HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Novara » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 29 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Apr 10, 2015, 07:15 AM
Number of posts: 4,007

Journal Archives

Tonight is gonna be explosive

Even a day after Jan. 6, Trump balked at condemning the violence

One day after the last rioter had left the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, President Donald Trump’s advisers urged him to give an address to the nation to condemn the violence, demand accountability for those who had stormed the halls of Congress and declare the 2020 election to be decided.

He struggled to do it. Over the course of an hour of trying to tape the message, Trump resisted holding the rioters to account, trying to call them patriots, and refused to say the election was over, according to individuals familiar with the work of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

The public could get its first glimpse of outtakes from that recording Thursday night, when the committee plans to offer a bold conclusion in its eighth hearing: Not only did Trump do nothing despite repeated entreaties by senior aides to help end the violence, but he sat back and enjoyed watching it. He reluctantly condemned it — in a three-minute speech the evening of Jan. 7 — only after the efforts to overturn the 2020 election had failed and after aides told him that members of his own Cabinet were discussing invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.

“This is what he wanted to happen,” Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), who is scheduled to lead the questioning Thursday along with Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), said in an interview this week. “You might have earlier on said, ‘Was he incompetent? Was he someone who freezes in a moment when they can’t react to something? Or was it exactly what he wanted to have happened?’ And after all of this, I’m convinced that this is exactly what he wanted to have happen.”

Committee aides on Wednesday dubbed the prime-time presentation the “187-minute hearing,” a reference to the period between Trump’s speech on the Ellipse on Jan. 6 before protesters marched to the Capitol and his remarks late that afternoon from the Rose Garden urging the rioters to go home. The hearing will focus heavily on Trump’s inaction in the White House during that time, the aides said on a background call with reporters.

Emphasis mine.

More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/20/even-day-after-jan-6-trump-balked-condemning-violence/

This is what the J6 committee should do about the secret service scofflaws

Seize their phones. Have a techie look at their contact lists to determine when the information was added. If the date of their contacts is prior to the migration, that means they selectively migrated some data and either didn't migrate the other data or deleted it so it couldn't be migrated.

Then serve each one of them with a subpoena and ask them under oath who gave the order to delete texts and/or to not migrate texts from two specific dates. Remember, they have to follow the official records retention policy. Ask them how contacts managed to migrate to the new phones but texts didn't. Again, they need a tech expert to testify that contacts that were entered before the migration and which ended up migrating means they didn't migrate texts or they deleted them prior to the migration.

I am sure those texts disappeared because someone gave the order to delete them. I really doubt all of them decided to delete them on their own. If all of them are in the hot seat, what are the chances that at least one of them won't give up the person who gave this order? Would all of them take the blame and possibly go to prison to protect that person? I'm thinking maybe not.

Weeping mom blasts Texas grand jury for DECLINING to indict man who accidentally shot and killed ...

Weeping mom blasts Texas grand jury for DECLINING to indict man who accidentally shot and killed her daughter, 9, as he chased armed man who had just robbed him at ATM

A distraught mother slammed a Texas grand jury for refusing to indict the man who shot and killed her young daughter while chasing down a man who'd just robbed him in February.

On February 14, Arlene Alvarez was sitting in her family's car listening to music through headphones when she was shot in the head by Tony Earls, a 41-year-old who was on the street chasing down a man who had just robbed him at an ATM.

Earls thought the robber had hopped into a vehicle and he mistook the Alvarez family car for one his assailant may have been traveling in.

Gwen, the girl's mother, says he fired a total of nine shots at them, knowing he was going to kill someone or at the very least hoping he would.

Earls was later charged with aggravated assault but a Grand Jury on Tuesday declined to indict him, accepting his claim that he was acting in self-defense.

More in the link.

House passes protection for same-sex, interracial marriages with bipartisan support

House passes protection for same-sex, interracial marriages with bipartisan support

A bill that would federally protect same-sex marriages sailed through the House Tuesday with bipartisan support, a historic moment that illustrates how broadly the country’s perspective on the issue has changed in recent years.

Forty-seven Republicans joined all Democrats in support of the Respect for Marriage Act that also would protect interracial marriage and repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and NRCC Chair Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) were among the Republicans who voted in support, a signal that at least a portion of the party believes marriage equality is settled law.

It’s unclear if the legislation has enough support in the Senate for passage. And Democratic leaders didn’t commit to bringing it up for a vote, stating the legislative schedule ahead of the midterms may not allow for immediate consideration.

House Democrats scheduled the vote Tuesday in response to an opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last month in which he openly questioned whether the court “should reconsider” rulings that guaranteed access to birth control and same-sex couples’ right to marriage — two issues many Americans have viewed as settled law.

Thomas’s opinion — filed as a concurrence to the Supreme Court ruling that overturned federal abortion protections in Roe v. Wade — opened the door for congressional Democrats to attempt to draw a sharp contrast between themselves and Republicans ahead of the fall midterm elections.

More in the link.

Indiana AG who threatened to go after abortion doctor hit with formal misconduct complaint

Indiana AG who threatened to go after abortion doctor hit with formal misconduct complaint

Republican Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has been hit with a formal misconduct complaint over his threats to prosecute a doctor who performed an abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim.

The Washington Post reports that Lauren Robel, the former dean of Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, filed a complaint against Rokita in which she alleged that he intended to "harass and intimidate" Dr. Caitlin Bernard when he falsely insinuated that she did not properly filed a terminated pregnancy report with the Indiana Department of Health and the Department of Child Services.

In an interview with the Post, Robel singled out Rokita's decision to publicly disparage Bernard and threaten to prosecute her during an interview on Fox News as a major red line that no attorney general should cross.

