Jan 6 panel ignores U.S. Constitution

[Tigbitties38]

I see you still have trouble reading. There is no punishment called for in the Jan 6th report. The report doesn't charge anyone with a crime either.
There is no proof that Dershowitz did or didn't vote for Boden or Trump. Him claiming who he voted for is bullshit. Him saying who he voted for is on the record, not who he actually voted for.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

he said so. like me saying i voted for Trump. like you saying you didn't.



"Look, I'm an anti-Trump Democrat," said Dershowitz. "I'm going to vote for his opponent in the next election, as I did twice before, but I put civil liberties in the Constitution before I put politics and partisanship, and Liz Cheney doesn't do that. She has switched allegiance, and she puts that before any constitutional right."



is Dershowitz lying? why would he? prove he's lying.
It's his opinion. Nothing more. Who else is backing Dershowitz's opinion? He is the person making the claim of someone violating the Constitution. He is the person claiming a violation. He had to prove his "charge". And he hasn't done it yet.
No one I'm aware of. He is being ignored because they don't want to give legitimacy to his story by repeating it.


show me other legal experts disputing what Dershowitz claims, that Congress has authority to charge anyone with a crime. i'll wait.

Who said congress has authority to file charges? If you're waiting to hear that, why don't you ask the person you claim said it?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

I see you still have trouble reading. There is no punishment called for in the Jan 6th report. The report doesn't charge anyone with a crime either.
There is no proof that Dershowitz did or didn't vote for Boden or Trump. Him claiming who he voted for is bullshit. Him saying who he voted for is on the record, not who he actually voted for.

Who said congress has authority to file charges? If you're waiting to hear that, why don't you ask the person you claim said it?

so you admit the committee was a one sided partisan sham and Dershowitz is correct.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

You're right. It is his opinion. If you read the link I provided, you'd see a key ingredient is congress "punishing" someone. That's not included by the committee.
Anyway,you don't have take my opinion.
What other legal experts have weighed in on this on Dershowitz's side?

PS What record is he on for voting for Clinton and Biden? No written record exists. Plus Dershowitz claimed lying to the FBI isn't a crime. The court system, along with most Constitutional experts disagreed.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

...
is Dershowitz lying? why would he? prove he's lying.


show me other legal experts disputing what Dershowitz claims, that Congress has authority to charge anyone with a crime. i'll wait.

Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

I see you still have trouble reading. There is no punishment called for in the Jan 6th report. The report doesn't charge anyone with a crime either.
There is no proof that Dershowitz did or didn't vote for Boden or Trump. Him claiming who he voted for is bullshit. Him saying who he voted for is on the record, not who he actually voted for.

Who said congress has authority to file charges? If you're waiting to hear that, why don't you ask the person you claim said it?

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so you admit the committee was a one sided partisan sham and Dershowitz is correct.

Tig, give it up.
He ain't gonna read what you link and he'll demand for you to post whatever supports a skewed pov he has. And if you look at his thread (which in *my* opinion he got shut down) about leftist of the year or something, you will see that he will ignore anything proven counter to what he wants out there than admit he's wrong.

But have at it. A modicum of entertainment occasionally arises. Sorta like what is happening with the House perpetually stalling by not being able to vote on a leader (thanks to #1 lefty #HeWhoShallBeNamed.)

If you hate me using such examples and saying it's off topic, pound away

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so you admit the committee was a one sided partisan sham and Dershowitz is correct.

Most of the witnesses against Trump were Republicans!

I suppose all the Judges who ruled against Trump including the Supreme Court was one sided partisan?

[Tigbitties38]

Just your version of "I know you are but what am I".
Dershowitz is your go-to guy.
It's okay. You don't have to admit you'll say anything to pretend you're relevant to the topic.

I admit that Mr. B is correct. Proving you wrong is a diminishing return. No point discussing something with a person you know knows nothing about the subject.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so you admit the committee was a one sided partisan sham and Dershowitz is correct.

You're right Mr. B.
In the engineering field, you don't often run into somebody who keeps going after facts/available information proves them wrong. If they can't see their mistake and refuse to see it when pointed out, they become what we call, unemployed.
There is no hiding on the internet in the morning meetings. When a machine eats a bunch of product, the managers want to know why and what needs to be done to keep from having it happen again. Blaming someone else for your own mistakes will put you out the door too. We use real names and you're only as good as your name.
I'm not used to people who would rather "keep the "faith"" with a scumbag than believe in themselves.
I'm still going to post replies but no point in arguing with a habitual liar.

