From Schiff publicizing a doctored text to Cheney parsing quotations nothing this committee has done has been honest just like the Russia hoax. This is a Soviet-style show trial and political theater that would make the national socialists blush. Reasonable people would not trust the outcome if it declared the sky was blue or the Earth was round.RMF5630 said:So, what you have is a Congressman giving a tour. Come on Sam, you are an attorney. There is a long jump from giving a tour to it being a "reconnaissance tour" to Congressional involvement.Sam Lowry said:The point isn't to catch the guy in the video. It's to find out whether any members of Congress were involved.RMF5630 said:If he did something 18 months ago and DOJ has arrested 700 why was he not charged? He is on tape and video, yet nothing? He will be now because the media pressure will force them to find some law to charge him under. But, even with 700 arrests and some for a seldom used seditious conspiracy law, all of the targets of the January 6th Commission were not charged with any crime.Sam Lowry said:Then you're going to want to check out the committee's letter to Rep. Loudermilk:Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Other than the fact that they came back the next day and, you know, attacked the Capitol"
To the best of my knowledge, the visitors shown in that video did not take part in any of the January 6th trespasses. Maybe that's why the Capitol Police said they saw nothing suspicious in the video.
But sure, you know more than trained law enforcement ...Quote:
The Select Committee has learned that some individuals you sponsored into the complex attended the rally at the Ellipse on the morning of January 6, 2021. According to video recordings from that day obtained by the Select Committee, the individual who appeared to photograph a staircase in the Longworth House Office Building filmed a companion with a flagpole appearing to have a sharpened end who spoke to the camera saying, "It's for a certain person," while making an aggressive jabbing motion. Later, these individuals joined the unpermitted march from the Ellipse to the U.S. Capitol. While standing near the Capitol grounds, the same individual made a video that contained detailed and disturbing threats against specific Members of Congress. For example, as the individual filmed the march to the Capitol, he said, "There's no escape Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler. We're coming for you." As he looked up at the Capitol, he went on:
They got it surrounded. It's all the way up there on the hill, and it's
all the way around, and they're coming in, coming in like white on
rice for Pelosi, Nadler, even you, AOC. We're coming to take you
out and pull you out by your hairs. ... When I get done with you,
you're going to need a shine on top of that bald head.
If the House is putting this on TV, they have had it a long time, yet their Golden Boy Merrick Garland has DOJ moving back to normal operations. Could it be he knows there is no criminal case? Funny, a month ago he was a wronged stellar Justice that screwed out of a SCOTUS seat, now he is incompetent because he hasn't prosecuted who they (Dems) want.
This is ALL political theater, if there was a legal case it would have been brought a year ago.
All it shows is giving a tour. There is nothing saying he knew it was a reconnaissance tour or that it was. Everything is a show put on to show what the Jan 6th Commission wants. How much video exists and was reviewed to get those stills? How much was used to orchestrate this view?
Is this like Cheney only quoting half of Trumps quote? Oh, the other half is where he says to go peacefully and demonstrate, that was conveniently left out.
Jan 6 committee
128,354 Views |
3026 Replies |
Last: 6 mo ago by Harrison Bergeron
I would say your advice would be to hire an attorney due to the circumstantial evidence. I am not following as close, but I thought he said he did not give a "reconnaissance tour". he showed around constituents and the Capitol Police knew they were there/Sam Lowry said:No one's saying it's proof of anything. But the congressman led a tour when the complex was closed, he lied about it, and then it turned out his guests were involved in the attack. Now he won't talk to the committee. If you don't see how that's suspicious, I don't know what to tell you.RMF5630 said:So, what you have is a Congressman giving a tour. Come on Sam, you are an attorney. There is a long jump from giving a tour to it being a "reconnaissance tour" to Congressional involvement.Sam Lowry said:The point isn't to catch the guy in the video. It's to find out whether any members of Congress were involved.RMF5630 said:If he did something 18 months ago and DOJ has arrested 700 why was he not charged? He is on tape and video, yet nothing? He will be now because the media pressure will force them to find some law to charge him under. But, even with 700 arrests and some for a seldom used seditious conspiracy law, all of the targets of the January 6th Commission were not charged with any crime.Sam Lowry said:Then you're going to want to check out the committee's letter to Rep. Loudermilk:Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Other than the fact that they came back the next day and, you know, attacked the Capitol"
To the best of my knowledge, the visitors shown in that video did not take part in any of the January 6th trespasses. Maybe that's why the Capitol Police said they saw nothing suspicious in the video.
But sure, you know more than trained law enforcement ...Quote:
The Select Committee has learned that some individuals you sponsored into the complex attended the rally at the Ellipse on the morning of January 6, 2021. According to video recordings from that day obtained by the Select Committee, the individual who appeared to photograph a staircase in the Longworth House Office Building filmed a companion with a flagpole appearing to have a sharpened end who spoke to the camera saying, "It's for a certain person," while making an aggressive jabbing motion. Later, these individuals joined the unpermitted march from the Ellipse to the U.S. Capitol. While standing near the Capitol grounds, the same individual made a video that contained detailed and disturbing threats against specific Members of Congress. For example, as the individual filmed the march to the Capitol, he said, "There's no escape Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler. We're coming for you." As he looked up at the Capitol, he went on:
They got it surrounded. It's all the way up there on the hill, and it's
all the way around, and they're coming in, coming in like white on
rice for Pelosi, Nadler, even you, AOC. We're coming to take you
out and pull you out by your hairs. ... When I get done with you,
you're going to need a shine on top of that bald head.
If the House is putting this on TV, they have had it a long time, yet their Golden Boy Merrick Garland has DOJ moving back to normal operations. Could it be he knows there is no criminal case? Funny, a month ago he was a wronged stellar Justice that screwed out of a SCOTUS seat, now he is incompetent because he hasn't prosecuted who they (Dems) want.
This is ALL political theater, if there was a legal case it would have been brought a year ago.
All it shows is giving a tour. There is nothing saying he knew it was a reconnaissance tour or that it was. Everything is a show put on to show what the Jan 6th Commission wants. How much video exists and was reviewed to get those stills? How much was used to orchestrate this view?
Is this like Cheney only quoting half of Trumps quote? Oh, the other half is where he says to go peacefully and demonstrate, that was conveniently left out.
As for not talking to the Jan 6 Commission on National TV would you advise him to do it based on the letter they sent him? Counselor?
