The "Great Unraveling" continues.

The Republicans Pushing To Investigate The Jan 6 Investigators All Played Parts In Efforts To Overturn The 2020 Election

Now that they finally have a new House speaker, some congressional Republicans are mounting an effort to question the select committee investigation into the January 6 attack that wrapped up last year. Their push is the perfect fox and the henhouse type scenario. Some of the members most loudly attempting to question the official probe — including the new speaker — played a part in elements of the conspiracy-fueled push to challenge the 2020 presidential election results that was a major focus of the investigation.

The latest calls to investigate the select committee’s work gained momentum on Friday after Johnson announced a plan to release some of the security footage of the attack that involved thousands of supporters of former President Trump storming into the U.S. Capitol building as his loss was being certified on January 6, 2021. Johnson, who became speaker late last month after weeks of contentious votes and intraparty fighting, had campaigned on a promise to air out the footage. In a statement on Friday, Johnson suggested it would “provide millions of Americans, criminal defendants, public interest organizations and the media an ability to see for themselves what happened that day, rather than having to rely upon the interpretation of a small group of government officials.”
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...arts-in-efforts-to-overturn-the-2020-election

Have they forgotten how badly the Durham investigation blew up in their faces?

 

Public Official

"A public official is an elected or appointed official, or an employee of a Federal, state or local government in the United States. There are five exceptions to this definition, including a college or university, a government–sponsored enterprise, a public utility, guaranty agency or an agency of any state functioning as a student loan secondary market."

"the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;"

Federal public official (not this judge or clerk, but used to understand the definition of a public official)
"'Public official' includes any garden-variety Federal employee, regardless of the branch of government involved, employees of the District of Columbia, Members of Congress, and Federal jurors. The breadth of the definition should be noted, for it includes any "person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency, or branch of government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of government." 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(1). The Supreme Court has liberally interpreted this language to include persons who are not Federal employees, but who have the power to allocate and expend Federal monies under grant programs."

=============================

A judge and their clerk are both public officials. They are government employees carrying out a government function. Why are you denying the obvious? It has nothing to do with "justifying" anyone's behavior. It's about you being obviously wrong and arguing a point that cannot go anywhere other than your eventual defeat which is why you're trying to ignore the subject. The First Amendment protects a person's right to criticize the government. Trump's criticism of Engoron and Greenfield does nothing at all to interfere with the administration of justice. Therefore, he has the right to criticize them.

 

So now that the Orange Stain has been found , factually, to have been a participant in the Insurrection, will they be investigating that as well ?
Will they investigate his connections to white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys ?

 

I suppose because an absurd definition of what constitutes a public official still does not justify attacks on the court clerk, including posting her picture on social media in an attempt to intimidate her. Common sense and common decency are now being twisted in knots to accommodate the heinous actions of a disturbed individual who has no place in civil society.

Asked whether there was any need to balance Trump's political speech with concerns over threats, Sauer said Trump should be entitled to "absolute freedom" to speak his mind.

The judges seemed skeptical of that argument, but they also had questions for Smith's office about the scope of the gag order, including how it protects Smith and his team. Smith's attorney Cecil VanDevender told the judges that his office has “been subject to multiple threats” and “intimidating communication” after Trump issued "inflammatory posts" about Smith. One of the judges said Smith most likely has "thick enough skin" not to be intimidated by such posts.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...face-gag-order-election-interferen-rcna125749

Thick effing skin!!!!!!!!!!!! Smith's family has received violent threats from Trump's mob and the judge thinks that's OK? YOU THINK THAT'S OK? I grow tired of behavior that would land anyone else in jail being tolerated.

 

Trump Expands His Attack On Special Counsel To Include His Family And Friends
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-jack-smith-family-attacks_n_649b57ace4b0cd6f7df0aea3

 

The judiciary is essentially split between judges, like Aileen Cannon, who are thrilled to protect Trump from the rule of law, and more impartial jurists who are scared to apply it to him. The latter behave as though holding Trump to a more lenient set of rules is worth it to avoid some civil strife they’ve conjured in their minds, or the death threats they know will follow any significant adverse rulings.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/elon-musks-x-twitter-lawsuit-media-matters

 

When people are AFRAID of Trump and his antics (revenge oriented) the path to a more authoritarian system is unfolding.

