4th and Inches said:

---

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

---

Shouldn't someone 3rd in line of succession know this?

Nevermind

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

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

---

Shouldn't someone 3rd in line of succession know this?

Nevermind

---

POTUS doesnt even know..

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date there is evidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

Mike Johnson has earned 217 votes, passing the threshold to win the Speaker race.

Johnson is officially voted in as the 56th Speaker of the House of Representatives. pic.twitter.com/hsohcYeYhD

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) October 25, 2023

Cobretti said:

---

Mike Johnson has earned 217 votes, passing the threshold to win the Speaker race.

Johnson is officially voted in as the 56th Speaker of the House of Representatives. pic.twitter.com/hsohcYeYhD

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) October 25, 2023

---

56th Speaker of the current Congress? Please advise.

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Mike Johnson has earned 217 votes, passing the threshold to win the Speaker race.

Johnson is officially voted in as the 56th Speaker of the House of Representatives. pic.twitter.com/hsohcYeYhD

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) October 25, 2023

---

56th Speaker of the current Congress? Please advise.

---

Guy is supposed to be against Omnibus spending bills. If what I read is true, think it just got harder for Ukraine and Israel to get money. We will see.

Rep Mike Johnson has been vocal against Ukraine involvement, transing children, covid mandates, & the open border. He is for spending cuts & releasing the J6 tapes

He is an upgrade by every measure from Kevin McCarthy.

What Matt Gaetz did was brave & it benefited Americans.

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 25, 2023

Matt Gaetz: Kingmaker

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

---

Well aware. That is not illegal.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

---

Well aware. That is not illegal.

---

Your problem was with a lack of ethics. Do you keep track of your own thoughts?

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

---

Well aware. That is not illegal.

---

Your problem was with a lack of ethics. Do you keep track of your own thoughts?

---

I don't have a problem Whiterock is upset that his leader is being prosecuted. I told him why.

You apparently have the same issue because you brought up Biden's issues as some sort of excuse. I never said Biden was clean, but to pretend like there is some equivalency between the two is a joke. Trump started his career by discriminating against African-Americans and moved on to run a fake charity, run a fake university, stiff just about every vendor/contractor/supplier to ever work for him, bankrupt four companies, routinely lie about the value of his assets to suit his purposes, pay off a porn star with campaign funds and lie about it, attempt to trade taxpayer-funded foreign aid for personal political favors, earn direct profits by traveling to his own hotels while in office and filling them with staff and secret service, earn indirect profits by encouraging every lobbyist and visiting dignitary to use his D.C. hotel while in office, setting his daughter up to reap millions from the Saudis by having his son-in-law go soft on them, strong arming decent Georgia Republicans to support his ridiculous scheme to overturn an election he knew he lost, and treat national secrets like party favors to give to the cool kids.

All the while he runs a merchandising business that would be the envy of every two-bit televangelist to ever grace the airwaves, sucking dollars straight from the wallets of people who can't afford it.

And you and the rest of the bright lights on this forum think it is all OK.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

---

Well aware. That is not illegal.

---

Your problem was with a lack of ethics. Do you keep track of your own thoughts?

---

You apparently have the same issue because you brought up Biden's issues as some sort of excuse.

---

I was just pointing out your hypocrisy to rant about a politician's lack of ethics while you voted for Joe Biden. You don't care about a lack of ethics as long is it is your guy who lacks ethics. Ethics is little more than a cudgel for you.

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

---

Well aware. That is not illegal.

---

Your problem was with a lack of ethics. Do you keep track of your own thoughts?

---

You apparently have the same issue because you brought up Biden's issues as some sort of excuse.

---

I was just pointing out your hypocrisy to rant about a politician's lack of ethics while you voted for Joe Biden. You don't care about a lack of ethics as long is it is your guy who lacks ethics. Ethics is little more than a cudgel for you.

---

What hypocrisy. I said I voted for Biden, I didn't say he was my choice. On ethics he was clearly the lesser of two evils.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

---

Well aware. That is not illegal.

