Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[Endus]

I heard he's a boxer, he should challenge them to a few matches.

That literally happened once already, actually.

Trudeau beat the shit out of the guy.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5384...t-of-a-senator

[Edge-]

What the fuck does shitting and pissing on the floors of the Capitol building, which literally happened, have to do with "political discourse"?

To piggyback off this: Does this mean it is "legitimate political discourse" if we break into Republican offices or Republican held state Capitol buildings and piss and shit on the floors?

Because that's the takeaway I'm getting from this. Am I wrong? Can someone clarify?

- - - Updated - - -

That literally happened once already, actually.

Trudeau beat the shit out of the guy.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5384...t-of-a-senator

That's precisely what I was referencing : )

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/weareoversight/s...30310555869190

YO, WHAT ARE SCOTUS JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS AND FL GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS CHATTING ABOUT?

I get that Ginni would communicate with him given her political lobbying firm - which honestly is a huge conflict of interest for a spouse of a SCOTUS Justice and should force Thomas's recusal from a wide range of opinions as happens in lower courts, but that's a discussion for another day - but what are DeSantis and Thomas chatting about?

Posting here because we know Ginni Thomas was involved in planning, funding, and bussing people to the insurrection.

[PhaelixWW]

That literally happened once already, actually.

Trudeau beat the shit out of the guy.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5384...t-of-a-senator

You can practically hear the guy in Trudeau's corner after the first round saying "Dummy, you've got reach on him! Don't let him get that close! Use those jabs at distance!"

[wunksta]

YO, WHAT ARE SCOTUS JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS AND FL GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS CHATTING ABOUT?

Probably something along the lines of 'no recollection' and 'do not recall'.

[Edge-]

Probably something along the lines of 'no recollection' and 'do not recall'.

Because somehow testimony from 15 years ago from a former Bush Jr. AG continues to be the boilerplate response for Republicans when asked anything under oath.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...memory-1472661

And in general, because the Trump administration had a widespread problem with members of their administration being unable to recall anything.

[Poopymonster]

What the fuck does shitting and pissing on the floors of the Capitol building, which literally happened, have to do with "political discourse"?

Man, when do we get to start bashing fashies. Everyone should support bashing fashies, and Republicans are increasingly acting like fashies. I wish they'd stop, but I can't control them and their party.

They were probably quoting Trump. Verbatim.

[Edge-]

https://www.newsweek.com/jim-jordan-...s-show-1676483

Jim Jordan may have a bad memory and can't remember if he spoke to Trump on Jan. 6, but phone records from the White House don't require one.

They spoke, Trump called him and they had a 10 minute discussion. I wonder what they talked about, since SCOTUS has ruled that Trump doesn't have privilege as an ex-president, and Biden has waived that privilege.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-lo...tive-privilege

Granted that was for archives, and I imagine Gym Jordan will fight like hell to avoid having to share what was discussed, but this seems like precedent that ex-presidents cannot exert executive privilege, only current presidents can.

[Ripster42]

Granted that was for archives, and I imagine Gym Jordan will fight like hell to avoid having to share what was discussed, but this seems like precedent that ex-presidents cannot exert executive privilege, only current presidents can.

Not quite what the ruling said. Former presidents can still claim executive privilege. It does not, however, overrule the current president's decision to release that information anyway, and the current president can overrule the former only where the current president deems there to be "compelling need", that continued obfuscation "isn't in the best interests of the united states", the information cannot be... you know what, I'll just quote the pertinent passage:

More specifically, the former President has failed to
establish a likelihood of success given (1) President Biden’s
carefully reasoned and cabined determination that a claim of
executive privilege is not in the interests of the United States;
(2) Congress’s uniquely vital interest in studying the January
6th attack on itself to formulate remedial legislation and to
safeguard its constitutional and legislative operations; (3) the
demonstrated relevance of the documents at issue to the
congressional inquiry; (4) the absence of any identified
alternative source for the information; and (5) Mr. Trump’s
failure even to allege, let alone demonstrate, any particularized
harm that would arise from disclosure, any distinct and
superseding interest in confidentiality attached to these
particular documents, lack of relevance, or any other reasoned
justification for withholding the documents. Former President
Trump likewise has failed to establish irreparable harm, and the
6
balance of interests and equities weigh decisively in favor of
disclosure.2