 

His defenders can not bring themselves to admit the attacks he launches against civil servants are meant to incite his base to violence the same way his "will be wild" tweet was.

 

It's not an "absurd" definition. It's THE definition. A public official is someone who works for the government in an official capacity. Here's the definition used by New York that Engoron and Greenfield work under. This is basic knowledge. I have no idea why you're debating it. The judge and his clerk are PUBLIC OFFICIALS by definition. Just because you didn't know what a public official was doesn't mean it's "absurd." The First Amendment protects the rights of the public to criticize public officials. Gag orders in criminal trials are generally tailored to protect evidence and to prevent compromising a jury verdict. They aren't designed to prevent criticism. This is a civil trial without a jury, and the judge has already issued his ruling. There is no legal reason to silence all criticism of these public officials. Trump has a constitutional right to protest his government. This is America. NY isn't a fascist state. Prior restraints on speech aren't things that are done without justifiable cause.

 

I'm fine with the definition for categories 1-4, and even some in category 5. But the idea that the person working the information desk at your local county office building is a public official, exposed to having their life turned upside down by a vicious conman who will do anything to corrupt the legal process, is manifestly preposterous. Your absurd definition of what constitutes a public official still does not justify attacks on the court clerk, including posting her picture on social media in an attempt to intimidate her.

 

Personal opinion of the definition doesn't change the definition. Additionally, personal opinions of how someone uses their rights doesn't take them away. They want to say that she's partisan and biased, which she has been. She's also taking an unusually active role in the process. She's literally sitting on the bench next to the judge inserting herself into every decision that he makes. That is abnormal and inappropriate for her to be co-judging the case. And they have the right to say that. Public officials do not have the right to not be criticized. There is no law that prevents them from saying that. In fact, the law says they can.

Again, it is not my definition it is the correct definition. Not knowing the definition doesn't make the definition my definition. She posted the photo to social media herself and asked people to share the content. She was running a campaign and wanted as many people to see it as possible. Trump reposted someone else's repost of it. The post was criticizing her partisanship. Criticizing somebody is not intimidating them. The intimidation was from the judge yelling at the defense attorneys telling them they better not file a legal motion that they were entitled and required to file in the best interest of their client. First he violated their rights with an unconstitutional gag order and then he yelled at them and told them they better not file a legal motion to contest it because they would have to violate his gag order to file it. That's how absurd and illegal it is. It is most likely going to be removed or scaled back tremendously and the fines that pasty titties levied have a good chance of being revoked.

 

Imagine for a moment: IF T should not win ..again......that might be the trigger his defenders need to explode into violence AGAIN. It would be a repeat of the last time but worse.
If elected the path to authoritarianism would be carved........so the nation is caught between two negatives as it related to him. His defenders would support whatever he does. What is best for the nation is no longer as important as defending ONE person. That is anti democratic to the core.

 

I suppose because they aren't. But labeling them public officials, in your mind, apparently gives Don license to expose them to......

'Deluge' of threats against judge and law clerk in Trump’s civil fraud trial are detailed in new court filing
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...fraud-trial-detailed-new-court-fil-rcna126443

Threats Trump understands full well will come as a result of his attacks.

 

How silly. Definitions vary.

 

Mike Pence Tells Jack Smith All About Donald Trump And Jan. 6

ABC News continues to come through with consistently revelatory reporting about the prosecution of Donald Trump for the 2020 election subversion scheme. In a new report this morning, Katherine Faulders et al. describe what former Vice President Mike Pence has told Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Relying on anonymous sources, the ABC News team paints a picture of detailed questioning of Pence by investigators and a more granular (but not inconsistent) account of what Pence has already said publicly. The sources almost surely come from Pence’s circle, as the report goes so far as to use quotations purportedly from Pence.

