“you have a right to remain silent . . . and may i suggest you start exercising that right?”
12 Likes
Oh, no. This is way more fun! Speak on, you incorrigible asshat!
14 Likes
This is exactly what I say when folks like this post their “truths” online. Let them talk, so the rest of us can keep track of who they are. Since it takes a long time for consequences or karma to catch up, it’s the best defense (and proof) to use against them.
16 Likes
“Oh, they’re just kidding around Bob. Can you turn up the FoxNews? Thanks.”
17 Likes
…politicians.
18 Likes
It’s fitting they misspelled “For evil to triumph…” in such a way that their version has “Trump” in it.
20 Likes
12 Likes
13 Likes
“Nessel said that she believed that certain charges, such as forgery of a public record and election law forgery, were appropriate regarding the case.”
“So I will say under state law, I think clearly you have forgery of a public record, which is a 14-year offense, and election law forgery, which is a five-year offense,”
24 Likes
Yes! More of this, please. What are we up to, 7 states that pulled this shit? That’s a fair number of self-confessed insurrectionists, I do believe.
20 Likes
And this is also how you get some Senators tangled in the net. The ones who were part of the planning to delay the process and introduce the false slate of electors are part of the seditious conspiracy and subject to removal from office under the 14A.
21 Likes
14 Likes
There seem to be manifold questions as to exactly how the Section 3 (disqualification clause) of the 14th Amendment is to be carried out. It seems it would have been easier to apply in the 19th Century, when the question of who and what is a Confederate was more clear cut. Regardless, the blanket amnesties following the Civil War made the whole issue moot.
I have seen it proposed that Section 3 would require an act of Congress, which will not occur. Republican sentiment is entirely that such matters should be left up to voters, and the filibuster would prevent any such action from moving forward in the Senate.
Laurence Tribe has proposed a “neutral fact-finding body.” I don’t know how is this body to be constituted, and whether there needs to be enabling legislation to convene such a body. Overall, it seems too long and convoluted to be practical.
CNN mentioned but did not cite a federal law passed to place Section 3 enforcement with the Justice Department. If such power exists, then there would be a mechanism by which disqualification could occur. However, I don’t see Merrick Garland starting that process, driven by the same forces that led to blanket amnesty following the Civil War (plus concern, right or wrong, that Republicans would weaponize that provision when they retake the White House).
Definitely not an act of Congress to enforce it. Anyone who is saying that is trying to wave the whole thing away. Technically, IIRC, anything that’s in the Constitution can be enforced by the appropriate law enforcement agency, with the check on that authority built into the justice system by the courts.
As always, if the Republicans think they can do it, they will or already tried. Precedent is unnecessary for them. I get so fucking tired of people who use “but what if the GOP abuses it!” as an excuse not to enforce the law or Constitution for cases where it has obviously been violated.
16 Likes
CNN Obtains Audio Of McCarthy Saying Capitol Attack Was ‘Planned’ And That Trump Admitted Culpability
22 Likes
This sounds like more “we really got 'em, this time!” but fingers crossed…
Paxton is coming under fire at home for refusing to turn over texts and emails related to his trip to the Capitol to join the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally. His association with Trump’s schemes is now coming to a head: The Travis County[*] district attorney has just announced that Paxton may be running afoul of the state’s open records law.
…
Paxton then gave a rousing speech at the Jan. 6 gathering, in which he urged Trump supporters not to “quit fighting.” They didn’t, and soon after, a mob attacked the Capitol, culminating in an effort to overturn U.S. democracy that left five dead and scores injured.
…
Last spring, four Texas newspapers asked Paxton’s office for all work-related texts and emails sent and received while he was in Washington for “Stop the Steal,” citing Texas law guaranteeing the public the right to government documents.
Paxton refused, and the four newspapers took their complaint to Travis County district attorney Jose Garza. Now Garza’s office has investigated the complaint and found that it has merit, announcing that Paxton is in violation of Texas law and giving him four days to release the documents in question, or go to court.
What makes this so remarkable is that the office of Paxton, as attorney general, is supposed to be the party enforcing this open records law. But Texas law also offers the option of going to the Travis County prosecutor to allege that a state agency (in this case, Paxton’s) is in violation.
To top it all off, Paxton may now be breaking the law that his own office is supposed to enforce to keep any Jan. 6-related communications covered up.
Here’s another unshakable rule of the Trump era: The same Republicans who insult us with the most transparently phony pieties about protecting the integrity of our constitutional system will sooner or later display bottomless contempt for our elections, for the law, and even for public service itself.
*Blue county FWIW.
21 Likes
15 Likes
27 Likes
