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.
Fair enough but I made no association to voting Democrat. Nor did I associate Latinos not working hard. Not in that context. The only one to make that association is you. Ironically from the side that claims non racist superiority and myself as on the side of "racist".....
I'm honestly not trying to twist your words, just trying to understand what you're saying. You seemed to be contrasting people who work hard to those that don't? Who are the people who don't?
58 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:
"Another line in Lawn Boy read, “What if I told you I touched another guy’s dick? What if I told you I sucked it? I was 10 years old but it’s true. I sucked [Doug]’s dick, the real estate guy, and he sucked mine too.” The “real estate guy” was a reference to an adult man, Nomani reported."
This was available to 12 year Olds. Is this appropriate? I glad you may thinks so for kindergarten.
The story was recounting an encounter with him and the "real estate guy" when they were both adolescents.
Totally reasonable to debate this book for pubescent kids, but to offer it up as a defense of books that simply have characters that are not hetero is a bit sketchy.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Unless they charge him with something...... your repetitive sentiments for Trump will just be silly flatulence in the air......
Women can have abortions in the states that allow it. No one is taking a woman's right to end her pregnancy. The Supreme Court made a judgment. It's not there to make everyone happy.
The Supreme Court just showed the country that they can't be trusted to tell the truth as individuals and that there is no such thing as settled precedent.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
3 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:
Maybe one day you will overcome your obsession with Trump and produce a contribution without your repetitive right wing theories and not use propagandic techniques while most likely not aware of your own propagandic rhetoric.
I already told you. I will make my decision when I research information from a variety of sources. Not solely on a committee that within the first hour provided material that was cut from its entirety. And I said they should charge him.
You can go on ,and quite ironically hanging on to every word like a religious zealot you so often say Republican subscribe to.
Yeah yeah yeah...something something research somewhere (sources unrevealed) that will provide more insight than the information produced by the Select Committee.
Here's the thing about religions, they aren't based upon facts they are based upon beliefs without evidence... it's called faith. That's much more akin to believing that Trump didn't lose the election or that the election was rigged. It requires a great deal of faith to face the evidence that Trump lied and tried to overthrow the 2020 election and instead believe that he's a victim of a political witch hunt. That's definitely zealot territory. How ironic that you would use that language.
Nice deflection to a bit of right wing rhetoric that is completely unrelated to the fact that republicans are currently ignoring congressional subpoenas while you are suggesting that a republican congress should subpoena democrats for some hyperbolic claim. The stacked court pearl clutching is especially amusing in an ironic fashion at this particular moment in time. Or maybe you believe that the elevation of Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett weren't political court packing.
Be careful what you wish for. The party that excuses an attempt to overthrow the 2020 presidential election and talks about running their twice impeached ex president who inspires such anti-american sentiment again in 2024, just harvested the fruits of their court stacking and dishonesty by turning women's reproductive health care and financial security over to the political whims of their state governments. Those things may not play out as well as Republicans might prefer on election day...unless they are confident that they now have adequate control of the elections and vote counting and they don't need to worry about the views of the majority anymore.
Get back to me about your concerns regarding the filibuster when women's rights aren't a political football for conservatives. There does need to be reform to how the electoral college votes are determined.
The only pearl clutching seems to be from enraged liberals. Liberals have used the court for years to get their way because no one will vote for their policies. Now that it is going against them, the institution needs to be "burned down".
When my son moved to Texas, I declined to go along. He’s now making plans to leave the state. (I still worry about my grandchildren: one is transgender, one is bisexual.) It’ll be interesting to watch what happens to their demographics while the Republican Party is trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle. If the population drops enough to threaten the reduction of their congressional House seats, I bet they’ll be singing a whole other tune about the border, given that Latinos are increasingly flipping to the Republican Party. Frankly, I hope they really do secede … I’m tired of my tax money being wasted subsidizing a bunch of dominionists and fascists.
I look forward to seeing what republicans do to the hearings … if it comes anywhere near the Monty Python-esque comedies on Benghazi and HRC’s emails, it should be quite entertaining.
Trust me, besides from Austin Texans wouldn't want your son there anyways. Perhaps San Francisco might be better for his kids so he can have them walking in feces and finding used needles everywhere they go. What are the odds without some kind of parental involvement would one of his kids be trans and one bi? Not to mention all the great income taxes he can pay.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
45 minutes ago, MaybeeRN said:
The only pearl clutching seems to be from enraged liberals. Liberals have used the court for years to get their way because no one will vote for their policies. Now that it is going against them, the institution needs to be "burned down".
Sure. Of course none of that hyperbolic opinion has anything to do with the evidence that Trump knew that the election wasn't rigged, knew that he lost fair and square, lied to Republican voters about a stolen election, personally pressured state officials to break the law for him and sent an angry mob to the capitol to "stop the steal". When Trump didn't win the election and get his way he tried to burn down our democratic republic...so to speak. How interesting that you project that behavior onto others.
I'll wait for your sarcastic response that has nothing to do with the evidence presented by the Select Committee.
I'm honestly not trying to twist your words, just trying to understand what you're saying. You seemed to be contrasting people who work hard to those that don't? Who are the people who don't?
The story was recounting an encounter with him and the "real estate guy" when they were both adolescents.
Totally reasonable to debate this book for pubescent kids, but to offer it up as a defense of books that simply have characters that are not hetero is a bit sketchy.
Oh okay. Let me fix it......
One line in Lawn Boy read, “What if I told you I touched a girls lady parts? What if I told you I licked it? I was 10 years old but it’s true. I licked [Dana]’s lady parts, the real estate lady, and she sucked my dick too.” I changed it to heterosexual Mediaographic description.
