Fiona Hill: "The president was trying to stage a coup"

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
Are they testifying? No?

Then you'll have to rely on them to place greater importance on the congressional oath they've already taken than the rest of the feckless GOP
Unfair, unless and only unless you think the subjects (the "teachers") of the Milgram experiments were also "feckless."
and the ex-president did.
There's no 'smoking gun' that I'm aware of from the former President Trump. But in the context of what Mr. Eastman appears to have been attempting in the "J6" rhetorical narrative explanation of events, former Trump's phone call is clearly serving the same function as the "experimenter's" in Milgram's experiments.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Our view is that Utilitarianism and Absolute Majoritarianism and Anarchism (along with Monarchism; and by extension any Autocracy) combined with Legal Positivism (that by their very nature, legitimate laws bind our hearts along with our minds and bodies; rather than there being a pre-political morality, against which our laws can be compared and contrasted; basically Legal Positivism is the empire of law, so whoever makes the laws are the emperors, but the law itself is absolute here and not any humans) are repugnant to [the regime of] the Constitution.

We don't want the Supreme Court expanded to 538 justices, do we?

Maybe we do. Maybe nine is like history's next biggest joke on modern Americans, after slavery and the Civil War.
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
Unfair, unless and only unless you think the subjects (the "teachers") of the Milgram experiments were also "feckless."

How is it unfair, exactly?

And what does it have with the Milgram experiment (of which I'm familiar, thus the question)?

There's no 'smoking gun' that I'm aware of from the former President Trump.

If you don't see it by now, you're not gonna see it. No sense beating a dead horse.

But in the context of what Mr. Eastman appears to have been attempting in the "J6" rhetorical narrative explanation of events, former Trump's phone call is clearly serving the same function as the "experimenter's" in Milgram's experiments.

Say what now? Again, what's with the odd shoehorning of Milgram into Jan 6?

Our view is that Utilitarianism and Absolute Majoritarianism and Anarchism (along with Monarchism; and by extension any Autocracy) combined with Legal Positivism (that by their very nature, legitimate laws bind our hearts along with our minds and bodies; rather than there being a pre-political morality, against which our laws can be compared and contrasted; basically Legal Positivism is the empire of law, so whoever makes the laws are the emperors, but the law itself is absolute here and not any humans) are repugnant to [the regime of] the Constitution.

No idea what you're trying to say here.

We don't want the Supreme Court expanded to 538 justices, do we?

Maybe we do. Maybe nine is like history's next biggest joke on modern Americans, after slavery and the Civil War.

The Constitution doesn't set a number, that's the purview of Congress which is why Congress has changed the number of justices seven times. There's a good argument to be made for having more than nine.
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member

“Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you?”Powerful January 6 testimony from Georgia poll workers reveals a serious — and ongoing — threat to democracy.


1241441997.0.jpg



Tuesday’s hearing of the House select committee probing the January 6 attack on the US Capitol ended with perhaps the single most emotional segment in the hearings to date: a mother-daughter team of former Georgia poll workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, discussing what it was like to be singled out as part of former President Donald Trump’s conspiracy theories that the election was stolen — and that poll workers like Moss and Freeman were involved in the plot.

In doing so, they highlighted a serious and ongoing threat to American democracy.

In the weeks following the 2020 election, the Trump campaign and its allies publicly accused the two women of committing election fraud in Fulton County (home to Atlanta). Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s lawyers, at one point claimed that the mother and daughter — who are Black — were passing around USB sticks full of doctored votes like they were “vials of heroin or cocaine” (it was actually a ginger mint, according to Moss).

During Trump’s now-infamous call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which Trump pressured the latter to “find” enough votes to alter the election result, he mentioned the two women 18 separate times. (Raffensperger also delivered testimony at Tuesday’s hearing.)

The result was a wave of harassment that ruined the two women’s lives. Moss testified that she received “a lot of threats, wishing death upon me — telling me that, you know, I’ll be in jail with my mother and saying things like ‘be glad it’s 2020 and not 1920.’” She went into hiding and said she gained 60 pounds from the stress. Trump supporters attacked her grandmother’s home, barging in and “exclaiming that they were coming in to make a citizens arrest.”

Freeman, for her part, used to proudly wear T-shirts with her nickname — “Lady Ruby” — on them. “Now,” she testified in a videotaped deposition, “I won’t even introduce myself by my name anymore.” She continued:

There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere. Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you? The president of the United States is supposed to represent every American. Not to target one. But he targeted me, Lady Ruby, a small business owner, a mother, a proud American citizen, who stood up to help Fulton County run an election in the middle of the pandemic.

