We previously discussed the declaration of Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe that former president Donald Trump could be charged with the attempted murder of former Vice President Michael Pence. Now, MSNBC legal analyst and Michigan Law Professor Barbara McQuade has gone one better. She told MSNBC viewers that Trump could be charged with manslaughter for his role in the January 6 Capitol riot.
Just as Tribe declared his theory was “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt,” McQuade appeared equally certain that this was a serious and possible charge.
Anchor Nicolle Wallace was bouncing off comments of Rep. Liz Cheney on what the House might do to Trump when she turned to McQuade for legal analysis:
Wallace: “Let me ask you, I think what they’re saying is that even if you were that deluded, quote, ‘You may not send an armed mob to the Capitol or sit for 87 minutes and refuse to stop the attack. You may not send out a tweet that incites further violence.’ It sounds like around the violence. She’s looking at what the committee talks about as dereliction of duty. Is that a specific crime you can charge someone with, Barbara?”
McQuade: “It’s not a federal offense, but there actually is an interesting legal theory here for manslaughter, which Federal law defines as a death that occurs on federal property when a person acts with a recklessness mindset or even gross negligence. And so Donald Trump, unlike most ordinary citizens, has not only a duty not to do something bad, but an affirmative duty to take action to protect people. I think you could possibly put together a theory based on the facts that Liz Cheney just described to make Donald Trump responsible for the deaths that occurred that day.”
So let’s recap. Trump could be prosecuted for manslaughter because he had an “affirmative duty to take action to protect people”?
The problem is that many officials had an affirmative duty to protect individuals on that day, including congressional leaders and officials. There is no question that Trump waited too long to call back his supporters. Many of us criticized Trump for his insistence that Pence could effectively block certification of the election. I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was being given. However, I know of no case that would impose this affirmative duty on Trump as a criminal legal matter.
That does not change due to Trump’s speech before the riot. Indeed, such a use of the speech would contradict controlling Supreme Court precedent.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
It is common for political leaders to call for protests at the federal or state capitols when controversial legislation or actions are being taken. Indeed, in past elections, Democratic members also protested elections and challenged electoral votes in Congress.
The problem for prosecutors is that Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Trump also stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”
If McQuade is referring to 18 U.S.C. § 1112, the courts have imposed an element that she does not mention even for involuntary manslaughter: proximate cause. United States v. Main, 113 F.3d 1046, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 1997) (“When the jury is not told that it must find that the victim’s death was within the risk created by the defendant’s conduct an element of the crime has been erroneously withdrawn from the jury . . . It is not relevant that § 1112 does not expressly mention proximate cause.”).
Thus, the standard jury instruction requires the following:
First, the defendant committed an act that might produce death;
Second, the defendant acted with gross negligence, defined as wanton or reckless disregard for human life;
Third, the defendant’s act was the proximate cause of the death of the victim. A proximate cause is one that played a substantial part in bringing about the death, so that the death was the direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the defendant’s act;
Fourth, the killing was unlawful;
Fifth, the defendant either knew that such an act was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the defendant to foresee that such an act might be a threat to the lives of others; and
Sixth, the killing occurred at [specify place of federal jurisdiction].
Putting aside the accuracy of the portrayal of this crime, McQuade’s definition is so broad it could be used against the congressional leaders and staff for their own gross negligence and “affirmative duties.” The one area that has been studiously avoided by the House leadership and J6 Committee is the failure of Congress to take steps to prepare adequately for this protest despite warnings of potential violence. Indeed, the media has assisted in this effort with its own focus in coverage.
The Democrats in the final hearing hammered away at documents showing that the agency knew about violent threats in the days leading up to Jan. 6th. However, the Democrats have refused to pursue the lack of preparations on Capitol Hill as a focus of the hearing. On the day of the riot, many of us noted (before the breach of security) that there was a relatively light police presence around the Capitol despite the obvious risk of a riot. Once the crowd surged, they quickly were able to gain access to the building. Conservative media have featured a video showing an officer standing by as crowds poured into the building.
That obviously does not mean that there was not violence or that Capitol police did not bravely fight to protect the building. Most of us have denounced the riot as a desecration of our constitutional process.
Moreover, at some point, officers may have shifted to deescalating as crowds surged into the building. The question is why there were not more substantial barriers, like those used at the White House. Instead, some barriers were composed of a few officers using their bikes.
The available evidence indicates that the House was warned and that the need for National Guard deployments were discussed. There is a concern that, after criticizing such deployment and fencing around the White House in the earlier riots, the Democrats did not want to be seen following the same course.
An Inspector General report indicated that police were restricted by Congress in what they could use on that day. Previously, it was disclosed that offers of National Guard support were not accepted prior to the protests. The D.C. government under Mayor Muriel Bowser used only a small number of guardsmen in traffic positions.
There is a danger to adopting this type of broad definition of manslaughter and I would also oppose such a charge against Capitol officials. What Professor McQuade is suggesting would allow for the wholesale criminalization of negligence. While it is true that involuntary manslaughter can include a gross negligence basis, it is not as fluid as suggested on MSNBC.
This was not an impulsive suggestion by Professor McQuade. She has been hammering away at this charge for months. In July, she tweeted that Trump could face five manslaughter charges. She explained:
“Of course, he himself was the one who set this risk in motion by summoning the mob and then lighting the fuse with his Ellipse speech urging them to march to the Capitol, but that conduct raises some sticky 1st Amendment concerns. His inaction in stopping the violence does not.”
She then added: “DOJ, you up yet?”
Notably, in those tweets, McQuade emphasized a charge under “DC law, manslaughter” which can then be charged under the federal Assimilative Crimes Act. Again, the use of such a law would fail for the reasons above.
The Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 4.25.B emphasize that, while you do not need actual knowledge of the extreme risk of death or serious bodily injury, there must still be a showing of a gross deviation from the standard of care:
“The essential elements of involuntary manslaughter, each of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are: 1. That the defendant caused the death of the decedent; 2. That the conduct which caused the death was a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care; and 3. That the conduct which caused the death created an extreme risk of death or serious bodily injury. The gist of the difference between second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter is in whether the defendant is aware of the risk. To show guilt of second degree murder, the government must prove the defendant was aware of the extreme risk of death or serious bodily injury. For involuntary manslaughter, the government must prove, not that the defendant was aware of the risk, but that s/he should have been aware of it.”
The failure to do more in the face of a violent mob is not a compelling basis for such a showing and would likely fold back into those “sticky” constitutional concerns.
It is also noteworthy that D.C. officials have not moved to charge Trump on this or other crimes despite their earlier public statements. After the riot, DC Attorney General Karl Racine announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging them with incitement. So what happened to that much discussed prosecution? Was that because Trump is just too popular with D.C. officials or there is a lack of interest in such prosecutions? It is because the desire to prosecute over January 6th outstripped the law and the evidence.
As with Tribe’s sensational claim, the suggestion of a manslaughter charge obviously thrills many viewers. However, it creates a misleading portrayal of the existing law and its limitations in my view.
Tribe is no longer the Constitutional expert he fashions himself to be. McQuade is complicit in the 2020 antifa riots (Silence is an admission). Turn about is fair play.
..how can Trump, down at the WH still giving a speech (..still giving it as the timeline shows for 20+ minutes After the rioting already started..) be charged with anything re: Pence when he’s actively talking about how Pence was going to come through by asking the Electors to go back to their States to research the results, etc. (?) These people are so desperate to stop us from voting GOP in the midterms that they ignore the facts, i.e., 1.) ignore what Trump was saying, all on record 2.) ignore the timelines, including how Trump was not told right away after he stopped speaking, how bad the rioting was becoming (tear gas smoke and all…) and 3.) all the corollary facts, like both DC and Congress refusing to have more protection… I was watching Pelosi, et al, on live TV.. later thought it was odd that no one acted surprised when they were asked to clear the Chamber… like they were expecting this….
FFS I just can’t with this Dem regime anymore. No analysis is necessary, and though I appreciate it, I won’t comment on it because it ignores the larger issue – bat sh*t insane is bat sh*t insane. Modern Dems are sociopaths, and the last time these people were in power in the West (for millennials that learned nothing in school: the West does not automatically = America) we had World War Two. Beyond disgusting, unprecedented, and good grief, do not vote for Democrats over the next several weeks. Humanity just refuses to learn its lessons. There is no other reaction to our modern left other than proliferous vomiting followed by vowing to never, ever, elect them again. We have already seen the results throughout history. If the Tulsis of the world that are still in possession of a spine would like to start a new party, please do it. Independents are no longer voting for the DNC, and likely never will again. Combine that withe the dyed in the wool Conservatives, and it doesn’t matter how many snowflakes there are. I never in my wildest imaginings expected things to get *this* reprehensible.
James,
If there were more Tulsi Gabbard like Dems, maybe not leaving the party, but loudly rejecting wokeism getting back to sane policies, in the mid-terms and 2024 they might not be bleeding voters.
Some of them might get it if they lose big in the mid-terms.
Something tells me they will not or not enough of them. See the recent statements by Stacy Abrams concerning voter suppression and the H Clinton claim of stolen election in 2024.
OT, some 30 Democrats wrote a letter pushing the WH admin to adopt a more diplomacy approach to the Ukraine/Russian war, try to avoid escalation.
Great! Some Democrats are talking sense. Heck, some politicians are talking sense! We should be pushing for peace. Get people to the table and talk. Neither side is going to get everything they want, there has be compromises. Get the fighting to stop.
And after push back from the WH, they appear to be walking back their initial letter.
Sigh.
Hear, hear. None of those folks seem to be interested in peace though, and I honestly don’t know how they can regain good faith now. I no longer support *the party*, not just certain candidates, as in the past. Some of this is quite objective and cut and dry in my opinion. They really are no different than communists/socialists/fascists of the 20th century to me. I don’t know that I could trust the Dems again. That is even leaving *out* things like covid or the fact that my total cost of living over just the past year has increased several hundred dollars per month with taxes on top from my mortgage, to getting my hair cut, to buying produce.
The Democrats and liberal press will stoke the fires on this subject for years to come. The only way most of them will keep what is left of a dying amber is to do nothing.
Easier to make the case that biden is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians and fentanyl addicts
I imagine advertisers pay a lot of money to msnbc to reach their audience of morons.
Let’s hope in 13 days Americans get it right and fraud is kept to a minimum. There are way too many crazies running and influencing this nation right now.
Margot,
While I agree, and I am voting, in person, after reading about the assault on the man canvassing for Marco Rubio, the one elderly woman canvassing for a pro-life law getting shot in the back, Stacy Abrams declaring voter suppression is alive and well in Georgia despite record early voting, the Dems lose big, there will be violence.
Sounds like a Blue Anon theory.
Speaking of Blue Anon theories,
“I know we’re all focused on the 2022 midterm elections, and they are incredibly important,” she said, “but we also have to look ahead, because you know what, our opponent certainly are.”
“Right-wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential election and they’re not making a secret of it,” she said in the video, which she retweeted on her own Twitter timeline. “The right-wing-controlled Supreme Court may be poised to rule on giving state legislatures — yes, you heard me that correctly — state legislatures the power to overturn presidential elections.”
-H Clinton
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/hillary-clinton-warns-republicans-are-planning-literally-steal-next
Here is an idea, right now polls show both Trump AND DeSantis beating Biden/Harris in 2024.
Just maybe it is NOT some right-wing extremists, but that Biden/Harris are not popular, their policies are awful, some of their policies are alienating their base and their base are voting GOP.
It seems these prosecutors are in need of something to do. I’ve heard stamp collecting can be fascinating.
He could be charged with manslaughter but probably won’t be. It is like saying a mob boss who kind of tells people what to do with a bunch of plausible deniability. “I didn’t actually tell them to kill Joey Knuckles, I just said it would be better if he were not around and my guys did it completely on their own.”
Tell me you’re being sarcastic. I used to wonder why these educated experts make such a spectacle of themselves and now I see why.
Idiots will swallow these crackpot “theories” whole.
Can we cut this kind of stupid faux legal nonsense.
If you actually succeed with stupid legal theories such as these – if you weaponize tcriminal law for political purposes – why is it that you think YOU will not be the ultimate victim ?
There is a growing body of evidence that the mRNA vaccines are responsible for a 3 fold increase in cardiac deaths – particularly in men.
Should we prosecute Pharma executives for manslaughter ? Fauxi ? Wolenski ? Biden ? Assorted Governors ?
You must read the law broadly with respect to RIGHTS and narrowly with respect to government powers.
You must do so whether the target is republican or democrats. If you are trying to use the law as a political weapon you are WRONG pretty much regardless of anything else.
We must do this, because the alternative is actual tyranny.
Do you really want to bet that the tyranny we get will be one favorable to your politics ?
Not if you are smart.
Pretty much everything Trump has done has been right out in the open in public. It is no secret.