"The attorney general is tasked with protecting citizens, not going after them without evidence on television,” she explained. “I just fear that without those of us in the bar calling [out] that kind of behavior when we see it, we lower the standards."

More: https://www.rawstory.com/todd-rokita/

The Justices' faith and their Religion Clause decisions

The Justices’ faith and their Religion Clause decisions

This is utterly enraging. And terrifying for our future.


Two of the most respected empirical law scholars—Lee Epstein of Washington University at St. Louis School of Law and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School—recently published a statistical study of the Roberts Court and constitutional protections for religion. The study was based on a dataset that included every Supreme Court case that produced an opinion relating to the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses from 1953 to the 2020 term. The data showed that the Roberts Court represents a break in the development of the two religion clauses.

“Over the entire period, the court ruled in favor of religion 59% of the time,” the authors reported. “Win rates do not differ significantly for Free Exercise Clause cases (59%) and Establishment Clause cases (57%). Across the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts the religious side prevailed about half the time, with gradually increasing success. In the Roberts Court, the win rate jumps to 83%.”


These empiricists also examined the justices in their dataset. They ranked them by their pro-religion votes and concluded:

“The top five most pro-religion justices since at least World War II are Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr., Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.”

“They are also all Christian, mostly Catholic, religiously devout (though this variable provides a weaker explanation than the others), and ideologically conservative. Amy Coney Barrett will likely advance this trend.” Barrett, who didn’t join the court until 2020, did advance the trend in last term’s religion decisions, her first full term on the court. (The least pro-religion justice was Presbyterian William Douglas who served from 1939 to 1975).

More: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-justices-faith-and-their-religion-clause-decisions

House Judiciary Committee to Hold First Markup on Assault Weapons Ban Legislation in Two Decades

House Judiciary Committee to Hold First Markup on Assault Weapons Ban Legislation in Two Decades

WASHINGTON, DC— House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler today announced the markup of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2021 (H.R. 1808) on July 20, 2022. In the last two months alone, four gunmen have killed a combined 42 people with assault weapons—including 19 children in Uvalde, Texas. This legislation, sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) and cosponsored by 211 Members of the House, would ban the sale, import, manufacture or transfer of certain semi-automatic weapons.

“Over the past several decades, our country has witnessed senseless killing after senseless kill and each time one fact has remained remarkably consistent—the weapon of choice for mass slaughter is a high-powered assault weapon,” said Chairman Nadler. “It is beyond frightening and disturbing that a weapon that was designed as a tool of war has found its way into the hands of 18 year olds and onto our streets. Any weapon that allows for the quick and efficient slaughter of children in our schools has no place in our communities. This markup is another step in our efforts to make our communities safer. I look forward to moving this legislation through the Judiciary Committee next week and onto the House floor.”

“AR-15 style firearms have become the weapon of choice for shooters looking to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible and have been used in the deadliest mass shootings in our history, from Sandy Hook to Parkland to Uvalde. Researchers estimate that if we still had a federal Assault Weapons Ban, we would see 70 percent fewer mass shooting deaths. How many more kids need to die in their schools before we finally crack down on these dangerous firearms which were designed for war?" said Congressman Cicilline. “Protecting the lives and safety of Americans is not at odds with our Second Amendment rights. We cannot rest until we ensure that our kids and families are safe in schools, houses of worship, and everywhere in our communities. I thank Chairman Nadler for moving this legislation through the Committee and hope all our colleagues will join us in voting to help save lives.”

More: https://judiciary.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4987

J6 committee hints at an attempted 'congressional coup'

J6 committee hints at an attempted ‘congressional coup’


Present at that meeting were the following, Murphy said: US Reps. Matt Gaetz*, Andy Biggs*, Brian Babin, Jody Hice, Louie Gohmert*, Andy Harris, Mo Brooks*, Paul Gosar*, Scott Perry* and Jim Jordan. Margaret Taylor Greene*, representative-elect, was there. So were Mike Pence, Mark Meadows* and Rudy Giuliani*, Murphy said. (The asterisk indicates who among them later asked Trump for a pardon.)

Murphy said it was important to explain that Eastman’s legal theory was illegal. Why? Because Republicans in the House and Senate “were looking for reasons to object.” The thinking appears to be that with a sufficient number of congressional Republicans objecting to the electoral count, which is to say, voting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, they could keep Trump in the White House.

These 10 Republicans have not gotten as much attention as they deserve. (Neither have the 137 other Republicans who voted to object.) That’s understandable. The J6 committee has uncovered a dogpile of material evidence of the walking crime scene that is the former president. But these co-conspirators deserve a moment.


Indeed, these 10 House Republicans not only voted to reject Biden and hence the democratic will of the American people. They voted to reject the president-elect after the former president had ordered his paramilitaries and armed mob to sack and loot the US Capitol.

Again, with feeling: these Republicans met with Trump to pressure Pence. When they failed, they voted to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In all, 147 Republicans in the Congress followed suit.

More: https://www.editorialboard.com/j6-committee-hints-at-an-attempted-congressional-coup/

What were the biggest revelations for you in today's hearing?

There are so many:

The fact that there was a "secret" plan to march to the Capitol, except that it wasn't secret, implying coordination and planning between the White House and the seditionists.

The witness tampering.

The pre-planning since December 2020.

The unhinged 6-hour screaming fight where he tried to make Sidney Powell Special Counsel.

The fact that as soon as he called the seditionists off, they left, implying that he could have called them off way earlier but didn't.

The admission that the insurrectionists were taking orders from him.

What was most striking to you?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 29 Next »