Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

The Bobulinski Transcript: a lot of smoke but no fire.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 17, 2024 12:31 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (22 comments) [446 views]


Nothing on the KC shootout at their Super Bowl parade?
Sports by Indy!     February 20, 2024 3:14 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [19 views]


GUTFELD! on the nearly $half Billion judgment against Trump
Law by HatetheSwamp     February 20, 2024 7:08 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (3 comments) [31 views]


James Comer Admits He Might Have to Throw in the Towel on Biden Impeachment Quest Because ‘The Math Keeps Getting Worse’
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 20, 2024 11:35 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (2 comments) [16 views]


John Oliver offers Justice Thomas a $2.4 Million Motorcoach and $1 Million a year for life to leave the Supreme Court
Business by Ponderer     February 19, 2024 3:44 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (16 comments) [154 views]


Ryan Girdusky on Clay and Buck today...
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 20, 2024 9:23 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (1 comments) [35 views]


Will Donald Trump’s legal penalties and legal expenses impact campaign spending?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 20, 2024 10:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [25 views]


538's Nate Silver urges Biden: "Reassure voters or ‘stand down’"
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 20, 2024 7:43 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [20 views]


Presidential experts rank Biden 14th among presidents in survey, Trump comes in last
President by Curt_Anderson     February 18, 2024 6:57 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (12 comments) [184 views]


Awkward: Putin And Zelenskyy Both Show Up At Same Biden Rally
President by HatetheSwamp     February 19, 2024 12:27 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (3 comments) [67 views]


Government selectors, pages, etc.
The Jan. 6 committee final report published
By Curt_Anderson
December 22, 2022 10:32 pm
Category: Government

(5.0 from 1 vote)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

You can read the entire report or find excerpts of it on most news sites---maybe not on FOX News, but in plenty of places elsewhere.

Trump couldn't resist giving the report a negative review. But he seemed to diminish and implicate himself while doing so.


“The highly partisan Unselect Committee Report purposely fails to mention the failure of Pelosi to heed my recommendation for troops to be used in D.C., show the ‘Peacefully and Patrioticly’ words I used, or study the reason for the protest, Election Fraud. WITCH HUNT!” he wrote.


For starters Trump supposedly meekly made a "recommendation" for troops to be used. WTF, Trump was president, why didn't he order troops be deployed? Besides that, video taken on January 6th shows that Nancy Pelosi was calling anybody and everybody in an effort to have the National Guard, police, any military forces stop the attack on Congress.

Second, the need for troops to quell the violence in the Capitol undermines Trump's supposed intent of a "Peacefully and Patrioticly (sic)" staged event.

Finally, Trump needs to put up or shut up about his notion of alleged election fraud. Anyway, the committee did investigate and uncovered many cases of election fraud: fake electors schemes, incessant pressuring of state election officials, phony lawsuits, and many other examples of election fraud that Trump was behind.


When thinking about Trump's culpability, think of the "but-for test".

The but-for test is a test commonly used in both tort law and criminal law to determine actual causation. The test asks, "but for the existence of X, would Y have occurred?" Replace X with Trump and Y with the January 6th riot.

Some of the charges against Trump may be hard to prove for various reasons that don't include Trump's actual innocence. A jury might have to decide his guilt and not got over the hurdle of "beyond a reasonable" doubt on individual charges. However, with the J6 committee's report being made public, the case against Trump is now in the hands of the Court of Public Opinion and we can decide the case using our commonsense. We don't have judge Trump purely legalistically either. We can judge him on his ethics and morality (and lack of).

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "The Jan. 6 committee final report published":

  1. by oldedude on December 23, 2022 9:58 pm
    I find it very interesting that you said "You can read the entire report or find excerpts of it on most news sites---maybe not on FOX News, but in plenty of places elsewhere." but didn't have any inclusion to quote anything in the report. That to me says you didn't read the report and everything you said was "Opinion," not fact.


  2. by Curt_Anderson on December 23, 2022 10:29 pm
    No, I didn't read the entire report which I understand is some 800 pages long. I read excepts to get the Cliff Notes version of the report. Plus a lot of the report is stuff that we saw on TV.

    Other than my quoting Trump's dismissal of the report, I thought obvious that I was stating my opinion. Most of the stuff posted here are opinions. Feel free to post yours. Even the facts and "facts" posted here are usually in support of somebody's opinion.


  3. by oldedude on December 24, 2022 5:35 am
    That's fine. Except you or isle would have jumped on me about it. Fox and the far more conservative sites are running it.


  4. by HatetheSwamp on December 24, 2022 5:51 am

    This Fox panel, I think, gets the J6 Committee exactly right. Martha McCallum is a Fox regular but, by no means, pro-Trump. Andrew McCarthy is a former federal prodector. In real life, he's a Guy Benson conservative, i.e., the gay Guy Curt never heard of, and very fair minded and Jonathan Turley is from the George Washington law school. He's objective and brilliant.

    They get J6 bang on. It's a farce. They agree that Trump is vulnerable on Mar-a-Lago.

    This is good stuff. Genuinely informative. For those of you who care about truth.



