@quick-handsPlease take a breather from this thread as you are derailing discussion of the topic and deflecting to an unrelated issue. Please start a new thread to address the issue you wish to talk about and let this one be for now. Thank you
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Mark Meadows' text messages inner circle communications before and after January 6 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Schmo
- Start date
sho nuff
Footballguy
Actually…no. And he did find plenty. But it would have only led to an impeachment hearing…which if convicted would not have overturned an election, but made Mike Pence POTUS.
Your whataboutism is not a very good comparison whatsoever. A legal and just investigation (ordered by Trump’s own AG).
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
Good point.
Personally, I think it's bad that Republicans wanted to overturn a legitimate election result and install a recently defeated candidate as president of the United States for 2021-2025 contrary to the wishes of a clear majority of voters as expressed in both the popular vote and the electoral college.
I would be curious to hear from Republican voters on this matter. Do they agree with my assessment? If not, why not? If so, do they plan to vote for Republicans involved in the failed effort in the future? What about Republicans generally?
Last edited by a moderator:
Witz
Footballguy
quick-hands
Footballguy
See some people still believe that stuff. You are as bad as people believe 2020 and 2016 was stolen
Rosenstein was not trumps AG. But I don't expect you to know the facts.
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
I noticed that you think the people who believe that the 2020 election was stolen are "bad." Do you think you would ever vote for any of these people for the presidency, congress or governor despite their "badness"?
Amused to Death
Footballguy
No, but he is a life-long Republican and hired a life-long Republican to lead the investigation. Not sure where the Dems come in here.
quick-hands
Footballguy
dozer
Footballguy
quick-hands
Footballguy
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
It's never about forgetting. It's about ignoring. Confirmation bias at its finest.
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
I'm always happy to use this function, but @quick-hands has been generally pleasant and responsive in this thread. He brought up the 2016 election as a legitimate counterpoint, heard out the people who disagreed with this comparison, didn't push it when he was asked to get back to the main subject, and even answered a pointed question I posed to him.
I disagree with pretty much everything the guy has said in here, but IMO we need more posters and people like that.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
No...I am not as bad as you claim...nor as bad as someone derailing this thread with whataboutism that fell flat on its face.
You know what I meant by the AG comment...but choose to do this to keep up the derailing efforts.
Do you have anything to add about the actual topic and the texts that have come out? Any argument you are willing to make in good faith?
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Agreed. The former is called due process. The latter is called sedition, attempted insurrection and treason.
Back to the topic…
We’re gonna see how serious Garland was with holding everyone responsible no matter the level.
If you look at one of the potential charges - conspiracy to obstruct an official procedure - the names of people who could potentially be charged are piling up. Anyone that was involved in trying to convince Pence not to certify the election. Anyone involved in the scheme to get Jeffry Clark into a leadership position so that he can release a memo giving Pence that authorization. Anyone involved in the false slate of electors. Every day the cast involved seems to get bigger and bigger.
Mark Meadows seems to be in the middle of it all but still the DOJ hasn’t acted on the contempt of Congress charges. The only thing that makes sense is that he’s cooperating with the DOJ investigation and the remaining documents he’s withholding from the 1/6 committee are pertinent to the DOJ investigation.
The next document release likely will be Ted Cruz’s emails with John Eastman which likely will tie him to the legal memo Eastman created.
We’re gonna see how serious Garland was with holding everyone responsible no matter the level.
If you look at one of the potential charges - conspiracy to obstruct an official procedure - the names of people who could potentially be charged are piling up. Anyone that was involved in trying to convince Pence not to certify the election. Anyone involved in the scheme to get Jeffry Clark into a leadership position so that he can release a memo giving Pence that authorization. Anyone involved in the false slate of electors. Every day the cast involved seems to get bigger and bigger.
Mark Meadows seems to be in the middle of it all but still the DOJ hasn’t acted on the contempt of Congress charges. The only thing that makes sense is that he’s cooperating with the DOJ investigation and the remaining documents he’s withholding from the 1/6 committee are pertinent to the DOJ investigation.
The next document release likely will be Ted Cruz’s emails with John Eastman which likely will tie him to the legal memo Eastman created.
George Costanza
Footballguy
I have a bit of a different take on why the DOJ hasn't acted on the contempt charge against Meadows yet... I don't think it's because he's cooperating, I think it's because they have their own investigation into Meadows, and the contempt charge may not be the most pressing issue for them. He's about as deep as you can get in the efforts to overturn the election, as the texts show, and there is still so much more to learn about everyone's actions leading up to, and after January 6.Biff84 said:
He's one of the biggest names involved, and I don't think there's a chance in hell that Trump didn't know, and approve of, what was going on. He tried to do everything possible, legal or not, to stay in office because 1. His massive ego couldn't, and still can't, believe he could have lost an election, and 2. He knew he couldn't keep the law away once he was out of office. Now, the chickens are coming home to roost as the receipts are released to the public. Let's just hope the DOJ is doing what needs to be done.
quick-hands
Footballguy
Nosho nuff said:
Yes
timschochet
Footballguy
He’s taking way too long IMO to decide. Any indictment he makes will be challenged by every level of the courts. After January we will have a Republican House and Senate so Garland will receive no help there. In fact any move he makes will be called political and it will be Garland who will have to testify to Congress and defend himself.Biff84 said:
My sad conclusion is that the Democrats screwed this whole thing up. They have waited way too long for public hearings ( the only thing that matters) and waited way too long for indictments. Nobody is paying attention any more and nobody is going to be held responsible
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Gatorman
Supreme Elite Maximum Tier
Tim - you are likely right about this as it seems democrats want to uphold some semblance of civility when this is really a bar fight. If Biden was "trump on he left" he likely would have had arraignments and perp walks of all the particulars and have had the traitors in congress removed from office (or at least really play up the angle).
