Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Face the Nation" channel.

The January 6 Committee should subpoena Clarence and Ginni Thomas to testify under oath -- separately. Let's see how the 6 "Federalist Society" extremists on the Court rule on whether Supreme Court Justices are under, above, or outside the reach of the rule of law. Of subpoena. And whether Thomas recuses from that decision. If the Court is bent on discrediting itself and its authority into irrelevance, then let's help them do that. After all, they don't have a means to enforce their edicts against states that choose to ignore their subversions of the Constitution. Another approach: Andrew Johnson was so hated that the Congress REDUCED the number of Supreme Court seats from 10 to 7 so he couldn't appoint to it. At least 3 of the 6 extremists perjured themselves in order to stead their seats. Reducing the number of seats by 3 would restore the needed balance. That should be easier to do than the uphill battle to expand the Court.
7
There are two forms of lying: 1. Commission: Telling a known falsehood. 2. Omission: Withholding a known truth.
5
The January 6 Committee should subpoena Clarence and Ginni Thomas to testify under oath -- separately. Let's see how the 6 "Federalist Society" extremists on the Court rule on whether Supreme Court Justices are under, above, or outside the reach of the rule of law. Of subpoena. And whether Thomas recuses from that decision. If the Court is bent on discrediting itself and its authority into irrelevance, then let's help them do that. After all, they don't have a means to enforce their edicts against states that choose to ignore their subversions of the Constitution. Another approach: Andrew Johnson was so hated that the Congress REDUCED the number of Supreme Court seats from 10 to 7 so he couldn't appoint to it. At least 3 of the 6 extremists perjured themselves in order to stead their seats. Reducing the number of seats by 3 would restore the needed balance. That should be easier to do than the uphill battle to expand the Court.
5
The media gives too much emphasis on "we are a divided country". Too many credulously believe what they are told.
4
The January 6 Committee should subpoena both Clarence and Ginni Thomas to testify under oath -- separately. Let's see how the 6 "Federalist Society" extremists on the Court rule on whether Supreme Court Justices are under, above, or outside the reach of the rule of law. Of subpoena. And whether Thomas recuses from that decision. If the Court is bent on discrediting itself and its authority into irrelevance, then let's help them do that. After all, they don't have a means to enforce their edicts against states that choose to ignore their subversions of the Constitution. Another approach: Andrew Johnson was so hated that the Congress REDUCED the number of Supreme Court seats from 10 to 7 so he couldn't appoint to it. At least 3 of the 6 extremists perjured themselves in order to steal their seats. Reducing the number of seats by 3 would restore the needed balance. That should be easier to do than the uphill battle to expand the Court.
3
@tallSycamore Presidents have testified before. Separation of powers does not bar the Congress, which has the power and authority of oversight over the other two branches, from subpoenaing Executive branch officials. In fact, Navarro has been indicted for blowing of his subpoena. If Pence wasn't an empty suit he'd recognize that his oath requires he act like he's complying with it. But he's already said that he puts "religion" above the Constitution, which itself is a violation of his oath to support and defend that Constitution, which includes the First Amendment separation of "religion" and gov't..
3
Exactly. He isn't denied a public voice. He simply doesn't have the right to violate a private business's Terms of Service. And there are reasoned legal limits to freedom of speech.
2
So Short is back to the same playbook. Pence looked at every way to get around his duty, but in the end did the right thing because he had no other option. Pence OWES "We the people" his testimony; otherwise and he is covering up.
2
It DID happen.
2
@johnalleman2918 Perhaps there was a delay because Pence was not the Commander-in-Chief. But at the same time it was an emergency. It's also been reported that there was reluctance to send in reinforcements -- the National Guard -- because of fear that Trump would use that as an excuse to declare Martial Law. The only skill Trump has is to create chaos -- and then to escalate the chaos. It reflects his disordered personality.
2
That is the hook: there has always been an underbelly who believe "freedom" includes the "right" to be uneducated. To be stupid. He gave stupidity "status". And it's a goal the Republican Party has been working for since at latest the Reagan cult of personality.
2
@cnssegura His chief of staff and legal counsel have testified to the Committee. First person witness testimony is admissible. The problem is to view the Committee investigation as a trial; it is not. The purpose of Congressional investigations is to develop legislation. If they expose crimes during that process it is for the DOJ to address those. But the staff of the Committee includes veteran former Federal prosecutors who know crimes when they see them, and are properly documenting. And again, first person witness testimony is admissible; it is not "theories".
2
Because they don't think; they only believe, which is in their cases a refusal to think.
2
It's already been contested. Trump lost 100 per cent in more than 50 court cases, including before judges he appointed.
2
Nothing. The problem is that you aren't paying attention to that which the DOJ is doing. Searching the homes and devices of Eastman and Clark is a focus on Trump because they conspired directly with Trump.
2
There is: they looked at every angle to see if Pence could do what Trump wanted. In the end he calculated his POLITICAL ambitions and did as the law required. But if he could have done as Trump wanted he would have.
1
@Johnny-tt8zc READ the Constitution for the first time in your life: Art. 3., S. 3., C. 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on he Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. Art. 3., S. 3., C. 2. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
1
@fitveganathleteintegrateda1695 Who are "they"? The mainstream media -- ACTUAL journalists -- are telling the truth.
1
The Republicans are working to destroy the country; the Democrats are working to save it. So let's LIE that the Democrats are as corrupt as the Republicans. Do you really believe YOU are immune to the consequences of your afactual anti-rule of law obliviousness?
