The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
By golly, i

Segnosaur said:
Do you mean the small hand-held axe-like weapon, or do you mean the Tomahawk cruise missile?
Click to expand...

never thought of that. With a missle destroyer anchored in the Potomac (channel's deep enough, right?), they could have scorched that fandango while Donny was bellowing. Plenty of fuss, plenty of muss, and clear skies again over America.

Goddammit, Warp n me, we're talking about freedom!
 
A lot of my efforts right now are focused on people defending cops for the use of deadly force when it isn't even permitted.

If someone has a concern about the use of deadly force where it is authorized but other options may have been available, then get in the back of the line.
 
BobTheCoward said:
A lot of my efforts right now are focused on people defending cops for the use of deadly force when it isn't even permitted.

If someone has a concern about the use of deadly force where it is authorized but other options may have been available, then get in the back of the line.
Click to expand...

Thank you for letting us know what you're focusing on. I feel I speak on everyone's behalf when I say, we were all wondering.
 
Looks like the Jan 6 committee is moving to officially hold Bannon in contempt. Per CNN:

The committee investigating the January 6 Capitol Hill riot announced Thursday it is moving forward to hold Trump ally Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena, as his game of chicken with the House panel now enters a new and critical phase.

"Mr. Bannon has declined to cooperate with the Select Committee and is instead hiding behind the former President's insufficient, blanket, and vague statements regarding privileges he has purported to invoke," Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chairs the committee, said in a statement on Thursday.
Click to expand...

ETA:

Although, reading through the article, I don't even understand the point of congressional subpoenas. They sound utterly ******* useless to me.
 
Last edited:
Oh so they are going to call him to court for refusing to come when they called him to court.

I guess the next step is to call him to court for refusing to come to court when they told him to come to court.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Oh so they are going to call him to court for refusing to come when they called him to court.

I guess the next step is to call him to court for refusing to come to court when they told him to come to court.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much. Why even bother? If it's one thing I've learned over the past 5ish years, it's how toothless the House and congressional investigations are in the grand scheme of things.
 
That fringe reset about the bullet catcher really paid off. Even drew some of the bystanders into the convo. Well done.
 
plague311 said:
Yeah, pretty much. Why even bother? If it's one thing I've learned over the past 5ish years, it's how toothless the House and congressional investigations are in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Because, and I seriously do not mean to keep bringing this up over and over but it is what it is, the Democrats still against all hope and logic, still do no grasp the fact that "the system" is not some separate intelligent entity that is going to make stuff happen.

The Republicans learned this, this is why "Wait a minute I just realized I don't have to do anything unless someone makes me" is such a core part of their strategy.

The Dems keep screaming "But you have to! The rules say so!" and I keep wanting to ask them who they are talking to?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Oh so they are going to call him to court for refusing to come when they called him to court.

I guess the next step is to call him to court for refusing to come to court when they told him to come to court.
Click to expand...

From last time this came up, Congress could actually quit ******* around and actually drag these scrubs in, but we all know that the current leadership has no interest in actually doing anything.

The third type of contempt power—Congress’s dormant inherent contempt power—is rarely used in modern times. Inherent contempt was the mode employed by Congress to directly enforce contempt rulings under its own constitutional authority until criminal and civil contempt statutes were passed, and it remained in use into the twentieth century. Under inherent contempt proceedings, the House or Senate has its Sergeant-At-Arms, or deputy, take a person into custody for proceedings to be held in Congress.
Click to expand...

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-houses-contempt-powers-explained

I'm sure this will just drag out with the DOJ to the point it's no longer relevant, maybe with some insignificant punishment well after the point of mattering.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
From last time this came up, Congress could actually quit ******* around and actually drag these scrubs in, but we all know that the current leadership has no interest in actually doing anything.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-houses-contempt-powers-explained

I'm sure this will just drag out with the DOJ to the point it's no longer relevant, maybe with some insignificant punishment well after the point of mattering.
Click to expand...

We will see. The DOJ has the authority to arrest Bannon immediately and put him in jail for criminal contempt, but that would be unusual.
 
Actually, Congress has the right to send the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Bannon and lock him up in Pelosi's broom cupboard (Congress no longer has a prison cell).
 
