Watching you twirl and spin for illegals and criminals is very enjoyable. By all means, please keep going. You make yourself look like a deranged moron and we all very much enjoy it!

(06-11-2025 01:35 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  Watching you twirl and spin for illegals and criminals is very enjoyable. By all means, please keep going. You make yourself look like a deranged moron and we all very much enjoy it!

Do. It. The. Right. Way. is 'twirl[ing] and spin[ning] for illegals and criminals' ?

Interesting outlook there, pardner.

(06-11-2025 10:39 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  GD you are hard to do this with. You seem to be missing the point - shocked face.

You care not how many of the 1538 people who were charged on J6 actually did something other than being there.

I care a great deal of the facts applied to the law. End of story. If you want to dispute any of those 1538, feel free to bring them up. Rhetorically broad statements arent a substitute.

I know of a fairly decent amount of people that were 'simply there', were questioned, and nothing happened legally to them.

I know of a fair and decent amount that actually had charges dismissed due to lack of evidence of a charged crime.

If your comment is a huge number of those 1538 were 'simply there' and shouldnt have been punished, you are more than free to go into detail into the travesties of justice you seem to think have happened. But again, rhetorically broad statements arent a substitute.

Quote:To you the ends justify the means. A great many of those people were merely walking around, and by many accounts, many charged never even entered the building.

Name some. Not sweeping rhetorical conclusory statements.

And no, the ends does not justify the means. If people were "merely walking around" and charged, they should not be convicted. Please name some.

As to the "many charged never even entered the building", again -- please name some. I can see where there was an assault and they never entered the building could happen. Or with some of the Proud Boys people at the top of the charge list, they actively conspired to larger charges but did not enter the building.

Quote:Look I am asking YOU a simple question - do YOU think what is going on in LA is OK at the moment regarding people burning stuff, throwing bricks at LE etc....

The people that commit such crimes should absolutely be arrested, charged, and if/when found guilty -- punished. End of story.

Quote:If so (i woudl hope so), what would you do about it if you had to make a decision to get it back under control?

From the accounts, it was sufficiently under control. And the city / local / state authorities said that to the Trump administration. As detailed in the Cali pleading.

When Trump, all on his own and what may very well be an illegal act, Federalized the California Guard and sent them in -- that absolutely inflamed the issue.

To the point that even the Wall Street Journal agrees with that.

*After* Trump announced the Federalization -- it actually did escalate. It escalated to where the LA LE actually needed a small boost.

It didnt help, and in fact probably hurt, the locals when Trump end-runned the system.

My decision would have been --

The local authorities probably have the best hand in noting what they need and how they need it. I would have urged Newsom to send in the Natl Guard, but knowing my bounds within the 10th amendment, couldnt force him to.

And when Newsom felt he needed the issue, after his direct consulting with his local officials, I would lend a hand. Thats what most normal Presidents look and act like.

Trump decided he would end-run everybody, and did what he did without consulting the local folks. And he did it in the typical Trump manner -- declare some half assed emergency and claim wide executive powers to do it.

Again, there is a Right. Way. To. Do. It. Both politically and legally. Trump *didnt* Do. It. The. Right. Way.

I hope I answered your question sufficiently.

Tanq, since you refuse to return to the original thread on this subject, when your original take turned out to be so wrong, I am reposting this here, so you don't miss it.

Quote:Bill Barr, Former AG, on the use of the NG in LA (transcribed from an interview on Fox):

1. The NG can be called up by the state, OR it can also be called up by the federal government. When the President decides he needs the NG, the governors have no say about it. They can't veto the President.

2. The provision being used here is the same provision that has been used when a President sends NG troops overseas. The statute is clear: When the President makes that decision, the NG troops SHALL SERVE AS DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT.

3. The governors cannot veto the President's use of the NG.

Q to Barr: So what bar has to be met for the President to send in the NG in this case?

Barr: At the time the President determines that the execution of our laws cannot be accomplished by regular processes and regular forces, he is allowed to bring in the NG to do it, and protect federal facilities, federal employees and the federal function.

He doesn't need to assert the Insurrection Act for those purposes.

IF he decides to suppress the rioters and bring peace to the entire city, then he would need the Insurrection Act to give him law enforcement authority.

(06-11-2025 02:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq, since you refuse to return to the original thread on this subject, when your original take turned out to be so wrong, I am reposting this here, so you don't miss it.

Quote:Bill Barr, Former AG, on the use of the NG in LA (transcribed from an interview on Fox):

1. The NG can be called up by the state, OR it can also be called up by the federal government. When the President decides he needs the NG, the governors have no say about it. They can't veto the President.

2. The provision being used here is the same provision that has been used when a President sends NG troops overseas. The statute is clear: When the President makes that decision, the NG troops SHALL SERVE AS DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT.

3. The governors cannot veto the President's use of the NG.

Q to Barr: So what bar has to be met for the President to send in the NG in this case?

Barr: At the time the President determines that the execution of our laws cannot be accomplished by regular processes and regular forces, he is allowed to bring in the NG to do it, and protect federal facilities, federal employees and the federal function.

He doesn't need to assert the Insurrection Act for those purposes.

IF he decides to suppress the rioters and bring peace to the entire city, then he would need the Insurrection Act to give him law enforcement authority.

You miss the predicate for actually calling them up under the section used by Trump.

And the statute clearly states that the orders must come through the governor. Ive posted a link to that statute here. For foreign callups, the President has almost unitary authority to decide *if* the Army cannot meet its service needs. That isnt in question. And it isnt in question that the Feds can do so *for that purpose*.

What is in question is the callup for domestic usage, and/or for domestic law and order usage. And when used in contravention to a state authority and within that state, there are massive 10th amendment problems that Barr doesnt even note above.

I havent gotten into the quelling aspect that requires the Insurrection Act, mind you. That is another topic entirely, and another manner that Trump can federalize National Guard.

Ill be happy to spin this into the other thread. Leave it to you to say I am 'refusing' to do so, all I am doing is answering stuff posed here on this. Good grief, unruffle those feathers there friend.

I didn't miss anything, Clarence. I simply quoted Bill Barr, practically word for word.

But the idea that you think you know more about this subject than Bill Barr is so predictable.

Tanq is the right hand of God, be careful.

(06-11-2025 03:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I didn't miss anything, Clarence. I simply quoted Bill Barr, practically word for word.

But the idea that you think you know more about this subject than Bill Barr is so predictable.

We all know if Kamala did this, she would be deemed the strongest leader everrrrrrrrrrrr.

(06-11-2025 01:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:44 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you can show me that level with California, you will have a point.

Multiple phone calls made by the President to the Governor and the SECDEF to TAG.

If you can tell me they didn't discuss the President's plan to deploy the Guard you will have a point.

I am sure they absolutely discussed the unrest, and the issues of the Federal agents involved. The pleadings are exceptionally clear:

"51. Over the course of the day, the Department of Defense (DOD) did not communicate directly with the Governor’s Office regarding any planned activation and deployment of California National Guard members. "

"52. At no time prior to issuing the memorandum to federalize the California National Guard troops did the DOD seek approval from Governor Newsom to utilize California’s National Guard to protect federal agents and federal property, or otherwise notify or seek concurrence from the Governor or his office regarding the planned mobilization of the National Guard."

And even if they discussed the possibility, that does not mean there was any 'seek[ing] [explicit] approval.'

Maybe you should contact Judge Breyer and tell him The State of California is lying under oath. Show him all that proof there.

Quote:Though I think you probably know what happened without seeing the call transcripts.

You sure seem to know absolutely. Again, what we have here is:

On one hand we have the State of California, under oath, is saying:
a) "Over the course of the day, the Department of Defense (DOD) did not communicate directly with the Governor’s Office regarding any planned activation and deployment of California National Guard members"; and
b) "At no time prior to issuing the memorandum to federalize the California National Guard troops did the DOD seek approval from Governor Newsom to utilize California’s National Guard to protect federal agents and federal property, or otherwise notify or seek concurrence from the Governor or his office regarding the planned mobilization of the National Guard."

and Three, on the other hand, saying:
Unh unh.

Does that about sum it up?

Sure, I mean the pathological liar who has been caught in his web of lies dozens of times would never lie under oath in a court pleading. Never. Also, the President doesn't need the Governors permission to execute the duties of his office.

(06-11-2025 02:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 02:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq, since you refuse to return to the original thread on this subject, when your original take turned out to be so wrong, I am reposting this here, so you don't miss it.

Quote:Bill Barr, Former AG, on the use of the NG in LA (transcribed from an interview on Fox):

1. The NG can be called up by the state, OR it can also be called up by the federal government. When the President decides he needs the NG, the governors have no say about it. They can't veto the President.

2. The provision being used here is the same provision that has been used when a President sends NG troops overseas. The statute is clear: When the President makes that decision, the NG troops SHALL SERVE AS DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT.

3. The governors cannot veto the President's use of the NG.

Q to Barr: So what bar has to be met for the President to send in the NG in this case?

Barr: At the time the President determines that the execution of our laws cannot be accomplished by regular processes and regular forces, he is allowed to bring in the NG to do it, and protect federal facilities, federal employees and the federal function.

He doesn't need to assert the Insurrection Act for those purposes.

IF he decides to suppress the rioters and bring peace to the entire city, then he would need the Insurrection Act to give him law enforcement authority.

You miss the predicate for actually calling them up under the section used by Trump.

And the statute clearly states that the orders must come through the governor. Ive posted a link to that statute here. For foreign callups, the President has almost unitary authority to decide *if* the Army cannot meet its service needs. That isnt in question. And it isnt in question that the Feds can do so *for that purpose*.

What is in question is the callup for domestic usage, and/or for domestic law and order usage. And when used in contravention to a state authority and within that state, there are massive 10th amendment problems that Barr doesnt even note above.

I havent gotten into the quelling aspect that requires the Insurrection Act, mind you. That is another topic entirely, and another manner that Trump can federalize National Guard.

Ill be happy to spin this into the other thread. Leave it to you to say I am 'refusing' to do so, all I am doing is answering stuff posed here on this. Good grief, unruffle those feathers there friend.

