Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Jan. 6 committee subpoenaed phone records of more than 100 people" video.

As I recall Lofgren was on the House Watergate Committee looking at impeaching Nixon. She's a veteran of these investigations.
34
Standard investigative procedure. It is only controversial with those who have something to hide.
10
@billyjoe4180 The Founders classified insurrection as TREASON.
9
@ninianstorm6494 I'm beyond fed up with conspirabunk.
7
The money Meadows gets from the book with one hand, will be handed by the other hand to lawyers.
5
@Solomon-kt5dc If the Democrats are ALLEGEDLY "hiding" "thousands of hours of video," then, it being "hidden," you can't know it even exists. Drop the conspirabunk. You remind of the brainless who "know" the contents of alleged documents that are -- so they also claim -- "buried" so deep that their contents can't be known.
4
@blacklung8433 I've from time to time seen that assertion -- but never with any EVIDENCE for it. "Shays's" insurrection occurred under the Articles of Confederation, AFTER the so-called "revolution," and it was suppressed by the well-regulated Militia, and the insurrectionists were charged with, tried for, and convicted of treason, and sentenced to death. There was no war at the time. Under the Constitution, and AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" insurrection occurred, and it was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington. The insurrections were charged with, tried for, and convicted of treason, and sentenced to death. And there was no war at the time. The treason clause says nothing about war, except that of "levying war against the United States," or essentially siding with the enemy. Wars are not conducted exclusively or even only by militaries.
4
He's also consulting with Trump's "team" regarding documents he's providing.
3
@blacklung8433 i have an education in law. I adhere to the law and facts. That's why I said I've occasionally seen the assertion that treason can only occur during declared law, but I've seen no EVIDENCE for that assertion. And since the penalties for treason are to be stipulated by Congress, I don't expect that absent that there has been any judicial opinion on the issue. The Founders classified insurrection as treason. And insurrection is a crime even absent declared war. None of what I've said is sophistry; it is all based upon more than 30 years of research and study in the legal history, beginning with the foundings of the colonies, and up to and through state constitutions, and US Constitution and "Bill of Rights".
2
AND LOCAL.
1
Though at the center of this, he doesn't have all the evidence.
1
@shlepmessing8703 IQ45 is a danger to the survival of the rule of law. Of the Constitution. Of the United States. What you resent is that those who see and report that have "45 . . . in [their] head[s]" differently than you, who are consumed with supporting and defending -- though failing at that -- him and his efforts to destroy the United States.
1
@kbusby4824 Thanks for the clarification. She is certainly a veteran of these investigations. And the politically oblivious who smear politicians as "all corrupt" defame persons such as Lofgren. The percentage of corruption in politics is roughly the same as in the general population.
1
@blacklung8433 Law evolves and elaborates. If you read the Treason Clause in the US Constitution, you'll find a second section stipulating that Congress shall declare the penalties. Trump has certainly levied war against the United States, and adhered to its [Cold War] enemies, and given them aid and comfort. If there's a reason so few have been charged with treason it's probably compassion. Or, perhaps more likely, politics. Washington pardoned the "Whiskey" insurrectionists, even though they'd been sentenced to death.
