The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
Clearly, Chris Wallace couldn't any more!
Click to expand...

Not just Chris Wallace:

Two longtime conservative Fox News commentators have resigned in protest of what they call a pattern of incendiary and fabricated claims by the network's opinion hosts in support of former President Donald Trump.

In separate interviews with NPR, Stephen Hayes and Jonah Goldberg pointed to a breaking point this month: network star Tucker Carlson's three-part series on the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol, which relied on fabrications and conspiracy theories to exonerate the Trump supporters who participated in the attack.
"It's basically saying that the Biden regime is coming after half the country and this is the War on Terror 2.0," Goldberg tells NPR. "It traffics in all manner of innuendo and conspiracy theories that I think legitimately could lead to violence. That for me, and for Steve, was the last straw."
Click to expand...

Goldberg says that he had been assured by Fox's news leaders that, as Trump left Washington, D.C., following his election defeat, the network would tamp down on incendiary commentary and claims.
Click to expand...

Goldberg said he and Hayes could no longer tolerate the wild claims beamed, broadcast and streamed on Fox News.
"Being a Fox contributor is kind of a brass ring in conservative and right-wing circles, and I was well compensated," Goldberg says. "I'm not looking to be a martyr or ask for pity or any of that kind of stuff. But it's a significant financial hit for sure. And it's also cutting yourself off from a very large audience."

"We don't regret the decision. But we found it regrettable that we had to make the decision."
Click to expand...
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/21/1052837157/fox-resignations-tucker-carlson-patriot-purge-documentary
 
Again people on the Right finding moral fiber either right after or long after it no longer matters stopped impressing me a long time ago. Have your moments of clarity when you're still in a time and place to make positive change or don't bother having them at all.

Chris Wallace could spend the rest of his life on CNN instead of Fox News and not put a dent in even the interest charges on the debt he owes to the truth.
 
On another note I'm sick of the news acting like legal decisions are working against Trump's favor.

"A federal judge ruled against Trump..."
"An appeals court dealt a blow to Trump..."
"A lower court ruled against Trump..."

Who the **** cares? It's going to wind up at the Supreme Court sooner or later and those 3 ******* toadies of his will rule for him.
 
JoeMorgue said:
On another note I'm sick of the news acting like legal decisions are working against Trump's favor.

"A federal judge ruled against Trump..."
"An appeals court dealt a blow to Trump..."
"A lower court ruled against Trump..."

Who the **** cares? It's going to wind up at the Supreme Court sooner or later and those 3 ******* toadies of his will rule for him.
Click to expand...

We can worry about abortion all we want, but these are the cases that will tell the real story as to how compromised the court really is. Hammering on basic human rights is not good but it is at least recognizable as a policy/jurisprudence issue. These cases would not be that.
 
JoeMorgue said:
On another note I'm sick of the news acting like legal decisions are working against Trump's favor.

"A federal judge ruled against Trump..."
"An appeals court dealt a blow to Trump..."
"A lower court ruled against Trump..."

Who the **** cares? It's going to wind up at the Supreme Court sooner or later and those 3 ******* toadies of his will rule for him.
Click to expand...
I'm just happy that's still actual reporting and not clickbait like everything else. I just glanced over at CNN.com, and the top story is "How millions of Americans can afford to quit."
 
The right-wing activist Supreme Court is in a bit of a bind when it comes to granting Trump Executive Privilege over Jan 6: if they protect Trump, they would also shield Biden and every other Democrat in the White House.
Of course, this SC would have no problem coming up with a "but not for Democrats" exception in all but name.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The right-wing activist Supreme Court is in a bit of a bind when it comes to granting Trump Executive Privilege over Jan 6: if they protect Trump, they would also shield Biden and every other Democrat in the White House.

Of course, this SC would have no problem coming up with a "but not for Democrats" exception in all but name.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have ZERO illusions that the current SCOTUS can't just straight up put the "Legal for Republicans, Illegal for Democrats" into the text instead of the subtext at this point.
 
Stacyhs said:
Not just Chris Wallace:https://www.npr.org/2021/11/21/1052837157/fox-resignations-tucker-carlson-patriot-purge-documentary
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, Hannity and Ingraham double down.
Fox News talkers Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity ended what appeared to be a Rupert Murdoch-imposed company-wide period of silence and talked publicly about the texts they’d sent privately to Mark Meadows on Jan. 6...Ingraham on the night of Jan. 6 went on air to say she’d heard that Antifa may have been behind the failed coup that left five people dead. This was after she’d texted Meadows that, “This is hurting all of us. [Trump] is destroying his legacy” by refusing to speak out and tell his followers to stop the violence and go home. MSN News
Click to expand...

What's her response to this revelation? That "left wing hacks smeared” her. How'd they do that? By repeating her own words! :boggled:

Hannity had texted Meadows on Jan. 6 to ask: “Can [Trump] make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol.” He knew that Trump’s lie, which he’d helped promote, had gone too far. But instead of acknowledging that all these months later, Hannity whined about how his privacy was supposedly being violated and asked why there wasn’t “outrage in the media” over his private texts being released publicly.
Click to expand...

Outrage over his private texts being released publicly? In an investigation over an invasion of the Capitol in which lives were lost?
 
