In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.
So bottom line, the six states in question are no longer going to be allowed to place another "burden" on citizens to own and carry handguns. As stated, objective requirements are fine. Subjective requirements that place the onus on the individual are not. From everything we know about these laws, they are an excuse to issue almost no permits to anyone for any reason. In some of these states you had to have a job that required the use of guns. Nobody who just wanted a gun for protection was issued one.
This is all part of the push to slowly but surely make gun ownership a privilege rather than the right that it currently is.
Whatever law is eventually passed now will likely come before the court as well. The red flag portion of the current law going through Congress is another one that will likely come down to a USSC decision. That will involve whether or not the law allows for adequate "due process" before taking away the right to bear arms. Again, given this is a "right" and not a "privilege" there has to be real standing to take it away. That will be an interesting debate when the time comes.
104 comments:
It includes the individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms
But background investigations are still available.
So the states will have to write very specific rules that don't violate the right to bear arms.
I know that it will cost lives.
You don't have to prove that you need a concealed weapon.
But background checks can still apply in federal law for military weapons.
In general I agree with them.
The red flag portion of the current law going through Congress is another one that will likely come down to a USSC decision. They don't take away the right to own and bear arms. Allowing friends and family, to inform officials that your family member is showing signs of mental illness does not take away your right to keep and bear arms.
Led by Justice Clarence Thomas, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6-3 — and along typical ideological lines — that New York State’s “licensing regime” for handguns was unconstitutional.
Thomas was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissent joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The opinion extends the logic and reach of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), two prior gun rights cases.
“[W]e recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense,” Thomas wrote. “In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense.”
The issue wasn’t those broad ideals of self-defense. The issue was whether New York could deny a handgun license to an individual citizen if the citizen did not show a “special need for self-defense.” That requirement, which the Court said was shared by six other states, went beyond the usual “objective criteria” that most other states use when determining whether a handgun license would be issued.
The court concluded that the “special need for self-defense” requirement violated the Second Amendment.
“We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Thomas wrote
https://lawandcrime.com/second-amendment/conservative-majority-led-by-justice-thomas-strikes-down-new-york-states-unconstitutional-licensing-regime-for-carrying-a-handgun-in-public/
The supreme court finished issuing opinions for the day with its blockbuster ruling on gun access, but across the street at the Capitol, the Senate is in the midst of considering a gun control bill that would be the most significant in decades.
Senator majority leader Chuck Schumer said in a speech on the chamber’s floor that passing the measure, which cleared a crucial procedural vote on Tuesday, is his top priority.
“It’s been a long time, but this breakthrough is welcome. So, I urge my Republican colleagues, let’s get this bill passed, and pass it today,” Schumer said. “Americans have waited long enough. Let’s finish our job today.”
The bill represents Congress’s response to the massacres in Uvalde and Buffalo, and appears to have enough support from both parties to pass the evenly divided Senate, as well as the House of Representatives. However its lacks many of the more stringent measures Democrats hoped would be enacted following those mass shootings, including raising the age to buy an assault weapon to 21 from 18. It also would have no impact on the supreme court ruling that opens the door for almost all Americans to carry concealed weapons. He wants to pass today.
I understand her frustration. Because more people will die..but the second ammendment rights are very brawn.
New York governor calls ruling 'dark day', vows response
Calling the supreme court’s ruling overturning its regulations on concealed weapons “absolutely shocking” and hypocritical, New York governor Kathy Hochul said the state will look at ways to craft legislation that can shield the public from gun violence.
“They have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions. We can have restrictions on speech — you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater — but somehow, there’s no restrictions allowed on the second amendment,” Hochul said in a speech minutes after the court’s decision was released.
Hochul said that her government had a “whole lot of ideas” for dealing with the ruling. “Our new laws are going to be looking at restrictions on sensitive locations, changing the permitting process... we’re gonna have training requirements, we’re going to make sure that people (who) have concealed weapons have specified training.”
“This is New York. We don’t back down. We fight back,” she said. “I’m sorry this dark day has come.”
I saw her
Allowing friends and family, to inform officials that your family member is showing signs of mental illness does not take away your right to keep and bear arms.
For anything like this, Roger...
You need adequate due process.
In this country you are not declared guilty based on accusation. You cannot have rights taken away without "proof" of some reason. I suspect that each and every instance will need to be approved by a Judge and that an actual hearing would need to be held fairly swiftly if you want this law to be constitutional.
Are you pleased with the fact that an ex-wife of yours can make any allegation she wants without proof and have the police come take you away and force you to stay 100 yards away or whatever? Even under those circumstances, you have the right to go before a Judge and fight a restraining order or order of protection. Even a "temporary" order has to be approved by a Judge.
So there has to be "due process" for this to pass the constitutional test. Since the Senators themselves hardly got a chance to read the bill, I will have to wait to see how this is all worded. But if it provides for the ability to take away a right without due process... then it probably gets shot down (or at least that part of it).
A divorce process can include restrictions in some states.
I was never charged of a crime.
Quit accusing me of a crime or eventually I will sue you Scott
Politico
Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law along ideological lines.
I'm not an ideological person.
I can see both sides and make up my own mind 💯.
That's why you don't understand me and James.
The ex wife is a civil rights not the law.
The bottom line is that I am not abusive.
1
Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law along ideological lines
I'm not agreeing with this because I'm not ideological like you are.
New York governor calls ruling 'dark day', vows response
New York has had almost 1000 gun murders this year...
I wonder how many of those murders were committed by people with legal carry permits. I would bet that number is almost non-existent.