[gondrin]

Not quite what the ruling said. Former presidents can still claim executive privilege. It does not, however, overrule the current president's decision to release that information anyway, and the current president can overrule the former only where the current president deems there to be "compelling need", that continued obfuscation "isn't in the best interests of the united states", the information cannot be... you know what, I'll just quote the pertinent passage:

A Former president cannot claim Executive Privilege because anything that is considered Presidential Communications belongs to the government, not the person. It belongs to the National Archives which, since it is an Independent Agency, can release documents if subpoenaed by another governing body regardless of what a prior Head of State wants. The only reason why they didn't with Trump is because he had sued them and during a lawsuit, most entities generally sit on their hands until a ruling happens.

This was proven with Nixon, Bush, and now Trump. Former Presidents are NOT part of the government so they cannot assert anything other then a Secret Service detail.

[Endus]

A Former president cannot claim Executive Privilege because anything that is considered Presidential Communications belongs to the government, not the person. It belongs to the National Archives which, since it is an Independent Agency, can release documents if subpoenaed by another governing body regardless of what a prior Head of State wants. The only reason why they didn't with Trump is because he had sued them and during a lawsuit, most entities generally sit on their hands until a ruling happens.

This was proven with Nixon, Bush, and now Trump. Former Presidents are NOT part of the government so they cannot assert anything other then a Secret Service detail.

Even if they legally could, all it should take is the current President saying "Nah" to deny that privilege. Whatever a past President is trying to hide, the current President should have the authority to overrule and release, and there shouldn't be any further recourse for that past President. No legal barrier they could throw up. Just Biden saying "Pfff, fuck him, release all that to the committee, thanks." Not even an executive order, just a verbal statement.

[Ripster42]

A Former president cannot claim Executive Privilege because anything that is considered Presidential Communications belongs to the government, not the person. It belongs to the National Archives which, since it is an Independent Agency, can release documents if subpoenaed by another governing body regardless of what a prior Head of State wants. The only reason why they didn't with Trump is because he had sued them and during a lawsuit, most entities generally sit on their hands until a ruling happens.

This was proven with Nixon, Bush, and now Trump. Former Presidents are NOT part of the government so they cannot assert anything other then a Secret Service detail.

Yes, they can. They just don't overrule the current president in certain situations. Read what I linked. That's from the decision. If it was just as easy as "they're the former president, they don't have executive privilege" they'd have just said that. That's not what they said. Go back and read the nixon decision. The judges, in both cases, said that executive privilege didn't outweigh the legislative branch's need for the documents, not that the former president couldn't assert privilege.

[Edge-]

https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-rio...es-2656561425/

As Cheney reports, Barnard says that he lost his "six-figure job," as well as his credit rating and retirement savings because he participated in the MAGA riot.

"There’s nothing the court can do to me that will come even close to what I’ve lost," he said.

Richard Barnard, speaking to the court as his sentence for a Class B misdemeanor of parading in a Capitol building, talking about the bigger consequences he's faced.

Actions have consequences. I'm not even gonna sarcastically post "thoughts and prayers", because fuck this lose and losers like him.

Bonus points: He hangs out with idiots as well. Remember the guy that recorded himself in the Capitol building, thinking it was the White House? That idiots, Jeffrey Witcher, is buddies with aforementioned idiot Richard Barnard.

[Drutt]

https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-rio...es-2656561425/



Richard Barnard, speaking to the court as his sentence for a Class B misdemeanor of parading in a Capitol building, talking about the bigger consequences he's faced.

Actions have consequences. I'm not even gonna sarcastically post "thoughts and prayers", because fuck this lose and losers like him.

Bonus points: He hangs out with idiots as well. Remember the guy that recorded himself in the Capitol building, thinking it was the White House? That idiots, Jeffrey Witcher, is buddies with aforementioned idiot Richard Barnard.

I'm not sure I understand the link between being prosecuted and losing your retirement savings. The job is easy to understand.