1
The Founders doubtless debated term limits. But they would interfere with the electorate's freedom of choice -- which is why the Republicans made term limits a priority. And they were justified in relying on the ignorance of a significant percentage of the electorate to get away with their plans to subvert the will of the electorate. In contrast, per the Constitution, "We the people" are the gov't. There is only one question of you relevant: Do you VOTE? Or do you indulge in excuses to NOT vote, and thus avoid fulfilling your civic DUTY, all so you can use the additional excuse that they are "all corrupt" to continue to not vote? The ultimate responsibility, ALWAYS, remains with the electorate. Stop shirking your responsibility and then dishonestly pointing your finger away from yourself in order to blame the consequences on someone else. The Republicans are working to destroy the country. The Democrats are trying to save it. So let's be ultra-stupid and attack the Democrats.
1
@bryanb3352 Perhaps you can find a way to explain what is "funny" about the current political and legal situation involving corruption of even the Supreme Court. Or should we simply consider you all about results, even if that means destroying YOUR rights in the rush to get there? All in all, you have no response, so you attempt to laugh it off. Clue: following "Griswold," which legalized the use of contraception, "Roe" was based on the right of privacy. The other decisions Clarence Thomas cited as to also be overturned were based on the right of privacy. In sum, ALL those decisions were and are based on the right of privacy, therefore all are targeted for overturning by a simple corrupt means: the DENIAL that there is a right of privacy because the words "right of privacy" doesn't appear in the Constitution. The ELIMINATION of the right of privacy is not decision-specific: it is across the board. So weigh how it feels that YOUR right of privacy has been eliminated. Other words that don't appear in the Constitution: "Individual right to own guns".
1
Out of office snowflake Trump will be distracted by a blizzard of lawsuits.
1
Giuliani: "Trial by combat". Gohmert called for "violence in the streets".
1
It's a simple case: Trump STOLE gov't property, some of which is classified.
1
"Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
1
@morpheusartstudio4666 If it applies to "any" politician, then it also applies to any -- let's say ALL in view of the fact that's your actual implication -- HUMAN. In reality, that actually applies to everyone. But there is a distinction you miss that refutes your reductive distortion -- you aren't "pure" either: I'm certain there are secrets about yourself that you keep to yourself by means of lying by omission. And if you deny that you are lying by commission. The percentage of actual corruption -- which is what you're actually getting at, but without any specific evidence -- is roughly the same as it is in the electorate. So you are dishonestly projecting your dishonesty onto politicians, which is a mindless cliche. And that is irresponsible for another reason: you make of yourself a faction who votes only for your chosen corruption. Or worse, you maintain your "purity" by not voting at all, and thus abandon your responsibility as a citizen in a democracy to actively participate in democracy, which is the means by which the democracy is preserved.
1
He WAS NOT in the "beast"; he was in the backup SUV. There are significant differences between the two. And Trump wanted the gun-nuts to fill in the empty space one sees in the photo because for him it's always about crowd size.
1
Forget the amnesia: Trump began attacking the intelligence community immediately before and after taking office.
1
They are: and that is the hook. There has always been an underbelly of people who believe "freedom" means the "right" to be uneducated. To be stupid. Trump's "hook" is that he has given them a "status" they've never had, and they richly don't deserve.
1
@Jacksmithstandby You haven't been listening.
1
@tallSycamore Pence's only concern is protecting himself with some sort of "deniability" because he wants to run for president. He's as bad as any of the others who exempt themselves from the oath -- which is legally binding -- and the rule of law. But not surprising: He puts "God" above all else, including above the Constitution, which is the Supreme -- HIGHEST -- Law of the Land, and which separates his "religious" garbage from gov't. Interesting that he won't testify to the Committee: he began as a right-wing jabbering talk radio "host".
1
_No law protects private "militia"_: See _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), citing _Pressor v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886): The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations". From _Presser_: (115) ". . . . It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions . . . have . . . the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations . . . . (116) The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine." That is not a new idea; this law is from October 1658: "Military, [S. 11] . . . . It is Further Ordered, that henceforth all warrants for impressing [e.g., drafting] & raifing of fouldiers for any expedition, fhall be directed to the Committy of militia of the feverall Townes who may execute the fame by the Coftable & the faid Committee are hereby impowred & required to fupprefs all raifing of fouldiers, but fuch as fhall be by the authority of this government." In contemporary English: "Military, [S.] 11. . . . It is Further Ordered, that henceforth all warrants for impressing [e.g., drafting] & raising of soldiers for any expedition, shall be directed to the Committee of militia of the several Towns who may execute the same by the Constable & the said Committee are hereby impowered & required to suppress all raising of soldiers, but such as shall be by the authority of this government." The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1660, with the Supplements to 1672. Containing Also, the Body of Liberties of 1641. (Boston: Rockwell & Churchill, City Printers, Published by Order of the City Council of Boston, 1889), William H. Whitmore, Record Commissioner, at 179. In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as paramilitary organizations and PROHIBIT them. Pick your state: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
1
This is about Pence avoiding his RESPONSIBILITY to testify to the Committee.
1
@davidclark573 Certainly.
1
@patrickn4385 So you're okay with air and water pollution because that's good for YOUR heatlh?
1
@patrickn4385 You don't know a whole lot about the dumping of toxic chemicals into drinking water by corporations. The reason we are still using fossil fuels is because the oil industry -- which receives millions in taxpayer subsidies every year, despite being one of the richest industries on the planet -- owns politicians. You know nothing whatsoever factual about the pollutants regularly dumped in the environment, or about the POSITED "Green New Deal". You are bitching about a "Deal" the that REPUBLICANS won't allow to happen. You guzzle and regurgitate pro-pollution propaganda to the detriment of your own health.
1
Pence should strap on his prosthetic spine and testify under oath to the January 6 Committee. Or be subpoenaed. There is only one other person as material a witness: Trump. But Pence doesn't want to alienate Thrum's "base" of duped insurrectionists.
1