Below is the long version of my column that ran in the Washington Times on the unusual offer made by the head of the Oath Keepers organization to testify despite his pending criminal trial for seditious conspiracy.
Here is the column:
With only one scheduled hearing remaining, the House’s Jan. 6 committee this week held a long-awaited hearing on the critical linkage between former President Trump and his aides to extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.
At the start of these hearings, committee members said there was evidence of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election through an insurrection on Capitol Hill. To establish a criminal conspiracy, the committee maintained that Trump and others in the White House colluded with these groups, who were to be the insurrection’s foot soldiers.
Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has insisted there is “ample evidence” to support criminal charges. His colleague, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), said the committee would show that Trump organized a “coup” on Jan. 6, 2021.
The hearings have succeeded in bringing to light much of what occurred in those critical days. The testimony has detailed extremely disturbing conduct and chilling proposals, but it has not established a clear criminal conspiracy. Indeed, much of the evidence has amplified what we already knew, rather than add significant new information on criminal conduct. If the committee is serious about such a referral to the Justice Department, it will have to make a quantum leap in evidence. Even former prosecutor and Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp said that the seventh hearing showed her “as a former prosecutor myself, everything that I’ve heard, I think it would be a very tough indictment to get.”
If the Committee seriously wants to convince Attorney General Merrick Garland to charge a former president, it must produce direct, unassailable evidence, not circumstantial evidence based on “will be wild” tweets or an anonymous former Twitter employee’s testimony that “It felt as if a mob was being organized.”
The seventh hearing spent a considerable amount of time on actions not taken by Trump — a curious way to build a criminal case. There was the draft tweet that was not sent and the executive order that was never signed.
Even more curious was the selection of the long-awaited witnesses from right-wing groups involved in the attack on the Capitol. One was Jason Van Tatenhove, a former Oath Keepers spokesman who quit the group years before the riot and had no involvement in any planning or protest on that day. Tatenhove called the head of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, as a dangerous militia leader. The other was Stephen Ayres, who illegally entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 and later pleaded guilty to a federal charge of disorderly conduct. Both offered insights into the extremism of these groups but not clear criminal linkages to Trump.
The Committee is now faced with a rather bizarre offer from Rhodes. Indeed, I cannot recall any situation quite like this one.
Despite being indicted for seditious conspiracy and facing up to 20 years in prison, he said he is willing to testify on his actions related to Jan. 6 on the condition that he does so in public, to avoid having his words edited or distorted.
The risks for Rhodes are enormous, and few defense attorneys would support such an offer. A Yale Law graduate, Rhodes knows he could not only incriminate himself on pending charges but could trigger additional charges for perjury or other crimes. It would effectively negate his right to remain silent at trial, since any committee testimony could be used at trial. It would give prosecutors not only an extensive examination of Rhodes free of limiting rules of evidence but it would expose Rhodes for any contradictions if he decides (as seems more likely given this offer) to testify at his trial.
For the committee, the potential risk of Rhodes testifying would be the loss of control and the possibility that he could hijack a hearing with extraneous, sensational or hateful statements. I can understand the reluctance to hold an open hearing. However, if Rhodes went rogue, the committee could always end the hearing.
The question now is whether the committee is willing to take the risk of an unscripted hearing to establish a criminal case against Trump. It has a witness who could confirm or refute such allegations — but that will require an unscripted, unpredictable public hearing. It would not be a controlled production by a former network executive — but the public would see an actual examination of a key player, and be able judge his credibility and culpability for themselves.
The committee has already laid the foundation for such an examination and has a long list of subjects. It could ask Rhodes about photographs with Trump associates like Roger Stone, or the storage of a weapons cache; it could secure sworn testimony on any coordination with the Proud Boys and other extreme groups.
Rhodes has maintained he believed that Trump would activate the Insurrection Act, and came prepared to be made part of a lawful militia. Witnesses have said Rhodes wanted Trump to deputize citizens under the Act but lacked contacts or “access points” in the White House. The committee would be able to ask him if anyone in the Trump campaign (or Trump himself) offered assurances or encouragement in that bizarre belief.
The committee has built a criminal conspiracy theory around these groups and Rhodes in particular. This is an opportunity to examine an alleged core conspirator in a no-holds-barred format. There are risks all around, of course, but the greatest risks would fall on Rhodes. The committee should take him up on his offer.
356 thoughts on “Should the J6 Committee Call Stewart Rhodes or Call it a Day?”
All the democrats are trying to do is stop Donald Trump from running again. They’ll probably try to keep this dog and pony show running till Election Day in November.
Indeed.. do we need more of the divisiveness caused by ‘Impeachment Part 2’ aka ‘The J6 Hearings’ where the same creative ‘Framing’ via slicing and dicing words out of context goes on…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0G6mAMUAsA
I wonder why? I mean who on earth wouldn’t want a guy who refuses to admit he lost an election even after losing substantially and being thrown out of 62 courts, demanding an alternate slate of electors and inciting a mob to halt the turnover, to run again? Even coconspirators like his pardoned friend Bannon have said before the election if he lost he was going to lie and say he won.
Your comment demonstrates how you have been brainwashed.
Trump prevailed in 4 out of 8 cases decided on the merits.
GOP Plaintiff prevailed in 11 out of 13 cases decided on the merits.
You’re using that list of 81 cases that has a number that weren’t even related to voter fraud, going back to March of 2020?? And only 3 were filed after the election:
“ Of the 15 cases in Droz’s spreadsheet, three were filed on or after Election Day. None of them involved allegations of voter fraud.
And of those three, just one case, filed Nov. 4, had to do with the election results. It centered on reducing the amount of time Pennsylvania voters had to fix errors on their mail-in ballots. The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee were granted an injunction against the secretary of state to prevent extending the proof of ID period by three days. The matter involved a small number of ballots that didn’t change the outcome”
Call me win he wins one related to voter fraud.
“even after losing substantially and being thrown out of 62 courts”
That was your claim.
Trump prevailed in 4 out of 8 cases that were of significance. In the 62 courts, I don’t think all represent Trump suits. You are brainwashed, but you have the opportunity to redeem yourself by listing all the cases Trump lost that weren’t on standing or something else equally foolish. I didn’t provide the 62 number, you did
We can discuss each case separately. In the meantime, your ’62’ number demonstrates you were brainwashed.
Of the cases you’re citing how many were actually filed after the election? 3.
How many had anything to do with the election results? 1 (Pennsylvania concerning an injunction on the amount of time voters had to Fox mail in ballots).
How many alleged voter fraud?
“ Your comment demonstrates how you have been brainwashed” S Meyer posited from a glass house.
“Of the cases you’re citing how many were actually filed after the election? 3.”
CK07: The brainwashing began with the left hammering that 62 number into the heads of leftists. It was a larger number than 3, so you felt it was more effective. Now, like a typical leftist, you want to try and go through the door into the real world, but you are not quite there.
I don’t need to play this game you already lost by using a dumb number. But I will remind you that GOP Plaintiff prevailed in 11 out of 13 cases decided on the merits.
If you wish to go down that rabbit hole, be prepared to discuss each and every case including recent fraud cases that are now going to court.
Say hello to the left-wing editor of whatever left-wing blog you read. Tell him I would like to take him out for a beer.
So the nonsense you’re spouting aside, you admit that only 3 of the 13 cases you’re referencing were filed after the election. Yes or yes?
CK07 we don’t let leftists dictate the order of discussion, but I will say that fraud is being taken to the courts as we speak and cases won, so you are very much out of date. That is not an unusual thing from the leftist point of view. Leftists conclude when there is not enough information is available to draw conclusions and then repeat that misinformation, as you have done here, even though the new information destroys their arguments.
Here are some of the cases going on right now. It is not a complete list.
Bombshells undercut the ‘Big Lie:’ 21 confirmed illegalities, irregularities from 2020 election
Nice try Jonathan, but I’m not buying your attempts to distract from the soft coup as the main crime.
The rabble who attacked the Capitol signified the collapse of the soft coup, which was to game the Electoral College process to install Trump for a 2nd term.
I really don’t give a RA about Stuart Rhodes.
I want someone in the “crazies” (language alert: another attempt to deflect irresponsibility) to tell the American People what they thought they could do, how, and how it unraveled. We need this information to prosecute the lawbreaking, and to reinforce our electoral system against this type of “win at all costs” gaming (yes, even if it risks igniting a civil war).
We also need to learn how the Capitol Police were mismanaged leading up to the Jan 6th assault. There was a massive security failure, despite several weeks worth of quality intelligence about planning for disruption by alt-right groups.
JT, you’ve become just like so many national pundits, mesmerized by conflict theatrics and failure. I would put Stuart Rhodes into that category. I’m only interested in strengthening our core institutions.
