MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 31870
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

Post by thelivyjr » Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 15, 2021 at 10:22 pm

Paul Plante says:

And while we are all sitting here in the aftermath of TRUMP TRIAL II starring DEMOCRAT CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR Jamie Raskin, described by Harvard Law professor Larry Tribe, whose mind seems to have turned more than a little mushy, as “the best constitutional lawyer in all of Congress,” which doesn’t say very much about the caliber of constitutional lawyers in all of Congress at all, if Jamie Raskin is put up as “best in breed,” the clown who all of America loves almost as much as they love AOC and Hillary, pondering what just went down here in the United States of America, where we have been told over and over and over by the media and the Democrats that there was an insurrection in Washington, D.C. on 6 January 2021, which I would call a REVOLUTION and a COUP, instead, to understand how either could be, let us go back and consider HOW the process to select an American president should have worked according to how the United States Constitution is actually written, and supposedly is law of the land, but in actuality, isn’t, which is where the REVOLUTION and COUP come into the picture, let’s go to a site called WUSA9 VERIFY and the article “Can Congress reject Electoral College votes?” by Eliana Block updated: 5:14 AM EST January 6, 2021, where we have as follows:

WASHINGTON — States electors, whose numbers are based on their total Congressional representation, meet to place official votes for the Electoral College, a system derived back in the 18th century.

end quotes

A system derived back in the 18th century, people, by WHITE HETERONORMATIVE MEN to keep the BLACK MAN down, as everybody today knows, that was struck down by DEMOCRACY on 6 January 2021, and is no more, regardless of what the Constitution might say, because a lot of people, well most people, er, it could be a majority, I guess, don’t like what the Constitution says, so they don’t want to do it that way anymore, and in a DEMOCRACY, it is the majority that rules, not the Constitution, especially a Constitution written a long time ago by HETERONORMATIVE WHITE MEN, which takes us to the Democrat strategy document “Resistance Rising: Socialist Strategy in the Age of Political Revolution” on June 25, 2016, where we have as follows:

Economic democracy would be complemented in the political sphere by a new system that combined an overhauled form of representative democracy (our current system) with direct democracy, a system in which individuals participate directly in the making of political decisions that affect them.

end quotes

Representative democracy, as was embodied in the Constitution with respect to the electoral college, on 6 January 2021 was formally replaced with direct democracy, and without a peep of protest, on 6 January 2021, received a bullet to its head fired from the gun of Nancy Pelosi, herself.

Getting back to the article, it continues:

Electors from all 50 states met on December 14 to place their official votes for their states.

end quotes

An EMPTY RITUAL, people, given that 48 states are WINNER TAKE ALL, which means the electoral college votes were already awarded on election day to whomever won the popular vote, an incentive for ballot box rigging if there ever was one, but that is what democracies are all about.

So when those electors from those 48 states met on December 14, their votes had already been cast for them, by governor Andy Cuomo in the case of the state of New York, which is as far from representative democracy as one can get and still be somewhere in this universe, which takes us back to that article as follows:

On January 6, that vote count is finalized and election results are certified.

But what does that vote cast look like, and can Congress reject the Electoral College’s decision if faithless electors happen?

Here’s a look.

What’s the official process for electors casting their votes?

ANSWER:

The state’s electors will meet on December 14, 2020, and send six copies of their votes to the President of the Senate, that state’s Secretary of State, the Archivist of the United States and to the federal judge in the district where the electors met.

Congress will count the votes during a joint session on January 6, 2021.

end quotes

And that is the EMPTY RITUAL that was being played out in the Capitol on 6 January 2021 when the supposed “insurrection” took place.

But an insurrection against what?

An insurrection against an EMPTY RITUAL that if not conducted on 6 January 2021 would not have meant a thing nor changed anything?

But can there be an insurrection against something that is really nothing?

Getting back to that article:

PROCESS:

Each governor sends a certificate showing which slate of electors won the popular vote, to the Archivist of the United States.

The governor then delivers six identical certificates to the state’s electors.

Then, on Monday, December 14, 2020, electors will meet to vote for the president and vice president.

end quotes

Except, people, they really didn’t meet on 14 December 2020 to vote for the president and the vice president, because in WINNER TAKES ALL states, the electoral college votes were already awarded on election day, and there is not a thing any of those so-called “electors” can do about that, so if they didn’t do a ******* thing on 14 December 2020, Joe Biden would still be president, Constitution and representative democracy be damned, which takes us back to the article for more EMPTY RITUAL, to wit:

After they vote and sign each certificate, each state sends its six copies to various places: one to the President of the Senate, Mike Pence, two go to the Secretary of State for that state, two go to the Archivist of the United States, and one to the federal judge in the district where the electors met.

The first day of the newly elected Congress is set for January 3, 2021.

Congress will read the results out loud and count them up in a joint session, on January 6, 2021 at 1:00 p.m.

In the end, the President of the Senate, Mike Pence, will announce whether any candidates received the majority vote.

end quotes

Which is STUPID, because we already knew that Joe Biden had the votes, and there was nothing Mike Pence could do to change that, so besides participating in an EMPTY RITUAL that means nothing, what purpose was Mike Pence fulfilling by telling us on 6 January 2020 what we already knew?

Aiding the “peaceful” transfer of power?

Let’s go back to the article and see:

The U.S. code does allow Congress to object to electoral votes.

Here’s how it works: an objection needs to be in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one Representative.

end quotes

So, yes, there are some empty words in something called the “law” that says objections can be made, but the reality is that despite any words on a piece of paper called “law” allowing objections to be made, objections are futile, as we see by going back to that article, to wit:

In terms of what counts as a valid objection, Mulji (lawyer) said that the laws are vague.

“There isn’t a ton of guidance about… what does and doesn’t count as an objection,” Mulji said.

“Because these are internal rules of Congress, it’s up to the houses of Congress to decide whether the objections are valid.”

end quotes

Which takes us to an article in something called THE CONVERSATION entitled “Why Trump’s Senate supporters can’t overturn Electoral College results they don’t like – here’s how the law actually works” by Donald Brand, Professor, Political Science Department, College of the Holy Cross on January 5, 2021, to wit:

On Jan. 6, the United States Congress will gather in a joint session to tally the votes of the Electoral College, which cast its ballots in state capitols last month.

In his role as president of the Senate, Vice President Mike Pence is slated to officially announce Joe Biden as the country’s next president.