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Tig, give it up.
He ain't gonna read what you link and he'll demand for you to post whatever supports a skewed pov he has. And if you look at his thread (which in *my* opinion he got shut down) about leftist of the year or something, you will see that he will ignore anything proven counter to what he wants out there than admit he's wrong.

But have at it. A modicum of entertainment occasionally arises. Sorta like what is happening with the House perpetually stalling by not being able to vote on a leader (thanks to #1 lefty #HeWhoShallBeNamed.)

If you hate me using such examples and saying it's off topic, pound away

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

Just your version of "I know you are but what am I".
Dershowitz is your go-to guy.
It's okay. You don't have to admit you'll say anything to pretend you're relevant to the topic.

I admit that Mr. B is correct. Proving you wrong is a diminishing return. No point discussing something with a person you know knows nothing about the subject.



You're right Mr. B.
In the engineering field, you don't often run into somebody who keeps going after facts/available information proves them wrong. If they can't see their mistake and refuse to see it when pointed out, they become what we call, unemployed.
There is no hiding on the internet in the morning meetings. When a machine eats a bunch of product, the managers want to know why and what needs to be done to keep from having it happen again. Blaming someone else for your own mistakes will put you out the door too. We use real names and you're only as good as your name.
I'm not used to people who would rather "keep the "faith"" with a scumbag than believe in themselves.
I'm still going to post replies but no point in arguing with a habitual liar.

i have a homework assignment for you young man.

1) cite the passage from your link that proves Dershowitz wrong.
2) find me another legal scholar that says Dershowitz is wrong.


Easy Peazy, yes?

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

Just your version of "I know you are but what am I".
Dershowitz is your go-to guy.
It's okay. You don't have to admit you'll say anything to pretend you're relevant to the topic.

I admit that Mr. B is correct. Proving you wrong is a diminishing return. No point discussing something with a person you know knows nothing about the subject.



You're right Mr. B.
In the engineering field, you don't often run into somebody who keeps going after facts/available information proves them wrong. If they can't see their mistake and refuse to see it when pointed out, they become what we call, unemployed.
There is no hiding on the internet in the morning meetings. When a machine eats a bunch of product, the managers want to know why and what needs to be done to keep from having it happen again. Blaming someone else for your own mistakes will put you out the door too. We use real names and you're only as good as your name.
I'm not used to people who would rather "keep the "faith"" with a scumbag than believe in themselves.
I'm still going to post replies but no point in arguing with a habitual liar.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

i have a homework assignment for you young man.

1) cite the passage from your link that proves Dershowitz wrong.
2) find me another legal scholar that says Dershowitz is wrong.


Easy Peazy, yes?

Same ol' M.O.: cling to statements that have legs of jello and make you do the leg work to tire you out while he ignores/ducks/weaves around what you say.

To *me*, this thread is DOA since the website referenced has the qualities listed below, from a place wacky likes. BTW, he *NEVER* acknowledges the low factual content that is awarded from the vetting site.

Newsmax.com run through mutually agreed (wacky and I) vetting site results

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Same ol' M.O.: cling to statements that have legs of jello and make you do the leg work to tire you out while he ignores/ducks/weaves around what you say.

To *me*, this thread is DOA since the website referenced has the qualities listed below, from a place wacky likes. BTW, he *NEVER* acknowledges the low factual content that is awarded from the vetting site.

Newsmax.com run through mutually agreed (wacky and I) vetting site results

i always acknowledge the low intellectual content of CNN and MSDNC .. er MSNBC.


bahahahahaaaaa


newsmax has nothing to do with what Dershowitz said which as usual no one not even mr precious b can provide any actual legal expert to refute Dershowitz.


how old will TWK need to be before someone actually does?

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

blah blah blah

Ain't gonna play that game.

And to that one who likes me to repeat myself, I already stated my sources for news. And they ain't the ones you list.

I'll restate for the deaf ears: this thread is DEAD (to *me*) due to the source given.

As I said in the lefty thread you got closed down, I got a better spam filter than you since I don't pay attention to the crap.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Ain't gonna play that game.

And to that one who likes me to repeat myself, I already stated my sources for news. And they ain't the ones you list.

I'll restate for the deaf ears: this thread is DEAD (to *me*) due to the source given.

