(12-20-2022 12:12 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 10:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 10:14 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 09:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 07:47 PM)TripleA Wrote:  You think one being an attorney would cause one to reject this entire premise as a kangaroo court...

I take it as a committee making a criminal referral.

And I also take it as a bunch of folks who proclaimed loudly that 'Taint gonnner watch none uv dat' are now bitching about what evidence was presented. Which can be pretty humorous when you stop and think it through.

You have no idea how much I watched. A lot. Curious. But the fact the members were all one-sided with an agenda and no legit cross-examination, would make most attorneys dismiss it out of hand.

And again, Republicans threw a fit and walked out on the proceeding. If you are bitching about 'legit cross examination', there you go.

Second, nothing in the world, and I mean nothing, prevents Trump from putting forth *any* counter-evidence. Naww.... homey dont do that.

Third, there is no legal requirement for *any* cross-examination in a congressional proceeding.

Fourth, the only real effect of the congressional panel is in the ability to marshal evidence, and marshal it in a manner that is under the power of subpoena.

Fifth, the evidence that they gathered for the period preceding Jan 6 I found quite illuminating. The crapola legal theories, the floating of sua sponte simply 'not recognizing' slates of electors (apparently based on nothing), the chastisement from White House attorney Eric Hirschman about the buzzheads talking about inserting themselves into the Congressional in the aforementioned way that caused him to tell the guy baking up the plots 'Are you out of your effing mind? .... I am going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life -- get a great effing criminal defense lawyer, you're gonna need it.'

Quote:The fact that you don't tells me the outcome you want overrides your desire for the proceedings to be fair and legit.

Feel better now?

Quote:Not much of a solid reference for an attorney.

Im crushed, sparky. Simply crushed.

Brilliant comebacks.

My comments certainly led to a depth of substance response above I see. Lolz. Maybe respond to the substance instead of continuing the snively dreg might be a step in the right direction.

You whined about *why* I noted what I did, I responded in depth. Then you return and respond with a whine. Brilliant. Typical, but still brilliant. (/sarcasm off)

(12-19-2022 11:08 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 10:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 10:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 04:26 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

Democrats seem unable to distinguish between democrat and democracy.

And if a bunch of folks strolling around the capitol taking selfies is the biggest threat since the Civil War, then be not worried because there is no threat.

#s, what happened at the Capitol was pretty horrendous. Not an insurrection, not even close. But to characterize it en toto as 'a bunch if folks strolling around the capitol taking selfies' as as far from the mark as the term 'insurrection'.

How many informants and agents were on the grounds?

Where are all of the videos? 100% of them presented?

How much did the feds know beforehand?

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Gotta love the autonomic response of tinfoil hat stuff. Maybe lay off the Alex Jones for a tad.

(12-20-2022 12:22 AM)banker Wrote:  Under oath. Like that means something in front of Congress? Hillary Clinton lied under oath, what were the consequences? Brennan lied under oath, Clapper lied under oath, Comey lied under oath. What happened? What about Eric Holder?

What makes you think the J6 committee cared if anyone was actually telling the truth? The FBI investigated the matter and cleared Trump of involvement. Are you saying they covered for Trump or are just not as good at investigating as Liz?

I count 5 whadabouts above. Brilliant. Between the FBI conspiracy crap a mile deep, whadabouts, and non-sequitors -- you all have all those fields aced. I mean, if all you have to crutch on is those, man, I feel sorry for you.


Here is a whadabout -- what about something substantive for once?

Brittany Griner got a better hearing.

(12-20-2022 06:25 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Brittany Griner got a better hearing.

Well she got jail time. This is just an empty recommendation

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

(12-19-2022 07:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 07:07 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 04:22 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  What evidence do they have exactly?

Maybe if you take the time to actually watch the committee interviews you wouldnt be asking this question.

But..... naww..... You dont think it worthwhile to watch, then follow it up with an empty, rhetorical, rather stupid question that *you*, yourself, could take the time to look up.

God, this is funny...... Typical, but still funny.

So do us all a lawyerly solid and explain it to us.

Or, how about I just let you bask in the shining glory of your refusal to look it up? And at the same time complain that you dont know of any. That sounds like a far more entertaining outcome to me, honestly.....

^^^^^

Translation: I can't answer your question so I will divert the attention back on you.

Playground argument 101.

Hard to phantom they have any proof when No “Republicans “ were on the Jan 6th committee

(12-20-2022 03:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-20-2022 12:22 AM)banker Wrote:  Under oath. Like that means something in front of Congress? Hillary Clinton lied under oath, what were the consequences? Brennan lied under oath, Clapper lied under oath, Comey lied under oath. What happened? What about Eric Holder?
What makes you think the J6 committee cared if anyone was actually telling the truth? The FBI investigated the matter and cleared Trump of involvement. Are you saying they covered for Trump or are just not as good at investigating as Liz?

