The 01-06-21 Select Committee Thread

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

42 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Shocking nobody: White House records turned over to House show 7-hour gap in Trump phone log on Jan. 6

TLDR: In a statement Monday night, Trump said, "I have no idea what a burner phone is, to the best of my knowledge I have never even heard the term." (actual real unedited quote lmao)

Trump really is going for the full Nixon. Whodathunk that surrounding himself with the same ratfuckers, namely Manafort and Stone, could lead to the same fucked up national outcome??

He will never have to answer for a single fucking crime he's committed.  Those still harboring hopes of accountability will be greatly disappointed. 

[HenryJames 67116]

 

[The Royal We 3090]

So Antifa was violently attacking the capital and our brave CIC didn't make one phone call!?  No conversation with his cabinet, the DC guard, no one to do everything he could to stop the mayhem being carried out by those hooded, soy boy, Antifa fucksticks!?

Man, what a fucking crock of shit.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

4 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

So Antifa was violently attacking the capital and our brave CIC didn't make one phone call!?  No conversation with his cabinet, the DC guard, no one to do everything he could to stop the mayhem being carried out by those hooded, soy boy, Antifa fucksticks!?

Man, what a fucking crock of shit.

But he loves them and if he becomes President again then he’ll pardon them. 

[TwiceHorn 31992]

14 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

The judge outed the emails anyway on other grounds, but that's probably a sound analysis.  To hold otherwise might put the privilege in danger of waiver in too many circumstances regarding the use of email.  It would make a lot of lawyers very nervous.

[TwiceHorn 31992]

I think the missing shit is going to bode ill for Trump, as mentioned on the other thread.

It may constitute a separate, minor criminal charge, but is inferential/circumstantial evidence of guilt on the obstruction charge.  Powerful shit, just like Nixon.

[Pato del Muerto 53334]

1 hour ago, The Royal We said:

So Antifa was violently attacking the capital and our brave CIC didn't make one phone call!?  No conversation with his cabinet, the DC guard, no one to do everything he could to stop the mayhem being carried out by those hooded, soy boy, Antifa fucksticks!?

Man, what a fucking crock of shit.

*CAC

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

 ...Stone...

Of course. In an obverse Boy With The Nixon Tattoo, the protagonist learned his lesson and honed his craft so that the misdeeds, chicanery, crimes, and sedition would remain underneath the rock from which he crawled.

His one time idol had feet of clay and was defeated. He took that clay and molded himself a new idol.

Beware the sequel.

 

[SydneyCarton 49329]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think the missing shit is going to bode ill for Trump, as mentioned on the other thread.

It may constitute a separate, minor criminal charge, but is inferential/circumstantial evidence of guilt on the obstruction charge.  Powerful shit, just like Nixon.

Yeah. Totally. Actual recorded calls of him attempting to overturn election counts in Georgia, all of the existing civil and criminal suits against him, video of him firing flashbangs on peacefully protesting citizens for a photo op, audio of him admitting he knew how bad covid would be to Woodward a month before it really hit the US, but this...this actual record of silence with nothing being said will be his undoing. Totally. No sarcasm here at all. 

This isn't 1970's America, where integrity and principles regardless of aisle side still existing by our elected officials, where the news was still relatively unbiased thanks to the existence of the fairness doctrine, when politics wasn't a complete team sport, when social media didn't exist and people lived in online bubbles of disinformation. 

7 hours of silence doesn't mean shit. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think the missing shit is going to bode ill for Trump, as mentioned on the other thread.

It may constitute a separate, minor criminal charge, but is inferential/circumstantial evidence of guilt on the obstruction charge.  Powerful shit, just like Nixon.

Did you read the Mueller report? He obstructs justice with impunity and gets away with it. I don’t see how this will be any different. 

[TwiceHorn 31992]

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Did you read the Mueller report? He obstructs justice with impunity and gets away with it. I don’t see how this will be any different. 