According to the ABC News report, Pence told investigators that:

• Trump surrounded himself with “crank” attorneys, espoused “un-American” legal theories, and almost pushed the country toward a “constitutional crisis.”
• Pence briefly considered not showing up for the Jan. 6 certification by Congress of the Electoral College vote.
• Trump privately asked Pence for his advice, and Pence told him that if nothing changed, “[you] should simply accept the results,” “you should take a bow,” travel the country to thank supporters, “and then run again if you want.”
• After Trump re-tweeted a memo titled ‘Operation PENCE CARD,’ Pence turned to his wife and said, “Here we go.”
• Trump “acted recklessly” as the Capitol was under siege, but Pence will “never believe” Trump meant for Jan. 6 to become violent.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/mike-pence-jack-smith-donald-trump-jan-6

Mike will go down in history as one of the more spineless enablers of an aspiring authoritarian.

 

About ****ing time!!

 

If ABC's reporting is accurate, it suggests that Pence is prepared to testify in court that he told Trump that Trump had lost the election. Add him to the list.

 

As incredible as it sounds in retrospect, Pence referred to Trump in his notes turned over to Jack Smith as his friend. He said he did not want to upset his "friend" by presiding over Biden's certification. Ultimately being talked into doing so by his son. I'm sure we all recall that Mike's friend was the one who had no problem when he heard Pence was being threatened with chants of hanging him during the January 6th riot.

 

As revelatory as Pence's contemporaneous notes are with respect to the January 6th certification, there is a odd, child like quality to him referring to giving deference to his friend over a matter as consequential as the certification of the next president.

 

Court clerks are public officials for the millionth time. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true so I'm not sure why you keep pretending court officials aren't public officials. Additionally, she ran for public office and has made herself a public figure. The photo Trump reposted was from her campaign account.

This is also old news. The court admitted the threats began before Trump said anything about her. Additionally, we don't allow a heckler's veto in this country to overrule your freedom of speech. People who threaten any court staff will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This is the chicken and the egg game. Threats to court staff occur in every high-profile public case. There is a process to handle it that doesn't involve removing someone's free speech rights. There are far more dangerous threats than mean phone calls and emails... like from RICO and gang trials. There are people dedicated to the protection of court staff for this very reason. We don't suppress someone's speech because of something an unnamed person might say in response. This is still America. The SCOTUS has ruled on this many times.

They can't show a causation of the threats to Trump. Were some due to his posting about her? Very likely. Were some due to the unconstitutional gag order and illegal judicial order saying they can't even file a motion about her behavior? Also very likely. Neither is a reason for the appellate court to make a ruling on Trump's freedom. If you followed the filings you'd see they hid the timeline of the threats purposefully avoiding whether or not the threats spiked after Trump posted the photo or if it happened after the gag order... or what combination of both. If she really wanted less attention and fewer threats, she wouldn't continue to be inappropriately sitting on the bench allowing herself to be photographed in a place she has no business being. She would also keep to her role as a clerk and not insert herself into every motion the defense makes regardless of whether or not Engoron asks for her support or even looks at her.

People are mad that the trial is biased and corrupt, and they're responding to that. That's largely due to Engoron and Greenfield's actions, not Trump's. If they handled this case without overt bias they'd probably have a lot fewer hecklers.

 

Sure. You can make up pretend definitions if makes you feel less "silly." I'll continue to use the correct definition though and not deny the obvious.

 

George Conway
@gtconway3d
·
Nov 28

I myself would never want to upset a good friend who wishes to see me hung by an angry armed mob
Quote




Jonathan Karl
@jonkarl
·
Nov 28
ABC News Exclusive: Pence notes reveal he had initially decided not to preside over electoral count on January 6: “Not feeling like I should attend electoral count. Too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. Therefore I’m not going to participate in certification of election.”
Show more

 

One word about Pence that sums up his persona, coward. Apparently his son, an ex-marine, had to remind him they both swore the SAME ****IN' OATH to the Constitution, and he's a Christian??!!

 

What's odd about that is Sen. Grassley, second in line after Pence, told reporters he did not expect Pence to show up at the certification. Meaning he would preside over it. Was he prepared to delay the certification based on the false slates of electors?

 

What makes your definition correct, in your opinion, is it gives Don license to attack them, leading to the mob making threats against them.