Truer words have could not be spoken better.bear2be2 said:Biden has been a disaster. Trump was a disaster. Both parties -- and their supporters -- should demand that we have new candidates to choose from in 2024.Rawhide said:Interesting that you can't fathom the fact that biden has brought all this on himself.J.B.Katz said:Can't wait for a Republican to get into office and solve all these problems!RMF5630 said:Biden has been a disaster.J.B.Katz said:Trump was the least competent president we've ever had.RMF5630 said:
If the Dems run Biden, or Harris for the matter, many will choose Trump over incompetency. Trump only won the first time because he was matched against the worst Candidate known to mankind - Hillary Clinton. Biden is actually giving her a run for her money.
I truly hope the GOP runs DeSantis, Pompeo, Halley or Hogan over Trump. I really do not want to be in the position to have to vote for him, but against Biden or Harris I will go Trump. His policies are at least sound.
Biden has done a fair job under really difficult circumstances.
He took office during a raging pandemic. Despite RW propaganda to the contrary, Warp Speed did not "create" any vaccines, and there was no pipeline in place when Biden took office. A peaceful and orderly transition of power would have saved lives during the pandemic. Trump fomented insurrection instead and left chaos in his wake. Chaos is what he does.
You don't like Biden's policies. You like the mean, bombastic brand of conservative Trump represents.
That doesn't mean Biden's incompetent. Or that Trump is competent. Those 2 months he spent pouting and tantrumming on the golf course while trying to overturn my vote made it clear that for Trump, the presidency was never about anything but increasing his own personal power and wealth. We should never, ever elect a president like him again, and I believe that's why Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are serving on the 1-6 committee:They are willing to sacrifice their careers to try to ensure Trump can't ever hold office in America again.
Biden is not responsible for a global pandemic.
He did not cause a global recession.
He did not spur Putin to invade Ukraine.
He didn't cause climate change.
I don't think American democracy can survive another Trump term. That may be your aim.
I'm also concerned about the planet. Trump isn't a guy who should have the codes to nukes. In fact, he should be on the "no buy" list for the kinds of guns you fellas want to keep selling to troubled 18-yr-olds.
Things are going to get worse before they get better because we haven't dealt with climate change and we still have an ongoing pandemic. We need a leader who cares about the country and its people. Trump isn't that guy.
1 - Executive Orders basically killing the Petro Industry
2 - Afghanistan
3 - Ukraine
4 - Russia-China Allies on his watch
5 - Inflation
6 - Shootings Up
7 - Crime Up
8 - Border a disaster (his Executive Orders again)
9 - Fuel Costs (see #1)
10 - Supply Chain has gotten worse
11 - North Korea is firing missiles again
The only positives I have seen is that he is given Ukraine weapons to fight Russia and if Sweden & Finland join NATO.
SCOTUS Justice I give a neutral (I would not select, but I can see how some would be happy with selection)
I really cannot see how anyone could vote for more of this and not be against the US! I am sure China, Iran, N Korea and Russia are loving it.
I guess Trump was going to get around to dealing with all of these issues in the second term he wasn't elected to serve b/c he was such an awful leader during his first term.
He wouldn't have had those issues in his second term, because he wouldn't be ****ing it up llike biden has
“‘This is the clearest and most present danger to our democracy,” said J. Michael Luttig. ‘Trump and his supporters are preparing now to lay the groundwork to overturn the election in 2024 were Trump, or his designee, to lose the vote for the presidency.’” https://t.co/G7kUlf044Q
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) April 19, 2022
I watched the third hearing and it appears that Trump was clearly attempting to overturn the election. Pressuring Mike Pence to throw out the certification of the election results.
The Republican Party needs to put Trump in the rear view mirror and distance themselves from him if they wish to show any semblance of integrity of leadership.
The Republican Party needs to put Trump in the rear view mirror and distance themselves from him if they wish to show any semblance of integrity of leadership.
Schiff and Cheney didn't do anything inappropriate with the quotations. It's not their job to make the defense's case.
They're not asking him to go on TV. He can meet with them any time he chooses.RMF5630 said:I would say your advice would be to hire an attorney due to the circumstantial evidence. I am not following as close, but I thought he said he did not give a "reconnaissance tour". he showed around constituents and the Capitol Police knew they were there/Sam Lowry said:No one's saying it's proof of anything. But the congressman led a tour when the complex was closed, he lied about it, and then it turned out his guests were involved in the attack. Now he won't talk to the committee. If you don't see how that's suspicious, I don't know what to tell you.RMF5630 said:So, what you have is a Congressman giving a tour. Come on Sam, you are an attorney. There is a long jump from giving a tour to it being a "reconnaissance tour" to Congressional involvement.Sam Lowry said:The point isn't to catch the guy in the video. It's to find out whether any members of Congress were involved.RMF5630 said:If he did something 18 months ago and DOJ has arrested 700 why was he not charged? He is on tape and video, yet nothing? He will be now because the media pressure will force them to find some law to charge him under. But, even with 700 arrests and some for a seldom used seditious conspiracy law, all of the targets of the January 6th Commission were not charged with any crime.Sam Lowry said:Then you're going to want to check out the committee's letter to Rep. Loudermilk:Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Other than the fact that they came back the next day and, you know, attacked the Capitol"
To the best of my knowledge, the visitors shown in that video did not take part in any of the January 6th trespasses. Maybe that's why the Capitol Police said they saw nothing suspicious in the video.
But sure, you know more than trained law enforcement ...Quote:
The Select Committee has learned that some individuals you sponsored into the complex attended the rally at the Ellipse on the morning of January 6, 2021. According to video recordings from that day obtained by the Select Committee, the individual who appeared to photograph a staircase in the Longworth House Office Building filmed a companion with a flagpole appearing to have a sharpened end who spoke to the camera saying, "It's for a certain person," while making an aggressive jabbing motion. Later, these individuals joined the unpermitted march from the Ellipse to the U.S. Capitol. While standing near the Capitol grounds, the same individual made a video that contained detailed and disturbing threats against specific Members of Congress. For example, as the individual filmed the march to the Capitol, he said, "There's no escape Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler. We're coming for you." As he looked up at the Capitol, he went on:
They got it surrounded. It's all the way up there on the hill, and it's
all the way around, and they're coming in, coming in like white on
rice for Pelosi, Nadler, even you, AOC. We're coming to take you
out and pull you out by your hairs. ... When I get done with you,
you're going to need a shine on top of that bald head.