This committee would never allow Rhodes to testify. They are just a bunch of Trump hating cowards. Worried about his testimony turning this unlawful kangaroo court upside down and further revealing what a farce it really is, as most of the American public are beginning to see. Just look at the poll numbers. Thanks to Biden’s performance as president, more and more people are switching from fake news to Fox and 1 million just switched parties from Democrat to Republican. Trump Derangement Syndrome has exposed the left as having only lies and hate as their weapons. They’re dead in the water and only the brainwashed pin heads are holding on and are on life support. Truth is winning and will win in the end. The only thing the left are good at is attempting to pervert children and killing babies in the womb. “May their end come quickly and may it come soon.”
The Committee already had Rhodes testify. Why should they take up more of their time interviewing him again? What is he going to say that he didn’t already say?
Dumb as a Brick or paid to be dumb as a brick, that is the question.
“The rabble who attacked the Capitol signified the collapse of the soft coup, which was to game the Electoral College process to install Trump for a 2nd term.”
Are you trying to mind-meld with Rod Serling?
Legal and constitutional efforts to “overturn” an election are by definition legal – no a crime.
You seek to criminalize legal conduct.
Myriads of lawsuits have been filed challenging elections at one time or another – are all of these attempts at Soft Coups ?
Many have been successful. A federal house race won by a republican was overturned in 2018 as a result of claims of ballot harvesting that were less consequential and less well proven than those in 2000 mules.
In 2016 Hillary, others in congress and many in the media called for electors to change their votes – was that a crime ? Was that a soft coup ?
In 2000 Al Gore challenged the results of the election in Florida – was that a Crime ? Was that a Soft Coup ?
In 1876 we had nearly exactly the situation we had in 2020 – a tightly contested election, credible claims of election fraud, a democrat who won the popular vote and the electoral college. Additional slates of electors from the legislature.
And congress deciding not to certify the electoral count and appointing a commission that recomended certifying the republican as the actual likely winner.
Was that a crime ? A soft coup ?
In nearly every election some representative challenges the electors from one state or another – is that a crime ? A soft coup ?
There have been real attempts at Soft Coups in the past 6 years. But this was not one of those.
You can not equate challenging outcomes you like with criminality. All that does is criminalize politics.
I see that the Jan 6 committee has subpoenaed the Secret Service for text messages that were supposedly erased. You can tell that your feeling the heat from the question that continually arises concerning why they haven’t called the secret service agents that were on the scene to testify under oath. If they think they have the goods why not just call the first hand witnesses to testify. They now want us to believe that the Secret Service agents are lying and have deleted their text messages to protect Trump. WHAT? Perhaps eye witness testimony is not what they really want to hear. They prefer the second hand knowledge if Ms. Hutchinson over the first hand knowledge of the Secret Service agents. This deleted text business is just a CYA distraction. An “A” That is becoming more and more exposed on a daily basis. The points of their pitchforks are becoming very dull indeed as the dog and pony show proceeds.
Idiot: I pointed out to you earlier that they ALREADY interviewed Ornato and Engel.
Your mind is closed to learning.
Your “A” is exposed.
They interviewed Hutchinson a number of times until she came up with the answers they wanted. All they have to do is call up Ornato and Engel again to correct the hearsay.
Can you get any dumber?
Are you afraid that everyone correcting you might cost you your job and income stream?
The core question is about Hutchinson’s credibility.
Her testimony – if true did not provide evidence of a crime, just conduct those on the left disdain.
Confirming her testimony would do little beyond paint Trump as a sore loser.
But refuting her testimony makes democrats look bad.
Hutchinson testified 4-5 times before these stories surfaced.
SS and others also testified before. Had these alllegations been made they COULD have been asked about them.
Since Hutchinson testified witnesses who could confirm parts of her story have testified. None have even been asked to do so.
There is a reason that we have an adversarial process to find the truth – this is an example of why that is required.
Congress has absolutely no authority to even have this 1/6 committee, much less ask or compel individuals to testify as part of their proceedings!
There are limits on the role and authority of congress, which are established by the Constitution of the United States and further curtailed by the Bill of Rights, which explicitly prevent congress from holding any proceedings of this type. The limits of congress’s authority only extend to the removal from office of officials currently serving within the federal government system, for any reason because a misdemeanor is no more than a parking ticket, so they don’t even need a good reason other than insubordination to their authority as the Union to remove anyone, up to and including the President of the United States. All other matters must either be turned over to the justice system, or an act on a petition of grievances from a State or States which would then be referred to the Supreme Court, but it’s not congress’s role or responsibility to investigate the matter at all, nor form a committee to compel the testimony of individuals who may be involved in the matter, that is the responsibility of the justice system.
This whole sham of an effort to get to the truth needs to be disbanded immediately, and in fact congress itself must be disbanded because it it improperly assembled and functions improperly, which is what the Constitution of the United States is all about. A Constitution is no more, and no less, than the blueprints and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to assemble and operate congress as a legislative assembly of the States governed by legislative processes to reach a majority consensus of the States as the Union, to establish how the States interact with each other as part of the Union and how the States act together as the Union. Until we come to grips with that fact we will always have dysfunctional government making inappropriate decisions.
By the way, the 1/6 insurrection could not have been possible if we followed the electoral process established by Article 2 Section 1 or the 12th amendment, because the electors only responsibility is to make a ranked list of all qualified and suitable candidates from every State, then the States make the choice from the top candidates identified by that list. The electors don’t make the choice, so the Electoral College cannot make the choice, the Electoral College can only make the list, and that is the same for popular elections in each State, they cannot make the choice either, they too can only make the list of qualified and suitable candidates from their State, and the list must have all the persons receiving votes, and at least 1 must be from a State other than the electors themselves, which if you are going to give that responsibility to a voting electorate, each voter must provide the names of two persons, at least 1 of which must be from a State other than themselves. The voters don’t vote from a prepared list, the voters prepare the list of candidates, huge difference.
The electors make the list, the States make the choice, if you don’t believe or agree with me, then I would suggest you review Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th amendment of the Constitution of the United States, but here is the most important excerpt from Article II;
“The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President.
But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice.
In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.”
I think this is clear enough even for a Constitutional Law Professor to understand!
Congress can hold hearings on anything related to their work, whether that be legislation or their own safety. Congress has had subpoena power since its founding.
“the Bill of Rights … explicitly prevent congress from holding any proceedings of this type” is utter BS, which is why you don’t quote anything from the Bill of Rights to substantiate your claim. House Select Committees have existed since our founding. Do you think you understand the BoR better than the Founders?
“congress itself must be disbanded because it it improperly assembled and functions improperly”
ROFL. You’re a nut. You also clearly misunderstand the text you quoted.
Remember Ashli Babbitt
-January 6, 2021
What an overweight lying sack of crap is that wretched former AG!! As the old saying goes, “With ‘friends’ like that, who needs enemies?!? I happen to be VERY convinced by the evidence – all thoroughly documented by 2000 Mules and True the Vote!! – that there were multiple “irregularities” in the 2020 election, and the final result was NOT an honest expression of the American voters! Joementia did NOT win “in a landslide!!” And nothing that the effin’ creeps that populate the wretched Deep State and DC’s evil Uniparty can dare to claim has one ounce of REAL truth!!
Barr is an idiot. He has know idea what is involved in election fraud.
Remember when Michelle Obama condemned the use of rubber bullets and pepper spray on peaceful protestors for a “photo op”, neglecting to mention they had committed arson on a historic church and attacked police?
How do they do it? How do Democrats encourage and even bail out rioters, and support the seizure of entire city blocks in CHOP/CHAZ, but they deemed the one single protest turned riot at the Capitol some sort of attempt to overthrow the entire government?
How do they get away with this false logic, and atrocious double standard? They are not held accountable for their own words and actions in any effective way. People grumble about it on blogs and in conservative media, but Democrats don’t seem to be held to account.
Democrats looted, rioted, committed arson, seized city blocks, bombed federal buildings, burned a police precinct, assaulted and murdered cops, threw bombs at cops sitting inside their squad cars, for about a year of terror. It was deemed “mostly peaceful protests” by the top Democrats. Lawlessness was the albatross around their necks.
When some Republicans grew unruly on Jan 6, broke away from a peaceful Trump rally, some were allowed into the Capitol by police while others simply trespassed, and then while most took selfies and were peaceful, some grew riotous, caused property damage, and interrupted Congress, Democrats proclaimed the Republican Party terrorists and seditionists. Compleley ignoring how Democrats bailed out rioters, they proclaimed that if a Republican supported the peaceful Trump rally, criticized the treatment of the Jan 6 rioters, or knew or spoke with anyone who later trespassed at the Capitol, it was grounds to bar them from public office forever. They just ignored their own actions and declared Jan 6 some sort of coup.
And they get away with it. It’s chilling, really.
Yes, America is burning. But that’s how forests grow.
