WMU Broncos

Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
Author Message
MajorHoople Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,245
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 176
I Root For: WMU Broncos
Location: Waldo, Read, Hyames
Post: #61
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
Isn't it interesting that most of those involved-with knowledge who say Trump is guilty have testified under oath, whole those who claim he's innocent have refused to testify under oath?
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2022 01:24 PM by MajorHoople.)
06-26-2022 07:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BroncoMinor Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,979
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 43
I Root For: WMU
Location: Michigan
Post: #62
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-25-2022 11:58 AM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  
(06-25-2022 09:52 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  What is your point GRBRONCO? Every minute of the President's day is highly regimented, carefully scheduled. For a reason. Our last president showed exactly WHY. So that they can't just spout off half-baked ideas 24/7 without consulting their experts, cabinet, lawyers, advisors. And the notes need to be clear and concise so that they can be read and understood at a glance.

It's clear Biden has some cognitive impairment going on, his whole presidency is scripted and he never takes questions. Probably why he sent his wife to Ukraine instead of going himself. Sad and scary at the same time. Dementia tends to accelerate rather quickly once you get close to 80. That is a little more concerning than the reality star turned President that happened to be a poor loser. Media will protect Biden at all costs though.
Here is Biden at the G7 in Germany talking in front of other world leaders. If you're genuinely concerned that they have to send his wife in his place, you might want to check it out. It might ease your worries.

[Image: gettyimages-1241549771_wide-a9c1beb341b2...0-c85.webp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtjzTIvXL-s
06-26-2022 09:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllBronco Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 927
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 20
I Root For: WMU
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
Another Investigation today at 1:00 pm.
06-28-2022 07:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bostonbronco Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,198
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 52
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-28-2022 07:18 AM)AllBronco Wrote:  Another Investigation today at 1:00 pm.

Almost all of the people coming forth are Trump's appointed attorneys, legal aids, administrative aids, etc. who are presenting the facts of their conversations with Trump. There have been plenty of documents to back up their statements. Many of Trump's loyalists have been invited to come forward with their information but have refused. I can't understand why they won't protect Trump and provide their information.
06-28-2022 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Boca Rocket Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,645
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 105
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-26-2022 07:14 AM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Isn't it interesting that most of those involved-with knowledge who say Trump is guilty have testified under oath, whole those who claim he's innocent have refused to testify under oath?

Sure you'd want to take an oath and risk a perjury trap by a group that hates you, that Bipartisan group.. That makes real sense.. At high risk is the political power of the Dems, who are facing a possible shellacking at the polls in November.They need to muddy the Republicans as much as possible. Just using the Jan 6 events as a political tool to damage as much as possible besides whatever the truth is. The same group that is crying about the Capitol are the ones the want to rewrite the Constitution, have no regard for the Supreme Court, get rid of the Electoral College, and end the US as a Republic.
06-28-2022 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ColinApocalypse Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,968
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 111
I Root For: WMU
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Post: #66
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-28-2022 10:39 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  
(06-26-2022 07:14 AM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Isn't it interesting that most of those involved-with knowledge who say Trump is guilty have testified under oath, whole those who claim he's innocent have refused to testify under oath?

Sure you'd want to take an oath and risk a perjury trap by a group that hates you, that Bipartisan group.. That makes real sense.. At high risk is the political power of the Dems, who are facing a possible shellacking at the polls in November.They need to muddy the Republicans as much as possible. Just using the Jan 6 events as a political tool to damage as much as possible besides whatever the truth is. The same group that is crying about the Capitol are the ones the want to rewrite the Constitution, have no regard for the Supreme Court, get rid of the Electoral College, and end the US as a Republic.

I'd really love to hear exactly what you think happened on Jan. 6th. Make it make sense. Just remember to use evidence and facts, not "gut feelings". Go on, defend the traitors. Let's hear it.

As for the rest of your rant, the constitution is a living document that has been amended many times. Why is that a bad thing? The Supreme Court justices are appointed to life terms, and are chosen based on their political leanings. Their recent rulings show that they have no interest in protecting human rights at the federal level, and if they can't even do that, what are they good for? It's the most undemocratic system we have. Well, maybe second most next to the...electoral college.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2022 11:28 AM by ColinApocalypse.)
06-28-2022 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Doo Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,016
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 36
I Root For: WMU
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
The role of SCOTUS is to uphold the constitution. The role of elected bodies is to determine rights not included in the document, and add to said document if needed. This ruling has only affirmed that. If the vast majority of the population would like to see the document amended then they can, and then the court will be required to rule differently.
06-28-2022 12:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ColinApocalypse Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,968
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 111
I Root For: WMU
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Post: #68
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-28-2022 12:34 PM)Doo Wrote:  The role of SCOTUS is to uphold the constitution. The role of elected bodies is to determine rights not included in the document, and add to said document if needed. This ruling has only affirmed that. If the vast majority of the population would like to see the document amended then they can, and then the court will be required to rule differently.