This formal certification process – the final step in the U.S. presidential election – is the latest target of President Donald Trump’s desperate, untenable and possibly criminal effort to overturn the 2020 results.

In his refusal to concede, Trump is pressuring Pence and Republicans in Congress to delay or oppose certification.

Can they really subvert the Electoral College?

The answer, both legally and politically, is no.

No rubber stamp

The congressional joint session on Jan. 6 is not a mere formality.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 requires Congress to convene and review – rather than simply rubber stamp – Electoral College results.

end quotes

Except we all know that despite the law, they do and did simply rubber stamp the Electoral College results, which takes us back to that article for some essential American history on that law, to wit:

This statute was a delayed response to the contested presidential election of 1876.

That year, Republicans backing candidate Rutherford B. Hayes alleged voter fraud in four states favoring Democrat Samuel Tilden, forcing Congress to appoint an independent commission to resolve 20 disputed electoral votes.

The nominally bipartisan commission, comprised of five senators, five House representatives and five Supreme Court justices, awarded the disputed electors to Hayes, allowing him to narrowly prevail in the Electoral College by 185 to 184 electoral votes.

The proceedings left a cloud over Hayes, who got the sobriquet “Rutherfraud B. Hayes.”

Congress was chastened, too, by the prolonged electoral dispute.

To minimize the likelihood that they would ever again decide the outcome of a presidential election, lawmakers in 1887 passed the Electoral Count Act.

It puts the onus for resolving electoral disputes on the states.

As long as they do so, certifying their election results no later than six days before the Electoral College meets to cast its votes, then states will enjoy “safe harbor” protection.

That means their results will be considered “conclusive” when Congress convenes to certify the vote on Jan. 6.

In 2020, every state certified its election results before the Dec. 8 “safe harbor” deadline.

Joe Biden won 306 electoral votes, surpassing the 270 votes needed to become president-elect, and Donald Trump won 232.

Congress is legally obliged to defer to those state decisions.

end quotes

So seriously, people, if before December 8, 2020, all the states had certified that Joe Biden had won the election, what was the purpose of the EMPTY RITUAL on 6 January 2021, the day of the alleged insurrection, which takes us back to this final statement from the VERIFY article, to wit:

“Now, this is a fun intellectual exercise, but of course, we know the results of the Electoral College, we know that Joe Biden has won a majority of those electoral votes,” Mulji said.

end quotes

Which takes us in turn to an article in THE HILL for a literal storm of pure BULL**** entitled “Pelosi sets up call on election challenge: ‘No situation matches Trump presidency'” by Joseph Choi on 01/03/21, where we had as follows:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a Sunday letter told her Democratic colleagues they would discuss the process for expected challenges to the Electoral College results from House Republicans during a call on Monday.

“Over the years, we have experienced many challenges in the House, but no situation matches the Trump presidency and the Trump disrespect for the will of the people,” Pelosi wrote in her letter.

end quotes

And what the **** is up with this horse**** from Nancy, making out as if the law provided for “special case” treatment because of Donald Trump?

Before the joint session is even held, there is Nancy already seeking to sabotage it to ensure that DEMOCRAT Joe Biden is declared the winner, which takes us back to that story, as follows:

Pelosi outlined a plan for the Democratic lawmakers as they prepare to certify the Electoral College votes this week.

More than 100 House Republicans are expected to challenge the results of the election in various battleground states, and a dozen Senate Republicans have vowed to do so.

She said the result would end with President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris being “officially declared the next President and Vice President of the United States,” but acknowledged this declaration might have to take place in “the middle of the night.”

end quotes

So there we have Nancy herself confirming what I am saying, that what took place on 6 January 2021 in the Capitol was nothing more than another empty photo op – a chance for Nancy Pelosi and Charley “Chuck” Schumer to once again be seen on national TV – as they rubber-stamped the vote taly for Joe Biden, which again takes us back to THE HILL, to wit:

“On Monday, we will have a clearer picture of how many state votes will be subject to an objection,” Pelosi said.

“Our choice is not to use the forum to debate the presidency of Donald Trump.”

“While there is no doubt as to the outcome of the Biden-Harris presidency, our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system.”

end quotes

And good ****** luck with that, Nancy, say not only I but a goodly percentage of the American people DO NOT place any trust whatsoever in our so-called “democratic system,” as we see in this Associated Press article “Poll: Most Americans think US democracy is not working” on February 8, 2021, to wit:

WASHINGTON — Only a fragment of Americans believe democracy is thriving in the U.S., even as broad majorities agree that representative government is one of the country’s bedrock principles, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Just 16 percent of Americans said democracy is working well or extremely well, a pessimism that spans the political spectrum.

Nearly half of Americans, 45 percent, think democracy isn’t functioning properly, while another 38 percent said it’s working only somewhat well.

end quotes

So, what then was the insurrection against on 6 January 2021?

Or was it really a REBELLION against a corrupt and intentionally broken system of electing American presidents?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-326883

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 31870
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

Post by thelivyjr » Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 17, 2021 at 8:18 pm

Paul Plante says:

“Our choice is not to use the forum to debate the presidency of Donald Trump.”

“While there is no doubt as to the outcome of the Biden-Harris presidency, our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system.”

Think about those words for a moment, in isolation of whatever took place in the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., which building incidentally was burned down by the British on August 24, 1814, on 6 January 2021, when pursuant to the Constitution and law, the joint houses of the legislative branch of OUR national government were to meet according to written law to count electoral college votes, precisely because those words were uttered by DEMOCRAT BIG CHEESE Nancy Pelosi in an article in THE HILL entitled “Pelosi sets up call on election challenge: ‘No situation matches Trump presidency’” by Joseph Choi on 01/03/21, THREE DAYS BEFORE the events of 6 January 2021, where we had as follows:

Pelosi outlined a plan for the Democratic lawmakers as they prepare to certify the Electoral College votes this week.

end quotes

And here is where all the BULL**** concerning the “legitimacy” of the presidency of Joe Biden enters into the picture, because Nancy makes it really quite obvious that the system of selecting the president is really quite rigged in the House of Representatives under the rule of Nancy Pelosi!

EACH one of those representatives is supposed to be exactly that – the representative of the AMERICAN citizens who happen to reside in his or her congressional district, now some 711,000 unfortunate souls in most cases, unfortunate because most of them get no representation in congress, as opposed to the U.S. Constitution calling for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons.

So where does BIG DOG DEMOCRAT Nancy Pelosi get off dictating to those representatives three days early what their strategy was going to be as a BLOC to thwart the will of the American people by making Joe Biden the president?