Nearly every human on the planet grasps that he beleives the 2020 election was stolen.
And that he has ranted endlessly about that, and that he excercised every single legal and constitutional means to stop results he beleived were fraudulent from taking effect.
A plurality of this country share all or part of that view.
The very fact that even 10% of the country holds that view – means the election FAILED. It FAILED to garner the TRUST that is required for legitimate government. It is irrelevant that YOU think that view is stupid or that those holding it are Trump zombies under mind control.
ANY election that did not earn the trust of significant super-majorities of voters – is a FAILURE.
We can debate the reasons why – but the left’s claims regarding the election and J6 are bogus.
It does not matter if you think people who disagree with the election are actually wrong.
The duty to gain the trust of the electorate rests with those conducting the election.
THEY FAILED.
You can play whatever games you want with elections, until you take seriously conducting elections that people will trust this problem will continue.
The political parties are not accidentally closely matched at the national level – as well as within many states. That is a natural result of the adjustments that each party makes as a result of the prior election. The incentive for each party is to WIN elections, and they naturally adjust positions and outreach to get a simple majority of voters.
We are ALWAYS likely to have a significant percentage of close elections and these are ALWAYS the elections that have the highest incentives for fraud and results that will be the least likely to be trusted.
The only solution is to conduct elections such that people will trust them.
That is pretty much NOT what we do today.
“ The question is why there were not more substantial barriers, like those used at the White House.”
Because at the time the prospect of a massive mob intent on forcing it’s way into the Capitol building was not seen as a real possibility. Nobody thought it would go that far. Not even republican lawmakers in the building. Even THEY were not expecting it. As the J6 committee has been demonstrating this was planned among white supremacist groups like the oath keeps and the proud boys. They were the ones encouraging the crowds to go further and push past the barriers. If they were not there the crowds would have just stayed behind the barriers.
The national guard was called, but it was Trump who could have expedited the deployment because as president publicly calling for the guard to deploy would have had a more immediate effect and a sense of urgency. Clearly he WANTED the rioting to continue. His own staff was pleading to him to tell his supporters to stop. He chose not to until it was obvious that the attempt to overturn the election was NOT going to succeed.
Even Turley acknowledged that Trump was being negligent when he was sitting around doing thing about it.
Trump HAD a responsibility to ensure that the “protesting” didn’t go as far as it did and he let it happen and watched with glee others trying to stop it. That’s not leadership. That’s willful dereliction of duty as president.
Blaming the speaker for not anticipating the level of violence and chaos is disingenuous and it’s a poor attempt to shift blame on where it belongs. Trump.
“Because at the time the prospect of a massive mob intent on forcing its way into the Capitol building was not seen as a real possibility. “
You make things up as you go along. The warnings were there and have been repeated on this blog. You are either a chronic liar or lack capacity in the cerebral area.
“the oath keeps “
They are on video protecting the Capitol Police and helping calm the crowd.
“The national guard was called, but it was Trump who could have expedited the deployment because as president publicly calling for the guard to deploy would have had a more immediate effect and a sense of urgency.”
Untrue. Trump authorized the guard. Pelosi didn’t do her job and permitted the troops. Do you lie as much off of the blog? The police didn’t act appropriately, and there is a question as to interference by Democrat leaders. The police killed 2-4 protestors, and none of those deaths should have occurred. The Capitol doors were illegally closed and then opened. Agitators on the left were not arrested.
“Even Turley acknowledged that Trump was being negligent “
That is his opinion, but the real fault was from Pelosi and the Democrats who did everything wrong likely for political reasons. Trump called for peace. Pelosi set things up so there would be ‘war’.
“Trump HAD a responsibility to ensure that the “protesting” didn’t go as far as it did”
No. Trump didn’t immediately act, but those acting on behalf of Pelosi did and that led to death and destruction. She precipitated the violence and still refuses to testify about her part while refusing to release information and all the videos. This is typical of the left that permitted about 500 riots over the nation the previous summer. The left is permitting death and destruction in all our major cities run by leftists. The left defunded police departments, released criminals, and filled the streets with illegals that included murderers and rapists. The left has been violently trying to destroy America, and they do it with violence and lies.
The facts are against Svelaz, so he lies continuously. No one here is standing up alongside Svelaz and his obvious lies. Why? Because no one else wishes to be proven a fool and a liar.
He has increased his comments and his lies as we get closer to the election. Does that mean he is being paid to comment as frequently as he is? Some thing yes. It doesn’t matter to me because he is doing a terrible job, paid or not. He proves the Democrats are lying.
Anonymous (S. Meyer), you’re hilarious. As usual.
“ You make things up as you go along.”
LOL! It’s called an opinion dumba$$. Perhaps you should read for comprehension first before going off on a nonsensical rant.
“ the oath keeps “
They are on video protecting the Capitol Police and helping calm the crowd.”
They were STOKING the crowd and helping the rioters assault the police. It seems you are the one posting lies here. They are the ones who have been charged AND sentenced to jail time for assaults and inciting the crowd. You must have that kind of Swiss cheese memory .
“ Untrue. Trump authorized the guard. Pelosi didn’t do her job and permitted the troops. Do you lie as much off of the blog? The police didn’t act appropriately, and there is a question as to interference by Democrat leaders.”
Trump didn’t authorize anything. The pentagon ASKED Pelosi IF she would need national guard troops. That is not Trump authorizing them. At the time there didn’t seem to be a need for national guard troops before the chaos ensued and Trump told his followers to march to the Capitol.
The police acted appropriately. There were just not enough of them to hold back the crowd. There is a difference.
“ No. Trump didn’t immediately act, but those acting on behalf of Pelosi did and that led to death and destruction.”. Who was acting on behalf of Pelosi? Now you’re just making stuff up.
Geese S. Meyer. You are really way out there aren’t you?
It’s a wonder barely half of what you say is actually cognizant. A miracle perhaps? Or just dumb luck?
Have you been able to point out when was the Jared Kushner hearing you have been unable show? Does that still exist?
.Svelaz… what makes you the voice of authority on what Trump did or didn’t authorize..? yet.. trolling bots have limited scope by their programming… e.g., they can;t see that the time to get troop enforcement is Before (as the Trump team asked..) rioting happens, . not after
Learn the difference between opinion and fact. You base your opinion on a lack of knowledge of the facts. That is almost always the case. You communicate like the birdbrain you are. There were intelligence reports of the problems that later arose. You even mentioned some of them in your earlier birdbrained responses.
“They were STOKING the crowd and helping the rioters assault the police.”
You lie. Previously I linked to videos showing them helping the police on the east side of the Capitol.
Some people were arrested. I can’t account for all coming from one group, but I can show videos of many Oath Keepers helping police and police thanking them. You can’t do the same because you are a liar.
You lie again. Multiple times from multiple sources others have responded to this with proof that Trump authorized 20,000 National Guard on Jan 2. You can refer to the timeline of events written by the Capitol Police already posted to you. They show you to be a liar, and many others on the blog show you to be a liar. Keep gaslighting, but when done repeatedly, even those on your side recognize you as a liar. Those people are not as stupid as you think.
“That is not Trump authorizing them.”
Trump authorized the troops and there is verification. You are lying again.
“The police acted appropriately. “
I support the police and believe most acted honorably, but some did not follow police procedures and were brutal. Videos of such brutality were linked to this blog and, I think, even to you. You are lying again. You cannot disprove what is on video.
” Jared Kushner hearing you have been unable show? Does that still exist?
I did show it and provided the link. It was in the NY Post. I no longer provide you with anything because you have proven yourself to be a liar. You even deny the truth when sent multiple times and even when those links and responses are provided and include the links you deny exist.
I’ll post the link to one example of that type of lie. Others can check it out if they want.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-2153325
Svelaz writes: Again, you provided no documentation at all. You still haven’t. You “don’t feel obligated” because you never provided them in the first place and you can’t find it. You’re just covering for your BS claim.
Svelaz writes: “Again, you provided no documentation at all. You still haven’t. You “don’t feel obligated” because you never provided them in the first place and you can’t find it. You’re just covering for your BS claim.”
Here are a couple of locations where I mentioned the address of the FDA report. This proves you don’t know what you are talking about.
In the first one, I copied your statement, which is what is being argued about and is completely wrong,
You said: “All the current vaccines have been granted full approval. ”
Below is one of the many FDA postings I made. I believe others have posted FDA sites as well
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/new-york-announces-that-scarce-covid-19-treatments-will-be-prioritized-for-non-white-patients/comment-page-1/#comment-2148321
In the second of the posts, I showed one of the reasons Pfizer might like this legal distinction.
jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/new-york-announces-that-scarce-covid-19-treatments-will-be-prioritized-for-non-white-patients/comment-page-3/#comment-2148317
I posted other things from the FDA with their addresses, and much of what I said was pure quotes from the FDA.
This proves you to be what everyone knows you to be. You were wrong again, and it isn’t just about Covid. You have been proven wrong repeatedly on a multiplicity of subjects where proof has been provided. You deny the truth and the proof provided even when it is on the same official papers you have posted.
The question is why was the capital locked down ? That is what triggered violence.
The first amendment guarantees people the right to petition govenrment. In this instance that MUST be done at the capital.
It is my view that had the protestors been allowed to march through the capital as they wanted, and ultimately as they did, this would have been LESS disruptive than the Kavanaugh protests.
If you disagree – find – bring in the NG. Regardless, you MUST allow protests.
Political protest and petitioning government are the MOST protected forms of speech.
“ The question is why was the capital locked down ? That is what triggered violence.”
The capital was never locked down. That didn’t happen. The CAPITOL was locked down and people were NOT allowed in during the counting of the EC votes. John learn at the very east learn the proper terms.
“ It is my view that had the protestors been allowed to march through the capital as they wanted, and ultimately as they did, this would have been LESS disruptive than the Kavanaugh protests.”
The PERMIT for Trump’s rally did NOT allow for a march to the CAPITOL. Whether they would have been allowed or not they would have still illegally trespassed on the Capitol. They were being coerced and incited to break into the building by the likes of the proud boys and the oath keepers. It was planned.
They WERE already protesting freely. Nobody was shutting them down at all. What they did was violently break into the CAPITOL at the encouragement of Trump to try to stop the EC count and the certification of Biden’s win.
Do you read what you write ?
“The capital was never locked down. That didn’t happen. The CAPITOL was locked down and people were NOT allowed in during the counting of the EC votes.”
Which is it – the Capital was locked down or it was not ?
Of course it was locked down. Even other left wing nut morons accept that and see nothing wrong with it.
It is still WRONG.
There is no “counting the EC” special provision in the constitution for violating the first amendment.
These protestors were there to protest the “counting of the EC” – just as the Kavanaugh protestors were there to protest the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh.
Both were legitimate.
The protestors could have been their to protest the color of Pelosi’s podium – it does not matter.
They could be their protesting to demand a congressional resolution that the earth is flat.
There is no such thing as an illegitimate basis for protest.
There is no – you lose your rights because we do not like what you are saying.
There is no – you lose your rights because we believe what you are saying is false.
One of the problems with the BLM protests – is that looting target is not protesting.
Marching to the county courthouse or the state national capital is.
Just in the past decade we have had numerous – mostly democratic protests – at the US and state capitals accross the country.
These are often stupid, and annoying, and disrtuptive – but they are legal.
Protestors in WI took over the WI State capital of 2 weeks trying to prevent WI republicans from enacting legislation they did not like.
They occupied the building., they occupied the house and senate floors, and again they did so for two weeks to try and stop the legislature from acting. There were small amounts of looting and property destruction – no one was arrested.
In the past year left wing nuts have boisterously protested inside the AZ capital on atleast two separate occasions – no arrests.
2 Lawyers who though molotov cocktails into an occupied police car in NYC were just sentenced to 18-24 MONTHS.
People who merely walked into the Capital – through doors opened by the CP received 5 years of more.
Yes, the right is Pissed, and one way or another there is likely to be h311 of some kind to pay.
And you are an idiotic apologist for this nonsense who is completely clueless about the FACTS.
Respect is something that is earned.
Get your facts right.
Do not LIE
and Do not FALSELY accuse others of LYING
Those BTW are not the requirements to be respected, those are the minimum requires to not earn legitimate DISRESPECT.
“The PERMIT for Trump’s rally did NOT allow for a march to the CAPITOL. ”
Both FALSE and irrelevant. Many permits were issued for J6. Some were for protests at the elipse that included some protestors marching to the capital. There were atleast 3 permits for protests AT THE CAPITAL.
Further you are clueless about First amendment law. Protest permits are MUST ISSUE. If I ask for a permit to protest at the capital I MUST be granted it. There is a large body of law on Permits – because Government has repeatedly tried to use permits as a means to stop protests it does not like. You can go all the way back to Protest permit cases as far back as the Chicago DNC convention.
“Whether they would have been allowed or not they would have still illegally trespassed on the Capitol.”