Giving traitors and grifters the ability to "long game" the system is the wrong approach to this, but Dems still think they are playing by 1990's rules. Only a few (AOC and the very liberal wing of the party) seem to understand what should be being done here.
If you’re looking for actual impact, having the public hearings closer to elections would be better. If the hearings happened several months ago, what results would you have expected that would be better than this summer? You may be right that no one cares now but that wouldn’t have changed if hearings had already happened.
You’ve become a victim of the same mentality that plagues the general public - you want instant gratification rather than having it done right. Hunter’s laptop story was dead for a long time, has that kept it from being a major story now? They impeached Trump with a rushed proceeding and look how much we’ve learned since then. Control the ADHD for a bit and be patient. If the DOJ is building a case, they are building it to be strong enough to win. And if they bring a case against Trump or any other high profile politician, it will bring public interest no matter how long it takes.
I find it funny that you’re worried about Garland being called to Congress and being questioned. He’s doing that today.
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
FWIW I think Tim's concerns are legit. They're a big part of why my #1 wish for the Biden administration was Doug Jones for AG instead of Garland. I wanted an experienced prosecutor with a long history of mixing it up and dealing with controversy and would hopefully manage DOJ like it's a law enforcement agency, not a centrist DC Court of Appeals judge who I feared would manage DOJ as a political agency.
I agree that there's some impatience at work, but there's also plenty of reasons to be skeptical of Garland's stomach for these things (eg the silence thus far in following up on contempt referrals).
So you think just because
-MTG suggested that Trump may have to invoke martial law ( marshall)
- that McConnell said if this isn’t impeachable I don’t what is(J6)
-that McCarthy didn’t want Pence to think about pardoning Trump when he was impeached and convicted
-that Scalise wondered if what Gaetz said might be illegal
-that Meadows was warned J6 might turn violent and didn’t do anything it
-Navarro talked about the “Green Bay sweep” and selecting “alternate electors
-Trump attorney Eastman outlined a plan to overturn the election ( the only actual attempt to steal an election)
-etc, etc
Why in the world should there be an investigation and why would anyone think a crime was committed? You folks coming in here and acting like this is a nothingburger are living in a real fantasyland
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Sadly, I'm in complete agreement here.
I would scrub AOC from the assessment though, as I think she's an opportunistic clown selling style not substance.
Gatorman
Supreme Elite Maximum Tier
I disagree on AOC. I think her, Katie porter, and a lot of the new women in congress do have a solid take on what is actually happening. I think others in the "squad" have much more problematic views. AOC is/was opportunistic in the sense that she saw an opening to be "more left" than an establishment candidate in NY and ran with it, but nothing in her resume denotes an idiot. (compare her with say Marjorie Taylor Greene for instance). She deftly uses social media and her "bully pulpit" of being young, female, (and photogenic) to be in the spotlight, but her actual views on the workings inside the congress have been rather interesting. She is also smart enough to cut through the "propaganda BS" the right spews and that is what puts her in the Fox news crosshairs.
timschochet
Footballguy
I agree with some of this, but I can’t agree with the line that “nothing in her resume denotes an idiot.” She has said some pretty idiotic things over the years. For example, her opposition to Amazon coming to New York City.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I don't think she was opposed to Amazon coming to NY, just opposed to giving them huge tax breaks for opening a facility there.
That reminds me that I should pick a future fight in here about stadium subsidies.
That reminds me that I should pick a future fight in here about stadium subsidies.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
I suspect we agree on this hot button topic, but I blame the voting public abondoning its civic duty when shenanigans like stadium subsidies go down. It will continue to happen as long as we tolerate it.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Good lord. Are we talking elected official duties or is this a beauty pagent? Do I really need to bust out a synopsis of the ridiculous things that have spewed from her facehole?
The tragedy is her brutal assessment of the inner workings of congress, which IS value added, are muted by her ultra-fringe ramblings about economic theory.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
I've voted for my share of Republicans. Not sure if I would be considered a R voter with a pretty split voting record or if you are asking mostly party line voters.
I will also have a litmus test moving forward and if you were involved or strongly/moderately supported this failed effort you don't my vote. I'm leaving the door open for people who wanted things looked at but then accepted the outcome of the challenges. Sort of like my other litmus test, you must be relatively honest.
Gatorman
Supreme Elite Maximum Tier
SeniorVBDStudent said:
Pretty sure this is a different thread to have, but I'd love to know what policies you mean. Modern Monetary theory? Medicare for all? Perhaps and interesting debate for another thread bc I happen to be a proponent of MMT and think the current situation we are in is a good litmus test for the theory...
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-biden-presidential-elections-electoral-college-mark-meadows-296ddf04ffaacec07f548a2a997af448
AP-Evidence mounts of GOP involvement in Trump election schemes
AP-Evidence mounts of GOP involvement in Trump election schemes
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
