Things seem to be unfolding rather quickly. Former White House aides and advisors are scrambling to cover themselves as they receive subpoenas to appear and produce documents.
It’s rare when lawyers — as opposed to their clients — take the Fifth Amendment. But Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department lawyer who reportedly tried to help Donald Trump overturn the 2020 presidential election, is now claiming the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He has just been joined in that posture by one of Trump’s main outside legal advisers, John Eastman.
The lawsuit comes after the committee signaled it would pursue a criminal contempt referral against Meadows because of his refusal to sit for a deposition in the investigation into the Capitol riot. Meadows alleges that the subpoenas are "overly broad and unduly burdensome," while claiming that the committee "lacks lawful authority to seek and to obtain" the information requested.
And apparently Mark Meadows had a power point outlining how to overturn election results.
The 38-page presentation, entitled "Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan," is dated one day before the Capitol riot. It's believed to have been submitted by Meadows after he was subpoenaed by the panel in connection with the insurrection.
I copied your entire post because you seem to be offended if I try to edit so that I can comment on a single point.
I am not saying that the entire Republican Party is radicalized. But Texas is showing signs:
Well I most certainly do not agree with some of the reported content of what this committee presented, I would have to review it in its entirety before I woukd consider it undermining our elections or promoting extremism.
Some people believe and value life at conception. They can believe what they wish. If a fetus isn't a life(some belief) then listening or viewing video or audio of a fetus in vitro should be no issue either way. Unless perhaps they are misrepresenting the gestational age as later than what is actually in the video. Also bring to point if a fetus isn't a life then why do those who believe this care if in vitro media is viewed or listened to? However there is nothing in the article that suggest that they are misleading about gestational age of the media. Again I would have to review the convention in its entirety.
Some people believe that LBBtQ lifestyle is wrong, again, they can believe what they wish.
Believing in something does not make one an extremist. As long as there is no calls to violence. Some of the topics are most likely a religious base. Perhaps this area in Texas is highly religious.
As of now, we are free to believe what we want, say what we want and have religious freedom. I can understand that some people's beliefs are extreme opposite of what was presented in this committee, but neither side has the right to tell the other they are extremist or undermining our elections because of them.
I feel that the left sometimes gets "extreem" when they wish to control or change what people believe and/or do not want anything they think or believe to be challenged. Or even said. Which infringes our 1st amendment.
States are states. Allow the individuals in these states to vote for what they believe is there own values and stay in states that elected their party. If they do not like it, vote or move to another state that falls more in line with their values.
Thank you for the article. I'll try and research it further.
Build the fence and enforce the laws. Real simple. But Democrats want full open borders and then demand amnesty so they can bribe and create a new generation of Democrat voters.
If this is true, I'm not saying it is or isn't..... This may backfire because the majority of these people are very religious to the Christan pressuasion. They are devout in their beliefs and are fundamentally more so than your average Christian American. Which are more right than left.
It will take years before they are able to vote so if they want to change the voting demographic, they are really planning in advance. However it does lead to the question about voter ID.
Well I most certainly do not agree with some of the reported content of what this committee presented, I would have to review it in its entirety before I woukd consider it undermining our elections or promoting extremism.
Some people believe and value life at conception. They can believe what they wish. If a fetus isn't a life(some belief) then listening or viewing video or audio of a fetus in vitro should be no issue either way. Unless perhaps they are misrepresenting the gestational age as later than what is actually in the video. Also bring to point if a fetus isn't a life then why do those who believe this care if in vitro media is viewed or listened to? However there is nothing in the article that suggest that they are misleading about gestational age of the media. Again I would have to review the convention in its entirety.
Some people believe that LBBtQ lifestyle is wrong, again, they can believe what they wish.
Believing in something does not make one an extremist. As long as there is no calls to violence. Some of the topics are most likely a religious base. Perhaps this area in Texas is highly religious.