There's a big difference here.  As noted by Judge Carter, there is at least a preponderance case of violation of the law.  There's no presidential immunity anymore and no longer a question of presidential prerogative.

Mueller didn't have that.

And, although obstruction of an official proceeding falls under the broad heading of obstruction of justice, this is kind of a different critter than the lying, witness tampering, etc.

Edited March 29, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's a big difference here.  As noted by Judge Carter, there is at least a preponderance case of violation of the law.  There's no presidential immunity anymore and no longer a question of presidential prerogative.

Mueller didn't have that.

I like your posts and respect your thoughtful analysis  (You know there is a 'but' coming and here it is) but it will all be for naught.

That being said, I will happily step off the ledge and bring the potent potables with me in order to toast your sound judgement if I am mistaken.

[SydneyCarton 49329]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's a big difference here.  As noted by Judge Carter, there is at least a preponderance case of violation of the law.  There's no presidential immunity anymore and no longer a question of presidential prerogative.

Mueller didn't have that.

And, although obstruction of an official proceeding falls under the broad heading of obstruction of justice, this is kind of a different critter than the lying, witness tampering, etc.

It won't matter when Biden is being impeached by a republican congress here in about 10 months. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's a big difference here.  As noted by Judge Carter, there is at least a preponderance case of violation of the law.  There's no presidential immunity anymore and no longer a question of presidential prerogative.

Mueller didn't have that.

And, although obstruction of an official proceeding falls under the broad heading of obstruction of justice, this is kind of a different critter than the lying, witness tampering, etc.

Don’t get my hopes up. Pessimism has proven to be a pretty safe approach so far and I think I’m going to stick with that. The traitor should be dangling at the end of a rope. At the very least he should already be behind bars because we know for sure that he committed felony campaign finance violations, the same ones that sent Michael Cohen to prison. The DA in New York dropped the case about his tax fraud and some prosecutors resigned because they knew there were crimes committed. I figure there had to be some payola involved there, just like when Don Jr. and Ivanka escaped prosecution in the Trump SoHo case.

He’s a mobster. He’s Teflon Don. He commits his crimes in plain sight and nothing happens to him. I wish I could share your optimism but I just can’t imagine how the missing phone logs are going to make any difference.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

24 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

It won't matter when Biden is being impeached by a republican congress here in about 10 months. 

It will be interesting to see how creative they’ll be in coming up with grounds for impeachment. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

8 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Unfortunately, this.  He’s on fucking tape trying to coerce the Georgia Secretary of State to fraudulently give him extra votes and declare him the winner of the election.  We know he told the crowd and Mike Pence not to certify the election and to fight.  We already know he tried to seize power in a coup, and smoking bazookas for all kinds of crimes have already been found, and it doesn’t matter because he’s protected by half the country no matter what.

Also, Merrick Garland might be a good judge but it seems like he sucks as an investigator and a prosecutor. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by WhatTheBuck

[speed817 19854]

21 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It will be interesting to see how creative they’ll be in coming up with grounds for impeachment. 

MTG will think of something

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

2 minutes ago, speed817 said:

MTG will think of something

We’re probably not far off before Republicans declare that being a member of the Democratic Party is a crime and a jailable offense. They’re already making a practice of chanting that their opponents should be locked up. No evidence of a crime is required. And simply opposing Trump is considered to be “corruption.”

[Dutchrudder 11228]

12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Also, Merrick Garland might be a good judge but it seems like he sucks as an investigator and a prosecutor. 

I still don't understand that appointment.  Why wouldn't you get a prosecutor to be the AG? Isn't that the whole point of the DoJ for the executive branch? Garland should have stayed in his current role, no need to promote him to a position out of his depth. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

2 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

I still don't understand that appointment.  Why wouldn't you get a prosecutor to be the AG? Isn't that the whole point of the DoJ for the executive branch? Garland should have stayed in his current role, no need to promote him to a position out of his depth. 