If this was available to 12 year Olds, even with the changes I made to heterosexual. Is this inappropriate? The answer is yes. It doesn't matter the gender of the characters, however this type of content is not appropriate for 12 year old. Or even older.
I would not make this claim on the definitive, more research is needed. However why is it these books that are being found in children school libraries seems to be of the LGBTQ variety?
(Note, I do not feel that the LGBTQ community is deviant or perverted in any whichvway) however the them of these inappropriate material seems to be homosexual in nature)
Perhaps it was a well intentioned idea to promote more inclusivity by providing material that represents more that the usual heterosexual standard in school libraries? Someone may have included it not knowing what the content was but understood it to be LGBTQ and that's why it was there? I am more likely to believe that than a pervert conspiracy. Now schools are in a bad position because it's obvious that this type of book is innapropriate and just like so may others have experienced, school boards wanting to remove this content are now are going to be deemed homophobic etc by radical far left ideologs.
Book in schools k to 12 should not have graphic sexual and or excessivly violent reading material of any sexual orientation period. They can go on Media hub or Youtube after school for that.
One line in Lawn Boy read, “What if I told you I touched a girls lady parts? What if I told you I licked it? I was 10 years old but it’s true. I licked [Dana]’s lady parts, the real estate lady, and she sucked my dick too.” I changed it to heterosexual Mediaographic description.
If this was available to 12 year Olds, even with the changes I made to heterosexual. Is this inappropriate? The answer is yes. It doesn't matter the gender of the characters, however this type of content is not appropriate for 12 year old. Or even older.
I would not make this claim on the definitive, more research is needed. However why is it these books that are being found in children school libraries seems to be of the LGBTQ variety?
(Note, I do not feel that the LGBTQ community is deviant or perverted in any whichvway) however the them of these inappropriate material seems to be homosexual in nature)
Perhaps it was a well intentioned idea to promote more inclusivity by providing material that represents more that the usual heterosexual standard in school libraries? Someone may have included it not knowing what the content was but understood it to be LGBTQ and that's why it was there? I am more likely to believe that than a pervert conspiracy. Now schools are in a bad position because it's obvious that this type of book is innapropriate and just like so may others have experienced, school boards wanting to remove this content are now are going to be deemed homophobic etc by radical far left ideologs.
Book in schools k to 12 should not have graphic sexual and or excessivly violent reading material of any sexual orientation period. They can go on Media hub or Youtube after school for that.
Liberals would be up in arms if this was heterosexual at their school (As they should be).
One line in Lawn Boy read, “What if I told you I touched a girls lady parts? What if I told you I licked it? I was 10 years old but it’s true. I licked [Dana]’s lady parts, the real estate lady, and she sucked my dick too.” I changed it to heterosexual Mediaographic description.
If this was available to 12 year Olds, even with the changes I made to heterosexual. Is this inappropriate? The answer is yes. It doesn't matter the gender of the characters, however this type of content is not appropriate for 12 year old. Or even older.
I would not make this claim on the definitive, more research is needed. However why is it these books that are being found in children school libraries seems to be of the LGBTQ variety?
(Note, I do not feel that the LGBTQ community is deviant or perverted in any whichvway) however the them of these inappropriate material seems to be homosexual in nature)
Perhaps it was a well intentioned idea to promote more inclusivity by providing material that represents more that the usual heterosexual standard in school libraries? Someone may have included it not knowing what the content was but understood it to be LGBTQ and that's why it was there? I am more likely to believe that than a pervert conspiracy. Now schools are in a bad position because it's obvious that this type of book is innapropriate and just like so may others have experienced, school boards wanting to remove this content are now are going to be deemed homophobic etc by radical far left ideologs.
Book in schools k to 12 should not have graphic sexual and or excessivly violent reading material of any sexual orientation period. They can go on Media hub or Youtube after school for that.
Except you're still falsely claiming that the story involves an adult and a child.
It's not a court of law there is no evidence. It's a one sided hearing. More like a PTA meeting than anything else.
I'm old enough to remember when Civics class was phased out of HS curriculum and thought it was silly to think Americans would be that ignorant of the criminal process, with or without a Civics class in high school.
The phase of a criminal process that we're currently in, the grand jury phase, involves no defense, that is how it has always worked.
You've proved me wrong though, I was naïve to think this is something Americans students would just figure out on their because it seemed like common knowledge.
I'm old enough to remember when Civics class was phased out of HS curriculum and thought it was silly to think Americans would be that ignorant of the criminal process, with or without a Civics class in high school.
The phase of a criminal process that we're currently in, the grand jury phase, involves no defense, that is how it has always worked.
You've proved me wrong though, I was naïve to think this is something Americans students would just figure out on their because it seemed like common knowledge.
I would post examples from pride parades but I'm sure nudity and sexual gratification are against the TOS.
4 hours ago, MunoRN said:
I'm old enough to remember when Civics class was phased out of HS curriculum and thought it was silly to think Americans would be that ignorant of the criminal process, with or without a Civics class in high school.
The phase of a criminal process that we're currently in, the grand jury phase, involves no defense, that is how it has always worked.
You've proved me wrong though, I was naïve to think this is something Americans students would just figure out on their because it seemed like common knowledge.
So who is the jury that decides on the indictment? Who are the citizens sitting inside the hearing that will indict anyone? Grand juries are the purview of the justice department. Wanna try again?
MunoRN, RN
8,058 Posts
I'm honestly not trying to twist your words, just trying to understand what you're saying. You seemed to be contrasting people who work hard to those that don't? Who are the people who don't?
The story was recounting an encounter with him and the "real estate guy" when they were both adolescents.
Totally reasonable to debate this book for pubescent kids, but to offer it up as a defense of books that simply have characters that are not hetero is a bit sketchy.