Nope, 2M people visit the Capital every year. The CVC in th capital can hold 4,000 visitors at one time. and the entire capital can handle 10,000 visitors at one time.
“They were being coerced and incited to break into the building by the likes of the proud boys and the oath keepers. It was planned.”
False and irrelevant.
Absoltuely protestors “planned” to go to the capital – to go into a capital that is open every single day of the year.
“They WERE already protesting freely. Nobody was shutting them down at all.”
And they were entitled – as ALL protestors have been in the past to protest inside the capital if they wish.
Please READ the first amendment – it includes the right to PETITION government – you do not do that from outside locked doors.
Also read myriads of SCOTUS oppinions – When the government creates a public forum for free speech and protest, it MUST make that forum available to ALL without regard for their Viewpoint.
The government can not say – Kavanaugh protestors can go through the capital, into meeting rooms, senate chambers, senators offices, cloak rooms. But Stop the steal protestors can not.
Viewpoint discrimination is forbidden.
Nor can the government say – this group might be dangerous they can not protest in a public forum.
All it can do is say – you will be searched prior to entry.
“What they did was violently break into the CAPITOL”
Because it was illegally and unconstitutionally locked.
This is a stupid argument you are raising. This has been before SCOTUS dozens of times.
The Government can not deny a public forum to one group and provide it to another.
PERIOD.
Of course the protests were PLANNED.
Again not a crime.
“at the encouragement of Trump to try to stop the EC count and the certification of Biden’s win.”
At the encouragement of Trump with the hope that Congress would refuse to certify a lawless and fraud ridden election,
and kick the election to congress as the constitution dictates.
All this is perfectly legal and constitutional – Actually read the constitution.
And it has happened twice before, and it has been attempted as recently as 2016 by Clinton.
The chair of the J6 committee was an active participant in the effort to prevent the certification of the 2016 election.
The only difference between this and prior efforts by democrats is that it came closer to succeeding that anything in 150 years.
The constitution is a system of checks and balances and the very last check on presidential elections is if Congress choses not to certify an election, the election outcome is decided by congress.
The odds of that happening were slim to none – though about 10000 times more likely than Clinton’s 2016 attempt.
At the same time the lawless and fraudulent nature of this election which was MORE egregious than the 1876 Election
Warranted that even more than 1876.
I would note – Trump would have won the Congressional vote – If and only if every single republican voted for Trump.
That was not going to happen either.
Only a very tiny portion of protestors actually violently entered the capital.
Nearly all entered through opened main doors. Doors that can not be force-ably opened from the outside short of with tanks.
It is already very well documented that the CP opened the Capital doors in many locations and allowed protesters in.
Please familiarize yourself with Tresspassing law.
You clearly do not know it.
..as a pattern, Svelaz, you ignore facts.. show us where Trump is on record encouraging anyone to ‘violently break into the CAPITOL.’.? What IS on record is Trump more than once asking all to march ‘peacefully and patriotically’ to the Capitol……
Trump authorized the NG days in advance. To the extent he had any duty at all that was his ONLY duty.
The president has no power or authority over DC proper. He has even less over the capital grounds.
Trump could no more act unilaterally on J6 than he could all summer over the BLM riots.
YOU are among those who ranted that Trump had no authority to send troops to those riots.
The Capital is not different.
Authority for DC proper is with the DC Mayor.
Authority for the Capital grounds is with the CP, the Sargents of Arms, and ultimately Pelosi and Schumer.
Before J6 Trump had authorized the NG and all that was necescary was for Pelosi to call the DC NG commandant and ask for the DC NG.
She could have done that does before, the day of, during or after.
“ Trump authorized the NG days in advance. To the extent he had any duty at all that was his ONLY duty.
The president has no power or authority over DC proper. He has even less over the capital grounds.”
Nobody, nobody has produced any evidence that Trump authorized the NG. Not one person has shown credible evidence of Trump authoizing the NG. If you have it, show it.
NOTHING in the constitution or federal statutes prevent Trump from ordering the NG to the capitol to help the caption police. Trump IS the commander in chief . He didn’t need to wait for a request at all. The Capitol was under attack and the fact that it IS a federal building and it IS the literally the government he had absolutely authority to order the NG to defend it. It’s literally the very thing he is charged in defending.
Trump didn’t have authority to use Ng troops on protesters who were NOT attacking and threatening public officials TRAPPED in a federal building. There is an ocean of difference between the two scenarios.
Trump NEVER authorized the NG. What DID transpire was the pentagon ASKED IF they needed the NG, That is not Trump authorizing the NG. To pretend it is is to be willfully disingenuous>
“Nobody, nobody has produced any evidence that Trump authorized the NG. Not one person has shown credible evidence of Trump authoizing the NG”
I have repeatedly – today, months ago, as well as months before that.
This is a stupid left wing nut LIE of your that gets repeated over and over – much like the Collusion delusion.
I have provided you with quotes from the testimony of Sec. Def Miller. I have months ago provided Millers memo to the CP, I have provided the CP time line. I have provided the CP response rejecting the request.
In addition I have repeatedly provided more than enough information for you to google this yourself.
This is not some unsupported claim of Trump and supporters.
This is an incredibly well documented FACT.
You are completely wrong about the authority of the president in this.
You are wrong about the law.
You are wrong about the FACTS.
Further you have FALSELY accused me of lying.
If you were a decent human being you would APOLOGIZE for you FALSE claims and stupid remarks and false accusations.
But you are not decent so no apology will be forthcoming.
When will you learn.
I do not make claims of facts I am not sure of.
And I correct errors when I make mistakes.
This is not some feat of extraordinary intellect on my part.
It is trivially simple and something everyone of us is capable of.
All it requires is checking a factual claim before you make it.
And given the crap that we get from reporters and “fact check” organizations.
I suggest PRIMARY SOURCES.
Things like testimony under oath.
Or documents from the sec. def. or Capital Police.
“NOTHING in the constitution or federal statutes prevent Trump from ordering the NG to the capitol to help the caption police.”
Separation of powers, idiot.
Yes, the Capital is a federal building, but NOT one under the jurisdiction of the executive branch.
Trump is commander in cheif – OF THE MILITARY – not the Congress.
The president has no authority at all over congress or the capital grounds PERIOD.
Frankly the president has more authority to send the national guard to a foreign embassy – which would be an act of war, but not a violation of separation of powers.
Some of this was addressed int he Tiff between Trump and Pelosi over the SOTU.
The PResident can not come to the Capital to give the SOTU without an invitation.
Do you think he can send Troops were he can not go himself ?
Do you actually think about the idiocy that you post before posting it ?
Have you ever actually read the constitution ?
You rant about how deceived Fox viewers purportedly are, but whatever your information source it is a piss poor failure that has at best a very shallow and highly inaccurate understanding of pretty much everything.
Yu are repeatedly and easily deceived by sources of the right ideology.
You are caught constantly – like now in errors and false accusations.
You demanded that I produce a single military official confirming that Trump authorized the NG ahead.
Are you really so stupid as to think I would have said that had occured if I was not well aware of the FACT that it had ?
Lets make something clear.
I do not post factual assertions I can not prove.
In the rare instances I make errors I correct them.
By the standards of decent people, I have an established track record of exceptional credibility.
That is earned. It is easy to earn that, all you need is to check facts preferably with primary sources before posting.
Regardless, I do that. And in return I am ENTITLED to be taken as credible.
You do not.
You do not check your facts,
If you have sources they are crap.
They are faux fact checkers who substitute oppinions for facts and never bother to even do a simple google search for primary sources.
They are people just like you who would not know how to check and actual fact if it bit them on the ass.
Neither you nor whoever it is you have relied on has earned trust or credibility.
You are wrong constantly – nearly always.
You probably would get whether the sun will rise tomorow wrong.
What does this mean ?
No one – and especially I, owe you sources.
I have earned the trust of rational people.
I do not have to prove what I say
Because I do not lie, bend the truth, make things up or say things I do not KNOW to be true.
Conversely You owe everyone sources all the time for everything you claim,
atleast until you have a long track record of getting your facts right.
YOU are OBVIOUSLY willfully disingenuous.
The Pentagon may not deploy the NG on their own authority. PERIOD.
As YOU said the President is the commander in cheif.
Absolutely nothing in the military is done without orders.
Orders flow down hill. The President issues a broad order – “Depose the Regime in Iraq”, and that flows down the chain of command, becoming “Take that bridge over the Tigris river”.
Trump ordered Sec. Def. Miller to make the NG available on request for J6, on J3. Miller has testified to this.
He also testified to the chain of subsequent events – that the offer of the NG was made to the CP, that is was rejected,
That the NG was directed to be available anyway, that he finally received a request for the NG at 1:49 and that he then Ordered the NG to deploy, that with Miley and Walker and others specific Tasking orders were drawn up.
..again, Svelaz.. much like MSNBC & CNN.. you twist things to achieve your framing… “Trump NEVER authorized the NG…’ is one great example. His Administration did advise/ request the NG be present (through the DoD) and the proposal was turned down both by Pelosi and Bowser….
You really do not understand the facts and the law here. And we have been over it many times before.
As is typical of those on the left, you want to make up the law and constitution to suit. You can’t.
This is not about Trump, or orange man bad. It is just who is responsible for what according to the LAW.
Not who do I WANT to blame.
The president is the only person who can authorize the NG to cross state lines.
That was done several days prior. All Pelosi had to do was ask – not Trump, not Northam – who had no authority to act, but the actual Guard Comandants directly – ask, and they will come. They already were authorized by the president.
The top law enforcement legal authority in DC is the Mayor, the top legal authority in the capital grounds is Pelosi and Schumer – Not the president. There is a reason that congress has its own police force – because neither the park police, nor the metro police have authority over the capital grounds.
Again, you or anyone else has never produced evidence that Trump authorized the NG. Not one.
Trump had full authority to send in the NG to protect the capitol as it IS his job. He does NOT have to wait for a request or permission to do so. IT is YOU who has a very poor understanding of just how that works. Where is the proof that Trump authorized the NG? Show us the military official saying precisely that the president authorized the deployment of the NG.
“ Christopher Miller, who served as acting Defense Secretary on Jan. 6, 2021, told the House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol that former President Donald Trump never gave an order to have 10,000 National Guard troops ready that day.
“Not from my perspective, I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature,” Miller said in the recorded deposition that the committee tweeted Tuesday. ”
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/january-6-trump-did-not-have-10000-national-guard-troops-ready/#app
Please read the Capital Police Timeline. They documented that the WH offered the NG just a few days before and that they were turned down.
“Trump had full authority to send in the NG to protect the capitol as it IS his job.”
This is so obviously stupid a claim.
Why did Trump offer the CP the NG if he had the authority to send them on his own ?
Why did Trump accept the CP saying no – if he had the authority to send them on his own.
It is DOCUMENTED That Trump wanted the NG present. Partly to protect protestors – it was fully expected that Antifa would be present.
But mostly to deprive Pelosi of any excuse to prevent the protestors from marching peacefully through the capital.
What Trump wanted was 100K+ protestors marching through the capital while Congress was trying to certify the election.
He Wanted it clear to Republicans and Democrats alike that millions of people though this election was a fraud.
You keep citing the eastman plan. That Plan requires Congress to choose not to certify the election. Absolutely Trump wanted Pence and every republican to get behind that, and he wanted a crowd marching through the capital to give them the spine to do so.
Do you think the president can send the NG to the Supreme Court on his own ?
Someone leaked the Dobbs oppinion before it was released – that is a federal crime.
Yet the FBI is not investigating – Why ?
Because the executive branch does not have control over the supreme court – including the building, or the congress including the building.
I would note that though the rules are different and the president has more authority elsewhere in the country, the NORM is that the governor must request out 0f state NG from the president. They can deploy in state NG on their own.
Regardless short of a governor deploying his own states NG, the deployment of the NG is a 2 step process that is supposed to be initiated by a request from local authorities and THEN authorized by the president.
“Show us the military official saying precisely that the president authorized the deployment of the NG.”
Acting Sec. Def. Miller TESTIFIED that he received the Request for the NG at 1:49
That he then met with Miley and the Sec Army and directed the Commander of the DC guard to deploy.
That he had the personal authority to do so because he had been given that authority by Trump days before.
Trump was not involved – because he did not need to be involved.
Miley and Miller also TESTIFIED to the meeting sevral days earlier where Trump offered the NG to the CP.
Miller sent an email to the CP with that offer, and Trump delegated the authority to deploy the NG on request to Mlller.
This is all testimony before the House Oversight and Reform committee
In the Same Testimony Miller (and Miley) confirmed the conversation with Trump on Jan 3. Were Trump sought to have the NG delopyed to the capital which is what resulted in the offer to the CP that was rejected and also resulted in delegating the authority to deploy the NG to Miller.