I think it was just to make up for the fact that he got screwed out of his seat on the Supreme Court. It was a nice gesture but I don’t think it’s working out. 

[Goofyboy 3428]

Trump won’t pay for what he’s done, but maybe, just maybe there is enough to keep him from ever holding office again.

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

It would make a lot of lawyers very nervous.

Good. Stop using your profession to disguise illegal activities. 

[wildcat09 29559]

19 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

I still don't understand that appointment.  Why wouldn't you get a prosecutor to be the AG? Isn't that the whole point of the DoJ for the executive branch? Garland should have stayed in his current role, no need to promote him to a position out of his depth. 

Garland's then-current role was the appellate seat that Ketanji Brown Jackson got before her SCOTUS nomination. Garland needed a reason to get out of the way for her to get some appellate experience (she didn't really need it but that's how things are done for future SCOTUS nominees these days). He's got prior prosecutorial experience and the DOJ is making more progress than it might seem, but I do think they're still moving too slowly. 

The bigger problem is how reluctant the Democratic party has been to make a fucking issue out of any of this shit. Their silence results in all media coverage of this shit being framed in ways that are favorable to Republicans, limits how many people ever even hear about most of this shit and, when most people do hear about something, how they interpret it. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2880]

39 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I think it was just to make up for the fact that he got screwed out of his seat on the Supreme Court. It was a nice gesture but I don’t think it’s working out. 

I join with Justice WTB in this opinion but comment only to say that Garland appears to be a pussy as well.

[DDD Dad 14572]

26 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Good. Stop using your profession to disguise illegal activities. 

[DDD Dad 14572]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's a big difference here.  As noted by Judge Carter, there is at least a preponderance case of violation of the law.  There's no presidential immunity anymore and no longer a question of presidential prerogative.

Mueller didn't have that.

And, although obstruction of an official proceeding falls under the broad heading of obstruction of justice, this is kind of a different critter than the lying, witness tampering, etc.

I'll buy you a Scotch if this pans out any differently.

32 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

Trump won’t pay for what he’s done, but maybe, just maybe there is enough to keep him from ever holding office again.

The only thing keeping him from holding office again is his own morbidity.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9483]

One could watch Gone With the Wind (3'58") and Lawrence of Arabia (3'38") back to back and still have a minute to spare.

[SydneyCarton 49329]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It will be interesting to see how creative they’ll be in coming up with grounds for impeachment. 

"Biden is a puppet of both Russia and the Ukraine."

49 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Garland's then-current role was the appellate seat that Ketanji Brown Jackson got before her SCOTUS nomination. Garland needed a reason to get out of the way for her to get some appellate experience (she didn't really need it but that's how things are done for future SCOTUS nominees these days). He's got prior prosecutorial experience and the DOJ is making more progress than it might seem, but I do think they're still moving too slowly. 

The bigger problem is how reluctant the Democratic party has been to make a fucking issue out of any of this shit. Their silence results in all media coverage of this shit being framed in ways that are favorable to Republicans, limits how many people ever even hear about most of this shit and, when most people do hear about something, how they interpret it. 

Disagree with this point. Not because I don't understand what you're saying, I just don't think it matters anymore. 80% of America self selects their news and media coverage, and the left not covering it doesn't change much, and the right not covering it is a given, so the people who need to see it would never see it anyway. 

[TwiceHorn 31992]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I like your posts and respect your thoughtful analysis  (You know there is a 'but' coming and here it is) but it will all be for naught.

That being said, I will happily step off the ledge and bring the potent potables with me in order to toast your sound judgement if I am mistaken.

Well, I'm not opining on what the Biden administration and Garland will ultimately do in terms of bringing a prosecution.

I just think the legal situation is far more lined up than it has ever been, by a pretty good margin.

But you've got to think that prosecutors in the DOJ that are thinking solely in terms of securing a conviction are salivating.