Perhaps like every other blue state loser Governor... needs to start worrying more about their criminals and less about taking guns away from law abiding citizens.
Statement by President Joe Biden on Supreme Court Ruling on Guns
JUNE 23, 2022STATEMENTS AND RELEASES
I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Since 1911, the State of New York has required individuals who would like to carry a concealed weapon in public to show a need to do so for the purpose of self-defense and to acquire a license. More than a century later, the United States Supreme Court has chosen to strike down New York’s long-established authority to protect its citizens. This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.
In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society — not less — to protect our fellow Americans. I remain committed to doing everything in my power to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer. I have already taken more executive actions to reduce gun violence than any other President during their first year in office, and I will continue to do all that I can to protect Americans from gun violence.
I urge states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence. As the late Justice Scalia recognized, the Second Amendment is not absolute. For centuries, states have regulated who may purchase or possess weapons, the types of weapons they may use, and the places they may carry those weapons. And the courts have upheld these regulations.
I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety. Lives are on the line.
The ex wife is a civil rights not the law.
But even an order of protection (which is a civil issue) requires a Judge to sign off and if they want more than a temporary order, then a hearing must be granted to the recipient of the order. There is no long term restraining order or order of protection that is just "handed out" unless there is due process.
And if the allegations are frivolous or unproven, then the Judge will not sign off on an order.
There was not a direct accusations by other people.
You really don't understand California divorce laws.
They give women who were really abused have been given great laws in regard to real abuse.
I am 71 and except when boxing with people I have never hit anyone!
A divorce process can include restrictions in some states.
I was never charged of a crime.
Well there is nothing in California law that provides divorce "restrictions" unless there is an order of protection or restraining order involved. They certainly might be filed at around the same time and I guess if one was so inclined, they could agree to something within a divorce decree to avoid an actual order from a judge. But it would not have any real teeth to it and could likely be violated without any repercussions (other than it would lead to an actual order).
It's not an allegation of a "crime" for someone to file for an order of protection but violence (or legitimate threats of violence) are required to get an order. They just don't provide orders because one person claims that a perfectly non-violent person who has not made any real threats is "going to become violent" in the future.
Any long term order is still a "reaction" to actual evidence of existing actions. You have to prove the violent history or show legitimate threats that were made. This would have to be the same standard used for the red flag law. You could not just say... hey I think Timmy would be unsafe with a gun because he gets frustrated playing video games. It would have to involve tangible reasons to remove this right.
They give women who were really abused have been given great laws in regard to real abuse.
Whaaaa???
Back on topic.
Many conservatives praised the decision as a protection of the right to bear arms. Lauren Boebert, a Republican representative from Colorado, celebrated with a tweet: “Scotus just struck down New York’s unconstitutional gun law! Glory!”
The supreme court’s opinion comes with the country still reeling from several mass shootings.
Last month, an 18 year old with a legally purchased assault-style rifle allegedly shot and killed 10 people in a racist attack on a supermarket in a majority Black neighborhood in Buffalo, New York.
Less than two weeks later, another 18 year old broke into Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and shot and killed 19 children and two adults, before being killed by law enforcement.
----
This might change minds about Democrats and Republicans. Especially in the suburbs that elected Biden
It used to be impossible to get eviction notices. Caliber has one of the best deals on women who have been abused by their husbands.
Many conservatives praised the decision as a protection of the right to bear arms. Lauren Boebert, a Republican representative from Colorado, celebrated with a tweet: “Scotus just struck down New York’s unconstitutional gun law! Glory!”
The supreme court’s opinion comes with the country still reeling from several mass shootings.
Last month, an 18 year old with a legally purchased assault-style rifle allegedly shot and killed 10 people in a racist attack on a supermarket in a majority Black neighborhood in Buffalo, New York.
Less than two weeks later, another 18 year old broke into Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and shot and killed 19 children and two adults, before being killed by law enforcement.
Why did you censorship this??
Well Roger...
My brother went through two messy divorces in California with all sorts of allegations and I was involved to some degree in both of these, just as he just got done dealing with a messy custody deal.
While you can certainly limit access to a minor child or restrict visitation rights, there was nothing in the divorce laws that allowed either of his ex-wives to create an order that required him to stay away from them unless they get a finding of domestic violence IN COURT!
There will still be due process and you still have the opportunity to go before a Judge.
If I had to suspect... I am guessing that "you" are the one who does not understand divorce laws in California. Or possibly you had a feeble attorney or you just made your own decision not to fight the allegations of domestic abuse. But you had the right to go to court and have due process if you had any sort or restraining order placed in your divorce agreement.
Gun control groups have vowed to continue fighting despite the supreme court’s expansion of concealed carry rights, including by finding legal avenues for states to limit gun possession.
In a statement, John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, said, “Today’s ruling is out of step with the bipartisan majority in Congress that is on the verge of passing significant gun safety legislation, and out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans who support gun safety measures. Let’s be clear: the supreme court got this decision wrong, choosing to put our communities in even greater danger with gun violence on the rise across the country.”
“The supreme court misapplied fundamental constitutional principles in ruling against New York,” chief litigation counsel at Everytown Law Eric Tirschwell said. “Even so, states can still pass and enforce a wide array of laws to keep public spaces safe from gun violence, and we’re ready to go to court to defend these laws.”
___
Like I said before I actually agreed with the Supreme Court.
But carefully crafted laws can help the people.
Six other states have to address this decision.
Her lawyer called me to talk about it but I didn't and I didn't hire a lawyer. I was recovering from the liver transplant and I couldn't go anywhere then
The major issue was home ownership rights after 10 years of marriage I would have had half ownership of her house.