    View Video


  5. by oldedude on December 24, 2022 7:36 am
    I agree with that. I still haven't seen or heard of anything a first-year law student would take into a court. I re-emphasize, if people are holding Trump to standard "A" then that must, by law be the standard for all. Welcome to case law.

    Mar-a-lago is a different story. The issue with classified is the dims have supported classified leaks in the past (manning/ berger/ clinton, etc). That makes a difference also. I'm sure he has classified (which I'm also sure he won't admit to or cop a plea deal) So this is more about finding an illegality in the case. I've never liked that defense, but it's legal, so I'll deal with it. Will he get jail time? I don't think so. Will it affect his chances to run for prez? Hopefully. That would settle a pretty big issue for me without having to do anything.


  6. by HatetheSwamp on December 24, 2022 8:27 am

    With the Mar-a-Lago thing, the problem with getting a conviction...or, if a TDS jury convicts...past a Trump appeal, will be what previous Presidents have gotten away with.


  7. by Curt_Anderson on December 24, 2022 9:55 am
    HtS,
    Besides the fact that there is no evidence that past presidents have "gotten away" with doing anything like Trump has with classified documents, so what if they did?

    Bank robbers cannot use as a defense that other bank robbers have stolen more money and were never caught.


  8. by oldedude on December 24, 2022 3:24 pm
    Your hero, cliton, ADMITTED to thousands of counts of illegally obtaining classified information to the house, under oath. WTF do you want?


  9. by Curt_Anderson on December 24, 2022 4:51 pm
    OD,
    Are you talking about Hillary Clinton? She was never president.

    And no, she did not admit to thousands of counts of illegally obtaining classified information to the House committee. The FBI investigated but decided no charges were warranted.

    Are you talking about Bill Clinton? He was not accused of taking or mishandling classified documents in any form.

    As for Trump, LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!


  10. by oldedude on December 24, 2022 5:13 pm
    No, she was secretary of state. The head of the intelligence community of the United States. She admitted having a server at her house and then refused to disclose about 31,000 of the emails. Before you make up something to counter. ANYTHING done on a government computer is discoverable by the government. To destroy those emails is 1. refusal to follow a subpoena, 2. willful destruction of evidence.

    During her tenure as United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton drew controversy by using a private email server for official public communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were marked classified. Federal agencies did, however, retrospectively determine that 100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails were retroactively designated confidential by the State Department.

    Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that Clinton's use of a private email system and a private server violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials, as well as State Department protocols and procedures, and regulations governing recordkeeping. Clinton claimed that her use complied with federal laws and State Department regulations, and that former secretaries of state had also maintained personal email accounts (however Clinton was the only secretary of state to use a private server). News reports by NBC and CNN indicated that the emails discussed "innocuous" matters already available in the public domain. For example, the CIA drone program has been widely discussed in the public domain since the early 2000s; however, the existence of the program is technically classified, so sharing a newspaper article that mentions it would constitute a security breach, according to the CIA

    As of May 2016, no answer had been provided to the public as to whether 31,000 emails deleted by Hillary Clinton as personal have been or could be recovered.

    A March 2, 2015 New York Times article broke the story that the Benghazi panel had discovered that Clinton exclusively used her own private email server rather than a government-issued one throughout her time as Secretary of State, and that her aides took no action to preserve emails sent or received from her personal accounts as required by law.

    en.wikipedia.org


  11. by Curt_Anderson on December 24, 2022 5:42 pm
    OD,
    HtS falsely claimed past presidents got away with doing the same thing as Trump. You apparently think that other people including non-presidents got away with what Trump did.

    You are attempting to defend Trump's Mar-a-Lago trove of stolen and mishandled classified documents with a what-aboutism defense. Well, what about it? I would be happy if Trump is treated like other people who were accused of doing what he did. Here are some examples:

    April 2005 – Former U.S. national security adviser Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to knowingly removing classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration. Berger was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine and give up his security clearance for three years.

    March 2013 –Retired Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin Pierce Bishop was arrested in Hawaii and charged with one count of unlawfully retaining documents related to the national defense and one count of willfully communicating national defense information to a person not entitled to receive such information. Bishop pleaded guilty in March 2014. He was sentenced to more than seven years in prison followed by three years of supervised release.

    March 2015 – Retired U.S. Army General David Petraeus, a former CIA director, pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. Petraeus was sentenced to two years of probation and a $100,000 fine.
    July 2015 – U.S. Navy reservist Bryan Nishimura was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine after he pleaded guilty to downloading and storing classified documents from his deployment to Afghanistan in 2007-2008 on his personal devices and media.

    August 2016 – Former National Security Agency contractor Harold Martin was arrested for what federal prosecutors described as a theft of top-secret government information that was “breathtaking in its longevity and scale." Martin was sentenced to nine years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.

    January 2017 – Former defense contractor and sailor Weldon Marshall was arrested for unlawfully retaining classified information, stored on compact discs and computer hard drives that he kept at his home in Texas. Marshall pleaded guilty in March 2018. He was sentenced in June 2018 to more than three years in prison followed by a year of supervised release.

