New House Report on J6 Lays Out Damning Details of How Nancy Pelosi Failed America During Capitol Riots

[ralliann]

Why would one expect a random state to charge someone with a crime that happened in a different state on Federal property? Seems like a weird attempt at deflection.

LOL, That is why the Colorado court should not have had anything to do with it LOL. It is outside of their juridical function.
Just imagine those justices willing to do that anyway? Could you imagine having to go before anyone of those judges? Thinking it is perfectly fine to judge my case based upon personal biases? Yikes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

LOL, That is why the Colorado court should not have had anything to do with it LOL. It is outside of their juridical function.
Just imagine those justices willing to do that anyway? Could you imagine having to go before anyone of those judges? Thinking it is perfectly fine to judge my case based upon personal biases? Yikes.

It was a legal dispute about eligibility for an election under Colorado law, who should have handled the case? The Kansas courts?

 

[Arcangl86]

LOL, That is why the Colorado court should not have had anything to do with it LOL. It is outside of their juridical function.
Just imagine those justices willing to do that anyway? Could you imagine having to go before anyone of those judges? Thinking it is perfectly fine to judge my case based upon personal biases? Yikes.

Their judicial function was to determine if Colorado law allowed for Trump to be removed from the ballot due to the insurrection clause. If Colorado law didn't allow voters to challenge a candidate's qualifications, it never would have made it to the Colorado Supreme Court.

 

[ralliann]

Their judicial function was to determine if Colorado law allowed for Trump to be removed from the ballot due to the insurrection clause.

That was determined already. He was aquitted. It is not their job, to determine a political crime. They were a court of law, and that is what they are there to do as a court....

If Colorado law didn't allow voters to challenge a candidate's qualifications, it never would have made it to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Their representatives were political people did that in the political process..... He was politically acquitted. Then THE VOTERS WILL DECIDE with their vote THAT IS THEIR VOICE. Not a court of law . What that amounts to is
1. Over ride the POLITICAL acquittal of those of those in political office in who's power is by the voters (people)
2. Overide the decision of VOTERS ( the people) TO DETERMINE their decision on the matter.
That's IT.
It is political, by the people for the people. They stepped right into that process voiding the voice of the people, ignoring those which represent them. Then turned around and voided the people themselves personally to not have a voice, denying them a vote.

 

[Arcangl86]

That was determined already. He was aquitted.

He was not removed from office. He was not acquitted because impeachment is not a criminal procedure.

It is not their job, to determine a political crime.

No, their job was to determine how 14th Amendment Section 3 impacted Colarado Election law.

They were a court of law, and that is what they are there to do as a court....

The job of the courts is to settle cases and controversies in law. Somebody sued the Colorado Secretary of State to remove Trump from the ballot and the Colorado courts had to decide if that was what the law required of them.

Their representatives were political people did that in the political process..... He was politically acquitted.

It's true he wasn't removed from office, but the 14th Amendment says nothing about impeachment. It's not "Shall be disqualified unless impeached and not removed from office."

Then THE VOTERS WILL DECIDE with their vote THAT IS THEIR VOICE. Not a court of law . What that amounts to is
1. Over ride the POLITICAL acquittal of those of those in political office in who's power is by the voters (people)
2. Overide the decision of VOTERS ( the people) TO DETERMINE their decision on the matter.
That's IT.

Let's say President Obama really was born in Kenya and we knew that without a doubt. And he was still nominated for President by the Democratic party. Would you have said "Let the voters decide" or would you have said he was disqualified due to Article 2?

It is political, by the people for the people.

Can the people override the Constitution without passing an Amendment?

They stepped right into that process voiding the voice of the people, ignoring those which represent them. Then turned around and voided the people themselves personally to not have a voice, denying them a vote.

Let's say the people of Colorado initiated and passed a law saying that the practice of Christianity was illegal and could be punished with life imprisonment. Would you just throw up your hands and say that the voice of the people has spoken or would you say it's against the Constitution?

 

[ralliann]

He was not removed from office. He was not acquitted because impeachment is not a criminal procedure.

We just went over this....It is a political procedure. It is supposed to be.

No, their job was to determine how 14th Amendment Section 3 impacted Colarado Election law.

No, that is a political crime. We are talking about we the people. That is up to The Supreme court. It is what they are there for as a branch of our government and balance of powers in it.

The job of the courts is to settle cases and controversies in law.

Exactly, they are not to settle matters of the constitution.

Somebody sued the Colorado Secretary of State to remove Trump from the ballot and the Colorado courts had to decide if that was what the law required of them.

Which should have been moot to that court. It was a political crime, and it was already tried politically.

It's true he wasn't removed from office, but the 14th Amendment says nothing about impeachment. It's not "Shall be disqualified unless impeached and not removed from office."

Again that court is not there to try political crimes....They are there to to judge by the law, not politics.

Let's say President Obama really was born in Kenya and we knew that without a doubt. And he was still nominated for President by the Democratic party. Would you have said "Let the voters decide" or would you have said he was disqualified due to Article 2?

Can the people override the Constitution without passing an Amendment?

Let's say the people of Colorado initiated and passed a law saying that the practice of Christianity was illegal and could be punished with life imprisonment. Would you just throw up your hands and say that the voice of the people has spoken or would you say it's against the Constitution?

If anything concerning Obama (or any other elected official) were in question, then there would have been a political investigation into it. If there was enough evidence, articles of impeachment would have been drawn up.
The tea party arose because many republican voters did not like the weakness of the republican representatives to do anything they thought they should do. So they voted in Representatives to replace the representatives that would not do what they put them there to do. Quit messing with that. That system is US, all OF US....Stop attempting to destroy it.

The people of Colorado had elected officials in elected office, to represent them. Those officials were a part of the political process. Colorado citizens already spoke through their representatives.
So did all other people have representatives there also. So everyone in every state had a voice in that political process.
Those representatives ended up acquitting Trump.
If the people of Colorado thought Trump should have been found guilty, They would not vote for him.
No state judges replace elected officials. Nor decide for the people political crimes. It is not in their power. Judges do not make law (though more and more that is what some attempt to do). Judges adjudicate law.
Why are you ignoring the Supreme courts decision? We the people have a voice and have had a voice in this already, and will do so again.

 

[hislegacy]

As far as I know, the Senate majority leader has zero authority in this situation.

But the Speaker of the House sure does.

 

[DaisyDay]

But the Speaker of the House sure does.

No, they are co-equals in this regard.

 

[ralliann]

No, they are co-equals in this regard.

Waiting for this to be settled only seems to matter on one side. The supreme court decision comes out, and it made no difference for some of you at all. I suspect the same will be true with this as well in the end. It is just wasted time in the end. He is guilty, and Nancy did right. End of story, before this is settled and remain the same after.

 

[hislegacy]

No, they are co-equals in this regard.

Incorrect - the Speak of the house is third in line to the Presidency - the majority leader is not.
The Speaker of the House has control of the House - the majority leader does not

Would it help to keep going?

 

[hislegacy]

What the January 6 Committee Did With the Evidence Undercuts a Huge Dem Narrative

townhall.com

The leftist media and especially the major networks have no interest in this story since they were big cheerleaders for the January 6 committee.​

​

In fact, all three networks failed to report on this violation of House rules and federal law by not preserving documents. Instead, the three networks gave airtime to a billion-dollar lottery ticket sold in Florida (ABC and CBS), and plans for the first space tourist flight (NBC).​

 

[ralliann]

What the January 6 Committee Did With the Evidence Undercuts a Huge Dem Narrative

townhall.com

The leftist media and especially the major networks have no interest in this story since they were big cheerleaders for the January 6 committee.​

​

In fact, all three networks failed to report on this violation of House rules and federal law by not preserving documents. Instead, the three networks gave airtime to a billion-dollar lottery ticket sold in Florida (ABC and CBS), and plans for the first space tourist flight (NBC).​

They did no different with Hillary Clinton. She destroyed several Phones, used bleach bit, smashed computers. Nothing! The libs, "nothing to see here".
Edit to add:
Quote From the article
"If this were a trial case, the judge would have no option but to dismiss it because everything appears to have been sent into the furnace. Nothing was preserved, a requirement upon the committee’s dissolution."

Concerning a trial case and what the Judge would do?
Might be true, but not in Colorado.....

 

[DaisyDay]

Waiting for this to be settled only seems to matter on one side. The supreme court decision comes out, and it made no difference for some of you at all. I suspect the same will be true with this as well in the end. It is just wasted time in the end. He is guilty, and Nancy did right. End of story, before this is settled and remain the same after.

None of what you posted has anything to do with what I wrote.

Which Supreme Court ruling? Absolute immunity for presidents and former presidents? That won't be heard until late April 2024. The ruling concerning the Colorado ballot has nothing to do with this case.

 

[DaisyDay]

Incorrect - the Speak of the house is third in line to the Presidency - the majority leader is not.
The Speaker of the House has control of the House - the majority leader does not

While this is true, it does not negate that the two are co-equals with regards to Congressional security which is what my statement referred to.

Would it help to keep going?

Unless you can show something that supports your contention that the Speaker of the House has more input and control over Congressional security than does the Senate Majority Leader, then I doubt it would help for you to keep at this particular argument.

 

[DaisyDay]

They did no different with Hillary Clinton. She destroyed several Phones, used bleach bit, smashed computers. Nothing! The libs, "nothing to see here".

You still don't understand that destroying the equipment after turning over the data is standard procedure? The way you write, it appears that you believe that Clinton herself did this - do you?

Edit to add:
Quote From the article
"If this were a trial case, the judge would have no option but to dismiss it because everything appears to have been sent into the furnace. Nothing was preserved, a requirement upon the committee’s dissolution."

Patently false. That is an absurd exaggeration.

Concerning a trial case and what the Judge would do?
Might be true, but not in Colorado.....

This thread is about J6, not Colorado....

 

[Arcangl86]

Incorrect - the Speak of the house is third in line to the Presidency - the majority leader is not.

Ok. I'm not sure what the presidential line of succession has to do with anything.

The Speaker of the House has control of the House - the majority leader does not

Correct. The Senate Majority Leader has control of the Senate and fulfills the same administrative and management function for that chamber as the Speaker does for the House, even though there is a separate President pro tem for ceremonial purposes.

Would it help to keep going?

Only if you explain why you think the Majority Leader has no role in what happened in Jan 6.

 

[hislegacy]

Loading…

banks.house.gov

For those who do not want to read the Congressional Report:

1. The Speaker of the House and Democrat leadership were closely involved in security decisions in the lead up to and on January 6, 2021.
2. The House Sergeant at Arms took direction from staff in the office of the Speaker of the House and intentionally excluded Republicans from key meetings and conversations related to House security.
3. Staff within the House Sergeant at Arms office emailed Paul Irving that January 6th was Pelosi’s fault.
4. Widespread concern from Democrat leadership over “optics” in the aftermath of summer 2020.
5. The Leadership of the Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division overhauled the division in the weeks before January 6, 2021 and created new processes for obtaining and assessing intelligence data. Those changes caused confusion and rendered key USCP components ineffective during a critical period.
6. The House Sergeant at Arms was compromised by politics in the lead up to and on January 6, 2021 and did not adequately prepare the Capitol for possible violence.
7. U.S. Capitol police did not give officers the appropriate training necessary to prepare them to protect the Capitol from violence.
8. The U.S. Capitol police does not have the equipment necessary to protect its officers.
9. The command-and-control structure of the U.S. Capitol Police and the Capitol Police Board contributed to unnecessary delays in the decision-making on January 6, 2021.
10. The U.S. Capitol police has still not implemented important recommendations issued by oversight bodies.

 

[ralliann]

None of what you posted has anything to do with what I wrote.

Which Supreme Court ruling? Absolute immunity for presidents and former presidents? That won't be heard until late April 2024. The ruling concerning the Colorado ballot has nothing to do with this case.

Obviously this thread is about all things which have to do with January 6. Which Colorado obviously includes all things to do with that....

 

[JustOneWay]

Obviously this thread is about all things which have to do with January 6. Which Colorado obviously includes all things to do with that....

Obviously this thread is about diverting blame from Trump to Nancy Pelosi for Jan 6th. Read the OP.

 

[ralliann]

Obviously this thread is about diverting blame from Trump to Nancy Pelosi for Jan 6th. Read the OP.

This thread is about Jan 6 which also includes the jan 6 committee, which has led to evidence that was kept hidden and documents destroyed, which the Colorado court USED THAT COMMITTEES evidence as the finding of facts. They did not act as a court of law and FINF THEIR IOWN FACTS. Which in turn lead to the Supreme court. Which now has led to implications to cases Smith has against him in a court of law.Which also includes Pelosi and the chain of events of what everyone did It is all about JAN 6TH.