Not abuse. But if I had met with them she might not have filled for divorce.
When I didn't meet she used the other method.
In ten minutes from now
The select committee is also expected to examine the fraught weeks leading up to that moment, and the growing fear inside the justice department that Trump might drag them in to overturn the election results.
Perry introduced Clark to Trump, the interim report found. The panel is expected to shed new light on that at the hearing led by Congressman Adam Kinzinger, as well as how Perry sought a presidential pardon days after 6 January.
The hearing is expected to be the select committee’s final one in June – there will be at least two more hearings next month but probably not before 12 July when the House returns from recess – and will probably build on the interim report.
In doing so, the select committee is likely to relive other key moments: a 27 December 2020 call in which Trump pressured Rosen and his deputy, Richard Donoghue, to declare the election corrupt; Trump’s push to get Clark to get Rosen to open investigations into fraud.
Her lawyer called me to talk about it but I didn't and I didn't hire a lawyer.
So you let your ex-wife's divorce attorney explain how California law works and never bothered to hire your own attorney.
Having to leave your wife's house after a divorce is not the same thing as an order or protection. Obviously my ex-wife and I had to settle on the living arrangements. After originally wanting me to keep our house, she flipped about two weeks before we signed and I was the one who moved out and bought my own house. If your wife owned the house under her name, then she was entitled to keep it and you were not entitled to live there.
That is not a legal order of protection.
Roger...
You know who else tried to and tries to jail their political opponents? Hitler, Hussein, Castro, Putin, XI, Kim Jong-un, and pretty much every other dictator.
Congratulations... we can now add Joe Biden to that list of leaders who use their gestapo to go after their political opponents. You must be so proud of him joining this elite list.
Lydia owned the house under her name, then she was entitled to keep it, but under the law I would have half of the value, when we had stayed married to her for ten years after I moved in.
Scott, the President tried to overturn the election the the day after election night...
By sending electoral voters who would have voted for Trump, despite the fact that the state election results went to Biden is illegal.
If the hearings today show the he tried to get it Department of Justice to declare victory for Trump.
If he succesfully actually directed the director to declare victory for him, He would have been sworn in President Trump
Bringing up irrational parallel issues is propaganda
Just in!
Hearings
LIVEDay 5 Updates
Your Questions, Answered
Jan. 6 Timeline
Photos: The Washington Spectacle
Democracy Challenged
LIVEJan. 6 Panel Hearings
Federal Authorities Search Home of Trump Justice Dept. Official
June 23, 2022, 1:01 p.m. ET21 minutes ago
21 minutes ago
Alan Feuer, Adam Goldman and Maggie Haberman
Investigators came to the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official, on Wednesday.
Investigators came to the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official, on Wednesday.Credit...Yuri Gripas/Reuters
Federal investigators descended on the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official, on Wednesday in connection with the department’s sprawling inquiry into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to people familiar with the matter.
It remained unclear exactly what the investigators may have been looking for, but Mr. Clark was central to President Donald J. Trump’s unsuccessful effort in late 2020 to strong-arm the nation’s top prosecutors into supporting his claims of election fraud.
The law enforcement action at Mr. Clark’s home in suburban Virginia came just one day before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol was poised to hold a hearing examining Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure the Justice Department after his election defeat.
They might be looking for evidence they had to warrant.
The hearing was expected to explore Mr. Clark’s role in helping Mr. Trump bend the department to his will and ultimately help in a bid to persuade officials in several key swing states to change the outcome of their election results.
Mr. Trump considered and then abandoned a plan in the days just before the Jan. 6 attack to put Mr. Clark in charge of the Justice Department as acting attorney general. At the time, Mr. Clark was proposing to send a letter to state officials in Georgia falsely stating that the department had evidence that could lead Georgia to rescind its certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in that key swing state.
The search at Mr. Clark’s home also came as a federal grand jury continued to issue subpoenas to at least eight people in four different states who were involved in a plan by Mr. Trump and his allies to subvert the normal workings of the electoral process by creating fake slates of pro-Trump electors in states that were actually won by Mr. Biden.
Mr. Clark did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.
Mr. Clark, who once served as the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division, helped in late December 2020 to draft a letter to Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia stating — without evidence — that the Justice Department had identified “significant concerns” about the “outcome of the election” in Georgia and several other states. The letter advised Mr. Kemp, a Republican, to call a special session of his state’s legislature to create “a separate slate of electors supporting Donald J. Trump.”
Mr. Clark pressured the acting attorney general at the time, Jeffrey A. Rosen, to sign and send the letter to Mr. Kemp, but Mr. Rosen refused. Mr. Rosen is scheduled to testify before the House committee at its hearing on Thursday.
US Supreme Court Justice Thomas is 2A Rock Star
Lordie, Roger is Always a "Victim".
WASHINGTON — The Senate gun legislation cleared a key procedural vote Thursday, which all but guarantees passage of the bipartisan bill designed to combat gun violence.
The vote was 65-34, with 15 Republicans including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joining a unanimous Democratic caucus in voting to advance the package. A final vote could come as soon as Thursday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said.
Schumer on Thursday praised the efforts of the leading negotiators — Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., John Cornyn, R-Texas, Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C. — in reaching the compromise.
“I thank them. America thanks them,” he said. “We’re going to keep going until we finish the job.”
The vote, which required 60 to bypass a GOP filibuster, sets up a vote on final passage this week. If the bill passes, it would then need to be voted on by the House before being signed into law by the president, who endorsed the measure in a White House statement on Thursday.
