in the Federalist Society and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — schemed with the president and his allies in the Republican Party to overturn the election and overthrow American democracy under the Constitution. Yes, they failed to keep Trump in office, but they successfully turned the pro forma electoral counting process into an occasion for real political struggle.

It was always possible, theoretically, to manipulate the rules to seize power from the voters. Now, it’s a live option. And with the right pieces in place, Trump could succeed. All he needs is a rival slate of electoral votes from contested states, state officials and state legislatures willing to intervene on his behalf, a supportive Republican majority in either house of Congress, and a sufficiently pliant Supreme Court majority.

As it happens, Trump may well run for president in 2024 (he is already amassing a sizable war chest) with exactly that board in play. Republican state legislatures in states like Georgia and Arizona have, for example, used claims of fraud to seize control of key areas of election administration. Likewise, according to Reuters, 10 of the 15 declared Republican candidates for secretary of state in five swing states — Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada — have either declared the 2020 election stolen or demanded that authorities invalidate the results in their states. It is also not unlikely that a Republican Party with pro-Trump zealots at its helm wins Congress in November of next year and holds it through the presidential election and into 2025.

If Trump is, once again, on the ballot, then the election might turn on the manipulation of a ceremony that was, until now, a mere formality.

Here, I’ll return to where I started. If this happens, it would be a revolutionary change. In this world, the voters, as filtered through the Electoral College, no longer choose the president. It becomes less a question of the rule of law and more one of power, of who holds the right positions at the right time, and especially, of who can bring the military to their side.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by spence

It's been all over the news Jim.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/polit...emo/index.html

Not his news, that's busy with "The evils of the left" Haitians have AIDS

[Pete F.]

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...8-eastman-memo

[Pete F.]

Five ways Trump tried to push a coup
1. Trump tried to pressure secretaries of state to not certify.
2. Trump tried to pressure state legislatures to overturn the results.
3. Trump tried to get the courts to overturn the results.
4. Trump tried to pressure Mike Pence to overturn the results.
5. When all else failed, Trump tried to get a mob to overturn the results.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Not his news, that's busy with "The evils of the left" Haitians have AIDS

Fox and the NY Post don't even mention it

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's been all over the news Jim.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/polit...emo/index.html

so who are they investigating for treason? that was my question, and interestingly, i don’t see that in your link.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so who are they investigating for treason? that was my question, and interestingly, i don’t see that in your link.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doesn't fit the definition of treason.

[Pete F.]

Actually DOJ just asked the J6 committee to limit their scope.
Usually that means they’re concerned that it would interfere in an active investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

how violent was the insurrection, when the only person killed by violence was a tiny woman who was trespassing?

Are you forgetting the officer who died a few days later after being slammed in the head with a fire extinguisher? Or the four officers who committed suicide just after the violent insurrection? I think another three protesters died during the violence as well.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Actually DOJ just asked the J6 committee to limit their scope.
Usually that means they’re concerned that it would interfere in an active investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Eastman is being looked at for solicitation to commit election fraud by asking for Pence to falsify the count.

[Pete F.]

The White House has informed the National Archives they are not asserting executive privilege on behalf of former President Donald Trump.

[Pete F.]

Here's a list that a lawyer who went thru the Senate report came up with for possible crimes committed by the Trump administration in connection with the attempt to change the results of the election.

Coercion of political activity, 18 US Code, Section 610, makes it a crime for anyone to intimidate or coerce, or attempt to intimidate or coerce, any federal employee to engage in any political activity, including refusing to work or working on behalf of any candidate. In the activities at issue, Trump was simply a candidate; he was not the president of the United States with respect to these activities. Anyone who violates that section is eligible for a fine and/or up to three years in prison. That is one offense that this report screams quite loudly, pointing to the conclusion that he and a number of others were guilty of twisting arms in order to pressure people into engaging in political activity. The Hatch Act itself, which is about engaging in political activity while being a government official, does not apply to the president, but Section 610 definitely does.

