I seem to remember an old joke that goes along the lines of this: That liberals (aka progressives nowadays) see the glass as half full, while conservatives see the glass as half empty.
However today, neither side can agree not just on the level, but whether the liquid in the glass is refreshing or poisonous.
“You say that’s a glass? That’s your racist patriarchy trying to control my thoughts, you fascist!”
Have you seen the what is a chair discussions?
Actually since we are considering fluid containers I suspect we should be considering something more fundamental than race. This is clearly a case of misogyny and male dominance you chauvinist.
“Matt Gaetz Gives Republicans a PLAN to FIGHT BACK Against Jack Smith!”
Don’t know if anyone here is following this or cares by Matt Gaetz has an interesting strategy. (Starts about the 2 min mark); first subpoena prosecutor Jack Smith. If he refuses hold him in criminal contempt of congress (likewise Garland if he refuses to compel him to appear). Ultimately have the judicial committee call Donald Trump as a witness to testify about the Jan 6th inspired charges against him levied by Smith. In the process granting Trump immunity from prosecution for said charges in exchange for his “testimony”. He (Gaetz) claims that by invoking invoking “18 USC 6002 subpart 3” Congress has that authority to do so.
Don’t know if this is correct or if Gaetz is merely bluffing but he seems generally incensed enough to do so; and if apparently would only require the committee (not the whole of the House) to implement.
Seems that the strategy Garland would follow here is to have Smith be a no show before the committee. On-going case, etc. Contempt of Congress like a perjury charge before Congress has to be enforced by the DoJ. It won’t be. And if Trump testifies before the committee, Smith will just add a perjury indictment against Trump (unlike the linked persona) for false testimony to Congress. Then having given a DC jury even more rope with which to convict, along with the remaining indictments, the federal trial in a DC court with a DC judge will proceed.
There’s an exception to the law you cited for perjury.
Unless you think Trump would change his tune before the committee and give it all up? Being then granted immunity for all the “crimes” he admits to? Then the perjury charge would have to be that he’s lying, that he really did believe the election was stolen! Smith know’s his Catch-22 catechism. I love the irony that his prosecution for actions on Jan 6. hinges solely on proving Trump’s intent. And we all know a DC jury can read minds.
“And if Trump testifies before the committee, Smith will just add a perjury indictment against Trump”
But what would stop the judicial committee from deciding he didn’t commit perjury and then granting him immunity again by calling him back to answer to the new charge of perjury having dismissed all the previous charges related to the January 6 events? It seems to me the salient point is that this committee has the power to subpoena Trump and then grant him immunity for any charge he’s charged with and there’s nothing the Justice department can really do about it. The Justice department has chosen to ignore all the evidence uncovered by Jordan et cetera in their committee that the Biden family has taken upwards of 40 million dollars over decades. Justice department can’t be forceto act on that but they can retaliated against them by torpedoing their cases against Trump. They could also theoretically try the same tactic against the other charge the documents charge and even the state charge in New York and the one about to be made in the state of Georgia.
How about Garland brings charges against members of Congress for interfering in a federal prosecution? I don’t think being a MoC makes you immune from such prosecution. Would Federal Marshalls have the temerity to arrest someone on the floor of the Congress? There may be a carve out for that I’d have to check the wording in the Constitution closely. But once they set foot outside the chamber they are probably fair game, with a DC judge ready to withhold bail at arraignment.
Can you say bananas boys and girls? In Civics class you can learn all about it!
“…they are probably fair game, with a DC judge ready to withhold bail at arraignment.”
Yes that would obviously bring things to a head provoking a potential constitutional crisis forcing the Supreme Court to weigh in on it and they likely would take Congress side.
The year of popcorn….
The law after all grants Congress the broad subpoena authority and if they so choose to grant them immunity in exchange for their testimony so you could hardly say the exercise of their lawful authority is interfering with an investigation especially against a prosecutor and Attorney General who have been held in criminal contempt of Congress. Don’t see how the Supreme Court would rule against Congress under those circumstances.
The Constitution should be amended so that all impeachment trials and federal criminal or civil cases against standing members of Congress are tried by a jury of 13 federal criminal convicts currently serving time. They have little else to do, are intimately familiar with the Federal justice system and likely committed crimes similar to those being charged. Hence in Kafkastan, for our political class, a true jury of peers.
“Re-orienting healing as a decolonizing process enables students to re-politicize personal trauma as it intersects with global legacies of violence, war, racism, slavery, patriarchy, colonialism, orientalism, homophobia, ableism, capitalism, and extractivism”
I seem to remember an old joke that goes along the lines of this: That liberals (aka progressives nowadays) see the glass as half full, while conservatives see the glass as half empty.