This happened in response to the Supreme Court decision
"The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 6-3 on June 23 that New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry permit issuance is unconstitutional."
Of course it was unconstitutional.
It is all the Socialist Democrats know attack the US Constitution.
Incredible day ❤️
Clark, a former assistant attorney general for the environment and natural resources, has emerged as a key player in Donald Trump's efforts to leverage the powers of the Justice Department to find widespread corruption in the 2020 electoral process after it became clear that Joe Biden had won.
He might have some good evidence
Bidenomics crashing harder every fucking day.
"
S&P Global U.S. manufacturing PMI June
52.4. Down from 57.0.
Happy Birthday Justice Thomas.
He gave Freedom Loving America a huge Gift.
On 4 January, the conservative lawyer John Eastman was summoned to the Oval Office to meet Donald Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence. Within 48 hours, Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election would formally be certified by Congress, sealing Trump’s fate and removing him from the White House.
Tucker Carlson condemned over ‘false flag’ claim about deadly Capitol attack
The atmosphere in the room was tense. The then US president was “fired up” to make what amounted to a last-ditch effort to overturn the election results and snatch a second term in office in the most powerful job on Earth.
Eastman, who had a decades-long reputation as a prominent conservative law professor, had already prepared a two-page memo in which he had outlined an incendiary scenario under which Pence, presiding over the joint session of Congress that was to be convened on 6 January, effectively overrides the votes of millions of Americans in seven states that Biden had won, then “gavels President Trump as re-elected”.
The Eastman memo, first revealed by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in their book Peril, goes on to predict “howls” of protest from Democrats. The theory was that Pence, acting as the “ultimate arbiter” of the process, would then send the matter to the House of Representatives which, following an arcane rule that says that where no candidate has reached the necessary majority each state will have one vote, also decides to turn the world upside down and hand the election to the losing candidate, Donald Trump.
Eastman’s by now notorious memo, and the surreal encounter in the Oval Office, are among the central twists in the unfolding story of Trump’s audacious bid to hang on to power. They form the basis of what critics argue was nothing less than an attempted electoral coup.
Forbes News
A once-obscure environmental lawyer, Clark was appointed head of the DOJ’s civil division in the final months of the Trump Administration. After Trump lost the 2020 election and Attorney General William Barr stepped down, Clark pushed the DOJ to more firmly back Trump’s evidence-free voter fraud allegations, sometimes conferring with Trump directly, according to a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation. In emails to colleagues in late December 2020, Clark argued the DOJ should send a letter to legislators in Georgia—which President Joe Biden narrowly won—encouraging them to consider picking a new slate of electors, an idea rejected by senior DOJ leaders. Trump reportedly mulled making Clark attorney general in the final weeks of his term, but the then-president backed down after the DOJ’s leadership threatened mass resignations at the agency’s top levels.
WHAT TO WATCH FOR
Clark is expected to be a focus of Thursday afternoon’s House January 6 committee hearing, which will look at Trump’s efforts to pressure the DOJ into helping him overturn the 2020 election results. Trump and his allies repeatedly urged the department to open dubious voter fraud investigations, and suggested filing a brief encouraging the Supreme Court to toss out Biden’s wins in some swing states, the Senate Judiciary Committee found.
It won't change your mind 😌
Being non ideological is not easy but I am
The Biden Recession is deepens.
Real wealth has been by design destroyed.
Now Joe blames small business owners for inflation.
Vice President Kamala Harris
@VP
·
Follow
United States government official
Today's Supreme Court ruling on guns is deeply troubling as it defies commonsense and the Constitution. Lives are at stake. Congress should pass the bipartisan gun safety proposal immediately and continue to do more to protect our communities.
So our idiot VP is questioning whether or not the USSC actually understands the constitution? I mean it is one thing to argue that the constitution is being ignored if there is a ruling that runs "counter" to it...
But when you say it is unconstitutional when they are literally following the constitution, well that is one of those silly liberal concepts.
Because one person's "common sense" is another person's "foolish action".
Steve Deace
https://twitter.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/1539958575501541376
In one generation we have gone from a handful of unarmed civilians on United 93 sacrificing themselves to stop an attack on 911 that could’ve killed thousands...to dozens of heavily armed officers standing by for an hour while children were slaughtered inside a school.
When a culture let's go of the rope, that culture goes fast.
That's what you're watching now. We let go of the rope.
And now the Biden administration wants to unarm civilians from protecting themselves
and protecting our country
as they let millions invade
worst president ever
and it's not even close
and getting worse
while a show "trial" rages on
1984
for those who can read and comprehend
this excludes roger and his aliases
The VP. Is clearly in way over her head.
Does she think passing the bill will reinstate New York's Gun law ?
The bill proposed will not stop a single killing.
The search at Mr. Clark’s home also came as a federal grand jury continued to issue subpoenas to at least eight people in four different states who were involved in a plan by Mr. Trump and his allies to subvert the normal workings of the electoral process by creating fake slates of pro-Trump electors in states that were actually won by Mr. Biden.
Mr. Clark did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.
Mr. Clark, who once served as the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division, helped in late December 2020 to draft a letter to Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia stating — without evidence — that the Justice Department had identified “significant concerns” about the “outcome of the election” in Georgia and several other states. The letter advised Mr. Kemp, a Republican, to call a special session of his state’s legislature to create “a separate slate of electors supporting Donald J. Trump.”
Mr. Clark pressured the acting attorney general at the time, Jeffrey A. Rosen, to sign and send the letter to Mr. Kemp, but Mr. Rosen refused. Mr. Rosen is scheduled to testify before the House committee at its hearing on Thursday.