-Maura Healey, Democrat Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts, speaking in support of the 2020 BLM Riots
You’re once again misremembering. The arson had occurred the night before.
I know when the arson occurred. They would not disperse. They remained. They attacked police officers. It was a lie that they were cleared for a photo op. They were cleared to instill law and order, something that should have been done to CHOP/CHAZ, and all those BLM riots. But Democrats always seem to side with law breaking.
Why do Democrats keep portraying criminal behavior as heroic? Why do they make martyrs out of violent criminals?
It’s happening again. Andrew Tekle Sundberg was a maniac who shot at a single mother and her two kids in their apartment. Her apartment is full of bullet holes. She was rescued by police. After an hours-long standoff in which Sundberg shot at police, he was fatally shot. Democrats have protested and marched, and I heard activists tell the single mother to shut up when she cried that what they were doing was wrong. When she said he tried to murder her, Democrat activists say, “Well, you’re still alive.” Yes, because police were able to get her out. Now they’ve made some sort of martyr of Sundberg. His GoFundMe account raised $20,000, while the one for his victim raised only $2000.
This is so morally indefensible.
In what world are the protests and riots that occured in the area near the whitehouse in June 2020 legitimate protests, while those that ocurred at the capital in Jan 2021 are not ?
While there are some differences between the area near the whitehouse and the capital – all of those differences favor the J6 protestors.
Both areas are traditional areas of public protest of government. But the white house less so that the capital. Moist of the whitehouse is NOT open to the public, most of the capital is. The whitehouse is supposed to be engaged int he administration of law – NOT the creation of it.
Jan. 6 was an attempted autogolpe on Trump’s part, and the more we learn about it, the clearer that becomes.
It’s chilling, really.
Ignorant people continue to make the same comments after they have been disproven. You are one of them.
America the free is not as free as you perceive.
You just can’t help yourself, can you Karen S? Either that, or you are paid to keep beating the same drum: the false equivalency of protests over the murder of George Floyd and the planned, coordinated attack on our Capitol as a last-resort of a desperate narcissist who had been rejected by the American people a second time. Jan 6th WAS coup, and if you watched anything other than the alt-right news upon which you rely for daily affirmation, you would know all about the extensive planning between Trump and his campaign, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and the 3 percenters that went into this day, which was intended as Trump’s Last Stand. This came after failing to bully local election officials into “finding” nonexistent votes, pressure by Republicans like Lindsey Graham on state election officials to refuse to certify votes for Biden, appointing a slate of fake electors who falsely and feloniously “certified” that Trump won in certain states (despite all proof to the contrary), after dozens of audits and recounts, after failing with over 60 baseless lawsuits that were thrown out of court for lack of any semblance of evidence, after failing to bully Mike Pence into taking action not allowed by the Constitution, so the only thing left was to concede or try to force himself on America. He chose the latter, via well-planned “Stop the Steal” rallies in certain states, spreading the Big Lie, all to rile up his fans into believing that their votes were stolen from them, and that he not only won, but won by a “landslide”. See, it has to be a “landslide” for the sake of his ego. You’ve tried, and failed, repeatedly to paint Jan 6th as a protest that got out of hand and to equate valid protests over George Floyd’s murder with this planned and coordinated effort to prevent certification of Biden’s valid victory. Being a faithful disciple, you won’t listen to or accept facts. You’ve borrowed a Turley term “chilling”. (In fact, a lot of what you write contains terms you got from somewhere else; “hegemony”, “ad hominem”, “Machiavellian”, and now, “chilling”. What’s really concerning is people like you who can’t see the liar and narcissist right before your eyes and who are immune to facts. Jan 6th was NEVER a “peaceful rally” at all: it was instigated by a lie Trump has been telling since before the 2020 election when polls predicted he’d lose again, all because his mental illness prevents him from accepting defeat. What was there to “rally” or “protest”, anyway? There wasn’t and still isn’t any proof of widespread voter fraud that would have changed the outcome in 2020, that turned out just as polls predicted. The government was on to the Russian hackers, so he couldn’t pull off a second cheat by spreading lies on social media about his opponent. So, he riled up the faithful by lying to them. And, if you watched the J6th hearings, you would have heard one of the Proud Boys testify that he went to Washington at Trump’s request, he went to the Capitol at Trump’s request, and he and others only left at Trump’s request. HE and the Big Lie were the cause.
Karen S.: what’s your excuse for Trump letting the riot go on for over 3 hours while he basked in the glory of his fans and their devotion to him?
Correct, the Floyd riots and the capital protests are not equivalent.
Looting and Arson are not political protest.
Petitioning government at the capital IS.
2 people were murdered at the capital – both protestors,
many people were killed by the floyd riots – most not protestors.
The floyd riots were about the in custody death by drug overdose of an out of control addict caught passing counterfeit bills,
The J6 protests were about a lawless election. About the failure of those in government to obey the laws that govern our country.
About mailin voting that violates the constitution of 38 states. About ballot harvesting that is illegal everywhere except california.
About the use of voting machines that now even the department of Commerce under Biden has found have atleast 9 major security vulnerabilities.
About continuing to accept more ballots hours, even days after the law allows.
About accepting hundreds of thousands of ballots that have no chain of custody.
About counting the same ballot over and over again.
About gathering ballots from people in a coma or legally incapacitated in nursing homes.
About placing unattended ballot drop boxes all over without any legal authoritiy to do so.
About removing the election observers and witnesses that are required by law whenever ballots are moved or counted.
It is possible that all this lawlessness did not change the results of the election or result in actual election fraud – though there is a fair amount of evidence that it did. But that does not change the fact that people are justifiably angry and have every right to distrust those involved and object to the election.
Protest against government at the institutions of government over the conduct of government is ALWAYS justified.
Arson and looting of private property is NEVER justified.
Polls predicted Trump would lose in 2016.
45,000 votes in 3 states are all that is needed to flip the 2020 election. Clinton needed over 200,000 votes to flip 2016.
100,000 votes are the difference between democrats controlling the house the senate and the presidency in 2020 and republicans controlling the house the senate and the presidency.
I would further note that – independent of the lawlessness of the election, and the absolutely certain fraud that appears to have been organized and large scale, democrats LIED repeatedly to win the election.
They LIED about Hunter Biden’s laptop. a BIG lie.
They LIED about Biden’s involvement in Hunter’s influence peddling scheme.
They LIED about Trump,
They LIED about Covid – in just about every possible way.
They LIED about the policies they intended to impose.
They LIED about fracking.
They LIED about Biden’s competence.
They LIED about returning to normal.
They LIED about unifying the country.
And they have LIED constantly – as you have about the election.
And we are supposed to beleive these LIARS about anything ?
And people are not allowed to get angry and protest ?
You should be thankful that the J6 protestors did NOT show up with 100,000 AR-15’s.
You should be thankful they did NOT hang Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi.
When government destroys the trust of the people – violence is justified.
That is the theme of the Declaration of independence.
That is how this country was born.
Today’s Democrats hate Americans. Biden is pandering to elite Leftist Whites who are out of touch and out of step with hard working Americans, with minorities, with immigrants and with the poor. Biden’s handling of the US economy and making us dependent on Saudi Arabia Petrol Princes are not what Americans need. Vote all Democrats out of office in November. And if Republicans fail, as to be expected as history has shown, then expel them as well. Make Members of Congress work for us and not allow 2 political mega-monopolies corrupt our country anymore. Politics as usual by 2 political parties must end.
Senate Climate Setback Puts Pressure on Biden
With congressional legislation to address climate change in jeopardy, President Biden is coming under pressure to curb greenhouse-gas emissions by using his own executive powers.
The Biden administration could toughen regulations on power utilities, block new oil and gas drilling on federal land and raise auto fuel-efficiency standards, among other things, according to environmental groups and progressives in Congress.
For more-extreme actions pitched by some environmental groups—such as a halt to offshore-oil production or a ban on U.S. crude-oil exports—Mr. Biden could declare a national climate emergency under federal laws that give presidents expanded powers in times of crisis.
>>“Why do you allow yourself to be used like this, Turley?”
>For the money?”
Anonymous the Stupid likes to be nasty to his host, but he hides the nastiness by using an address that gets deleted. Only those receiving the emails get to see the complete ATS.
All liberal anonymouses look alike to S Meyer the Troll Liar.
It’s hard for most of them to be as Stupid as you so the road is mostly clear.
Anonymous, I could take your post more seriously if you had included the fact that Stacy Abrams claimed that she had won her run for Governor after she had lost by 50,0000 votes or Hillary’s claim that the election had been stolen from her. Perhaps you could also mention the fifty intelligent experts who said that the Hunter laptop was just Russian disinformation were wrong. You being such a fare minded person and all. We are not surprised seeing that such admissions would destroy what little credibility you have that remains. Your pen is blunt.
Your brain is moreso.
“He’s a control-freak, too. A little boy who wants to have his way.”