If the House is putting this on TV, they have had it a long time, yet their Golden Boy Merrick Garland has DOJ moving back to normal operations. Could it be he knows there is no criminal case? Funny, a month ago he was a wronged stellar Justice that screwed out of a SCOTUS seat, now he is incompetent because he hasn't prosecuted who they (Dems) want.
This is ALL political theater, if there was a legal case it would have been brought a year ago.
All it shows is giving a tour. There is nothing saying he knew it was a reconnaissance tour or that it was. Everything is a show put on to show what the Jan 6th Commission wants. How much video exists and was reviewed to get those stills? How much was used to orchestrate this view?
Is this like Cheney only quoting half of Trumps quote? Oh, the other half is where he says to go peacefully and demonstrate, that was conveniently left out.
As for not talking to the Jan 6 Commission on National TV would you advise him to do it based on the letter they sent him? Counselor?
TDSers keep gargling Trumps nuts for clicks and papers salesJ.B.Katz said:“‘This is the clearest and most present danger to our democracy,” said J. Michael Luttig. ‘Trump and his supporters are preparing now to lay the groundwork to overturn the election in 2024 were Trump, or his designee, to lose the vote for the presidency.’” https://t.co/G7kUlf044Q
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) April 19, 2022
Not clicking your links, no nickel for you!
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
They are just biasing the jury poolSam Lowry said:
Schiff and Cheney didn't do anything inappropriate with the quotations. It's not their job to make the defense's case.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Problem is, the committee's stated purpose was investigation, not prosecution. It's their job to get to the truth, not make a case - unless of course you're suggesting this is a partisan committee whose goal was to find a conspiracy.Sam Lowry said:
Schiff and Cheney didn't do anything inappropriate with the quotations. It's not their job to make the defense's case.
Surely you're not saying that?
Wait, this is a trial? I thought this was a committee "hearing."Sam Lowry said:
Schiff and Cheney didn't do anything inappropriate with the quotations. It's not their job to make the defense's case.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Sam has been working on his noose for a long time, will get really upset if he doesn't get to use it ...GrowlTowel said:Wait, this is a trial? I thought this was a committee "hearing."Sam Lowry said:
Schiff and Cheney didn't do anything inappropriate with the quotations. It's not their job to make the defense's case.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity.Guy Noir said:
I watched the third hearing and it appears that Trump was clearly attempting to overturn the election. Pressuring Mike Pence to throw out the certification of the election results.
The Republican Party needs to put Trump in the rear view mirror and distance themselves from him if they wish to show any semblance of integrity of leadership.
I think that hope is the only reason Michael Luttig appeared before this committee. He obviously didn't want to be there, but he obviously took the threat Trump presented to Pence and to the peaceful transition of power so grave that he did it as a duty. Luttig was obviously really angered by what Trump tried to do to Pence for refusing to go along with Eastman's cockeyed plan. Him saying he would have laid on the ground in front of Pence had Pence considered doing what Eastman was pressuring him to do was powerful.
Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."
Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.
The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.
Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.
The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Rudy Giuliani responds to WH lawyer Eric Herschmann's testimony that on the morning of 1/6 Giuliani agreed with him that VP Pence did not have the authority to reject certification of the election... pic.twitter.com/30RvGB63DU
— Vaughn Golden (@VaughnEGolden) June 16, 2022
Trump lost the presidential election and tried to overturn the results when he knew he lost.Oldbear83 said:
Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."
Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.
The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.
You and everyone else on this forum who still support Trump represent Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger."
Why would you continue to support a former president who lost an election because of his nasty behavior and then tried to stage a coup?
Doesn't the fact that Trump tried to put Pence in harm's way because Pence wouldn't violate his oath of office to do Trump's bidding give you any pause?
If Trump's on the general ballot. I have zero problem voting for him.J.B.Katz said:Trump lost the presidential election and tried to overturn the results when he knew he lost.Oldbear83 said:
Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."
Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.
The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.
You and everyone else on this forum who still support Trump represent Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger."
Why would you continue to support a former president who lost an election because of his nasty behavior and then tried to stage a coup?
Doesn't the fact that Trump tried to put Pence in harm's way because Pence wouldn't violate his oath of office to do Trump's bidding give you any pause?
After seeing dementia joe and is cohorts screw this country like a ***** in heat, I don't know how dumb you have to be to think he's anything other than a **** up.
How the hell do you even live in America? Our founding fathers staged their very own coup. A real one, not a fake one like you try to push. Hell, they even had firearms.
this is not new information. Trump was acting on a premise that Pence had authority to do something that he did not have the authority to do. The only way that Pence could throw out the electors is if there was a competing slate of electors that have also been certified by the state legislature or state executive acting on behalf of the state legislature. That did not happen so Pence could not do what Trump asked.Guy Noir said:
I watched the third hearing and it appears that Trump was clearly attempting to overturn the election. Pressuring Mike Pence to throw out the certification of the election results.
The Republican Party needs to put Trump in the rear view mirror and distance themselves from him if they wish to show any semblance of integrity of leadership.
Pence certified, Trump left..
Trump is the past, We now need young energetic canidates like Desantis or (insert your favorite up and coming Dem here)
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
A defense case, so to speak. It's not their job to defend Trump.GrowlTowel said:Wait, this is a trial? I thought this was a committee "hearing."Sam Lowry said:
Schiff and Cheney didn't do anything inappropriate with the quotations. It's not their job to make the defense's case.
I think Biden's a good president. Not great, but good. I voted for him because I supported most of his policy positions and thought he was a decent guy. Those both still hold true.Rawhide said:If Trump's on the general ballot. I have zero problem voting for him.J.B.Katz said:Trump lost the presidential election and tried to overturn the results when he knew he lost.Oldbear83 said:
Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."
Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.
The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.
You and everyone else on this forum who still support Trump represent Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger."
Why would you continue to support a former president who lost an election because of his nasty behavior and then tried to stage a coup?
Doesn't the fact that Trump tried to put Pence in harm's way because Pence wouldn't violate his oath of office to do Trump's bidding give you any pause?
After seeing dementia joe and is cohorts screw this country like a ***** in heat, I don't know how dumb you have to be to think he's anything other than a **** up.
How the hell do you even live in America? Our founding fathers staged their very own coup. A real one, not a fake one like you try to push. Hell, they even had firearms.