You're not wrong. It's important to note though, the court already ruled on this issue 50 years ago. There was established precedent. And for the first time in US history, the court overturned a previous ruling. So what changed? What changed in the constitution over the last 50 years?
06-28-2022 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BroncoMinor Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,979
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 43
I Root For: WMU
Location: Michigan
Post: #69
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-28-2022 10:39 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  
(06-26-2022 07:14 AM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Isn't it interesting that most of those involved-with knowledge who say Trump is guilty have testified under oath, whole those who claim he's innocent have refused to testify under oath?

Sure you'd want to take an oath and risk a perjury trap by a group that hates you, that Bipartisan group.. That makes real sense.. At high risk is the political power of the Dems, who are facing a possible shellacking at the polls in November.They need to muddy the Republicans as much as possible. Just using the Jan 6 events as a political tool to damage as much as possible besides whatever the truth is. The same group that is crying about the Capitol are the ones the want to rewrite the Constitution, have no regard for the Supreme Court, get rid of the Electoral College, and end the US as a Republic.
This is the game. Just keep spreading lies about how evil the other side is. Then you can justify an attempted coup on the United States government if you believe the other side is even worse.

Funny that you’re pointing out people who want to get rid of the Electoral College. As if “wanting” to get rid of the Electoral Collage is worse than what Trump actually did. He pressured Pence to override the Electoral College. He approved a plan to have fake electors change the votes of the Electoral College. He had a violent mob march to the Capitol to stop the Electoral College vote count.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2022 12:56 PM by BroncoMinor.)
06-28-2022 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MajorHoople Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,245
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 176
I Root For: WMU Broncos
Location: Waldo, Read, Hyames
Post: #70
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
SCOTUS judges are approved by Senate - which means even the smallest states have same votes as the biggest.

President who did not win popular vote nominated two Justices that were approved.
06-28-2022 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Doo Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,016
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 36
I Root For: WMU
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-28-2022 12:44 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  
(06-28-2022 12:34 PM)Doo Wrote:  The role of SCOTUS is to uphold the constitution. The role of elected bodies is to determine rights not included in the document, and add to said document if needed. This ruling has only affirmed that. If the vast majority of the population would like to see the document amended then they can, and then the court will be required to rule differently.

You're not wrong. It's important to note though, the court already ruled on this issue 50 years ago. There was established precedent. And for the first time in US history, the court overturned a previous ruling. So what changed? What changed in the constitution over the last 50 years?

Far from the first time, a latter Supreme Court has reversed precedent of a previous Supreme Court. It’s happened several times, the most well known being how Brown v Board overturned the Plessy ruling. At the state level it’s happened more times than I can count.

I understand there are a lot of people who are mad at this ruling. But removing the details of the case what occurred is not an unprecedented event. It’s rare, certainly. Again I’ll state that if the vast majority of the nation disagrees with this interpretation there is a mechanism in place to rectify it. The court took nothing away that’s in the constitution, if anything it appears this court will be very strict in its interpretations. An amendment is the move here.
Those on the right excited today may not be in a couple years of an amendment has support. Those on the left might also be in for a wake up call, for years they’ve said that a vast majority supports Roe, if an amendment can’t be created we will all see that’s false.

Interesting to note it’s house Republicans that have offered up a 15 week ban, which would still make America one of the most lenient nations in the world on abortion. Will the house Dems go for it?
06-28-2022 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ColinApocalypse Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,968
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 111
I Root For: WMU
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Post: #72
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
Fair enough, I stand corrected. I was reading up on past instances of the court overturning previous rulings, and it was apparent that most of the landmark rulings were about protecting civil liberties and advancing the cause of human rights, as interpreted through the constitution. I don't think that their most recent ruling on Roe v. Wade advanced the well-being of the people of this country.

This ruling was a wake up call for a lot of people. And Clarence Thomas' concurrent opinion that the court should now revisit previous rulings about same-sex marriage, anti-sodomy laws, and the right to contraception, should be raising red flags everywhere. It's clear that the court is acting on political motivations. I wonder what Mr. Thomas thinks of Loving v. Virginia? Or do the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses only apply to certain cases?

Anyway, this is all somewhat off topic to the thread. I'm just afraid for this country. We were supposed to stand for freedom and opportunity. A place for the "wretched refuse" to call home. Now it seems like we're sliding back into right wing theocracy.
06-28-2022 07:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Doo Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,016
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 36
I Root For: WMU
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-28-2022 07:35 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  It's clear that the court is acting on political motivations.

Id wager the majority in this court view themselves as quite the opposite. They likely view themselves as the least politically motivated court in a very very very long time. Don’t confuse strict constitutional interpretation with a political motivation.

It seems quite clear that this court views itself as divesting this nation from previous activist decisions.

To Thomas’s concurring it seems quite clear to me that his point is many of those things are not within the realm of the federal jurisdiction but the responsibility of the states. The 10th Amendment is a stickler for those that prefer federal rules.
06-28-2022 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sketownguy Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 319
Joined: Feb 2010
Reputation: 5
I Root For: WMU
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-28-2022 04:43 PM)Doo Wrote:  
(06-28-2022 12:44 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  
(06-28-2022 12:34 PM)Doo Wrote:  The role of SCOTUS is to uphold the constitution. The role of elected bodies is to determine rights not included in the document, and add to said document if needed. This ruling has only affirmed that. If the vast majority of the population would like to see the document amended then they can, and then the court will be required to rule differently.

You're not wrong. It's important to note though, the court already ruled on this issue 50 years ago. There was established precedent. And for the first time in US history, the court overturned a previous ruling. So what changed? What changed in the constitution over the last 50 years?

Far from the first time, a latter Supreme Court has reversed precedent of a previous Supreme Court. It’s happened several times, the most well known being how Brown v Board overturned the Plessy ruling. At the state level it’s happened more times than I can count.

I understand there are a lot of people who are mad at this ruling. But removing the details of the case what occurred is not an unprecedented event. It’s rare, certainly. Again I’ll state that if the vast majority of the nation disagrees with this interpretation there is a mechanism in place to rectify it. The court took nothing away that’s in the constitution, if anything it appears this court will be very strict in its interpretations. An amendment is the move here.
Those on the right excited today may not be in a couple years of an amendment has support. Those on the left might also be in for a wake up call, for years they’ve said that a vast majority supports Roe, if an amendment can’t be created we will all see that’s false.

Interesting to note it’s house Republicans that have offered up a 15 week ban, which would still make America one of the most lenient nations in the world on abortion. Will the house Dems go for it?

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/supr...1656469577

Yep, 235 times the Supreme Court has reversed prior rulings. Sometimes courts get things wrong and they get corrected.
06-28-2022 09:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ColinApocalypse Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 9,968
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 111
I Root For: WMU
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Post: #75
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-28-2022 07:58 PM)Doo Wrote:  
(06-28-2022 07:35 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  It's clear that the court is acting on political motivations.

Id wager the majority in this court view themselves as quite the opposite. They likely view themselves as the least politically motivated court in a very very very long time. Don’t confuse strict constitutional interpretation with a political motivation.

It seems quite clear that this court views itself as divesting this nation from previous activist decisions.

To Thomas’s concurring it seems quite clear to me that his point is many of those things are not within the realm of the federal jurisdiction but the responsibility of the states. The 10th Amendment is a stickler for those that prefer federal rules.

I don't care how they view themselves, I'm calling a spade a spade. You're going to tell me Clarence Thomas of all people is an apolitical judge? His wife was at the Jan. 6 insurrection for God's sake.

I'm of the opinion that human rights aren't up for debate, and should be 100% protected at the national level. Are we really going to defend a system where the individual states get to decide whether people have equal rights or not? Just because some judges have a "stricter" interpretation of the constitution? Seems to me, this will just further divide the nation. We are no longer "united" states, we're just...states. We fought a damn war against ourselves about this same crap.

Legislative action needs to be taken.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2022 10:25 PM by ColinApocalypse.)
06-28-2022 10:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BroncoMinor Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,979
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 43
I Root For: WMU
Location: Michigan
Post: #76
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-28-2022 07:58 PM)Doo Wrote:  
(06-28-2022 07:35 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  It's clear that the court is acting on political motivations.

Id wager the majority in this court view themselves as quite the opposite. They likely view themselves as the least politically motivated court in a very very very long time. Don’t confuse strict constitutional interpretation with a political motivation.

It seems quite clear that this court views itself as divesting this nation from previous activist decisions.