That is said by one who used an account to make sure his comment would be deleted. Like a child he tries to hide himself and throws a tantrum when he doesn’t. Who does these crazy things? Anonymous the Stupid.
Most of what you say is garbage and fantasy. The Dems cheated.
10/21. Foreign voters found on Georgia rolls. An audit by Georgia’s Secretary of State has identified more than 2,000 suspected foreigners who tried to register to vote in the state, though none reached the point of casting ballots. Raffensperger says prosecutions may be forthcoming.
Since we are writing about testimony why shouldn’t we ask why the committee hasn’t called for the testimony of the secret service agents who drove the Trump Presidential limousine in order to confirm Ms Hutchinson’s testimony? The agents have made it public that they are willing to testify in contradiction to Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony but the committee is not interested in hearing important first hand testimony if it goes against the story that they formulated (made up) before the witch hunt even began. They can put on all the make up they want but they still can’t cover up the pointy black hat, the half rotted teeth, the scraggly black hair, the shadowy eyes and the broom that the witch rides from the public view. We should also not forget the warlocks in attendance at the trial. Come one come all to the trial of the century and don’t forget to bring your disemboweling tools. Kangaroo justice.
“why the committee hasn’t called for the testimony of the secret service agents who drove the Trump Presidential limousine in order to confirm Ms Hutchinson’s testimony?”
Why don’t you know, since this interests you?
Though technically, Anonymous the Stupid is correct in the narrowest sense, TIT is correct since confirmation of Hutchinson’s testimony required another visit. Anonymous the Stupid is attempting to create a fog to fool gullible people. One agreeing with ATS, one needs a course on critical thinking.
Huchinson testified 4-5 times. People who could have confirmed or denied her testimony have been called – both before her and after her. They have not even been asked.
There was in fact “irregularity” in Michigan voting. Our statutes state that county clerks are supposed to compare signature on absentee ballots with the signatures on file with the clerk, and reject ballots when the signatures which “don’t agree.” But prior to the election, the Democratic SOS, under pressure from Democrats, issued “rules” to local election officials stating that all signatures should be presumed to be valid, and providing them with suggestions on how to salvage non-conforming signatures. These “rules” were found to be illegal after the election, but it may be fairly surmised that they had an effect on local officials.
In other news, Joseph Biden is on his knees in Saudi Arabia, begging for oil from Saudi’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. These are the same folks Biden vowed he would make a pariah and also accused of assassinating Washington Post journalist, Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi. Note to WaPutz: he doesnt give a rat’s 🐀 about you either! LOL
Update: White Privileged Doktur Jill Biden has been seen eating crow after suffering with indigestion from Breakfast Tacos
“WaPo rips Biden over ‘shameful’ MBS fist bump”
During the 2020 presidential campaign, Mr. Biden vowed to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” after U.S. intelligence concluded that Crown Prince Mohammed orchestrated the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist and outspoken critic of the Saudi government. Since those comments, Mr. Biden has found himself in an uncomfortable position of needing an alliance with the Saudis. He wants a commitment from Saudi Arabia to pump more oil as record-high gasoline prices continue to drag down both the U.S. economy and his poll numbers.
Because aligning yourself with Democrats plays well with American voters
Maybe CNN+ will hire her?
The poll results are in: Hageman holds commanding lead over Cheney
Former President Donald Trump’s pick to unseat Rep. Liz Cheney in the race for Wyoming’s lone House seat holds a commanding 22-point lead with a month until the primary, a new Casper Star-Tribune poll shows. Natural resources attorney Harriet Hageman leads Cheney 52% to 30%, the poll shows. No other challenger received more than 5% support. Only 11% of voters were undecided.
If Cheney loses, she’ll have no problem finding other work, and history will treat her better than the Trumpists in Congress.
You know what felt like a mob was being organized? When Democrat politicians urged BLM and Antifa to storm cities. They looted, committed arson, and assaulted people. They barged into restaurants and threatened diners unless they gave loyalty oaths. They were Brown Shirts.
Trump believed the election had been stolen. There was ballot harvesting, strong resistance against auditing voter rolls, activists went into elder care facilities and “helped” the infirm fill out ballots. While much of the evidence is completely lost, such as original ballots thrown out, and Republican poll workers dismissed while vote counting continued during the night, there was actually a very strong case in Pennsylvania. Votes were subjected to completely different legal standards between counties, which was in violation of the 14th Amendment. Attorneys began to drop off the case when Democrats began threatening to kill them or their families. Ultimately, the final original attorney asked to be excused when Rudy Giuliani took the case over, and veered it away from the strong legal foundation that affected all of the millions of PA ballots, into more difficult to prove territory that involved relatively smaller votes. Giuliani plowed that case into the ground.
I don’t think we’ll ever know the extent of fraud, or if it was enough to tip the scales. With mail-in ballots, Democrat voters who were too apathetic about bumbling Joe Biden to actually exert themselves enough to go to a polling place did legitimately mail in ballots. With mail in ballots, I believe Joe Biden got a lot more votes than he would have if his voters had to make an effort. It’s still possible that the boost of legitimate voters was enough for Biden to win, but given the concerted effort by Democrats to fight any measure that would make fraud more difficult, I’ll always have my doubts.
In any case, while there’s a chasm of difference between what you suspect and what you can prove, Trump could legitimately believe that there was enough fraud in the election that Biden’s election was illegitimate. This is not a treasonous supposition. After all, Hillary Clinton still says the 2016 election was stolen from her. Regardless of what Trump wanted to do, and regardless of the legal advice he sought, he did turn over the White House to Joe Biden on time. Perhaps in the future, more election malfeasance will be proven, just like it was proven that the Obama Administration did, in fact, spy on Trump and the Russian dossier was a hoax. Hillary Clinton will shrug and say, “What difference does it make?”
This was not a coup. You can’t take over the United States government with a bison costume and face paint, or with taking selfies. It was a protest in which some turned it into a riot. Some Capitol police allowed protesters inside the building. There were many there who thought it was allowed for them to be inside, like any other protest. They were smiling, taking selfies, and reminding each other not to damage anything. There was a small subgroup who caused property damage, and interrupted Congress. That was wrong, but call it what it was. Trespassing and illegal parading, for the most part.
Karen, even if Trump believed he won, he responded with what is likely an illegal attempt to obstruct the vote count both via pressure on Pence and a fake electors scheme.
Democrats cheated. Trump was prescient. He is now proven correct. Democrats are complaining because they were called out, they knew they cheated and are very afraid of Trump.
#9/21. Foreign voters found on Texas rolls. An audit of Texas voter rolls identified nearly 12,000 noncitizens suspected of illegally registering to vote and nearly 600 cases in which ballots may have been cast in the name of a dead resident or by a voter who may also have voted in another state. Officials are now in the process of removing the foreign voters and deciding whether prosecutions are warranted.
It was not illegal to ask Pence if he could intervene. Pence declined, as he felt there was no legal authority. It was not illegal to get legal advice. It was not illegal to contact contested states and inquire what they are doing to investigate voter fraud. It was not illegal to explore all possible legal options if he genuinely believed the election had been stolen.
Democrat strategists were also planning what to do if Trump won. They were on record as planning to challenge the election.
It’s so strange how Democrats are viewed as civic heroes for questioning every single election they lose, and filing various lawsuits, while Democrats portray Republicans as seditionists for same.
No matter what Trump thought, or asked about, he ceded the White House right on time.
This is a desperate effort to weaken Trump, and by extension, the Republican Party, by Democrats terrified to stand on the consequences of their disastrous polices and bumbling President.
Natacha, you are absolutely right.
There are good reasons to be skeptical about the 2020 election. In Wisconsin and Georgia, illegal voting has now been shown to have exceeded the margin of Biden’s wins there. And in Pennsylvania, the mail-in voting has now been held to have been unconstitutional under Pennsylvania law. We will never know who would have won had a lawful election been conducted.
While Biden is President under the Constitution, it may be that this outcome was determined by a process whose illegality is being revealed only after the fact.
Daniel, do you agree with Judge Carter that “believing the Electoral Count Act was unconstitutional did not give President Trump license to violate it. Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process”?
Trump didn’t violate the law.
You are making arguments that do not apply.
“It was not illegal to ask Pence if he could intervene.”
Actually, Karen, it was illegal to attempt to pressure Pence to act illegally. Trump had a sworn fiduciary duty, so he betrayed his sworn duty. The Electoral Count Act does NOT allow Pence to do what Trump was asking him to do. As I pointed out to you elsewhere, quoting Judge Carter’s ruling in Eastman v Thompson, “believing the Electoral Count Act was unconstitutional did not give President Trump license to violate it. Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process.”
We agree that “It was not illegal to explore all possible legal options if he genuinely believed the election had been stolen.” But he also tried an ILLEGAL option of pressuring Pence to act contrary to the Constitution. It is illegal to do THAT.