The bill proposed will not stop a single killing.
The goat fucking idiot once again would rather give guns rights than the people who are alive.....what a sick fucking idiot he has become!!!!!!!
The US Constitution gives We the People gun rights.
Don't like it, Fuck Off.
Denny , "would rather give guns rights than the people who are alive"
Uhm, Dead People need gun rights?
Please, do explain yourself.
January 6 committee begins fifth hearing
The House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection has started its fifth hearing, which will focus on Donald Trump’s efforts to get the justice department to go along with his plans to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory. Testifying in the chamber will be:
Jeffrey Rosen, the acting attorney general for the final weeks of Trump’s term, including during the attack on the Capitol.
Richard Donoghue, the former acting deputy attorney general, who appeared in a video aired at the conclusion of Tuesday’s hearing threatening to resign if Trump appointed Jeffrey Clark to head the justice department.
Steven Engel, the former assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel.
They have to letter to Georgia 🇬🇪
The committee’s top Republican Liz Cheney is offering more details about the actions of justice department official Jeffrey Clark, who had his house raided today by federal investigators.
According to Cheney, Clark and another justice department lawyer drafted a letter addressed to the Georgia state legislature, which would have said the department had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the state of Georgia,” and that the legislature should convene and consider approving a new slate of electors. Joe Biden had won Georgia, but Trump made baseless allegations of fraud in the polls, and the new electors would have presumably given him the state’s electoral votes.
“In fact, Donald Trump knew this was a lie,” Cheney said. “The department of justice had already informed the President of the United States repeatedly that its investigations had found no fraud sufficient to overturn the results of the 2020 election.”
Cheney said Clark had met with Trump privately and agreed to help him sway these states’ legislatures without telling his bosses at the justice department. But Cheney said Clark’s superiors — who are the witnesses testifying today — refused to sign it. That was when Trump began considering installing Clark at the helm at the justice department — which he never ended up doing.
Biden is "deeply disappointed" .
That USSC Justice Thomas upheld the US Constitution and A2 rights.
This has been a great day.
Today’s hearing is focusing on the inner workings of the justice department, but as in previous sessions, the committee has tried to make sure the insurrection isn’t far from viewers’ minds.
Case in point: lawmakers just aired video from the day of the attack showing marchers chanting “Do your job!” outside the justice department — evidence that Trump’s most ardent supporters were well aware of the president’s attempts to push government lawyers to interfere with Joe Biden’s victory.
But as justice department officials tell it, they never believed in Trump’s fraud claims. Richard Donoghue, the former acting deputy attorney general, said Trump lawyer Pat Cipollone described the letter Clark wanted to send for Trump as a “murder-suicide pact. It’s going to damage everyone who touches it.”
Ex-Trump Admin Witnesses Describe Aggressive Pushback Against Clark
Former Trump acting attorney general Richard Donoghue and former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann claimed in video testimony that they did not mince words when they spoke to Jeffrey Clark.
“I said, good fucking — excuse me, sorry, fucking a-hole, congratulations, you just admitted your first step or act you would take as attorney general would be committing a felony and violating Rule 6(e),” Herschmann recalled telling Clark.
Donoghue claimed that he pointed out Clark is “not even competent” to serve as attorney general, citing Clark’s lack of experience as a criminal attorney and in conducting a criminal investigations.
Donoghue went on to claim that former White House counsel Pat Cipolllone called Clark’s never-sent draft letter that falsely declared the DOJ had found fraud a “murder-suicide pact” and said that he wanted nothing to do with it.
All three of them met with the President Trump and he refused to listen to them and claimed that it was fraudulent.
Almost like he's fucking crazy 🤪
Blogger Coldheartedtruth Teller said...
Almost like he's fucking crazy 🤪
Crazies know crazy, oh ancient one locked up in a looney bin
You have 30 of 56 posts
Fuck you’re pathetic.
Go ask an RN to walk around with you outside, if they’ll let you
The Jan 6th committee had delayed their hearings as they gather more information from a witness who is said to be the dog walker of buddy of one of the neighbors of someone who knew something nefarious about the alternate electors. Pelosi expects that this will be the smoking gun!
Anonymous Caliphate4vr said...
You have 30 of 56 posts
Wow shorty I guess when you have no fucking life, counting posts is your hobby of last resort!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Barr 'not sure' transition to Biden would have happened without DoJ fraud probe
As this hearing has unfolded, the justice department officials testifying have said they investigated many of the claims of fraud in the 2020 election brought forward by Trump and his allies. The decision to look into these claims in the weeks after polls closed may be more significant than it appears at first glance.
In video testimony aired earlier in the hearing, William Barr, Trump’s attorney general during the election, said be believes that the department’s ability to debunk the false claims of fraud as Trump was making them were essential to allowing Joe Biden to assume office.
“I felt the responsible thing to do was to be... in a position to have a view as to whether or not there was fraud,” Barr told investigators.
“I sort of shudder to think what the situation would have been if the position of the department was, we’re not even looking at this until after Biden’s in office. I’m not sure we would have had a transition at all.”
Scott, the hearings is to block buster because he tried to turn the Department of Justice his own lawyers, but they all stood for their oaths
And the President refused to listen to them.
You really don't care about the United States of America because your loyalty to Trump is irrational
He wanted them to send letters to several states and said that the election was stolen. .
You still believe that suitcases were false and that a truck brought millions of fake ballots 🗳
Former Attorney General Eric Holder tweeted that the key piece of evidence for him was when Donald Trump ordered DOJ lawyers, "Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen."