This testimony revealed the real damage done to human lives by lies spouted by Trump and his allies. But it also pointed to something deeper — the way that attacks on individual poll workers chip away at the very foundations of our democracy.

Civil servants across the country, from ordinary people like Moss and Freeman to officials like Raffensperger, step up to make sure our elections run lawfully and smoothly. By targeting them so personally, Trump and his anti-democratic allies are raising the costs of such civic participation — and opening the door for MAGA disciples to infiltrate our elections infrastructure in 2022 and beyond.

Undermining democracy, one poll worker at a time​

While Moss and Freeman were special targets of Trump and Giuliani, they were not the only poll workers to experience vicious harassment in the last election cycle. A 2021 survey found that 17 percent of America’s local election officials experienced threats due to their jobs during the 2020 election cycle. David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told me last year that this was very far from normal prior to 2020.

“It’s not even accurate to say [threatening election workers] was rare prior to 2020. It was so rare as to be virtually nonexistent,” he said. “This is beyond anything that we’ve ever seen.”

Sometimes, these threats were the direct result of Trump singling a poll worker out — as was the case with Freeman, Moss, and other officials like Raffensperger.

Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican responsible for election oversight, became a lightning rod when Trump tweeted that he was someone who was “being used big time by the Fake News Media” as a cover for election fraud. He received a wave of threats; a deputy commissioner, Seth Bluestein, was subjected to antisemitic abuse. Schmidt’s wife got emails with threats such as “ALBERT RINO SCHMIDT WILL BE FATALLY SHOT” and “HEADS ON SPIKES. TREASONOUS SCHMIDTS.” The family left their home for safety reasons after the election; Schmidt has announced he will not run for reelection in 2023.


In other cases, presidential involvement wasn’t necessary to incite harassment. Trump’s conspiracy theories that the 2020 election was stolen, and that local election officials were often part of “the steal,” had created a climate in which hardcore Trump supporters felt empowered to take matters into their own hands.

In Vermont, not exactly a swing state that interested Trump, one of his supporters sent a series of threatening messages to election officials in late 2020 — warning them, among other things, that “your days are [redacted] numbered.”

This harassment obviously did not enable Trump to overturn the 2020 election. But it has done immense psychological harm to election workers like Moss and Freeman, who work difficult jobs for little pay. A 2020 nationwide survey of election officials conducted by the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College found that about a quarter of respondents planned to retire before the 2024 presidential election. One of the top reasons cited was “the political environment” — meaning that the politicization of their jobs and attendant threats made them want out.

When dedicated poll workers quit, it means the person’s years of expertise in specialized and technical areas vanishes. One departure, or a handful, might be manageable. Mass resignations — and an environment that dissuades the civic-minded from stepping up to fill the vacancies — can be catastrophic to election management.

That’s especially true given that Trump’s allies are working to insert their supporters into key election roles. A September 2021 ProPublica investigation documented the emergence of a “precinct strategy,” beginning with a call to action on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s radio show, in which Republicans have begun flooding local voting precincts with volunteers who could shape the counting process in the next election cycle. They found that thousands of Republicans had signed up for these roles since Bannon’s campaign began, with no similar surge on the Democratic side.

“Your best-case scenario [if poll workers quit en masse] is more problems at polling places and in voting,” Becker told me. “The worst-case scenario is not just if we lose it, but what happens when that experience gets replaced by hackery … more people who believe that their job is to deliver their election to the candidate that they want to see win.”

Election security analysts are already worrying about the 2022 midterms — in particular, whether the campaigns of harassment and intimidation of 2020 will be repeated. There are good reasons to think they will be, given that a majority of Republicans still believe Trump’s fictions about a fatally compromised electoral system.

There is a real chance that Moss and Freeman will not be the last poll workers to have their lives upended as part of Trump’s quest for power. That looming possibility and its chilling effects on civic-minded Americans could prove debilitating for our democracy.
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
How is it unfair, exactly?

And what does it have with the Milgram experiment (of which I'm familiar, thus the question)?

If you don't see it by now, you're not gonna see it. No sense beating a dead horse.

Say what now? Again, what's with the odd shoehorning of Milgram into Jan 6?
There are three participants, one is the "learner" who is part of the experiment, one is the "experimenter" who is the one applying pressure to the "teacher", who is the subject of the experiment.

As you know these experiments are now if not illegal, are considered immoral (medically unethical), but the pattern here is what I'm abstracting into the conversation. The "teacher" in the experiments are analogous to the people who were, according to the "J6" rhetorical narrative explanation, pressured by former President Trump, who is analogous to the "experimenter". (The one actually conceiving of the "experiment" in this case appears to be Mr. Eastman.)

Since you know the Milgram experiments you know the results were disturbing, you know that a large proportion of the subjects (the "teachers") went ahead and, under pressure from the "experimenter" authorized painful if not injurious and even fatal electric shocks to the "learners".

My point regarding your charge of "fecklessness" is that would also therefore consider the "teachers" in the Milgram experiments to be feckless too, since they buckled under the pressure applied by the "experimenters".
No idea what you're trying to say here.



The Constitution doesn't set a number, that's the purview of Congress which is why Congress has changed the number of justices seven times. There's a good argument to be made for having more than nine.
There's a good argument for codifying nine into the Constitution as well, to avoid one party gaining control of the legislative branch and executive branch, and then expanding the Court to fill it up with just that party's own nominees. My question is what is the right number? We have 538 electors, perhaps that's the right number?

Alternatively we could expand the Court to any number we like, but only add one Dem justice for every one Repub justice, like we used to do when adding one slave state to the Union only when also adding one free state.
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"

“Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you?”Powerful January 6 testimony from Georgia poll workers reveals a serious — and ongoing — threat to democracy.


1241441997.0.jpg



Tuesday’s hearing of the House select committee probing the January 6 attack on the US Capitol ended with perhaps the single most emotional segment in the hearings to date: a mother-daughter team of former Georgia poll workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, discussing what it was like to be singled out as part of former President Donald Trump’s conspiracy theories that the election was stolen — and that poll workers like Moss and Freeman were involved in the plot.

In doing so, they highlighted a serious and ongoing threat to American democracy.

In the weeks following the 2020 election, the Trump campaign and its allies publicly accused the two women of committing election fraud in Fulton County (home to Atlanta). Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s lawyers, at one point claimed that the mother and daughter — who are Black — were passing around USB sticks full of doctored votes like they were “vials of heroin or cocaine” (it was actually a ginger mint, according to Moss).

During Trump’s now-infamous call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which Trump pressured the latter to “find” enough votes to alter the election result, he mentioned the two women 18 separate times. (Raffensperger also delivered testimony at Tuesday’s hearing.)

The result was a wave of harassment that ruined the two women’s lives. Moss testified that she received “a lot of threats, wishing death upon me — telling me that, you know, I’ll be in jail with my mother and saying things like ‘be glad it’s 2020 and not 1920.’” She went into hiding and said she gained 60 pounds from the stress. Trump supporters attacked her grandmother’s home, barging in and “exclaiming that they were coming in to make a citizens arrest.”

Freeman, for her part, used to proudly wear T-shirts with her nickname — “Lady Ruby” — on them. “Now,” she testified in a videotaped deposition, “I won’t even introduce myself by my name anymore.” She continued:



This testimony revealed the real damage done to human lives by lies spouted by Trump and his allies. But it also pointed to something deeper — the way that attacks on individual poll workers chip away at the very foundations of our democracy.

Civil servants across the country, from ordinary people like Moss and Freeman to officials like Raffensperger, step up to make sure our elections run lawfully and smoothly. By targeting them so personally, Trump and his anti-democratic allies are raising the costs of such civic participation — and opening the door for MAGA disciples to infiltrate our elections infrastructure in 2022 and beyond.

Undermining democracy, one poll worker at a time​

While Moss and Freeman were special targets of Trump and Giuliani, they were not the only poll workers to experience vicious harassment in the last election cycle. A 2021 survey found that 17 percent of America’s local election officials experienced threats due to their jobs during the 2020 election cycle. David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told me last year that this was very far from normal prior to 2020.

“It’s not even accurate to say [threatening election workers] was rare prior to 2020. It was so rare as to be virtually nonexistent,” he said. “This is beyond anything that we’ve ever seen.”

Sometimes, these threats were the direct result of Trump singling a poll worker out — as was the case with Freeman, Moss, and other officials like Raffensperger.

Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican responsible for election oversight, became a lightning rod when Trump tweeted that he was someone who was “being used big time by the Fake News Media” as a cover for election fraud. He received a wave of threats; a deputy commissioner, Seth Bluestein, was subjected to antisemitic abuse. Schmidt’s wife got emails with threats such as “ALBERT RINO SCHMIDT WILL BE FATALLY SHOT” and “HEADS ON SPIKES. TREASONOUS SCHMIDTS.” The family left their home for safety reasons after the election; Schmidt has announced he will not run for reelection in 2023.


In other cases, presidential involvement wasn’t necessary to incite harassment. Trump’s conspiracy theories that the 2020 election was stolen, and that local election officials were often part of “the steal,” had created a climate in which hardcore Trump supporters felt empowered to take matters into their own hands.

In Vermont, not exactly a swing state that interested Trump, one of his supporters sent a series of threatening messages to election officials in late 2020 — warning them, among other things, that “your days are [redacted] numbered.”

This harassment obviously did not enable Trump to overturn the 2020 election. But it has done immense psychological harm to election workers like Moss and Freeman, who work difficult jobs for little pay. A 2020 nationwide survey of election officials conducted by the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College found that about a quarter of respondents planned to retire before the 2024 presidential election. One of the top reasons cited was “the political environment” — meaning that the politicization of their jobs and attendant threats made them want out.

When dedicated poll workers quit, it means the person’s years of expertise in specialized and technical areas vanishes. One departure, or a handful, might be manageable. Mass resignations — and an environment that dissuades the civic-minded from stepping up to fill the vacancies — can be catastrophic to election management.

That’s especially true given that Trump’s allies are working to insert their supporters into key election roles. A September 2021 ProPublica investigation documented the emergence of a “precinct strategy,” beginning with a call to action on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s radio show, in which Republicans have begun flooding local voting precincts with volunteers who could shape the counting process in the next election cycle. They found that thousands of Republicans had signed up for these roles since Bannon’s campaign began, with no similar surge on the Democratic side.

“Your best-case scenario [if poll workers quit en masse] is more problems at polling places and in voting,” Becker told me. “The worst-case scenario is not just if we lose it, but what happens when that experience gets replaced by hackery … more people who believe that their job is to deliver their election to the candidate that they want to see win.”

Election security analysts are already worrying about the 2022 midterms — in particular, whether the campaigns of harassment and intimidation of 2020 will be repeated. There are good reasons to think they will be, given that a majority of Republicans still believe Trump’s fictions about a fatally compromised electoral system.

There is a real chance that Moss and Freeman will not be the last poll workers to have their lives upended as part of Trump’s quest for power. That looming possibility and its chilling effects on civic-minded Americans could prove debilitating for our democracy.
There's something to be said for Doser's post above:
... ''As a professor of criminal law for many years, and as one of the most experienced litigators, never believe anyone who is not cross-examined,'' [Alan] Dershowitz said...

''And none of these [Jan. 6 committee] witnesses are cross-examined.''

"It's as if a basketball team was sent out on the court, and the other team is held back and not allowed to present its defense of the players,'' he continued. ''It's one-sided. Don't believe it.''...
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
There are three participants, one is the "learner" who is part of the experiment, one is the "experimenter" who is the one applying pressure to the "teacher", who is the subject of the experiment.

As you know these experiments are now if not illegal, are considered immoral (medically unethical), but the pattern here is what I'm abstracting into the conversation. The "teacher" in the experiments are analogous to the people who were, according to the "J6" rhetorical narrative explanation, pressured by former President Trump, who is analogous to the "experimenter". (The one actually conceiving of the "experiment" in this case appears to be Mr. Eastman.)

Since you know the Milgram experiments you know the results were disturbing, you know that a large proportion of the subjects (the "teachers") went ahead and, under pressure from the "experimenter" authorized painful if not injurious and even fatal electric shocks to the "learners".

My point regarding your charge of "fecklessness" is that would also therefore consider the "teachers" in the Milgram experiments to be feckless too, since they buckled under the pressure applied by the "experimenters".

The analogy doesn't work. No offense, but I don't want to argue about how it doesn't work, so I'll leave you to it.

There's a good argument for codifying nine into the Constitution as well, to avoid one party gaining control of the legislative branch and executive branch, and then expanding the Court to fill it up with just that party's own nominees. My question is what is the right number? We have 538 electors, perhaps that's the right number?

Alternatively we could expand the Court to any number we like, but only add one Dem justice for every one Repub justice, like we used to do when adding one slave state to the Union only when also adding one free state.

I think the right number is greater than nine, but nothing like 538. Thirteen or fifteen is a good start.
 

marke

Well-known member

“Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you?”Powerful January 6 testimony from Georgia poll workers reveals a serious — and ongoing — threat to democracy.


1241441997.0.jpg



Tuesday’s hearing of the House select committee probing the January 6 attack on the US Capitol ended with perhaps the single most emotional segment in the hearings to date: a mother-daughter team of former Georgia poll workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, discussing what it was like to be singled out as part of former President Donald Trump’s conspiracy theories that the election was stolen — and that poll workers like Moss and Freeman were involved in the plot.

In doing so, they highlighted a serious and ongoing threat to American democracy.

In the weeks following the 2020 election, the Trump campaign and its allies publicly accused the two women of committing election fraud in Fulton County (home to Atlanta). Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s lawyers, at one point claimed that the mother and daughter — who are Black — were passing around USB sticks full of doctored votes like they were “vials of heroin or cocaine” (it was actually a ginger mint, according to Moss).

During Trump’s now-infamous call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which Trump pressured the latter to “find” enough votes to alter the election result, he mentioned the two women 18 separate times. (Raffensperger also delivered testimony at Tuesday’s hearing.)

The result was a wave of harassment that ruined the two women’s lives. Moss testified that she received “a lot of threats, wishing death upon me — telling me that, you know, I’ll be in jail with my mother and saying things like ‘be glad it’s 2020 and not 1920.’” She went into hiding and said she gained 60 pounds from the stress. Trump supporters attacked her grandmother’s home, barging in and “exclaiming that they were coming in to make a citizens arrest.”

Freeman, for her part, used to proudly wear T-shirts with her nickname — “Lady Ruby” — on them. “Now,” she testified in a videotaped deposition, “I won’t even introduce myself by my name anymore.” She continued:



This testimony revealed the real damage done to human lives by lies spouted by Trump and his allies. But it also pointed to something deeper — the way that attacks on individual poll workers chip away at the very foundations of our democracy.

Civil servants across the country, from ordinary people like Moss and Freeman to officials like Raffensperger, step up to make sure our elections run lawfully and smoothly. By targeting them so personally, Trump and his anti-democratic allies are raising the costs of such civic participation — and opening the door for MAGA disciples to infiltrate our elections infrastructure in 2022 and beyond.

Undermining democracy, one poll worker at a time​

While Moss and Freeman were special targets of Trump and Giuliani, they were not the only poll workers to experience vicious harassment in the last election cycle. A 2021 survey found that 17 percent of America’s local election officials experienced threats due to their jobs during the 2020 election cycle. David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told me last year that this was very far from normal prior to 2020.

“It’s not even accurate to say [threatening election workers] was rare prior to 2020. It was so rare as to be virtually nonexistent,” he said. “This is beyond anything that we’ve ever seen.”

Sometimes, these threats were the direct result of Trump singling a poll worker out — as was the case with Freeman, Moss, and other officials like Raffensperger.

Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican responsible for election oversight, became a lightning rod when Trump tweeted that he was someone who was “being used big time by the Fake News Media” as a cover for election fraud. He received a wave of threats; a deputy commissioner, Seth Bluestein, was subjected to antisemitic abuse. Schmidt’s wife got emails with threats such as “ALBERT RINO SCHMIDT WILL BE FATALLY SHOT” and “HEADS ON SPIKES. TREASONOUS SCHMIDTS.” The family left their home for safety reasons after the election; Schmidt has announced he will not run for reelection in 2023.


In other cases, presidential involvement wasn’t necessary to incite harassment. Trump’s conspiracy theories that the 2020 election was stolen, and that local election officials were often part of “the steal,” had created a climate in which hardcore Trump supporters felt empowered to take matters into their own hands.

In Vermont, not exactly a swing state that interested Trump, one of his supporters sent a series of threatening messages to election officials in late 2020 — warning them, among other things, that “your days are [redacted] numbered.”

This harassment obviously did not enable Trump to overturn the 2020 election. But it has done immense psychological harm to election workers like Moss and Freeman, who work difficult jobs for little pay. A 2020 nationwide survey of election officials conducted by the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College found that about a quarter of respondents planned to retire before the 2024 presidential election. One of the top reasons cited was “the political environment” — meaning that the politicization of their jobs and attendant threats made them want out.

When dedicated poll workers quit, it means the person’s years of expertise in specialized and technical areas vanishes. One departure, or a handful, might be manageable. Mass resignations — and an environment that dissuades the civic-minded from stepping up to fill the vacancies — can be catastrophic to election management.

That’s especially true given that Trump’s allies are working to insert their supporters into key election roles. A September 2021 ProPublica investigation documented the emergence of a “precinct strategy,” beginning with a call to action on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s radio show, in which Republicans have begun flooding local voting precincts with volunteers who could shape the counting process in the next election cycle. They found that thousands of Republicans had signed up for these roles since Bannon’s campaign began, with no similar surge on the Democratic side.

“Your best-case scenario [if poll workers quit en masse] is more problems at polling places and in voting,” Becker told me. “The worst-case scenario is not just if we lose it, but what happens when that experience gets replaced by hackery … more people who believe that their job is to deliver their election to the candidate that they want to see win.”

Election security analysts are already worrying about the 2022 midterms — in particular, whether the campaigns of harassment and intimidation of 2020 will be repeated. There are good reasons to think they will be, given that a majority of Republicans still believe Trump’s fictions about a fatally compromised electoral system.

There is a real chance that Moss and Freeman will not be the last poll workers to have their lives upended as part of Trump’s quest for power. That looming possibility and its chilling effects on civic-minded Americans could prove debilitating for our democracy.

Do you know how it feels to really have powerful politicians target you by name, instead of just being accused of doing so by others who know he did not target anyone by name or otherwise?


Schumer Telling Brett Kavanaugh He'll 'Pay the Price' for Roe Resurfaces


If someone attempts to murder a Supreme Court justice, but corporate media barely covers it, did it actually happen?

Sure, most outlets covered the news of the arrest of man who, in the early hours of Wednesday morning, arrived at Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home, armed with a “tactical knife, a pistol with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crowbar, pistol light, [and] duct tape,” per the Justice Department.
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member
Schumer Telling Brett Kavanaugh He'll 'Pay the Price' for Roe Resurfaces

If someone attempts to murder a Supreme Court justice, but corporate media barely covers it, did it actually happen?

Sure, most outlets covered the news of the arrest of man who, in the early hours of Wednesday morning, arrived at Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home, armed with a “tactical knife, a pistol with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crowbar, pistol light, [and] duct tape,” per the Justice Department.

I know you love your whataboutisms, but Schumer isn't the president, he was speaking to power (a Supreme Court Justice) and Schumer, unlike Trump who never apologizes, retracted his comments, saying he should not have used the words he used, and clarified that he'd intended to convey a political price.

In the spirit of your whataboutism, let's take it to its logical conclusion: what paraphernalia did the insurrectionists carry into the capitol?
 

annabenedetti

Well-known member

5 Members Of Congress Asked Donald Trump For Pardons, According To Jan. 6 Committee​

The requests stemmed from their involvement in Trump’s schemes to try to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

Scott Perry (R-Pa.)
Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)
Mo Brooks (R-Ala.)
Andy Biggs (R-Arizona)
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
 

Idolater

"What in God's name have you done?"
The analogy doesn't work. No offense, but I don't want to argue about how it doesn't work, so I'll leave you to it.
OK, don't argue.

Milgram || "J6" narrative analogy
==
"experimenter" || former President Trump
"teacher" || the people pressured by former Trump
==

The result of Milgram was that many "teachers" stood up to the "experimenters" but not all of them, and the proportion of "teachers" who succumbed to the pressure, was frighteningly high, something like 50% of them.

50% definitely, heroically, defied the "experimenters".

But like 50% of them didn't. Were they feckless? Is that your take on Milgram?
I think the right number is greater than nine, but nothing like 538. Thirteen or fifteen is a good start.
Well what is your reason? And how much of it is merely because the justices espousing your own ideology are outnumbered right now 6-to-3? or is it for some other, bipartisan reason?

Edit. Confer:
 
Last edited:

User Name

Greatest poster ever

5 Members Of Congress Asked Donald Trump For Pardons, According To Jan. 6 Committee​

The requests stemmed from their involvement in Trump’s schemes to try to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

Scott Perry (R-Pa.)
Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)
Mo Brooks (R-Ala.)
Andy Biggs (R-Arizona)
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
Add Marjorie Taylor Greene to the list.

I assume she was seeking a pardon for planting the pipe bombs on J6.
 
Top