America would be in a much darker place had Trump been re-elected or had his coup succeeded. You and other Trump supporters on this forum have convinced me this is the case. Before Trump, you felt superior and entitled to treat anyone who doesn't share your views with contempt. Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me, right?
Now, thanks to his coup attempt, you feel entitled to impose your narrow and sometimes hate-fueled religious and political views on a majority of Americans even if and when you lose an election at any level--state, local, national. Trump's coup attempt has really hurt America as a nation. Thank God for Cheney, Luttig and the Pence and Trump staffers who are contributing, however grudgingly, to holding him accountable.
If you want to vote for a traitor, then you own that. My hope is that these hearings will prevent Trump from getting on any ballot ever again.
A Tom Nichols column from the Atlantic that describes the people who tried to engineer this coup and gives some insight into Trump's supporters, too.
The Quiet Ones
Donald Trump, a petty and small man, is nonetheless a larger-than-life public figure. Investigating his attack on our elections is like staring into a klieg light: It is unpleasant, doesn't reveal very much, and leaves you temporarily blinded to everything around you.
The January 6 committee, however, deserves a great deal of credit for illuminating the dangerous mediocrities on whom Trump relied for his mischiefthe men and women who were certain that their moment had finally arrived. These peoplecall them the Third Stringthought that they were finally going to The Show, and they were going to burn the Constitution if that's what it took to stay there.
Consider, for example, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, a minor Justice Department official who sought to oust his own boss and get Trump to make him the attorney general, after which Clark would try to overturn the election results. (Clark has denied that he attempted the ousting.) "History is calling," Clark told Trump, in what must have been his most Very Serious Adviser voice.
What kind of person does that? The kind considered "quiet" and "nerdy" by his colleagues, according to a 2021 New York Times profile, but who apparently thought he was slated for greater things. He was "not known for being understated on the topic of himself," the Times noted. "Where the typical biography on the Justice Department website runs a few paragraphs, Mr. Clark's includes the elementary school he attended in Philadelphia, a topic he debated in college and that he worked for his college newspaper, The Harvard Crimson."
Well. (For the record, I went to Lambert-Lavoie Elementary in Chicopee, Massachusetts. Take that, elitists.)
Clark got his comeuppance in a meeting in the Oval Office when Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue warned Trump that any such appointment would lead to mass resignations, and told Clark: "You're an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we'll call you when there's an oil spill."
And then there's John Eastman, the former Clarence Thomas clerk, unsuccessful congressional candidate, and former dean of the law school at Chapman University in California who immersed himself in the kookiness of Trump World and ended up having to resign his teaching post days after speaking at the January 6 rally. His "departure closes this challenging chapter for Chapman," the school said, and then noted that no one would be suing anyone. As a recently retired professor myself, I can tell you this is not usually the preferred exit from the faculty.
(Eastman's crackpot legal theories are being eviscerated in the House today by retired Judge J. Michael Luttigfor whom Eastman also clerked. Ouch.)
Yesterday, The New York Times reported that emails obtained by the January 6 committee revealed that Eastmanwho was in close contact with Justice Thomas's wife, Ginniclaimed to know that there was a "heated" fight inside the Supreme Court about election cases. He stated this in an email with another pro-Trump lawyer who said the odds of the Court acting would increase if they thought there was a danger of public "chaos."
Greatness called; if it took intimidating the nation's highest court with civil disorder, well, eggs must be broken, and all that.
Clark and Eastman were among the brigade of mediocrities who saw in Trump a kind of patron saint of the Third String, the outsider who would sweep away the elites who controlled Washington and replace them with a new elitenamely, themselves. No more working in cubicles, hustling for grants, or sucking up for gigs with minor campaigns. The former White House spokesperson Stephanie Grisham was among the most honest of the lot when she wrote in her memoir how Trump was her ticket to D.C., and that she couldn't just walk away: "I was a single mom with no trust fund. If I had quit earlier, where would I have gone?"
The big, room-filling figures like Trump or Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani are, of course, dangerous even if they are also pathetic. (As The Bulwark's Charlie Sykes once put it, "A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.") But these showboaters were doing their damage in full view of the public. A constitutional democracy, in a way, is built to withstand such frontal assaults because we have a safety net in the web of laws and norms that are observed by civil servants and ordinary citizens.
But democracy is in severe danger when that net is cut, thread by thread, by a gray, resentful Third String that believes that greatness, unjustly denied for so long, is finally within reach.
J.B.Katz said:I think Biden's a good president. Not great, but good. I voted for him because I supported most of his policy positions and thought he was a decent guy. Those both still hold true. Which policy positions of his has made this country better?Rawhide said:If Trump's on the general ballot. I have zero problem voting for him.J.B.Katz said:Trump lost the presidential election and tried to overturn the results when he knew he lost.Oldbear83 said:
Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."
Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.
The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.
You and everyone else on this forum who still support Trump represent Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger."
Why would you continue to support a former president who lost an election because of his nasty behavior and then tried to stage a coup?
Doesn't the fact that Trump tried to put Pence in harm's way because Pence wouldn't violate his oath of office to do Trump's bidding give you any pause?
After seeing dementia joe and is cohorts screw this country like a ***** in heat, I don't know how dumb you have to be to think he's anything other than a **** up.
How the hell do you even live in America? Our founding fathers staged their very own coup. A real one, not a fake one like you try to push. Hell, they even had firearms.
America would be in a much darker place had Trump been re-elected or had his coup succeeded. You and other Trump supporters on this forum have convinced me this is the case. Before Trump, you felt superior and entitled to treat anyone who doesn't share your views with contempt. Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me, right? The lefties, like you have no less (if not more) contempt for people that think different than you. You're high horse isn't as high as you believe it to be
Now, thanks to his coup attempt, you feel entitled to impose your narrow and sometimes hate-fueled religious and political views on a majority of Americans even if and when you lose an election at any level--state, local, national. Trump's coup attempt has really hurt America as a nation. Thank God for Cheney, Luttig and the Pence and Trump staffers who are contributing, however grudgingly, to holding him accountable. The real coup attempt lasted 4 years while democrats made up stories, fake impeachments, out right lies and zero respect for the constitution while Trump was in office
If you want to vote for a traitor, then you own that. My hope is that these hearings will prevent Trump from getting on any ballot ever again. That's all these sham hearings are about. Try to keep Trump from running again because they're scared he'll run and win again
J.B.Katz said:The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity.Guy Noir said:
I watched the third hearing and it appears that Trump was clearly attempting to overturn the election. Pressuring Mike Pence to throw out the certification of the election results.