1
@blacklung8433 It isn't sophism to point to the fact that the Founders established the legal precedent, under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, that "insurrection" is "treason". Yes, law evolves, and elaborates. Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of statutes. The 14th Amendment, as example, is implemented by means of the 1871 "Ku Klux Klan" Act. Nor do you point to anything in my comments as being "sophism". (Sophistry? Your first comment was that there can't be treason without war -- the Founders certainly didn't believe that -- but provided no EVIDENCE for that assertion.) Here, at random, is a statute which refutes current claims about the purpose of "militia" being properly anti-gov't -- to "take up arms" against "tyranny" -- which is, in law, the crime of insurrection; and which the Founders classified as treason; and which has no actual basis in the legal history: I haven't "translated" it into current English, so you'll have to work your way through the "long s"; but note the word "Impreffed" -- for which the modern terms are "conscription" and "draft". The "General Court" was the gov't/legislature: At a GENERAL COURT Held at Bofton the 3d of May 1676. This COURT taking into Confideration the great Diffappointment the Countrey hath fuffred by reafon of non-appearance of Souldiers Impreffed for feveral expeditions: Do judge meet that every perfon Impreffed as a Souldier for the Service of the Country, and neglecting to make his appearance according to Order: every fuch Foot Souldier fhall pay the fum of four Pounds, and every Trooper fhall pay the fum of fix Pounds: and if their neglects or refufal be accompanied with Refractorinefs, Reflection or Contempt upon Authority, fuch perfon fhall be punished with Death, or fome other Grievous punifhment. And the Committee of Militia in the feveral Towns where the offence is committed are hereby impowered and required to call before them all fuch as fhall be Delinquents as is above expreffed, and on Conviction of their neglect to give Warrent to the Conftable to levy the faid fines, which faid fines fhall be improved to purchafe Arms for the Towns ufe; Provided it fhall be in the power of the Council upon Petition of any perfon agrieved, and juft reafon alleadged and proved to make abatement of the faid fines as in their wifdome and difcretion they fhall judge meet. And it is hereby Ordered that the return of all neglects and defects in the cafes aforefaid, be fent to the Committee of Militia in the feveral Towns, who are hereby required to take care for the ftrict Execution hereof. By the COURT Edward Rawson Secr. "The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, With the Supplements Through 1686." (Boston, MA: Rockwell and Churchill, City Printers, 1890), Edited by William H. Whitmore, at 343. In sum: the fantasy that the militia is to operate OUTSIDE the law as a "check" against "tyranny" has always been FALSE.
1
@paddyholly2184 Meadows is between a rock and a hard place. Even more so lawyers Clark and Eastman.
1
@blacklung8433 Was Russia's attack on the United States leading into the 2016 election not an act of war?
1
Barr Stool Love your screen name. :]
1
@mikemorrel8312 That is the reporting from the CREDIBLE media.
1
@anthonyfazio8940 Your stupidity and personal attack noted. I agree: what Biden is doing is "horrible," which is why you stood on ethics and refused the $1,400 check from the Biden administration. Is the Biden administration "failing" -- or is the co-equal branch Congress, in particular the Senate, determined on the Republican side to prevent the administration from meeting the needs of "We the people," which includes YOU and YOUR needs? Per the Constitution, "We the people" are the gov't. That means the gov't exists to meet the needs of "We the people," as paid for (taxes) and determined by "We the people". That is not "socialism" or "communism". It is SELF-GOVERNANCE.
1
@wils8886 "Infowars is lying to you. But what sort of person prefers being lied to? What should they be called? Fools? Suckers? Dupes? Pawns? The FACT is that CNN is reporting from contacts with the Select Committee staff. "Infowars" is simply making shit up; it is "editorial," not NEWS.
1
@ninianstorm6494 TROLL.
1
@Daddys_Home_002 Your lies are not substance; they are repeatedly and consistently refuted LIES. More than 80 courts, including TRUMP-appointed judges, threw his fraudulent "fraud" case out of court because there was and remains no EVIDENCE for the LIE that the election was stollen.
1
@Daddys_Home_002 The Supreme Court REFUSED to hear Trump's fraudulent claim of election "fraud" because the "case" had NO EVIDENCE to back up the LIE.
1
@wils8886 "Infowars" is PROPAGANDA -- not NEWS. Hate "elites," as an anti-elitist elitist? So if you need brain surgery, you'll save money by bypassing the brain surgeon and having the surgery done by a plumber.
1
@Daddys_Home_002 It isn't the "leftists" that are focused on conspiracies. The case went straight to the Supreme Court. And that is hardly unprecedented. Your assertion that it "went through dozens of court rooms successfully first" is hogwash. More than 60 cases -- ALL -- were thrown out of courts because they were BOGUS: they made ALLEGATIONS, but provided NO EVIDENCE. AFTER that Trump appealed the case directly to the Supreme Court, and they REFUSED TO HEAR IT because -- AGAIN -- an ALLEGATION is NOT EVIDENCE. Instead of smearing "leftists" cease YOUR LYING.
1
@Daddys_Home_002 ASSHOLE: first, the Congress doesn't indict or prosecute, which bullshit you tried to hand on Pelosi. That is the function of the DOJ, and it is doing that. THAT is BASIC CIVICS. And no, jackass: Trump's EMERGENCY appeal to the Supreme Court may have been of the same substance as the 60-plus cases in other courts, ALL of which were DISMISSED for LACK OF EVIDENCE -- the FRAUDULENT claim that the election was stolen, WITHOUT EVIDENCE -- but it was NOT those cases. And the Supreme Court REJECTED his appeal for the same reason: NO EVIDENCE to support the FALSE allegation that the election was stolen. And now Trump has UNANIMOUSLY LOST his BOGUS claim of "executive privilege" at the Appellate Court. As is typical, the court provides 14 days for EITHER party to file emergency appeal with the Supreme Court. The likelihood that the Supreme Court will accept the case is slim: the extremists have their seats; they no longer need Trump. And they are worried about destroying the legitimacy of the Court by imposing extremist politics in place of legitimate law based upon their "religious" extremism and REJECTION of not only science but also of the RIGHT OF PRIVACY. I have an education in law. You are a law-illiterate TROLL spewing anti-American disinformation based on REJECTION of the rule of law.
1
@Daddys_Home_002 FACTS MATTER, TROLL: 1. "For the sale of argument, do you think it was right of Pelosi to throw out Trump's case". The Congress doesn't indict or prosecute. As is BEING SHOWN, the Congress INVESTIGATES. If, as is being done, those subpoenaed who refuse to testify to Congress are REFERRED TO THE DOJ for indictment and prosecution. The DOJ is in the SEPARATE co-equal Executive branch, which is charged with ENFORCING the laws. Cases are tried in the other SEPARATE co-equal branch: the Judiciary. BASIC CIVICS, clown. 2. As ALL 60-plus courts, AND the Supreme Court, showed: Trump DID NOT HAVE a "case" because THE ELECTION WAS NOT STOLEN.
1
@Daddys_Home_002 We know what was in Trump's FRIVOLOUS "case/s" because he and his lawyers were spewing the LIES that the election was stolen. The PROBLEM -- AGAIN, MORON -- is that the election WAS NOT STOLEN, therefore there was no EVIDENCE that it was stolen. That is precisely why more than 60 cases were -- even by Trump-appointed judges -- DISMISSED. AS A MATTER OF REASON, FACT, AND LAW, an ALLEGATION is NOT EVIDENCE. ALL those dismissals, INCLUDING the REJECTION of Trump's repeat of the SAME LIES by the Supreme Court, were based on the FACT that THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE to back up the ALLEGATION. Recall Rudy Giuliani asserting, "TRUTH ISN'T TRUTH!" Is that a TRUTH? WATCH the interview with Giuliani, UNDER OATH, in which he ADMITS that he didn't "check" to determine whether the ALLEGATIONS were TRUE. Recall Sydney Powell asserting that no one in their right mind would BELIEVE the lies she told. You did not see "fraud"; what you saw is the elections systems worked exactly as required -- which included mandatory audits. Your PROBLEM is that you're IGNORANT of how elections work, therefore a SUCKER for LIES against the elections system. With all the Trump lawyers working to "uncover" election "fraud," why then did it turn out that NONE of their "evidence" passed the smell test? Again -- and this is the last time I'm going to entertain your stupid anti-American disinformation -- because the FAKE "evidence" was FALSE, made-up horseshit for gullible fools just like you.
1