NEW: For the first time in history, the US Justice Department is keeping a database of citizens charged with misdemeanors & publicizing their names on a government website. The 821 "Capitol Breach Cases" is an apparent attempt to shame pro-Trump protestorshttps://t.co/MW5DmzWKq9

— Paul Sperry (@PaulSperry30) June 10, 2022

DC Capitol Breach cases Link

Gigem314 said:

---

But we can totally trust them with red flag laws. They would never abuse that kind of power…

---

Exactly.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Pretty sure nobody has plead guilty to sedition.

My point was that there were hundreds of people there, on camera, in the Capitol. It's been 18 months. Surely there must be hundreds of convictions by now, if it's such a clear cut case of sedition.

---

And there were thousands more outside. If this really was an "insurrection". It was the worst one in history with the "insurrectionists" outnumbering Capitol Police 100-1, no shots fired (other than an unarmed civilian shot by police), "insurrectionists" apparently let in AND posing for pictures with police………it goes on and on. What a farce.

aggiehawg said:

---

NEW: For the first time in history, the US Justice Department is keeping a database of citizens charged with misdemeanors & publicizing their names on a government website. The 821 "Capitol Breach Cases" is an apparent attempt to shame pro-Trump protestorshttps://t.co/MW5DmzWKq9

— Paul Sperry (@PaulSperry30) June 10, 2022

DC Capitol Breach cases Link

---

Sounds like an Enemies List. How very Nixon-esque

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Somebody planned the Kavanaugh assault and encouraged others to participate in it expressly in order to revolt against the legal authority of the peoples representatives in order to overthrow him from being installed

Sounds like it meets your definition again

Buuuuuut

Let me guess:

It's STILL (D)ifferent

---

I am not clear on the facts of what you are calling "the Kavanaugh assault" so I am not sure it is an apt comparison. Did it force Congress to shut down, clear the House chamber, and force Congress to go into hiding? Was it targeted towards all members of Congress, or only specific ones? That is, was it a revolt against the whole of Congress, or a protest against aimed at specific representatives? I really don't know, so if you can elaborate on the specifics you might have a point. I can't seem to be able to find anything on it.

Regardless, just for the sake of argument, if you feel there were seditious actions taken against the US Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, you would need to find out who the 'somebody' was who planned it and encouraged others to participate as well as evidence of these actions. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to be able to find anything. Again, if you could provide more information, you might have a point.

But, for the record, if a Democrat planned and encouraged a coordinated attack on the Congress on the United States, I would hope they would be indicted, and if found guilty, punished as prescribed by law. The rule of law (in the US, anyway) should not concern itself on political affiliation. I realize that many Republicans feel that political affiliation should be considered when applying the rule of law, but I think that those people are wrong.

Some crazy ***** made up a bs claim. She should be in jail. That's the assault on Kavanaugh. It was an assault on his character by a *****.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Somebody planned the Kavanaugh assault and encouraged others to participate in it expressly in order to revolt against the legal authority of the peoples representatives in order to overthrow him from being installed

Sounds like it meets your definition again

Buuuuuut

Let me guess:

It's STILL (D)ifferent

---

I am not clear on the facts of what you are calling "the Kavanaugh assault" so I am not sure it is an apt comparison. Did it force Congress to shut down, clear the House chamber, and force Congress to go into hiding? Was it targeted towards all members of Congress, or only specific ones? That is, was it a revolt against the whole of Congress, or a protest against aimed at specific representatives? I really don't know, so if you can elaborate on the specifics you might have a point. I can't seem to be able to find anything on it.

Regardless, just for the sake of argument, if you feel there were seditious actions taken against the US Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, you would need to find out who the 'somebody' was who planned it and encouraged others to participate as well as evidence of these actions. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to be able to find anything. Again, if you could provide more information, you might have a point.

But, for the record, if a Democrat planned and encouraged a coordinated attack on the Congress on the United States, I would hope they would be indicted, and if found guilty, punished as prescribed by law. The rule of law (in the US, anyway) should not concern itself on political affiliation. I realize that many Republicans feel that political affiliation should be considered when applying the rule of law, but I think that those people are wrong.

---

I'm sorry, but the only person that encouraged people to enter the Capitol building was Ray Epps. Trump said to protest patriotically and peacefully.

Where is Ray Epps?

Quote:

---

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley criticized FBI Director Christopher Wray for calling the Jan. 6 riot "domestic terrorism" in a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

"I believe that Director Wray's characterization of the riot as domestic terrorism is overbroad and unsustainable," said Turley. Wray called the Jan. 6 protest at the U.S. Capitol, where some participants broke through police barriers and destroyed federal property, an act of "domestic terrorism,"

---

Quote:

---

None of the protestors committed acts meeting the legal definition of terrorism, Turley claimed.

