FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.

Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.

Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.

Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng

— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023

---

I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.

---

I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.

---

Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.

That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.

The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.

The controversy is justified.

---

The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.

---

she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.

The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/

Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.

The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.

---

You MAGA guys keep doing that. Changing the argument from the Babbit or Trump actions and their legality to the 202o rioters didn't get punished (that you know). The two are not connected! The Capitol Policeman didn't say well what did they do in Portland in 2020 during the middle of a Breach of the Capitol by 10,000 people. (Really about 1000, but we will use Trump-speak biggest ever, a multitude! Or for this it was 1 woman in a hall and the Police drew on her!)

---

Multiple points of disconnect going on there.

I'm a Republican, not a Maga-head. I defended Nikki Haley in another thread just this AM from an unfair attack.

Mostly, though, your response doesn't really address the points I made. I noted the specific details of the incident, and showed not that one side was right and the other was wrong, but that both sides had reasonable points and that it was completely understandable that there would be controversy about the shooting. I have not criticized the officer, but I do question the objectivity of determination that the use of deadly force was justified. A good right hook would have ended any threat she posed. Was it REALLY necessary, there and then, to shoot an unarmed woman crawling thru a window? On what planet would reasonable people not wonder if that was the right call?

---

Unfortunately, this one.

---

Well, that is one opinion. An awful lot of people disagree. And that is my point. It is controversial. Usually is when a cop shoots an unarmed individual. And in this case, a cop shot a WOMAN who was clearly no threat to him.

Curiously, I can find no polling on this incident. I suspect it is an avatar for the larger question of whether J6 was a "mostly peaceful riot" or "an insurrection." To the extent that is true, then we could expect +60% of the public to disagree that the shooting was justified. Which would, of course, only underscore my very narrow point above = the controversy about the shooting is justified. When a male cop shoots an unarmed female protestor who was clearly no threat to him.....on what planet would that not be controversial? Add in the political and racial aspects of this particular shooting and you have a fairly volatile mix.

---

Try this. This is a legal (Law Fare Media) review, that is balanced. It is based on law, not polls. Polling is irrelevant in this case. Either he committed a crime or not. Whether people agree means nothing here, this is a criminal matter, not opinion.

Evaluating the Police Shooting of Ashli Babbitt | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org)

---

That article tends to support whiterock's contention that this is reasonable that this should be a controversial case.

In a media environment where polling about all manner of topics is ubiquitous, even when it doesn't do anything but generate content for news stories, the absence of polling on the issue, or at least polling that he could find, is interesting.

D. C. Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.

Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.

Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.

Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng

— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023

---

I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.

---

I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.

---

Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.

That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.

The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.

The controversy is justified.

---

The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.

---

she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.

The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/

Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.

The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.

---

You MAGA guys keep doing that. Changing the argument from the Babbit or Trump actions and their legality to the 202o rioters didn't get punished (that you know). The two are not connected! The Capitol Policeman didn't say well what did they do in Portland in 2020 during the middle of a Breach of the Capitol by 10,000 people. (Really about 1000, but we will use Trump-speak biggest ever, a multitude! Or for this it was 1 woman in a hall and the Police drew on her!)

---

Multiple points of disconnect going on there.

I'm a Republican, not a Maga-head. I defended Nikki Haley in another thread just this AM from an unfair attack.

Mostly, though, your response doesn't really address the points I made. I noted the specific details of the incident, and showed not that one side was right and the other was wrong, but that both sides had reasonable points and that it was completely understandable that there would be controversy about the shooting. I have not criticized the officer, but I do question the objectivity of determination that the use of deadly force was justified. A good right hook would have ended any threat she posed. Was it REALLY necessary, there and then, to shoot an unarmed woman crawling thru a window? On what planet would reasonable people not wonder if that was the right call?

---

Unfortunately, this one.

---

Well, that is one opinion. An awful lot of people disagree. And that is my point. It is controversial. Usually is when a cop shoots an unarmed individual. And in this case, a cop shot a WOMAN who was clearly no threat to him.

Curiously, I can find no polling on this incident. I suspect it is an avatar for the larger question of whether J6 was a "mostly peaceful riot" or "an insurrection." To the extent that is true, then we could expect +60% of the public to disagree that the shooting was justified. Which would, of course, only underscore my very narrow point above = the controversy about the shooting is justified. When a male cop shoots an unarmed female protestor who was clearly no threat to him.....on what planet would that not be controversial? Add in the political and racial aspects of this particular shooting and you have a fairly volatile mix.

---

Try this. This is a legal (Law Fare Media) review, that is balanced. It is based on law, not polls. Polling is irrelevant in this case. Either he committed a crime or not. Whether people agree means nothing here, this is a criminal matter, not opinion.

Evaluating the Police Shooting of Ashli Babbitt | Lawfare (lawfaremedia.org)

---

That article tends to support whiterock's contention that this is reasonable that this should be a controversial case.

In a media environment where polling about all manner of topics is ubiquitous, even when it doesn't do anything but generate content for news stories, the absence of polling on the issue, or at least polling that he could find, is interesting.

---

With the politics involved, it is going to be controversial, not getting away from that. The whole 2020 election is controversial.

What I take from it is:
First, the cop should not be charged. It is not as cut and dry as many make it out to be and the cop was legally within his rights to use the force he did.

Second, that there are two sides to the case (definition of controversy) and either opinion can be supported. So, we may disagree. That doesn't make Whiterock or others Gaetz's play toy and it doesn't make me Hunter Biden's *****...

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.

Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.

Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.

Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng

— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023

---

I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.

---

I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.

---

Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.

That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.

The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.

The controversy is justified.

---

The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.

---

she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.

The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/

Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.

The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.

---

You MAGA guys keep doing that. Changing the argument from the Babbit or Trump actions and their legality to the 202o rioters didn't get punished (that you know). The two are not connected! The Capitol Policeman didn't say well what did they do in Portland in 2020 during the middle of a Breach of the Capitol by 10,000 people. (Really about 1000, but we will use Trump-speak biggest ever, a multitude! Or for this it was 1 woman in a hall and the Police drew on her!)

---

Multiple points of disconnect going on there.

I'm a Republican, not a Maga-head. I defended Nikki Haley in another thread just this AM from an unfair attack.

Mostly, though, your response doesn't really address the points I made. I noted the specific details of the incident, and showed not that one side was right and the other was wrong, but that both sides had reasonable points and that it was completely understandable that there would be controversy about the shooting. I have not criticized the officer, but I do question the objectivity of determination that the use of deadly force was justified. A good right hook would have ended any threat she posed. Was it REALLY necessary, there and then, to shoot an unarmed woman crawling thru a window? On what planet would reasonable people not wonder if that was the right call?

---

Unfortunately, this one.

---

Well, that is one opinion. An awful lot of people disagree. And that is my point. It is controversial. Usually is when a cop shoots an unarmed individual. And in this case, a cop shot a WOMAN who was clearly no threat to him.

Curiously, I can find no polling on this incident. I suspect it is an avatar for the larger question of whether J6 was a "mostly peaceful riot" or "an insurrection." To the extent that is true, then we could expect +60% of the public to disagree that the shooting was justified. Which would, of course, only underscore my very narrow point above = the controversy about the shooting is justified. When a male cop shoots an unarmed female protestor who was clearly no threat to him.....on what planet would that not be controversial? Add in the political and racial aspects of this particular shooting and you have a fairly volatile mix.

---

Try this. This is a legal (Law Fare Media) review, that is balanced. It is based on law, not polls. Polling is irrelevant in this case. Either he committed a crime or not. Whether people agree means nothing here, this is a criminal matter, not opinion.


https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/evaluating-police-shooting-ashli-babbitt

---

Tell that to the all the businesses around the country that were burned down after justified officer involved shootings. Public opinion on such things always matters. Polling merely measures it.

with respect to your link...... Did you actually read it? It tracks with my argument quite closely, all the way down to the money line in the last paragraph:

"In this post, we attempted to bring a balanced perspective to the shooting, applying the now-familiar constitutional standard that regulates the use of deadly force. The limited public information that exists raises serious questions about the propriety of Byrd's decision to shoot, especially with regard to the assessment that Babbitt was an imminent threat. To belabor the obvious, though, we cannot definitively analyze a situation without the relevant facts, and there is a frustrating shortage of facts. But there are enough facts to conclude that even if Byrd violated Babbitt's Fourth Amendment rights, it is highly unlikely that he could be ethically charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime."

I also cannot disagree with the conclusion that it would be very difficult to prosecute Byrd for murder. I seriously doubt he spent that day looking for the opportunity to shoot a protestor. And I don't doubt that he assessed that he (or a protectee) was at imminent risk the moment he pulled the trigger. Most damning thing that could be said is that he made the wrong call...in the heat of the moment. I always lean toward giving the officer the benefit of the doubt in such situations. We owe them that. Personally? The only way I can justify the shooting is to give extra wide latitude to the officer (i.e. cover his ass for a good-faith mistake.) Were I C/CAPO, I'd send the officer off the proverbial Alaska weather station, hoping he'd find another place to work.

Like I said, the shooting (and clearing of the officer) are CONTROVERSIAL, as ratified in the way it has become politicized. And a morally ambigious situation like the Babbitt killing is purpose built for political spin.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.

Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.

Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.

Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng

— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023

---

I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.

---

I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.

---

Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.

That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.

The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.

The controversy is justified.

---

The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.

---

she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.

The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/

Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.

The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.

---

You MAGA guys keep doing that. Changing the argument from the Babbit or Trump actions and their legality to the 202o rioters didn't get punished (that you know). The two are not connected! The Capitol Policeman didn't say well what did they do in Portland in 2020 during the middle of a Breach of the Capitol by 10,000 people. (Really about 1000, but we will use Trump-speak biggest ever, a multitude! Or for this it was 1 woman in a hall and the Police drew on her!)

---

Multiple points of disconnect going on there.

I'm a Republican, not a Maga-head. I defended Nikki Haley in another thread just this AM from an unfair attack.

