Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "'I'm Not Trying To Be Disrespectful': GOP Member Asks Garland To Submit To Ethics Review" video.

The DOJ is acting against threats and threats of violence, which are not protected speech.
11
@josmotherman591 It is not a violation of law. And the issue is not that the Republican claims: Garland is acting to deal with the violence and death threats against elected officials. Violence and death threats are not protected speech -- and the Republican knows that; the giveaway is that the Republican is invoking the First Amendment against Garland's efforts to protect elected public officials from violence and death threats by those who REJECT THE RULE OF LAW.. The MINORITY of racist morons engaging in the violence and death threats are "protesting" that which IS NOT HAPPENING: "Critical Race Theory" is ONLY taught in college and university LAW SCHOOLS. They are uneducated thugs who demand that those with actual education in teaching bow to their uneducated demands. Theirs is a phony issue, a non-issue: they are "protesting" against that which IS NOT BEING TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Have you not learned yet that the Republicans will make any allegation in effort to discredit -- with no regard for whether the allegation is FACT?
3
So you believe every allegation that comes out of a Republican's mouth!? What was the outcome of the 8 or more "investigations" of the "Benghazi" issue, which were conducted by REPUBLICANS for some TWO YEARS? And during which the Republicans were all for subpoenas, and threatening criminal referrals to the DOJ. YESTERDAY Gym Jordan asserted that those "investigations" were because Hillary Clinton lied. That would mean she committed perjury, which the Republicans would CERTAINLY jumped on. So, again, what was the outcome? There were no convictions, no criminal referrals, because the ACTUAL PURPOSE of those "investigations" was stated by Republican Kevin McCarthy ON VIDEO: to "lower Hillary Clinton's poll numbers," on the assumption she would be running for president. So which is it? The "investigations" were because Clinton lied? Or were to lower her poll numbers? And what was the outcome? Nothing, because it was a non-issue. The REPUBLICANS have a LONG history of making up false allegations, slinging them at a Democrat, and then demanding the false allegations be "investigated". And in EVERY instance -- Clinton was repeatedly "investigated" for 30 years -- they find NOTHING, because it is an absolute truth that a false allegation has no basis in reality, no underlying EVIDENCE. No indictments, no criminal referrals, despite all their threats to indict and have prosecuted. The ACTUAL issue for the Republican is that Garland is acting to STOP the violence and death threats against elected officials on such as school boards, and election boards -- and Democrats in Congress. Violence and death threats are not protected speech under the First Amendment. BOTH are CRIMES under BOTH Federal and state laws. The KEY, if you'd LISTEN to what is ACTUALLY being said -- and note that the Republican repeatedly interrupted Garland so that Garland couldn't state the actual facts: that he is acting to STOP the violence and death threats -- was the REPUBLICAN dragging in the First Amendment. The ACTUAL language in the First Amendment is that it protects PEACEABLE assembly. Violent assembly is PROHIBITED, And it is a VIOLATION of Federal and state laws to threaten elected public officials. THIS is in the constitution you whiners have NEVER READ: "Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia[/National Guard] to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS". The Founders classified insurrection as TREASON. There is no right to engage in violence. There is no right to issue death threats. There is no right to commit treason. The violence and death threats have the same goal as the January 6 insurrection: to force the elected officials to bend to the will of the mob, and hopefully resign, so the insurrectionists can take over school and election boards and eliminate democracy.
3
@josmotherman591 So you believe the ONLY lie being told by Republicans is that the election was stolen? What EVIDENCE did the Republican present that he wasn't doing the only thing Republicans ever do: attack others' character? What is the STATUTE on which you base your swallowing of a Republican allegation WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE? Do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Rudy "TRUTH ISN'T TRUTH!" Giuliani had Hunter Biden's laptop!? And where is his "evidence" that he was going to release "any day now" -- but still hasn't? The only EVIDENCE we have, and it has been piling up since at latest Reagan, that Republicans will tell any lie to gain advantage and power. Back to the immediate issue: you don't even know that the Republican is telling the truth, and he kkept interrupting Garland so Garland couldn't complete a sentence. Because, as I spelled out for you -- and it should have been obvious anyway if you aren't sleep-walking, is that Garland has acted to protect elected officials from violence and death threasts -- which violence and death threats are being stoked BY REPUBLICANS.
