The Jan. 6 Investigation

[DevilsAdvocate]

Jesus H Christ!!!



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

Just watch (its only 8 minutes)

You should have summarized because I watched the 8 minutes and I don't really see anything relevant hear other than Hannity had some discussions and he had some comments about January 6 which everybody knew was going to be a significant day because that is when the votes are counted. What is the big revelation here?

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

They could of course accept the case... Sit on it, and issue their ruling a year down the road (possibly with instructions that will require more action in the courts after), with the expectation that the republicans would retake congress and kill the investigation before anything damaging was revealed). Even if they rule against Trump, such delaying tactics would allow them to protect Trump and the republicans while providing a fake veneer of non-partisanship.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[smartcooky]

You should have summarized because I watched the 8 minutes and I don't really see anything relevant hear other than Hannity had some discussions and he had some comments about January 6 which everybody knew was going to be a significant day because that is when the votes are counted. What is the big revelation here?

Then you weren't paying attention!

 

[Darat]

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 called Trump may be above the law.

FTFY!

 

[Warp12]

Jesus H Christ!!!



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

Just watch (its only 8 minutes)

Did Hannity put you up to this? It makes him look virtuous.

And, it makes the commentator look like a Tucker wannabe.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Then you weren't paying attention!

My takeaway is that Hannity knew that the entire White House Counsel staff was threatening to resign because of Trump's efforts to steal the election retroactively. That would support the reports of Trump setting up a War Room outside the White House to circumvent the Council's Office.
I don't put much weight on the 25th amendment stuff, since Republicans are too spineless for something like this nowadays.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

My takeaway is that Hannity knew that the entire White House Counsel staff was threatening to resign because of Trump's efforts to steal the election retroactively. That would support the reports of Trump setting up a War Room outside the White House to circumvent the Council's Office.
I don't put much weight on the 25th amendment stuff, since Republicans are too spineless for something like this nowadays.

Everybody who was watching knew the plan, Jerome Corsi, knew it probably getting inside information from Sean or Rudy Giuliani.
Funny thing is Jerome and Alex Jones promoted a battle between antifa and BLM against Trump supporters.
It clear many of the supporters thought that's what was going to happen, but Antifa and BLM were warned that's what they wanted and to stay away on January 6th.

 

[smartcooky]

My takeaway is that Hannity knew that the entire White House Counsel staff was threatening to resign because of Trump's efforts to steal the election retroactively. That would support the reports of Trump setting up a War Room outside the White House to circumvent the Council's Office.

Well, at least someone was paying attention!

My additional takeaway is that Hannity was worried that Jan 6 would not be just a protest, but would turn out to be exactly what he was worried about, a violent riot.

It is also quite disturbing to find the that a mere journalist has such deep and widespread access within the halls of government. It appears he had direct, unrestricted, on demand access to the president and his closest advisors, and was actually giving political advice, some of which these people were taking and acting on. That is unprecedented IMO.

 

[acbytesla]

They could of course accept the case... Sit on it, and issue their ruling a year down the road (possibly with instructions that will require more action in the courts after), with the expectation that the republicans would retake congress and kill the investigation before anything damaging was revealed). Even if they rule against Trump, such delaying tactics would allow them to protect Trump and the republicans while providing a fake veneer of non-partisanship.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

That's what I'm worried about.

My point is stare decisis. There is no legal argument offered by Trump's lawyers that are any different than the arguments made by Nixon's or Clinton's lawyers. And neither obtained even a single dissenting vote.

Unless the court is considering turning over 45 years of precedence and elevating the rights of an ex president over the current one or a sitting Congressional committee there is no reason to accept this case for review.
It would be pure partisanship. I haven't at all been worried that SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor. But I have been worried that this court will accept it so they can run out the clock.

 

[smartcooky]

That's what I'm worried about.

My point is stare decisis. There is no legal argument offered by Trump's lawyers that are any different than the arguments made by Nixon's or Clinton's lawyers. And neither obtained even a single dissenting vote.