Miller testified that Trump actively sought to have the NG present BEFORE the protest – to protect his supporters.
Which is exactly what I told you before.
Again Testimony under oath to the house (I beleive similar testimony was given to the Senate).
All of this confirms from MULTIPLE SOURCES UNDER OATH everythign I have told you.
You fact checker is full of SCHIFF, and you are full of SCHIFF.
So how many more times do we have to repeat this idiotic and stupid lies.
Trump was completely uninvolved in deploying the NG on J6. BECAUSE he had already authorized their deployment as soon as they were requested.
There was a separate request by Mayor Bowser on Dec 31, 2020 for the NG on J6.
Testimony regarding that
Rep. Donalds:“What was the President’s response to you, with regard to the request made by Mayor Bowser?”
Miller: “Fill it and do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights,”
John let me add one thing. Discussing this with Svelaz is a fools errand.
– Referring to Miller and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, Pentagon timelines state that at 5:30 p.m. on January 3, 2021: “A/SD and CJCS meet with the President. President concurs in activation of the DCNG to support law enforcement.”
You do not seem to have the slightest understanding of separation of powers.
As a result you are completely wrong.
It is NOT the presidents responsibility to protect the capital – not with the NG or any other way.
The PResident has no authority on the capital grounds and can not delegate that authority.
All that said, I have PROVEN exactly what you asked for – though you easily could have found that yourself.
Sec. Def Miller testified,
JCS Miley Testified.
The DC Comandant Walker testified.
The Capital Police timeline and the Memo From Miller to the CP are all in the record.
The CP rejection of the NG is also in the record.
Further the testimony confirms exactly what I have said repeatedly – Trump WANTED the NG to be present AHEAD of Time.
Not only has he said that publicly at every opportunity.
But it is also in the record from multiple sources under oath.
In fact some left wing nut sources have stupidly claimed that Trump wanting the NG present was somehow evil.
Need I remind you that Pelosi essentially demanded that members of the NG guarding the Capital afterward take a loyalty oath and be culled for politically unacceptable.
Trump justifiably beleive that if the NG was present, there would be no oportunity for violence, and that 100K of his supporters marching peacefully through the capital might get Congress to refuse to certify and look into allegations of fraud.
Svelaz.. absolutely wrong.. the President cannot force Congress or the DC Govt. to do their jobs, in this case, to allow the NG to be involved.
“ Guard troops before his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but was stopped by the House sergeant at arms, at the behest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. While Trump was involved in discussions in the days prior to Jan. 6 about the National Guard response, he issued no such order before or during the rioting. Speaker Pelosi does not control National Guard troops.”
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-order-national-guard-156055113284
And the AP is full of Schiff and does not know the law – as several people have pointed out to you.
1). Trump can not send the NG to the Capital – that is literally and legally completely outside his control as president.
There is a reason that the capital has its own independent police force.
2). The NORMAL process is for Capital police – presumably with Pelosi’s permission, to request the NG, and then for the president to release them. Because Trump and others at the WH absolutely wanted this to go as smoothly as possible – Trump WANTED the NG at the Capital, they sent a formal memo to the CP making them aware that the NG was available to them if they needed – esentially PRE-Authorizing the NG.
This is incredibly well documented, there were meetings between Trump and Miley as well as others. They were in agreement to provide the NG.
All that was needed was the agreement of the CP. A Memo was sent to the CP who tenatively accepted and then responded back to the WH in 24hrs, that the Sargent at Arms office had said NO! That means either Pelosi, Schumer or either the Sargent at Arms of the House or Senate – one of 4 People Said NO! – no one else had the authority to make this decision.
3). The authorization for the NG by the WH was left open. This allowed the NG to respond immediately – as soon as The Sargent at arms offices or Pelosi or Schumer requested them. All they needed to do was contanct the DC commandant and say “We want you.”
4). At no time ever does Trump have the unilateral authority to send the NG to the Capital. It is Literally completely outside his legal jurisdiction.
This whole left wing nut claim is complete constitutional and legal BS.
All you have proven is that your Fact Check is a moron.
But that is pretty normal.
None of these people ever bother to check the actual facts or the law.
I would note that the J6 committee released video of Nancy Pelosi on J6 saying “Let Trump come to the capital, I will arrest him for Tresspass”.
While stupid and vindictive, it is also accurate. Trump does not have any authority at all over the capital grounds.
He can not send the NG, he can not send the DC Police, he can not send the Park Police.
And atleast in theory under the appropriate circumstances Pelosi could charge him with tresspass for showing up.
Why is it that we have to debunk this nonsense REPEATEDLY from you.
Your Fact Check is correct that Pelosi does not control the NG.
But she DOES control the Captial grounds.
The president controled the Guards, and he pre-authorized them to go to the capital as soon as they were requested.
But it is outside the presidents powers to send the NG to the Capital grounds.
Why is it that you think Trump and Miley and several others discussed this ahead of time ?
Why is it that the formally asked the CP to request the NG ahead of time ?
This is all because the president can not unilaterally dispatch the NG (or anyone) to the Capital.
It is very nearly the same as dispatching the NG to a foreign embassy.
The Capital Grounds are turf that is outside the control of the President.
This is why they have their own independent police force.
Not only is all of this documented – it is Documented BY THE CAPITAL POLICE.
I can not help it that your AP fact checker – like nearly all fact checkers today is a woke moron incapable of actually bothering to look into the facts.
Why should anyone treat you with respect when over and over they give you the facts.
Fact that you can independently verify from primary sources – not idiot fact checkers.
And still you repeatedly keep repeating absolute nonsense.
This is trivial.
It does nto matter whether the president is Trump, Obama, Biden.
The law, the rules are the same.
But idiots like you are constantly pretending that the rules are somehow different for the left or for Trump.
The J6 committee – and You are trying to pretend Trump committed a crime – for doing almost exactly the same thing Hillary did in 2016.
In fact the evil John Eastman cribbed his plan from Lawrence Tribes Plan for Clinton.
Yet in left wing nut world one is a crime and the other what should have happened.
You rant that Trump is telling a big lie claiming lawlessness and fraud in 2020, when the only actual question is was the very real fraud large enough. Conversely Hillary is STILL saying the Russians gave the 2016 Election to Trump despite the fact that that is actually a deliberate HOAX authorized and paid for by Her. And the only campaign in cahoots with the Russians was hers.
Yet, in left wing nut world – Clinton’s lies and hoax are fine, But Trump is engaged in fraud against the united states.
Lest we forget the Pussy hatted mobs descended on DC in 2017 burning and looting.
And Clinton actually persuaded a few electors to flip their votes.
Those like you told all of us over and over and over again that Van Zandt, Flynn, Papadoulis, …. had to be convicted of lying to the FBI and sent to hell for decades – despite the fact that no one could identify the actual lies, and as we now know the investigation was over, what continued was illegal and unconstitutional.
Yet, you reverse yourself on Danchenko and Sussman – blatant unforced lies, from people who volunteered false information to the DOJ and FBI are innocent – because the FBI knew they were lying but ran with it anyway.
And it goes on and on.
Those of you on the left would have no standards but for double standards.
Looks and sounds like McQuade has taken way too many ludes.
These people are teaching law! This is why you have NY lawyers throwing Molotov cocktails at police cars. She should not be allowed to teach in an elementary school let alone a law school. Has she ever practiced in a court of law or is she just another philosopher professor who has no real world experience? Every time I read this blog I think it cannot get worse. But yet, here we are.
Let me Google that for you. Yes, she has practiced. She was the US attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan from 2010 to 2017. Before that, she was an assistant US attorney in Detroit for 12 years, serving as deputy chief of the National Security Unit, where she handled cases involving terrorism financing, export violations, threats, and foreign agents. She began her career practicing law at the firm of Butzel Long in Detroit.
Technology is a wonderful thing.
…And Merrick Garland who the left wanted on the Supreme Court, and is now the AG, accused mothers protecting their children of being domestic terrorists. Do you see how foolish you sound?
Nice non-sequitur. How does Merrick Garland’s current role as a practicing attorney have any bearing on whether McQuade ever practiced law?
You cited her experience as evidence of her competency. I showed you how wrong you could be by providing another example. Do you now understand or do you wish to pursue being a fool?
What example? You did’t provide any example.
Someone questioned her credentials and you said: “She was the US attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan from 2010 to 2017. Before that, she was an assistant US attorney in Detroit for 12 years, serving as deputy chief of the National Security Unit”
I showed you how wrong you could be by providing another example. Do you now understand or do you wish to pursue being a fool?
Earlier I showed Merrick Garland also had credentials: “Merrick Garland who the left wanted on the Supreme Court, and is now the AG, accused mothers protecting their children of being domestic terrorists. Do you see how foolish you sound?”
I guess you like being obtuse.
How does citing someone else’s credential negate a person’s credentials. If I tell you I am a lawyer, does that have any bearing on what you do? Help me understand the logic there.
You were trying to prove something with the logic you now disdain. I simply showed you where your logic was wrong.
What is the logic I now disdain? Reciting someone’s resume?
The logic was already explained. I can’t help it if you wish to be brain-dead.
Oh, I am sorry! I assumed you knew that Merrick Garland and Barbara McQuade are different people.
I feel compelled to say that they are not the same person. Manuel above asked if Ms. McQuade ever practiced law. I Googled this question and answered in the affirmative.
You responded by …. noting Garland’s credentials?
I should not have assumed you may not know they are different people. My bad.
You made yourself sound more foolish than you had to. If you wanted a certain point repeated, you should have spelled it out, but you were too foolish to do so. Moreover, the premise of your responses to me was wrong. McQuade was creating garbage for consumption by those to whom you wish to appeal. Her idea that Trump could be charged with manslaughter is as ridiculous as Garland’s ideas that mothers protecting their children are domestic terrorists.
You are really goofy.
Oh geez, the column’s title certainly gives a really bad impression of what McQuade was saying. First of all she didn’t “declare” that could be charged with manslaughter. Turley is a professor and he knows exactly what she was doing as a professor. It’s not surprising that most commenters here are getting the wrong idea or are totally going off the rails making assumptions about what she is saying or who she is.
Keep in mind that she IS a law professor, and like Turley they ARE always considering theories about how laws could be applied. It’s an exercise in thought. She’s not really saying that this IS going to be applied or that it can be used in court against Trump. She was just offering her opinion based on this theory of a possibility IF certain circumstances were present or IF the situation played itself differently.
You konw who has actually tried to apply a theory regarding law? John Eastman. he literally tried to use this theory to alter the outcome of the election. A theory that has been ridiculed by other law professors. It’s exactly the same thing Turley is doing in this column. The distinction is that McQuade is only surmising that it MIGHT be possible but she knows there’s a very poor chance of actually using it. This is what professors do. It’s literally part of what they do to pique the interest of students and engage in theoretical scenarios. What IS funny is that Turley does this all the time and just like McQuade he get’s criticism from other law professors or even real lawyers.
The idea of a manslaughter charge against may seem intriguing if specific things were in evidence. BUT that is not the case. There is far more evidence against Trump for felony obstruction than there is for manslaughter.
Svelaz, I am hard pressed to find a single claim in your post that is accurate.
We had 4 years of wing nuts citing idiotic legal theories – what has that gotten us ?
A huge cohort of left wing nuts who still beleive the Trump campaign illegally colluded with Russia.
That lying to the FBI is a crime – if you are republican, but not if you are democrat.
That you can obstruct justice by professing your innocence or acting as the constitution permits you do to.
This is not Alice in wonderland.
If you wish to play the stupid games you are offering -= then Biden is guilty of manslaughter on J6 because he lied to voters about his corrupt business entanglements with his son and foreign countries, had he not lied, he would have lost the election, and therefore he is responsible for J6 deaths.
Once you jump through the looking glass – you can make any action by anyone into a crime.
And that is precisely what is wrong with your entire post – from end to end.
Accept your reasoning and we can put Biden and Trump in adjacent cells, and you next to them.
John, They are legal THEORIES. Every single law professor including Turley engages in them. It’s literally what they do in order to push their students into thinking about their field.
John Eastman’s one legal theory was used to justify the overthrowing of the election. A legal THEORY that other legal scholars and laywers derided as badly flawed and even Eastman conceded that it wasn’t going to pass muster with the Supreme Court.
Are you intentionally working hard to be this obtuse?
I’m starting to question your comprehension skills. You can’t properly use the term “capitol” and “capital” in the right context either. I suspect you are willfully being obtuse.
“John, They are legal THEORIES.”
Partly correct. You are abusing the word theory.
Regardless, as I have said repeatedly – the rule of law requires reading the law narrowly regarding govenrment power and broadly regarding individual rights.
That is not a “theory” – it is actually a logical requirement – anything else FAILS.
The “theory” being argued violates the requirements of the rule of law – as well as having a whole raft of due process problems.
But using your ignorant “theory” argument – physics has theories. There is the flat earth theory. That is not going to get you very far.