“Our choice is not to use the forum to debate the presidency of Donald Trump?”

What kind of a real *****-up statement is that in light of the fact that the proceeding on 6 January 2021 is clearly spelled out in easy-to-understand written law that each of those BOZO DEMOCRATS taking their direction from Nancy Pelosi could readily understand, which language makes it clear to someone who is not an idiot or a moron that the proceeding on 6 January 2021 had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the presidency of Donald Trump, or anybody else, for that matter.

It was to consider the validity of electoral college votes.

But even that is a BULL**** premise, because the electoral college votes had already been awarded after the election.

So what game is Nancy playing at here, people?

Stay tuned, more to come!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-327409

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 31870
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

Post by thelivyjr » Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 19, 2021 at 10:33 pm

Paul Plante says:

So, people, let us do a recap here for a moment after what I would have to call the most BULL****, worthless and disgusting presidential election I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing, a presidential election that makes a complete mockery of what presidential elections in this country are supposed to be, and instead opens our elections to whomever can make the most outlandish promises while promising to loot the greatest amount from OUR national treasury to reward his followers as Joe Biden has done and is doing, while these events are still very much fresh in our minds, to see what it is that we all just saw subsequently, which was a true MARXIST REVOLUTION on 6 January 2021 that toppled OUR Republic like the rotten tree it had become, and replaced it with a MARXIST DEMOCRACY, which thought of necessity takes us back to this sentence from the article in THE HILL entitled “Pelosi sets up call on election challenge: ‘No situation matches Trump presidency’” by Joseph Choi on 01/03/21, THREE DAYS BEFORE the events of 6 January 2021, to wit:

“While there is no doubt as to the outcome of the Biden-Harris presidency, our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system.”

end quotes

Without looking to the right or left, focus in on the specific wording of that sentence, considering that it would be three more days until the events of 6 January 2021 occurred.

Now, here is a high school civics question: In that one sentence three days before whatever occurred on 6 January 2021, when by law, electoral votes were to be counted, how many different things did Nancy Pelosi really say on 3 January 2021?

First of all, on 3 January 2021, wasn’t Nancy GUARANTEEING to HER followers to have no fear whatsoever, for she was going to put Joe Biden in the white house:

“While there is no doubt as to the outcome of the Biden-Harris presidency …”

How on 3 January 2021, three days before the counting of the electoral college votes, could Nancy Pelosi be telling her followers “there is no doubt as to the outcome?”

Given that the electoral college votes would not be counted for 3 more days, how could Nancy Pelosi possibly know the outcome beforehand?

And this is no ******* tin-hat conspiracy theory given that I am not making up what Nancy Pelosi said on 3 January 2021.

She said she already knew the outcome of something that had not even happened yet, did she not?

That’s what I mean by not looking to the right or left, but straight down the center at words from out of the mouth of Nancy Pelosi herself as reported in the main-stream media which clearly belie a strong suspicion that Nancy Pelosi had to know the election was safely enough rigged that the outcome was already guaranteed, and let us not be so stupid as to pretend presidential elections in this country can’t be rigged, what with our proven history of rigging presidential elections in this country, which thought takes us to the rest of that sentence as follows:

“Our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system.”

end quotes

Intriguing, wouldn’t you say?

“Our further success?”

HMMMMMM.

Used in that context, the word “further” in that sentence would have to mean, “additional to what already exists or has already taken place, been done, or been accounted for.”

So, people, let’s use some logic here.

If the further success of the DEMOCRATS, because that is who Nancy Pelosi was addressing those words to on 3 January 2021, before the events of 6 January 2021, was to convince more of the American people to trust in their “democratic system,” then what was the first success?

Given that on 3 January 2021, Nancy Pelosi was GUARANTEEING to her followers what the outcome of the electoral college count on 6 January 2021 was going to be, it was in the bag, don’t worry, wouldn’t the first success have to be the successful rigging of the presidential vote in 2020 to guarantee that outcome?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-328010

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 31870
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

Post by thelivyjr » Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 21, 2021 at 10:31 pm

Paul Plante says:

“Our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system.”

That, as we have already seen was BIG DOG DEMOCRAT Nancy Pelosi speaking on the public record in the article in THE HILL entitled “Pelosi sets up call on election challenge: ‘No situation matches Trump presidency’” by Joseph Choi on 01/03/21, THREE DAYS BEFORE the events of 6 January 2021.

So when Nancy was talking about convincing more of the American people to trust in “our democratic system” on 3 January 2021, who was it she was really talking to?

And as an aside, I always find it quite interesting how these scribes in the main-stream media who exist to take down and regurgitate what horse crap hack politicians like Nancy Pelosi spew forth with never stop to ask people like Nancy what it was they just said as when they talk about convincing more of the American people to trust in “our democratic system.”

WHAT DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM?

And who exactly are they trying to get to trust in it?

And WHY?

What can possibly be trustworthy with any system Nancy Pelosi is involved with, given that she is selling her version of “democracy” to the highest bidders as we see from this Tribune Washington Bureau article entitled “Embattled Pelosi’s big survival weapon: money” by Anshu Siripurapu on 6/22/2017, as follows:

WASHINGTON — Here’s a huge reason Nancy Pelosi maintains her iron grip on House Democrats, even after another bruising — and in many party circles embarrassing — election loss: her ability to raise lots and lots of money.

The House Democratic leader has few current peers when it comes to pumping money into colleagues’ campaigns.

No other potential up-and-coming Democratic challenger to her leadership comes close.

Since 1990, she’s raised more than $9.2 million for party candidates, including $739,000 in the 2016 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks contributions from candidate committees and affiliated PACs.

Pelosi’s office claims even loftier triumphs, saying she’s raised more than $500 million for Democrats since entering the party leadership in the early 2000s, including $141.5 million in the 2015-2016 cycle.

The totals, her office says, include money raised for the party not directly controlled by her committees.

Big donors to the party’s congressional campaign committee were also available to Pelosi through her “Speaker’s Cabinet” program, which gave them special access to the Democratic leader.

end quotes

So in a word, the “democracy” of Nancy Pelosi is a crock of ****!

So who then are the people Nancy is talking about or referring to when she said on 3 January 2021 “Our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system.”

Crooked people?