To Thomas’s concurring it seems quite clear to me that his point is many of those things are not within the realm of the federal jurisdiction but the responsibility of the states. The 10th Amendment is a stickler for those that prefer federal rules.
Why did all the Conservative Supreme Court Justices lie during their confirmation hearings when asked if Roe v Wade is an established law of the land?
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2022 11:50 PM by BroncoMinor.)
06-28-2022 11:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BroncoMinor Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,979
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 43
I Root For: WMU
Location: Michigan
Post: #77
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-28-2022 10:24 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  
(06-28-2022 07:58 PM)Doo Wrote:  
(06-28-2022 07:35 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  It's clear that the court is acting on political motivations.

Id wager the majority in this court view themselves as quite the opposite. They likely view themselves as the least politically motivated court in a very very very long time. Don’t confuse strict constitutional interpretation with a political motivation.

It seems quite clear that this court views itself as divesting this nation from previous activist decisions.

To Thomas’s concurring it seems quite clear to me that his point is many of those things are not within the realm of the federal jurisdiction but the responsibility of the states. The 10th Amendment is a stickler for those that prefer federal rules.

I don't care how they view themselves, I'm calling a spade a spade. You're going to tell me Clarence Thomas of all people is an apolitical judge? His wife was at the Jan. 6 insurrection for God's sake.

I'm of the opinion that human rights aren't up for debate, and should be 100% protected at the national level. Are we really going to defend a system where the individual states get to decide whether people have equal rights or not? Just because some judges have a "stricter" interpretation of the constitution? Seems to me, this will just further divide the nation. We are no longer "united" states, we're just...states. We fought a damn war against ourselves about this same crap.

Legislative action needs to be taken.
Funny how Clarence left out interracial marriage when he listed all the court rulings he wanted to go after to return us to 1940s America.
06-28-2022 11:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Doo Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,016
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 36
I Root For: WMU
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
(06-28-2022 10:24 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  
(06-28-2022 07:58 PM)Doo Wrote:  
(06-28-2022 07:35 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  It's clear that the court is acting on political motivations.

Id wager the majority in this court view themselves as quite the opposite. They likely view themselves as the least politically motivated court in a very very very long time. Don’t confuse strict constitutional interpretation with a political motivation.

It seems quite clear that this court views itself as divesting this nation from previous activist decisions.

To Thomas’s concurring it seems quite clear to me that his point is many of those things are not within the realm of the federal jurisdiction but the responsibility of the states. The 10th Amendment is a stickler for those that prefer federal rules.

I don't care how they view themselves, I'm calling a spade a spade. You're going to tell me Clarence Thomas of all people is an apolitical judge? His wife was at the Jan. 6 insurrection for God's sake.

I'm of the opinion that human rights aren't up for debate, and should be 100% protected at the national level. Are we really going to defend a system where the individual states get to decide whether people have equal rights or not? Just because some judges have a "stricter" interpretation of the constitution? Seems to me, this will just further divide the nation. We are no longer "united" states, we're just...states. We fought a damn war against ourselves about this same crap.

Legislative action needs to be taken.
I mean you can come on a message board and say that, but that’s not the conversation or motivation being had in the chambers. What’s the core issue here is these justices don’t believe substantive due process is inherit in the constitution, and seem consistent in throwing out cases that have been decided on that fact. Since decisions by the court using substantive due process did not occur until the 1950’s (and without a change to the constitution to acknowledge it) there’s a pretty strong argument that it shouldn’t exist, and that your real beef is with courts who used it as a basis for law. For anyone whose stepped foot in a law class you know this debate has raged for a 100 years.
Again you want to make it political, it’s not, it’s about legal theory application or lack there of.
06-29-2022 05:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Motown Bronco Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,758
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation: 211
I Root For: WMU
Location: Metro Detroit
Post: #79
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
After all the bombshells at the 1/6 hearings yesterday, how is it that the Freep and Detroit News have practically nothing about it on their online front pages (at least for now)?

I don't think it's politically driven - Freep tends to editorially skew liberal, Detroit News conservative, but neither is hard core partisan.

Maybe it's still coming. But is it because we've become so numb to all this stuff, which would've been huge headlines just 10 years ago, that it's just back-page filler now?

I saw more coverage of Buick's quality ratings in some JD Power survey. I realize the local connection there, but some things feel a bit more pressing now...
06-29-2022 08:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GRBRONCO Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 30
I Root For: WMU
Location:
Post: #80
RE: Investigation of Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
Nobody really cares about the 1/6 investigation. Majority moved on over a year ago and aren't interested in the political theatre. Didn't they already have hearings on this the last time Trump was impeached?
06-29-2022 08:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.