Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

The credibility was already questionable. They havent mentioned trump's request for the national guard or his request for a peaceful march. Jim Jordan would have asked some critical questions but this testimony has zero push back. I hope merrick files charges so there can be some actual arguments.

 

Here are her comments from the article itself, and also a picture, which is also included in the article:

"I had been the most strident and loyal Hillary supporter, a well-known blue-check on Twitter. I was also one of the first Biden supporters early in 2019. Here is a picture of me at an early fundraiser on May 8th, 2019:"

​

I do not see this other information that you mentioned, but she seems to be not only a Democrat, but a pretty well connected and well known in Democrat circles as well.

And she is right about what she has to say about this soviet style show trial also,

 

well I've been assured these hearings have clinched it for a future prosecution. Then Trump can never hold office again.

 

Jim Jordan is potential subject of the investigation and wanted a pardon from Trump showing he knows that he's subject to criminal charges. Only criminals request pardons.

 

umm, sort of, maybe. not really.

Five myths about presidential pardons
To get one, do you have to be convicted first?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...447f84-69ba-11e8-bf8c-f9ed2e672adf_story.html

excerpt:

Pardons are only for guilty people; accepting one is an admission of guilt.

In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Over the years, many have come to see a necessary relationship between a pardon and guilt. Ford carried the Burdick quote in his wallet, defending the Nixon pardon by noting that it established Nixon’s guilt. More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump’s pardon.

But Burdick was about a different issue: the ability to turn down a pardon. The language about imputing and confessing guilt was just an aside — what lawyers call dicta. The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one. But pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt.

Indeed, in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people. This was Trump’s rationale for posthumously pardoning boxer Jack Johnson, the victim of a racially based railroading in 1913. Ford pardoned Iva Toguri d’Aquino (World War II’s “Tokyo Rose”) after “60 Minutes” revealed that she was an innocent victim of prosecutors who suborned perjured testimony in her treason case. President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger because he thought the former defense secretary, indicted in the Iran-contra affair, was a victim of “the criminalization of policy differences.” If the president pardons you because he thinks you are innocent, what guilt could accepting that pardon possibly admit?


​

 

Trump didn't request national guard for Jan 6th.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/ja...l-on-jan-6-but-pence-did-js5yUaivfa2Yz5QCZ77p

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...s-to-help-defend-capitol-on-jan-6-panel-says/

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...dence-pelosi-rejected-trumps-authorization-2/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-request-10000-guard-troops-jan-6/8929215002/

Surely, Jim Jordan would have tried to present the false claim that Trump wanted National guard there. But having a guy up there spreading lies isn't really a defense.

 

Just want to say that I wasn't saying he was convicted. But he did ask for one ahead of time.

 

I got that, but there's nothing specifically about requesting a pardon that indicates guilt. One could conceivably just be trying to "cover all the bases" I imagine. And I haven't followed the post- Jan 6 "requests" for pardons, I basically have no idea who requested them or for what purpose

 

Well it isn't proof of guilt, but it might definitely be an indication of one.

 

mustard in the news

EYE ON THE NEWS
Parable of the Mustard Greed
Shortages of the condiment in France lead to suspicion and rumor, illustrating a timeless human tendency.

https://www.city-journal.org/frances-dijon-mustard-shortage-and-the-ukraine-war

excerpt:

Among myriad smaller consequences of that war is an acute mustard shortage in France. Mustard has all but disappeared from supermarket shelves, having first increased in price dramatically. This has surprised everyone who lazily assumed that Dijon mustard came from Dijon. Why should a war waged in Ukraine lead to the disappearance of mustard throughout France? After all, the famous brands, familiar to everyone, proudly announce on their labels that they are Dijon mustard. Can there be anything more French than Dijon mustard?

Perhaps the mustard is elaborated in Dijon, but the mustard seed, it turns out to everyone’s surprise, is imported from Canada and Ukraine. Apparently, Canada has seen a disastrous harvest of mustard seed, while there is no need to explain the shortage in Ukraine. Dijon mustard is about as local to Dijon as a modern soccer team is local to the city in which it has its stadium.