Mostly, though, your response doesn't really address the points I made. I noted the specific details of the incident, and showed not that one side was right and the other was wrong, but that both sides had reasonable points and that it was completely understandable that there would be controversy about the shooting. I have not criticized the officer, but I do question the objectivity of determination that the use of deadly force was justified. A good right hook would have ended any threat she posed. Was it REALLY necessary, there and then, to shoot an unarmed woman crawling thru a window? On what planet would reasonable people not wonder if that was the right call?

---

Unfortunately, this one.

---

Well, that is one opinion. An awful lot of people disagree. And that is my point. It is controversial. Usually is when a cop shoots an unarmed individual. And in this case, a cop shot a WOMAN who was clearly no threat to him.

Curiously, I can find no polling on this incident. I suspect it is an avatar for the larger question of whether J6 was a "mostly peaceful riot" or "an insurrection." To the extent that is true, then we could expect +60% of the public to disagree that the shooting was justified. Which would, of course, only underscore my very narrow point above = the controversy about the shooting is justified. When a male cop shoots an unarmed female protestor who was clearly no threat to him.....on what planet would that not be controversial? Add in the political and racial aspects of this particular shooting and you have a fairly volatile mix.

---

Try this. This is a legal (Law Fare Media) review, that is balanced. It is based on law, not polls. Polling is irrelevant in this case. Either he committed a crime or not. Whether people agree means nothing here, this is a criminal matter, not opinion.


https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/evaluating-police-shooting-ashli-babbitt

---

Tell that to the all the businesses around the country that were burned down after justified officer involved shootings. Public opinion on such things always matters. Polling merely measures it.

with respect to your link...... Did you actually read it? It tracks with my argument quite closely, all the way down to the money line in the last paragraph:

"In this post, we attempted to bring a balanced perspective to the shooting, applying the now-familiar constitutional standard that regulates the use of deadly force. The limited public information that exists raises serious questions about the propriety of Byrd's decision to shoot, especially with regard to the assessment that Babbitt was an imminent threat. To belabor the obvious, though, we cannot definitively analyze a situation without the relevant facts, and there is a frustrating shortage of facts. But there are enough facts to conclude that even if Byrd violated Babbitt's Fourth Amendment rights, it is highly unlikely that he could be ethically charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime."

I also cannot disagree with the conclusion that it would be very difficult to prosecute Byrd for murder. I seriously doubt he spent that day looking for the opportunity to shoot a protestor. And I don't doubt that he assessed that he (or a protectee) was at imminent risk the moment he pulled the trigger. Most damning thing that could be said is that he made the wrong call...in the heat of the moment. I always lean toward giving the officer the benefit of the doubt in such situations. We owe them that. Personally? The only way I can justify the shooting is to give extra wide latitude to the officer (i.e. cover his ass for a good-faith mistake.) Were I C/CAPO, I'd send the officer off the proverbial Alaska weather station, hoping he'd find another place to work.

Like I said, the shooting (and clearing of the officer) are CONTROVERSIAL, as ratified in the way it has become politicized. And a morally ambigious situation like the Babbitt killing is purpose built for political spin.

---

You are 100% correct, it is political spin. If it was breaking into a Federal Courthouse and she was ANTIFA, it would justified by the same people condemning it.

Personally, in that situation, I will defer to the man on the ground, on the line.

That was not a clear cut situation. In some parts of the Capital it was peaceful. In others, like where Babitt was, it most definitely was not. In addition, the information those guys were getting was that it was going violent. Controversial? Sure, but the Officer was cleared in the after action investigation. So, I go with that.

People on here complain of Banana Republic. Either you believe in the processes, systems and Agencies in place or you don't. Either you believe in the Justice System or you do not. Cherry picking is BS, in my opinion. That is what Banana Republics do. Because if the system is as many on here say and think, America is ****ed and I won't go there...

Don't jump through broken windows and you probably won't get shot at. What would you do if someone came through a window at your home?

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Don't jump through broken windows and you probably won't get shot at. What would you do if someone came through a window at your home?

---

I am with you. I don't see how you defend going through a broken window.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.

Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.

Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.

Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng

— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023

---

I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.

---

I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.

---

Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.

That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.

The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.

The controversy is justified.

---

The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.

---

she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.

The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/

Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.

The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.

---

You MAGA guys keep doing that. Changing the argument from the Babbit or Trump actions and their legality to the 202o rioters didn't get punished (that you know). The two are not connected! The Capitol Policeman didn't say well what did they do in Portland in 2020 during the middle of a Breach of the Capitol by 10,000 people. (Really about 1000, but we will use Trump-speak biggest ever, a multitude! Or for this it was 1 woman in a hall and the Police drew on her!)

---

Multiple points of disconnect going on there.

I'm a Republican, not a Maga-head. I defended Nikki Haley in another thread just this AM from an unfair attack.

Mostly, though, your response doesn't really address the points I made. I noted the specific details of the incident, and showed not that one side was right and the other was wrong, but that both sides had reasonable points and that it was completely understandable that there would be controversy about the shooting. I have not criticized the officer, but I do question the objectivity of determination that the use of deadly force was justified. A good right hook would have ended any threat she posed. Was it REALLY necessary, there and then, to shoot an unarmed woman crawling thru a window? On what planet would reasonable people not wonder if that was the right call?

---

Unfortunately, this one.

---

Well, that is one opinion. An awful lot of people disagree. And that is my point. It is controversial. Usually is when a cop shoots an unarmed individual. And in this case, a cop shot a WOMAN who was clearly no threat to him.

Curiously, I can find no polling on this incident. I suspect it is an avatar for the larger question of whether J6 was a "mostly peaceful riot" or "an insurrection." To the extent that is true, then we could expect +60% of the public to disagree that the shooting was justified. Which would, of course, only underscore my very narrow point above = the controversy about the shooting is justified. When a male cop shoots an unarmed female protestor who was clearly no threat to him.....on what planet would that not be controversial? Add in the political and racial aspects of this particular shooting and you have a fairly volatile mix.

---

Try this. This is a legal (Law Fare Media) review, that is balanced. It is based on law, not polls. Polling is irrelevant in this case. Either he committed a crime or not. Whether people agree means nothing here, this is a criminal matter, not opinion.


https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/evaluating-police-shooting-ashli-babbitt

---

Tell that to the all the businesses around the country that were burned down after justified officer involved shootings. Public opinion on such things always matters. Polling merely measures it.

with respect to your link...... Did you actually read it? It tracks with my argument quite closely, all the way down to the money line in the last paragraph:

"In this post, we attempted to bring a balanced perspective to the shooting, applying the now-familiar constitutional standard that regulates the use of deadly force. The limited public information that exists raises serious questions about the propriety of Byrd's decision to shoot, especially with regard to the assessment that Babbitt was an imminent threat. To belabor the obvious, though, we cannot definitively analyze a situation without the relevant facts, and there is a frustrating shortage of facts. But there are enough facts to conclude that even if Byrd violated Babbitt's Fourth Amendment rights, it is highly unlikely that he could be ethically charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime."

I also cannot disagree with the conclusion that it would be very difficult to prosecute Byrd for murder. I seriously doubt he spent that day looking for the opportunity to shoot a protestor. And I don't doubt that he assessed that he (or a protectee) was at imminent risk the moment he pulled the trigger. Most damning thing that could be said is that he made the wrong call...in the heat of the moment. I always lean toward giving the officer the benefit of the doubt in such situations. We owe them that. Personally? The only way I can justify the shooting is to give extra wide latitude to the officer (i.e. cover his ass for a good-faith mistake.) Were I C/CAPO, I'd send the officer off the proverbial Alaska weather station, hoping he'd find another place to work.

Like I said, the shooting (and clearing of the officer) are CONTROVERSIAL, as ratified in the way it has become politicized. And a morally ambigious situation like the Babbitt killing is purpose built for political spin.

---

You are 100% correct, it is political spin. If it was breaking into a Federal Courthouse and she was ANTIFA, it would justified by the same people condemning it.

Personally, in that situation, I will defer to the man on the ground, on the line.

That was not a clear cut situation. In some parts of the Capital it was peaceful. In others, like where Babitt was, it most definitely was not. In addition, the information those guys were getting was that it was going violent. Controversial? Sure, but the Officer was cleared in the after action investigation. So, I go with that.

People on here complain of Banana Republic. Either you believe in the processes, systems and Agencies in place or you don't. Either you believe in the Justice System or you do not. Cherry picking is BS, in my opinion. That is what Banana Republics do. Because if the system is as many on here say and think, America is ****ed and I won't go there...

---

only flaw is the man on the ground has a history of making poor decisions. He left his side arm in a public bathroom at one point.

The video clearly shows him shoot and run off. I dont think he meant to shoot but he wont admit that.. He Barney Fifed it.

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Today is Ashli Babbitt's birthday. She was murdered.

Kevin refused to watch the footage of her murder, and even praised her murderer.

Kevin McCarthy LIES and says he's already released the J6 footage.

Our own Roger Farina won't let Kevin off the hook. pic.twitter.com/EvhsPMvsng

— National File (@NationalFile) October 10, 2023

---

I've always found the Ashli Babbit "murdered" logic a bit absurd. She was no more murdered then if I shot an intruder entering my home.

---

I agree, do not get the murder part. She was part of the crowd pushing into Congress coming in through a broken window. If she followed the Capitol Police orders, she would be alive.

---

Fact: Deadly force was used against an unarmed woman climbing thru a broken window that few protesters would have been able to fit thru. She posed no threat of harm to anyone at the moment she was shot.

That is the standard which would be used in a court of law for a shooting anywhere else, i.e. it would not likely have been ruled a justified shooting. Is it reasonable to apply a different one here? Reasonable people can look at the context and see aggravating circumstances. And also not. She was inches away from (possibly touching) a federal officer when she was shot. That officer was not alone (other officers with him) and was not being attacked.

The officer who shot Babbitt clearly made a determination that anyone who penetrated that barrier would be shot. Subsequent investigation effectively ratified that decision. Whether it was justified or not......? He did not HAVE to do it. He had less-than-lethal options. Had he chosen less-than-lethal (a choice made everywhere else), physical restraints, etc...he would have been successful. But was that the "last line of defense?" Had Babbitt penetrated the "safe room?" Answers to these questions are never clearly a yes or no. Always a maybe, probably, apparently, etc.... And none of that that wouldn't be terribly controversial had it not involved use of deadly force.