“Democrat strategists were also planning what to do if Trump won.”
No, not one Democrat was planning to pressure Pence to act illegally, and THAT is what we are discussing.
And let’s make this really clear (though I expect that you will once again refuse to discuss it further, as you often do): if what Trump asked Pence to do were legal, then it would have been legal for Al Gore to do the same and award the Presidency to himself in 2000. If what Trump asked Pence to do were legal, then it would be legal for Kamala Harris to do the same. It’s an absolutely ludicrous to believe that this is legal.
It’s too bad that you are unwilling to focus on this, unwilling to discuss Judge Carter’s discussion of it in his ruling, and keep attempting to deflect to other issues.
If you haven’t read Judge Carter’s ruling, I suggest that you read it: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62613089/260/john-c-eastman-v-bennie-g-thompson/
“Actually, Karen, it was illegal to attempt to pressure Pence to act illegally. “
You keep demonstrating a lack of critical thinking. You write, “The Electoral Count Act does NOT allow Pence to do what Trump was asking him to do.”
Take note of how you don’t say what Trump told Pence. That is because of ignorance and an inability to defend your comments based on what was said. Your basis is that Trump told Pence to do something illegal. Did he? Does it matter if he did?
Pretend the driver of the car is going at the speed limit. What happens if you tell him to go faster? Does your act violate the law?
Pence was free to act on his own and did not do what the President wanted, but even if he did, it would not violate the law unless he did something illegal. No illegal act occurred.
S. Meyer the Obsessed Troll Liar is out for his morning troll, obsessively responding to anonymous commenters.
Is your argument that if an anonymous commentor posts false information that should be ignored ?
ATS, your OCD has taken control of your mind.
#14/21. Fulton County irregularities. Georgia’s handpicked election monitor for Fulton County, the state’s largest voting district, documented two dozen pages of mismanagement and irregularities during vote counting in Atlanta in November 2020, including double-scanning of ballots, insecure transport of ballots and violations of voter privacy. The revelations prompted the state to take steps to possibly put Fulton County in receivership, empowering state officials to run the elections. Most of Fulton County’s election officials have left their jobs.
A better analogy would have been that Pence is driving.
Trump asks him to take the next left, when going straight is faster.
I am hard pressed to think of a way Pence could have done anything illegal.
He has no vote, He controls the procedure – NOT the vote.
Well that’s likely the Reason Pelosi, McConnell are burning the midnight oil attempt to change the Electoral College Process of 2020 in which your position claims Pence is just a door stop. State Legislature have the authority not the state Govs or the SOS.
For not following the homegame Gen Milliy we are finding the Coup Against Trump & the American People Before Nov 3/2020.
Big story, more than I can get into now.
On Going, Dem/ADL/SPIC/& the rest of the American Hating Scum.
…. New: HR 4350
Sec 529A……….Chapter 89.
More info coming forward on it.
the anecdotal analog is correct.
in fact however, this issue of “pressuring” goes deeper into consitutional and court decisions specifically regarding elections.
one could easily argue that the president of the united states has a protected RIGHT to voice his concerns and make his thoughts and ideas and recommendations none.
at NO TIME did President Trump issue any lawful executive power toward the VP.
this is essential to understand.
it is crucial to understand.
IF president trump had issued a letter, or used his power of the executive to direct (read: shall, must ) then we would be having a completely different conversation and the legal environment radically shifts.
but that is not the case.
what we know so far is that President Trump through advisors, legally, originated some kind of sets of communications to the VP about how to delay certifying electoral votes in congress. We can have an argument about what the end goal, but it is clear that VP did not follow this recommendation, advice or the influence thereof.
had this been a legal order, under consittutional executive power, the VP would have been in violation of a presidential order.
obviously he is not held in such a violation.
at the end of the day, this is about a president, who expressed his free speech and sought to have the VP AND congress SLOW THE EFF DOWN and consider the issues surrounding the election.
And anyone on that day who was not aware of these concerns was either blissfully ignorant or intentionally deaf.
bottom line: the VP was not under any force of law or presidential power to act in any way to favor a president’s agenda on that day. pence did what he did and he certified the votes regardless that there was obvious merits and serious defects documented to him about the election.
Let’s just play this scenario out just for the academic argument:
what IF pence did not certify the votes? What IF pence did delay the certification such that the allegations and evidence of irregularities could have been properly trialed in congress and heard and debated?
would that have been a crime?
I say, no, it would not have been a crime or a violation of any constitutional power that pence held as VP.
and I think this is a point that the corrupt dc congress intentionally does not want to talk about.
pence made a decision that was less about the security of the election and more about protecting the DC political agency…that is to say, he was a coward.
simple as that.
doesn’t make him a criminal.
but it does mean he should never be close to power as a elected official.
I would note several things.
Any order by trump regarding his role in certifying the election would be null and void.
The president can not order the VP when acting as the president of the senate, any more than he can any senator.
Any order by Trump could not be a crime so long as it directed the vice president to do what he was constitutionally permitted to do.
For direction by Trump to be criminal it would have to either coerce or induce Pence to act in a way he was not constitutionally permitted to.
“but it does mean he should never be close to power as a elected official.”
regitiger: If that were the criteria, not one Democrat would be fit to serve. Democrats have lied, cheated, and made deals with our enemy. Some of them have been treasonous. Some of the same problems exist on the right, but not to the same extent.
If we took all of Congress and lined them up from best to worst based on your criteria, Trump would be near the top.
You seem to be arguing that unless speech is an order, people can say whatever they want. This is clearly false. For example, if a crime boss tells his assistant “So-and-so needs to go,” knowing that the assistant will interpret this as an order that the person be killed, that is not protected speech. Similarly, telling Pence to act contrary to his oath of office is not protected speech, even if it is not a signed Presidential order. As Judge Carter said, “believing the Electoral Count Act was unconstitutional did not give President Trump license to violate it. Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process.” Carter judged that the crime-fraud exception applied to a related memo: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62613089/260/john-c-eastman-v-bennie-g-thompson/
“would that have been a crime?”
Arguably it would have been a high crime (as in the Constitution’s term “high crimes and misdemeanors”) if Pence had acted contrary to the Electoral Count Act.
You also seem to think that slowing things down was the only thing that Trump unconstitutionally pressured Pence to do. It is not. Read the memo that was released by Eastman with the plans.
“You seem to be arguing that unless speech is an order, people can say whatever they want. This is clearly false. For example, if a crime boss tells his assistant “So-and-so needs to go,” knowing that the assistant will interpret this as an order that the person be killed, that is not protected speech. “
That is a very stupid analogy. The assistant works for the crime boss and can be canceled or fired. The VP works for the government and cannot be fired by the President.
Did you ever take a course in civics?
“You seem to be arguing that unless speech is an order, people can say whatever they want. ”
There is no need for “you seem to be arguing” – the actual argument is available, and your paraphrase of it is inaccurate.
I would further note that your counter argument is self refuting.
Speech that the speaker expects to take as an order – is an order.
“Similarly, telling Pence to act contrary to his oath of office is not protected speech”
Where we know all the facts, arguing far more broadly reeks of deceipt.
Trump did not “tell” he asked.
Trump did not ask PEnce to murder someone.
He did not ask Pence to violate his oath of office.
He asked Pence to present the legislatures slate of electors.
Nothing in the constitution precludes Pence from doing that.
It is something that has happened before.
When Harry Reid killed the judicial fillibuster – He did something unusual, He did something political (and short sited), but he did not do something unconstitutional.
We have many many similar examples of elected officials acting (or trying to act) in unusual but not unconstitutional ways for political benefit.
The fact that you do not like it, that there is a very small possibility it could have succeeded – it essentially did in 1876, does not make it a crime.
And Carter’s statement is more indication of Carter’s error.
It is Carter that beleives that what Trump asked for violated the Electoral count act.
It is clear that it did not – because Democrats are seeking to rewrite the act to foreclose what Trump sought.
Though I would note that if they did foreclose what Trump sought – then that law WOULD be unconstitutional.
A law can not change the meaning of the constitution.
You have to amend the constitution to do that.
And we have amended the constitution several times to alter election provisions.
The constitution gave Congress Choice regarding certifying an election.
A law can not take away or narrow that choice.
“Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated process.”
This sentence makes clear Carter’s error.
Trump did not seek to disrupt a constitutionally mandated process. As has been said repeated, the constitution is NOT pro forma.
What Carter calls a “Process” is a CHOICE, and that is what is critical.
A law can not take a choice away from congress. Carter presumes that it did, and presumes that doing so was constitution – both presumptions are error.
This is the problem with left wing nut judges. They band the constitution and the law to fit their desired ends.
The moment you accept what MUST be true, that the process in the constitution is a CHOICE – that Congress is OBVIOUSLY not obligated to certify ANY election. Then you KNOW that Carter is either wrong about the law, or wrong about the constitutionality of the law.