Holder explained, "Coupled with other testimony demonstrates both Trump’s substantive involvement and corrupt intent, requisite state of mind." He went on to say that all of the lawyers involved in it should be disbarred.
Barr 'not sure' transition to Biden would have happened without DoJ fraud probe
As this hearing has unfolded, the justice department officials testifying have said they investigated many of the claims of fraud in the 2020 election brought forward by Trump and his allies. The decision to look into these claims in the weeks after polls closed may be more significant than it appears at first glance.
In video testimony aired earlier in the hearing, William Barr, Trump’s attorney general during the election, said be believes that the department’s ability to debunk the false claims of fraud as Trump was making them were essential to allowing Joe Biden to assume office.
“I felt the responsible thing to do was to be... in a position to have a view as to whether or not there was fraud,” Barr told investigators.
“I sort of shudder to think what the situation would have been if the position of the department was, we’re not even looking at this until after Biden’s in office. I’m not sure we would have had a transition at all.”
The DOJ conducted research into allegations of fraud and they found almost zero evidence that you still believe
Durham Played You For A Fool!
John Durham and Bill Barr finally ran out of the clock on Spygate. Why are you surprised?
Indictments are coming!
People will know the names of these people!
Criminal prosecutions! Not just a report!
Notice that (then) AG Bill Barr promises justice for the Russia Hoax while at the very same time excluding Obama and Biden as subjects of the Durham investigation.
That’s the moment that you should have known: the fix is in.
The entire “tick tock” narrative that followed was brought to you (mostly) by Fox News and Bill Barr.
People ask me all the time how I knew — all the way back in the early months of 2020 — that the Durham investigation was a sham. (What do I mean by a sham —you ask? I mean a counterfeit of real justice — a ploy — a ruse to mislead the public.) It wasn’t because I had sources at the FBI or the DOJ. I correctly predicted the Durham investigation was a joke because the Huber investigation was a joke, and because the Hillary Clinton email investigation was a joke, and because the Huma Abedin laptop investigation was a joke, and because the Jeffrey Epstein investigation was a joke….
full article
https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/durham-played-you-for-a-fool
she was right
Barr was a joke
and now on full display
Brave people stopped Trump
Like at the previous hearings, the key takeaway was that the conspiracy to overturn the election was directed by Trump himself.
And once again, dedicated public servants stood up when the most powerful man in the world asked them to do corrupt things. William Barr, Jeffrey Rosen and Rich Donoghue all wanted Trump to win the election, but none were apparently willing to take illegal actions to overturn it.
Unfortunately, there were others — like Jeff Clark — who seemed perfectly willing to do Trump’s bidding. He joins John Eastman on the likely indictment list.
We all pity Roger.
* more from above:
Durham even tried to get the American public to believe that the FBI and the CIA had somehow been fooled by Hillary Clinton into investigating Trump. That’s right: the FBI and the CIA claimed to be innocent rubes who were deliberately led astray by Lady Macbeth. Spygate was reduced to something about the Alfa Bank, and whether Michael Sussmann told the FBI that he represented a client when he dropped off “information” on thumb drives at Langley seemingly three days a week in 2017.
The Sussmann media coverage was absurd from the start — but every conservative media outlet on Earth ran these stupidities with a straight face in 2022. There were moments during the trial of Michael Sussmann when it was easy to believe that Sussmann’s case had more to do with Perkins Coie billing the Clinton campaign for two thumb drives — rather than, you know, participating in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow the sitting President.
That’s what happens when you reduce a criminal conspiracy to overthrow the sitting President into a single charge of lying to the FBI. The elephant in the room transforms into a fly, and then the fly gets swatted.
Durham’s job was to run out the clock during the Trump Administration — he was there to protect Obama and Biden and the national security state from any accountability. Think about it. Why did you trust Durham at all? You trusted John Durham because you were told to trust him by Bill Barr — and the same people who told you to trust Barr were the ones who told you to trust Rod Rosenstein. Before that, you were told that Matt Whitaker was riding to the rescue. Do you even remember being told to trust John Huber?
And who can forget trusting Jeff Sessions?
Do you see where this is going?
Let’s ask a different question: why do you need to trust anybody? The Left burns down entire cities in coordinated riots to achieve its political objectives. The Left tries to assassinate a conservative Supreme Court justice to stop anti-abortion legislation right after forcing a liberal Supreme Court justice into retirement in order to install an even more left-wing justice. The Left, in other words, trusts nobody because it only cares about results.
Jeffrey Rosen, the acting attorney general in the final weeks of the Trump administration, is now recounting Trump’s attempt to replace him with Jeffrey Clark, who was playing a major roles in his efforts to have states that voted for Biden overturn their results.
In a meeting on a Sunday, Rosen said Clark “told me that he would be replacing me,” and had made the atypical request to ask to meet him alone, “because he thought it would be appropriate in light of what was happening to at least offer me, that I couldn’t stay on his his deputy.”
“I thought that was preposterous. I told him that was nonsensical,” Rosen said. “There’s no universe where I was going to do that, to stay on and support someone else doing things that were not consistent with what I thought should be done.”
However, Clark also said he would turn down Trump’s offer to replace Rosen if the acting attorney general signed the letter disputing the validity of Georgia’s electors for Biden.
Richard Donoghue recounted that Rosen made the decisions to begin informing other department officials about the quandary, and almost all the assistant attorney generals said they would resign if Trump replaced Rosen with Clark.
Jeff Clark — who seemed perfectly willing to do Trump’s bidding. He joins John Eastman on the likely indictment list.
The Georgia phone call could put him in jail
Governor Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y.
Issues Muskets to her private Security Team.
Bill Barr didn’t really want to arrest or prosecute Democrats — and certainly not in 2020. After all, the GOP establishment was busy collaborating with Democrats in 2020 to steal the November election from President Trump — or don’t you remember?
In other words: the Durham investigation was simply the clean-up phase of Spygate disguised as an investigation of Spygate. This was perfectly obvious at the time — and it remains obvious today. It doesn’t take two years for the DOJ to prosecute its targets. You know that — right? Just ask Roger Stone. When the DOJ really wants to prosecute you, it’s easy to tell because two dozen special agents in SWAT gear appear at your door in a pre-dawn raid with a CNN camera crew already stationed across the street.
And that’s just for the crime of “lying to Congress.”
Did you really think that John Durham need two years to bring serious indictments against the Spygate plotters? Did you really fail to notice that his low-level indictments came just as the statue of limitations expired? Or that Durham brought minimal charges that were always going to bring minimal sentences?
That’s because John Durham was the cleaner.
Don't tell me that you actually believed that one guy at the DOJ was going to investigate how the DOJ and the FBI and the CIA were trying to sabotage President Trump all by himself? All the majors players in Spygate walked away while Durham sent you on a wild goose chase hunting for commas in charging documents — and that wild goose chase was so successful in conservative media that you’re still talking about two low-level guys getting charged with process crimes four years after Durham supposedly started his investigation.
---------------------
Banana Republic
no justice
Animal Farm
Kangaroo Court
1984
She is Alky Level Stupid.
"One moment of Hochul’s speech – around seven minutes in – went viral. The governor stated, "I’m sorry this dark day has come, that we’re supposed to go back to what was in place since 1788 when the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified. And I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices that the only weapons at the time were muskets. I’m prepared to go back to muskets."
And so spectacularly wrong.
On top of everything else Biden is fucking up, he's now trying to ruin Title IX. His war on women continues.
The entire staff of the Department of Justice would have resigned if Jeffrey Clark was the attorney that
Jeffrey Rosen, the acting attorney general in the final weeks of the Trump administration, is now recounting Trump’s attempt to replace him with Jeffrey Clark, who was playing a major roles in his efforts to have states that voted for Biden overturn their results.
In a meeting on a Sunday, Rosen said Clark “told me that he would be replacing me,” and had made the atypical request to ask to meet him alone, “because he thought it would be appropriate in light of what was happening to at least offer me, that I couldn’t stay on his his deputy.”
“I thought that was preposterous. I told him that was nonsensical,” Rosen said. “There’s no universe where I was going to do that, to stay on and support someone else doing things that were not consistent with what I thought should be done.”
However, Clark also said he would turn down Trump’s offer to replace Rosen if the acting attorney general signed the letter disputing the validity of Georgia’s electors for Biden.
Richard Donoghue recounted that Rosen made the decisions to begin informing other department officials about the quandary, and almost all the assistant attorney generals said they would resign if Trump replaced Rosen with Clark.
Biden cannot possibly run again. Who are the top democrats candidates besides Harris? There can't be many if Oprah is being discussed.
I think all this obsession on Trump is a huge help to DeSantis. He could be unbeatable in 2024.
Even though inflation is nearly 9%, company wage increases are so far only around 3%. This is concerning and even angering workers. They remember getting 5-6% in 2019 with inflation only at 2%..
I just posted on four different topics. Let's see if thr board asshole buries them in a Jan 6 shit blizzard.
Bomb shell 🐚 👌
Representatives Mo Brooks, Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, Louie Gohmert and Scott Perry were among the Republican members of Congress who asked then-president Donald Trump to insulate them from future prosecutions by granting them presidential pardons in the days immediately following the attack on the US Capitol on January 6 last year.
Their names were revealed by the House January 6 select committee on Thursday at the end of the panel’s hearing to examine Mr Trump’s efforts to pressure the Department of Justice to assist in his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.
The select committee played videotaped excerpts from depositions of former Trump White House staffers, who described the Republican members’ efforts to obtain clemency after Mr Trump’s scheme brought about the worst attack on the Capitol since the War of 1812.
“The general tone was, we may get prosecuted because we were defensive of ... the president positions on these things,” said former deputy White House counsel Eric Herschmann, who confirmed to the panel that Mr Gaetz asked for a pardon.
There it is. You son of a bitch . Talk about something else. Or are you just too damn ignorant?
Myballsinthewoodsagain said...
I just posted on four different topics. Let's see if thr board asshole buries them in a Jan 6 shit blizzard.
winner
he immediately did
lowlife nolife
WASHINGTON – The special committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol named four additional Republican congressmen who sought pardons from President Donald Trump.
The requests stemmed from their involvement in Trump’s schemes to try to subvert the 2020 presidential election, which Trump insisted he won despite losing by several million votes.
The committee previously revealed that Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) sought a presidential pardon, something the congressman denied.
During Thursday’s public hearing on Capitol Hill, witnesses close to the Trump White House said in previously recorded interviews that Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), and Andy Biggs (R-Arizona), and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) also asked for pardons.
“The pardon he was requesting was as broad as you can describe ... for any and all things,” former Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann said of Gaetz
I am publicly asking CH to suspend Roger posting privileges for one month. Just like facebook. I am damn fed up.
Myballsinthewoodsagain, we all are.
Myballsinthewoodsagain said...
I am publicly asking CH to suspend Roger posting privileges for one month. Just like facebook. I am damn fed up.