[TwiceHorn 31992]

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

Unfortunately, this.  He’s on fucking tape trying to coerce the Georgia Secretary of State to fraudulently give him extra votes and declare him the winner of the election.  We know he told the crowd and Mike Pence not to certify the election and to fight.  We already know he tried to seize power in a coup, and smoking bazookas for all kinds of crimes have already been found, and it doesn’t matter because he’s protected by half the country no matter what.

The problem with all this is that it's armchair prosecution talk.  What appears to a layperson to be a slam dunk criminal prosecution is not.

It doesn't apply facts to law and take into account the vagaries of judges and juries.

We're getting an ample preview from the 1/6 prosecutions and the work of the Committee, from judges like David Carter and Trump appointee Dabney Friedrich, that these laws, otherwise very infrequently applied, line up well with the facts.

[TwiceHorn 31992]

30 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I'll buy you a Scotch if this pans out any differently.

The only thing keeping him from holding office again is his own morbidity.

I'll take a Topo, instead, or maybe a Shirley Temple.  Haha.

I agree that none of this shit, even a conviction, will move his base and those in the GQP that require the base to retain power.

But, I think Trump also needs some otherwise politically disengaged voters who tend conservative, or are susceptible to mindless arguments about "are you better off under Biden" to win an election (absent electoral shenanigans).  I think a lot of this shit will move the needle with them.

[DDD Dad 14572]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'll take a Topo, instead, or maybe a Shirley Temple.  Haha.

I agree that none of this shit, even a conviction, will move his base and those in the GQP that require the base to retain power.

But, I think Trump also needs some otherwise politically disengaged voters who tend conservative, or are susceptible to mindless arguments about "are you better off under Biden" to win an election (absent electoral shenanigans).  I think a lot of this shit will move the needle with them.

You've clearly moved off of the ledge.

[TwiceHorn 31992]

1 hour ago, Dutchrudder said:

I still don't understand that appointment.  Why wouldn't you get a prosecutor to be the AG? Isn't that the whole point of the DoJ for the executive branch? Garland should have stayed in his current role, no need to promote him to a position out of his depth. 

Well, the Attorney General has a lot more responsibility than prosecuting criminal cases.  The DOJ has eight divisions, of which the Criminal Division is but one.  The rest are civil in nature.

If you accept the proposition that Joe Biden and his advisors are for "good government" and not particular political agendas, Merrick Garland is a fairly sterling choice for Attorney General.

Aside from his particular political leanings and agendas, on paper, Bill Barr is objectively a solid AG appointment.  And he's never prosecuted a case in his life.

 

[TwiceHorn 31992]

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

You've clearly moved off of the ledge.

I've never really been on the ledge.  I think the judicial branch mostly held firm in defense of democracy, especially in the context of the election bullshit and now the 1/6 stuff.

[wildcat09 29559]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I've never really been on the ledge.  I think the judicial branch mostly held firm in defense of democracy, especially in the context of the election bullshit and now the 1/6 stuff.

I continue to believe that's primarily because of how unprepared Trump's team was to actually steal the election. He seriously thought every Republican election official at the state and local level would just do it for him. He didn't even have a legal team ready to go to file anything. Because he was so unprepared, there was nothing any courts could do that even remotely resembled legal to steal it for him. 

They've cleared out all of the officials who wouldn't go along with it and replaced them with lunatic true believers now who will gladly help him steal the next election. When Democrats bring legal challenges, it's going to be much easier for SCOTUS to pretend it's just denying insufficient legal challenges and upholding an initial result (that's rigged) than it would've been for them to overturn an initial result in 2020 to give it to Trump based on no legal coherent legal theory whatsoever.

[Beau Vine 55826]

33 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

One could watch Gone With the Wind (3'58") and Lawrence of Arabia (3'38") back to back and still have a minute to spare.