3
It isn't about Garland, who is acting to protect elected officials from violence and death threats -- which are NOT protected speech. It is about Republicans who will personally attack ANYONE in order to gain advantage and power. If Hillary Clinton violated the law -- as the Republicans constantly ranted -- then why did their "investigations" of her COME UP WITH NO EVIDENCE? They talked constantly about INDICTING her. So where is the indictment? There was never any indictment because the ALLEGATIONS were FALSE.
2
@josmotherman591 The FEDERAL Constitution includes the SUPREMACY clause. That means FEDERAL law is SUPREME OVER state law. The FEDERAL gov't has a responsibility, and the authority, to protect citizens from violations of their rights by state gov'ts, or by state gov't NEGLECT to protect their rights. It is ILLEGAL, in BOTH Federal and state law, to commit violence against and or to issue death threats against ELECTED OFFICIALS. If the states won't enforce those laws, then the FEDERAL gov't has the responsibility and authority to do so. It is THAT to which the Republican is objecting -- WHICH IS WHY HE INTERRUPTS GARLAND so Garland can't state what Garland is ACTUALLY doing. THAT is why the Republican drags in the FIRST AMENDMENT. AGAIN, violence and death threats against elected officials are not protected speech --- they are ILLEGAL. The First Amendment is EXXPRESSLY SPECIFIC, protecting PEACEABLE assembly. My "first" inquiry!? I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather. And I have an education in law; you not only don't, but couldn't care less about the rule of law. You SAY that "ALL politicians lie"; if true, that applies ALSO to the Republican you're DEENDING. And HE is defending, by dragging in the First Amendment, acts that are ILLEGAL. Read "Jacobson v. Massachusetts," in which the US Supreme Court UPHELD the state's vaccination mandate -- which was COMPULSORY. There was no "freedom" to endanger PUBLIC health and safety. The fundamental principles stated by the Court in that decision apply across the board: no individual, and no statistical minority -- which the Republican, AND YOU, are defending -- have the right to endanger public health and safety. Period. Full stop. Garland is enforcing the law. The Republican you are both calling a liar, and defending, is defending VIOLATIONS of the law.
2
@josmotherman591 You claimed that the states have the means to deal with the violence and death threats. In that you are arguing for states' rights. It remains the fact that violence and threats against elected officials is ILLEGAL under BOTH FEDERAL and state laws. If the states' don't enforce their own laws, then the Federal gov't has the authority and responsibility to enforce the equivalent Federal laws. The Republican you both call a liar and defend asserted the First Amendment in effort to defend violence and death threats that are not speech protected by the First Amendment, and are ILLEGAL. It is a specious "argument " to both call the Republican a liar, and at the same time defend his lies as if somehow "truth". You defend the lie instead of condemning both the lie and the liar. Your immoral animus is not only against truth, and against the rule of law itself, but also against anyone not a Republican liar. Exactly as the Republican liar you are defending, you are defending domestic terrorism.
2
@thomasfearer2926 The PROBLEM is that the Republicans have DECADES of making false allegations. They made allegations against Hillary Clinton for 30 years,, and "investigated" them, and in EVERY instance EXONERATED her because the allegations were ALL ALONG FALSE. The Republicans REJECT the rule of law -- it is that basic, and THAT is the issue. Garland has simply acted to protect elected officials from violence and death threats. Violence and death threats are not protected speech. And we KNOW that is the ACTUAL issue the Republican was ranting about, because he kept dragging in the First Amendment. The LANGUAGE of the First amendment is clear on the point: it protects PEACEABLE assembly. VIOLENT assembly is PROHIBITED. The Republicans are encouraging and WANT the violence and death threats. They are "mini-insurrections".
1
Threats against school board members are not protected speech. Nor are threats against elected election board officials. "Critical Race Theory" is taught ONLY in college and university LAW SCHOOLS.
1