Author Topic: January 6  (Read 3653 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

guest18

  • Guest
Re: January 6
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2022, 07:15:35 pm »
Complete nonsense.  Nothing she said comes even close to conspiracy.
Whether or not she is convicted in a court of law, words have meaning. She said what she said.

Offline Black Dog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9079
  • Location: Deathbridge
Re: January 6
« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2022, 08:33:53 pm »
Her words are protected speech.  There is no court of law involved.  These are stubborn facts, I know.  You cannot charge anyone over a private conversation between two people.  At least not in a democracy.  Police states do it all the time.  Perhaps that’s why you’re so enamoured with the thought of locking up people for things they say that you don’t like.

"Yes officer I did try to hire a guy to kill my wife, but I submit to you that our conversation was protected speech."
.

guest18

  • Guest
Re: January 6
« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2022, 10:19:26 pm »
Was there an exchange of money?  Was there an attempt on someone’s life?  I know you want to criminalize speech, but you guys really need to try to control your fascist tendencies.
Look up "criminal conspiracy".  Better yet, don't and continue to make a fool of yourself. That's always more fun.

Offline Black Dog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9079
  • Location: Deathbridge
Re: January 6
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2022, 11:10:10 am »
Ok, just let me know when she’s charged.  I won’t hold my breath because there’s nothing she can be charged for.

Your continued ignorance of the issue here even after people have spelled it out for you in plain language is astonishing.

guest18

  • Guest
Re: January 6
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2022, 05:33:45 pm »
Nov 20: Thomas spouse engages White House chief on legal strategy as Trump pursues Supreme Court hearing.

Jan 21: Former Thomas clerk Eastman pushes memo on Vice President.

Feb 21: Thomas dissents from Supreme Court’s rejection of Trump challenges.

Jan 22: Thomas dissents on rejection of Trump’s request on records.

Nothing to see here! Asking any questions would be akin to a police state!

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: January 6
« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2022, 12:16:56 am »
Nov 20: Thomas spouse engages White House chief on legal strategy as Trump pursues Supreme Court hearing.

Jan 21: Former Thomas clerk Eastman pushes memo on Vice President.

Feb 21: Thomas dissents from Supreme Court’s rejection of Trump challenges.

Jan 22: Thomas dissents on rejection of Trump’s request on records.

Nothing to see here! Asking any questions would be akin to a police state!

He was clearly going through his wife and others to communicate to the admin.  Massive conflict of interest.  Thomas should be investigated. But they know they can't pin anything on him.  Sneaky like a fox.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline Black Dog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9079
  • Location: Deathbridge
Re: January 6
« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2022, 01:27:17 pm »
He was clearly going through his wife and others to communicate to the admin.  Massive conflict of interest.  Thomas should be investigated. But they know they can't pin anything on him.  Sneaky like a fox.

Are you kidding? These guys are massively, openly corrupt and they're doing it out in the open because they know there won't be consequences.

guest18

  • Guest
Re: January 6
« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2022, 03:19:14 pm »
It doesn't matter what I think about the legal precedents. He had no business not recusung himself because it was a clear conflict of interest. Unlike judges doing the jobs they were appointed to do, as depicted in your failed whataboutism.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: January 6
« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2022, 04:17:20 pm »
No you remove him for his failing to recuse himself from cases in which he had a conflict of interest. How are you this dumb?

Which case was there a conflict of interest?


Clarence Thomas was the lone dissent in the Supreme Court's January order rejecting Trump's bid to withhold documents from the January 6 panel

Of course we'd have to back and look to see how many other causes Ginni has had her greasy hands in that ended up on the USSC docket with that gross old sex pest sitting in judgement.

They have you here, Shady.

Whether Justice Thomas's decision was legally defensible is beside the point, and whether Ginni's texts are constitutionally protected speech is also beside the point.

Justice Thomas ruled on a case that decided on whether evidence that included his wife's embarrassing  texts could be kept from investigators. That's a massive conflict of interest. Open and shut.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Spike The Hike Shady

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9017
Re: January 6
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2022, 04:45:37 pm »
They have you here, Shady.

Whether Justice Thomas's decision was legally defensible is beside the point, and whether Ginni's texts are constitutionally protected speech is also beside the point.

Justice Thomas ruled on a case that decided on whether evidence that included his wife's embarrassing  texts could be kept from investigators. That's a massive conflict of interest. Open and shut.

 -k
No it’s not.  You would have to know that Justice Thomas knew of all of his wife’s texts.  Without that fact, there is no conflict of interest, at least at the time.  Also, the ruling had to do with presidential records, not Mark Meadows texts.  It had nothing to do with them.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2022, 04:47:25 pm by Retro Shady »
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: January 6
« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2022, 11:49:55 pm »
No it’s not.  You would have to know that Justice Thomas knew of all of his wife’s texts.  Without that fact, there is no conflict of interest, at least at the time.  Also, the ruling had to do with presidential records, not Mark Meadows texts.  It had nothing to do with them.

Shady its all kinds of fishy.  Why does his wife even have the contact info of the people high up in the White House admin?  Totally separate branches of government.  It's not called separation of powers for nothing.  If you're a SC justice you and your wife shouldn't even be talking to the POTUS or WH, it just looks bad.  He used his wife to shuttle messages to the WH.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline Black Dog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9079
  • Location: Deathbridge
Re: January 6
« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2022, 09:32:04 am »
No it’s not.  You would have to know that Justice Thomas knew of all of his wife’s texts.  Without that fact, there is no conflict of interest, at least at the time. 

lol bullshit. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest is more than adequate grounds for recusal.

Quote
Also, the ruling had to do with presidential records, not Mark Meadows texts.  It had nothing to do with them.

Quote
At issue in the legal fight between the former president and the House select committee were reams of records related to the events of January 6, including presidential diaries, visitor logs, handwritten notes from then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, binders from then-White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, and a draft executive order on election integrity, according to a filing from the National Archives.

Trump asserted executive privilege over more than 750 pages of these documents, which were at the crux of his lawsuit against the National Archives and select committee. But Mr. Biden declined to uphold the former president's claims of executive privilege over the documents sought by the panel, and Trump filed suit in October to prevent their disclosure.

link



Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: January 6
« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2022, 10:13:37 am »
lol bullshit. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest is more than adequate grounds for recusal.

Yes but is reasonable to say that he might not have known AT ALL ?

guest18

  • Guest
Re: January 6
« Reply #28 on: March 28, 2022, 10:25:43 am »
Yes but is reasonable to say that he might not have known AT ALL ?
He certainly knows now. But he still won't recuse himself from future decisions.

Offline Black Dog

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9079
  • Location: Deathbridge
Re: January 6
« Reply #29 on: March 28, 2022, 10:26:31 am »
Yes but is reasonable to say that he might not have known AT ALL ?

Nope.

Quote
When Meadows wrote Thomas on Nov. 24 to "not grow weary" in this "fight of good versus evil," and said he has "staked my career" on overturning Biden's win, Thomas replied: "Thank you!! Needed that! This plus a conversation with my best friend just now." She did not say who that "best friend" was, but Clarence Thomas has repeatedly referred to his wife as his "best friend."