He is just a zombie at this point
or you could say a mindless bot
he makes the fifth beatle look competent at this point
Today’s hearing was masterful in continuing to build a criminal case against Donald Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election. It was extraordinary.
We heard the smoking gun quote that proves Trump was directing the scheme: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.”
Trump’s quote was first reported last year but we learned today it was documented in real time by Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue on Dec. 27, 2020. When coupled with other testimony from these hearings, it demonstrates Trump’s intimate involvement and corrupt intent in trying to remain in power.
We also found out the White House had begun referring to Jeff Clark as the acting attorney general on the afternoon of January 3. That’s extraordinary because we know he was willing to carry out Trump’s plan and declare the election fraudulent. That’s how close the country came to a full-blown constitutional crisis and possible “political coup.”
The only reason Trump didn’t fire Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and make the Clark appointment was because he was told mass resignations — possibly “hundreds and hundreds of them” — would take place at the Justice Department.
Just as important, we learned that at least six Republican members of Congress sought pardons in the final days of Trump’s presidency. They included Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Louis Gohmert (R-TX) and Scott Perry (R-PA).
Trump also talked about issuing a “blanket pardon” for family members and for staff.
As Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) summarized: “The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think you have committed a crime.”
One more thing worth mentioning: At the start of the hearing, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) emphasized how little of the committee’s evidence had been presented so far. She suggested much more is coming.
The clock is ticking though.
aid...
I am publicly asking CH to suspend Roger posting privileges
BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! YOU ARE AN IDOT!!!!!!!!!
Fick off you ignorant dolt.
Exactly.
"MyballsinthewoodsagainJune 23, 2022 at 4:31 PM
Even though inflation is nearly 9%, company wage increases are so far only around 3%. This is concerning and even angering workers. They remember getting 5-6% in 2019 with inflation only at 2%..
VERY lo iq BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! calling someone an idiot
ROFLMFAO !!!
Denny is the Official Appologist of Roger.
He can't block that don't have my email 😒
Today’s hearing was masterful in continuing to build a criminal case against Donald Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election. It was extraordinary.
We heard the smoking gun quote that proves Trump was directing the scheme: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.”
Trump’s quote was first reported last year but we learned today it was documented in real time by Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue on Dec. 27, 2020. When coupled with other testimony from these hearings, it demonstrates Trump’s intimate involvement and corrupt intent in trying to remain in power.
We also found out the White House had begun referring to Jeff Clark as the acting attorney general on the afternoon of January 3. That’s extraordinary because we know he was willing to carry out Trump’s plan and declare the election fraudulent. That’s how close the country came to a full-blown constitutional crisis and possible “political coup.”
The only reason Trump didn’t fire Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and make the Clark appointment was because he was told mass resignations — possibly “hundreds and hundreds of them” — would take place at the Justice Department.
Just as important, we learned that at least six Republican members of Congress sought pardons in the final days of Trump’s presidency. They included Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Louis Gohmert (R-TX) and Scott Perry (R-PA).
Trump also talked about issuing a “blanket pardon” for family members and for staff.
As Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) summarized: “The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think you have committed a crime.”
One more thing worth mentioning: At the start of the hearing, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) emphasized how little of the committee’s evidence had been presented so far. She suggested much more is coming.
The clock is ticking though.
But you have lost your mind Scott. You really are acting like the 5th Beatle.
Irrational diabetes
James's Fucking Daddy
We call him Dopie, for good cause.
Roger is like that kid who will kick the back of a chair just to irritate them...
well as long as he could do it from a secure location where he wouldn't get his ass kicked. As he has admitted, he never punched anyone outside of a controlled "boxing" situation.
Which means he lived 70 years avoiding a fight. Not sure how you can grow up in the 70s and not get into a fight. I got into probably a dozen fights between grade school and high school. It was literally unavoidable unless you were a pussy who ran away all the time! Hey... everyone runs every so often depending on the situation, but NEVER standing up to it?
I would like to come here and talk about something else.
That's all.
VP Harris has run fast and hard from the Task of solving the US / Mexico Border. She Failed.
Then she was sent to Europe to stop the Russian war. She failed.
24 % of Hispanics support Biden.
Roger Amick uncensored said 2 things by himself:
"He can't block that don't have my email"
"Irrational diabetes"
drugged out street people have more sense of reality than roger
sad
Myballsinthewoodsagain
To understand Roger is easy.
He want Trump dead.
How far will Roger go to make that a reality.
Anonymous Myballsinthewoodsagain said...
Fick off you ignorant dolt.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! Brave talk from a proven loser of trump!!!!
VP Harris has run fast and hard from the Task of solving the US / Mexico Border. She Failed.
Then she was sent to Europe to stop the Russian war. She failed.
24 % of Hispanics support Biden
I saw Harris had the exact same approval rating today
24%
she's even lower than Biden's overall...
No way she will be his VP pick if he runs again and no way she is the 2024 nominee
Unless Willie Brown runs and sticks her in the VP slut
throwback Thursday ?
AG Mary Garland refuses to stop the open Terrorist Group called 'Jane's Revenge ".
* slot, or whatever
Anonymous Anonymous said...
AG Mary Garland refuses to stop the open Terrorist Group called 'Jane's Revenge ".
SAME POST DIFFERENT DAY......BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! ASSHOLE
Facts Remains .
AG Mary Garland refuses to stop the open Terrorist Group called 'Jane's Revenge
Come on Man
Denny , "would rather give guns rights than the people who are alive"
Uhm, Dead People need gun rights?
Please, do explain yourself.
Post a Comment