Given we have a near exact match to something that has occured in the past – it is not the law that is unconstitutional, it is Carter’s (mis)understanding of it that is error.
I would further note that this is little different from Clinton and others attempts to sway electors to change their vote in 2016.
No one charged Clinton with a crime. That despite a 9-0 SCOTUS deciding that the constitution gives the state legislature sole authority over the appointment of electors – and allows them to be replaced (and fined) should they fail to vote as the legislature requires.
A decision authored by Kagan leans towards the legislature appointed electors being the only legitimate ones.
Making Carter at odds with the supreme court.
Reardless, you can not reach a crime here. If you could Clinton would have been prosecuted – not just federally but by several states.
Given that Carter is full of Schiff with respect to any crime. Obviously he is wrong about whether priviledge applies.
It is this nonsense that occurs when you start making up crimes out of whole cloth.
You and Carter continue to substitue your wild interpretation for the actual constitution and law.
While there is no violation of the electoral count act, even if there was – the electoral count act is not a criminal statute.
We got into this AGAIN with Clinton – she unarguably violated federal record keeping laws – as well as the espionage act.
She was not prosecuted for the espionage act violations – because Comey did not believe she could be convicted by a DC jury – probably correctly. But she was not prosecuted for violating the record keeping act – because it is not a criminal statue.
Even if the Electoral Count act precluded what Trump asked for – which it does not. Violating it would not be a crime.
It is even likely that whether constitutional or not – like the high crimes and misdemeanors provision of the constitution, the electoral count act is not enforceable. There is no enforcement mechanism. The constitution leaves the rules for congress up to each chamber.
It was obvious that the claims in Faux impeachemnt I & II were not “high crimes and misdemeanors”
But the house impeached and the senate could have removed Trump, and had they done so there would have been no judicial appeal.
Because there is no constitutional delegation to the judiciary to review congresses constraints upon itself – or even the constitutions constraints on congress.
If the courts do not have judicial review over what is “high crimes and misdemeanors” they do not have judicial review over whether concress follows paws passed to limit its own choices in a constitutionally mandated task.
Had Trump as Carter claims he should have gone to the courts – the only constitutiional response of the courts would be – we have no jurisdiction over how congress conducts itself in the performance of constitutional choices.
“You also seem to think that slowing things down was the only thing that Trump unconstitutionally pressured Pence to do”
You might want to stop mind reading. As you are bad at it.
You have my words, and they bear no resemblance to what you claim I think.
Even without the spin.
Something is not unconstitutional because you do not like it.
Further you can not make up your mind over whether Trump sought to have pence do something unconstitutional, or illegal.
They are not the same – though neither happened.
While Trump’s requests were OBVIOUSLY not unconstitutional – even if they had been, that is not a crime.
The courts have decided that actions by pretty much every president ever were unconstitutional. Yet, neither Johnson. Clinton nor Trump were impeached for acting unconstitutionally. Acting unconstitutionally is not a crime. It is just something the courts order to cease, when brought before them.
Nor is every “illegal” act a crime. A crime is a violation of a criminal law.
You and Carter are miles off base. Making things up as you go along.
Pence was not pressured to do anything illegal or unconstitutional.
Why are those of you on the left intent on trying to pretend that there is no history on this.
Election challenges occur all the time. Many continue right to through to congress.
In 2018 a NC house election was overturned due to credible allegations of ballot harvesting – with less proof than there is in 2020.
Whether you like it or not election fraud occurs.
Nor is this the first time that congress has had to deal with competing slates of electors.
It is just the first time ONE party has tried to make that into a crime.
It is not the first time a political candidate has pressured those in elections to overturn the results.
Hillary – and much of the Media tried to pressure electors to change their votes in 2016.
I do not think there is a presidential election in my lifetime in which some congressmen did not challenge some of the electors.
And finally we have the election of 1876 which was very much like the 2020 election – with one exception. The democrat who won the popular vote and the electoral college was defeated in congress by the republican alleging election fraud.
Trump actually sought much the same outcome through the same means.
No one was nuts enough to claim that the constitutional power to act on elections was proforma – not an actual choice in 1876.
It is not today.
At the core to all of this is the lefts claim that you can not legally overturn an election.
Of course you can and it has been done many times.
John, you’re the same guy who falsely insisted that geometric growth is exponential growth and who refused to learn why you were wrong.
Your opinions are worthless to me.
The fact that you raise a closed and incorrect claim of error on my part is evidence that YOU are incapable of learning.
“What’s the difference between exponential growth and geometric growth?
AcellOfllSpades: The name.
OlafSpassky: So they’re the same?
OlafSpassky: Thanks, sorry for the dumb question.”
You again demonstrate that you refuse to learn why you were wrong and that you are a waste of time.
As for your belief “I do not think I ever used the phrase “exponential growth”,” you’re wrong about that too, and apparently too lazy to do a simple search to check. You used it several times. Two examples:
Anyone can go to the link ATS provided and see what John was talking about. They can look at the discussion surrounding it if further clarification is necessary.
Anonymous the Stupid demonstrates his obsessive compulsiveness as he needs every word and phrase placed in the exact same fashion he visualizes. Any deviation and ATS goes off his rocker.
Yes, in two posts I use exponentially repeated, and exponential growth very rarely.
All you are doing is proving how much of an idiot you are.
It is not my obligation to make my argument perfectly according to YOUR terms and definitions through hundreds of posts.
You are not correct on an issue because after YOU have made hundreds of errors, I on occasion do not use the precision YOU desire.
In the two posts of mine you linked I use “exponential growth” 3 times – twice quoting YOU or DB – which is not the same as my using it.
The third time is not a quote but is still a direct response to DB’s use of exponential growth.
There are over a dozen references to exponential growth on those pages – all either DB or you or me quoting you or DB.
There are far more references to “exponential” or “Exponentially”
And to be clear I did not argue that “exponential growth” is an error, just not a term I would have naturally used in this argument.
“It is not my obligation to make my argument perfectly according to YOUR terms and definitions through hundreds of posts.”
John, you could make that statement clearer if you said,’ it is not my obligation to make an argument that doesn’t trigger ATS’ OCD.’ His personal needs and rule book are for him, not for anyone else.
It is not possible to make an argument that does not trigger left wing nuts.
Reality is a trigger for left wing nuts.
Of course I “refuse to learn why I am wrong” – because I am not.
You have reduced yourself trying to prove I am wrong about which words I typically use – rather than the actual issue.
Exponential or exponentially do not exclusively refer to functions in the form of e^z as you have claimed.
At that point this entire debate should have ended and you should have quietly slink away with your tail between your legs.
The FACT true since the begining of the debate is that CO2, Temperature and energy do not have the mathematical relationship that the laws of physics require and therefore the warmist thesis has been falsified by basic physics.
Your and DB’s side debate over exponentially is both error and irrelevant – though you have wasted thousands of words avoiding that issue and trying to recast the argument into an irrelevant domain in order to claim an error on my part that did not occur and would not have mattered if it had.
Now you wish to claim I erred when I said “I do not think I ever used the phrase “exponential growth”,
Because i used it in accurately quoting DB twice and once responding to HIS use of “exponential growth”
It is self evident that my use has consistently been exponential, or exponentially – not “Exponential growth”
While there is nothing wrong with “exponential growth” it is not a phrase I would use in THIS context.
I have no doubt that you can find me using it in the context of economics.
I would further note that I do not think I ever used the phrase “exponential growth”.
I was specifically refering to the unmet requirement of exponentially more energy for linear increases of temperature as dictated by the laws of physics. i.e. I was refering to the exponential relationship between temperature and energy, not the growth rate of bacteria as an example.
And please do not search all of turley.org looking for “exponential growth”
I am not making a claim of “there does not exist”, but one of “unlikely or rare”
You left wing nuts are unable to make the logical distinction between a generalization that is correct, and an absolute.
John, it is impossible to deal with ATS. I think he can do some math, but as proven before, he is only good with rote processes. Understanding and critical thinking are not his strong points. Add that to obsessive-compulsive behavior, and you see the results. I like to play and see what rats will do. Anonymous the Stupid is, therefore, very entertaining for me.
I should have added:
I followed the entertaining discussion. You read and remember Benson’s reply, which was not what John said. Benson did an out-of-context search on Wikipedia. John cleared up the problem.
You have a very shallow mind and deal with out-of-context error correction. That fools your pretend friends, alternative aliases, and some leftist friends who seldom understand the context and misquotes.
S. Meyer, John Say is simply *wrong* about the physics.
David, I don’t want to argue this point but..
John is right in context. You applied what he said to more than what he was saying. John’s math skills are excellent. ATS provided a link showing that in the first sentence, John was concerned with your use of terminology.
John said: “DB you are fighting over terminology – not content or actual meaning.”