The Republican Party needs to put Trump in the rear view mirror and distance themselves from him if they wish to show any semblance of integrity of leadership.
J.B.Katz said:Trump lost the presidential election and tried to overturn the results when he knew he lost.Oldbear83 said:
Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."
Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.
The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.
You and everyone else on this forum who still support Trump represent Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger."
Why would you continue to support a former president who lost an election because of his nasty behavior and then tried to stage a coup?
Doesn't the fact that Trump tried to put Pence in harm's way because Pence wouldn't violate his oath of office to do Trump's bidding give you any pause?
There is a difference between supporting Trump and believing a case is being created agsinst him for political reasons.
So far, there is nothing illegal in what he did. Distasteful, selfish and childish, maybe. But it still comes down to what actually happened.
He can tell Pence all he wants that he thinks the VP should set aside electors. What did Pence do, he certified the election. Trump is entitled to his opinion, that is not illegal. Pence probably saved him
From himself, but again not illegal.
Trump left on inaugiration day.
He told the crowd to be peaceful and demonstrate. All legal.
He is allowed to disagree with Barr. He can believe the election is stolen. Nothing illegal.
No evidence has come forward that he was part of Jan 6th break in. No charges. Nothing but Congress putting on a show.
Just because someone doesn't think Trump broke the law. Does not make them a supporter.
J.B.Katz said:
I think Biden's a good president. .
Other, Similar thoughts by Jinxycat:
Kevin Steele was a good head football coach.
Grease 2, Caddyshack 2, and Jaws 3 in 3-D were all so much better than the originals.
New Coke tasted better than Old Coke.
Sam Lowry said:A defense case, so to speak. It's not their job to defend Trump.GrowlTowel said:Wait, this is a trial? I thought this was a committee "hearing."Sam Lowry said:
Schiff and Cheney didn't do anything inappropriate with the quotations. It's not their job to make the defense's case.
Defend him from what?
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
GrowlTowel said:Sam Lowry said:A defense case, so to speak. It's not their job to defend Trump.GrowlTowel said:Wait, this is a trial? I thought this was a committee "hearing."Sam Lowry said:
Schiff and Cheney didn't do anything inappropriate with the quotations. It's not their job to make the defense's case.
Defend him from what?
From making America as strong as it had been since Reagan. Respected and feared. Now we got the beta boys Obama and Biden neutering her and putting lady Liberty in drag and getting fools and politicians to celebrate it while your savings food and livelihood withers away.
Impressive what they can pull over on people.
Jinx is the Jennifer Rubin of Sicem 365
I lack the discipline to mention Jennifer Rubin without revisiting this spectacular fiasco:pic.twitter.com/tgi2cMFjxF
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 16, 2022
J.B.Katz said:I think Biden's a good president. Not great, but good. I voted for him because I supported most of his policy positions and thought he was a decent guy. Those both still hold true.Rawhide said:If Trump's on the general ballot. I have zero problem voting for him.J.B.Katz said:Trump lost the presidential election and tried to overturn the results when he knew he lost.Oldbear83 said:
Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."
Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.
The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.
You and everyone else on this forum who still support Trump represent Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger."
Why would you continue to support a former president who lost an election because of his nasty behavior and then tried to stage a coup?
Doesn't the fact that Trump tried to put Pence in harm's way because Pence wouldn't violate his oath of office to do Trump's bidding give you any pause?
After seeing dementia joe and is cohorts screw this country like a ***** in heat, I don't know how dumb you have to be to think he's anything other than a **** up.
How the hell do you even live in America? Our founding fathers staged their very own coup. A real one, not a fake one like you try to push. Hell, they even had firearms.
America would be in a much darker place had Trump been re-elected or had his coup succeeded. You and other Trump supporters on this forum have convinced me this is the case. Before Trump, you felt superior and entitled to treat anyone who doesn't share your views with contempt. Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me, right?
Now, thanks to his coup attempt, you feel entitled to impose your narrow and sometimes hate-fueled religious and political views on a majority of Americans even if and when you lose an election at any level--state, local, national. Trump's coup attempt has really hurt America as a nation. Thank God for Cheney, Luttig and the Pence and Trump staffers who are contributing, however grudgingly, to holding him accountable.
If you want to vote for a traitor, then you own that. My hope is that these hearings will prevent Trump from getting on any ballot ever again.
A Tom Nichols column from the Atlantic that describes the people who tried to engineer this coup and gives some insight into Trump's supporters, too.
The Quiet Ones
Donald Trump, a petty and small man, is nonetheless a larger-than-life public figure. Investigating his attack on our elections is like staring into a klieg light: It is unpleasant, doesn't reveal very much, and leaves you temporarily blinded to everything around you.
The January 6 committee, however, deserves a great deal of credit for illuminating the dangerous mediocrities on whom Trump relied for his mischiefthe men and women who were certain that their moment had finally arrived. These peoplecall them the Third Stringthought that they were finally going to The Show, and they were going to burn the Constitution if that's what it took to stay there.
Consider, for example, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, a minor Justice Department official who sought to oust his own boss and get Trump to make him the attorney general, after which Clark would try to overturn the election results. (Clark has denied that he attempted the ousting.) "History is calling," Clark told Trump, in what must have been his most Very Serious Adviser voice.
What kind of person does that? The kind considered "quiet" and "nerdy" by his colleagues, according to a 2021 New York Times profile, but who apparently thought he was slated for greater things. He was "not known for being understated on the topic of himself," the Times noted. "Where the typical biography on the Justice Department website runs a few paragraphs, Mr. Clark's includes the elementary school he attended in Philadelphia, a topic he debated in college and that he worked for his college newspaper, The Harvard Crimson."
Well. (For the record, I went to Lambert-Lavoie Elementary in Chicopee, Massachusetts. Take that, elitists.)
Clark got his comeuppance in a meeting in the Oval Office when Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue warned Trump that any such appointment would lead to mass resignations, and told Clark: "You're an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we'll call you when there's an oil spill."