As of now, we are free to believe what we want, say what we want and have religious freedom. I can understand that some people's beliefs are extreme opposite of what was presented in this committee, but neither side has the right to tell the other they are extremist or undermining our elections because of them.
I feel that the left sometimes gets "extreem" when they wish to control or change what people believe and/or do not want anything they think or believe to be challenged. Or even said. Which infringes our 1st amendment.
States are states. Allow the individuals in these states to vote for what they believe is there own values and stay in states that elected their party. If they do not like it, vote or move to another state that falls more in line with their values.
Thank you for the article. I'll try and research it further.
Oh that’s cute, equating a party platform with a belief system. So is Republicanism a religion where you hold beliefs? I always thought a party platform was a framework of a party’s legislative agenda. If LGBTQ is declared an abnormal lifestyle, that means they intend to pass laws to that effect. If you force students by law to listen to fetal ultrasounds you are violating the religious freedom of Jews who believe life starts at birth.
Oh that’s cute, equating a party platform with a belief system. So is Republicanism a religion where you hold beliefs? I always thought a party platform was a framework of a party’s legislative agenda. If LGBTQ is declared an abnormal lifestyle, that means they intend to pass laws to that effect. If you force students by law to listen to fetal ultrasounds you are violating the religious freedom of Jews who believe life starts at birth.
Cool!. No religion taught in school, no gestational age taught in school, only biological reproduction(this has no gender/sex attributed to it, ovum is fertilized by sperm), no sexuality and no sexual orientation. I'm unsure if fetal ultra sound audio is saying life, however some may fear that children might associate an audible heart beat with life. In which I can see the conflict of interest is some ideologies or beliefs. What's the concern for invitro images and sound? If it's not a life it shouldn't matter right?
Parents and family can teach all this at home according to what they believe and what they value. Keep all of these issues out of school. Is that a better alternative?
People are different with many different values and belief systems. It seems some wish to regulate information and beliefs according some agreed to idiology.
This will never happen. People tend to communicate what their values and beliefs are and politicians usually listen. So naturally they discuss topics that they think are what their voters want. How else would they win?
The US is a unique place. Where values and beliefs vary between states. Hence "blue" and "red" states. If you do not like it, don't live in Texas.
Again, I'll have to research this committee but this is my take with what you provided me.
As for promoting laws about LGBTQ. They still have to fall within human rights. The laws will probably focus on overt unnecessary graphic sexual context of all sex. Information for appropriate age groups. Parents involvment with lifestyles etc. Gay marriage or anything like that isn't under threat.
I know I'm cute but do not get catty when you quoted me and I reply in a way in which you do not like or agree. I'm pretty sure you are aware that we probably disagree more than agree. .......
I know I'm cute but do not get catty when you quoted me and I reply in a way in which you do not like or agree. I'm pretty sure you are aware that we probably disagree more than agree. .......
I did not say you were cute, I said that you equating a party party platform to a belief system was cute, meaning naive.
I also think you are naive to state the rights of LGBTQ people are protected. Some Americans thought reproductive rights were protected.
I shall respond how I want on this public forum. If you feel I have violated the Terms of Service, report me. Or block me.
If this is true, I'm not saying it is or isn't..... This may backfire because the majority of these people are very religious to the Christan pressuasion. They are devout in their beliefs and are fundamentally more so than your average Christian American. Which are more right than left.
It will take years before they are able to vote so if they want to change the voting demographic, they are really planning in advance. However it does lead to the question about voter ID.
Look no further than California or that district in Texas that just went red. Do I think they will shift away from dems? Yes, but not sure by what margins. I can guarantee you Dems putting boys in dresses in the women’s locker rooms will certainly do it.
I did not say you were cute, I said that you equating a party party platform to a belief system was cute, meaning naive.
I also think you are naive to state the rights of LGBTQ people are protected. Some Americans thought reproductive rights were protected.
I shall respond how I want on this public forum. If you feel I have violated the Terms of Service, report me. Or block me.