In the long ago argument with DB I followed him down innumerable irrelevant ratholes and while demonstrating error after error on his part. Eventually in atleast two instances. we got into a narrow enough domain that my use of a word or phrase was inaccurate.
And I corrected those, despite the fact that they were irrelevant.
DB prefers to flip the analysis – which just means instead of an increasing rate of increase we have a decreasing rate of decrease.
Same problem just using the other value as the reference value.
The June 2022 Temperature anomally is 0.06C
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.13 C/decade
That is 0.02C/decade higher than the prior 200+ years
John B Say stated everything incorrectly. He clearly fails to understand Physics 101 beginning with the fact that temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules. He is inarticulate on the subject because he never properly studied it.
I have not made a single error regarding Physics in our discussions, and not a relevant mathematical error.
You can not even agree with yourself.
Further as you are now – you constantly misrepresent what I have claimed.
I do not recall defining Temperature – as that is irrelevant to the argument.
I referenced the laws of physics regarding the relationship between temperature and energy.
Your definition is correct, but shallow. It omits the fact that linear increases in temperature require exponential increases in energy.
You have danced all over arround this. You have sometimes accepted and othertimes rejected it.
You have also implicitly accepted it while explicitly rejecting it.
You wasted hundreds of posts debating the precise meaning of exponential when S-B defined the precise relationship and the debate was irrelevant.
I do not know why I am continuing to bother with you.
There are hundreds of posts on this.
Anyone who wants can follow them.
Rather than reading you mis-characterizations
they can read what you wrote and what I wrote.
If I am wrong – then all modern physics fails.
We have been through all of this before – Arrenhius, S-B and Plank are at odds with you.
That is the physics.
You can not even make up your mind whether those are related – which I already proved they are.
or whether they are relevant – which they indisputably are.
You have taken a shotgun approach to arguing this, main arguments in one post that you contradict in the next.
It is self evident even to people who are unfamiliar with the subject matter that you can not know what you are talking about – because you constantly contradict yourself.
And then you try to make mountains out of the act that I will not use words in the way you desire.
You are wrong – even on the completely irrelevant arguments that you will not let go of.
Just as you are self evidently wrong on the core argument.
Near Linear increases CO2 alone will never get you to the catastrophy that you hope for. That has actually been known for decades – even by warmists.
It has been a long time – but as I recall even your own formula do not produce graphs of the results you want.
Anyone with a graphing calculator can check this.
Correction: polynomial growth (not geometric).
You make my point – over and over and over.
exponentially – and increasing rate of increase.
A generic term that covers all the curves that you can not make you mind up about.
Which is why I use it.
Carter’s ruling has been discussed repeatedly.
He is wrong on numerous points.
The question is how is it that our law schools are graduating people who do not understand the law and constitution.
Come 2023 Republicans will control the house with certainty and likely the Senate.
There will be all kinds of Republican hearings.
With every choice that you see pelosi and democrats making – or Judge Carter you should be thinking – what if the shoe was on the other foot.
If republicans choose to do the same idiotic things democrats have done – I will oppose them.
But if they get their way – you will have no sympathy from me.
You are hoist by your own petard.
“if what Trump asked Pence to do were legal, then it would have been legal for Al Gore to do the same and award the Presidency to himself in 2000.”
Pence was not asked to award Trump the presidency.
He does not have the power to do so. Claims by those on the left that he was asked to are the same bat$hit crazy stuff we get from the left all the time. The Vice president controls the process of certifying electoral votes. He does not have the ability to control how congress votes. Elections are certified by CONGRESS not by the vice president alone.
Pence was asked to present the competing slates of electors in a way that favored Trump.
If democrats had been stupid enough to vote for the Trump slates of electors from contested states – Trump would have been elected,
and you would have no one to blame but the numnuts you elected.
But the deep well of democratic idiocy is not likely so deep as to result in sufficient democrats voting for Trump electors in contested states.
If there were competing slates of electors in 2000, then Al Gore would have been free to present those that favored him ahead of those who favored Bush.
And both in 2000 and in 2020 that would not have changed the outcome.
Your arguments would be better if you dealt with the all too well known FACTS.
The vice president administers the counting of electoral college votes.
He has no vote, much less the ability to award the election.
Congress votes to accept the electors from each state.
Where there are competing electors, congress decides which to accept.
Pence was not asked to do something illegal – because he not only does not have the power, he does not have the opportunity to do anything illegal.
Yes, Gore could have tried the same thing.
And he too would have gotten nowhere.
If Kamalea Harris is VP when the 2024 Electoral college votes are being certified, she too will administer the processo fhaving the congress vote on the certification of electors.
If there are multiple competing slates of electors in 2024, she will have the power to choose which to present for a vote first.
This desperate attempt is definitely related to the seriously perilous political corner the DNC and uniparty has placed itself into.
let there be no doubts, this joe malarkey regime is inept and corrupt.
these corrupt embeciles need a boogie man even if they have to invent one.
be it orange man bad or the russia russia russia themes, these reprobates are going down hard.
they know it
we know it
the world knows it.
Karen S.: your phony efforts to equate protests and occasional rioting over the murder of George Floyd with the planned invasion of our Capitol on Jan 6th is flat. No Democrat EVER told anyone to riot, as opposed to your hero, who was informed, in advance, that his fans had weapons, and who told Homeland Security to take down magnetometers, so his disciples could keep the weapons. He incited the mob to riot by going on “Stop the Steal” campaigns to spread the Big Lie, he told them it would be “wild”. The only reason these people went to the Capitol was to try to force Congress to keep your hero in power, all based on what he KNEW was a lie. There was nothing to “protest”. AND, mosst importantly, something even you can’t dispute, he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop the riot he started for over 3 hours while he basked in the glory of being loved by his admirers. Capitol police officers were being beaten and bludgeoned all in the name of a fat failure of a man who desperately tried to hang onto power he cheated to get in the first place.
Literally everything you claim about 2020 in your second paragraph above has been totally refuted. Why not look up “Lost Not Stolen”, a new white paper by several CONSERVATIVE Republicans who refute every single lie you repeated You could also look up the Complaint filed by the NY State Disciplinary Committee which details charges leading to Rudy Giuliani’s suspension, and explaining, in detail, why everything he claimed in multiple lawsuits were lies that Giuliani knew were false or baseless. Trump KNEW he lost because EVERYONE told him so, every poll told him he wasn’t going to win, all 50 Secretaries of State certified the results, and 26 of them were Republicans, he lost over 60 lawsuits, all for lack of evidence and proof, but his massive ego wouldn’t accept defeat. Desperate not to admit defeat, he tried to bully election officials in swing states to “find” votes that didn’t exist. We’ve all heard the tape. There’s no “we” who are going to “know the extent of fraud”, because there ISN’T any fraud to know about. The reason for the record number of mail ballots was the pandemic your hero lied about repeatedly and intentionally downplayed, which made it spread faster and to a greater extent than it had to. People were told to avoid crowded indoor spaces, but despite this, and to rid the US of Trump, Americans voted in record numbers, and by mail in record numbers. Biden won the largest number of votes ever cast for a president. He was predicted to win, and he DID win. But, never let an opportunity go by to criticize Biden. That’s the mark of a true Fox Disciple of which you are an archetype: you are immune to facts and turn every situation into criticism of Biden and/or Denocrats. That’s why you’ll “always have doubts”. You can’t be convinced because you are a starry-eyed fan.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, proven by: 1. the Mueller Report; 2. Dan Coats, head of US Intelligence agencies; and 3. a Republcan Senatorial investigation. She was predicted to win, and would have won the Electoral College but for Trump getting help from Russian hackers who spread lies about her in a strategic plot to target certain districts in swing states that could win enough to get the Electoral College in his favor. This is called cheating. Trump only vacated the White House after Biden told him that “we know how to handle trespassers.” The only thing more humiliating than leaving the White House would have been for your hero to be drug out, under arrest, and that’s the only reason he “vacated”. There will never be “election malfeasance proven” because it didn’t happen. The Obama Administration did NOT spy on Trump: contacts with Russians were picked up during normal surveillance activities. Russia spies on us all of the time, including the government, and we always have done counter-surveillance to monitor such contacts. No one cares about the “Steele Dossier”–that’s not what instigated the Mueller investigation, and it was NEVER proven to be a hoax.