However today, neither side can agree not just on the level, but whether the liquid in the glass is refreshing or poisonous.
“You say that’s a glass? That’s your racist patriarchy trying to control my thoughts, you fascist!”
Have you seen the what is a chair discussions?
Actually since we are considering fluid containers I suspect we should be considering something more fundamental than race. This is clearly a case of misogyny and male dominance you chauvinist.
“Matt Gaetz Gives Republicans a PLAN to FIGHT BACK Against Jack Smith!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e49zaNy60ow&t=205s
Don’t know if anyone here is following this or cares by Matt Gaetz has an interesting strategy. (Starts about the 2 min mark); first subpoena prosecutor Jack Smith. If he refuses hold him in criminal contempt of congress (likewise Garland if he refuses to compel him to appear). Ultimately have the judicial committee call Donald Trump as a witness to testify about the Jan 6th inspired charges against him levied by Smith. In the process granting Trump immunity from prosecution for said charges in exchange for his “testimony”. He (Gaetz) claims that by invoking invoking “18 USC 6002 subpart 3” Congress has that authority to do so.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/6002
Don’t know if this is correct or if Gaetz is merely bluffing but he seems generally incensed enough to do so; and if apparently would only require the committee (not the whole of the House) to implement.
Seems that the strategy Garland would follow here is to have Smith be a no show before the committee. On-going case, etc. Contempt of Congress like a perjury charge before Congress has to be enforced by the DoJ. It won’t be. And if Trump testifies before the committee, Smith will just add a perjury indictment against Trump (unlike the linked persona) for false testimony to Congress. Then having given a DC jury even more rope with which to convict, along with the remaining indictments, the federal trial in a DC court with a DC judge will proceed.
There’s an exception to the law you cited for perjury.
Unless you think Trump would change his tune before the committee and give it all up? Being then granted immunity for all the “crimes” he admits to? Then the perjury charge would have to be that he’s lying, that he really did believe the election was stolen! Smith know’s his Catch-22 catechism. I love the irony that his prosecution for actions on Jan 6. hinges solely on proving Trump’s intent. And we all know a DC jury can read minds.
“And if Trump testifies before the committee, Smith will just add a perjury indictment against Trump”
But what would stop the judicial committee from deciding he didn’t commit perjury and then granting him immunity again by calling him back to answer to the new charge of perjury having dismissed all the previous charges related to the January 6 events? It seems to me the salient point is that this committee has the power to subpoena Trump and then grant him immunity for any charge he’s charged with and there’s nothing the Justice department can really do about it. The Justice department has chosen to ignore all the evidence uncovered by Jordan et cetera in their committee that the Biden family has taken upwards of 40 million dollars over decades. Justice department can’t be forceto act on that but they can retaliated against them by torpedoing their cases against Trump. They could also theoretically try the same tactic against the other charge the documents charge and even the state charge in New York and the one about to be made in the state of Georgia.
How about Garland brings charges against members of Congress for interfering in a federal prosecution? I don’t think being a MoC makes you immune from such prosecution. Would Federal Marshalls have the temerity to arrest someone on the floor of the Congress? There may be a carve out for that I’d have to check the wording in the Constitution closely. But once they set foot outside the chamber they are probably fair game, with a DC judge ready to withhold bail at arraignment.
Can you say bananas boys and girls? In Civics class you can learn all about it!
“…they are probably fair game, with a DC judge ready to withhold bail at arraignment.”
Yes that would obviously bring things to a head provoking a potential constitutional crisis forcing the Supreme Court to weigh in on it and they likely would take Congress side.
The year of popcorn….
The law after all grants Congress the broad subpoena authority and if they so choose to grant them immunity in exchange for their testimony so you could hardly say the exercise of their lawful authority is interfering with an investigation especially against a prosecutor and Attorney General who have been held in criminal contempt of Congress. Don’t see how the Supreme Court would rule against Congress under those circumstances.
The Constitution should be amended so that all impeachment trials and federal criminal or civil cases against standing members of Congress are tried by a jury of 13 federal criminal convicts currently serving time. They have little else to do, are intimately familiar with the Federal justice system and likely committed crimes similar to those being charged. Hence in Kafkastan, for our political class, a true jury of peers.
“Re-orienting healing as a decolonizing process enables students to re-politicize personal trauma as it intersects with global legacies of violence, war, racism, slavery, patriarchy, colonialism, orientalism, homophobia, ableism, capitalism, and extractivism”
https://www.jns.org/antisemitism/curriculum/23/8/7/308597/
From the description of a course at Princeton University.