Calling something a legal theory does not give it any credibility.
“Every single law professor including Turley engages in them. It’s literally what they do in order to push their students into thinking about their field.”
What you know about law school would not likely fit on the head of a pin.
Regardless, this is not law school.
“John Eastman’s one legal theory was used to justify the overthrowing of the election.”
No Eastman proposed a legal and constitutional means to shift the decision regarding the 2020 election to the congress.
What Eastman proposed is LITTERALLY in the constitution.
It is not some made up theory.
” A legal THEORY that other legal scholars and laywers derided as badly flawed”
All proof of the idiocy of those legal scholars.
“even Eastman conceded that it wasn’t going to pass muster with the Supreme Court.”
Of course it was. That is a stupid claim. SCOTUS would never hear a challenge.
If Congress certified the election – there is no appeal to the supreme court.
If Congress refuses to certify the election – there is no appeal to the supreme court.
The constitution dictates EXACTYLY what happens if congress accepts the vote of the electors, and if it does not.
You keep pretending this is a theory, it is not, it is a constitutional plan of action. One unlikely to succeed,
but still ones that is legitimate.
There is no “theory” to this at all.
I would note that in pretty much every election in my lifetime where a republican won the presidency atleast one Democrat in congress challenged atleast one States electors.
IN every single case that congressmen was seeking to do exactly What Eastman was sugguesting to Trump – rejecting the electoral vote and throwing the election to the congress – as the constitution provides.
None of this is theory. It has been successful TWICE in US history.
“Are you intentionally working hard to be this obtuse?”
Look in the mirror
“I’m starting to question your comprehension skills.”
That is high praise from you.
I have long ago wrote many time – I have zero interest in debates over spelling or grammar.
Prof Turley,
As you note, this is what the analyst actually said: “I think you could possibly put together a theory based on the facts that Liz Cheney just described to make Donald Trump responsible for the deaths that occurred that day”
I don’t watch MSNBC, but to truly evaluate her claim, we need to know what Liz Cheney “just described.” Why was that context not included?
If Liz Cheney described knowledge that Trump actually knew (or should have known) the plans of the his supporters to storm the capital, then the Brandenburg test of imminent lawless action “could” (emphasis on lack of definitiveness) be met. The gross negligence standard would absolutely apply, if those missing facts were suggested by Cheney.
Why hide the context? Is it just to rile up your conservative supporters on this blog?
…this is what the analyst actually said: “I think you could possibly put together a theory based on the facts that Liz Cheney just described to make Donald Trump responsible…
So you are saying the direct quote provided by Turely is wrong.
McQuade: “It’s not a federal offense, but there actually is an interesting legal theory here for manslaughter, which Federal law defines as a death that occurs on federal property
One of you is playing fast a loose. Ive formed my opinion.
If Liz Cheney described knowledge that Trump actually knew (or should have known) the plans of the his supporters to storm the capital, then the Brandenburg test of imminent lawless action “could”
Since the President of the United States has NO CONSTITUTIONAL power to provide security for the Capital, how can the Executive be responsible? But we have a written letter to the DoD, specifically refusing additional National Guard presence. Signed by the mayor and Capital officials.
As far as Trump knowing of a planned riot. Exactly why didn’t Liz present that evidence? Like always, you substitute facts, for wishcasting.
What is your basis for saying the has no constitutional power to provide security for the Capitol? That would be news to me. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States”
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v. Sawyer (1952) – the seminal SCOTUS case delineating the separation of powers – clearly holds that Executive Power reaches its zenith when wielded to protect national security. Is there a subsequent case that somehow carves out this power with respect to the Capitol? Please provide the citation if that is the case.
One always knows you are out of your realm whenever you start sea lionizing. You clearly lack the requisite knowledge.
S. Meyer, you could just try answering his question. The president IS responsible for security and that includes the DC area. He had full authority to order the national guard to the Capitol to support the capitol police. He didn’t have to wait on anyone to act first. It has primary job as commander in chief.
Iowan2 said,
“ Since the President of the United States has NO CONSTITUTIONAL power to provide security for the Capital, how can the Executive be responsible?”
Trump did have full constitutional power to provide security for the capital. He WAS the commander in chief and he had the authority to order national guard troops to help. He didn’t have to wait for a request or for his commanders to suggest it. All he had to do is tell the joint chiefs to send national guard troops to the Capitol to help the Capitol police. That’s it. And he didn’t do squat. He sat on his hands and gleefully watched on tv his supporters ransack the Capitol and threaten the VP. He chose NOT to be a president for 87 minutes.
“S. Meyer, you could just try answering his question.”
I did, but that doesn’t mean that you can comprehend. Further, you are a liar, so even if you did comprehend we can expect you to lie.
The President authorized the National Guard and Nancy Pelosi didn’t do her job. She was the ultimate power in control of the police and whether or not the National Guard could be used. After all this time, you still are too stupid to recognize these two basic facts.
“Trump did have full constitutional power to provide security for the capital.”
You are really Stupid. The leaders of the Senate and the House determine security needs for the Capitol building. This has been proven many times. Maybe you aren’t lying right now, but if that is true then you are demonstrating your stupidity.
“All he had to do is tell the joint chiefs to send national guard troops to the Capitol to help the Capitol police.”
No. Trump could only authorize the troops and did. Pelosi had to request them. How much more stupidity will you demonstrate to all that is here? I don’t think anyone on this blog agrees with you.
“She was the ultimate power in control of the police.”
“The leaders of the Senate and the House determine security needs for the Capitol building.”
So, which is it?
That week the power was in Pelosi’s hands.
You get more goofy by the minute.
“ S. Meyer, you could just try answering his question.”
I did, but that doesn’t mean that you can comprehend.”
No you didn’t. I can comprehend that you did not answer his question.
“ The President authorized the National Guard and Nancy Pelosi didn’t do her job.”
The president never atthorized the NG. Show me proof that he did. I can show you proof that he did not.
“ Christopher Miller, who served as acting Defense Secretary on Jan. 6, 2021, told the House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol that former President Donald Trump never gave an order to have 10,000 National Guard troops ready that day.
“Not from my perspective, I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature,” Miller said in the recorded deposition that the committee tweeted Tuesday. ”
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/january-6-trump-did-not-have-10000-national-guard-troops-ready/#app
John has already answered and I don’t think discussing this with you is productive. You lie and repeat things proven untrue. You don’t understand the law.
Miller contradicted himself and what he actually said involved his perspective or “not part of my plan”. It sounds like he might have been left out of part of the loop and has hurt feelings.
Sund and Bowser are on record refusing the national guard in writing.
We also have: “– Referring to Miller and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, Pentagon timelines state that at 5:30 p.m. on January 3, 2021: “A/SD and CJCS meet with the President. President concurs in activation of the DCNG to support law enforcement.”
You can continue acting like the dummy you are.
“ No. Trump could only authorize the troops and did. Pelosi had to request them.”
He never authorized the troops S. Meyer. Trump is the commander in chief and he does NOT have to wait for a request to take action. It is literally his job when the federal government is under attack by a mob.
“Trump is the commander in chief and he does NOT have to wait for a request to take action.”
You obviously have no knowledge of the separation of powers despite the fact that it has been explained numerous times.
That is pure stupidity.
Trump would have to invoke the Insurrection Act, but he already authorized the troops refused by Sund – Pelosi and refused by Murial Bowser.
Is there no end to your stupidity?
Anonymous (S. Meyer), Trump wouldn’t have to invoke anything. The separation of powers is completely irrelevant. His duty is to DEFEND the constitution and the country from enemies foreign AND domestic.
He as president has full authority to order NG troops to assist the capitol police on his own. Pelosi is NOT his boss. Nothing in the law says he can only act when there is a request. He can act as commander in chief and issue an order.
“ Trump would have to invoke the Insurrection Act, but he already authorized the troops refused by Sund – Pelosi and refused by Murial Bowser.”
He never authorized the NG period. Nobody has provided any evidence that he did.
Svelaz, only you can prevent stupidity from leaving your lips. Almost everything you say is wrong. Where there is an agreement, you generally draw conclusions that might be correct for the wrong reasons. You are hopeless.
“The separation of powers is completely irrelevant.”
Read the Constitution and skip the fact-checkers that you do not understand. All you are demonstrating is that you do not know what the founders were thinking. Nor do you understand what the separation of powers means.
Trump defended the Constitution and authorized NG troops. Did you not note the DCNG at the Capitol grounds? The delay was Pelosi’s failure and no one else.
“Pelosi is NOT his boss…”
She is where the Capitol is concerned. As brought up by others, Trump could not give his address at the Capitol without the Capitol’s permission.
“He never authorized the NG period. Nobody has provided any evidence that he did.”
Lots of people have provided evidence. The only one without evidence is you. You do not dispute the evidence provided, including quotes, testimony, and various timelines. What evidence have you provided that proves your contention? None.
That you lie is well known. That is your evidence. You lie again when you say no one has provided any evidence.
You are stupid, to begin with, and made more by your ideology that prevents you from seeking the truth.
“All he had to do is tell the joint chiefs to send national guard troops to the Capitol to help the Capitol police. That’s it.”
And *that* is false.
The DCNG chain of command for deployment at the Capitol building is very clearly explained on their website. That chain of command includes the then Speaker of the House, via the Capitol police.
DC isn’t a state in the Union. The Speaker of the House is the highest security officer in the Legislative Branch and specifically, the Capitol building where she’s the head of the Capitol Police. Executive Branch has no authority to send troops there, but can release them to the Speaker, if requested. Trump pre-authorized that troop movement, all Nancy had to do was make the formal (or informal) request. She refused.
Interesting. Trump on several occasions threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, which gives him authority to deploy the military within the US to respond to a rebellion. So, either you believe the Insurrection Act is unconstitutional and Trump’s threat to deploy it on the US border to handle migration issues or his threat to use it to crack down on 2020 crowds protesting George Floyd’s death (in DC!) were unconstitutional overreach, or you disagree with your above statement.
You are drowning again. Only time permits your resurrection because you count on people forgetting the foolish things you say.
J6 did not fulfill the criteria for the Insurrection Act except in your imagination. I think the act includes *publishing* a proclamation which would also make the law not appropriate for what happened.
Glossing right over the part where Pelosi, not Trump, is in charge of the Capitol’s security and her refusal of Trump’s offer to provide Guard troops is, you’re right, VERY interesting.
Pelosi has executive authority over Trump? Scalia is rolling in his grave.
When it comes to securing the Capitol building, yes, she and Schumer have absolute top Constitutional authority to secure Legislative branch offices and buildings. The Supreme Court has the same authority over Judicial offices and buildings. The President no authority over the other two branches of US Government and how they conduct security for those branches. But I suspect you already knew that.
You need to start reading more and commenting less. It is as basic as separation of power.
By the way, the Capitol Police are overseen by the Capitol Police Board. Pelosi does not control the Capital Police Board. So, she is not in “charge.”
The Capitol Police Board was comprised of: Michael Stenger, the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, Paul Irving, Sergeant at Arms of the House, and US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund.
Irving reported to Pelosi, and Stenger reported to McConnell. Both Irving and Stenger denied Sund’s request for more troops. Why is Pelosi more responsible than McConnell?
Now Anonymous is trying to weasel out of what he was previously promoting. Unfortunately for the weasel, he isn’t very good at it.
There is a hierarchy, and Pelosi is at the top of the Hierarchy. That there are boards is meaningless except for those in charge who always blame their underlings.
Pelosi was in charge.
Control of Congress is in the hands of the Speaker of the House or the Senate leader. It was Pelosi’s turn, and she screwed up.
Indeed. Obfuscation, while possibly intracranial flatulence induced, seems to be his/her/xir’s strongest suit.
Under what authority does Pelosi control McConnell?
In many ways, one can suspect. But none of them are relevant except for securing the Capitol building. Seriously, you’re really having difficulty accepting, even contemplating the fact, Pelosi has the final say and ultimate responsibility on security measures there? I mean, it’s not my intent to confound you; you’re doing that very well on your own…bless your heart. Anyway, I’m sure I’ve taken up enough of your time by now, so I’ll wish you good luck on your future musings and leave you in peace.
So… Pelosi controls McConnell because… you say so? Ok, cool got it.
I think JAFO correctly figured out your problem, intracranial flatulence. He seems to be trained to recognize your type of stupidity.
“ Since the President of the United States has NO CONSTITUTIONAL power to provide security for the Capital, how can the Executive be responsible?”
Trump has absolute authority to send national guard troops for security at the Capitol. He needs no permission from the speaker to do so nor a request. As commander in chief he had the constitutional authority to order the national guard to assist the Capitol police. It’s his primary job as commander in chief to ensure security. Trump never “pre-authorized” that troop movement. That is simply a lie. Trump didn’t have to wait for a request. There is NOTHING that prevented Trump from unilaterally ordering the national guard to the Capitol. He doesn’t have to wait for anyone to request anything. That is why he is the commander in chief.
You must know by now that what you’re saying simply isn’t true, for if it was you’d have to believe that neither Pelosi nor Schumer had the Constitutional authority to secure the Capitol on or before January 6th. Is that what you’re saying, really?
The Capitol building is under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch. They have the ULTIMATE security authority for it and the rest of the House/Senate buildings. Where does the thought that the Executive branch is in charge of Legislative branch security even come from? Being Commander in Chief of the armed forces does not give any President authority to run roughshod over the Legislative branch’s security protocols and practices. Consider the annual State of the Union address. Protocol is to INVITE the President to deliver the speech there but the Speaker of the House still has the bottom line authority to FORBID the President from entering the Capitol if the Speaker chooses and can order the Sergeant at Arms remove anyone, including the President, from the building and grounds at anytime, for any reason. Yes, the position has that power, even over the President. The Speaker is the third most powerful person in the federal government and is ‘in charge’ of one-third of it in every meaningful way, including Legislative security. The Speaker can call the National Guard at anytime to protect the Capitol, and has been said by others, doesn’t need the President’s permission or authority. Despite that reality, Trump ‘heads-up’d’ the troops be available, if requested by the Speaker. Pelosi simply chose not to on or before ‘the sixth’ for reasons only she knows.
I’m baffled that John Say, S. Meyer, and others take the time to engage you. Your lack of knowledge and understanding of separation of powers within The District, let alone most things you babble on about, is breathtaking. So much so, that I will not be foolish enough to respond to any future comment you may or may not make.
There are two separate issues here:
Legislative Control over Capitol Police: Pelosi does not control the entire Legislative Branch, so placing blame on her is incomplete, at best. To take action, the Board needed at least 2 votes. The Capitol Police Chief wanted additional security but neither Pelosi nor McConnell supported him. Thus, McConnell is equally responsible.
Executive Control: Ultimately the Constitution holds the Commander in Chief (aka the President) responsible for the safety of the citizenry. The President can take executive action in the realm of national security without legislative oversight because the Supreme Court has held that national security, especially during exigent circumstances, is an executive power. The Insurrection Act is yet another way the Legislature has ceded its authority to the President to take executive action in certain circumstances. For all of these reasons, if Trump wanted to put the National Guard at the Capitol, he absolutely could have, even if Pelosi and McConnell and the Chief of the Capitol Police opposed the action.
Wrong.
The board oversees and coordinates activities. “CEO” type of responsibility is split between the House and the Senate. Pelosi and Schumer, respectively. The week of Jan6 placed Pelosi as the ultimate power.
The Insurrection Act doesn’t apply because there was no insurrection, and it would have done nothing because the activity was short-lived and didn’t provide enough time to issue the required proclamation.
What remains is the Constitution. The President authorizes troops, but the entrance of those troops into the Capitol Building has to be approved by Congressional authorities.
If you have other data that conflicts with the Constitution and Congressional rules, let’s hear it and see the proof.
JAFO,
They are misrepresenting Executive authority as if it is equivalent to the authority of the Captain of a ship. Yes, the President, just like the Captain, has the ultimate responsibility for the safety and security of the ship and the country respectively. But unlike the Captain, the President’s authority is not unlimited when it comes to the Legislative and Judicial branches of government and the states. Ironically, it’s been the Democrats warning that President Trump was a tyrant, but when he respects the separation of powers, they scream foul that it was he who should have assumed their authority for security at the Capitol. Cut the $hit. Had he overruled Bowser and Pelosi and sent in the NG, securing the complex, they would have impeached him over that.
You said it better than I. Thank you.
Thank you.
Minor correction.
The military and national guard are under the exclusive control of the president.
Pelosio can not unilaterally direct the guards to the capital.
The NORMAL process is local authorities request, and the President approves.
The NORMAL process requires the local authority to INITIATE the process.
Trump, Miley, Miller, discussed the use of the NG on Dec 3 and at Trump’s direction the NG was OFFERED to the CP.
Who tentatively accepted, and 24hrs later rejected the offer.
Regardless, Trump had ORDERED Miller to keep the NG available, as a result whne Miller finally received a request – at 1:49 J6 he was able to send the NG to the Capital without further direction by Trump – Trump had ALREADY days in advance given Miller the authority to do so.
There is some debate over whether the ball was dropped – as it took Miller just under 3hrs from the request to the arrival of the DC NG at the Capital. Miller claims that was the fastest NG deployment ever – and he is probably correct.
At the same Trump Trump had directed Miller to provide the NG several days before.
As several on the left have pointed out – Trump’s interest was protecting the protestors. Trump was concerned about Antifa or exactly what happened – the CP in some places losing it and attacking protestors. It is unlikely Trump was aware that Pelosi had unconstitutionally locked down the capital.
Regardless, Miller should have had all his ducks in a row BEFORE hand. He should have been able to just called the DC NG comandant and say “go”. All the assorted orders down the chain of command should have been worked out on the 4th and 5th. Various NG companies should have already had their tasking assigned and just been awaiting a “go” order.
Atleast to some extent that was not the case and it took 3 hrs From Miller receiving a request until that request was fullfilled.
Given that it takes the DC NG 20min to travel to the Capitol there is 2:40 in wasted time.
None of that involves Trump.
Correct. In this specific event, the president had already alerted those who would carry out the order for troops and approved their deployment. All Nancy had to do was make the call. She refused. What happened before and during Jan 6’s meeting, in the sense there wasn’t enough security, is not the fault of anyone but her.
I think Miller’s responsibility rested with the DC NG as opposed to any other state NG. Is that correct? Miller had that responsibility since DC NG is controlled by the President and is closest.
I believe your assessment is correct about the timeline, and Miller’s wobbly testimony before the J6 committee might be an attempt to protect himself.
I suspect you are correct – but I am not going that far as a certain fact.
Deploying the DC NG in DC is easy.
I beleive the president has the unilateral authority to direct the VA and MD NG to go to DC.
I also beleive that Northam and Hogan have the unilateral authority to call up their state NG – within their state.
But they have no authority to send them accross state lines.
I would have to know EXACTLY what Trump told Miller – it could have been broad enough for Miller to call in the VA or MD NG.
But the DC NG was 20min from the capital.
There is a legitimate question regarding why it took the DC NG just shy of 3hrs to get to the capitol.
The Sargent at arms requested the NG at 1:49.
Further Miller was aware of problems by 1:00
It took 20m from the moment Walker was given the final go order for the DC NG to arrive.
That is probably right.
But under the circumstances I think Trump’s order should have been understood as have them ready to go immediately at any time on J6
In otherwords have all preparations and orders prepared ahead of time.
I think Miller is correct – this was the fastest NG deployment ever.
But that is not the same as – it could not have been done much better.
I am also not sure of Bowsers actual authority in this.
Pelosi can block Trump from sending the Guard to the Capitol.
I do not think Bowser can block Trump from sending the NG to DC.
That said – this issue did arrise with the summer riots.
My understanding is that Trump was told by his advisors NOT to send the NG unless they were requested.
Because two sets of independently acting and uncoordinated law enforcement in the same place at the same time is a recipe for disaster.
i.e. the president has the authority to deploy the NG unilaterally – but it is a bad idea without the collaboration and coordination of local law enforcement.
Regardless I think Trump should have predeployed small numbers of NG to the vacinity of the Capitol as a QRF.
Not too many – or you clog DC unnecescarily.
Finding the right balance is hard – but that IS what we expect out of our leaders.
“There is a legitimate question regarding why it took the DC NG just shy of 3hrs to get to the capitol.”
Miller explains the time lag in his testimony. It is up to the reader to decide whether or not to second-guess him.
“I am also not sure of Bowsers actual authority in this.”
Bowser permitted some NG to deploy in DC, I think unarmed. She declined a larger NG presence. That alone demonstrates the administration to be correct on the issue of troops and Nancy Pelosi et. al, to be wrong. One has to ask themselves, why DC and not the Capitol?
“I do not think Bowser can block Trump from sending the NG to DC.”
I agree. DC is not a state, so the President has more power over the NG.
“i.e. the president has the authority to deploy the NG unilaterally”
This is questionable unless he invokes something like the Insurrection Act. But how does he do it if the Governor says no? The governors have control over the NG.
“Regardless I think Trump should have predeployed small numbers of NG to the vicinity of the Capitol as a QRF. Not too many “
This is the same optic problem that faced the Greeks when trying to figure out how many Triremes to send to another city-state to show strength but not enough to start a war. With that in mind, I tread lightly when criticizing.
I do not beleive the delay is the result of some malfeasance.
But it is a reflection that the Acting Sec. Def. had not properly prepared.
He had the authority needed to get troops to the Capitol faster.
He failed.
That is not a crime. It is not political.
But it is true.
At the same time – he is correct – this was a record deployment.
John, it is difficult to assess how much time it takes. One wants to deploy as a group for the best effects on those that might be rioting. The situation on the ground is not known so the troops have to be made cognizant of what is happening and exactly what they need to do. Last-minute coordination has to be made with all law enforcement in the area. How long that takes including the assessment is unknown at this time.
If evrything has been prepared in advance – orders issued, tasks assigned – it takes 20 minutes.
No. It can take longer than 20 minutes because deployment might be based on what is happening on the ground. That takes time especially when interposing new troops with different police groups. It also depends on the number of troops going in. These are not regular army troops.
It would be criminal misconduct to send NG troops to face an armed enemy without sufficient knowledge of what they faced.
It is merely a real world choice involving compromise to send them in to a situation like J6 without sufficient knowledge.
Everything that was critical could have been determined ahead of time.
The results would not have been perfect.
Waiting proved worse.
We don’t know how much time was lost or if a more rapid deployment would have saved or caused more injuries. I don’t know how much time it should have taken, but the NG is not a specialty unit trained for rapid deployment.
In my opinion, using 20 minutes as your standard is a bit harsh.
The troops did not need to know the situation on the ground.
The DC NG has 10,000 members. that is enough to assign groups responsibility for small parts of the capital.
Move in take control, stop any violence, wait for further orders.
The force available was massive overkill. Frankly all that was needed was their PRESENCE to end violence.
And that was all that needed to be accomplished.
The insurrection act was about deploying the Military – not the NG.
The national guard is an adjunct to the military, but they have far greater breadth in which they can be used.
They are frequently used to support emergency management or to supplement law enforcement.
That does not require invoking the insurrection act.
“The insurrection act was about deploying the Military – not the NG.”
The NG is included in the military at the direction of the federal government. The NG can be utilized without the Insurrection act. The military can’t.
Governors have control over the local NG until the president “federalizes” them – which he can do by simple order.
Then they are under the presidents control. I beleive there was a TV version of this early in “designated survivor”.
This also happened in Real Life at Little Rock When the Gov brought out the NG to block black students from attending a White HS,
and Eisenhower responded by Federalizing the AK NG and having them Protect the black students.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/pelosi-cover-now-know-democrats-lied-trumps-national-guard-offer/
Excellent
https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-secret-commandos-shoot-kill-authority-were-capitol-1661330
There’s been a few pieces I find interesting & in ways related to today’s times.
***********
Ancient Artifacts Prove Human Genetic Destruction by Satan – Steve Quayle
By Greg Hunter On October 22, 2022 In Political Analysis 187 Comments
https://usawatchdog.com/ancient-artifacts-prove-human-genetic-destruction-by-satan-steve-quayle/
This works right in with the Steve Quayle piece above.
*****************
WATCH: WEF High Priest Reveals Globalist Plan to Escape Engineered Collapse, Emerge from the Ashes as ‘Gods’ – BOMBSHELL BREAKDOWN!
256,305 views
·
Oct 26, 2022
59
Share
Download
The Alex Jones Show
The Alex Jones Show
https://banned.video/watch?id=6359743171ada12cbef04f33
“Trump had ORDERED Miller to keep the NG available, ”
Trump made no such order. Period. Miller testified under oath to the J6 committee that he received no such orders from Trump.
Obtuse and a liar. That is a bad combination.
– Referring to Miller and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, Pentagon timelines state that at 5:30 p.m. on January 3, 2021: “A/SD and CJCS meet with the President. President concurs in activation of the DCNG to support law enforcement.”
As usual you continue to argue the sun did not rise today.
Please Read Miller Testimony.
This is stupid of you.
Constantly making claims that people said or did not say things that are obviously false and contradicted by the record.
I cited parts of Miller’s testimony in prior posts as well as linking to his actual testimony.
I would note he is NOT the only one confirming this. Miley, Rosen, also testified and Kash Petal was in the Oval when Trump directed Miller to offer the NG.
It is well documented that Trump wanted the NG present – even those on the left such as yourself occasionally admit that – when confronted with Trump statements that he wanted the NG specifically to protect protestors.