JoeMorgue said:
On another note I'm sick of the news acting like legal decisions are working against Trump's favor.

"A federal judge ruled against Trump..."

Who the **** cares? It's going to wind up at the Supreme Court sooner or later and those 3 ******* toadies of his will rule for him.
Click to expand...
Or, they will find a way to rule that looks like it us against trump but still helps republicans.

Like his taxes... Instead of a definitive "yes congress can have them" they said trump's arguments were bad but lower courts would have to re-evaluate on other criteria.

That allows Trump to have his desired delay (hoping the republicans regain power before any rulings or appeals are done so they can squash the request), but leaves the supreme court enough room should a democrat be subject to the same sort of investigation in the future.


Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
 
JoeMorgue said:
Again people on the Right finding moral fiber either right after or long after it no longer matters stopped impressing me a long time ago. Have your moments of clarity when you're still in a time and place to make positive change or don't bother having them at all.

Chris Wallace could spend the rest of his life on CNN instead of Fox News and not put a dent in even the interest charges on the debt he owes to the truth.
Click to expand...
(I'm not a Fox viewer, so take what I say with a grain of salt...)

I am more inclined to give Wallace the benefit of the doubt here. Granted, he did work for Fox News, an organization that is well known for its pro-Trump bias, double standards, and disregard for honesty/integrity. But, from what I understand, he actually engaged in real, actual journalism when he was there, and did call out the Republicans. (Without him, the station might have been an even more right-wing echo chamber, if that was possible.)

That puts him in a different category than (for example) politicians like John Boehner (who played a part in Republican obstructionism for years, and now decries the state of the republican party), or John Bolton (who did nothing to stop Trump's abuses while he was in the administration), or even Megyn Kelly (who, before her battles with Trump in the 2016 election, seemed to be the typical right-wing talking head that Fox relies on.
 
What often puzzles me in big cases like this is that new video suddenly appears several months after the fact (like the video in the tunnel.)

I know we'll be seeing a lot more reporting and commenting on the event in the next few days, what with the one-year anniversary coming up.
 
JoeMorgue said:
On another note I'm sick of the news acting like legal decisions are working against Trump's favor.

"A federal judge ruled against Trump..."
"An appeals court dealt a blow to Trump..."
"A lower court ruled against Trump..."

Who the **** cares? It's going to wind up at the Supreme Court sooner or later and those 3 ******* toadies of his will rule for him.
Click to expand...
What case and how much would you like to bet?
 
ahhell said:
What case and how much would you like to bet?
Click to expand...

Myself, on a good portion of them I'm kind of betting on refusing to take most of the cases without comment. Even if there's not a shred of principle among the newer justices--and I'm not sure that's quite established--now that they're in, there's no benefit to them or whatever agenda they have of backing Trump personally.
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
Myself, on a good portion of them I'm kind of betting on refusing to take most of the cases without comment. Even if there's not a shred of principle among the newer justices--and I'm not sure that's quite established--now that they're in, there's no benefit to them or whatever agenda they have of backing Trump personally.
Click to expand...

There is also that if I'm going to rank judges on how likely they are to support Trump's side his appointments aren't at the top.

1) Thomas
2) Alito
3) Kavanaugh
4) Gorsuch
5) Barrett
6) Roberts
7-9) LDO

Which makes me think you are probably right. However, if the court passes I can see a raving dissent authored by one of the first two of those clowns and maybe also signed onto by Kavanaugh.

I'd think or at least hope that this would be 7-2, but Kavanaugh more than anyone else seems personally compromised.
 
There is a certain genius in the system that keeps it very stable. The supreme justices know that they are going to have to play by whatever rules they set, and so they are very careful to not make rules that make them irrelevant in the future.
 
digger said:
There is a certain genius in the system that keeps it very stable. The supreme justices know that they are going to have to play by whatever rules they set, and so they are very careful to not make rules that make them irrelevant in the future.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that might have worked in the past. But i think the U.S. supreme court has radically changed and can no longer be expected to set and follow "rules" with any consistency. Any past rules can be ignored, and they can set new rules because those new rules can be ignored in the future when circumstances change (i.e. the ruling affects someone with the opposite politics)

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
 
Hannity knew a LOT more about 1/6 planning than he has let on.

Jesus H Christ!!!



There is too much to summarize, so I'm not going to.

Just watch (its only 8 minutes)
 
Suddenly said:
There is also that if I'm going to rank judges on how likely they are to support Trump's side his appointments aren't at the top.

1) Thomas
2) Alito
3) Kavanaugh
4) Gorsuch
5) Barrett
6) Roberts
7-9) LDO

Which makes me think you are probably right. However, if the court passes I can see a raving dissent authored by one of the first two of those clowns and maybe also signed onto by Kavanaugh.

I'd think or at least hope that this would be 7-2, but Kavanaugh more than anyone else seems personally compromised.
Click to expand...

From a legal perspective it would be obscene for the court to accept this case.

It would be considering overturning Nixon v United States which was decided against Nixon 8 to 0. And Nixon's case is far stronger. Nixon was President so the claim of Executive Privilege has at least a little more merit. Trump is not President. The actual POTUS has not invoked Executive Privilege. This involves an insurrection.

There is no interesting legal issue. This would basically be saying that an ex POTUS may be above the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom