BREAKING: Speaker Johnson Releases The J6 Footage.

Ahhhh..... found it. On page 6 of the report linked in the Axios swill referenced in your post.

Imagine my surprise when I saw that the graph showing a rise in maternal deaths from 21.6 per 100,000 live births in 2018 in states that banned abortion to 47.5 per 100,000 births in 2021.

Considering Dobbs revoked Roe in 2022, that tells me that whatever caused the rise had absolutely nothing to do with abortion. There are a couple other things it tells me (reinforces what I already knew actually) about your technical chops to speak authoritatively about anything, but I'll just leave that unspoken.

 

Time for Truth and Accountability J6 Committee: They viciously attacked the heart of the American Constitutional Liberal Democracy.

'The security video tells part of the story of what happened that day. As lives continue to be destroyed by' Bribed Joe's Corrupt 'DOJ, it is imperative House Republicans expose the full truth of January 6.'

Some of these J6 Committee folks may need to face the music for the conspiracy they engaged in.



'The human wreckage left in the wake of the DOJ’s abusive, retaliatory prosecution of individuals who protested Biden’s election nearly three years ago is an ongoing tragedy. Meanwhile, the same DOJ—along with their accomplices in Congress and national news media—has concealed the truth about what really happened before and on that fateful afternoon.'

The corrupt committee's 'time of controlling the narrative is over. Millions of Americans will now see video of police officers standing by as protesters walked in the building, some exchanging handshakes and fist bumps. Future video releases could shock the public as it reveals numerous instances of police brutality that resulted in the deaths of three individuals that day.'

'Speaker Johnson’s next move must be the formation of a separate January 6 committee. Tapes only tell a small part of the story; more must be revealed to expose the full truth, redeem those who have been destroyed by the cruel weaponization of the four-hour disturbance, and hold the architects of the Jan 6 fraud accountable.'

What was the role of the corrupt FBI?

What was the extent of the J6 Committee Cover Up?

What was Dirtbag Merrick's role in the selective prosecution of the Capitol protesters?

J6 Celebrity Cops that lied under oath during congressional testimony.

The police brutality that killed 3 protesters.

The misconduct of corrupt federal judges

 

Aaaargh! You obviously did not read it fully. Restrictions on abortions have been happening over the last 10 or more years in the USA. Some required 2 ultrasounds with the ultrasonographer explaining what she was seeing - devastating to woman carrying a foetus with a fatal anomaly to hear over and over that her wanted baby has no hope of survival. Some states unrealistic restriction on the clinics themselves forcing them to close. Restrictions on abortion access predate the Dobbs decision, they just made it increasingly difficult to obtain abortions instead of bloody near impossible

 

The problem with demanding that others do ALL the work is that the RECIPIENT denies THEMSELVES a LEARNING opportunity.

 

Are you UNAWARE that there was an ONGOING legislative effort to BAN abortions in RED states well BEFORE the Xtofascists on the SCrOTUS overturned RvW?

 

What does that have to do with anything? The simple fact is they didn't.

 

Those abortion RESTRICTIONS were EFFECTIVELY bans.

The FACTUAL REALITY is that the RISE in MORTALITY occurred as a direct RESULT of those Xtofascist abortions bans in Red states.

 

The big takeaway that almost everyone is missing, is there is ZERO footage of foul deeds, that you haven't already seen. Every single act of violence that day, was put in to that super clip they keep airing. That's...staggering when you consider it. They said it was all a violent riot, and it appears there is literally only a few minutes of footage, among thousands of hours.

I don't support breaking the law, except in dire unfair persecution by the government. They deserved to be charged with the requisite crimes of disorderly conduct, trespassing, property destruction, etc. Riots are illegal. But this notion that these people really thought they were engaging in an insurrection, is just idiotic. They probably ALL own guns. These are Trump voters. If they REALLY intended to overthrow the government, why were they not armed?

If anyone disagrees, that's fine. But ask yourself if these are the rules, as you say, then what was CHAZ? They threw the government out of it's building, took over, erected a flag, and renamed it a new country. Why is THAT not worthy of any of these same charges that the Trump people got? How is that not EXACTLY the same thing?

People are welcome to vote any way they want, and disagree however they like. But this is just dishonest BS, at a minimum by leaders, and likely also by most the media, although a few probably fell for it. The people who own 3 guns for every finger, tend to bring them when the overthrow governments. They are a key tool, in any use of unauthorized force.

One last one, and I hope someone smart responds to these points...maybe I just missed something here. But why is Trump an election denier, when Michael Dukakis, in 1988, is the last Democrat to lose the White House and NOT cry foul? I don't care about Trump or even the Republicans. But please anyone who has a good answer for these double standards, please explain. To this very day, Hillary Clinton is still dreaming up reasons she lost unfairly, even after the Russia Hoax fell apart. To this very day, Al Gore will tell you the SCOTUS chose the president that year. Are they wrong too, or is it somehow different?

If anyone has interesting responses, I would genuinely welcome them. I sort of doubt anyone will though, because these double standards seem very clear.

 

Projection noted.

The ANSWER to your disingenuous QUESTION is John Kerry in 2004!

If you want to play the Double Standards Game you are going to lose because the Xtofascist controlled GOP have MORPHED from the "Say one thing and Do another" into the "We will do EXACTLY what We Say we will" party.

Does that mean they get Brownie Points for finally being HONEST about their Xtofascist Agenda?

The DUTY of all Americans is to UPHOLD the Constitution above all else because that PROTECTS the RIGHTS of ALL of us.

The Xtofascist Agenda is to TEAR DOWN the Constitution and REPLACE it with their "prosperity bible".

Supporting a party that is ENACTING that UNAMERICAN agenda while criticizing the other party is the use of a double standard in your content.

Note that I have no problem with LEGITIMATE criticism of BOTH parties because I am an Independent.

The whole point of We the People using a DEMOCRATIC means to govern OURSELVES is that we ACCEPT the RESULTS of ELECTIONS even when we LOSE!

There is only ONE scumbag POS lying LOSER who has NEVER accepted the RESULTS of an ELECTION.

You ACCUSED Dem candidates of being "sore losers" while IGNORING the Biggliest Loser who OWNS the Xtofascist controlled GOP these days.

 

How so? We know for a fact that abortions are fatal for the aborted, but how are abortions required to prevent maternal deaths? Are there no alternatives for those extra 20 or so deaths per 100,000?

 

I don't know what "xtofascist" even means, and neither does Google, which is a little amusing, to me.

I think you have the wrong guy, if you think you are speaking to some bought in shill for a political party. I don't even vote. Some policy discussions interest me, when they are sort of theory based. I have no love for any politician who has ever lived though.

As a point of fact, NO, it is NOT the duty of the public to uphold the constitution, in any way. We can't do that, and we don't need to do that. Systems are in place, to handle that.

I'm curious why if you think I'm a right wing nut, why on Earth would you need to lecture me about defending the constitution? The right in America thinks the document is porn. They want to change about zero percent of it. Let's keep the teams straight here, ok? It's the left that wants to delete portions of the Bill of Rights. That's just the reality of the teams here. Not saying team blue or team red is evil or great; they are both awful, in my view. But let's pin the correct misdeeds, on the right sides, so it at least makes some sense.

I don't vote, so I don't see how I give ANY support, to any party. You aren't making a lot of sense on this one, if you knew me at all.

I was seeking legitimate answers to my questions, and unfortunately that won't happen, it seems. I was just curious why people think a thing, and it seems to have put you in all caps mode, for reasons I can't explain. I thought I worded it pretty neutral and kind; maybe I didn't accomplish my goal.

I didn't name call any Democrats. I simply asked why they feel it's different when one their own refutes elections, in one example for decades, than it is for the other party. The other party isn't saying the same things. The other party isn't saying they can't be sore losers, that I have ever heard. They get mocked, sure. At least Hillary does. But I don't think a single human being is upset, that Hillary wont' admit she lost, even years after the fact. That is clearly NOT true from the other side. They are BIG MAD that orange man won't admit he lost. Not saying Republicans are great, but they simply are not mad about this issue. Therefore, it wouldn't make any sense to make this point, in reverse.

If you are independent, then you aren't a good person to answer my question. I was seeking a wise and learned Democrat, to respond, out of genuine curiosity. But thanks anyways. Maybe someday you can tell me what your buzzword that Google never heard of, actually means.

 

Big Bad Government inevitably falls under the control of a corrupt entrenched ruling political class. There may be no effective way to check the evolution of human governance toward authoritarianism and tyranny. DJT is an anti-establishment populist, but I see little evidence that he is an anti-authoritarian. A new boss will not represent reform let alone revolutionary change.
GALLUP, Record High in U.S. Say Big Government Greatest Threat, Now 72% say it is greater threat than big business or big labor, by Jeffrey M. Jones,, 12/18/13.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166535/r...syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All

There is no end to that "threat" in sight.

 

Yawn....

"He used the power of his state office to try to intimidate Ohioans and suppress the Democratic vote," said Kerry's e-mail.