---

Your problem was with a lack of ethics. Do you keep track of your own thoughts?

---

You apparently have the same issue because you brought up Biden's issues as some sort of excuse.

---

I was just pointing out your hypocrisy to rant about a politician's lack of ethics while you voted for Joe Biden. You don't care about a lack of ethics as long is it is your guy who lacks ethics. Ethics is little more than a cudgel for you.

---

What hypocrisy. I said I voted for Biden, I didn't say he was my choice. On ethics he was clearly the lesser of two evils.

---

If you vote for a candidate, then that candidate is your choice. I am shocked I have to explain that to you.

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

---

Well aware. That is not illegal.

---

Your problem was with a lack of ethics. Do you keep track of your own thoughts?

---

You apparently have the same issue because you brought up Biden's issues as some sort of excuse.

---

I was just pointing out your hypocrisy to rant about a politician's lack of ethics while you voted for Joe Biden. You don't care about a lack of ethics as long is it is your guy who lacks ethics. Ethics is little more than a cudgel for you.

---

What hypocrisy. I said I voted for Biden, I didn't say he was my choice. On ethics he was clearly the lesser of two evils.

---

If you vote for a candidate, then that candidate is your choice. I am shocked I have to explain that to you.

---

Right. It was my choice to vote for the most ethical candidate. You don't have to explain anything to me.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

---

Well aware. That is not illegal.

---

Your problem was with a lack of ethics. Do you keep track of your own thoughts?

---

You apparently have the same issue because you brought up Biden's issues as some sort of excuse.

---

I was just pointing out your hypocrisy to rant about a politician's lack of ethics while you voted for Joe Biden. You don't care about a lack of ethics as long is it is your guy who lacks ethics. Ethics is little more than a cudgel for you.

---

What hypocrisy. I said I voted for Biden, I didn't say he was my choice. On ethics he was clearly the lesser of two evils.

---

If you vote for a candidate, then that candidate is your choice. I am shocked I have to explain that to you.

---

Right. It was my choice to vote for the most ethical candidate. You don't have to explain anything to me.

---

LOL. You have confused yourself. You might be Biden.

As with any discussion about Trump on this forum-anything to avoid addressing what the man actually is: the biggest scam artist of the last century.

Frank Galvin said:

---

As with any discussion about Trump on this forum-anything to avoid addressing what the man actually is: the biggest scam artist of the last century.

---

10% for the Big Guy.

Inflation Reduction Act.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

---

Well aware. That is not illegal.

---

Your problem was with a lack of ethics. Do you keep track of your own thoughts?

---

You apparently have the same issue because you brought up Biden's issues as some sort of excuse.

---

I was just pointing out your hypocrisy to rant about a politician's lack of ethics while you voted for Joe Biden. You don't care about a lack of ethics as long is it is your guy who lacks ethics. Ethics is little more than a cudgel for you.

---

What hypocrisy. I said I voted for Biden, I didn't say he was my choice. On ethics he was clearly the lesser of two evils.

---

on policy he was the worse of two evils.. vote policy next time

Voting with your feelings is a stupid way to vote

Frank Galvin 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 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.

---

"yada Yada, lying unethical SOB his whole life....." We get it. You don't like him.

You are saying there is no difference between Republican state govt suing a Democrat federal government over matters of policy and Democrat prosecutors CAMPAIGNING on putting a political opponent in jail, then contriving incredibly weak prosecutions in blue jurisdictions to do exactly that.

The former is called "self-government;" the latter is called "tyranny."

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

Geez, dude. What a terribly analogy. You're thinking here is a quarter-inch deep. It's not about whether she broke the law. It's about whether or not use of deadly force was authorized. Was SHE, at the moment the trigger was pulled, a threat to the life of the officer? No. Was SHE a threat to anyone else? No. She was unarmed and not posing a threat of life or harm to anyone....at that moment.

By the standard you are proposing, one could justify shooting every single person who entered the capital that day, and basically everyone else outside. Literally...."eh...kill 'em all...they shouldn't be here."