Unless the court is considering turning over 45 years of precedence and elevating the rights of an ex president over the current one or a sitting Congressional committee there is no reason to accept this case for review.
It would be pure partisanship. I haven't at all been worried that SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor. But I have been worried that this court will accept it so they can run out the clock.

Could Biden force SCOTUS' hand by making an Executive Order?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Could Biden force SCOTUS' hand by making an Executive Order?

Yes but it will be bad and wrong when the Democrats do it.

 

[acbytesla]

Could Biden force SCOTUS' hand by making an Executive Order?

Frankly, I always thought that he should order the archives to turn over all records period. SCOTUS in a way is playing a bit of a dangerous game in that POTUS can in fact just ignore them. They have no method of enforcing their will.

This is a constitutional crisis. But better to have one now.

 

[digger]

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

Think it through a little more. The court shifts around. If they break with precedent and start rewriting rules for immediate political expedience, then when liberal judges get appointed, everything they do can be easily undone, and the pendulum would swing back hard the other way.

The best way to preserve their own influence in the future is to respect precedet and move their agenda forward within it.

This appears to be what they are doing. As has been pointed out in this thread, they are using the shadow docket and ambiguous rulings to advance and protect their agenda on the ground, while not directly contradicting precedent.

This ensures that when they set their own precedents yo advance their agenda, it won't be easily rolled back when the pendulum swings. L

 

[Lurch]

They could of course accept the case... Sit on it, and issue their ruling a year down the road (possibly with instructions that will require more action in the courts after), with the expectation that the republicans would retake congress and kill the investigation before anything damaging was revealed). Even if they rule against Trump, such delaying tactics would allow them to protect Trump and the republicans while providing a fake veneer of non-partisanship.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

That's what nervously anticipate.

 

[Lurch]

Once Law itself has become nakedly political, the end of a nation is nigh. That realization should be a kick in the nuts.

 

[acbytesla]

Think it through a little more. The court shifts around. If they break with precedent and start rewriting rules for immediate political expedience, then when liberal judges get appointed, everything they do can be easily undone, and the pendulum would swing back hard the other way.

The best way to preserve their own influence in the future is to respect precedet and move their agenda forward within it.

This appears to be what they are doing. As has been pointed out in this thread, they are using the shadow docket and ambiguous rulings to advance and protect their agenda on the ground, while not directly contradicting precedent.

This ensures that when they set their own precedents yo advance their agenda, it won't be easily rolled back when the pendulum swings. L

Except we're also looking at the Republican party rigging the game. They are trying to create a monopoly of power despite a minority of support.

 

[digger]

Except we're also looking at the Republican party rigging the game. They are trying to create a monopoly of power despite a minority of support.

Yes but the supreme court doesn't know how that's going to work out. They can bide their time and move slowly. If the republicans take power forever, plenty of time to do it and they're going to want to be even more careful about maintaining their own importance.

The conservative court has played a big role in cementing that power... Bush v gore and the voting rights act. We can expect the court to attempt neuter whatever voting rights laws the democrats pass next month without creating precedent they will have trouble living with in the future. I think that the court will welcome the opportunity to insert itself into the electoral process, because that will assure them a seat at the table if the gop does take over.

 

[Warp12]

Except we're also looking at the Republican party rigging the game. They are trying to create a monopoly of power despite a minority of support.

I think this really downplays the level of support that Republicans have. It makes the party sound like the equivalent of the Mondale-Ferraro ticket.

 

[acbytesla]

I think this really downplays the level of support that Republicans have. It makes the party sound like the equivalent of the Mondale-Ferraro ticket.

Yeah, that's the reason despite 100,000 more votes cast in Pennsylvania for Democrats for the House of Representatives, the Republicans were awatded thirteen seats and the Democrats were awarded five. And that's just one state. That's why the GOP is on a full scale attack on voting rights in state after state.

 

[Warp12]

Yeah, that's the reason despite 100,000 more votes cast in Pennsylvania for Democrats for the House of Representatives, the Republicans were awatded thirteen seats and the Democrats were awarded five. And that's just one state. That's why the GOP is on a full scale attack on voting rights in state after state.

Is this what you are talking about??



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Pennsylvania

If not, please provide a link. I can't find the exact data you are referring to.