I'm sorry. Is there a state that it is legal to discriminate against LGBTQ? Or acts of violence are permitted? Are LGBTQ children not allowed to go to school? Presenting age appropriate information about LGBTQ and any sexual content for that matter isn't taking any one's rights away. Except maybe perverts rights.
Abortions are still legal. I have yet to see a proposed bill banning them out right. What I see is some restrictions and limits being proposed.
I'm sorry. Is there a state that it is legal to discriminate against LGBTQ? Or acts of violence are permitted? Are LGBTQ children not allowed to go to school? Presenting age appropriate information about LGBTQ and any sexual content for that matter isn't taking any one's rights away. Except maybe perverts rights.
Abortions are still legal. I have yet to see a proposed bill banning them out right. What I see is some restrictions and limits being proposed.
You bigot!! You forgot to mention the I+ people that are now part of the alphabet crowd.
Eight states have abortion ban laws in place that will go into effect in and when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Part of the reasoning for overturning Roe was because abortion in not specifically addressed in the Constitution. The right to an abortion was based on a right to privacy, one of the unenumerated rights.
Marriage equality is another, as is access to birth control and marriage between 2 races. If this Supreme Court has no qualms about overturning a 50 year precedent, then they will take aim at many of the so-called values of the ultra-right.
Eight states have abortion ban laws in place that will go into effect in and when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Part of the reasoning for overturning Roe was because abortion in not specifically addressed in the Constitution. The right to an abortion was based on a right to privacy, one of the unenumerated rights.
Marriage equality is another, as is access to birth control and marriage between 2 races. If this Supreme Court has no qualms about overturning a 50 year precedent, then they will take aim at many of the so-called values of the ultra-right.
I was considering your point until you suggested that Republicans would make interracial marriage illegal. Really???
Eight states have abortion ban laws in place that will go into effect in and when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Part of the reasoning for overturning Roe was because abortion in not specifically addressed in the Constitution. The right to an abortion was based on a right to privacy, one of the unenumerated rights.
Marriage equality is another, as is access to birth control and marriage between 2 races. If this Supreme Court has no qualms about overturning a 50 year precedent, then they will take aim at many of the so-called values of the ultra-right.
Those issues arent comparable.
The argument of pro life side is that abortions infringe on the rights of another human life.
People marrying each other or getting birth control doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights
And, others here might say that you need to provide evidence that anyone is considering taking aim at those things. Otherwise, those folks would say, nothing to discuss.
Justlookingfornow
425 Posts
Well I most certainly do not agree with some of the reported content of what this committee presented, I would have to review it in its entirety before I woukd consider it undermining our elections or promoting extremism.
Some people believe and value life at conception. They can believe what they wish. If a fetus isn't a life(some belief) then listening or viewing video or audio of a fetus in vitro should be no issue either way. Unless perhaps they are misrepresenting the gestational age as later than what is actually in the video. Also bring to point if a fetus isn't a life then why do those who believe this care if in vitro media is viewed or listened to? However there is nothing in the article that suggest that they are misleading about gestational age of the media. Again I would have to review the convention in its entirety.
Some people believe that LBBtQ lifestyle is wrong, again, they can believe what they wish.
Believing in something does not make one an extremist. As long as there is no calls to violence. Some of the topics are most likely a religious base. Perhaps this area in Texas is highly religious.
As of now, we are free to believe what we want, say what we want and have religious freedom. I can understand that some people's beliefs are extreme opposite of what was presented in this committee, but neither side has the right to tell the other they are extremist or undermining our elections because of them.
I feel that the left sometimes gets "extreem" when they wish to control or change what people believe and/or do not want anything they think or believe to be challenged. Or even said. Which infringes our 1st amendment.
States are states. Allow the individuals in these states to vote for what they believe is there own values and stay in states that elected their party. If they do not like it, vote or move to another state that falls more in line with their values.
Thank you for the article. I'll try and research it further.