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Wrong: When an officer uses deadly force, all the circumstances are on the table - hers and his.

Shooting an unarmed protestor for climbing thru a window of non-residential property is a highly questionable use of deadly force.

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..."?

---

Have one of the attorney's here tell you how often a grand jury fails to indict. I've been on two. Looked at over 1000 cases. We did no-bill a small number where the Prosecutor was asking our opinion on what to do = context being that the prosecutor didn't really want to charge but thought they might be criticized for not doing so. We had exactly one....ONE....where the prosecutor made her case and we disagreed. She was visibly surprised. She brought the case back a couple of weeks later. We no-billed again.

One time in 1300 cases.
Prosecutors ALWAYS get their indictments.
The citizens on that GJ know little of the law, except what the prosecutor tells them it is. Same for facts. Only the facts benefiting the case are presented.

That's why it is appropriate to scrutinize prosecutorial discretion. These cases against Trump are junk. He's being prosecuted for political intimidation. Hell, one of the prosecutors CAMPAIGNED that she would use the powers of her office to "get him."

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

---

Well aware. That is not illegal.

---

Your problem was with a lack of ethics. Do you keep track of your own thoughts?

---

I don't have a problem Whiterock is upset that his leader is being prosecuted. I told him why.

You apparently have the same issue because you brought up Biden's issues as some sort of excuse. I never said Biden was clean, but to pretend like there is some equivalency between the two is a joke. Trump started his career by discriminating against African-Americans and moved on to run a fake charity, run a fake university, stiff just about every vendor/contractor/supplier to ever work for him, bankrupt four companies, routinely lie about the value of his assets to suit his purposes, pay off a porn star with campaign funds and lie about it, attempt to trade taxpayer-funded foreign aid for personal political favors, earn direct profits by traveling to his own hotels while in office and filling them with staff and secret service, earn indirect profits by encouraging every lobbyist and visiting dignitary to use his D.C. hotel while in office, setting his daughter up to reap millions from the Saudis by having his son-in-law go soft on them, strong arming decent Georgia Republicans to support his ridiculous scheme to overturn an election he knew he lost, and treat national secrets like party favors to give to the cool kids.

All the while he runs a merchandising business that would be the envy of every two-bit televangelist to ever grace the airwaves, sucking dollars straight from the wallets of people who can't afford it.

And you and the rest of the bright lights on this forum think it is all OK.

---

You were a terrible person when you were young.

So to teach you a lesson, I'll make up something to indict you on tomorrow.

Because I'm ethical and your not.

(see?)

whiterock said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

---

Well aware. That is not illegal.

---

Your problem was with a lack of ethics. Do you keep track of your own thoughts?

---

I don't have a problem Whiterock is upset that his leader is being prosecuted. I told him why.

You apparently have the same issue because you brought up Biden's issues as some sort of excuse. I never said Biden was clean, but to pretend like there is some equivalency between the two is a joke. Trump started his career by discriminating against African-Americans and moved on to run a fake charity, run a fake university, stiff just about every vendor/contractor/supplier to ever work for him, bankrupt four companies, routinely lie about the value of his assets to suit his purposes, pay off a porn star with campaign funds and lie about it, attempt to trade taxpayer-funded foreign aid for personal political favors, earn direct profits by traveling to his own hotels while in office and filling them with staff and secret service, earn indirect profits by encouraging every lobbyist and visiting dignitary to use his D.C. hotel while in office, setting his daughter up to reap millions from the Saudis by having his son-in-law go soft on them, strong arming decent Georgia Republicans to support his ridiculous scheme to overturn an election he knew he lost, and treat national secrets like party favors to give to the cool kids.

All the while he runs a merchandising business that would be the envy of every two-bit televangelist to ever grace the airwaves, sucking dollars straight from the wallets of people who can't afford it.

And you and the rest of the bright lights on this forum think it is all OK.

---

You were a terrible person when you were young.

So to teach you a lesson, I'll make up something to indict you on tomorrow.

Because I'm ethical and your not.

(see?)