    January 2018 – Former CIA officer Jerry Chun Shing Lee, also known as Zhen Cheng Li, was arrested on charges of unlawful retention of national defense information. Lee pleaded guilty and was sentenced in November 2019 to 19 years in prison for conspiring to communicate, deliver and transmit national defense information to China.

    May 2018 – Former CIA contractor Reynaldo Regis pleaded guilty to charges of unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, as well as to making false statements to federal law enforcement officers. Prosecutors said during his time at the CIA, Reyes conducted unauthorized searches of classified databases and copied the information into dozens of notebooks, which he then took home. In November 2018, Reyes was sentenced to 90 days in jail. Regis’ lawyer later told the Associated Press and other news outlets that his client “had no nefarious purpose. It was just a mistake.”

    August 2019 – Former National Security Agency (NSA) employee Elizabeth Jo Shirley was arrested in Mexico City on charges of parental kidnapping and was later charged with retaining top secret documents on her electronic devices, both in Mexico and some stored at her home in West Virginia. She was sentenced in January 2021 to more than eight years in prison for the willful retention of national defense information. She was also sentenced to three years in prison on the kidnapping charges.

    June 2020 — Investigators conducted a search of the Hawaii home of Asia Janay Lavarello, a U.S. Defense Department employee, following her return from a temporary assignment to the U.S. Embassy in Manila. Lavarello pleaded guilty to knowingly removing classified information in July 2021. She was sentenced in February 2022 to three months in prison and a $5,500 fine.

    May 2021 – Kendra Kingsbury, an employee at the FBI’s Kansas City division, was indicted on two counts of having unauthorized possession of documents relating to the national defense. Kingsbury faces a maximum of up to 10 years in federal prison.


  12. by oldedude on December 24, 2022 8:03 pm
    You are attempting to defend Trump's Mar-a-Lago trove of stolen and mishandled classified documents with a what-aboutism defense.

    You need to really check your sht. I had a couple of points that you're too biased to comprehend. 1. I'm really hoping that Trump gets politically ruined. That will clear the lanes for several of the better candidates, and the primaries will not be an "us vs them" scenario. I stated that in my fukking post. You should have read it before making that accusation.

    My point which apparently you can't understand is there is such a thing as "Case law." It's that nasty little thing that uses cases in the past and their punishment. PLEASE READ THIS QUOTE BEFORE CITING BLATANT ERRORS AND LIES

    "Mar-a-lago is a different story. The issue with classified is the dims have supported classified leaks in the past (manning/ berger/ clinton, etc). That makes a difference also. I'm sure he has classified (which I'm also sure he won't admit to or cop a plea deal) So this is more about finding an illegality in the case. I've never liked that defense, but it's legal, so I'll deal with it. Will he get jail time? I don't think so. Will it affect his chances to run for prez? Hopefully. That would settle a pretty big issue for me without having to do anything."

    It's interesting you pull something out of your ear (since it's attached to your arse) and chose to lie about it. I thought I was very fair about what I said, and what I think will happen. If I were Trumps lawyers, that's what I would do. You often (purposefully) mistake an analytical point of view as my own.

    Maybe I need to be like lead. One psuedo-identity for another. But it can't be as lame as isles. Maybe you'll be able to understand that better. I generally throw out possibilities. In the last sentence or two, I'll say what I "Want" or "think" will happen. They are two entirely different things. Yes, I can actually raise questions about how I am thinking so I throw out the best scenario. In the people that I write for, it's extremely clear what I want to happen, how I got there, and their options. They may agree with me or not.

    In my Task Force days, I was and equal to the Case Agents and I made a lot of decisions based on lawfulness and evidence from my end. If they chose to go forward, I would work on what they had and could prove in court. NOT about your hearsay.


  13. by HatetheSwamp on December 25, 2022 4:17 am

    You are attempting to defend Trump's Mar-a-Lago trove of stolen and mishandled classified documents with a what-aboutism defense.

    Read OD's post with care. Honestly, bubba! We both don't support Trump. We both do support other candidates. We both think that Mar-a-Lago is serious. We both hope that Mar-a-Lago gets Trump in deep doodoo. And, with our clear minds, doubt that it will.

    Here's how you can know that your thinking is impaired by TDS. OD and pb have always been abundantly clear on all of these truths. Our only "support" of Trump has been criticism of the fascist behavior of the DOJ.

    One symptom of TDS is the belief that rational, fact based, opposition to Trump is actually support of Trump. Anyone who cares about the Constitution and justice and due process even for someone as despicable as Trump, in the mind of a TDS sufferer, is a Trump lover. That's you, my friend.


  14. by oldedude on December 26, 2022 2:21 am
    I can live with that. well said.

    Especially the part where every time we make a question the "legality" of an overly zealous DOJ, we love Trump. I don't see how that works. Earlier, I went as far as to say that I may hate the person. the point is that any abuse of the system is an abuse of power. By either side. I have never been able to have any sheeple to admit there is abuse of DOJ.


Go To Top

Comment on: "The Jan. 6 committee final report published"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page