As I said in the lefty thread you got closed down, I got a better spam filter than you since I don't pay attention to the crap.

you really need to learn how to troll better. gotta learn how to remove that hash tag to my real post.

the source does not refute the speaker, Dershowitz.

wtf got that thread shutdown because he tried to make it about Trump, which it wasn't. even in that thread it wasn't about the source (paging VM, paging VM) it was about the opinion of the author.

like that thread no one including you have yet to present any cogent rebuttal by any source that Dershowitz, a legal expert, is wrong.

still waiting sweet precious.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

you really need to learn how to troll better. gotta learn how to remove that hash tag to my real post.

blah

wtf got that thread shutdown because he tried to make it about Trump, which it wasn't. even in that thread it wasn't about the source (paging VM, paging VM) it was about the opinion of the author.

blah blah blah

People supporting what they post ain't trolling. People who can't back what they say love to use the t word.
Got a problem with my quote, pound away if you like

Don't derail the thread wacksplaining the thread you shut down. I pointed out points pertinent to my post here that I wrote there. Try to stay on point.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

People supporting what they post ain't trolling. People who can't back what they say love to use the t word.
Got a problem with my quote, pound away if you like

Don't derail the thread wacksplaining the thread you shut down. I pointed out points pertinent to my post here that I wrote there. Try to stay on point.

if you say so

[Tigbitties38]

Words from your hands.
You have admitted dershowitz has stated his opinion.
Not facts, but his opinion. Notice no one else talks about his opinion. Because that's all it is. His opinion.
The courts will decide if he is "right" or not.

He claims something is unconstitutional.
We don't have to prove it is Constitutional. He has to prove it isn't. And no matter how much you babble, his opinion isn't proof.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

hope you don't mind but i'll stick with the opinion of a educated law professor rather than a layman who thinks he can "quick read" an article on the topic and understand it in all it's

In other words, you don't understand his link or mine. His is from the same source as mine and talks about usage of the clause. Mine defines the clause. It's real straight forward.

Try proving me wrong. It should be easy to debunk a "layman".
Just show a charge and a punishment that has no due process (see the definition of "Bill of Attainder). But you won't. You're limited by your own lack of abilities. Yours don't limit me.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

...

In other words, you don't understand his link or mine. His is from the same source as mine and talks about usage of the clause. Mine defines the clause. It's real straight forward.

Try proving me wrong. It should be easy to debunk a "layman".
Just show a charge and a punishment that has no due process (see the definition of "Bill of Attainder). But you won't. You're limited by your own lack of abilities. Yours don't limit me.

Now I ain't gonna say wacky don't understand the stuff he reads. That'd be a bit condescending of me.

But proving something leaves a very bad taste in his mouth. He'd rather shovel massive amounts of bs than affirm a fact that goes against his beliefs/opinion/etc. Example: latest thread he was part of getting shut down where he still hasn't supplied proof that demos gave $$$ prior to Sept 2015 for the Steele Dossier. I been waiting a LONG time to eat crow for him to supply the proof.

You are 100% correct that an *opinion* ain't a fact. January 6 events were an attack on the Constitution and the committee formed after are being attacked by the same people. They just wish a Dictatorship of their choosing would be legal.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

Words from your hands.
You have admitted dershowitz has stated his opinion.
Not facts, but his opinion. Notice no one else talks about his opinion. Because that's all it is. His opinion.
The courts will decide if he is "right" or not.

He claims something is unconstitutional.
We don't have to prove it is Constitutional. He has to prove it isn't. And no matter how much you babble, his opinion isn't proof.

In other words, you don't understand his link or mine. His is from the same source as mine and talks about usage of the clause. Mine defines the clause. It's real straight forward.

Try proving me wrong. It should be easy to debunk a "layman".
Just show a charge and a punishment that has no due process (see the definition of "Bill of Attainder). But you won't. You're limited by your own lack of abilities. Yours don't limit me.

Dershowitz has stated an expert legal opinion. yours is not. it's clear you want to argue the point for the sake of arguing it seems. well not just that, clearly you despise Trump and want Congress to overstep its authority to suit your purpose .. Get Trump by any means necessary. which is ironic because that would be illegal and criminal exactly as you no doubt think Trump is.


Congress can only make a referral that has no legal weight at all. this is legal fact.

there are only two situations where Congress can charge someone for a crime, neither apply to Trump in this case.