People without brains who are unable think?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-328580

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 31870
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

Post by thelivyjr » Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 24, 2021 at 10:13 pm

Paul Plante says:

So, yes, indeed, people, making it up as they go, and very dangerously so, and here I am bringing us back to pretty much the present moment, forty-seven (47) days AFTER the very slick and very well-orchestrated 6 January 2021 COUP that felled our Constitution with a single hammer blow and replaced it with a Marxist democracy of the oppressed classes in America now being in control of the national government and national treasury, and an article in The Independent entitled “Garland says laws must be ‘fairly and faithfully enforced,'” which makes him sound like he is running for president, via AP news wire on 21 February 2021, where we have as follows:

President Joe Biden’s nominee for attorney general says the Justice Department must ensure laws are “fairly and faithfully enforced” and the rights of all Americans are protected, while reaffirming an adherence to policies to protect the department’s political independence.

Judge Merrick Garland who is set to appear Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, plans to tell senators that the attorney general must act as a lawyer for the people of the United States, not for the president.

end quotes

Which is just plain ******** ignorant and stupid, federal judge Merrick Garland telling senators that the attorney general must act as a lawyer for the people of the United States, not for the president, unless of course, as a federal judge and Obama Democrat, Merrick Garland can just make up this **** in his head regardless of what might happen to be written down as law, and whatever he says is what the law is, as opposed to what is written.

As to what is actually written about the position and duties of the United States Attorney General, and you would have thought a real slick Harvard law school grad who is a federal appeals court judge would have been all over this, given it is high school stuff, let’s simply go to the Department of Justice website, where we have as follows:

The United States Department of Justice

Organization, Mission & Functions Manual: Attorney General, Deputy and Associate

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The position of Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

In June 1870 Congress enacted a law entitled “An Act to Establish the Department of Justice.”

This Act established the Attorney General as head of the Department of Justice and gave the Attorney General direction and control of U.S. Attorneys and all other counsel employed on behalf of the United States.

The Act also vested in the Attorney General supervisory power over the accounts of U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

The mission of the Office of the Attorney General is to supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals Service, which are all within the Department of Justice.

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

* Represent the United States in legal matters.

* Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.

* Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.

* Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

* Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.

* Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

end quotes

So, a high school civics question here: IF according to written law, the duty of the United States Attorney General is to furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President as provided by law, then how exactly is it that as Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland is going to act as a lawyer for the people of the United States, and not for the president?

And how the hell does this even happen, that we are having people like this Merrick Garland, who is obviously an uninformed idiot, at best, being appointed to high government offices when they don’t know a ******* thing about the offices they are being appointed to, like Merrick Garland who appears delusional and thinks that as attorney general, he is going to to act as lawyer for the people, instead of the president of the United States of America, given that if we go back to the Justice Department site under the heading “The Role of the United States Attorney,” we find thusly:

The United States Attorney does not act as an attorney for individuals in their private legal affairs or lawsuits.

end quotes

What is incredible is that not one single senator seems to have confronted him on those statements, which raises the question of whether a single one of those morons knows the difference him or herself.

So, as as a lawyer for the people of the United States, and not for the president, people, what can each of us expect Merrick Garland to do for us?

Is Merrick Garland going to be the lawyer for each and every one of us, all at the same time?

In that case, what is he going to do if one of us sues another of us in court for assault?

Is he going to be the lawyer for both of us at the same time?

Or is he going to take sides?

And what if the person being sued for assault is a DEMOCRAT while the person doing the suing is not?

What then?

Will Merrick Garland go against the DEMOCRAT?

Getting back to that story, it continues as follows, to wit:

“It is a fitting time to reaffirm that the role of the attorney general is to serve the Rule of Law and to ensure equal justice under the law,” Garland says in his prepared statement.

end quotes

Now, as can be clearly seen from the following correspondence to U.S. Congressman Antonio Delgado, I would be among the very first in this nation to agree that this is indeed a fitting time to reaffirm that the role of the attorney general is to serve the Rule of Law and to ensure equal justice under the law, to wit:

17 January 2021

U.S. Congressman Antonio Delgado
1007 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman:

As this new year begins, I hope it finds you well, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your confirmation in a May 22, 2020 e-mail to me from your regional representative Madison Wellman on the record and for the record the fact that with respect to my civil and human rights being stripped from me by the Town of Poestenkill in your Congressional District in retaliation for my having given evidence of endemic corruption in Poestenkill to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, there will be no aid or comfort coming my way from the federal government, which is something I was first informed of in early 1992 by an FBI agent named Tom Dauenhauer with whom I had been involved with in the Hobbs Act investigation of endemic public corruption in Poestenkill and Rensselaer County.

In that conversation with FBI agent Dauenhauer, which occurred on Broadway in Albany in front of the Post Office building where the FBI was at that time located, the FBI agent took pains to explain to me just how stupid I had been in trying to blow the whistle on public corruption in New York state, and since he was in a mood to teach, I figured I might as well stay for the whole lesson, which included a primer on how I was sold down the river by an assistant U.S. attorney named Barbara Cottrell, in exchange for her name being placed on a list of appointees to a federal judgeship, and how evidence I had provided of corruption in Rensselaer County and Poestenkill had been destroyed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

He then told me that he had been ordered to have no contact with me, and his advice to me at that point was quite explicit: I had very powerful political enemies in New York, and that as a result, I would be wisest if I would run somewhere far from here and go into hiding, because while I was still here, they would remain relentless in their efforts to do me harm in as public a manner as possible to make me an example to discourage anyone else who would think of doing as I dared to do, which was to blow the whistle on corruption in Rensselaer County and Poestenkill.

And my life has been made into a living hell ever since, because I am not a runner.

Thank you for confirming that that is not going to change for me in this lifetime if the federal government has any say in the matter.

As to your suggestion that I try working with the Town of Poestenkill for a solution, when it is the Town of Poestenkill that is engaged in retaliation against me to make my life a living hell, I would respond that that is quite impossible.

Respectfully,

Paul R. Plante, NYSPE

end quotes

Which brings us back to The Independent, as follows:

He highlights a key mission for the division: to protect the rights of all Americans and particularly the most vulnerable.

“That mission remains urgent because we do not yet have equal justice.”

end quotes

And as that 17 January 2021 correspondence from myself to the Congressman makes patently clear, we do not yet have equal justice in this country, not in spite of the Department of Justice, but because of the Department of Justice playing politics with our lives and determining who gets protection of law, and who doesn’t.

So is Merrick Garland going to step in here as my lawyer and rectify any of that?