I count 5 whadabouts above. Brilliant. Between the FBI conspiracy crap a mile deep, whadabouts, and non-sequitors -- you all have all those fields aced. I mean, if all you have to crutch on is those, man, I feel sorry for you.
Here is a whadabout -- what about something substantive for once?

Tanq, we agree on most everything, but I look at all this January 6th stuff and all I see is a partisan witch hunt. I guess our differences start with your trusting the FBI and DOJ more than you trust Donald Trump, whereas I don't trust either of them.

**Yawn** So, is the partisan dog and pony show concluded? Well, at least this part?

(12-20-2022 09:01 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 07:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 07:07 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 04:22 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  What evidence do they have exactly?

Maybe if you take the time to actually watch the committee interviews you wouldnt be asking this question.

But..... naww..... You dont think it worthwhile to watch, then follow it up with an empty, rhetorical, rather stupid question that *you*, yourself, could take the time to look up.

God, this is funny...... Typical, but still funny.

So do us all a lawyerly solid and explain it to us.

Or, how about I just let you bask in the shining glory of your refusal to look it up? And at the same time complain that you dont know of any. That sounds like a far more entertaining outcome to me, honestly.....

^^^^^

Translation: I can't answer your question so I will divert the attention back on you.

Playground argument 101.

Real Translation #1: My comment was originally how the poster was 'aint gonna ever watch nothing of it', then his favorite retort is to ask 'what is the evidence'.

Thats the context, sparkles. Good grief.

Real Translation @2: Not just that, it isnt my job to keep anyone informed. Funny that.

Its kind of amazing how basic reasoning seems to be lacking from your response on either of those fronts.

NO partisan investigation has any integrity...I don't care which gang does it.

Merrick Garland's Justice Department Reviews J6 Committee Referrals and Tries to Sell You Beachfront Property Near Phoenix

Quote:The so-called January 6 Committee referred to the Department of Justice potential criminal charges committed during the course of the January 6 demonstration in Washington, DC; see BREAKING: January 6 Committee Refers Criminal Charges Against President Trump and Others. As was expected, President Trump figured prominently, including an evidence-free charge of “insurrection.” Because without “insurrection,” the January 6 Committee would have to admit to itself that it was a fraud perpetrated upon the nation and a colossal waste of time.

All of this, Politico assures us in a story headlined DOJ cares about the evidence, not the criminal referrals, was political theater. Now the steely-eyed defenders of Truth, Justice and the American Way at the Department of Justice will evaluate the findings.

The historic criminal referral the House Jan. 6 committee issued urging the Justice Department to pursue charges against President Donald Trump is unlikely to sway many minds among prosecutors already pursuing multiple investigations, former DOJ officials said.

Prosecutors are more interested in the thousands of pages of witness statements and other records gathered by the House panel over the past 15 months, current and former officials said.

“I’m sure the Attorney General will welcome any new evidence the committee sends over, but the authority to indict rests with the executive branch, not Congress,” said University of Baltimore Law School Dean Ronald Weich, a former DOJ liaison to Congress. “The decision of whether to bring criminal charges is solely within the purview of the Justice Department. I expect DOJ to respond courteously to the committee, but the referral will not change the outcome.”

…

Still, complications await prosecutors in both big and small cases as a result of the new criminal referrals and other issues stemming from the House probe. Defense attorneys may resume their requests for delays to digest evidence newly disclosed by the congressional panel. And some could argue that any future prosecution of Trump or others is the result of undue pressure from Congress, although derailing charges on those grounds will be an uphill battle.

The Justice Department has taken a discerning approach to earlier referrals from the Jan. 6 panel. Although the committee asked prosecutors to bring contempt charges against four individuals for failing to testify to the panel — Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, longtime Trump political strategist Steve Bannon and Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro — the Justice Department only charged Bannon and Navarro with contempt. A jury found Bannon guilty in July and he was sentenced to four months in prison, but is free pending appeal. Navarro is set to go to trial next month.

The headline is both true and deceptive. The true part is that the referrals from the January 6 clown show will have no impact at Justice. They know the nature of the people on that committee and the proceedings, as well as the rest of us. No one in the federal bureaucracy is going to make a career-endangering move based on something produced by Jamie Raskin and Liz Cheney. Literally, no one in DC is that stupid. The deceptive part is the narrative that Justice is carefully evaluating the evidence before making a decision. If you believe that you’ve not been paying attention to how Merrick Garland’s Justice Department operates. It is a political hit squad for the Democrat party. Its actions are based solely upon political expediency. This is the bunch that raided Mar-a-Lago and allowed FBI agents to sniff their way through Melania Trump’s underwear drawer. These are the people who sent a SWAT team to serve a search warrant and then leaked bodycam footage showing the victim, former Justice official Jeffrey Clark, handcuffed in his boxer shorts just to humiliate him.