It is really bizzare for idiots like you on the left to try to argue simulataneously that Trump did not provide authorization for the NG,
at the same time as you are arguing that he Wanted the NG to protect Trump protestors not Congress.
Trump unarguably authorized the NG
You also understand this claim of yours makes absolutely no sense ?
The NG arrived at the Capital on J6. ipso facto the president authorized them
The president is commander in Chief. No military action of any kind can occur without authorization from the president.
Neither Miller, not Miley nor Walker has independent authority over the NG.
If a corporal pulls a SAW from a trench and starts mowing down an enemy – everything from his action must follow a chain of orders all the way back to the president.
Miller explicitly testified that the president had delegated sufficient authority to him – i.e. Trump had previously authorized the deployment of teh NG.
You can neither read nor interpolate from the law and constitution and subsequent acts what was required to occur in order for the NG to be present
I would further note that we now know that Prior to J6 Pelosi approached DoD and DOJ/FBI asking for QRF forces – Delta or HRT,
And that these were deployed to the Capital with Shoot to Kill orders if they were called up.
While they did not engage – probably because Pelosi grasped the disasterous consequences of having special forces murdering unarmed protestors About 100 of these were present in and arround the Capital on J6.
Further Pelosi does not actually have the authority to directly contact DoD or the AG.
Again it is the executive branch and all actual authority comes through the president.
Absent direction from Trump this was illegal.
Regardles Pelosi’s request was made illegally.
Congress has oversite responsibility with respect to the Executive. It can only direct through legislation.
It can only make requests within its oversite powers.
Congress can not as an example Order Myorkas to secure the southern border.
It can demand information about his efforts to secure the souther border and it can impeach him for failing to follow immigration law.
There is a mess brewing in PA. The law in PA requires that voters request mailin ballots and that they provide confirmation of their identity before the Ballot can be sent to them.
Yet the PA DOS has confirmed that over 250,000 mailin ballots have been sent out without confirming voter Identity.
This was done through public records, so the group providing that information is now being targeted by left wing nuts.
The Sec State testified to the legislature this did not happened and later had to correct.
The legislature is demanding that the Sec State direct election officials follow the law and refuse to send a ballot without ID and to reject any ballot received without ID until the voter Provides the required ID
Of course this is Pensylvania and PA democrats are lawless, so that will not actually happen.
Svelaz will deny this as well as everything else. He is hopeless and I think doesn’t even know it. Is he paid to tie up people with his lunacy and ignorance? I don’t know. However, Svelaz doesn’t matter for all thinking people now know who and what he is. In fact, except for the terminally dumb they are more aware of the frauds Democrats are perpetrating because you have repeatedly demonstrated all Svelaz’s comments to be false or crazy.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/brewing-election-integrity-storm-pa-over-250k-ballots-sent-voters?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Election integrity storm brewing in PA: Over 250k ballots sent to voters with unverified ID
The Pennsylvania Department of State has provided conflicting guidance regarding the handling of mail ballots that do not have verified identification, state legislators wrote in a letter.
Mail-in ballots
More than 250,000 ballots have been mailed to Pennsylvania voters without their identities being verified, according to state data collected by election integrity group Verity Vote.Svelaz
The Capital is under control of the Legislature. City of DC is under the control of the Mayor. Those are hard enumerated Constitutional power. Youngstown Steele was not on Capitol Grounds. Trump wanted to call the DC Guard during the DC Riots of 2020. The Mayor, Pelosi and the Generals all told him he lacked constitutional power. The Mayor and the Capital Police signed a letter to the DoD, stating they refused permission to expand the NG presence.
Still waiting for the knowledge that is claimed Trump has, that predicates all of your wishcasting.
If Liz Cheney described knowledge that Trump actually knew (or should have known) the plans of the his supporters to storm the capital, then the Brandenburg test of imminent lawless action “could” (emphasis on lack of definitiveness) be met.
Speaking of hiding the context. The President has limited authority for security on the streets of D.C. and the Capitol. If he knew, or should have known that protesters were going to riot at the Capitol, his primary option was to authorize the National Guard to be deployed, should Bowser and Pelosi request them. He authorized them well in advance of January 6th. The gross negligence standard would then apply to those responsible for failing to increase the security posture given the known threat. Hint: that wasn’t President Trump.
There’s a reason the January 6th commission has avoided this elephant in the room. The nanosecond they begin to examine the reasons for the lack of security, is the very moment the entire “insurrection” claim gets gutted. They know that and more importantly the American people know that.
Do we know (or more importantly did the set of facts provided by Liz Cheney which inform the factual basis of the law professor’s claim include) whether Trump informed any other parties with respect to the hypothetical scenario where he had information about his supporters and their plan to storm the Capitol? This is, again, all speculative based on a set of facts that were not supplied by Professor Turley. Assessing the duty of others to deploy the National Guard largely depends on the information they were provided. If Trump knew something that he did not share with any other relevant parties, that failure to inform would be relevant in considering any hypothetical assessment of gross negligence.
Again, I don’t watch MSNBC, but why hide the context?
Assessing the duty of others to deploy the National Guard largely depends on the information they were provided.
The Schiff-like hypotheticals are rendered moot by the joint report by the Senate Homeland Security Committee and Senate Rules and Administration Committee.
The Committees’ investigation uncovered a number of intelligence and security failures leading up to and on January 6 that allowed for the breach of the Capitol. These breakdowns ranged from federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence to a lack of planning and preparation by USCP and law enforcement leadership.
https://www.rules.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan%206%20HSGAC%20Rules%20Report.pdf
There is no missing context. It’s merely context you’ve missed.
Professor Turley’s article is a post about a professor’s claim regarding a set of facts allegedly supplied by Liz Cheney, not your take on the universe of available information. Do you know whether Liz Cheney referenced the Senate report? If not, then it is irrelevant to assessing the strength of the MSNBC commentator’s claim.
You can argue that all of the facts in the world are contained in the Senate’s report. But, that is not the subject of the Professor Turley’s post. Does that make sense?
“Does that make sense?”
No.
Professor Turley’s article is a post about a professor’s claim regarding a set of facts allegedly supplied by Liz Cheney, not your take on the universe of available information. Do you know whether Liz Cheney referenced the Senate report? If not, then it is irrelevant to assessing the strength of the MSNBC commentator’s claim.
The universe of available information, especially the Senate report, is absolutely relevant in assessing McQuade’s claim. It’s reasonable for McQuade to put forth a legal theory on facts allegedly supplied by Cheney. It is not reasonable however to believe she was ignorant of the universe of available information. JT certainly isn’t. He picked up where McQuade left off. He provided the context proving the strength of McQuade’s legal analysis omitted addressing all universally available information. McQuade’s legal analysis was what one would expect from a prosecuting attorney. JT’s was what I would expect from a Judge.
If someone creates a hypothetical – as law professors often do – then an assessment of the facts as supplied is used for analysis. If my criminal law professor asked me to analyze whether manslaughter existed, giving me a set of hypothetical facts about Biden’s failure to do X based on Y, then in assessing whether Biden is guilty of manslaughter, it does not matter than X and Y were fictional. Here, Turley has not given us “Y.”
This is why context matters.
The president has no more responsibility for the small amount of violence at the capital on J6 than he has for the riots at Kenosha.
Not only isn’t the president the responsible party – but contra the left this event was small potatoes.
Alot is made of bringing in the NG.
But all that was necescary to avoid this violence was to open the capital, and screen people coming in.
“ But all that was necescary to avoid this violence was to open the capital, and screen people coming in.”
The capital WAS open to everyone. Access was never restricted and people WERE screened. At least the ones attending the rally.
What was restricted was access to the capitol.
At least learn to use the correct terms so that your statements make more sense.
Capital; the most important city or town of a country or region, usually its seat of government and administrative center.
Capitol; The United States Capitol, often called The Capitol or the Capitol Building, is the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government, which is formally known as the United States Congress. It is located on Capitol Hill at the eastern end of the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
The Capitol is situated in the Capital of the United States. Access the capital was never restricted and people were never prevented from going to the capital.
“The capital WAS open to everyone. Access was never restricted and people WERE screened. At least the ones attending the rally.
What was restricted was access to the capitol.”
You can not even avoid contradicting yourself in 4 sentences in the same paragraph.
No one at the elipse was “screened” – neither the DC nor CP screen people out in public.
Have you never been to the mall ? Do you think that people must go through metal detectors and have bagged searched to stand in front of the washington monument or the Lincoln memorial ?
You are screed when you enter actual buildings – like the capital.
“At least learn to use the correct terms so that your statements make more sense.”
Good advice – please take it. Including not contradicting yourself in a single paragraph.
Not interested in your idiotic fixation on semantics.
At this point I am using capital just to annoy you.
Get over it.
The context that appears missing is that Trump was shut out of Twitter on the very day of January 6th and could not respond. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/internet-sting-operation-j6-deleted-exposes-how-twitter-manipulated-jan-6-narrative-real
The bully pulpit didn’t exist before March 21, 2006 (the date Twitter was founded), so that makes sense.
The analyst said “facts” – there are no facts that could possibly lead to a credible theory.
Though I do find the left’s rehabilitation of the Cheney family hilarious.
Regardless, I will trade Cheney for Tulsi in a heartbeat.
Hypotheticals are composed of “facts” regardless of whether – in the real world – those facts are real.
An assumption in an alternate universe is not a fact.
To help illustrate, is this a fact or an opinion: “The assailant wore a white shirt.” ?
Now, does that change if the assailant wore a blue shirt? It doesn’t magically become an opinion. The fact is just not accurate.
What about the element of unlawfulness? Only one person was killed on Jan 6th by the actions of another. It was Ashley Babbitt, one of the rioters, and from what I can see that shooting was lawful.
“from what I can see that shooting was lawful.”
Davel: If that was lawful then every police shooting, even where the police officer went to jail, was lawful. If you accept the former you accept the latter. Is that what you are telling us?
By the way, 3 other protestors died. You forget Roseanne Boyland who was beaten with a baton or stick by a black female police officer while being gassed by other officers.
2 others dies as well and they were not close to the Capitol. It is believed they were killed by a percussion bomb shot by the Capitol police into the crowd away from the Capitol.
What made you think only one was killed?
There were several people who died, but only one who was killed, i.e. who died by the actions of another. Ms. Boyland died from a drug overdose, not from being beaten by an officer (and not, as left-wing media originally claimed, from being trampled by other rioters). Two others died of heart attacks. Officer Brian Sicknick died later that day apparently from natural causes.
You may have your own opinions of the shooting of Ashley Babbitt, and you’re welcome to them. But the shooting was investigated and found to be lawful by the relevant authorities, and that finding, not your opinion, is what would be a virtually insuperable obstacle to any manslaughter prosecution of Trump for Babbit’s death.
Davel, what do you think Roseanne Boyland died of? …old age?
The two men were close to the percussion bomb. Do you believe it could not possibly have been at least a contributing factor to their deaths?
“Ms. Boyland died from a drug overdose, not from being beaten by an officer”
Are you now going to release Derek Chauvin from jail? Why do you think Boyland being beaten with a baton by a black police officer and being gassed by other officers while people were trying to save her life didn’t contribute to her death? She may have been trampled as well but why do you forget contributory negligence in your claims?
Do you believe that Byrd met the requirements for a proper shooting (and killing)?
Once again, your conspiracy theories are irrelevant to the present question. Even if the official findings were falsified, surely you can see how DC prosecutors are stuck with them? They can’t very well go before a jury and say “First off, we need to let you know that we’ve been covering up four murders by the Capitol Police for nearly two years. But now we have this shiny new theory that would allow us to pin those murders on Trump! So I want you to just forget what we said before, forget how we subverted justice for political ends, and believe what we’re saying now.”
“Once again, your conspiracy theories are irrelevant to the present question. “
Davel, don’t be insulting. Did you not see a black female cop beating Rosanne Boyland before her death? Look it up if you haven’t, and then you can apologize.
Have you not seen different manuals describing a proper shoot? If not look some of them up as well.
“Even if the official findings were falsified, surely you can see how DC prosecutors are stuck with them? “
Now you are dealing with reality. Do you know what prosecutors do? They investigate wrongdoing. Falsifying records is wrongdoing.
“First off, we need to let you know that we’ve been covering up four murders by the Capitol Police for nearly two years.”
They have held off releasing the information. Most people know that. You exaggerated a bit with your comment. It is not known how those 2 men died for sure. Apparently, cardiac damage was seen but so was the percussion bomb. I would say 2 murders and 2 deaths. The deaths might be related to the percussion bombs. One heart attack might be acceptable, but two is too much coincidence to accept without a look from other parties.
This S. Meyer guy is full on nuts. What was that nonsense?
Guess you never saw Roseanne Boyland being beaten by a black female cop and do not know she died. Perhaps you also don’t know what a proper shoot is. With such stupidity how can you comment on anything? Look up the videos of both incidents.