Lawrence!!!  Lawrence of Araaaabia!!!  He's an English guy.  He came to fight the Turrrrrkish!

Edited March 29, 2022 by Beau Vine

[jimmyjazz 46980]

Question for the conlaw scholars:  what might render Trump ineligible to become POTUS in 2024?  A felony conviction?  Anything?  Would anything prevent him from running, regardless?

All I know is "natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, resident for at least 14 years".  Obviously, total terms in office count, but that's not an issue for Trump.  Are there any other disqualifying characteristics?

[TwiceHorn 31992]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Question for the conlaw scholars:  what might render Trump ineligible to become POTUS in 2024?  A felony conviction?  Anything?  Would anything prevent him from running, regardless?

All I know is "natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, resident for at least 14 years".  Obviously, total terms in office count, but that's not an issue for Trump.  Are there any other disqualifying characteristics?

Just this, from the 14th Amendment (or the specific finding on impeachment conviction by the Senate):

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[RomaVicta 30503]

8 hours ago, Captainant said:

Shocking nobody: White House records turned over to House show 7-hour gap in Trump phone log on Jan. 6

TLDR: In a statement Monday night, Trump said, "I have no idea what a burner phone is, to the best of my knowledge I have never even heard the term." (actual real unedited quote lmao)

Trump really is going for the full Nixon. Whodathunk that surrounding himself with the same ratfuckers, namely Manafort and Stone, could lead to the same fucked up national outcome??

Had Nixon gone full Trump, he would have destroyed evidence instead of merely trying to hide it. Nixon was a villain, but he had some respect for the system and the law. I also think Nixon cared about the USA in addition to his many failings and criminal acts.

Trump has none of the upside and clearly doesn't give a shit about the US or anything else that doesn't directly benefit him in ways simple enough for him to understand. For example, why provide any subsidized health care? I don't need it. If a plague gets fired up, it won't reach me. 

Trump is as close to being a literal piece of shit as we'll ever get for a person.

Edited March 29, 2022 by RomaVicta

[TwiceHorn 31992]

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Had Nixon gone full Trump, he would destroyed evidence instead of merely trying to hide it. Nixon was a villain, but he had some respect for the system and the law. I also think Nixon cared about the USA in addition to his many failings and criminal acts.

 

I tend to agree.  Nixon had definite personal faults and disorders, but I think he fundamentally respected the government and was trying to do his best for his country.  Of course, his personal faults perverted that.

I was thinking about this in the context of whether the "nation needs to heal" as was said when Ford pardoned him.  I think that was probably a correct thing to do, because while Watergate was corrupt and disgusting, it had more to do with Richard M. Nixon as a flawed person than with an attack on the institutions of the United States of America.

January 6 is a different deal from Watergate.  It was the culmination of a politician and political movement that aims to destroy the United States of America as it has been heretofore known.  Trump and his ilk need to be fully exposed and punished.

[jimmyjazz 46980]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,

What defines "engaged"?

 

Quote

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Well, that disability won't be removed.  I don't see R's  taking 2/3 of both the House and the Senate in 2022.  (Must note the concerns of Manchin and Sinema.)

[Sbbruin 22082]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

The only thing keeping him from holding office again is his own morbidity.

[RomaVicta 30503]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was thinking about this in the context of whether the "nation needs to heal" as was said when Ford pardoned him.  I think that was probably a correct thing to do, because while Watergate was corrupt and disgusting, it had more to do with Richard M. Nixon as a flawed person than with an attack on the institutions of the United States of America.

I was really torn about that at the time. But I think I've come to your viewpoint over time. 

Your post has prompted me consider the difference between then and now besides what you accurately describe. Shame had meaning back then. The tremendous sense of shame when Nixon had to abdicate was part of the argument for healing. Nixon paid a price we could all appreciate.