Jan 6th WAS coup: planning for the invasion of Congress between the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the 3 percenters and Trump’s Campaign was done in a war room at the Willard Hotel Some of them came to Jan 6th with weapons, and they had more stashed across the Potomac in a Virginia hotel, waiting for their exalted leader to call for arms, which he promised he would do. They erected a noose, and called for the VP to be hanged. They did reconnaisance the day before to figure out the most-vulnerable points of entry for the Capitol–so says an embedded photojournalist who testified to the Jan 6 Committee. When the Capitol Police were successfully repelling them at one possible point of entry, they’d switch to another. They were wearining flak gear, with helmets, and were in assault formation. This was no “protest that got out of control”. It was a pre-planned attempted coup that resulted in 5 people dying, and Capitol Police officers receiving serious injuries, including one who lost an eye, one who suffered a traumatic brain injury who testified before the Committee. Trump’s the one who tries to claim that it was “just a few” who went in. It was well-planned, but ultimately flopped. Pence, knowing what Trump was capable of, refused to leave the Capitol or get into a limousine. You keep repeating the lies Trump and his media enablers tell, but they’re still lies. You are still a dupe who refuses to listen to or believe the truth.
Nobody bothers to read your diatribes Natasha.
Natacha would have us believe no Democrat ever encouraged riots:
Maxine Waters: “I want you to go out, and make a crowd, and make sure they know they aren’t welcome anywhere anymore.”
Maxine Waters, on if the Chauvin jury came back not guilty: “Get more confrontational.”
Nancy Pelosi: “I don’t know why there aren’t uprisings. Maybe there will be.”
Kamala Harris, asked to comment on the riots: “They will continue, and they should continue.”
Democrat DAs in deep blue cities either did not press charges on rioters, or diverted them to rehabilitation or community service.
Major Democrat politicians, including Biden and Harris, contributed to fund raising to bail out rioters.
When repeatedly asked to condemn or disavow Antifa, and their violence, most major Democrats refused to do so.
When the riots were ongoing, Democrats desperately pushed the “mostly peaceful” propaganda. It got so bad that a reporter stood in front of a business burned by arson, and described “fiery but mostly peaceful protests.”
Natacha, you pushed the Russia hoax long after it was disproven. You spend your time here trolling our host, Turley, with shrill rudeness. You lack credibility.
And then there’s this gem from the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Massachusetts. Which progressives like Natacha would like us to forget:
“Yes, America is burning. But that’s how forests grow.”
-Massachusetts Attorney Maura Healey, speaking in support of the 2020 BLM Riots.
You just need to quit, Karen S. Really. NO Democrat ever LIED to its followers in order to try to remain in office after losing an election and exhorted fans to go to the Capitol to try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, all because they couldn’t accept the will of the American people. Protesting the murder of George Floyd, and being “confrontational”, “making noise” and protesting haven’t happened in months, and that’s not encouraging rioting or looting. When did any Democrat say: “start fires”, “break into stores”, “block streets”? They didn’t, but Trump told the faithful to come to Washington, and that “if you don’t fight lilke hell, you’re not going to have a country any more”. “Fight like hell” for what? His ego? His need for affirmation, power, adulation? He wanted them to try to stop Pence from accepting the certified votes, but only ended up delaying the process. Pence, knowing who he was dealing with and what he was capable of, refused to leave a secure location underground. He knew that Trump would have him transported far away, so he could buy time to try to get the fake “Trump electors” to bully Republican Secretaries of State to “decertify” the official vote tallies, all without any proof and based on nothing but lies that Trump KNEW were lies. THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN. These fake “electors” committed felonies. The protests over Floyd’s death were valid–he was asphyxiated under the knee of a white police officer while 2 others stood by and let him die a slow, agonizing death. There’s no equivalency to J 6, despite your desperate efforts to draw a comparison.
There is no “Russia hoax”, except on alt-right media, and it was never “disproven”. Mueller’s investigation, with which Trump refused to cooperate, proved that Russian hackers helped him cheat by working with his campaign to target districts in which lies about Hillary Clinton would be most-effective to turn enough votes to get the Electoral College count to go his way, even though he lost the popular vote. In addition to the Mueller Report, these facts were confirmed by Dan Coats, lifelong Republican, appointed by Trump to head up US Intelligence Agencies. Also confirming these facts are the findings of a REPUBLICAN Senate Committee. What do you have? Hannity? Tucker Carlson? Trump?
YOU, Karen S. are the one who has no credibility.
Let me start of by saying I am INCENSED at the description of Oath Keepers as an “extremist” group. If it is, it’s made up of the kind of “extremists” who fought the British to a standstill at Yorktown (with French assistance) then defeated a British army at Chalmette Plantation and guaranteed the expulsion of the British from North America except for Canada forever. They are the same kind of extremists who fought with or stood up to Lincoln’s army in his invasion of the South, who fought the Spanish in Cuba, the Germans in 1917-1918, the Germans again and Japanese in 1942-45, the communists in Korea and Vietnam and in America’s various wars since. In short, the members of Oath Keepers are PATRIOTS in the truest sense of the word. Although I am not a member now, I have been and I know dozens who have been members for a long time. We represent thousands of combat missions and battles. I personally was credited with more than 1,200 combat sorties in Southeast Asia and hold the Distinguished Flying Cross and a passel of Air Medals presented to me by the United States of America. I know men who were decorated with the Silver Star and knew one who was awarded the prestigious Air Force Cross. If we’re “extremists,” we’re the kind of extremists politicians and lawyers depend on to fight their dirty little wars. Without us, this country is gone, gone, gone.
Turley: just how stupid do you think those who read your writings are? Rhodes is going to LIE his ass off because he has to: he’s facing decades in prison, and he’s not going to admit facts that will clinch his conviction. You know that, Turley. This “offer” to testify, but only if there’s no editing, is nothing but fodder for the disciples: “see, he wants to testify, but the evil Dems want to edit what he says”. Just another way Trump is trying to manipulate the narrative because the J6 hearings are killing him politically and he doesn’t have dumbaxx Jim Jordan and Jim Banks there to disrupt the proceedings and call people liars. His niece, Mary, said that’s exactly what he’d do–find a way to dominate the narrative and provide reasons for those who are beginning to see the light to keep on believing, all because of his ego. Republicans chose not to have any reasonable representation on the J6 committee. Why do you allow yourself to be used like this, Turley?
Natacha loves a phony, scripted show, rather than a fair and impartial hearing from both sides, with cross examinations. She decided that Rhodes would lie to save himself. She mentions everyone on the other side, without once mentioning the lies and inuendo, and the editing out of anything that goes against the script writer’s narrative. Putin and Xi would be proud of the J6 committee, for following all their own rules.
Tell us: when the Republicans went after Hillary Clinton for Benghazi, which resulted in nothing, was there cross-examination? Was she allowed to call witnesses? No to both. But, she testified for 11 hours, and she didn’t try to contact potential witnesses. Jordan and Banks are neither “fair” nor “impartial”. What are the “lies” to which you are referring? As to Rhoades, you don’t have to be Learned Hand to figure out that he HAS to lie. Whatever else he is, he’s not stupid enough to hang himself. You don’t have to be Dr. Joyce Brothers to figure out that desperate Trump, with his massive ego, is compelled to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, to try to attack the Committee and the process because the truth is making him look bad.
Crawl back in your hole, Democrat creep!
“The hearings have succeeded in bringing to light much of what occurred in those critical days.” (JT)
Except for this:
Why did Pelosi refuse to approve the deployment of the DC National Guard? (If the NG had been present, there probably would not have been a Jan. 6.)
I guess there are some things the Committee just does not want to see. Which raises an obvious question: What are they hiding? What are they afraid of? And another: Where are the country’s “investigative” journalists on this issue?
(Please just stop with the nonsense about Pelosi *not* being part of the DC NG chain of command.)
For what I hope is the last time I’ll have to refute the lie Fox kept repeating: NANCY PELOSI IS NOT IN CHARGE OF THE DC NATIONAL GUARD AND DID NOT REFUSE TO “DEPLOY” THEM. That’s not true. There would not have been a J6 if it weren’t for the ego of a malignant narcissist who cheated his way into office. THAT is a proven fact.
You are partially correct.
The president authorizes the deployment of the DC guard – which Trump did.
But they can not actually deploy without a request from the DC mayor – for issues in DC proper, or from either the house or senate Sargent at arms for the capital area itself.
The FACTS – as documented by the capital police are:
Trump authorized the DC NG to deploy on J6 – Trump WANTED them present.
DoD relayed the availability of the NG and that any request was pre-authorized to the Capital police.
Initially the Capital Police felt the NG was not needed. But 6 days before they changed and requested approval from the House and Senate Sargent of Arms offices. That request was denied.
The House Sargent of Arms answers to the speaker of the house – Pelosi.
It is not known – because we do not have those communications exactly what role Pelosi played.
But it is CERTAIN we will find out in January 2023.
I would further note we have heard Trolls like you claim that Trump refused to send the NG in.
That is depsite the fact that it is now well documented that Trump had authorized the deployment of the NG more than a week earlier.
We do not know exactly why they were not at the capital already.
We do not know why it took so long for them to get released to the capital
But we do know that the problem was in the House and Senate Sargent of Arms offices OR with the speaker of the house or with Schumer.
And that the claim that Trump failed was another LIE.