Or is all that talk about equal justice just a lot of hot wind and blather given that the United States Department of Justice is a very political agency that does play politics based on who is in office to appoint an attorney general like Merrick Garland?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-329430

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 31870
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

Post by thelivyjr » Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 25, 2021 at 10:46 pm

Paul Plante says:

And we are on the subject of making it up as they go, and dangerously so, we need to go back for a moment to the article in The Independent entitled “Garland says laws must be ‘fairly and faithfully enforced’” via AP news wire on 21 February 2021, where we have this excellent example of what is called in politics, “THE BIG LIE,” as follows, to wit:

And as federal prosecutors continue to bring cases following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Garland calls the insurrection a “heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.”

end quotes

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, if not the technique, the “big lie” is a propaganda technique used for political purpose, defined as “a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the facts, especially when used as a propaganda device by a politician or official body”.

The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.

And Vladimir Lenin, a hero of all the Marxists in this country who seized control of our national government on 6 January 2021 in one very slick and very well organized COUP that toppled our Constitutional Republic and replaced it with a Marxist democracy, used this political aphorism to great advantage when he was in power in Russia, to wit: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

And now we have Joe Biden’s attorney general pick, federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, using that same Leninist aphorism that a lie told often enough becomes the truth in this following sentence from that article, to wit:

And as federal prosecutors continue to bring cases following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Garland calls the insurrection a “heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.”

end quotes

Which first of all raises the question of what insurrection?

What insurrection can Merrick Garland, a federal judge who isn’t supposed to be playing at politics, although that does not seem to really faze him much as he plays at politics here, possibly be talking about, given there is no evidence that any insurrections ever took place?

Now, with respect to Trump, who was charged by Nancy Pelosi with inciting an insurrection, if there was indeed any credible evidence that an insurrection had in fact taken place, and Nancy Pelosi is as far from credible evidence as one can get and still be on the planet, as we can see from a review of our own history, after failing to get Trump convicted by the senate, Nancy Pelosi could simply have taken the evidence before a grand jury after Trump got out of office and had him indicted for insurrection, but she never did, so far as we know, and if she had in fact done so, it is impossible we would not have heard her crowing about it, which takes us to that history from an August 18, 2000 Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General entitled “Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate,” as follows:

Two well-informed participants did, however, understand the Impeachment Judgment Clause to imply that an acquittal, like a conviction, would not bar criminal prosecution for the same offences.

James Wilson, a leading figure at the Constitutional Convention (and member of the Committee of Detail, which drafted the Impeachment Judgment Clause), and at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, and later an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, revealed such an under­standing in remarks during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention.

Assuming, as many did during the ratification debates, that Senators as well as executive and judicial officers would be liable to impeachment, Wilson responded to the charge that the Senate could not serve as an effective impeachment court for its own members.

Noting that one third of the Senate faced re-election every two years, Wilson suggested that voters would throw out those who behaved improperly and that enough new Senators would regularly be added so that personal connections or collective involvement in the impeachable acts would not prevent fair trials.

Moreover, he argued, ‘‘Though they may not be convicted on impeachment before the Senate, they may be tried by their country; and if their criminality is estab­lished, the law will punish.”

Edmund Pendleton, the President of the Virginia Supreme Court and of the Virginia Ratifying Convention, apparently interpreted the Impeachment Judgment Clause in this way as well.

Shortly after the completion of the Constitutional Convention, Madison sent Pendleton a copy of the Con­stitution for his consideration.

In his generally favorable response, Pendleton con­fessed his leeriness of impeachments because of their susceptibility to partisan misuse, but noted that the impeachment power “is in the hands of the House of Representatives, who will not use it in the case Supposed, or if they do, and meet the obstruction, may yet resort to the courts of Justice, as an Acquital would not bar that remedy.’’

end quotes

So why hasn’t Nancy Pelosi done that, given that she must be possessed of voluminous evidence that there was actually an insurrection that Trump had incited?

And that answer, based on facts, is that there is as of yet no such evidence of an insurrection, which would seem to make Merrick Garland out as nothing more than a common garden-variety liar with his specious claim that “the insurrection was a heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government,” and what a load of horse**** that is, because what took place on 6 January 2021 was a SHAM, an empty ritual that if it didn’t happen would have changed nothing at all.

And who has been arrested so far, and for what?

For that answer, let’s go to a BBC article entitled “Capitol riots: Who has the FBI arrested so far?” published 27 January 2021, where we have as follows:

The suspects in the Capitol riot are a varied group: they include a West Virginia lawmaker, a Florida firefighter and a left-wing activist from Utah.

It’s been over two weeks since the Capitol Hill riot – how much progress has law enforcement made bringing the perpetrators to justice?

How many arrests so far?

Michael Sherwin, US Attorney for the District of Columbia, says they have identified 400 suspects and arrested 135 to date in connection with the Capitol siege.

He said the list of suspects is “growing by the hour,” but conceded they might not have probable cause to charge all 400.

end quotes

And what have they been arrested for?

Well, there is Riley June Williams, 22, a real live whack-job from Harrisburg, who is said to have stolen a laptop from Nancy Pelosi that she allegedly claimed she hoped to sell to Russian intelligence, and she is facing multiple charges, including aiding and abetting the theft of government property.

No insurrection though.

And there is a man named Kevin Seefried allegedly seen in viral photos carrying a Confederate flag in the Capitol during the riots who was charged on 14 January along with his son, Hunter, in a Wilmington, Delaware court on charges including entering a restricted building, violent entry and disorderly conduct.

But no insurrection.

And the list goes on and on, but no insurrection!

And were these all right-wing maniacal Trump supporters as we are being told over and over and over and over by the media, as they too engage in “THE BIG LIE,” who were engaged in an insurrection which Biden AG pick Merrick Garland says was a heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government?

How about John Sullivan?

According to the BBC, we have as follows concerning that individual, to wit:

A left-wing activist was also arrested after tweeting video of himself inside the US Capitol as protesters breached security.

John Sullivan, 26, was charged with entering a restricted building and violent entry or disorderly conduct.

He claimed in media interviews that he was just “documenting” the rampage, though the affidavit notes he has no press credentials.

The court document says Mr Sullivan can be heard saying in a video he filmed of the Capitol riot: “Let’s burn this shit down.”

He has identified himself in media interviews as a Black Lives Matter supporter, but rejects any association with antifa, a loosely affiliated group of far-left protesters.

Following the death of George Floyd last year, Mr Sullivan founded an activist group called Insurgence USA that advocates for racial justice.