Trump is absolutely shameless. I might argue that shamelessness has been embraced at a number of different levels and places in the US. Gordon Gecko of Wall Street was likely written as a cautionary character, but he served some as a model for putting aside moral considerations.

What kind of a shameless pos gets his kicks trying to get away with touching unacquainted women's crotches in a public place? If you could get away with it, would you do it? No. It's shameful behavior.

The shamelessness is why Trump can operate so effectively in the shadowy grey areas where rules are understood or a matter of tradition rather than the letter. John Adams, Ike, Ford, or Obama wouldn't erode the trust within government because they know it's wrong and don't want their names attached to such a wicked effort.

Compare Trump. I think I need not write another word.

[TwiceHorn 31992]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What defines "engaged"?

 

Well, that disability won't be removed.  I don't see R's  taking 2/3 of both the House and the Senate in 2022.  (Must note the concerns of Manchin and Sinema.)

Yeah, there's a lot of vagary there.  What does engaged mean, and who determines it?  Among others.

[wildcat09 29559]

"The nation needs to heal" is also why virtually everyone in the confederacy got clemency after the civil war. That didn't work out too well long term. Nixon's pardon hasn't either. It's clear that the lesson the GOP learned was "you can get away with any crime up to and including treason" and set out to do as many fucking crimes as they could. 

[TwiceHorn 31992]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

"The nation needs to heal" is also why virtually everyone in the confederacy got clemency after the civil war. That didn't work out too well long term. Nixon's pardon hasn't either. It's clear that the lesson the GOP learned was "you can get away with any crime up to and including treason" and set out to do as many fucking crimes as they could. 

While I probably agree that Confederate officials required prosecution in the aftermath of the Civil War in the same way that the Trump insurrectionists do, I don't think that would have changed very much about the course of history.  The "sympathy" for their positions, which is why they were not prosecuted, was too widespread for the prosecutions to have made much difference, I think.  I suppose you could argue that such prosecutions might have led to more rigorous enforcement, or any enforcement, of the provisions of the 14th Amendment over the next 100 years, but I tend to doubt it.

[wildcat09 29559]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

While I probably agree that Confederate officials required prosecution in the aftermath of the Civil War in the same way that the Trump insurrectionists do, I don't think that would have changed very much about the course of history.  The "sympathy" for their positions, which is why they were not prosecuted, was too widespread for the prosecutions to have made much difference, I think.  I suppose you could argue that such prosecutions might have led to more rigorous enforcement, or any enforcement, of the provisions of the 14th Amendment over the next 100 years, but I tend to doubt it.

Without clemency they wouldn't have been allowed to hold elected office again.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2880]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Question for the conlaw scholars:  what might render Trump ineligible to become POTUS in 2024?  A felony conviction?  Anything?  Would anything prevent him from running, regardless?

Writ of replevin.

[Satchel 6982]

2 hours ago, Goofyboy said:

Trump won’t pay for what he’s done, but maybe, just maybe there is enough to keep him from ever holding office again.

Yes he will. He’s gotten by, but he won’t get away:

https://www.axios.com/jan-6-prosecutions-doj-hire-lawyers-cf73990c-c318-43fb-a9e5-736984ff2429.html

The Department of Justice wants to hire 131 more lawyers to help prosecute cases related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Driving the news: The DOJ is seeking $34.1 million for the effort, according to President Biden's budget request for next year, which was released Monday. 

What they're saying: Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said on Monday that the Jan. 6 investigation is "among the most wide-ranging and most complex that this department has ever undertaken." 

• She added: "Regardless of whatever resources we seek or get, let's be very, very clear: We are going to continue to do those cases. We are going to hold those perpetrators accountable, no matter where the facts lead us, [and] as the attorney general has said, no matter at what level. We will do those cases.
•  

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I've never really been on the ledge.  I think the judicial branch mostly held firm in defense of democracy, especially in the context of the election bullshit and now the 1/6 stuff.

We need you on the ledge. Someone has to drive to the liquor store.