You still continue to look at this with a slant left leaning California view. First, the insurrection act is irrelevant. It hasn't been activated or implemented. Second, just as you said the Gov shall execute the order as determined by the President. Newsom didn't do it or refused to do it. He's in violation of the law. As Bill Barr said, and as I stated previously on this, the President has the discretion and authority to call the national guard when law enforcement is unable to meet to challenge and threat. There simply aren't enough federal agents when they're all being attacked. And since the state and local LE sat on their hands and watched rather than upholding their respective oaths of office to quell unlawful and violent mobs, the President was left with no option. This one really isn't that difficult.

It is for Clarence. He never concedes anything, even when it's obvious he's wrong.

(06-12-2025 07:06 AM)TripleA Wrote:  It is for Clarence. He never concedes anything, even when it's obvious he's wrong.

There weren't any Little Einstein or Paw Patrol quips in there, so we might be making some progress.

(06-11-2025 01:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Do. It. The. Right. Way. is 'twirl[ing] and spin[ning] for illegals and criminals' ?

Interesting outlook there, pardner.

Geeeeezus the irony here. Maybe if the border jumpers went about coming here the right way……

(06-12-2025 07:12 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-12-2025 07:06 AM)TripleA Wrote:  It is for Clarence. He never concedes anything, even when it's obvious he's wrong.

There weren't any Little Einstein or Paw Patrol quips in there, so we might be making some progress.

LOL. Nah, he always regresses to the lowest common denominator, as soon as anybody says, "But..." again.

(06-12-2025 07:06 AM)TripleA Wrote:  It is for Clarence. He never concedes anything, even when it's obvious he's wrong.

Death penalty for a speeding ticket

(06-12-2025 07:34 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-12-2025 07:06 AM)TripleA Wrote:  It is for Clarence. He never concedes anything, even when it's obvious he's wrong.

Death penalty for a speeding ticket

He's in the perfect business for him. One time service for almost everybody who gets in a car wreck.

(06-12-2025 07:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-12-2025 07:34 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-12-2025 07:06 AM)TripleA Wrote:  It is for Clarence. He never concedes anything, even when it's obvious he's wrong.

Death penalty for a speeding ticket

He's in the perfect business for him. One time service for almost everybody who gets in a car wreck.

Greasy

Kilmor is fricked

Bad hombre

(06-12-2025 06:52 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 01:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:44 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-11-2025 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If you can show me that level with California, you will have a point.

Multiple phone calls made by the President to the Governor and the SECDEF to TAG.

If you can tell me they didn't discuss the President's plan to deploy the Guard you will have a point.

I am sure they absolutely discussed the unrest, and the issues of the Federal agents involved. The pleadings are exceptionally clear:

"51. Over the course of the day, the Department of Defense (DOD) did not communicate directly with the Governor’s Office regarding any planned activation and deployment of California National Guard members. "

"52. At no time prior to issuing the memorandum to federalize the California National Guard troops did the DOD seek approval from Governor Newsom to utilize California’s National Guard to protect federal agents and federal property, or otherwise notify or seek concurrence from the Governor or his office regarding the planned mobilization of the National Guard."

And even if they discussed the possibility, that does not mean there was any 'seek[ing] [explicit] approval.'

Maybe you should contact Judge Breyer and tell him The State of California is lying under oath. Show him all that proof there.

Quote:Though I think you probably know what happened without seeing the call transcripts.

You sure seem to know absolutely. Again, what we have here is:

On one hand we have the State of California, under oath, is saying:
a) "Over the course of the day, the Department of Defense (DOD) did not communicate directly with the Governor’s Office regarding any planned activation and deployment of California National Guard members"; and
b) "At no time prior to issuing the memorandum to federalize the California National Guard troops did the DOD seek approval from Governor Newsom to utilize California’s National Guard to protect federal agents and federal property, or otherwise notify or seek concurrence from the Governor or his office regarding the planned mobilization of the National Guard."

and Three, on the other hand, saying:
Unh unh.

Does that about sum it up?

Sure, I mean the pathological liar who has been caught in his web of lies dozens of times would never lie under oath in a court pleading. Never. Also, the President doesn't need the Governors permission to execute the duties of his office.

Bolded -- referring to Trump?

By the way Three, the administration responded late yesterday.

One guess as to what they say on the matter above. Ill summarize the three stances.

The State of California, under oath, is saying:
a) "Over the course of the day, the Department of Defense (DOD) did not communicate directly with the Governor’s Office regarding any planned activation and deployment of California National Guard members"; and
b) "At no time prior to issuing the memorandum to federalize the California National Guard troops did the DOD seek approval from Governor Newsom to utilize California’s National Guard to protect federal agents and federal property, or otherwise notify or seek concurrence from the Governor or his office regarding the planned mobilization of the National Guard."

The United States -- doesnt say anything.

and Three, on the other hand, saying:
Unh unh.

You sure you want to go down the path of all-knowing what was said in the conversations?

And hate to tell you, a lot of the Federal filing cuts against you observations and conclusions in your other post. And you make a few errors on what I said there as well.