These are the people who invented the Gretchen Whitmer “kidnapping,” who employed at least 80 FBI agents (see How Many Former FBI Officials Are Working at Twitter? It’s Astonishing) to suppress Twitter posts damaging to Democrats, and who tracked down retirees to arrest them for essentially jaywalking at the US Capitol on January 6.

The referrals received from the January 6 Committee will only be the opening act. I don’t agree very often with any of the goobers who have such a feeling of inferiority that they appear on CNN, but this guy is right.

Donald Trump will be indicted on multiple counts based on the January 6 ruckus. A Democrat grand jury in Fulton County, GA, will indict him for his role in trying to change Georgia’s vote. A New York grand jury will indict him on issues surrounding the Trump Organization. In all cases, he will tried by a rabidly Democrat jury, and he will be convicted. You can also bet that these trials will be timed to occur during the 2024 primary.

(12-20-2022 06:23 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Merrick Garland's Justice Department Reviews J6 Committee Referrals and Tries to Sell You Beachfront Property Near Phoenix

Quote:The so-called January 6 Committee referred to the Department of Justice potential criminal charges committed during the course of the January 6 demonstration in Washington, DC; see BREAKING: January 6 Committee Refers Criminal Charges Against President Trump and Others. As was expected, President Trump figured prominently, including an evidence-free charge of “insurrection.” Because without “insurrection,” the January 6 Committee would have to admit to itself that it was a fraud perpetrated upon the nation and a colossal waste of time.

All of this, Politico assures us in a story headlined DOJ cares about the evidence, not the criminal referrals, was political theater. Now the steely-eyed defenders of Truth, Justice and the American Way at the Department of Justice will evaluate the findings.

The historic criminal referral the House Jan. 6 committee issued urging the Justice Department to pursue charges against President Donald Trump is unlikely to sway many minds among prosecutors already pursuing multiple investigations, former DOJ officials said.

Prosecutors are more interested in the thousands of pages of witness statements and other records gathered by the House panel over the past 15 months, current and former officials said.

“I’m sure the Attorney General will welcome any new evidence the committee sends over, but the authority to indict rests with the executive branch, not Congress,” said University of Baltimore Law School Dean Ronald Weich, a former DOJ liaison to Congress. “The decision of whether to bring criminal charges is solely within the purview of the Justice Department. I expect DOJ to respond courteously to the committee, but the referral will not change the outcome.”

…

Still, complications await prosecutors in both big and small cases as a result of the new criminal referrals and other issues stemming from the House probe. Defense attorneys may resume their requests for delays to digest evidence newly disclosed by the congressional panel. And some could argue that any future prosecution of Trump or others is the result of undue pressure from Congress, although derailing charges on those grounds will be an uphill battle.

The Justice Department has taken a discerning approach to earlier referrals from the Jan. 6 panel. Although the committee asked prosecutors to bring contempt charges against four individuals for failing to testify to the panel — Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, longtime Trump political strategist Steve Bannon and Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro — the Justice Department only charged Bannon and Navarro with contempt. A jury found Bannon guilty in July and he was sentenced to four months in prison, but is free pending appeal. Navarro is set to go to trial next month.

The headline is both true and deceptive. The true part is that the referrals from the January 6 clown show will have no impact at Justice. They know the nature of the people on that committee and the proceedings, as well as the rest of us. No one in the federal bureaucracy is going to make a career-endangering move based on something produced by Jamie Raskin and Liz Cheney. Literally, no one in DC is that stupid. The deceptive part is the narrative that Justice is carefully evaluating the evidence before making a decision. If you believe that you’ve not been paying attention to how Merrick Garland’s Justice Department operates. It is a political hit squad for the Democrat party. Its actions are based solely upon political expediency. This is the bunch that raided Mar-a-Lago and allowed FBI agents to sniff their way through Melania Trump’s underwear drawer. These are the people who sent a SWAT team to serve a search warrant and then leaked bodycam footage showing the victim, former Justice official Jeffrey Clark, handcuffed in his boxer shorts just to humiliate him.

These are the people who invented the Gretchen Whitmer “kidnapping,” who employed at least 80 FBI agents (see How Many Former FBI Officials Are Working at Twitter? It’s Astonishing) to suppress Twitter posts damaging to Democrats, and who tracked down retirees to arrest them for essentially jaywalking at the US Capitol on January 6.

The referrals received from the January 6 Committee will only be the opening act. I don’t agree very often with any of the goobers who have such a feeling of inferiority that they appear on CNN, but this guy is right.

Donald Trump will be indicted on multiple counts based on the January 6 ruckus. A Democrat grand jury in Fulton County, GA, will indict him for his role in trying to change Georgia’s vote. A New York grand jury will indict him on issues surrounding the Trump Organization. In all cases, he will tried by a rabidly Democrat jury, and he will be convicted. You can also bet that these trials will be timed to occur during the 2024 primary.

oh lookie ...

does it come with a side of 'reparations'...

I live in dumbfk-landia...