The controversy is justified.

---

The officer was aware the Babbitt was part of a mob. He wasn't concerned that Babbitt by herself would breach the perimeter they were trying to establish, he was concerned that she would be the first of thousands to do it.

---

she was perched in an approx. 24" wide by 36" high sidelight. She was unarmed. She posed no threat to him. He had options. She was not at the head of a mob. The crisis moment at the door had clearly passed, given the cracked glass, barricades at the doorway, the very small number of people at the doorway, and the officer calmly walking in the background.....circumstances do not suggest a life/death scenario for the officer. The officers outside on the capitol steps engaged in hand-to-hand combat were arguably at greater risk.

The video: https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/

Not saying officer was a murderer. Circumstances clearly suggest he had determined to shoot anyone who came thru the window. Whether that was a policy, or an on the spot determination is not clear. Internal review cleared him. I can see the reasons why many would think he was justified. I can also see the reasons why many would think he is not.

The controversy is justified.
Particularly when compared to the circumstances of the previous summer.

---

You MAGA guys keep doing that. Changing the argument from the Babbit or Trump actions and their legality to the 202o rioters didn't get punished (that you know). The two are not connected! The Capitol Policeman didn't say well what did they do in Portland in 2020 during the middle of a Breach of the Capitol by 10,000 people. (Really about 1000, but we will use Trump-speak biggest ever, a multitude! Or for this it was 1 woman in a hall and the Police drew on her!)

---

Multiple points of disconnect going on there.

I'm a Republican, not a Maga-head. I defended Nikki Haley in another thread just this AM from an unfair attack.

Mostly, though, your response doesn't really address the points I made. I noted the specific details of the incident, and showed not that one side was right and the other was wrong, but that both sides had reasonable points and that it was completely understandable that there would be controversy about the shooting. I have not criticized the officer, but I do question the objectivity of determination that the use of deadly force was justified. A good right hook would have ended any threat she posed. Was it REALLY necessary, there and then, to shoot an unarmed woman crawling thru a window? On what planet would reasonable people not wonder if that was the right call?

---

Unfortunately, this one.

---

Well, that is one opinion. An awful lot of people disagree. And that is my point. It is controversial. Usually is when a cop shoots an unarmed individual. And in this case, a cop shot a WOMAN who was clearly no threat to him.

Curiously, I can find no polling on this incident. I suspect it is an avatar for the larger question of whether J6 was a "mostly peaceful riot" or "an insurrection." To the extent that is true, then we could expect +60% of the public to disagree that the shooting was justified. Which would, of course, only underscore my very narrow point above = the controversy about the shooting is justified. When a male cop shoots an unarmed female protestor who was clearly no threat to him.....on what planet would that not be controversial? Add in the political and racial aspects of this particular shooting and you have a fairly volatile mix.

---

Try this. This is a legal (Law Fare Media) review, that is balanced. It is based on law, not polls. Polling is irrelevant in this case. Either he committed a crime or not. Whether people agree means nothing here, this is a criminal matter, not opinion.


https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/evaluating-police-shooting-ashli-babbitt

---

Tell that to the all the businesses around the country that were burned down after justified officer involved shootings. Public opinion on such things always matters. Polling merely measures it.

with respect to your link...... Did you actually read it? It tracks with my argument quite closely, all the way down to the money line in the last paragraph:

"In this post, we attempted to bring a balanced perspective to the shooting, applying the now-familiar constitutional standard that regulates the use of deadly force. The limited public information that exists raises serious questions about the propriety of Byrd's decision to shoot, especially with regard to the assessment that Babbitt was an imminent threat. To belabor the obvious, though, we cannot definitively analyze a situation without the relevant facts, and there is a frustrating shortage of facts. But there are enough facts to conclude that even if Byrd violated Babbitt's Fourth Amendment rights, it is highly unlikely that he could be ethically charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime."

I also cannot disagree with the conclusion that it would be very difficult to prosecute Byrd for murder. I seriously doubt he spent that day looking for the opportunity to shoot a protestor. And I don't doubt that he assessed that he (or a protectee) was at imminent risk the moment he pulled the trigger. Most damning thing that could be said is that he made the wrong call...in the heat of the moment. I always lean toward giving the officer the benefit of the doubt in such situations. We owe them that. Personally? The only way I can justify the shooting is to give extra wide latitude to the officer (i.e. cover his ass for a good-faith mistake.) Were I C/CAPO, I'd send the officer off the proverbial Alaska weather station, hoping he'd find another place to work.

Like I said, the shooting (and clearing of the officer) are CONTROVERSIAL, as ratified in the way it has become politicized. And a morally ambigious situation like the Babbitt killing is purpose built for political spin.

---

You are 100% correct, it is political spin. If it was breaking into a Federal Courthouse and she was ANTIFA, it would justified by the same people condemning it.

Personally, in that situation, I will defer to the man on the ground, on the line.

That was not a clear cut situation. In some parts of the Capital it was peaceful. In others, like where Babitt was, it most definitely was not. In addition, the information those guys were getting was that it was going violent. Controversial? Sure, but the Officer was cleared in the after action investigation. So, I go with that.

People on here complain of Banana Republic. Either you believe in the processes, systems and Agencies in place or you don't. Either you believe in the Justice System or you do not. Cherry picking is BS, in my opinion. That is what Banana Republics do. Because if the system is as many on here say and think, America is ****ed and I won't go there...

---

only flaw is the man on the ground has a history of making poor decisions. He left his side arm in a public bathroom at one point.

The video clearly shows him shoot and run off. I dont think he meant to shoot but he wont admit that.. He Barney Fifed it.

---

I think the scrutiny and emphasis is on the wrong area. You guys are focused on a Capital Police Officer doing his job and picking his decisions during a battle/riot and career to pieces. Rather than the people breaking the law. Are you now going to tell me that breaking a window and climbing through it with Police and SS telling you not to is perfectly reasonable and legal? Wonder if you guys are just as anti-cop for Floyd and others?

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Don't jump through broken windows and you probably won't get shot at. What would you do if someone came through a window at your home?

---

I'd make sure they aren't in court telling their story in a lawsuit.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, this one.

---

Well, that is one opinion. An awful lot of people disagree. And that is my point. It is controversial. Usually is when a cop shoots an unarmed individual. And in this case, a cop shot a WOMAN who was clearly no threat to him.

Curiously, I can find no polling on this incident. I suspect it is an avatar for the larger question of whether J6 was a "mostly peaceful riot" or "an insurrection." To the extent that is true, then we could expect +60% of the public to disagree that the shooting was justified. Which would, of course, only underscore my very narrow point above = the controversy about the shooting is justified. When a male cop shoots an unarmed female protestor who was clearly no threat to him.....on what planet would that not be controversial? Add in the political and racial aspects of this particular shooting and you have a fairly volatile mix.

---

Try this. This is a legal (Law Fare Media) review, that is balanced. It is based on law, not polls. Polling is irrelevant in this case. Either he committed a crime or not. Whether people agree means nothing here, this is a criminal matter, not opinion.


https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/evaluating-police-shooting-ashli-babbitt

---

Tell that to the all the businesses around the country that were burned down after justified officer involved shootings. Public opinion on such things always matters. Polling merely measures it.

with respect to your link...... Did you actually read it? It tracks with my argument quite closely, all the way down to the money line in the last paragraph:

"In this post, we attempted to bring a balanced perspective to the shooting, applying the now-familiar constitutional standard that regulates the use of deadly force. The limited public information that exists raises serious questions about the propriety of Byrd's decision to shoot, especially with regard to the assessment that Babbitt was an imminent threat. To belabor the obvious, though, we cannot definitively analyze a situation without the relevant facts, and there is a frustrating shortage of facts. But there are enough facts to conclude that even if Byrd violated Babbitt's Fourth Amendment rights, it is highly unlikely that he could be ethically charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime."

I also cannot disagree with the conclusion that it would be very difficult to prosecute Byrd for murder. I seriously doubt he spent that day looking for the opportunity to shoot a protestor. And I don't doubt that he assessed that he (or a protectee) was at imminent risk the moment he pulled the trigger. Most damning thing that could be said is that he made the wrong call...in the heat of the moment. I always lean toward giving the officer the benefit of the doubt in such situations. We owe them that. Personally? The only way I can justify the shooting is to give extra wide latitude to the officer (i.e. cover his ass for a good-faith mistake.) Were I C/CAPO, I'd send the officer off the proverbial Alaska weather station, hoping he'd find another place to work.

Like I said, the shooting (and clearing of the officer) are CONTROVERSIAL, as ratified in the way it has become politicized. And a morally ambigious situation like the Babbitt killing is purpose built for political spin.

---

You are 100% correct, it is political spin. If it was breaking into a Federal Courthouse and she was ANTIFA, it would justified by the same people condemning it.

Personally, in that situation, I will defer to the man on the ground, on the line.

That was not a clear cut situation. In some parts of the Capital it was peaceful. In others, like where Babitt was, it most definitely was not. In addition, the information those guys were getting was that it was going violent. Controversial? Sure, but the Officer was cleared in the after action investigation. So, I go with that.

People on here complain of Banana Republic. Either you believe in the processes, systems and Agencies in place or you don't. Either you believe in the Justice System or you do not. Cherry picking is BS, in my opinion. That is what Banana Republics do. Because if the system is as many on here say and think, America is ****ed and I won't go there...

---

A super-majority of Americans are worried that we are already a police state. The prosecutions of Trump are part of that. Majorities across the spectrum can see there is a problem with them. Because there is.

Democrats did this.
Democrats ruined institutions.
Not Donald Trump.
His opponents.

The ONLY solution to this is to deliver crushing election defeats to Democrats.
I think there's a very good chance that will happen.

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

whiterock said:

---

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

---

Brings up a good point. How does it not? Think about technology out there. In traffic we are tracking probe data, cell phones, wifi, not even going into the sensors in your car. Did you know new car, especially electric, have their own IP address? Traffic cameras can track trips, where they go and identify potential accidents before they happen. If you go wrong way on an interchange ramp, the infrastructure informs Highway Patrol. All of it manged through a Traffic Management Center. All of it to manage the road system for higher safety and keep it moving. That is one aspect of your life.

So, with all this surveillance capable hardware out there, how does it not become a police state? How do you manage it? This is not a blue or red issue, both sides want it for their own use. This is an interesting conversation. Saw a great presentation on this, "Your Refrigerator is spying on you."

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

---

Brings up a good point. How does it not? Think about technology out there. In traffic we are tracking probe data, cell phones, wifi, not even going into the sensors in your car. Did you know new car, especially electric, have their own IP address? Traffic cameras can track trips, where they go and identify potential accidents before they happen. If you go wrong way on an interchange ramp, the infrastructure informs Highway Patrol. All of it manged through a Traffic Management Center. All of it to manage the road system for higher safety and keep it moving. That is one aspect of your life.

So, with all this surveillance capable hardware out there, how does it not become a police state? How do you manage it? This is not a blue or red issue, both sides want it for their own use. This is an interesting conversation. Saw a great presentation on this, "Your Refrigerator is spying on you."

---

That's not the core of the issue. "Dual standard of justice." Political correctness is now driving prosecutorial discretion in such blatantly obvious ways. The meta-surveillance you describe is merely one of the sources of evidence to determine who gets "the treatment" and who does not.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

---

Brings up a good point. How does it not? Think about technology out there. In traffic we are tracking probe data, cell phones, wifi, not even going into the sensors in your car. Did you know new car, especially electric, have their own IP address? Traffic cameras can track trips, where they go and identify potential accidents before they happen. If you go wrong way on an interchange ramp, the infrastructure informs Highway Patrol. All of it manged through a Traffic Management Center. All of it to manage the road system for higher safety and keep it moving. That is one aspect of your life.

So, with all this surveillance capable hardware out there, how does it not become a police state? How do you manage it? This is not a blue or red issue, both sides want it for their own use. This is an interesting conversation. Saw a great presentation on this, "Your Refrigerator is spying on you."

---

That's not the core of the issue. "Dual standard of justice." Political correctness is now driving prosecutorial discretion in such blatantly obvious ways. The meta-surveillance you describe is merely one of the sources of evidence to determine who gets "the treatment" and who does not.

---

Yeah, some multi millionaires are having to defend themselves in Court, we are in peril.

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

🚨BREAKING: @Jim_Jordan is aiming to schedule a floor vote on his bid to be speaker for TUESDAY.

55 House Rs said they wouldnt vote for him on the floor, but allies been working to shrink that all weekend. But it's a very, very steep climb.

JORDAN is intent on putting ppl on…

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) October 15, 2023

---

Jordan is not getting SOH. 55! On GOP side. He is done. Get someone that can win. A Trumpite is not getting it.

---

Arent you always carrying on about compromise and such? These 55 need to compromise and ask Jordan to do them some favors. Mccarthy flipped MTG into a rino by promising her committee positions and she became his b*tch.

---

Jordan compromise? When has he Gaetz or any of the MAGA compromised? Now that he wants the gavel, the moderates are supposed to compromise? If they worked with McCarthy we wouldn't be here. Now Jordan is moderate? Have you guys any shame? You guys are worse ****s in Congress when power is close.

---

From WSJ:
The Gaetz of Republican Hell
The House GOP still doesn't have a Speaker after Jim Jordan loses a third vote.

The eight House Republicans who ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy two weeks ago are getting exactly what they bargained for, whether they knew it then or not. The instigator, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, thinks a better Speaker would be Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan. But on Friday Mr. Jordan lost another floor vote, making it three this week, first with 20 defections, then 22, and finally 25.

Some of the Jordan dissenters are still angry about the shabby treatment of Mr. McCarthy and the conference's No. 2 choice, Rep. Steve Scalise. Others seem to believe Mr. Jordan is too much of a firebrand to serve as the party's frontman. The no votes Friday included half of the Republicans in districts carried by President Biden in 2020. Mr. Jordan lost ground despite some notable attempts at sausage-making.
He reportedly tried to lure blue-state Republicans with a plan to double the federal deduction for state and local taxes, or SALT. Capping it at $10,000 was a huge victory in President Trump's 2017 tax reform, so Mr. Jordan's pledge contradicted the claim that as Speaker he'd be a conservative's conservative. Also, seven of the McCarthy mutineers said in a letter that in exchange for electing Mr. Jordan, they'd accept "censure, suspension, or removal from the Conference." Maybe they could have landed Mr. Jordan the job if they had offered seppuku.
By late Friday afternoon, chaos reigned. About a dozen Republicans had begun making calls to line up their own supporters, or were considering it, in advance of another Speaker candidate forum expected this Monday. Have a real fun weekend, guys. The GOP is right to refuse the idea, dangled by Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, of a "bipartisan governing coalition." But Republicans need to come up with a consensus candidate, and fast.
Perhaps it's acting Speaker Patrick McHenry, or perhaps someone else. This isn't a life sentence, after all. But friends in Israel and Ukraine need America's support, government funding runs out again in a month, and Virginia goes to the polls a week before that.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gaetz-of-republican-hell-597ac27b?mod=opinion_trending_now_opn_pos1

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

🚨BREAKING: @Jim_Jordan is aiming to schedule a floor vote on his bid to be speaker for TUESDAY.

55 House Rs said they wouldnt vote for him on the floor, but allies been working to shrink that all weekend. But it's a very, very steep climb.

JORDAN is intent on putting ppl on…

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) October 15, 2023

---

Jordan is not getting SOH. 55! On GOP side. He is done. Get someone that can win. A Trumpite is not getting it.

---

Arent you always carrying on about compromise and such? These 55 need to compromise and ask Jordan to do them some favors. Mccarthy flipped MTG into a rino by promising her committee positions and she became his b*tch.

---

Jordan compromise? When has he Gaetz or any of the MAGA compromised? Now that he wants the gavel, the moderates are supposed to compromise? If they worked with McCarthy we wouldn't be here. Now Jordan is moderate? Have you guys any shame? You guys are worse ****s in Congress when power is close.

---

From WSJ:
The Gaetz of Republican Hell
The House GOP still doesn't have a Speaker after Jim Jordan loses a third vote.

The eight House Republicans who ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy two weeks ago are getting exactly what they bargained for, whether they knew it then or not. The instigator, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, thinks a better Speaker would be Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan. But on Friday Mr. Jordan lost another floor vote, making it three this week, first with 20 defections, then 22, and finally 25.

Some of the Jordan dissenters are still angry about the shabby treatment of Mr. McCarthy and the conference's No. 2 choice, Rep. Steve Scalise. Others seem to believe Mr. Jordan is too much of a firebrand to serve as the party's frontman. The no votes Friday included half of the Republicans in districts carried by President Biden in 2020. Mr. Jordan lost ground despite some notable attempts at sausage-making.
He reportedly tried to lure blue-state Republicans with a plan to double the federal deduction for state and local taxes, or SALT. Capping it at $10,000 was a huge victory in President Trump's 2017 tax reform, so Mr. Jordan's pledge contradicted the claim that as Speaker he'd be a conservative's conservative. Also, seven of the McCarthy mutineers said in a letter that in exchange for electing Mr. Jordan, they'd accept "censure, suspension, or removal from the Conference." Maybe they could have landed Mr. Jordan the job if they had offered seppuku.
By late Friday afternoon, chaos reigned. About a dozen Republicans had begun making calls to line up their own supporters, or were considering it, in advance of another Speaker candidate forum expected this Monday. Have a real fun weekend, guys. The GOP is right to refuse the idea, dangled by Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, of a "bipartisan governing coalition." But Republicans need to come up with a consensus candidate, and fast.
Perhaps it's acting Speaker Patrick McHenry, or perhaps someone else. This isn't a life sentence, after all. But friends in Israel and Ukraine need America's support, government funding runs out again in a month, and Virginia goes to the polls a week before that.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gaetz-of-republican-hell-597ac27b?mod=opinion_trending_now_opn_pos1

---

Jordan is going to do what he has to in the GOP position, make deals. Give on things Conservatives hate to get things more important. Unfortunately, due to Gaetz and his gang of idiots GOP is going to have to give on SALT and worse just to get a Speaker..Amateur hour. Pelosi is laughing her ass off. MAGA is going to lead? Geez. Are there no adults left in this Nation? I miss the Dole's, Bush's and the rest of the WW2 generation.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

🚨BREAKING: @Jim_Jordan is aiming to schedule a floor vote on his bid to be speaker for TUESDAY.

55 House Rs said they wouldnt vote for him on the floor, but allies been working to shrink that all weekend. But it's a very, very steep climb.

JORDAN is intent on putting ppl on…

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) October 15, 2023

---

Jordan is not getting SOH. 55! On GOP side. He is done. Get someone that can win. A Trumpite is not getting it.

---

Arent you always carrying on about compromise and such? These 55 need to compromise and ask Jordan to do them some favors. Mccarthy flipped MTG into a rino by promising her committee positions and she became his b*tch.

---

Jordan compromise? When has he Gaetz or any of the MAGA compromised? Now that he wants the gavel, the moderates are supposed to compromise? If they worked with McCarthy we wouldn't be here. Now Jordan is moderate? Have you guys any shame? You guys are worse ****s in Congress when power is close.

---

From WSJ:
The Gaetz of Republican Hell
The House GOP still doesn't have a Speaker after Jim Jordan loses a third vote.

The eight House Republicans who ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy two weeks ago are getting exactly what they bargained for, whether they knew it then or not. The instigator, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, thinks a better Speaker would be Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan. But on Friday Mr. Jordan lost another floor vote, making it three this week, first with 20 defections, then 22, and finally 25.

Some of the Jordan dissenters are still angry about the shabby treatment of Mr. McCarthy and the conference's No. 2 choice, Rep. Steve Scalise. Others seem to believe Mr. Jordan is too much of a firebrand to serve as the party's frontman. The no votes Friday included half of the Republicans in districts carried by President Biden in 2020. Mr. Jordan lost ground despite some notable attempts at sausage-making.
He reportedly tried to lure blue-state Republicans with a plan to double the federal deduction for state and local taxes, or SALT. Capping it at $10,000 was a huge victory in President Trump's 2017 tax reform, so Mr. Jordan's pledge contradicted the claim that as Speaker he'd be a conservative's conservative. Also, seven of the McCarthy mutineers said in a letter that in exchange for electing Mr. Jordan, they'd accept "censure, suspension, or removal from the Conference." Maybe they could have landed Mr. Jordan the job if they had offered seppuku.
By late Friday afternoon, chaos reigned. About a dozen Republicans had begun making calls to line up their own supporters, or were considering it, in advance of another Speaker candidate forum expected this Monday. Have a real fun weekend, guys. The GOP is right to refuse the idea, dangled by Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, of a "bipartisan governing coalition." But Republicans need to come up with a consensus candidate, and fast.
Perhaps it's acting Speaker Patrick McHenry, or perhaps someone else. This isn't a life sentence, after all. But friends in Israel and Ukraine need America's support, government funding runs out again in a month, and Virginia goes to the polls a week before that.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gaetz-of-republican-hell-597ac27b?mod=opinion_trending_now_opn_pos1

---

Jordan is going to do what he has to in the GOP position, make deals. Give on things Conservatives hate to get things more important. Unfortunately, due to Gaetz and his gang of idiots GOP is going to have to give on SALT and worse just to get a Speaker..Amateur hour. Pelosi is laughing her ass off. MAGA is going to lead? Geez. Are there no adults left in this Nation? I miss the Dole's, Bush's and the rest of the WW2 generation.

---

except it was that gen that raised these morons..

4th and Inches said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

🚨BREAKING: @Jim_Jordan is aiming to schedule a floor vote on his bid to be speaker for TUESDAY.

55 House Rs said they wouldnt vote for him on the floor, but allies been working to shrink that all weekend. But it's a very, very steep climb.

JORDAN is intent on putting ppl on…

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) October 15, 2023

---

Jordan is not getting SOH. 55! On GOP side. He is done. Get someone that can win. A Trumpite is not getting it.

---

Arent you always carrying on about compromise and such? These 55 need to compromise and ask Jordan to do them some favors. Mccarthy flipped MTG into a rino by promising her committee positions and she became his b*tch.

---

Jordan compromise? When has he Gaetz or any of the MAGA compromised? Now that he wants the gavel, the moderates are supposed to compromise? If they worked with McCarthy we wouldn't be here. Now Jordan is moderate? Have you guys any shame? You guys are worse ****s in Congress when power is close.

---

From WSJ:
The Gaetz of Republican Hell
The House GOP still doesn't have a Speaker after Jim Jordan loses a third vote.

The eight House Republicans who ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy two weeks ago are getting exactly what they bargained for, whether they knew it then or not. The instigator, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, thinks a better Speaker would be Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan. But on Friday Mr. Jordan lost another floor vote, making it three this week, first with 20 defections, then 22, and finally 25.

Some of the Jordan dissenters are still angry about the shabby treatment of Mr. McCarthy and the conference's No. 2 choice, Rep. Steve Scalise. Others seem to believe Mr. Jordan is too much of a firebrand to serve as the party's frontman. The no votes Friday included half of the Republicans in districts carried by President Biden in 2020. Mr. Jordan lost ground despite some notable attempts at sausage-making.
He reportedly tried to lure blue-state Republicans with a plan to double the federal deduction for state and local taxes, or SALT. Capping it at $10,000 was a huge victory in President Trump's 2017 tax reform, so Mr. Jordan's pledge contradicted the claim that as Speaker he'd be a conservative's conservative. Also, seven of the McCarthy mutineers said in a letter that in exchange for electing Mr. Jordan, they'd accept "censure, suspension, or removal from the Conference." Maybe they could have landed Mr. Jordan the job if they had offered seppuku.
By late Friday afternoon, chaos reigned. About a dozen Republicans had begun making calls to line up their own supporters, or were considering it, in advance of another Speaker candidate forum expected this Monday. Have a real fun weekend, guys. The GOP is right to refuse the idea, dangled by Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, of a "bipartisan governing coalition." But Republicans need to come up with a consensus candidate, and fast.
Perhaps it's acting Speaker Patrick McHenry, or perhaps someone else. This isn't a life sentence, after all. But friends in Israel and Ukraine need America's support, government funding runs out again in a month, and Virginia goes to the polls a week before that.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gaetz-of-republican-hell-597ac27b?mod=opinion_trending_now_opn_pos1

---

Jordan is going to do what he has to in the GOP position, make deals. Give on things Conservatives hate to get things more important. Unfortunately, due to Gaetz and his gang of idiots GOP is going to have to give on SALT and worse just to get a Speaker..Amateur hour. Pelosi is laughing her ass off. MAGA is going to lead? Geez. Are there no adults left in this Nation? I miss the Dole's, Bush's and the rest of the WW2 generation.

---

except it was that gen that raised these morons..

---

Can't argue that point! ...

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

---

Brings up a good point. How does it not? Think about technology out there. In traffic we are tracking probe data, cell phones, wifi, not even going into the sensors in your car. Did you know new car, especially electric, have their own IP address? Traffic cameras can track trips, where they go and identify potential accidents before they happen. If you go wrong way on an interchange ramp, the infrastructure informs Highway Patrol. All of it manged through a Traffic Management Center. All of it to manage the road system for higher safety and keep it moving. That is one aspect of your life.

So, with all this surveillance capable hardware out there, how does it not become a police state? How do you manage it? This is not a blue or red issue, both sides want it for their own use. This is an interesting conversation. Saw a great presentation on this, "Your Refrigerator is spying on you."

---

That's not the core of the issue. "Dual standard of justice." Political correctness is now driving prosecutorial discretion in such blatantly obvious ways. The meta-surveillance you describe is merely one of the sources of evidence to determine who gets "the treatment" and who does not.

---

Yeah, some multi millionaires are having to defend themselves in Court, we are in peril.

---

If they can do it to them, they can do it to you. You don't realize it, but you are rich, too. Plot your household income on the standard deviation........

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

---

Brings up a good point. How does it not? Think about technology out there. In traffic we are tracking probe data, cell phones, wifi, not even going into the sensors in your car. Did you know new car, especially electric, have their own IP address? Traffic cameras can track trips, where they go and identify potential accidents before they happen. If you go wrong way on an interchange ramp, the infrastructure informs Highway Patrol. All of it manged through a Traffic Management Center. All of it to manage the road system for higher safety and keep it moving. That is one aspect of your life.

So, with all this surveillance capable hardware out there, how does it not become a police state? How do you manage it? This is not a blue or red issue, both sides want it for their own use. This is an interesting conversation. Saw a great presentation on this, "Your Refrigerator is spying on you."

---

That's not the core of the issue. "Dual standard of justice." Political correctness is now driving prosecutorial discretion in such blatantly obvious ways. The meta-surveillance you describe is merely one of the sources of evidence to determine who gets "the treatment" and who does not.

---

Yeah, some multi millionaires are having to defend themselves in Court, we are in peril.

---

If they can do it to them, they can do it to you. You don't realize it, but you are rich, too. Plot your household income on the standard deviation........

---

We still have the issue of if they did what they are accused. I don't see a "2 system" argument if they prove he did what they are saying. If he is acquitted of all charges, than we have a discussion.

If the Speed Limit is 55 and you get a ticket for going 58, no Judge is going to let you off because others went faster and didn't get caught...

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

---

Brings up a good point. How does it not? Think about technology out there. In traffic we are tracking probe data, cell phones, wifi, not even going into the sensors in your car. Did you know new car, especially electric, have their own IP address? Traffic cameras can track trips, where they go and identify potential accidents before they happen. If you go wrong way on an interchange ramp, the infrastructure informs Highway Patrol. All of it manged through a Traffic Management Center. All of it to manage the road system for higher safety and keep it moving. That is one aspect of your life.

So, with all this surveillance capable hardware out there, how does it not become a police state? How do you manage it? This is not a blue or red issue, both sides want it for their own use. This is an interesting conversation. Saw a great presentation on this, "Your Refrigerator is spying on you."

---

That's not the core of the issue. "Dual standard of justice." Political correctness is now driving prosecutorial discretion in such blatantly obvious ways. The meta-surveillance you describe is merely one of the sources of evidence to determine who gets "the treatment" and who does not.

---

Yeah, some multi millionaires are having to defend themselves in Court, we are in peril.

---

If they can do it to them, they can do it to you. You don't realize it, but you are rich, too. Plot your household income on the standard deviation........

---

We still have the issue of if they did what they are accused. I don't see a "2 system" argument if they prove he did what they are saying. If he is acquitted of all charges, than we have a discussion.

If the Speed Limit is 55 and you get a ticket for going 58, no Judge is going to let you off because others went faster and didn't get caught...

---

Misses the point entirely. Lavrentiy Beria would love you. "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."

We have a situation where the disfavored side is getting tickets for going 58 in a 55, and the favored side is not even getting the radar gun pointed at them. And when it does happen, the system leaps to protect the favored side (letting statute of limitations expire, cutting immunity deals, etc..) The cops (IRS) who dared to actually aim a radar gun at the favored side are having to enter the whistleblower program to protect themselves.

Prosecutorial discretion is not supposed to be a partisan filter. And that's exactly what it's become. the judicial system tossed Trump's program to cancel visas from nations on the state sponsor list because he'd made campaign comments deemed prejudicial about some of the nationalities (not all) on the list (despite the fact that statistics and common sense supported the policy). But when a state Attorney General literally campaigning on "I'm going to get that MF'er" and proceeds to contrive the silliest possible case....a civil action brought by a prosecutor for actions for which no complaints were filed because no one was harmed. Does the system leap to protect him? Nope. He's a Republican. He's doing 58. (Actually, he was doing exactly 55, but he was probably doing 58 yesterday, so don't sweat the details). And the prosecutor? Is she at any risk? Nope. The radar gun will never be aimed at her.