---

No I don't see. We have statutes of limitations designed for that purpose. If Trump is being prosecuted too long after the alleged crimes he can use those.

It's called the rule of law. The point of the long laundry list is that a Leopard doesn't change its spots. This is the person you chose to pledge allegiance too.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

Geez, dude. What a terribly analogy. You're thinking here is a quarter-inch deep. It's not about whether she broke the law. It's about whether or not use of deadly force was authorized. Was SHE, at the moment the trigger was pulled, a threat to the life of the officer? No. Was SHE a threat to anyone else? No. She was unarmed and not posing a threat of life or harm to anyone....at that moment.

By the standard you are proposing, one could justify shooting every single person who entered the capital that day, and basically everyone else outside. Literally...."eh...kill 'em all...they shouldn't be here."

---

Of course it was about whether she broke the law. Look at the context that she broke it. The rioters broke a window and she climbed through it into the Speakers Chamber with the Secret Service and Capitol Police yelling not to enter with weapons drawn. Congressional members were inside. That was a hostile environment, she didn't listen to law enforcement and she breached through a secure area. And you wonder why she got shot????You act like she went into the wrong backyard during a Street Party.

Geez, your credibility is really taking a hit. You were in the military, didn't you even pull guard duty or have to secure a perimeter? She was wrong. She was a Veteran and should have known better. She was shot in the shoulder, it is bad luck she died but that was on her and her fellow rioters trying to break through that door.

Shallow thinking? watch the video. How anyone, especially someone with military experience, can watch that and come away with law enforcement overreacted is beyond me. I hope I don't ever have to rely on you for providing security.

Frank Galvin said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Wrecks Quan Dough said:

---

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?

---

Yes

---

And your problem with Trump is ethics and lies? Would you say you lack self awareness?

---

No.

First, the fact that Trump is unethical does not make Biden ethical.

Second, to date their is eci=vidence that Hunter Biden is unethical and throws his father's name around a lot. There is no evidence yet that Joe did anything illegal. That is what the most rabid GOP house reps investigating things say. But I am sure you know different.

Third, investigate until the cows come home. When you have something report back. All fine with me.

---

Please. Learn a little about who you vote for.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism

---

Well aware. That is not illegal.

---

Your problem was with a lack of ethics. Do you keep track of your own thoughts?

---

I don't have a problem Whiterock is upset that his leader is being prosecuted. I told him why.

You apparently have the same issue because you brought up Biden's issues as some sort of excuse. I never said Biden was clean, but to pretend like there is some equivalency between the two is a joke. Trump started his career by discriminating against African-Americans and moved on to run a fake charity, run a fake university, stiff just about every vendor/contractor/supplier to ever work for him, bankrupt four companies, routinely lie about the value of his assets to suit his purposes, pay off a porn star with campaign funds and lie about it, attempt to trade taxpayer-funded foreign aid for personal political favors, earn direct profits by traveling to his own hotels while in office and filling them with staff and secret service, earn indirect profits by encouraging every lobbyist and visiting dignitary to use his D.C. hotel while in office, setting his daughter up to reap millions from the Saudis by having his son-in-law go soft on them, strong arming decent Georgia Republicans to support his ridiculous scheme to overturn an election he knew he lost, and treat national secrets like party favors to give to the cool kids.

All the while he runs a merchandising business that would be the envy of every two-bit televangelist to ever grace the airwaves, sucking dollars straight from the wallets of people who can't afford it.

And you and the rest of the bright lights on this forum think it is all OK.

---

You were a terrible person when you were young.

So to teach you a lesson, I'll make up something to indict you on tomorrow.

Because I'm ethical and your not.

(see?)

---

No I don't see. We have statutes of limitations designed for that purpose. If Trump is being prosecuted too long after the alleged crimes he can use those.

It's called the rule of law. The point of the long laundry list is that a Leopard doesn't change its spots. This is the person you chose to pledge allegiance too.

---

lol you just said a moment ago that it's ok to prosecute Trump on some frivolous contrivance because he's been an unethical lying SOB his whole life.