And then there's John Eastman, the former Clarence Thomas clerk, unsuccessful congressional candidate, and former dean of the law school at Chapman University in California who immersed himself in the kookiness of Trump World and ended up having to resign his teaching post days after speaking at the January 6 rally. His "departure closes this challenging chapter for Chapman," the school said, and then noted that no one would be suing anyone. As a recently retired professor myself, I can tell you this is not usually the preferred exit from the faculty.
(Eastman's crackpot legal theories are being eviscerated in the House today by retired Judge J. Michael Luttigfor whom Eastman also clerked. Ouch.)
Yesterday, The New York Times reported that emails obtained by the January 6 committee revealed that Eastmanwho was in close contact with Justice Thomas's wife, Ginniclaimed to know that there was a "heated" fight inside the Supreme Court about election cases. He stated this in an email with another pro-Trump lawyer who said the odds of the Court acting would increase if they thought there was a danger of public "chaos."
Greatness called; if it took intimidating the nation's highest court with civil disorder, well, eggs must be broken, and all that.
Clark and Eastman were among the brigade of mediocrities who saw in Trump a kind of patron saint of the Third String, the outsider who would sweep away the elites who controlled Washington and replace them with a new elitenamely, themselves. No more working in cubicles, hustling for grants, or sucking up for gigs with minor campaigns. The former White House spokesperson Stephanie Grisham was among the most honest of the lot when she wrote in her memoir how Trump was her ticket to D.C., and that she couldn't just walk away: "I was a single mom with no trust fund. If I had quit earlier, where would I have gone?"
The big, room-filling figures like Trump or Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani are, of course, dangerous even if they are also pathetic. (As The Bulwark's Charlie Sykes once put it, "A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.") But these showboaters were doing their damage in full view of the public. A constitutional democracy, in a way, is built to withstand such frontal assaults because we have a safety net in the web of laws and norms that are observed by civil servants and ordinary citizens.
But democracy is in severe danger when that net is cut, thread by thread, by a gray, resentful Third String that believes that greatness, unjustly denied for so long, is finally within reach.
I see you once again didn't cite your rantings.
If you support Democracy! then you should accept the fact that your political views are in the minority and you should simply go away. Republicans on the march.
You voted for 10% inflation. Men in women sports. 5 dollar gas. Rescission.
Yet, you think Biden is a good president.
Says more about you than your cut and pastes.
You are a wack job.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Mothra said:Are you actually suggesting that January 6th, which resulted in the death of one protestor, was more violent than BLM?C. Jordan said:Are you kidding me?Mothra said:The BLM "protests" were far more violent than January 6th. 20 dead, thousands injured, and hundreds of million in property damage. And of course, the Dems bailed out many of those arrested, hypocrites that they are.C. Jordan said:Actually, it isn't.Mothra said:Actually, it's a pretty spot on comparison.C. Jordan said:Apples and oranges.riflebear said:
But nice try.
You can't be unhappy about one, calling for investigations, prosecutions, etc. and then ignore the other.
First, most of them are referring to protests, not violence.
Second, none of them involved the attempted takeover of the government and the murder of public officials.
So, yeah.
Apples and oranges.
But thanks for playing!
But I can understand why a partisan hack such as yourself can't admit it. Try again, false preacher.
None of the BLM protests tried to overthrow the federal government and murder Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence.
There's no comparison.
Quit trying to gaslight people.
As my dad would say, you're either eaten up with the dumbass, or you are blinded by your politics.
I love how Trump lovers start talking about black people every time one of Trump's faults is brought up.
"but all those people who think black lives matter, there's the REAL tragedy!!!!"
J.B.Katz said:I think Biden's a good president. Not great, but good. I voted for him because I supported most of his policy positions and thought he was a decent guy. Those both still hold true.Rawhide said:If Trump's on the general ballot. I have zero problem voting for him.J.B.Katz said:Trump lost the presidential election and tried to overturn the results when he knew he lost.Oldbear83 said:
Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."
Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.
The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.
You and everyone else on this forum who still support Trump represent Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger."
Why would you continue to support a former president who lost an election because of his nasty behavior and then tried to stage a coup?
Doesn't the fact that Trump tried to put Pence in harm's way because Pence wouldn't violate his oath of office to do Trump's bidding give you any pause?
After seeing dementia joe and is cohorts screw this country like a ***** in heat, I don't know how dumb you have to be to think he's anything other than a **** up.
How the hell do you even live in America? Our founding fathers staged their very own coup. A real one, not a fake one like you try to push. Hell, they even had firearms.
America would be in a much darker place had Trump been re-elected or had his coup succeeded. You and other Trump supporters on this forum have convinced me this is the case. Before Trump, you felt superior and entitled to treat anyone who doesn't share your views with contempt. Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me, right?
Now, thanks to his coup attempt, you feel entitled to impose your narrow and sometimes hate-fueled religious and political views on a majority of Americans even if and when you lose an election at any level--state, local, national. Trump's coup attempt has really hurt America as a nation. Thank God for Cheney, Luttig and the Pence and Trump staffers who are contributing, however grudgingly, to holding him accountable.
If you want to vote for a traitor, then you own that. My hope is that these hearings will prevent Trump from getting on any ballot ever again.
A Tom Nichols column from the Atlantic that describes the people who tried to engineer this coup and gives some insight into Trump's supporters, too.
The Quiet Ones
Donald Trump, a petty and small man, is nonetheless a larger-than-life public figure. Investigating his attack on our elections is like staring into a klieg light: It is unpleasant, doesn't reveal very much, and leaves you temporarily blinded to everything around you.
The January 6 committee, however, deserves a great deal of credit for illuminating the dangerous mediocrities on whom Trump relied for his mischiefthe men and women who were certain that their moment had finally arrived. These peoplecall them the Third Stringthought that they were finally going to The Show, and they were going to burn the Constitution if that's what it took to stay there.
Consider, for example, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, a minor Justice Department official who sought to oust his own boss and get Trump to make him the attorney general, after which Clark would try to overturn the election results. (Clark has denied that he attempted the ousting.) "History is calling," Clark told Trump, in what must have been his most Very Serious Adviser voice.
What kind of person does that? The kind considered "quiet" and "nerdy" by his colleagues, according to a 2021 New York Times profile, but who apparently thought he was slated for greater things. He was "not known for being understated on the topic of himself," the Times noted. "Where the typical biography on the Justice Department website runs a few paragraphs, Mr. Clark's includes the elementary school he attended in Philadelphia, a topic he debated in college and that he worked for his college newspaper, The Harvard Crimson."