Dude. You are accepting a set of rules imposed upon you by your adversary which says "heads I win, tails you lose." Don't shrug it off because you haven't had to toss a coin yet.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

---

Brings up a good point. How does it not? Think about technology out there. In traffic we are tracking probe data, cell phones, wifi, not even going into the sensors in your car. Did you know new car, especially electric, have their own IP address? Traffic cameras can track trips, where they go and identify potential accidents before they happen. If you go wrong way on an interchange ramp, the infrastructure informs Highway Patrol. All of it manged through a Traffic Management Center. All of it to manage the road system for higher safety and keep it moving. That is one aspect of your life.

So, with all this surveillance capable hardware out there, how does it not become a police state? How do you manage it? This is not a blue or red issue, both sides want it for their own use. This is an interesting conversation. Saw a great presentation on this, "Your Refrigerator is spying on you."

---

That's not the core of the issue. "Dual standard of justice." Political correctness is now driving prosecutorial discretion in such blatantly obvious ways. The meta-surveillance you describe is merely one of the sources of evidence to determine who gets "the treatment" and who does not.

---

Yeah, some multi millionaires are having to defend themselves in Court, we are in peril.

---

If they can do it to them, they can do it to you. You don't realize it, but you are rich, too. Plot your household income on the standard deviation........

---

We still have the issue of if they did what they are accused. I don't see a "2 system" argument if they prove he did what they are saying. If he is acquitted of all charges, than we have a discussion.

If the Speed Limit is 55 and you get a ticket for going 58, no Judge is going to let you off because others went faster and didn't get caught...

---

Misses the point entirely. Lavrentiy Beria would love you. "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."

We have a situation where the disfavored side is getting tickets for going 58 in a 55, and the favored side is not even getting the radar gun pointed at them. And when it does happen, the system leaps to protect the favored side (letting statute of limitations expire, cutting immunity deals, etc..) The cops (IRS) who dared to actually aim a radar gun at the favored side are having to enter the whistleblower program to protect themselves.

Prosecutorial discretion is not supposed to be a partisan filter. And that's exactly what it's become. the judicial system tossed Trump's program to cancel visas from nations on the state sponsor list because he'd made campaign comments deemed prejudicial about some of the nationalities (not all) on the list (despite the fact that statistics and common sense supported the policy). But when a state Attorney General literally campaigning on "I'm going to get that MF'er" and proceeds to contrive the silliest possible case....a civil action brought by a prosecutor for actions for which no complaints were filed because no one was harmed. Does the system leap to protect him? Nope. He's a Republican. He's doing 58. (Actually, he was doing exactly 55, but he was probably doing 58 yesterday, so don't sweat the details). And the prosecutor? Is she at any risk? Nope. The radar gun will never be aimed at her.

Dude. You are accepting a set of rules imposed upon you by your adversary which says "heads I win, tails you lose." Don't shrug it off because you haven't had to toss a coin yet.

---

You are saying that even though enough evidence was provided to a Grand Jury that a crime was committed and the Grand Jury (like it or not, our system of justice) referred to indict, the person (whoever, justice is supposed to be blind) should be allowed to walk because someone else wasn't charged 5 years ago. That is insane.

If it was an illegal search or violated the indicted Rights, their attorney should be making those motions. Happens every day and cases are dismissed. The Docs case the Judge is a Trump appointee and Trump supporter, yet the case goes forward that doesn't tell you that there is something there???

As for the Jan 6th, Trump gave the Speech that sent the Crowd to the Capital. Congress held a Jan 6th Commission and referred charges. A Special Counsel took evidence to a Gran Jury and referred an indictment. That is not enough probable cause? DOJ should just say "nah, we aren't going forward, Grand Jury said indict, but no we won't..."?

BREAKING: Republicans choose Mike Johnson as the new Speaker designate. pic.twitter.com/2oKJ7T0I4n

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) October 25, 2023

GOP speaker nominee @RepMikeJohnson: "Democracy is messy sometimes, but it is our system. This conference that you see, this House Republican majority, is united." pic.twitter.com/YBuG2esWd4

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 25, 2023

Has this been cleared by Gaetz?

Osodecentx said:

---

Has this been cleared by Gaetz?

---

Depends on if Donald tells him to accept him.

He should Johnson was friendly to Trump. The question will now be will the others go for him? Collins and Company, the usual cast of characters as Johnson supported overturning election. That could be testy in heavy Blue area...

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

---

Brings up a good point. How does it not? Think about technology out there. In traffic we are tracking probe data, cell phones, wifi, not even going into the sensors in your car. Did you know new car, especially electric, have their own IP address? Traffic cameras can track trips, where they go and identify potential accidents before they happen. If you go wrong way on an interchange ramp, the infrastructure informs Highway Patrol. All of it manged through a Traffic Management Center. All of it to manage the road system for higher safety and keep it moving. That is one aspect of your life.

So, with all this surveillance capable hardware out there, how does it not become a police state? How do you manage it? This is not a blue or red issue, both sides want it for their own use. This is an interesting conversation. Saw a great presentation on this, "Your Refrigerator is spying on you."

---

That's not the core of the issue. "Dual standard of justice." Political correctness is now driving prosecutorial discretion in such blatantly obvious ways. The meta-surveillance you describe is merely one of the sources of evidence to determine who gets "the treatment" and who does not.

---

Yeah, some multi millionaires are having to defend themselves in Court, we are in peril.

---

If they can do it to them, they can do it to you. You don't realize it, but you are rich, too. Plot your household income on the standard deviation........

---

We still have the issue of if they did what they are accused. I don't see a "2 system" argument if they prove he did what they are saying. If he is acquitted of all charges, than we have a discussion.

If the Speed Limit is 55 and you get a ticket for going 58, no Judge is going to let you off because others went faster and didn't get caught...

---

Misses the point entirely. Lavrentiy Beria would love you. "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."

We have a situation where the disfavored side is getting tickets for going 58 in a 55, and the favored side is not even getting the radar gun pointed at them. And when it does happen, the system leaps to protect the favored side (letting statute of limitations expire, cutting immunity deals, etc..) The cops (IRS) who dared to actually aim a radar gun at the favored side are having to enter the whistleblower program to protect themselves.

Prosecutorial discretion is not supposed to be a partisan filter. And that's exactly what it's become. the judicial system tossed Trump's program to cancel visas from nations on the state sponsor list because he'd made campaign comments deemed prejudicial about some of the nationalities (not all) on the list (despite the fact that statistics and common sense supported the policy). But when a state Attorney General literally campaigning on "I'm going to get that MF'er" and proceeds to contrive the silliest possible case....a civil action brought by a prosecutor for actions for which no complaints were filed because no one was harmed. Does the system leap to protect him? Nope. He's a Republican. He's doing 58. (Actually, he was doing exactly 55, but he was probably doing 58 yesterday, so don't sweat the details). And the prosecutor? Is she at any risk? Nope. The radar gun will never be aimed at her.

Dude. You are accepting a set of rules imposed upon you by your adversary which says "heads I win, tails you lose." Don't shrug it off because you haven't had to toss a coin yet.

---

You are saying that even though enough evidence was provided to a Grand Jury that a crime was committed and the Grand Jury (like it or not, our system of justice) referred to indict, the person (whoever, justice is supposed to be blind) should be allowed to walk because someone else wasn't charged 5 years ago. That is insane.

If it was an illegal search or violated the indicted Rights, their attorney should be making those motions. Happens every day and cases are dismissed. The Docs case the Judge is a Trump appointee and Trump supporter, yet the case goes forward that doesn't tell you that there is something there???

As for the Jan 6th, Trump gave the Speech that sent the Crowd to the Capital. Congress held a Jan 6th Commission and referred charges. A Special Counsel took evidence to a Gran Jury and referred an indictment. That is not enough probable cause? DOJ should just say "nah, we aren't going forward, Grand Jury said indict, but no we won't..."?

---

There is an adage about ham sandwiches and grand juries. If you haven't heard it, you should familiarize yourself with it. In any event, the NY trial did not even go to the GJ. It's a civil action. How many times does a prosecutor push a civil action? And this one CAMPAIGNED on using the powers of her office to catch Trump at something.

You should also familiarize yourself with the Special Counsel. Quite a partisan guy. Had a prominent success overturned on appeal.

You are ignoring the bloody obvious. Democrat prosecutors in blue jurisdictions are using their office to hold Republicans to a much higher standard than Democrats. Supermajorities of the voters can see it. But you're going along with it because it harms Trump.

If they can do it to him, they can do it to you.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Has this been cleared by Gaetz?

---

Depends on if Donald tells him to accept him.

He should Johnson was friendly to Trump. The question will now be will the others go for him? Collins and Company, the usual cast of characters as Johnson supported overturning election. That could be testy in heavy Blue area...

---

Gaetz made very complimentary remarks about Johnson yesterday, so the opposition will not come from the right end of the caucus. It will come from the left wing of the caucus.

Johnson is pretty much in the middle of the caucus, between Scalise and Jordan. Solid pick.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

---

Brings up a good point. How does it not? Think about technology out there. In traffic we are tracking probe data, cell phones, wifi, not even going into the sensors in your car. Did you know new car, especially electric, have their own IP address? Traffic cameras can track trips, where they go and identify potential accidents before they happen. If you go wrong way on an interchange ramp, the infrastructure informs Highway Patrol. All of it manged through a Traffic Management Center. All of it to manage the road system for higher safety and keep it moving. That is one aspect of your life.

So, with all this surveillance capable hardware out there, how does it not become a police state? How do you manage it? This is not a blue or red issue, both sides want it for their own use. This is an interesting conversation. Saw a great presentation on this, "Your Refrigerator is spying on you."

---

That's not the core of the issue. "Dual standard of justice." Political correctness is now driving prosecutorial discretion in such blatantly obvious ways. The meta-surveillance you describe is merely one of the sources of evidence to determine who gets "the treatment" and who does not.

---

Yeah, some multi millionaires are having to defend themselves in Court, we are in peril.

---

If they can do it to them, they can do it to you. You don't realize it, but you are rich, too. Plot your household income on the standard deviation........