What is striking about this mustard crisis, unimportant except to those trying to make a proper vinaigrette or lapin à la moutarde, is its revelation of a perennial aspect of social psychology: namely, a resort to conspiracy theory. For some say that there is not really any mustard shortage at all—that mustard has disappeared from supermarket shelves because the supermarket chains are hoarding it, that they have a plentiful supply in their warehouses and will release it little by little, thereby profiteering by the resultant high prices. The war in Ukraine is only a pretext.

This is an old, indeed medieval, trope in times of shortage. There may well have been times, of course, when people really did hoard for the purposes of profiteering, but people rarely hoard something that is in abundant supply.
​

more at the link

 

That's awesome, though Dijon mustard is a bastardization of real mustard.

 

guessing you're a French's yellow kind of guy

I grew up about a mile from the plant where Gulden's brown mustard was made. The whole neighborhood smelled mustardy.

 

Yes, yellow mustard, except on some recipes. Then Dijon or Gulden's Brown make it better.

But I can't imagine being inundated with that smell day in and day out.

 

Just a little more?

So trying to overthrow the gov or doing away with precedent like Roe is just a little worse than being a p***y?

Really?

 

It'd seem to me that if they'd moved decisively against him on the second impeachment, they could have neutralized him as a competitor. He'd already lost the presidency by then, and the rest of the Republicans would have been free to run for the presidential nomination in an open race. So why didn't they? Too dumb to see the opportunity? Too afraid they'd fail and suffer retribution? Stuck in a prisoner's dilemma in which they'd only be willing to stick their necks out if they knew everyone was already doing so? Afraid the Republican Party can't be competitive without Trump? I guess it goes to show what I know, because it seemed to me like the best move at the time but obviously there were considerations that forced them away from doing so.

But Republicans stonewalled the committee, so he can't. So sad.

She didn't say much of anything about Soviet show trials. Didn't mention how the accused were shot at the end, or how they were tortured to get confessions, how their families were threatened, how the accused made scripted statements on camera for international dissemination under threat of torture like an ISIS hostage. Doesn't explain how Soviet show trials weren't excesses of one party against another, but a power grab but one man against his own party members who literally ruled alongside him. And she didn't find modern corollaries for how enemies of the Revolution would be disappeared, how people who would talk to a disgraced member would themselves risk getting arrested by secret police, how even the faces of those on the outs would be erased from photographs, how families were forced to disavow their own sons or husbands, how many trials were not show trials but secret trials at the end of which political enemies would be sentenced to death and quickly executed without so much as a body to return to loved ones. No parallel to how Stalin would send hitmen even into foreign countries to kill his political adversaries. A Stalin show trial without the real threat that he was going to murder you with impunity isn't much of a Stalin show trial. The more I think about it, the more offensively stupid the comparison is.

What this hearing looks like to me is like most boring-ass House committee meetings, except the details are more salacious and weighty. No one is being tried. No one is even being impeached. No one will be taken to a prison basement at the end and summarily shot. The House is trying to paint a complete picture of what happened. If the DOJ follows these arguments, maybe someone like Meadows or Trump will be formally indicted, and they'll be able to have their own lawyers cross witnesses, present arguments and all that stuff. Just because these proceedings don't mirror criminal proceedings though doesn't mean the procedure is invalid. They have a different purpose, and the form follows the function.

 

That is blatantly false. Not only do I not believe that, I do not believe that you believe it either.

 

Mojo has a point. As far as I know, there has been no examination of the role of any police force--nor as far as I know is there ANY planned systematic examination of any police force--in their actions leading up to and following the Jan 6 riots. That's both nearly unimaginable as well as unconscionable.

Imagine in the followup to the Uvalde school shooting there was a "hearing" and no examination of how the police acted that day.

 

“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”

-John Stuart Mill