Well. (For the record, I went to Lambert-Lavoie Elementary in Chicopee, Massachusetts. Take that, elitists.)
Clark got his comeuppance in a meeting in the Oval Office when Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue warned Trump that any such appointment would lead to mass resignations, and told Clark: "You're an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we'll call you when there's an oil spill."
And then there's John Eastman, the former Clarence Thomas clerk, unsuccessful congressional candidate, and former dean of the law school at Chapman University in California who immersed himself in the kookiness of Trump World and ended up having to resign his teaching post days after speaking at the January 6 rally. His "departure closes this challenging chapter for Chapman," the school said, and then noted that no one would be suing anyone. As a recently retired professor myself, I can tell you this is not usually the preferred exit from the faculty.
(Eastman's crackpot legal theories are being eviscerated in the House today by retired Judge J. Michael Luttigfor whom Eastman also clerked. Ouch.)
Yesterday, The New York Times reported that emails obtained by the January 6 committee revealed that Eastmanwho was in close contact with Justice Thomas's wife, Ginniclaimed to know that there was a "heated" fight inside the Supreme Court about election cases. He stated this in an email with another pro-Trump lawyer who said the odds of the Court acting would increase if they thought there was a danger of public "chaos."
Greatness called; if it took intimidating the nation's highest court with civil disorder, well, eggs must be broken, and all that.
Clark and Eastman were among the brigade of mediocrities who saw in Trump a kind of patron saint of the Third String, the outsider who would sweep away the elites who controlled Washington and replace them with a new elitenamely, themselves. No more working in cubicles, hustling for grants, or sucking up for gigs with minor campaigns. The former White House spokesperson Stephanie Grisham was among the most honest of the lot when she wrote in her memoir how Trump was her ticket to D.C., and that she couldn't just walk away: "I was a single mom with no trust fund. If I had quit earlier, where would I have gone?"
The big, room-filling figures like Trump or Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani are, of course, dangerous even if they are also pathetic. (As The Bulwark's Charlie Sykes once put it, "A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.") But these showboaters were doing their damage in full view of the public. A constitutional democracy, in a way, is built to withstand such frontal assaults because we have a safety net in the web of laws and norms that are observed by civil servants and ordinary citizens.
But democracy is in severe danger when that net is cut, thread by thread, by a gray, resentful Third String that believes that greatness, unjustly denied for so long, is finally within reach.
Jinxy, remember when you first changed your screenname to JB Katz, came on these boards and proclaimed to all you were a conservative who just couldn't stands Trump? And remember how much you protested when everyone called bull***** Remember how you tried to keep up that charade for months and threatened to put people on ignore for accusing you of lying?
Those were hilarious times. But I think you owe some people some apologies given that you were in fact lying.
Porteroso said:Mothra said:Are you actually suggesting that January 6th, which resulted in the death of one protestor, was more violent than BLM?C. Jordan said:Are you kidding me?Mothra said:The BLM "protests" were far more violent than January 6th. 20 dead, thousands injured, and hundreds of million in property damage. And of course, the Dems bailed out many of those arrested, hypocrites that they are.C. Jordan said:Actually, it isn't.Mothra said:Actually, it's a pretty spot on comparison.C. Jordan said:Apples and oranges.riflebear said:
But nice try.
You can't be unhappy about one, calling for investigations, prosecutions, etc. and then ignore the other.
First, most of them are referring to protests, not violence.
Second, none of them involved the attempted takeover of the government and the murder of public officials.
So, yeah.
Apples and oranges.
But thanks for playing!
But I can understand why a partisan hack such as yourself can't admit it. Try again, false preacher.
None of the BLM protests tried to overthrow the federal government and murder Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence.
There's no comparison.
Quit trying to gaslight people.
As my dad would say, you're either eaten up with the dumbass, or you are blinded by your politics.
I love how Trump lovers start talking about black people every time one of Trump's faults is brought up.
"but all those people who think black lives matter, there's the REAL tragedy!!!!"
A woke poster suggests that January 6th was more violent than the BLM riots, I respond and call bull**** on that demonstrably false claim, and that means I'm a racist trump lover?
Sure wokie. Better be careful playing that race card though. Use it too much and your ad hominem loses its bite.
I'm beginnig to think that the crazy loon in this video is the exact same cracy loon who goes by jinxy/jb katzMothra said:J.B.Katz said:I think Biden's a good president. Not great, but good. I voted for him because I supported most of his policy positions and thought he was a decent guy. Those both still hold true.Rawhide said:If Trump's on the general ballot. I have zero problem voting for him.J.B.Katz said:Trump lost the presidential election and tried to overturn the results when he knew he lost.Oldbear83 said:
Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."
Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.
The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.
You and everyone else on this forum who still support Trump represent Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger."
Why would you continue to support a former president who lost an election because of his nasty behavior and then tried to stage a coup?
Doesn't the fact that Trump tried to put Pence in harm's way because Pence wouldn't violate his oath of office to do Trump's bidding give you any pause?
After seeing dementia joe and is cohorts screw this country like a ***** in heat, I don't know how dumb you have to be to think he's anything other than a **** up.
How the hell do you even live in America? Our founding fathers staged their very own coup. A real one, not a fake one like you try to push. Hell, they even had firearms.
America would be in a much darker place had Trump been re-elected or had his coup succeeded. You and other Trump supporters on this forum have convinced me this is the case. Before Trump, you felt superior and entitled to treat anyone who doesn't share your views with contempt. Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me, right?
Now, thanks to his coup attempt, you feel entitled to impose your narrow and sometimes hate-fueled religious and political views on a majority of Americans even if and when you lose an election at any level--state, local, national. Trump's coup attempt has really hurt America as a nation. Thank God for Cheney, Luttig and the Pence and Trump staffers who are contributing, however grudgingly, to holding him accountable.
If you want to vote for a traitor, then you own that. My hope is that these hearings will prevent Trump from getting on any ballot ever again.
A Tom Nichols column from the Atlantic that describes the people who tried to engineer this coup and gives some insight into Trump's supporters, too.
The Quiet Ones
Donald Trump, a petty and small man, is nonetheless a larger-than-life public figure. Investigating his attack on our elections is like staring into a klieg light: It is unpleasant, doesn't reveal very much, and leaves you temporarily blinded to everything around you.