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Nonesense. What was he supposed to say? "Excuse me, but what's your name?" or "Lady crawling through the window after breaking it" before warning her?
Click to expand...
Ziggurat said:
You seem confused. A warning to someone specific doesn't require their name be used, nor does it need to be polite. But you can't warn person A, and then act against person B as if they had been warned.

Byrd claims he gave such a warning. I didn't claim he didn't.

Of course, giving a warning is relevant to the use of deadly force, but it isn't sufficient on its own to justify its use.
Click to expand...

The only thing confusing me is your need to pursue what was obviously a sarcastic response. Who the hell do you think the cop was pointing the gun at just a couple feet away and yelling his warnings at if not Babbitt? Do you think she was unaware of him and that gun so close to her and that door? Do you think Babbitt thought he was talking to someone else? This video shows the shooting and before Babbitt climbs into the window you can hear another rioter clearly say at least twice "He's got a gun! He's got a gun!" But she still continued in.

https://wjla.com/news/local/graphic-fatal-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-in-the-capitol-caught-on-video

I'm not saying YOU denied Lt. Byrd didn't give a warning but there are some who have and are, including that Warp's link. I highly doubt a trained 28 yr. veteran of the police who had reached the rank of lieutenant didn't give a warning before shooting. I'm certainly not going to believe fellow insurrectionists who want to make a martyr out of Babbitt.
 
Stacyhs said:
The only thing confusing me is your need to pursue what was obviously a sarcastic response. Who the hell do you think the cop was pointing the gun at just a couple feet away and yelling his warnings at if not Babbitt? Do you think she was unaware of him and that gun so close to her and that door? Do you think Babbitt thought he was talking to someone else? This video shows the shooting and before Babbitt climbs into the window you can hear another rioter clearly say at least twice "He's got a gun! He's got a gun!" But she still continued in.

https://wjla.com/news/local/graphic-fatal-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-in-the-capitol-caught-on-video

I'm not saying YOU denied Lt. Byrd didn't give a warning but there are some who have and are, including that Warp's link. I highly doubt a trained 28 yr. veteran of the police who had reached the rank of lieutenant didn't give a warning before shooting. I'm certainly not going to believe fellow insurrectionists who want to make a martyr out of Babbitt.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when you watch the video, no other option but to smoke this unarmed lady. LOL. Insane.
 
January 6 panel moves to hold Steve Bannon in criminal contempt


With the committee officially announcing its decision to move forward with criminal contempt for Bannon, the next step is for the committee to hold a business meeting, which Thompson said would be October 19.

What happens next

The business meeting next week is the first in a series of steps needed to move forward with criminal contempt. In this meeting, the committee will adopt a contempt report, which outlines the efforts the committee made to get a witness to comply with the subpoena, and the failure by the witness to do so.

This report is then referred to the House for a vote. If the vote succeeds, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi certifies the report to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. Under law, this certification then requires the United States attorney to "bring the matter before the grand jury for its action," but the Justice Department will also makes its own determinations for prosecuting.

Any individual who is found liable for contempt of Congress is then guilty of a crime that may result in a fine and between one and 12 months imprisonment. But this process is rarely invoked, and rarely leads to jail time.

As severe as a criminal contempt referral sounds, the House's choice to use the Justice Department may be more of a warning shot than a solution. Holding Bannon in criminal contempt through a prosecution could take years, and historic criminal contempt cases have been derailed by appeals and acquittals.
Click to expand...

So, maybe, or more likely not, they might resolve this before Civil War II begins.
 
Stacyhs said:
What other options were there, exactly? Please let us know what they were.
Click to expand...

None, of course. I mean, the officer probably had no choice but to kill her. It's not as though he might have any other weapon at his disposal (do they?)...or even the ability to fire a warning shot. You gotta go for the kill!
 
Warp12 said:
None, of course. I mean, the officer probably had no choice but to kill her. It's not as though he might have any other weapon at his disposal (do they?)...or even the ability to fire a warning shot. You gotta go for the kill!
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question because:
  1. You don't know?
  2. You are too cowardly to state your point of view clearly?
  3. ___________?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom