January 6th committee hearings

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

To me this looks like she is punting because of the coming election and this being too hot to handle.

Wouldn't this be jurisdiction of the feds, though?

Both the State and the Federal level have possible broken laws.

Trapper Gus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Wouldn't this be jurisdiction of the feds, though?

Both the State and the Federal level have possible broken laws.

Seems to make sense to let the Feds take the lead. They'll have the best resources. Let them do the leg work and if they uncover state crimes as well, then the the state can pursue it.

Just read that some members of the Gravy Seals had contacted the Capitol Police asking about lost and found items and this is how some of them were identified.

[tw]1432470686509977600?s=21[/tw]

All 700 pages supposedly?

[tw]1483942051674824704?s=21[/tw]

Biden coming ...

kingstonlake wrote:All 700 pages supposedly?

[tw]1483942051674824704?s=21[/tw]

I have a feeling the results will be underwhelming and he's been trolling us the entire time. Teflon Don...

Motown Spartan wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:All 700 pages supposedly?

[tw]1483942051674824704?s=21[/tw]

I have a feeling the results will be underwhelming and he's been trolling us the entire time. Teflon Don...

Based on what has come out so far ...

Trump & company having a "war room" to manage events on 01/06

Oath-keepers units storming the Capital military assault style, two separate units ...

Rapid Respose Oath Keepers. planning to assault and hold the Capital for 30 days ...

There might be more than you think ...

Trapper Gus wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

I have a feeling the results will be underwhelming and he's been trolling us the entire time. Teflon Don...

Based on what has come out so far ...

Trump & company having a "war room" to manage events on 01/06

Oath-keepers units storming the Capital military assault style, two separate units ...

Rapid Respose Oath Keepers. planning to assault and hold the Capital for 30 days ...

There might be more than you think ...

Yeah, I hope I'm wrong, but Trump and his cronies aren't as dumb as we all tend to think he is. He does a good job of dodging personal responsibility by being so slimy and insulating himself in some way, shape, or form. He's likely built in some plausible deniability.

Motown Spartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Based on what has come out so far ...

Trump & company having a "war room" to manage events on 01/06

Oath-keepers units storming the Capital military assault style, two separate units ...

Rapid Respose Oath Keepers. planning to assault and hold the Capital for 30 days ...

There might be more than you think ...

Yeah, I hope I'm wrong, but Trump and his cronies aren't as dumb as we all tend to think he is. He does a good job of dodging personal responsibility by being so slimy and insulating himself in some way, shape, or form. He's likely built in some plausible deniability.

Which is why these documents have some importance.

Based upon what has been reported there are already documents which tie this thing together, the people investigating already know that Trump et al tried to subvert the EC count to keep Trump as President.

What the general public didn't know, but now it has been reported, is the lengths the planning went.

The plan was an armed assault on Congress to stop the EC count, followed by a declaration of martial law by Trump, and the distortion of the voting records of the election.

Few, believe except those with the actual data, the 01/06 commission knows ...

74 million people 100% approve of what happened on January 6th. That's the real problem

kingstonlake wrote:74 million people 100% approve of what happened on January 6th. That's the real problem

No, they don't.

Most of them are ignorant as to what was planned.

Trapper Gus wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:74 million people 100% approve of what happened on January 6th. That's the real problem

No, they don't.

Most of them are ignorant as to what was planned.

Yeah, they seem super constitutionalist-y

kingstonlake wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

No, they don't.

Most of them are ignorant as to what was planned.

Yeah, they seem super constitutionalist-y

Thinking that everyone that votes for Trump approves of everything that he says/does, especially after the election, makes little sense. Especially coming from someone who has been pretty critical of the guy that he voted for himself. The polls certainly don't show the level of approval that you indicate.

Also keep in mind that the many of Trump's supporters truly and honestly believe that those weren't Trump supporters at all, but rather Democrat operatives and/or Antifa. Millions more believe that "it was no big deal", that "they were tourists", that they were "peaceful", and other lies that they hear from FoxNews, OAN, etc.

It is actually a pretty small percentage of Trump voters that support the actual events of Jan 6. The fact that most of his voters believe one more obvious lies about it is a separate issue.

I don't know Miami. He told the world only fraud could defeat him. He Set the stage for Jan 6th. They might not approve but I have a feeling it's not a disqualifier.

kingstonlake wrote:I don't know Miami. He told the world only fraud could defeat him. He Set the stage for Jan 6th. They might not approve but I have a feeling it's not a disqualifier.

But they don't believe any of that. They believe that fraud DID stop him, and they believe that Jan 6 wasn't what we all know it was. This is at the root of so many problems. As a country, we can't have a meaningful discussion, or know where people stand, when one group is operating with a different set of facts.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:I don't know Miami. He told the world only fraud could defeat him. He Set the stage for Jan 6th. They might not approve but I have a feeling it's not a disqualifier.

But they don't believe any of that.  They believe that fraud DID stop him, and they believe that Jan 6 wasn't what we all know it was.  This is at the root of so many problems.  As a country, we can't have a meaningful discussion, or know where people stand, when one group is operating with a different set of facts.  

Trump's support numbers are dropping and part of that is because all the things he and his team were doing in a coordinated way to try to game the EC counting in Congress are coming out.  

Not the only reason his numbers are dropping but they are part of it.  

That there were actions going on in secret but coordinated, such as Republicans in 7 states trying to stir up controversy by sending fraudulent EC votes to Congress and the planning and execution of a military attack on the Capital as the crowd was distracting the Capital Police are both known and it is known by the pointy-head media types, which even if they don't say it daily, colors their reporting going forward.

Does this go here? Is this the thread where we put the GOP tried to steal America stuff?

A draft executive order prepared for former President Donald Trump and obtained Friday by Politico would have authorized the secretary of defense to send National Guard troops to seize voting machines around the country in the weeks following the 2020 election.

The order, which was never signed by Trump, also would have appointed a special counsel "to institute all criminal and civil proceedings as appropriate based on the evidence collected," and calls on the defense secretary to release an assessment 60 days after the action started, which would have been well after Trump was slated to leave office on Jan. 20.

The Politico article includes a facsimile of the full order, but does not say how the news organization obtained the document or whose possession it was in.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-draft-executive-order-would-have-authorized-national-guard-seize-n1287841

Turtleneck wrote:Does this go here? Is this the thread where we put the GOP tried to steal America stuff?

A draft executive order prepared for former President Donald Trump and obtained Friday by Politico would have authorized the secretary of defense to send National Guard troops to seize voting machines around the country in the weeks following the 2020 election.

The order, which was never signed by Trump, also would have appointed a special counsel "to institute all criminal and civil proceedings as appropriate based on the evidence collected," and calls on the defense secretary to release an assessment 60 days after the action started, which would have been well after Trump was slated to leave office on Jan. 20.

The Politico article includes a facsimile of the full order, but does not say how the news organization obtained the document or whose possession it was in.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-draft-executive-order-would-have-authorized-national-guard-seize-n1287841

This is getting nuts.

Doesn't matter. His supporters will say he never signed it and it was a contingency plan in case fraud was found. Not even close to hurting his standing with the base. If anything they'll think it projects strength.

We were incredibly close to the edge, more than most people realize or are willing to admit. At this point, still supporting him is tantamount to supporting his efforts to erase democracy and install himself for a second term.

kingstonlake wrote:Doesn't matter. His supporters will say he never signed it and it was a contingency plan in case fraud was found. Not even close to hurting his standing with the base. If anything they'll think it projects strength.

I guess the legitimate question is who drafted it, and under whose direction. We know that Michael Flynn had advocated this very thing, and IIRC Meadows and some others talked Trump out of considering that. So it is important to know the who behind this.

It is also worth noting that whoever did write this and order that it be written is extremely dumb. The president does not have authority over the National Guard unless the authority is granted to him by the state's governor. So that may point to it not being legitimately discussed and just written on a whim. Though there was no shortage of people in that administration that thought a president has more authority than he does (including Trump himself).