Kerry, D-Mass., conceded the election when he lost Ohio and its 20 electoral votes. A recount requested by minor-party candidates showed Bush won by about 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million cast. But Kerry's e-mail says Blackwell "used his office to abuse our democracy and threaten basic voting rights."

Kerry revives 2004 election allegations (nbcnews.com)

 

Orwell was spot on: “All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.”

"It's an interesting conversation ... but Stacey tells us there's one issue that's even more important to voters in Georgia. It might be true for the whole country too."
Stacey Abrams Says Voter Suppression Rigs Election Results, Crushes Democracy
STACEY ABRAMS VOTER SUPPRESSION LAWS CHANGE ELECTION RESULTS... It's Like Legal Rigging!!!
9/16/2022 1:41 PM PT
https://www.tmz.com/2022/09/16/stac...-changing-outcomes-rigging-elections-georgia/

 

Yes, but Democrats, like Kerry, Sen. Wyden, Sen. Klobuchar, Governor Stacey Abrams... who complains about election rigging are just a bunch of MAGA hat DP conspiracy theorists.

"I'm very concerned that you could have a hack that finally went through. You have 21 states that were hacked into, they didn't find out about it for a year," she said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press.” Amy KlobucharU.S. Senator for Minnesota
Amy in the News, Top Democrat Klobuchar says she remains 'very concerned' about a midterm election hack, NBC News, By Ben Kamisar, August 5, 2018.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...very-concerned-about-midterm-election-n897756
https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/pu...-very-concerned-about-a-midterm-election-hack

 

It is not a common misconception. It was a right granted by the Supreme Court using the right to privacy. We have the "right" to travel freely, to privacy, to marry, and other rights that are not enumerated specifically by the US Constitution, but the Supreme Court gave that right based on its interpretation of the US Constitution and its amendments. Prior to the Dobbs decision, the Court has struck down several attempts, since the 2000s, to allow states to restrict abortion. Now, Dobbs made it a state issue, which is why you have some states guaranteeing the right to abortion and some states do not. Even the Dobbs decision is a ticking time bomb because eventually, it will have to rule under equal protection under the law, the 14th amendment, eventually, and that may disallow the states anti-abortion laws altogether much like same-sex marriage is now allowed in all states and recognized in all states.

There is also something that is tantamount to the privacy between a patient and a physician. We have rules, quite a number of them, both state and federal, including HIPAA, where the government cannot intrude on the discussions between a physician and a patient. It is the government, and by statute, certain other private entities, that cannot pry into the matter unless they have consent. This is not about asking "do you have the vaccine" MTG argument here. That is not what HIPAA says.

 

Yes, it is a common misconception. Again, if it had been about a "right to abortion" then they would have made it to where the State could not intervene at all. Instead, they limited it to the point of viability as a compromise.

And mentioning that courts had ruled on it multiple times does not further your case or prove your point. Plessy v Ferguson was also ruled on multiple times and was around longer than RvW. Yet it was still eventually struck down.

HIPAA btw does not protect your privacy in all things. For example if a person comes in with a gun shot wound the doctors are required to report it to the police. So obviously there are exceptions to a persons Right to Privacy under HIPPA.

You are right in one point... it's not about "do you have a vaccine" argument. Its about a Right to Life and whether or not the woman has a right to take that life to preserve her Right to Bodily Autonomy.

 

Except it was a right to an abortion. But that right, like all other rights, has limitations, whether enumerated or not. You are making the same type of argument that conservatives made about Islam claiming it wasn't "a religion" and thus trying to justify, illogically, their view on Muslims and Islam in which they wanted a total ban.

Plessy v Furgeson was separate but equal and was eventually overturned in Brown v Board of Education. Conservatives are now trying to go back to Pleasy v Furgeson now, and yet, in that case, no rights were granted or absolved. Either you are not understanding what the decision was, or your are intentionally miscontruing both the Plessy case and the Roe case in what they determined while trying to justify your political arguments.

Finally, with HIPPAA, it does. The key is consent. Whenever you go to the doctor, in order for the doctor to treat you, you will be signing some forms, one of them is access to medical care or allowing somone to receive the medical information. This may include your emergency contact info or someone else who can receive that info, such as a spouse or an adult child. That consent allows the physicians to talk to someone else other than you. Without that consent, the physicians cannot and in some states, may go to jail for violating that oath to divulge the information. No police officer can go to a doctor's office and ask what your medical information is, unless they have a specific warrant for said information, which is what the 4th amendment says.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.