---

We still have the issue of if they did what they are accused. I don't see a "2 system" argument if they prove he did what they are saying. If he is acquitted of all charges, than we have a discussion.

If the Speed Limit is 55 and you get a ticket for going 58, no Judge is going to let you off because others went faster and didn't get caught...

---

Misses the point entirely. Lavrentiy Beria would love you. "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."

We have a situation where the disfavored side is getting tickets for going 58 in a 55, and the favored side is not even getting the radar gun pointed at them. And when it does happen, the system leaps to protect the favored side (letting statute of limitations expire, cutting immunity deals, etc..) The cops (IRS) who dared to actually aim a radar gun at the favored side are having to enter the whistleblower program to protect themselves.

Prosecutorial discretion is not supposed to be a partisan filter. And that's exactly what it's become. the judicial system tossed Trump's program to cancel visas from nations on the state sponsor list because he'd made campaign comments deemed prejudicial about some of the nationalities (not all) on the list (despite the fact that statistics and common sense supported the policy). But when a state Attorney General literally campaigning on "I'm going to get that MF'er" and proceeds to contrive the silliest possible case....a civil action brought by a prosecutor for actions for which no complaints were filed because no one was harmed. Does the system leap to protect him? Nope. He's a Republican. He's doing 58. (Actually, he was doing exactly 55, but he was probably doing 58 yesterday, so don't sweat the details). And the prosecutor? Is she at any risk? Nope. The radar gun will never be aimed at her.

Dude. You are accepting a set of rules imposed upon you by your adversary which says "heads I win, tails you lose." Don't shrug it off because you haven't had to toss a coin yet.

---

You are saying that even though enough evidence was provided to a Grand Jury that a crime was committed and the Grand Jury (like it or not, our system of justice) referred to indict, the person (whoever, justice is supposed to be blind) should be allowed to walk because someone else wasn't charged 5 years ago. That is insane.

If it was an illegal search or violated the indicted Rights, their attorney should be making those motions. Happens every day and cases are dismissed. The Docs case the Judge is a Trump appointee and Trump supporter, yet the case goes forward that doesn't tell you that there is something there???

As for the Jan 6th, Trump gave the Speech that sent the Crowd to the Capital. Congress held a Jan 6th Commission and referred charges. A Special Counsel took evidence to a Gran Jury and referred an indictment. That is not enough probable cause? DOJ should just say "nah, we aren't going forward, Grand Jury said indict, but no we won't..."?

---

There is an adage about ham sandwiches and grand juries. If you haven't heard it, you should familiarize yourself with it. In any event, the NY trial did not even go to the GJ. It's a civil action. How many times does a prosecutor push a civil action? And this one CAMPAIGNED on using the powers of her office to catch Trump at something.

You should also familiarize yourself with the Special Counsel. Quite a partisan guy. Had a prominent success overturned on appeal.

You are ignoring the bloody obvious. Democrat prosecutors in blue jurisdictions are using their office to hold Republicans to a much higher standard than Democrats. Supermajorities of the voters can see it. But you're going along with it because it harms Trump.

If they can do it to him, they can do it to you.

---

You complain about Banana Republic and selective use of the Government and in the same sentence condone cherry picking what should be followed by your personal choice. Tough to be credible when you opinion is the discerning factor of what Society should follow.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Has this been cleared by Gaetz?

---

Depends on if Donald tells him to accept him.

He should Johnson was friendly to Trump. The question will now be will the others go for him? Collins and Company, the usual cast of characters as Johnson supported overturning election. That could be testy in heavy Blue area...

---

Gaetz made very complimentary remarks about Johnson yesterday, so the opposition will not come from the right end of the caucus. It will come from the left wing of the caucus.

Johnson is pretty much in the middle of the caucus, between Scalise and Jordan. Solid pick.

---

I agree with you there. I think he can straddle the divide. Would love to see him get some type of border control and sane energy policy. Not sure he will be able to get anything on the social side, but if he get progress on those two it will be a major win.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

---

Brings up a good point. How does it not? Think about technology out there. In traffic we are tracking probe data, cell phones, wifi, not even going into the sensors in your car. Did you know new car, especially electric, have their own IP address? Traffic cameras can track trips, where they go and identify potential accidents before they happen. If you go wrong way on an interchange ramp, the infrastructure informs Highway Patrol. All of it manged through a Traffic Management Center. All of it to manage the road system for higher safety and keep it moving. That is one aspect of your life.

So, with all this surveillance capable hardware out there, how does it not become a police state? How do you manage it? This is not a blue or red issue, both sides want it for their own use. This is an interesting conversation. Saw a great presentation on this, "Your Refrigerator is spying on you."

---

That's not the core of the issue. "Dual standard of justice." Political correctness is now driving prosecutorial discretion in such blatantly obvious ways. The meta-surveillance you describe is merely one of the sources of evidence to determine who gets "the treatment" and who does not.

---

Yeah, some multi millionaires are having to defend themselves in Court, we are in peril.

---

If they can do it to them, they can do it to you. You don't realize it, but you are rich, too. Plot your household income on the standard deviation........

---

We still have the issue of if they did what they are accused. I don't see a "2 system" argument if they prove he did what they are saying. If he is acquitted of all charges, than we have a discussion.

If the Speed Limit is 55 and you get a ticket for going 58, no Judge is going to let you off because others went faster and didn't get caught...

---

Misses the point entirely. Lavrentiy Beria would love you. "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."

We have a situation where the disfavored side is getting tickets for going 58 in a 55, and the favored side is not even getting the radar gun pointed at them. And when it does happen, the system leaps to protect the favored side (letting statute of limitations expire, cutting immunity deals, etc..) The cops (IRS) who dared to actually aim a radar gun at the favored side are having to enter the whistleblower program to protect themselves.

Prosecutorial discretion is not supposed to be a partisan filter. And that's exactly what it's become. the judicial system tossed Trump's program to cancel visas from nations on the state sponsor list because he'd made campaign comments deemed prejudicial about some of the nationalities (not all) on the list (despite the fact that statistics and common sense supported the policy). But when a state Attorney General literally campaigning on "I'm going to get that MF'er" and proceeds to contrive the silliest possible case....a civil action brought by a prosecutor for actions for which no complaints were filed because no one was harmed. Does the system leap to protect him? Nope. He's a Republican. He's doing 58. (Actually, he was doing exactly 55, but he was probably doing 58 yesterday, so don't sweat the details). And the prosecutor? Is she at any risk? Nope. The radar gun will never be aimed at her.

Dude. You are accepting a set of rules imposed upon you by your adversary which says "heads I win, tails you lose." Don't shrug it off because you haven't had to toss a coin yet.

---

You are saying that even though enough evidence was provided to a Grand Jury that a crime was committed and the Grand Jury (like it or not, our system of justice) referred to indict, the person (whoever, justice is supposed to be blind) should be allowed to walk because someone else wasn't charged 5 years ago. That is insane.

If it was an illegal search or violated the indicted Rights, their attorney should be making those motions. Happens every day and cases are dismissed. The Docs case the Judge is a Trump appointee and Trump supporter, yet the case goes forward that doesn't tell you that there is something there???

As for the Jan 6th, Trump gave the Speech that sent the Crowd to the Capital. Congress held a Jan 6th Commission and referred charges. A Special Counsel took evidence to a Gran Jury and referred an indictment. That is not enough probable cause? DOJ should just say "nah, we aren't going forward, Grand Jury said indict, but no we won't..."?

---

There is an adage about ham sandwiches and grand juries. If you haven't heard it, you should familiarize yourself with it. In any event, the NY trial did not even go to the GJ. It's a civil action. How many times does a prosecutor push a civil action? And this one CAMPAIGNED on using the powers of her office to catch Trump at something.

You should also familiarize yourself with the Special Counsel. Quite a partisan guy. Had a prominent success overturned on appeal.

You are ignoring the bloody obvious. Democrat prosecutors in blue jurisdictions are using their office to hold Republicans to a much higher standard than Democrats. Supermajorities of the voters can see it. But you're going along with it because it harms Trump.

If they can do it to him, they can do it to you.

---

You complain about Banana Republic and selective use of the Government and in the same sentence condone cherry picking what should be followed by your personal choice. Tough to be credible when you opinion is the discerning factor of what Society should follow.

---

You continue to miss the point.

We either hold Trump to the same standards Democrats enjoy, or we hold Democrats to the same standard Trump is getting. You can pick it. I don't care. The status quo is unacceptable.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

---

Brings up a good point. How does it not? Think about technology out there. In traffic we are tracking probe data, cell phones, wifi, not even going into the sensors in your car. Did you know new car, especially electric, have their own IP address? Traffic cameras can track trips, where they go and identify potential accidents before they happen. If you go wrong way on an interchange ramp, the infrastructure informs Highway Patrol. All of it manged through a Traffic Management Center. All of it to manage the road system for higher safety and keep it moving. That is one aspect of your life.

So, with all this surveillance capable hardware out there, how does it not become a police state? How do you manage it? This is not a blue or red issue, both sides want it for their own use. This is an interesting conversation. Saw a great presentation on this, "Your Refrigerator is spying on you."

---

That's not the core of the issue. "Dual standard of justice." Political correctness is now driving prosecutorial discretion in such blatantly obvious ways. The meta-surveillance you describe is merely one of the sources of evidence to determine who gets "the treatment" and who does not.

---

Yeah, some multi millionaires are having to defend themselves in Court, we are in peril.

---

If they can do it to them, they can do it to you. You don't realize it, but you are rich, too. Plot your household income on the standard deviation........

---

We still have the issue of if they did what they are accused. I don't see a "2 system" argument if they prove he did what they are saying. If he is acquitted of all charges, than we have a discussion.

If the Speed Limit is 55 and you get a ticket for going 58, no Judge is going to let you off because others went faster and didn't get caught...

---

Misses the point entirely. Lavrentiy Beria would love you. "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."

We have a situation where the disfavored side is getting tickets for going 58 in a 55, and the favored side is not even getting the radar gun pointed at them. And when it does happen, the system leaps to protect the favored side (letting statute of limitations expire, cutting immunity deals, etc..) The cops (IRS) who dared to actually aim a radar gun at the favored side are having to enter the whistleblower program to protect themselves.

