Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I'm sure this has been previously poster in this thread perhaps or the right wing violence thread but it's worth posting here.

Worth reading the whole tweet thread.....

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
  On 2/5/2022 at 5:35 PM, Gourmand said:

I'm sure this has been previously poster in this thread perhaps or the right wing violence thread but it's worth posting here.

Worth reading the whole tweet thread.....

 

Expand  

CNN played that this morning uncensored. 

Posted

I'd like some lawdogs to weigh in on the importance of that clip.  I would think 1st Amendment rights should protect Nichols' inflammatory speech, but that it would serve as evidence towards conspiracy, etc. 

Where's the value of that clip in the prosecution of Ryan Nichols?

Posted
  On 2/5/2022 at 6:10 PM, jimmyjazz said:

I'd like some lawdogs to weigh in on the importance of that clip.  I would think 1st Amendment rights should protect Nichols' inflammatory speech, but that it would serve as evidence towards conspiracy, etc. 

Where's the value of that clip in the prosecution of Ryan Nichols?

Expand  

If one is not free to threaten to drag the POTUS down the streets without a visit from the Secret Service, why should this guy be free to threaten other politicians with impunity?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
  On 2/5/2022 at 6:10 PM, jimmyjazz said:

I'd like some lawdogs to weigh in on the importance of that clip.  I would think 1st Amendment rights should protect Nichols' inflammatory speech, but that it would serve as evidence towards conspiracy, etc. 

Where's the value of that clip in the prosecution of Ryan Nichols?

Expand  

Well, let's see, here's his indictment.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1367311/download

You are correct that he probably cannot be prosecuted for that speech, alone.  Although, apparently, he is on video at another point wielding weapons and urging others to take up arms, which might not be protected speech on the "imminent lawless conduct" type of thing.

Most of his charges involve "nonexpressive" conduct, rather than "speech," so it's much less of an issue.

For one of the most serious charges, obstruction of an official proceeding, that little tirade shows that he did, in fact, intend to obstruct or interfere with the electoral count.  And this is where a lot of that stuff is heading.

To the extent he attempts to defend any of the "assault-like" counts as self-defense, that probably shows provocation, at the very least, or belies any attempt on his part claiming not to be the aggressor.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 2/5/2022 at 8:45 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Well, let's see, here's his indictment.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1367311/download

You are correct that he probably cannot be prosecuted for that speech, alone.  Although, apparently, he is on video at another point wielding weapons and urging others to take up arms, which might not be protected speech on the "imminent lawless conduct" type of thing.

Most of his charges involve "nonexpressive" conduct, rather than "speech," so it's much less of an issue.

For one of the most serious charges, obstruction of an official proceeding, that little tirade shows that he did, in fact, intend to obstruct or interfere with the electoral count.  And this is where a lot of that stuff is heading.

To the extent he attempts to defend any of the "assault-like" counts as self-defense, that probably shows provocation, at the very least, or belies any attempt on his part claiming not to be the aggressor.

 

Expand  

So my read was reasonably close to the charges.  Not a free speech issue, but evidence of intent to commit ___.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Seriously, fuck Marc Short. You have to see that performance. Unbelievable. Of course it’s really not. He wants to stay in Trump’s favor and is trying so hard not to burn that bridge.

He reminds me of Gollum. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
  On 2/5/2022 at 9:19 PM, jimmyjazz said:

So my read was reasonably close to the charges.  Not a free speech issue, but evidence of intent to commit ___.

Expand  

Another interesting question might be whether that video is admissible to the jury.  While it probably is, defense counsel will probably try like hell to keep it out if it goes to trial.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

Posted (edited)
  On 2/6/2022 at 4:10 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Another interesting question might be whether that video is admissible to the jury.  While it probably is, defense counsel will probably try like hell to keep it out if it goes to trial.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

Expand  

That sounds like suppression of his speech- by the court which is a government entity. 1st amendment!

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Posted
  On 2/6/2022 at 4:05 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

Seriously, fuck Marc Short. You have to see that performance. Unbelievable. Of course it’s really not. He wants to stay in Trump’s favor and is trying so hard not to burn that bridge.

He reminds me of Gollum. 

Expand  

That rustled my jimmies as well.  What a fuckhead.

Posted
  On 2/6/2022 at 4:05 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

Seriously, fuck Marc Short. You have to see that performance. Unbelievable. Of course it’s really not. He wants to stay in Trump’s favor and is trying so hard not to burn that bridge.

He reminds me of Gollum. 

Expand  

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-marc-short-former-vp-pence-was-crystal-clear-from-day-one-that-he-couldn-t-reject-2020-electors-132551237708

Posted

By the time these fuckers are done the insurrectionists will have been peacefully minding their own business handing out cookies and other freshly baked goods to passing tourists when they were suddenly and viciously attacked by the capital police.   Seriously, you don't get to start a fire and then cry that the fire department was negligent in putting it out. 

 

 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
  On 2/9/2022 at 12:42 AM, WhatTheBuck said:
Hillary showed up for questioning at the Benghazi hearings. People with nothing to hide do that.

Well, what you need to realize is that as self-serving and dishonorable as Hillary may be…..she’s 1,000X more honorable, honest, and courageous than the best the current GQP can offer. It’s a terrorist criminal nihilistic death cult, and even knowing that, it still manages to disappoint.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Posted

Oh look, there appear to be gaps in White House phone records from January 6th.  Surely Republicans will be outraged.  You know, Hillary's emails and all.

#Nixon #18minutes

Curious gaps in Trump's Jan 6 phone activity

 

  Quote

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol has discovered gaps in official White House telephone logs from the day of the riot, finding few records of calls by President Donald J. Trump from critical hours when investigators know that he was making them.

Expand  
  Reveal hidden contents

 

Posted
  On 2/10/2022 at 4:50 PM, Brisketexan said:
Waiting for the “but her emails” crowd to stand on consistency, and chant “lock him up.”

But not holding my breath.

It was just 15 boxes of classified momentous. Come on Brisketexan.
Posted
  On 2/10/2022 at 4:55 PM, Goofyboy said:


It was just 15 boxes of classified momentous. Come on Brisketexan.

Expand  

For perspective, if you printed out all of Hillary's emails from the unlawful server, I'm guessing 15-20 boxes worth.   That's about 60,000 documents, which is, curiously enough, about what Hillary produced and deleted.

  • Like 1
Posted

but all 30 boxes could fit on Hunter's laptop?

.................'the more you know'.........................

Posted

This is such a huuuuuuuuuuge collection of rubes:

  Quote

A federal judge in Santa Ana Monday ruled that former Chapman University law professor John Eastman must show proof he was hired by former President Donald Trump if he wishes to continue asserting claims of attorney-client privilege regarding his emails on the university's server.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter set a schedule for attorneys to file written arguments regarding Eastman's claims of attorney-client privilege that would shield some emails sought by the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.


Attorneys for the Jan. 6 select committee filed a motion on Friday saying Eastman has not responded to multiple requests for proof that the law professor was hired by Trump in a capacity that would allow him to assert attorney-client privilege. Without that proof, the committee argues in the motion, Eastman should not be allowed to assert the privilege and prevent the committee members access to the emails from the days leading up to and after the riots.

Expand  

 

  • Haha 1
Posted

Thoughts and prayers to the 3 wives and 2 children in the Giuliani family on Rudy's predictably upcoming, but very sudden, demise. 

 



×
×
  • Create New...