 

No, it wasn't. Like I said, it was about privacy. That does not automatically confer a right to abortion anymore than it would allow a doctor to give someone a narcotic simply because they asked for it. Every time that SCOTUS has ruled on whether there was a right they explicitly said so. RvW did not once claim that there was a right to abortion. When talking about marriage they always referred to it as a Right. Same with what happened in Brown v Board of Education. SCOTUS is always explicit when talking about Rights.

No, I simply pointed out that your argument that RvW had been ruled on multiple times as being valid does not mean that it actually was valid. I used Plessy v Fergeson as an example of a SCOTUS decision that lasted longer than RvW and was also ruled on multiple times, yet in the end was overturned. Just like RvW was eventually overturned. That is all that I was pointing out. I was not trying to compare the context of the two. You're reading more into what I said than is actually there.

Can a doctor not tell the police about a gunshot victim? Yes or no?
Can a doctor simply give a person a narcotic simply because they asked? Yes or no?
Can a psychiatrist ignore that their patient just told them that they are going to hire a hitman to kill someone? Yes or no?

HIPPA does not cover every aspect of what someone bound by it. The above three examples show that. Knowing that, and taking key note of that last example: should a doctor be exempt from telling police that the woman wants to kill a live human? Pro-choice folks say "yes" (despite the fact that they would agree that a psychiatrist would be obligated to tell police that their client was going to hire a hitman to kill). Pro-life folks say "no". A Right to Privacy does not include the killing of someone. Which is why police can get warrants when investigating someone for murder. HIPPA does not protect the privacy of someone that is going to hire a hitman either.

 

I think that maybe we view this as a situation where we can have a break through, prevail, and then live in harmony; when actually this is a situation of constant struggle between the forces of authoritarianism and self-ruled freedom, and with us not recognizing this and being engaged, the forces of Authoritarianism have been running rampant, most unopposed.

This is one of the problems I have with Trump. He barely laid a glove on them, outside of some great work in the Judiciary, but what he really needed to do was establish constitutional control of the Executive Branch and he was completely ineffective at that task.

Now DeSantis, IMO, has the right skill set. He sees the issues coming and he's better prepared than his opposition. For example, in the 2020 election federal observers showed up and demanded entry into the polling places. DeSantis informed them that required prior approval, which they did not have and refused to allow them entry, authority he had been previously granted by enabling legislation. Having no choice, they left.

We got lots of bluster out of Trump and the refusal to be intimidated, but we never got that kind of foresight and preparation, and we won't in a second term.

RFK, I think absolutely and clearly sees the situation we are in, essentially in the aftermath of a silent coup, but I don't know that he has the balls and organization that's going to be needed to reassert Constitutional control over the Executive Branch. DeSantis I think is a much better fit for this task, but, he's not going to be a choice in 2024, so we'll have to make a decision between Trump and RFK, and we have the good fortune that each choice has it's benefits.

 

Biden still has time to accomplish objectives that would pump up his approval numbers. Never count JRB or the DP out, or assume that the RP will not discover new ways to lose -- bigly.

 

That's exactly right.

It wasn't an insurrection. They didn't even light a single fire. You want Sedition and Insurrection? Watch Antif attack federal officers over and over and over again, in Portland, trying to burn down Federal Buildings. But, according to the Lying Fake News Media that takes their daily talking points from Dirty David Brock's Media Matters, those were merely 'protests'.

Except that the Trump folks never did anything of the sort.

Agreed. Thanks for speaking up.

 

Is this known as the "Hail Mary" pass?

 

Are the Capitol Police allowed to push people off of buildings? Asking for Derrick Vargo.

https://twitter.com/InvestigateJ6/status/1627767899518652423

 

@WalterSobchak

""Have you ever asked yourself, why would the democrats purposely dress other democrats as trumpists in order to stop the process of Congress certifying the election for the Democrat who won the election?""
Nope... I am more worried about the feds like Epps dressing up in Make America Great Again uniforms and posing as peaceful protesters.

""Jesus, what conspiracy out there do rightists not believe in? LOL""
Not a conspiracy now is it

Strange how these things keep oozing out.... Was this ever covered by the J6 committee.

As Mike Johnson said "To restore America’s trust and faith in their Government we must have transparency,” "This is another step towards keeping the promises I made when I was elected to be your Speaker."

How strange that Ray Epps has flown under the radar? ... Looks like Ray Epps knew Stewart Rhodes in 2011.... wonder if the FBI picked up on that little morsel?

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Art...at-hometown-buffet-scottsdale-tonight-jan.htm



Yea Epps was a little tighter with Rhodes than it has been let out
Here he is marching along with the Oath Keepers in AZ..