The second major offense this report strongly indicates has been committed by various people, probably including the president, is seditious conspiracy, 18 US Code, Section 2384, which says that if two or more people conspire to overthrow the government, or to oppose its authority by force, or to seize or take the United States property by force, they’re guilty of seditious conspiracy, which can lead to imprisonment of up to 20 years. Now there are ambiguities — what kind of threat constitutes force? Certainly, the sacking of the Capitol involved force, but that is only the tail end of the conspiracy exposed here. The dots are not going to be very difficult to connect, assuming our Justice Department is interested in trying to connect them. That is a big assumption, given that we simply don’t know where the attorney general of the United States is going with any of the evidence that is emerging.

The third offense, which is less directly connected with this report, but is indirectly connected, is rebellion or insurrection. That’s 18 US Code Section 2383. That section provides that whoever incites, assists, or engages in any insurrection against the authority of the United States or its laws, or gives aid or comfort thereto — that’s really important — is to be fined and subject to imprisonment of up to 10 years and shall be incapable of holding any office in the United States. That would apply to any number of people in this report who were likely giving aid and comfort to the insurrection.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here's a list that a lawyer who went thru the Senate report came up with for possible crimes

Another list of Pete's possibilities.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m not saying the blm riots were the same as january 6th, i’m saying the blm riots were a million times worse.

What did the january 6th riots achieve?? First of all, the majority of republicans condemned what happened. Second, the rioters didn’t kill anybody or do tens of billions in damage. and for sure, while some of them hoped to reinstate trump as president, that was never going to happen, it did absolutely NOTHING to alter our democratic process. Nothing.

Compare that to the BlM riots. Almost nobody influential
on the left condemned the riots, they were billed as peaceful. People were murdered, God knows the property damage from fire. Worst of all, that anti cop furor is absolutely permeating into our way of life. some of the most powerful democrats in washington are calling to defund the police, and many large police forces are seeing officers leave and create openings that can’t be filled because no sane person would want to be a cop in a big city right now. Liberals in the media never give the cop the benefit of the doubt, every single time they declare the white cop guilty before the investigation is done.

There is no comparing the effect of the BLM riots to what happened in January 6th. There is no meaningful number of republicans in DC who want to continue the work
of what those idiots did on January 6. By contrast, there are plenty of powerful elected democrats who fully support the cause of the BLM rioters.

That summer, democrats said you couldn’t go to mass because of covid, but they specifically allowed BLM protests and riots. They denied freedom of assembly ( which is guaranteed in the constitution, nowhere does it say “unless there’s a pandemic”) to those not sympathetic to their agenda, and reserved freedom of assembly to those who are sympathetic to their agenda.

I would love to see you attempt to make that wrong. I would truly love it.


you keep saying that republicans want a dictator for president. it shows how completely ignorant you are. we want a much less powerful federal presence than democrats want. you don’t understand anything. zip. stick to catching tuna.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim the we isn’t the new Republican Party

Clinton got a BJ and the right flips out .. Trump try’s to over turn the election and they get closer?

So we should use the new Republican version on attempting a crime

And say I didn’t rape her I tried got all her clothes of but I couldn’t get an erection . So you can’t say I raped her . Her name is America
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m not saying the blm riots were the same as january 6th, i’m saying the blm riots were a million times worse.

What did the january 6th riots achieve?? First of all, the majority of republicans condemned what happened. Second, the rioters didn’t kill anybody or do tens of billions in damage. and for sure, while some of them hoped to reinstate trump as president, that was never going to happen, it did absolutely NOTHING to alter our democratic process. Nothing.

Compare that to the BlM riots. Almost nobody influential
on the left condemned the riots, they were billed as peaceful. People were murdered, God knows the property damage from fire. Worst of all, that anti cop furor is absolutely permeating into our way of life. some of the most powerful democrats in washington are calling to defund the police, and many large police forces are seeing officers leave and create openings that can’t be filled because no sane person would want to be a cop in a big city right now. Liberals in the media never give the cop the benefit of the doubt, every single time they declare the white cop guilty before the investigation is done.