The January 6 committee, however, deserves a great deal of credit for illuminating the dangerous mediocrities on whom Trump relied for his mischiefthe men and women who were certain that their moment had finally arrived. These peoplecall them the Third Stringthought that they were finally going to The Show, and they were going to burn the Constitution if that's what it took to stay there.
Consider, for example, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, a minor Justice Department official who sought to oust his own boss and get Trump to make him the attorney general, after which Clark would try to overturn the election results. (Clark has denied that he attempted the ousting.) "History is calling," Clark told Trump, in what must have been his most Very Serious Adviser voice.
What kind of person does that? The kind considered "quiet" and "nerdy" by his colleagues, according to a 2021 New York Times profile, but who apparently thought he was slated for greater things. He was "not known for being understated on the topic of himself," the Times noted. "Where the typical biography on the Justice Department website runs a few paragraphs, Mr. Clark's includes the elementary school he attended in Philadelphia, a topic he debated in college and that he worked for his college newspaper, The Harvard Crimson."
Well. (For the record, I went to Lambert-Lavoie Elementary in Chicopee, Massachusetts. Take that, elitists.)
Clark got his comeuppance in a meeting in the Oval Office when Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue warned Trump that any such appointment would lead to mass resignations, and told Clark: "You're an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we'll call you when there's an oil spill."
And then there's John Eastman, the former Clarence Thomas clerk, unsuccessful congressional candidate, and former dean of the law school at Chapman University in California who immersed himself in the kookiness of Trump World and ended up having to resign his teaching post days after speaking at the January 6 rally. His "departure closes this challenging chapter for Chapman," the school said, and then noted that no one would be suing anyone. As a recently retired professor myself, I can tell you this is not usually the preferred exit from the faculty.
(Eastman's crackpot legal theories are being eviscerated in the House today by retired Judge J. Michael Luttigfor whom Eastman also clerked. Ouch.)
Yesterday, The New York Times reported that emails obtained by the January 6 committee revealed that Eastmanwho was in close contact with Justice Thomas's wife, Ginniclaimed to know that there was a "heated" fight inside the Supreme Court about election cases. He stated this in an email with another pro-Trump lawyer who said the odds of the Court acting would increase if they thought there was a danger of public "chaos."
Greatness called; if it took intimidating the nation's highest court with civil disorder, well, eggs must be broken, and all that.
Clark and Eastman were among the brigade of mediocrities who saw in Trump a kind of patron saint of the Third String, the outsider who would sweep away the elites who controlled Washington and replace them with a new elitenamely, themselves. No more working in cubicles, hustling for grants, or sucking up for gigs with minor campaigns. The former White House spokesperson Stephanie Grisham was among the most honest of the lot when she wrote in her memoir how Trump was her ticket to D.C., and that she couldn't just walk away: "I was a single mom with no trust fund. If I had quit earlier, where would I have gone?"
The big, room-filling figures like Trump or Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani are, of course, dangerous even if they are also pathetic. (As The Bulwark's Charlie Sykes once put it, "A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.") But these showboaters were doing their damage in full view of the public. A constitutional democracy, in a way, is built to withstand such frontal assaults because we have a safety net in the web of laws and norms that are observed by civil servants and ordinary citizens.
But democracy is in severe danger when that net is cut, thread by thread, by a gray, resentful Third String that believes that greatness, unjustly denied for so long, is finally within reach.
Jinxy, remember when you first changed your screenname to JB Katz, came on these boards and proclaimed to all you were a conservative who just couldn't stands Trump? And remember how much you protested when everyone called bull***** Remember how you tried to keep up that charade for months and threatened to put people on ignore for accusing you of lying?
Those were hilarious times. But I think you owe some people some apologies given that you were in fact lying.
if you are really lucky, they will call you a white supremacist and a racist without realizing that they're talking to a POC or not caring that they're talking to a POCMothra said:Porteroso said:Mothra said:Are you actually suggesting that January 6th, which resulted in the death of one protestor, was more violent than BLM?C. Jordan said:Are you kidding me?Mothra said:The BLM "protests" were far more violent than January 6th. 20 dead, thousands injured, and hundreds of million in property damage. And of course, the Dems bailed out many of those arrested, hypocrites that they are.C. Jordan said:Actually, it isn't.Mothra said:Actually, it's a pretty spot on comparison.C. Jordan said:Apples and oranges.riflebear said:
But nice try.
You can't be unhappy about one, calling for investigations, prosecutions, etc. and then ignore the other.
First, most of them are referring to protests, not violence.
Second, none of them involved the attempted takeover of the government and the murder of public officials.
So, yeah.
Apples and oranges.
But thanks for playing!
But I can understand why a partisan hack such as yourself can't admit it. Try again, false preacher.
None of the BLM protests tried to overthrow the federal government and murder Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence.
There's no comparison.
Quit trying to gaslight people.
As my dad would say, you're either eaten up with the dumbass, or you are blinded by your politics.
I love how Trump lovers start talking about black people every time one of Trump's faults is brought up.
"but all those people who think black lives matter, there's the REAL tragedy!!!!"
A woke poster suggests that January 6th was more violent than the BLM riots, I respond and call bull**** on that demonstrably false claim, and that means I'm a racist trump lover?
Sure wokie. Better be careful playing that race card though. Use it too much and your ad hominem loses its bite.
The Trump administration did more for POC's than the Obama administration, that's a fact.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Me personally I hope Trump never runs again, but the hearings today won't decide that.Rawhide said:If Trump's on the general ballot. I have zero problem voting for him.J.B.Katz said:Trump lost the presidential election and tried to overturn the results when he knew he lost.Oldbear83 said:
Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."
Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.
The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.
You and everyone else on this forum who still support Trump represent Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger."
Why would you continue to support a former president who lost an election because of his nasty behavior and then tried to stage a coup?
Doesn't the fact that Trump tried to put Pence in harm's way because Pence wouldn't violate his oath of office to do Trump's bidding give you any pause?
After seeing dementia joe and is cohorts screw this country like a ***** in heat, I don't know how dumb you have to be to think he's anything other than a **** up.
How the hell do you even live in America? Our founding fathers staged their very own coup. A real one, not a fake one like you try to push. Hell, they even had firearms.
As far as "Clear and present danger" the worst president of all time occupies the Oval Office right now, lets worry about the real threat to our democracy. He has 2 1/2 years left. The worst thing that could happen to our country is him occupying the White House for 6 1/2 more years. I would hope he will step aside for someone else in 2024.