My guess is rather than do the work you prefer to look stupid.
They have not held off on releasing the information. They have already released it: one lawful shooting, one accidental overdose, three natural deaths. If any of those conclusions were falsified, they were complicit in falsifying it. In order to prosecute Trump for contributing to an unlawful killing on Jan 6th, they would first have to admit there WAS an unlawful killing on Jan 6th. Which would expose them as corrupt political hacks, just before they ask a jury to ignore their corruption and do their bidding.
That’s why your conspiracy theories are irrelevant. I can explain itto you, but I can’t understand it for you. I don’t know what manner of neurological impairment makes you the way you are, but I’m not in a position to remedy it at this time.
Davel: Compare how they released the data to other similar releases elsewhere.
Is all the data involving the Byrd shooting open to scrutiny by the public? Why not? The left demands that with every police shooting. Why the sudden change? Why was Byrd kept hidden? Why weren’t the videos released more timely? Do we have all the information?
You don’t know, do you?
There were other officers present. Why didn’t they shoot? What about the risk to the crowd in the vicinity of Babbitt, including police officers that Byrd could accidentally hit and kill?
Again, you don’t have the answers. Who is keeping them from me and you as well?
Do you know the federal rules for a police shooting? Byrd did not follow those rules. Do you know that?
If you can’t answer the simple questions, then all you have is an opinion. If contrary facts disagree with what you say, isn’t reconsideration necessary?
—
There are thousands of hours of video taken inside the Capitol Building that was not released. Why? We saw a judge release a protestor from jail based on a protestor’s video that would have been on the Capitol Building’s videos. Why not release those tapes to show exactly what happened in the Capitol building?
Don’t you wish the guilty to be convicted and the innocent freed, or is this a personal ideological war of yours where you accept people used as pawns?
—-
” I can explain itto you, but I can’t understand it for you. I don’t know what manner of neurological impairment makes you the way you are,”
Is this your position? It is ugly as well as insulting. That you do not have the required information to prove your case is your fault, no one else. Why be ugly?
It appears that the only answer you have is to insult. Let us not play stupid. Present your facts, or close your mouth.
The same relevant authorities who call parents domestic terrorists, and the same relevant authorities who stood by while BLM rioted, looted and burned Limos and other things during Trumps Inaugeration?? THOSE relevant authorities? Who can trust them, when they lied to us for 5 years about the Fake Russian Collusion hoax that HILLARY paid for, and the FBI and DOJ lied about??
It doesn’t matter whether you or I find they’re conclusions credible or not. The issue is that the same authorities who would be trying to charge Trump for contributing to an unlawful killing on Jan 6th are the *same* authorities who maintain there was *no* unlawful killing.
“The issue is that the same authorities who would be trying to charge Trump for contributing to an unlawful killing on Jan 6th are the *same* authorities who maintain there was *no* unlawful killing.”
That’s an excellent point.
If true to form, they’ll jettison consistency and logic, to assert something like this: “Well, there were no unlawful killings *then*. But there are *now*.” Because, get Trump.
The shooting was obviously lawless.
The office was not in imminent personal danger of death or serious bodily harm. Nor was he protecting anyone else from death or serious bodily harm.
Those are the federal requirements that apply to law enforcement for the legal use of deadly force in this case.
At the time Alishi was shot – the speakers chamber was cleared. Byrd was armed, Alishi was not, She was not coming towards him.
Further his shot placed others behind the door at risk including serveral other Capital Police officers.
Derick Chauvan was less culpable than Byrd.
I would note that Rose Boyland’s killing was also unjustified. Boyland attacked no one. She was repeatedly pummeled by a black female CP officer on the head and arms with a night stick – the use of knight sticks to the head or anywhere except soft tissues is considered deadly force.
“ The shooting was obviously lawless.
The office was not in imminent personal danger of death or serious bodily harm. Nor was he protecting anyone else from death or serious bodily harm.”
It was not lawless. The officer was protecting a secured area where lawmakers were still present. His job was to protect the location. Babbitt disobeyed orders to stay back and as it is with with any other law enforcement action not obeying lawful orders gets you shot. Don’t want to get shot? Obey orders from law enforcement. Right?
“ Further his shot placed others behind the door at risk including serveral other Capital Police officers.”
That claim turned out to be untrue she was already past the shattered window when she was shot and the officers on the other side were already gone by the time she was shot.
“It was not lawless.”
Wrong
“The officer was protecting a secured area where lawmakers were still present. His job was to protect the location.”
So many errors.
Federal law does not permit the use of deadly force to thwart trespassing.
Lawmakers were no longer present when Babbitt was shot.
“Babbitt disobeyed orders to stay back”
There is no evidence of such an order, not that it would change anything – you can not shoot someone for violating a lawful order.
Regardless as several video’s show – as soon as everyone left the speakers lobby and the doors at the rear were closed the officers at the doors where Babbit was withdrew from those doors which is when Babbit went through.
“and as it is with with any other law enforcement action not obeying lawful orders gets you shot.”
Except that is False. We are specifically dealing with Federal law here – some states are different.
Federal law does not allow law enforcement to use deadly force except in a few very specific instances.
The only one that applies here is imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or others.
This has a legally very specific meaning.
If Babbit had a gun or a knife – that alone would not be sufficient.
If other people were actually present – that alone would not be sufficient.
The law is this way to specifically prevent exactly this.
We do not want officers deciding – Kavanaugh protestors are good guys we will not shoot them as they take an axe to a senators door.
While Election Fraud protestors are bad guys.
The justification to use deadly force must arrise from circumstances the officer does NOT control.
And primarily from a real threat based on factors in the perpitrators control
It can not come from refusing to obey an order.
Under SOME circumstances pointing a firearm at someone – justifies deadly force.
Possesing one does not.
Merely committing a crime that is not violence against a person does not.
I would note – this is FEDERAL law.
Some states have different law.
Though I can not think of one that would justify shooting Babbit.
I would further note that you left wing nuts should have some understanding of this – as you are constantly claiming that police shootings with far more justification are unjustified.
” Don’t want to get shot? Obey orders from law enforcement. Right?”
This is not about what Babbit should have done – just as the left correctly points out that a black teen behaving stupidly with a police officer si not a justification to shoot them.
This is about whether the police officers use of deadly force was justified – it was not.
Babbit’s conduct is only relevant IF it is sufficiently egregious to justify the use of deadly force.
If the question is should Babbit be jailed for breaking into the speakers lobby – sure.
The speakers lobby is not a public portion of the capital.
When she went through that window she was ACTUALLY trespassing.
But that does not change the FACT that Byrd did not have sufficient justification to fire.
“That claim turned out to be untrue she was already past the shattered window when she was shot and the officers on the other side were already gone by the time she was shot.”
Completely false.
Babbit was in the window – not past it.
Byrd was forward, slightly below and to the left of her as seen from behind.
Byrd’s shot caught her in the neck – almost certainly NOT where he was aiming
My guess is the bullet went over the officers heads.
The officers on the other side did not leave.
The merely left the DOOR and moved off to the right – pretty much right in the trajectory of any miss on Byrd’s part.
Hopefully Byrd was aiming for Babbits body – not her head. Police are taught to shoot at the center of mass. It looks less like an execution,
and it is also far less dangerous to others.
Regardless Byrd clearly missed whatever he was shooting at, at very close range.
But then we already know from his past record that he is reckless with firearms.
Regardless, Byrd missed Babbits torso from less than 5 ft away.
That is unarguably dangerous to others.
It doesn’t matter whether you think it was lawful or not. The manslaughter statute would require them to show, as an element of the crime, that it was unlawful. And they’ve already investigated it and found it was lawful. They can’t have their cake and eat it too.
Investigators do not determine what is and is not lawful – the law does.
The fact that the investigation failed to follow the law – a common problem today with left wing nut tinged law enforcement,
does not change the plain language of the law.
Nearly everyone agrees on the facts – regardless the relevant ones are easily established
Alishi was unarmed – certainly not pointing a gun at Byrd or someone else.
The speakers lobby was empty – except for Byrd.
The legitimate use of force by a federal officer requires the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another
Aside from the plain meaning – which most people grasp was not met, these terms are also legal terms of art. Immediate and serious bodily injury have narrow and clear meaning.
These requirements were not met.
The killing was therefore unlawful.
It is incredibly important that we follow the law as written.
When that produces undesirable results – we can change the law.
When we do not follow the law as written – first we are lawless.
But even more importantly we lose the trust of the governed.
Government without the trust of the governed is lawless.
Police, courts, SCOTUS are NOT the final authority – the people are.
Not in the sense that each decision can be overruled by the people.
But in the sense that when police, courts. SCOTUS lose our trust – legitimate government ceases to exist.
The more bad or lawless decisions the police, the courts, the supreme court make the more likely government legitimacy crumbles.
In 1989 the people of east germany woke up one day and decided the east german government did not exist.
No election. And because they decided the government did not exist – it ceased to exist.
“Now, MSNBC legal analyst and Michigan Law Professor Barbara McQuade has gone one better. She told MSNBC viewers that Trump could be charged with manslaughter for his role in the January 6 Capitol riot.”
**************************************
Barbie here needs to get a refund on her law school tuition. She obviously didn’t learn much about the necessity for proving each element of a crime.
She knows better. She also knows that the simple minded will seize on her words.
Just read some of the comments on this blog. So to Twitter tomorrow or even later today, and see the echo chamber in action.
After the Nazi’s assumed power in Germany in 1933, they radically went about suborning the legal system and judges and used this to cement themselves in power as well as preventing any sort of legal repercussions to their acts as they pushed on into atrocities against their own people and eventually the world.
This started with Obama and Eric Holder, perpetuated by Louise Lerner at the IRS and neither suffered any legal effects of their misdeeds. Now we have Joe Biden, Merrick Garland and a DOJ and FBI that is running amok investigating parents, sending basically SWAT squads to arrest protestors, failing to appoint a special counsel on Hunter Biden, stopping people on the street and demanding their phone and resisting demands for warrants as well as forging documents sent to the FISA court, writing illegal executive orders that undermine our culture and the rule of law and on and on and on. Tribe and McQuade support this so why would we expect anything else from them than these screeds.
The Only solution is a massive victory on 11/8/2022 then use the power of the purse to destroy the DOJ and the FBI. Totally remove them with a massive RIF and then rebuild. That requires votes and attack dogs in Congress. It can be done. The Pentagon could stand a massive sweeping also. Then start eliminating other cabinet depts or massively reducing their size. The size of the federal government is so massive that it hinders any reform simply by the size. If you cannot impeach and convict then take away the money. Even terrorist organizations can’t run without money. Our government is about to cross over into a terrorist organization unless we act.
May have had too much caffeine today!
Can you smell the desperation in the air?
I challenge anyone to tune into Wallace once a day for a week. You’ll only last 3 or 4 minutes. but tune in and try to convince anyone she is mentally competent. She is mental broke. Trump broke her. She spends all her energy finding the fringe players out side of the sane fringe players and giving them all, 8 minutes of infamy.
Be careful, though. The whining honk of her voice can physically damage your eardrums.
Unfortunately, many of the lawyers being trained today are being trained to be just like this “so called expert.” Our schools are doing a fine job of brainwashing and bias training for too many going into the legal profession. Justice is no longer blind, but deaf and dumb as well.
Samuel– I agree. I’ve been practicing trial law for almost 50 years. In that time, I have done battle with lawyers from all schools and all walks of life. I remember when a “Harvard lawyer” immediately enjoyed a measure of professional respect. Given what that school is now teaching its law students and the professors they have chosen to teach (e.g. Lawrence Tribe) I would not recommend that anyone hire a Harvard lawyer or one from any of the other Ivy League schools to handle even simple litigation. Ideology has its place but a courtroom is not one of them.
HLM:
“Ideology has its place but a courtroom is not one of them.”
**************************
Ideology never ages well in a courtroom setting. Too much reality and search for truth, I suppose. Ideology is better served on a stage with fawning sycophants in attendance. Skeptics need not apply.
Amen, Mespo.
Et al:
Ignored by the Fake News: Special Agent Testifies FBI Used Geo Tracking to Identify Trump Supporters at US Capitol on Jan. 6 Similar to ‘2000 Mules’ Investigation
By Jim Hoft
Published October 24, 2022 at 9:15am
237 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/ignored-fake-news-special-agent-testifies-fbi-used-geo-tracking-identify-trump-supporters-us-capitol-jan-6-similar-2000-mules-investigation/
I have met Lawrence Tribe. I have read his constitutional law text, I have listened to him speak.
There was a time – not long ago, when he had earned respect as a legal scholar and was one of the pre-eminent constitutional scholars in the country.
Unfortunately that time is past.
That BTW is true of many leading lights on the left.
I listened to a debate several years ago with Elie Mystal – and he was brilliant.
Today he is a raving lunatic.