The Department of Justice handed charges of seditious conspiracy and other offenses to key Proud Boys leaders on Monday related to their role in allegedly encouraging the protest that became a riot at the Capitol.

"It does not belittle the horrible actions on that day to call them criminal rather than terroristic acts," said Turley. "As legally defined, I do not believe that the riot was an act of domestic terrorism and believe that such a sweeping characterization could be used against a host of groups across the political spectrum."

---

Quote:

---

"The use of terrorism laws for such violent protests is inimical to free speech," claimed Turley.

---

Link

I’ve been looking for this video ! This was planned … pic.twitter.com/KfmA4WBjsL

— 🇺🇸🇺🇸 🇲‌🇷‌. 🇼‌🇮‌🇱‌🇱‌🇮‌🇸‌ (@MrWillis23) June 11, 2022

Why is Chris Stirewalt a witness?

Who is the moron wearing a mask???

aggiehawg said:

---

Why is Chris Stirewalt a witness?

---

Not sure - but it explains why he's not on Fox anymore.

CoppellAg93 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Why is Chris Stirewalt a witness?

---

Not sure - but it explains why he's not on Fox anymore.

---

He was fired after 2020 election. Partially because of the early and unwarranted Arizona call on election night.

Didn't remember that. No wonder he's testifying then.

Watermelon Man said:

---

I realize that many Republicans feel that political affiliation should be considered when applying the rule of law, but I think that those people are wrong.

---

Do tell...

I would say whoever prodded ***** Ford to make up the lie and also any idiot that believed that skank.

CoppellAg93 said:

---

Didn't remember that. No wonder he's testifying then.

---

So was the other guy (can't remember his name) on their election decision desk. But I think that guy was rehired a few months later.

It was a bad and ridiculously premature call on Arizona that night. Maricopa County is like 60% of the population of the state.

aggiehawg said:

---

CoppellAg93 said:

---

Didn't remember that. No wonder he's testifying then.

---

So was the other guy (can't remember his name) on their election decision desk. But I think that guy was rehired a few months later.

It was a bad and ridiculously premature call on Arizona that night. Maricopa County is like 60% of the population of the state.

---

According to what Stirewalt just said, the call was "beautiful".

I always liked his appearances on Fox, but he is apparently full of himself.

CoppellAg93 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

CoppellAg93 said:

---

Didn't remember that. No wonder he's testifying then.

---

So was the other guy (can't remember his name) on their election decision desk. But I think that guy was rehired a few months later.

It was a bad and ridiculously premature call on Arizona that night. Maricopa County is like 60% of the population of the state.

---

According to what Stirewalt just said, the call was "beautiful".

I always liked his appearances on Fox, but he is apparently full of himself.

---

Dollars to donuts he was part of the shadow cabal as detailed in the Time magazine piece. Or he had a source at Runbeck who was 'processing' all of the mail in ballots for Maricopa County.

Stirewalt:

Quote:

---

But I do want to tell you why I agreed to testify before this committee, despite the straitened circumstances of its creation and the mistakes that were made along the way: because it is a duly empaneled committee of the United States Congress, and its chairman asked me to come forward and answer questions. I have no First Amendment grounds on which to refuse since I am not being asked to reveal a source or something like that. If I was in that spot, I would dig in my heels and fight until they either locked me up or let me go. But I have no such grounds.

I spend a lot of time talking about the need for stronger institutions and how Congress must reclaim its status as the first among equal branches. How could I then resist when Congress made a request of me that falls well within its powers? I would rather not have to face the same anger I did after we called Arizona for Joe Biden in 2020. I have no interest in starring in the sequel to that one. But neither could I find an acceptable reason as a citizen to refuse, so I will go. It is not a courageous thing for me to do, only unavoidable.

---

Via Hot Air

Also Bill Barr is lying during his deposition. Before the election.

Quote:

---

Nevertheless, last month, when he wasn't busy ineffectually trying to replace the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan with a Trump loyalist, Attorney General William Barr took out after voting by mail as rife with fraud. In this, he was echoing his master, President Trump.

In an interview he gave to Fox News, the attorney general said voting by mail "opens the floodgates to fraud." He said that ballots can be stolen from mailboxes. He argued the vote by mail eliminates the secret ballot. And, he said that "right now, a foreign country could print tens of thousands of counterfeit ballots" that would be hard to detect. And so, he said, vote by mail would undercut public confidence in the integrity of the ballot.

---

Link

Barr is also talking out of both sides of his mouth. First he claims he told Trump the DOJ cannot function as an investigator for the campaign. That they could only investigate if credible claims were referred to them.

Then he says he did investigate those claims anyway and found them to be without merit.

Which is it?