You put on the jackboots, buddy. We're just commenting on how well the swastika goes with your tie.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

Geez, dude. What a terribly analogy. You're thinking here is a quarter-inch deep. It's not about whether she broke the law. It's about whether or not use of deadly force was authorized. Was SHE, at the moment the trigger was pulled, a threat to the life of the officer? No. Was SHE a threat to anyone else? No. She was unarmed and not posing a threat of life or harm to anyone....at that moment.

By the standard you are proposing, one could justify shooting every single person who entered the capital that day, and basically everyone else outside. Literally...."eh...kill 'em all...they shouldn't be here."

---

Of course it was about whether she broke the law. Look at the context that she broke it. The rioters broke a window and she climbed through it into the Speakers Chamber with the Secret Service and Capitol Police yelling not to enter with weapons drawn. Congressional members were inside. That was a hostile environment, she didn't listen to law enforcement and she breached through a secure area. And you wonder why she got shot????You act like she went into the wrong backyard during a Street Party.

Geez, your credibility is really taking a hit. You were in the military, didn't you even pull guard duty or have to secure a perimeter? She was wrong. She was a Veteran and should have known better. She was shot in the shoulder, it is bad luck she died but that was on her and her fellow rioters trying to break through that door.

Shallow thinking? watch the video. How anyone, especially someone with military experience, can watch that and come away with law enforcement overreacted is beyond me. I hope I don't ever have to rely on you for providing security.

---

DUDE! Listen to yourself. You are literally arguing that breaking any law justifies use of deadly force.

We have a well developed code of law which holds that deadly force is only used when someone poses an imminent risk to life or grievous harm to another. We issue tasers to police so that they can subdue criminals resisting arrest without having to escalate force in ways that might create deadly force scenarios (scuffle to handcuff turns into perp trying to seize the officer's weapon....perp getting physical advantage and beating, choking officer, etc....).

She was unarmed......
In any other scenario, tasers would have been the go-to application of force.

(We just refitted our entire police force with new tasers. You would not believe what those things cost.)

whiterock said:

---

Frank Galvin 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 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.

---

"yada Yada, lying unethical SOB his whole life....." We get it. You don't like him.

You are saying there is no difference between Republican state govt suing a Democrat federal government over matters of policy and Democrat prosecutors CAMPAIGNING on putting a political opponent in jail, then contriving incredibly weak prosecutions in blue jurisdictions to do exactly that.

The former is called "self-government;" the latter is called "tyranny."

---

Nice pivot to avoid acknowledging AGs do civil cases all the time, contrary to your early post.

It's not much of an argument to just declare the cases "incredibly weak." That is your highly partisan opinion. For instance the ongoing trial is a fraud case. Fraud cases are built on lies. Are you saying Trump didn't lie about property values. Tripling the size of his apartment suggest otherwise.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

Geez, dude. What a terribly analogy. You're thinking here is a quarter-inch deep. It's not about whether she broke the law. It's about whether or not use of deadly force was authorized. Was SHE, at the moment the trigger was pulled, a threat to the life of the officer? No. Was SHE a threat to anyone else? No. She was unarmed and not posing a threat of life or harm to anyone....at that moment.

By the standard you are proposing, one could justify shooting every single person who entered the capital that day, and basically everyone else outside. Literally...."eh...kill 'em all...they shouldn't be here."

---

Of course it was about whether she broke the law. Look at the context that she broke it. The rioters broke a window and she climbed through it into the Speakers Chamber with the Secret Service and Capitol Police yelling not to enter with weapons drawn. Congressional members were inside. That was a hostile environment, she didn't listen to law enforcement and she breached through a secure area. And you wonder why she got shot????You act like she went into the wrong backyard during a Street Party.

Geez, your credibility is really taking a hit. You were in the military, didn't you even pull guard duty or have to secure a perimeter? She was wrong. She was a Veteran and should have known better. She was shot in the shoulder, it is bad luck she died but that was on her and her fellow rioters trying to break through that door.