He was charged in July 2020 with felony riot and criminal mischief over civil unrest in Provo, Utah.

end quotes

So if we have a left-wing wingnut who has been previously arrested for felony riot involved in the violence in Washington, D.C. on 6 January 2021, then who is really responsible for all the violence in the Capitol on 6 January 2021, people?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-329788

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 31870
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

Post by thelivyjr » Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 26, 2021 at 10:22 pm

Paul Plante says:

And while we are on the subject of Biden pick for attorney general of the United States of America, that being federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, an Obama-ite with a nice smile who seems to be none too bright, which I believe is why Mitch McConnell never gave him a hearing, because frankly, the dude is a flake unfit to be a Supreme Court justice, playing partisan politics here while feeding us a platter of pure BULL**** which he is passing off as steak tartare, let us go back this following sentence from the article in The Independent entitled “Garland says laws must be ‘fairly and faithfully enforced’” via AP news wire on 21 February 2021, where we have as follows, to wit:

And as federal prosecutors continue to bring cases following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Garland calls the insurrection a “heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.”

end quotes

A heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy?”

The peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government?

HUH?

Does anyone have a clue as to what he could possibly be on about with either of those two inane (silly; stupid) statements, and especially that first one about a heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy?

That makes absolutely no sense at all, does it?

In fact, it is a stupid statement, where the word “sought” has as its synonyms the following: requested, tried, asked, attempted, solicited, endeavoured, wanted, desired, searched, looked, claimed, pursued, required, called, striven, requests.

So, a heinous attack that asked to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy?

A heinous attack that claimed to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy?

Stupid any way you try to put it, and this is a man Barack Obama wanted to put on the United States Supreme Court, if you can feature that, and now Joe Biden wants to make him attorney general so he can be the people’s lawyer, not Joe’s.

And what exactly is this “cornerstone of our democracy” that this so-called heinous attack sought to distrust, where “distrust” can be taken to mean the feeling that someone or something cannot be relied upon, as in “our distrust of the national government under the control of the Democrats,” or doubt the honesty or reliability of; regard with suspicion, as in “we the American people regard with suspicion the manner in which Joe Biden was made president of the United States of America?”

Does Merrick Garland, a federal judge who is supposed to uphold OUR Constitution and OUR laws, expect us to believe that this UNCONSTITUTIONAL FARCE that was played out in the capitol on 6 January 2021, where Nancy Pelosi made sure that neither the provisions of OUR Constitution regarding the electoral college nor the federal law on counting ballots were followed or adhered to, was a legitimate exercise of governmental authority?

And what of this horse**** about the “peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government?”

Didn’t that happen on 20 January 2021 just as the Constitution requires?

Didn’t Trump peacefully leave the white house shortly after 8:00 A.M. on 20 January 2021, even though the Constitution gave him until noon?

What about an ABC news story entitled “Trump leaves White House hours before Biden’s inauguration: ‘Have a good life'” by Emily Shapiro on January 20, 2021, where we were informed as follows:

President Donald Trump, holding hands with Melania Trump, left the White House for the final time as commander in chief shortly after 8 a.m. Wednesday.

Trump boarded Marine One to head to Joint Base Andrews for a farewell speech hours before Joe Biden is sworn in as 46th president of the United States.

end quotes

Is that fake news?

Is that not true?

Is Trump still in Washington holding the white house with superior military force?

No, wait, that is Joe Biden?

So what on earth is Merrick Garland on about with this horse**** about a “peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government?”

If Trump left peacefully hours before our Constitution said Joe Biden was ACTUALLY president, which is noon on the 20th, not just some schmoe who thought he was president, then how is it that Merrick Garland doesn’t believe there was a peaceful transfer of power from Trump to the newly elected government of Joe Biden?

Is he stupid?

Or just woefully uninformed?

Either way, of course, he is a great pick to be attorney general under Joe Biden.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-330193

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 31870
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

Post by thelivyjr » Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 28, 2021 at 9:57 pm

Paul Plante says:

And while we are on the subject of making it up as they go, and making wild and reckless claims and charges without presenting any evidence or proof to back them up, which is what the main-stream media was always accusing Trump of doing, with no evidence to support their charge that Trump was making things up, which is what the main-stream media has been doing for as long as I can remember, how about the Hearst publication story “FBI arrests Capital Region man for Capitol siege involvement” by Edward McKinley of the Albany, New York Times Union updated Jan. 19, 2021, where we had as follows, to wit:

ALBANY — A Capital Region man was arrested Saturday night for his participation in the storming of the U.S. Capitol, the FBI Albany office announced.

Brandon Fellows, a 2012 Niskayuna High School graduate who has a Schenectady address on his driver’s license, was charged with violent entry of restricted grounds for his role in the siege at the U.S. Capitol during the certification of the Electoral College results Jan. 6.

Fellows has bragged about his role in the violence on his social media accounts, according to court filings, as well as to members of the media.

end quotes

As an aside, a picture of this Brandon Fellows, a typical example of the type of very ignorant morons being produced by what we are told is an “educational system” in this country, is being used by Hearst in the same way the Nazis in Germany very effectively used pictures of Marinus van der Lubbe, an unemployed 24-year-old Dutch laborer with Communist sympathies, to turn the passions of the public against the Communists in Germany after the Reichstag fire which gave Adolph Hitler absolute power in Germany as a dictator, with this WHACK-JOB who graduated as a certified imbecilic moron from Niskayuna High School in 2012 being touted by Hearst as the quintessential (representing the most perfect or typical example of a class) Trump supporter, to put forth an insulting impression that the only people in the United States of America who supported Trump were complete idiots like this moron Brandon Fellows who graduated from Niskayuna High School in 2012, which takes us to their website for a moment, as follows:

Mission Statement

The faculty, staff, students, parents and community of Niskayuna High School believe that our mission is to educate students to become lifelong learners who believe in their own potential.

We will provide opportunities for all students to acquire knowledge, develop skills, and form attitudes that will enable them to take a responsible and active role in their local and global communities.

end quotes

And in the case of this moronic idiot Brandon Fellows, what a large load of hot, steaming pig**** that all is, because they failed big time with this moron Fellows, which takes us back to the Times Union article for more horse****, as follows:

Fellows, who Bloomberg reported lives in a converted school bus in the Capital Region, has not been shy about his participation in the insurrection that has led to five deaths.

end quotes

The insurrection?

What insurrection?

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CLAIM OF INSURRECTION?