So this could have never worked, but it doesn't change the severity of it being considered. As Turtleneck said, supporting him is tantamount to supporting his efforts to erase democracy (even, as I said earlier, most don't believe that's the case...ignorance is not a defence). Especially with the Rs in Congress that support him, as they do know the truth and work to hide that truth from the masses. They are not Republicans by definition. They are Seditionists.

The federal indictments for the Oath Keepers are chilling ...

First, they had two platoons of shock troops who were the ones who broke into the Capital first, on the side opposite the crowd, in an organized military manner. This is the same way that the attackers at Benghazi attacked, using the crowd as a distraction.

Next, they had armed units waiting for an order to move which never came who were prepared to hold the Capital building for 30 days and had the food and arms to do so.

All created due to how Trump and his band of traitors were operating.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Doesn't matter. His supporters will say he never signed it and it was a contingency plan in case fraud was found. Not even close to hurting his standing with the base. If anything they'll think it projects strength.

I guess the legitimate question is who drafted it, and under whose direction. We know that Michael Flynn had advocated this very thing, and IIRC Meadows and some others talked Trump out of considering that. So it is important to know the who behind this.

It is also worth noting that whoever did write this and order that it be written is extremely dumb. The president does not have authority over the National Guard unless the authority is granted to him by the state's governor. So that may point to it not being legitimately discussed and just written on a whim. Though there was no shortage of people in that administration that thought a president has more authority than he does (including Trump himself).

So this could have never worked, but it doesn't change the severity of it being considered. As Turtleneck said, supporting him is tantamount to supporting his efforts to erase democracy (even, as I said earlier, most don't believe that's the case...ignorance is not a defence). Especially with the Rs in Congress that support him, as they do know the truth and work to hide that truth from the masses. They are not Republicans by definition. They are Seditionists.

The Washington DC guard is somewhat different, I believe. One of the reasons it was not activated sooner was supposedly the Pentagon was concerned that once in the field the President was its CIC and to order whatever he liked. Thus his plan was to get the NG active and then order it to join the succession.

Trapper Gus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

I guess the legitimate question is who drafted it, and under whose direction. We know that Michael Flynn had advocated this very thing, and IIRC Meadows and some others talked Trump out of considering that. So it is important to know the who behind this.

It is also worth noting that whoever did write this and order that it be written is extremely dumb. The president does not have authority over the National Guard unless the authority is granted to him by the state's governor. So that may point to it not being legitimately discussed and just written on a whim. Though there was no shortage of people in that administration that thought a president has more authority than he does (including Trump himself).

So this could have never worked, but it doesn't change the severity of it being considered. As Turtleneck said, supporting him is tantamount to supporting his efforts to erase democracy (even, as I said earlier, most don't believe that's the case...ignorance is not a defence). Especially with the Rs in Congress that support him, as they do know the truth and work to hide that truth from the masses. They are not Republicans by definition. They are Seditionists.

The Washington DC guard is somewhat different, I believe. One of the reasons it was not activated sooner was supposedly the Pentagon was concerned that once in the field the President was its CIC and to order whatever he liked. Thus his plan was to get the NG active and then order it to join the succession.

Yes, the DC national guard is different, which came into play on Jan 6, but of course, wouldn't have helped with the plan to seize ballot boxes.

Damn, it's still surreal to write sentences like that as something that was actually discussed in the oval office. A plan to seize ballot boxes discussed with the President. Sometimes it just hits me that this happened and wasn't a plot of some movie that requires suspension of disbelief.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The Washington DC guard is somewhat different, I believe.  One of the reasons it was not activated sooner was supposedly the Pentagon was concerned that once in the field the President was its CIC and to order whatever he liked.  Thus his plan was to get the NG active and then order it to join the succession.

Yes, the DC national guard is different, which came into play on Jan 6, but of course, wouldn't have helped with the plan to seize ballot boxes.