There is no comparing the effect of the BLM riots to what happened in January 6th. There is no meaningful number of republicans in DC who want to continue the work
of what those idiots did on January 6. By contrast, there are plenty of powerful elected democrats who fully support the cause of the BLM rioters.

That summer, democrats said you couldn’t go to mass because of covid, but they specifically allowed BLM protests and riots. They denied freedom of assembly ( which is guaranteed in the constitution, nowhere does it say “unless there’s a pandemic”) to those not sympathetic to their agenda, and reserved freedom of assembly to those who are sympathetic to their agenda.

I would love to see you attempt to make that wrong. I would truly love it.


you keep saying that republicans want a dictator for president. it shows how completely ignorant you are. we want a much less powerful federal presence than democrats want. you don’t understand anything. zip. stick to catching tuna.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim the we isn’t the new Republican Party

Clinton got a BJ and the right flips out .. Trump try’s to over turn the election and they get closer?

So we should use the new Republican version on attempting a crime

And say I didn’t rape her I tried got all her clothes of but I couldn’t get an erection . So you can’t say I raped her . Her name is America


Ps Republican do want an autocrat running the country their to dumb they just call Trump a patriot . Thinking that’s what an autocrat is ..

That’s why Republicans love Putin

Why are Republicans using Putin’s talking points? This study helps explain.
Increasingly, Republican voters think Vladimir Putin is a good leader. But Russians don’t feel the same way about President Trump.

You really need to expand you reading list
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

I searched transcripts for Fox today and see no coverage of the subpoena battle playing out between Trump-world figures and the January 6 committee. The only time I saw the word “subpoena” mentioned was when a reporter asked about it in WH press briefing. Fox then cut away.
Fox world is oblivious
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Another list of Pete's possibilities.

Sure Jan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sure Jan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank you for the opportunity.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you forgetting the officer who died a few days later after being slammed in the head with a fire extinguisher? Or the four officers who committed suicide just after the violent insurrection? I think another three protesters died during the violence as well.

the fire extinguisher story was not true...are you still pushing misinformation months after the fact?

APRIL 20, 2021
*A full autopsy found that officer Brian Sicknick suffered two strokes after the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, with no sign that any injury or reaction to chemical irritants played a role.

New information from the chief medical examiner for the District of Columbia provides fresh details that call into question early reports about how U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died.

Sicknick died the day after the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. Initial reports, citing law enforcement sources, said that the 42-year-old had been struck on the head with a fire extinguisher. Follow-up coverage challenged that, saying he had been sprayed with a form of mace, and that the cause of death remained unclear.

On April 19, the medical examiner, Dr. Francisco J. Diaz, determined that Sicknick died from two strokes at the base of his brain caused by a blood clot in the artery that feeds that part of the body.

Diaz told the Washington Post that there were no signs of any injury, or evidence that Sicknick had an allergic reaction to chemical irritants. Sicknick died, Diaz said, of natural causes.


https://www.politifact.com/article/2...k-died-natura/

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you forgetting the officer who died a few days later after being slammed in the head with a fire extinguisher? Or the four officers who committed suicide just after the violent insurrection? I think another three protesters died during the violence as well.

are you kidding me? do you know how completely and thoroughly that lector lie has been debunked?

He died of natural causes, he had two strokes the next day. Natural causes.

Are you still saying the Duke lacrosse team was guilty, and that Nick Sandman is a white supremacist?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

are you kidding me? do you know how completely and thoroughly that lector lie has been debunked?

He died of natural causes, he had two strokes the next day. Natural causes.

Are you still saying the Duke lacrosse team was guilty, and that Nick Sandman is a white supremacist?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim you do know if you robbed a bank and someone died of a heart attack . You and even your getaway driver gets charged with that persons death..

The police or the law doesn’t dismiss the incident that lead to the heart attack .. not sure how the medical examiner didn’t take into account what happened to him and how those thing contributed to his death causes .. I guess your suggestion is they had no impact in his death ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device