Now Barr is lying saying geolocation is worthless to debunk the 2000 mules movie.

Only the FBI used the same technique to track down Jan 6th protesters and the CDC used it as well to track people during Covid.

aggiehawg said:

---

Now Barr is lying saying geolocation is worthless to debunk the 2000 mules movie.

Only the FBI used the same technique to track down Jan 6th protesters and the CDC used it as well to track people during Covid.

---

And every major corporation in America involved with logistics or transport from Door Dash to Walmart uses it to within 3 feet of accuracy.

I think 2000 Mules is a very weak construction of the data and argument but I don't doubt that what it shows is valid.

10 minute recess - they should be back in 28 minutes.

aezmvp said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Now Barr is lying saying geolocation is worthless to debunk the 2000 mules movie.

Only the FBI used the same technique to track down Jan 6th protesters and the CDC used it as well to track people during Covid.

---

And every major corporation in America involved with logistics or transport from Door Dash to Walmart uses it to within 3 feet of accuracy.

I think 2000 Mules is a very weak construction of the data and argument but I don't doubt that what it shows is valid.

---

Agree, the presentation was bad. I had been following the efforts of True the Vote since they first started accumulating the massive amount of data, wondering how long it would take for them to sort through so much data.

And indeed, they had to raise the bar so high to cull the evidence of repeated visits (10 times) after culling for pattern of life so they were looking at discreet events that were out of the ordinary but nonetheless repeated visits.

I am very disappointed that True the Vote has not released the data, however. Makes me question what is going on?

backintexas2013 said:

---

I would say whoever prodded ***** Ford to make up the lie and also any idiot that believed that skank.

---

Let me see if I have this straight.

You believe that if a woman makes an accusation of rape, there needs to be a Congressional Investigation. For every one? Or, does it depend on whether they are a Republican or Democrat?

Wait. There was a Congressional Investigation on Ford's accusation. It was part of the confirmation hearings. What was your point?

Ben Ginsberg worked on Bush v. Gore. Completely different situation as there were no allegations of voter fraud in Florida in 2000. The attempted fraud occurred after the election when the Gore legal team tried to disenfranchise military members.

aggieforester05 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Somebody planned the Kavanaugh assault and encouraged others to participate in it expressly in order to revolt against the legal authority of the peoples representatives in order to overthrow him from being installed

Sounds like it meets your definition again

Buuuuuut

Let me guess:

It's STILL (D)ifferent

---

I am not clear on the facts of what you are calling "the Kavanaugh assault" so I am not sure it is an apt comparison. Did it force Congress to shut down, clear the House chamber, and force Congress to go into hiding? Was it targeted towards all members of Congress, or only specific ones? That is, was it a revolt against the whole of Congress, or a protest against aimed at specific representatives? I really don't know, so if you can elaborate on the specifics you might have a point. I can't seem to be able to find anything on it.

Regardless, just for the sake of argument, if you feel there were seditious actions taken against the US Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, you would need to find out who the 'somebody' was who planned it and encouraged others to participate as well as evidence of these actions. I'm sorry, but I can't seem to be able to find anything. Again, if you could provide more information, you might have a point.

But, for the record, if a Democrat planned and encouraged a coordinated attack on the Congress on the United States, I would hope they would be indicted, and if found guilty, punished as prescribed by law. The rule of law (in the US, anyway) should not concern itself on political affiliation. I realize that many Republicans feel that political affiliation should be considered when applying the rule of law, but I think that those people are wrong.

---

Do you have any self awareness at all? Do you not understand that the primary reason Conservatives are so upset with the political climate is the exact reasons you described above, but in the opposite direction? The problem for example is that we have a 1/6 committee, but there was no Kavanaugh assault hearings. Nobody bothered to get to the bottom of the latter, because it was perpetrated by liberals. If conservatives had done the same they would be imprisoned for decades. The rule of law in todays age absolutely concerns itself with political affiliation and we want that to stop. If conservatives/Republicans or liberals/Democrats break the law or engage in malicious/corrupt activities they should be treated the same, but they are clearly not. The American left is rotten to the core and is completely content weaponizing federal law enforcement to punish their political enemies for crimes that wouldn't even make a news article if it were committed by a lefty. Trying to deny that there is a double standard is akin to being a flat earther at this point.

---

Such an old trick, it should be called the GOT (Grand Old Trick). Accuse you opponents of your strategies, either before or after you employ them. That way, you can support your "both sides do it" claim.

As for the bolded part, Dr. Ford did testify in front of Congress. Not just a deposition, but in person. Why is it that the Republicans are afraid to testify in front of Congress, and will only submit to depositions? Perhaps they are trying to hide something?

***** Ford made up a story. Even the libs didn't believe her crap.

I wouldn't testify in front of congress. They are all idiots. Both sides.