This mindless idiot Fellows was charged with violent entry of restricted grounds, which is a long way away from an insurrection, but hey, we are talking about Hearst and YELLOW JOURNALISM, which is their forte, so what the hell need do they have for facts?

And looking at those four sentences we have so far from Hearst alone, we have:

1) The storming of the U.S. Capitol, as if it were July 14, 1789 all over again with Parisian revolutionaries and mutinous troops storming and dismantling the Bastille, a royal fortress and prison that had come to symbolize the tyranny of the Bourbon monarchs, which dramatic action signaled the beginning of the French Revolution, a decade of political turmoil and terror in which King Louis XVI was overthrown and tens of thousands of people, including the king and his wife Marie Antoinette, were executed;

2) A siege at the U.S. Capitol during the certification of the Electoral College results Jan. 6, as if it were February 23, 1836 all over again with a Mexican force numbering in the thousands and led by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna beginning a 13-day siege of the Alamo;

3) Fellows bragging about his role in the violence; and

4) An insurrection!

So how is that for a fine example of the type of YELLOW JOURNALISM (journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration, as in “equating insurrection with smoking pot is the worst yellow journalism”) Hearst publications have been world famous for since the Spanish-American War?

But there is more, as follows:

He told Bloomberg that his profile on the dating app Bumble, however, has been “blowing up” ever since his participation in the insurrection against the U.S. government.

end quotes

HUH?

His participation in the “insurrection” against the U.S. government?

Where the U.S. government is defined by rational, logical, lucid and non-idiotic or non-moronic or non-imbecilic people as the executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States, what a real stupid statement that is, given that on 6 January 2021 Donald Trump just happened to be the executive branch of the U.S. government that this so-called insurrection was aimed at.

And what exactly was the role this Fellows moron played in that insurrection against the administration of Donald Trump on 6 January 2021?

For that answer, let’s go to a WNYT NewsChannel 13 story on the same subject titled “U.S. Capitol protestor from Niskayuna: ‘I have one regret'” by Dan Levy on February 14, 2021, where we had more of that “insurrection” horse**** as follows:

SCHENECTADY – When NewsChannel 13 sat down for a chat with Brandon Fellows on Saturday afternoon, he wore the same fake beard and sunglasses he had on at the U.S. Capitol the day of the insurrection.

He insists he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to be inside the Capitol, and he says Capitol Police officers invited him and others into the building on that infamous afternoon.

He also says he has video evidence to prove it.

“A lot of us did wait until we had permission from police to go in,” he said.

“The general sentiment among most people was don’t be violent, don’t destroy things, and don’t steal things.”

end quotes

Ah, I don’t know about anyone else, but so far, I am having some trouble here connecting any of this with any supposed insurrection on 6 January 2021 against the administration of Donald Trump, but let’s dig a little deeper where we have:

Fellows says, at one point, he wandered into Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley’s office and put his feet up on a table, as he and others passed around what appeared to be a marijuana joint.

“I do regret potentially smoking what may have been weed,” he said.

“I think that discredits me and makes me look stupid to a lot of people.”

end quotes

WOW!

The moron is not a complete idiot, afterall

Yes, Brandon, it does discredit you and yes, it does make you look real stupid to people all across the world, BUT, does it make you an insurrectionist?

Let’s go back to the story and see:

Fellows is facing two misdemeanors — entering the Capitol unlawfully and disorderly conduct.

end quotes

HMMMMMM!

Where’s the charges of being in an insurrection?

Oh, there aren’t any, because there wasn’t one, which will not stop the main-stream media that makes it up as they go from continuing to claim there was an insurrection, even though they have no evidence to back up their claims.

And so it goes!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-331084

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 31870
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

Post by thelivyjr » Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 2, 2021 at 7:44 pm

Paul Plante says:

And will this making it up as they go, while bombarding us with a continual blizzard of pure BULL**** never end, and here, I am talking about the so-called “main-stream media,” and especially the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) news release entitled “Sen. Coons Has Questions For FBI’s Wray About White Supremacist Threat” Heard on Morning Edition on March 2, 2021 7:15 AM ET, where we heard as follows:

NPR’s Noel King talks to Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware ahead of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with FBI Director Christopher Wray about the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

end quotes

Here it is, people, 2 March 2021, and despite having absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that an insurrection took place on January 6, 2021, fifty-five (55) days later, National Propaganda Radio is still telling us, despite having no proof, that yes, we have to believe them that an insurrection actually did take place on 6 January 2021, because they are the main-stream media.

Which takes us to an Albany, New York Times Union article entitled “Two Capital Region men facing more charges in Capitol riot – Brandon Fellows, 26, of Niskayuna and James Bonet, 29, of Glens Falls hit with additional charges” by Robert Gavin on Feb. 17, 2021, where we have as follows:

ALBANY — Two Capital Region men who allegedly smoked marijuana inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and separately boasted on social media about “taking” the building that afternoon are now taking on more criminal charges.

end quotes

These two morons smoking pot in the capitol on 6 January 2021, of course, are the deadly WHITE NATIONALIST/WHITE SUPREMACIST threat that the Democrat Chris Coons is so worried about, and smoking pot in the capitol is the insurrection that National Propaganda Radio keeps blathering about: “OMG, THEY SMOKED POT, IT’S AN INSURRECTION, CALL OUT THE NATIONAL GUARD!”

But hey, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, because to be in the main-stream media these days, it’s far better to not have an intellect that can get in the way of pitching BULL****, and go back to the Times Union to see what more they have for us on these dangerous pot-smoking deadly WHITE NATIONALIST/WHITE SUPREMACISTS, to wit:

A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., indicted Brandon Fellows, 26, of Niskayuna, on Feb. 6 on five counts, including a felony obstruction charge, for his actions on Jan. 6.

Fellows, who smirked throughout his arraignment in Albany last month, was initially facing misdemeanor charges.

James Bonet, 29, of Glens Falls, initially charged with two federal misdemeanors, is now facing four charges, including felony charges, according to court documents filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

end quotes

While it is good to see these moronic idiots having to face the consequences of being a stupid, moronic idiot while over the age of 18, does being a moronic idiot smoking pot in the capitol translate as an act of insurrection?

Getting back to the Times Union:

Bonet, reached on Tuesday night, told the Times Union he had no comment on the insurrection, in which five people, including a Capitol Police officer, lost their lives.

end quotes

Uh, since there was no insurrection, Bob, then how could he possibly have any kind of comment on it?

And five people did not lose their lives in an insurrection.