Shallow thinking? watch the video. How anyone, especially someone with military experience, can watch that and come away with law enforcement overreacted is beyond me. I hope I don't ever have to rely on you for providing security.

---

DUDE! Listen to yourself. You are literally arguing that breaking any law justifies use of deadly force.

We have a well developed code of law which holds that deadly force is only used when someone poses an imminent risk to life or grievous harm to another. We issue tasers to police so that they can subdue criminals resisting arrest without having to escalate force in ways that might create deadly force scenarios (scuffle to handcuff turns into perp trying to seize the officer's weapon....perp getting physical advantage and beating, choking officer, etc....).

She was unarmed......
In any other scenario, tasers would have been the go-to application of force.

(We just refitted our entire police force with new tasers. You would not believe what those things cost.)

---

Unarmed? How did the officer know that? She was coming through a broken window with a backpack in the middle of a riot. This is what he saw. Unarmed? They found pipe bombs out there in, a backpack. Don't tell me, they didn't go off. So, now incompetence is a reason not to defend?

I get it, you like Trump and don't like the Dems. The Dems are a trainwreck, get it. But to condone this? Especially as a former Officer that took the oath?

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

Geez, dude. What a terribly analogy. You're thinking here is a quarter-inch deep. It's not about whether she broke the law. It's about whether or not use of deadly force was authorized. Was SHE, at the moment the trigger was pulled, a threat to the life of the officer? No. Was SHE a threat to anyone else? No. She was unarmed and not posing a threat of life or harm to anyone....at that moment.

By the standard you are proposing, one could justify shooting every single person who entered the capital that day, and basically everyone else outside. Literally...."eh...kill 'em all...they shouldn't be here."

---

Of course it was about whether she broke the law. Look at the context that she broke it. The rioters broke a window and she climbed through it into the Speakers Chamber with the Secret Service and Capitol Police yelling not to enter with weapons drawn. Congressional members were inside. That was a hostile environment, she didn't listen to law enforcement and she breached through a secure area. And you wonder why she got shot????You act like she went into the wrong backyard during a Street Party.

Geez, your credibility is really taking a hit. You were in the military, didn't you even pull guard duty or have to secure a perimeter? She was wrong. She was a Veteran and should have known better. She was shot in the shoulder, it is bad luck she died but that was on her and her fellow rioters trying to break through that door.

Shallow thinking? watch the video. How anyone, especially someone with military experience, can watch that and come away with law enforcement overreacted is beyond me. I hope I don't ever have to rely on you for providing security.

---

DUDE! Listen to yourself. You are literally arguing that breaking any law justifies use of deadly force.

We have a well developed code of law which holds that deadly force is only used when someone poses an imminent risk to life or grievous harm to another. We issue tasers to police so that they can subdue criminals resisting arrest without having to escalate force in ways that might create deadly force scenarios (scuffle to handcuff turns into perp trying to seize the officer's weapon....perp getting physical advantage and beating, choking officer, etc....).

She was unarmed......
In any other scenario, tasers would have been the go-to application of force.

(We just refitted our entire police force with new tasers. You would not believe what those things cost.)

---

Unarmed? How did the officer know that? She was coming through a broken window with a backpack in the middle of a riot. This is what he saw. Unarmed? They found pipe bombs out there in, a backpack. Don't tell me, they didn't go off. So, now incompetence is a reason not to defend?

I get it, you like Trump and don't like the Dems. The Dems are a trainwreck, get it. But to condone this? Especially as a former Officer that took the oath?

---

He could see her hands?

I'm not even saying it was a "bad shoot," but I am saying it isn't as clear as you would like it to be that it was a justified killing or, as some have argued, that it was a criminal act.

It's like some of y'all haven't watch the video, the guy who shot Ashli Babbitt clearly Barney fifed it. He draws. She comes thru the window. He shoots, and he runs off out the door frame. I don't think he meant to shoot, I think he fumbled with the trigger.

Should she have climbed thru that window? No

Was anybody in danger because of it? Maybe

Should the officer have shot at that point? His own actions say no