Prosecutorial discretion is not supposed to be a partisan filter. And that's exactly what it's become. the judicial system tossed Trump's program to cancel visas from nations on the state sponsor list because he'd made campaign comments deemed prejudicial about some of the nationalities (not all) on the list (despite the fact that statistics and common sense supported the policy). But when a state Attorney General literally campaigning on "I'm going to get that MF'er" and proceeds to contrive the silliest possible case....a civil action brought by a prosecutor for actions for which no complaints were filed because no one was harmed. Does the system leap to protect him? Nope. He's a Republican. He's doing 58. (Actually, he was doing exactly 55, but he was probably doing 58 yesterday, so don't sweat the details). And the prosecutor? Is she at any risk? Nope. The radar gun will never be aimed at her.

Dude. You are accepting a set of rules imposed upon you by your adversary which says "heads I win, tails you lose." Don't shrug it off because you haven't had to toss a coin yet.

---

You are saying that even though enough evidence was provided to a Grand Jury that a crime was committed and the Grand Jury (like it or not, our system of justice) referred to indict, the person (whoever, justice is supposed to be blind) should be allowed to walk because someone else wasn't charged 5 years ago. That is insane.

If it was an illegal search or violated the indicted Rights, their attorney should be making those motions. Happens every day and cases are dismissed. The Docs case the Judge is a Trump appointee and Trump supporter, yet the case goes forward that doesn't tell you that there is something there???

As for the Jan 6th, Trump gave the Speech that sent the Crowd to the Capital. Congress held a Jan 6th Commission and referred charges. A Special Counsel took evidence to a Gran Jury and referred an indictment. That is not enough probable cause? DOJ should just say "nah, we aren't going forward, Grand Jury said indict, but no we won't..."?

---

There is an adage about ham sandwiches and grand juries. If you haven't heard it, you should familiarize yourself with it. In any event, the NY trial did not even go to the GJ. It's a civil action. How many times does a prosecutor push a civil action? And this one CAMPAIGNED on using the powers of her office to catch Trump at something.

You should also familiarize yourself with the Special Counsel. Quite a partisan guy. Had a prominent success overturned on appeal.

You are ignoring the bloody obvious. Democrat prosecutors in blue jurisdictions are using their office to hold Republicans to a much higher standard than Democrats. Supermajorities of the voters can see it. But you're going along with it because it harms Trump.

If they can do it to him, they can do it to you.

---

You are ignoring the bloody obvious. Trump has been an unethical, lying SOB his whole life. It's catching up to him.

BTW, the answer to your question about how often do AGs do civil litigation is "all day, every day." The first priority of most Republican AGs has been to sue the Biden and Obama administrations for basically everything. They build their campaigns on it.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

"How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-
Men: 70%
Women: 72%
18-39: 67%
40-64: 74%
65+: 73%
White: 70%
Black: 71%
Hispanic: 77%
DEM: 67%
IND: 72%
GOP: 76%
All Voters: 72% https://t.co/n5lsQp7qjW

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 22, 2023

---

Brings up a good point. How does it not? Think about technology out there. In traffic we are tracking probe data, cell phones, wifi, not even going into the sensors in your car. Did you know new car, especially electric, have their own IP address? Traffic cameras can track trips, where they go and identify potential accidents before they happen. If you go wrong way on an interchange ramp, the infrastructure informs Highway Patrol. All of it manged through a Traffic Management Center. All of it to manage the road system for higher safety and keep it moving. That is one aspect of your life.

So, with all this surveillance capable hardware out there, how does it not become a police state? How do you manage it? This is not a blue or red issue, both sides want it for their own use. This is an interesting conversation. Saw a great presentation on this, "Your Refrigerator is spying on you."

---

That's not the core of the issue. "Dual standard of justice." Political correctness is now driving prosecutorial discretion in such blatantly obvious ways. The meta-surveillance you describe is merely one of the sources of evidence to determine who gets "the treatment" and who does not.

---

Yeah, some multi millionaires are having to defend themselves in Court, we are in peril.

---

If they can do it to them, they can do it to you. You don't realize it, but you are rich, too. Plot your household income on the standard deviation........

---

We still have the issue of if they did what they are accused. I don't see a "2 system" argument if they prove he did what they are saying. If he is acquitted of all charges, than we have a discussion.

If the Speed Limit is 55 and you get a ticket for going 58, no Judge is going to let you off because others went faster and didn't get caught...

---

Misses the point entirely. Lavrentiy Beria would love you. "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."

We have a situation where the disfavored side is getting tickets for going 58 in a 55, and the favored side is not even getting the radar gun pointed at them. And when it does happen, the system leaps to protect the favored side (letting statute of limitations expire, cutting immunity deals, etc..) The cops (IRS) who dared to actually aim a radar gun at the favored side are having to enter the whistleblower program to protect themselves.

Prosecutorial discretion is not supposed to be a partisan filter. And that's exactly what it's become. the judicial system tossed Trump's program to cancel visas from nations on the state sponsor list because he'd made campaign comments deemed prejudicial about some of the nationalities (not all) on the list (despite the fact that statistics and common sense supported the policy). But when a state Attorney General literally campaigning on "I'm going to get that MF'er" and proceeds to contrive the silliest possible case....a civil action brought by a prosecutor for actions for which no complaints were filed because no one was harmed. Does the system leap to protect him? Nope. He's a Republican. He's doing 58. (Actually, he was doing exactly 55, but he was probably doing 58 yesterday, so don't sweat the details). And the prosecutor? Is she at any risk? Nope. The radar gun will never be aimed at her.

Dude. You are accepting a set of rules imposed upon you by your adversary which says "heads I win, tails you lose." Don't shrug it off because you haven't had to toss a coin yet.

---

You are saying that even though enough evidence was provided to a Grand Jury that a crime was committed and the Grand Jury (like it or not, our system of justice) referred to indict, the person (whoever, justice is supposed to be blind) should be allowed to walk because someone else wasn't charged 5 years ago. That is insane.

If it was an illegal search or violated the indicted Rights, their attorney should be making those motions. Happens every day and cases are dismissed. The Docs case the Judge is a Trump appointee and Trump supporter, yet the case goes forward that doesn't tell you that there is something there???

As for the Jan 6th, Trump gave the Speech that sent the Crowd to the Capital. Congress held a Jan 6th Commission and referred charges. A Special Counsel took evidence to a Gran Jury and referred an indictment. That is not enough probable cause? DOJ should just say "nah, we aren't going forward, Grand Jury said indict, but no we won't..."?

---

There is an adage about ham sandwiches and grand juries. If you haven't heard it, you should familiarize yourself with it. In any event, the NY trial did not even go to the GJ. It's a civil action. How many times does a prosecutor push a civil action? And this one CAMPAIGNED on using the powers of her office to catch Trump at something.

You should also familiarize yourself with the Special Counsel. Quite a partisan guy. Had a prominent success overturned on appeal.

You are ignoring the bloody obvious. Democrat prosecutors in blue jurisdictions are using their office to hold Republicans to a much higher standard than Democrats. Supermajorities of the voters can see it. But you're going along with it because it harms Trump.

If they can do it to him, they can do it to you.

---

You complain about Banana Republic and selective use of the Government and in the same sentence condone cherry picking what should be followed by your personal choice. Tough to be credible when you opinion is the discerning factor of what Society should follow.

---

You continue to miss the point.

We either hold Trump to the same standards Democrats enjoy, or we hold Democrats to the same standard Trump is getting. You can pick it. I don't care. The status quo is unacceptable.

---

And you know that Democrats were not tried? You saw the evidence and the Grand Jury recommendation that the Democrat's just said "nah" we aren't going forward no matter what the Grand Jury said.

Also, how do you handle State vs Federal? Oregon didn't prosecute to your level of satisfaction so the Feds need to let Trump and the Jan 6th walk? NY is prosecuting Trump, so we need to go and find Dems to prosecute to keep in even. Maybe we should round them up and hold them on Governor's Island until we get one to prosecute.

Trump was impeached twice, GOP has not impeached Biden yet. I guess if they can't find evidence just do it to stay even?

You really want to go there and make sure that the political tally sheet is even with Prosecutions? What if, like Trump and Hillary, Comey, etc...) the Republicans decide not to indict? Is there a scoreboard to keep track? You are usually a reasonable person to talk to about real subjects, but on this issue you are really not very pragmatic.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Has this been cleared by Gaetz?

---

Depends on if Donald tells him to accept him.

He should Johnson was friendly to Trump. The question will now be will the others go for him? Collins and Company, the usual cast of characters as Johnson supported overturning election. That could be testy in heavy Blue area...

---

Gaetz made very complimentary remarks about Johnson yesterday, so the opposition will not come from the right end of the caucus. It will come from the left wing of the caucus.

Johnson is pretty much in the middle of the caucus, between Scalise and Jordan. Solid pick.

---

I agree with you there. I think he can straddle the divide. Would love to see him get some type of border control and sane energy policy. Not sure he will be able to get anything on the social side, but if he get progress on those two it will be a major win.

---

The Speaker is 3rd in line to be POTUS. Shouldn't he know who won the election?

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Has this been cleared by Gaetz?

---

Depends on if Donald tells him to accept him.

He should Johnson was friendly to Trump. The question will now be will the others go for him? Collins and Company, the usual cast of characters as Johnson supported overturning election. That could be testy in heavy Blue area...

---

Gaetz made very complimentary remarks about Johnson yesterday, so the opposition will not come from the right end of the caucus. It will come from the left wing of the caucus.

Johnson is pretty much in the middle of the caucus, between Scalise and Jordan. Solid pick.

---

I agree with you there. I think he can straddle the divide. Would love to see him get some type of border control and sane energy policy. Not sure he will be able to get anything on the social side, but if he get progress on those two it will be a major win.

---

The Speaker is 3rd in line to be POTUS. Shouldn't he know who won the election?

---

why? Nobody else does

Frank Galvin said:

---

You are ignoring the bloody obvious. Trump has been an unethical, lying SOB his whole life. It's catching up to him.

---

Did you vote for Biden?