Three people died of natural causes while these two morons were smoking pot in the Capitol, a woman was shot and killed by capitol police, and a capitol police office died later after being assaulted by what seemed to be ANTI-FA, the Democrat party paramilitaries who are very experienced at attacking police and assaulting and destroying government property, and who so far remain at large, after being allowed to make their escape, so that is more than a little hyperbolic, but to give credit where credit is due, Bob is writing for Hearst and they specialize in Yellow Journalism, so Bob, to keep his job, has to practice journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration as in “equating insurrection with smoking pot is the worst yellow journalism,” or the best, from the perspective of the editors at the Times Union, which takes us back to the article for more, as follows:

The indictment charged Fellows with obstruction of an official proceeding, a felony; entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds when the vice president and vice president-elect were temporarily visiting; disorderly and destructive conduct in a restricted building or grounds when the vice president and vice president-elect were temporarily visiting; entering and remaining in certain rooms in the Capitol building; and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.

Bonet is now charged with violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building; entering and remaining in a restricted building without authority; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building; and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

end quotes

So, WHERE’S THE BEEF, Bob?

Where are the insurrectionists?

The candid world would really like to know!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-332064

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 31870
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

Post by thelivyjr » Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 3, 2021 at 8:04 pm

Paul Plante says:

Yes, people, Yellow Journalism, a Hearst Publications specialty, although not exclusively, remains very much alive and well here in the United States of America, with FACEBOOK’s propaganda organ, National Propaganda Radio (NPR), going on once again this morning, 3 March 2021, about the “DEADLY INSURRECTION” at the Capitol on 6 January 2020, even though to date, no grand jury has returned an indictment for insurrection, which of course does not bother NPR in any way as they just pull this BULL**** they peddle as the propaganda organ of FACEBOOK out of their ***** by the yard, not being required to be either truthful or factual, which takes us the the United States Senate website for some necessary background as to who is responsible for capitol security, before we go into the testimony of FBI director Christopher Wray on what he thought happened on 6 January 2021 as he defended his intelligence sharing, or lack thereof, to wit:

Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, elected by the members, serves as the protocol and chief law enforcement officer and is the principal administrative manager for most support services in the United States Senate.

end quotes

Now, as we, the American people, focus in on these so-called security failures, focus on those very words that:

1) The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper is elected by the members of the Senate, which would include Democratic Socialist “running dog” Charley “Chuck” Schumer who took control of the Senate on 3 January 2021, three days before the 6 January 2021 COUP;

2) The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper who is elected by the members of the Senate serves as the protocol and chief law enforcement officer; and

3) The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper who is elected by the members of the Senate is the principal administrative manager for most support services in the United States Senate.

end quotes

So there, it appears that we have identified a responsible party here, even if NPR and the main-stream media have been unable or unwilling to do as they pursue their own political agenda with their contrived narrative about a “DEADLY INSURRECTION” at the Capitol on 6 January 2021, but let’s not be hasty, so back we go for more:

When the first Congress convened in 1789, the Office of Doorkeeper was established to address the single-most-pressing problem confronting the Senate at its birth — its inability to keep a majority of members in the Capitol long enough to organize and begin the business of government.

A doorkeeper was also necessary to control access to the Senate sessions, which were private for the first six years.

Later, when the sessions were open to the public, the doorkeeper was responsible for maintaining order on the floor of the Senate and in the galleries.

The title of Sergeant at Arms was added in 1798 to reflect the expanded administrative duties of the position.

The protocol responsibilities include escorting the president and other heads of state or official guests of the Senate who are attending official functions in the Capitol; making arrangements for funerals of senators who die in office; assisting in plans for the inauguration of the president and organizing the swearing-in and orientation programs for newly elected senators.

The Sergeant at Arms leads the senators from the Senate to the House Chamber for joint sessions of Congress, to the presidential inaugural platform, or wherever the Senate may go as a body.

As executive officer, the Sergeant at Arms has custody of the Senate gavel.

end quotes

That is background, which brings us to the “beef,” as follows:

As chief law enforcement officer of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms is charged with maintaining security in the Capitol and all Senate buildings, as well as protection of the members themselves.

end quotes

And there we have it, people, that is if we want to put any faith at all into what is printed and published by the U.S. Senate., which does not have a reputation for integrity or veracity or honesty or fidelity to RULE OF LAW – as chief law enforcement officer of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms is charged with maintaining security in the Capitol and all Senate buildings, as well as protection of the members themselves.

So it is that person who was responsible for Capitol security on 6 January 2021, which takes us to an article in The Hill entitled “Five big takeaways on the Capitol security hearings” by Scott Wong and Mike Lillis on February 23, 2021, where we had as follows:

Former Capitol security officials clashed publicly on Tuesday over the events surrounding last month’s deadly assault on the Capitol complex, casting blame at the intelligence community and the Pentagon while delivering conflicting accounts of how the tragedy unfolded.

Congress will need to probe contradictions

There were major discrepancies between former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund and former House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving as they recounted their actions before and during the Jan. 6 attack.

The two officials couldn’t even agree whether a phone call had taken place between them as rioters were breaking into the building.

Sund testified that two days before the attack, he approached both Irving and then-Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger to request aid from the National Guard.

Irving said he was concerned about the “optics” of a military presence at the Capitol and didn’t feel the intelligence supported it, according to Sund.

Irving rejected Sund’s account, testifying that Sund’s impression was “categorically false” and that it was the “collective judgment” of the three men that the intelligence did not warrant calling in the Guard.

With the attack underway on Jan. 6, Sund testified that he had called Irving at 1:09 p.m. to seek approval from the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms to request help from the National Guard.

Sund said other officials in his department personally witnessed him make the call.

But Irving said he was on the House floor at that time and doesn’t remember getting a call from Sund at 1:09.

He also testified that his phone records do not show him receiving a call or text from Sund around that time.

The first time he spoke to Sund that hour was at 1:28 p.m., said Irving.

Irving then alerted Stenger and top aides to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) about the need to call in the Guard.

Irving said Sund did not make a formal request until after 2 p.m.

The alleged 1:09 phone call is of importance because some officials and lawmakers believe an earlier request could have prevented injuries or deaths.

Other House and Senate committees probing the attack could request or subpoena phone records that could clear up the discrepancy, shedding more light on the credibility of the two officials.

end quotes

And there, I will take a pause to let that all be digested, but notice once again that there is no mention whatsoever of an insurrection at the Capitol on 6 January 2021, because there wasn’t one.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-332064

Post Reply