Damn, it's still surreal to write sentences like that as something that was actually discussed in the oval office.  A plan to seize ballot boxes discussed with the President.  Sometimes it just hits me that this happened and wasn't a plot of some movie that requires suspension of disbelief.

Pretty sure once the NG of any state can be called up and commanded by the President, though the Pentagon.  There was a recent court case about vaccinations where the courts ruled that the US Military could require State NG troops be vaccinated due to the Federal/State combined oversight on the NG.

edit - thinking an evoking of a national emergency would put the NG at the President's command.

I believe there was debate about that, and it may have had to do with the Insurrection Act (I forget exactly), but this is how the law is written that I could find:

the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

So a governor should be able to refuse the Preaident's request.

I guess at that point we'd be in a real Constitutional crisis. But then the question would become if the NG would follow the orders that were such an obvious coup attempt. I doubt it, at least not at the senior level.

MiamiSpartan wrote:I believe there was debate about that, and it may have had to do with the Insurrection Act (I forget exactly), but this is how the law is written that I could find:

the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

So a governor should be able to refuse the Preaident's request.

I guess at that point we'd be in a real Constitutional crisis.  But then the question would become if the NG would follow the orders that were such an obvious coup attempt.  I doubt it, at least not at the senior level.

No.  Between the Acts of Congress which created the NG and the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution the Federal Government is the sovereign and thus the President in a national emergency has command.

edit - your argument is the one that the court overruled.

Which court ruling was that? Not questioning it, just curious, as I can't find a recent thing about that. But it is my understanding that the national emergency must be Congressionally sanctioned as such (i.e., a war), and not just a president declaring a state of emergency.

MiamiSpartan wrote:Which court ruling was that? Not questioning it, just curious, as I can't find a recent thing about that. But it is my understanding that the national emergency must be Congressionally sanctioned as such (i.e., a war), and not just a president declaring a state of emergency.

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/judge-rules-against-gov-kevin-003148605.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-01-08/what-is-a-national-emergency-and-when-can-a-president-legally-declare-one

The first link is about vaccines, not about deploying force.  Payment, healthcare, etc. for national guard members is set federally (though states may ne able to supplement that, I think), so it makes sense that vaccines would fall under that.  Very different than deployment of force which has its own rules.

The second article is about declaring a national emergency, which of course the president can do, but says nothing about deploying forces against the will of governors (or if it does, I missed it, which is possible).  Again, deployment if forces have separate rules.

In 2007, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed a law giving the President power to call up the National Guard easily without Governor approval and without Congressional approval.  In 2008, that law was repealed. That's the most recent thing related to deployment.

At most, they would have tried to do it under the Insurrection Act, though that provides nothing close to clear cut authority that would apply in the case of confiscating ballot boxes, and I don't believe the NGs would just jump at such a legally dubious order (conflicting with their governors' orders, who are their primary authority) without question.  It would require debate, Supreme Court cases, etc.

[tw]1485347175148175366?s=20[/tw]

Scaling the walls of the Capitol building, trashing the offices of elected members of Congress and threatening lives is now “legitimate political discourse”.

[tw]1489670105768370177[/tw]

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:Scaling the walls of the Capitol building, trashing the offices of elected members of Congress and threatening lives is now “legitimate political discourse”.

[tw]1489670105768370177[/tw]

disgusting.

every member of the GOP and every single person that votes for someone representing this 'new' version of the Republican party is pure trash. Just incomprehensible pieces of filth.

This is part of a long-term plan by the groups funded and fronted by Koch Inc.

Their plan is to overthrow the existing form of government and replace it by one they totally control.

It isn't a secret. They have said it and serious investigative reporters have followed the breadcrumbs for years and published their plans. Yet nobody seems to care.

Americans are very stupid.

Yup, they’re not even “feelers” anymore. Vote for us and we’ll never cede power. Have even seen the other side of the aisle? Is that what you really want Amerika to look like?

Not that it matters anymore.

[tw]1491812239128604676?s=21[/tw]