[Edge-]

I'm not sure I understand the link between being prosecuted and losing your retirement savings. The job is easy to understand.

I imagine he drew on his retirement savings to pay for his legal defense.

[Elegiac]

I imagine he drew on his retirement savings to pay for his legal defense.

Damn if only there was something he could have done (or not done) to not have to mount a legal defense.

Can't put my finger on it for the life of me though.

[Drutt]

I imagine he drew on his retirement savings to pay for his legal defense.

That would be an elective decision on his part, though, rather than a punitive one. He'd have to make a decision to pull those out.

I strongly doubt the (presumably) improved calibre of lawyer he retained with his retirement funds will save him either way, but then making smart choices clearly isn't his forte.

[Edge-]

That would be an elective decision on his part, though, rather than a punitive one. He'd have to make a decision to pull those out.

I strongly doubt the (presumably) improved calibre of lawyer he retained with his retirement funds will save him either way, but then making smart choices clearly isn't his forte.

Pretty much. If you want to keep your six-figure job and not have to consider dipping into your retirement, and if you don't want to ruin your credit rating in the process, don't attend an attempted insurrection and be a part of the rioters breaking into a secure federal building.

Seems pretty easy to me, I bet I'll be able to get through my whole life without having to face that problem.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-re...nto-his-office

So Troy Nehls, Rep. from TX, claims Capitol police investigated his office "illegally" late last year. I have no clue why he's going to Twitter about this and not like, the FBI or something. Don't know who he is even and I don't know what to make of this. Based on the ending, going after Pelosi and the Jan. 6 committee, I assume he's either making this shit up for attention or they were investigating him for something and he's trying to spin a narrative before anything is announced.

Why is it that lawmakers with more authority than us regular folk, with direct access to federal law enforcement, need to go to Twitter to complain about something being done to them "illegally"?

[Edge-]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2012390.html

Investigators working for the House select committee investigating the 6 January insurrection have found significant gaps in White House call logs which have reportedly hindered their efforts to reconstruct his communications during the worst attack on the Capitol since the 1814 Burning of Washington.

According to the New York Times, the committee has found “few records” of calls made or recieved by Mr Trump during time periods when he was known to be making phone calls.

During his time in the White House, Mr Trump routinely made use of his personal mobile phone and mobile phones belonging to his close advisers rather than follow the customary practice of placing calls through the White House switchboard. Because those phone calls were not logged by the White House, investigators are having a hard time piecing together who Mr Trump spoke to before and during the riot.

The Times also reports that investigators have not found any evidence that the official White House phone logs were altered in any way.

Now the latter bit is important: No evidence of logs being altered.

But that being said, why did Trump suddenly appear to transition to using his private cell phone and possibly the phone of others throughout the day? Why the suspicious gaps given that he should have been on the phone quite a lot throughout the situation, getting updates from agencies and more.

[Poopymonster]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2012390.html



Now the latter bit is important: No evidence of logs being altered.

But that being said, why did Trump suddenly appear to transition to using his private cell phone and possibly the phone of others throughout the day? Why the suspicious gaps given that he should have been on the phone quite a lot throughout the situation, getting updates from agencies and more.

Sounds like some cell phone service providers got some logs to turn over.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md...general-miles/

Related -

A top deputy overseeing election issues for Virginia’s new Republican attorney general resigned Thursday after The Washington Post questioned the office about Facebook posts she had made praising Jan. 6, 2021, rioters and falsely claiming Donald Trump won the 2020 election.

Former deputy attorney general Monique Miles also espoused unfounded conspiracy theories about voter fraud and election interference in more than a dozen Facebook comments that spanned months. Four people who interacted with Miles on Facebook confirmed the authenticity of the posts.

Victoria LaCivita, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Jason Miyares, said the office had been unaware of the Facebook posts before The Washington Post, which obtained screenshots of the posts, shared them on Thursday morning.

If you work in government, especially as a lawyer, maybe don't publicly post your support of violent rioters/insurrectionists/lawbreakers while promoting the use of violence.

I assume this is more what she resigned over, as belief in/support of the "big lie" doesn't seem to be disqualifying.