Hodad

Nah, in your fantasy world the early mention of the word "peaceful," overrides the bombastic calls to march down to the capitol and stop the vote certification.

To be fair, he did say something. Right in the middle of the attack he decided to throw more gasoline on the fire. While the "Hang Mike Pence" crowd was hunting the Vice President, Trump posted: "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!" I mean, while a mob was rampaging through the capitol calling for Pence's death, Trump literally told the mob it was all Pence's fault. "Will no one rid me of this turbulent Pence?"

Lol. You know who "ignored" the single instance of the word "peaceful"? The MAGA mob. It was about an hour long speech. He said the word "peaceful" once early on, then spent 50 minutes telling them outrageous lies, riling them to a boiling point and telling them to go "fight" nearly 20 times. Where to fight? The Capitol, where "the steal" was happening. When to fight? Right now, because if you don't "stop the steal" you won't have a country. Let's go! Trump is an oratorical stumblebum, but he was doing his best William Wallace and the crowd responded. I appreciate your active imagination, but there is no version of reality in which Trump didn't knowingly cause this. The behind-the-scenes is just one long sequence of his insiders begging him to call it off or calm it down somehow, but he was enjoying the moment, so he let it drag on.

It's all crystal clear, when you make up your own facts! It's always eye-opening to see an actual crazy person try to process information.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" Except that, at least was an open question. Trump told them where to go, when to go, and that they had to fight like hell to "stop the steal" or they wouldn't have a country anymore. No pressure, or anything. 🙄

He sells it, but I would bet my own $60 he has never read it.

Actually, yeah they are nearly just that. Once the executive has claimed privilege over those conversations Congress would need an extraordinary court case to pry them loose. And with the transcripts already available, that certainly won't happen.DOA.

Sorry to the silly Republican showboaters, but contempt of Congress for an executive privilege case is a non-starter. The smarter among them know that, but they're betting that they can gin to outage about the ignorant base. Sadly, they're right. But no need to entertain it here.

And so pro-children that he'd kinda like to date one of his--if only they weren't related.

Sure, some lawyers do represent reprehensible clients. But they don't often argue that the reprehensible behavior should be legal. "Epstein is innocent of illegal acts with underage girls." When it turns out he's not innocent, "I didn't know my good friend was abusing underage girls." And also, it should definitely be legal anyway. And by the way, I didn't do what she said I did, but remember, it should be legal." No matter your politics, that should raise some eyebrows.

Well, it's evident to all here that you're just spouting nonsense at this point. You have nothing remotely resembling an argument as to how the letter constitutes an obstruction of justice. I suppose you can celebrate that kind of ignorant twaddle if you like. Just be aware of how it makes you look.

🤣What's "obvious" is that you're just running around spouting off nonsense you heard someone say on TV or received in your chain emails. I have no interest in your wildly improbable conspiracy theories. And regardless, none of it would be obstruction of justice or any impediment to an investigation. That's beyond stupid. And that's why you can't present even a single rational example of how an open letter impedes an investigation.

There were no active intelligence officers signatory to that letter. They had no access to secure information. They were just people with opinions. And, again, you clearly have no idea whatsoever what "obstruction" means. Private citizens sharing their opinions--regardless of any claimed titles--has absolutely no ability to obstruct an investigation. Start with the basics: Obstruction is a broad crime that may include acts such as perjury, making false statements to officials, witness tampering, jury tampering, destruction of evidence, and many others. Obstruction also applies to overt coercion of court or government officials via the means of threats or actual physical harm, and also applying to deliberate sedition against a court official to undermine the appearance of legitimate authority.[citation needed]

You misread that. Dershowitz gained fame defending von Bulow on attempted murder charges. They made a movie about it in the way back. Dershowitz befriended and defended Jeffrey Epstein, known abuser of underage girls, also known to traffic them to his famous and powerful friends. Despite being close, Dershowitz claims to have not known about Epstein's hobby. Dershowitz was also accused by one of Epstein's victims. Couple that with Dershowitz's outspoken advocacy that the age of consent be lowered to 14 or 15 and it starts to paint a pretty ugly picture.

Hunter Biden is not Joe Biden. Hunter Biden is a private citizen. Trump and Kushner both, on the other hand, did direct business with China and Chinese interests. Some of it while in the White House in evident quid-pro-quo. If you were actually concerned about any of this, that's what should really outrage you. But you're not actually concerned about it. You're just looking for some way to smear Joe Biden. The Republican house zoo has come up empty over and over again, but I'm sure you'll crack the case!🙄 You are welcome to hold that opinion. But you sound like an ignorant buffoon when you start saying that the government should prosecute people for sharing their opinions.

A. You cannot demonstrate that the lied, and indeed it's very unlikely that they did. You're welcome to believe they were wrong, but that's a different matter. B. Their "titles" as retired or non-active intelligence personnel have no bearing on the situation. C. Even if BOTH of those points were true and relevant, it would in no way would it have impeded any investigation. That's absurd. Utterly ridiculous. I ridicule thee!

Again, an entirely specious argument. There was no physical threat from the septuagenarian escort. He was not "in their faces." The Houcks testified in court that he was at least an arms length away. His language was critical and likely vulgar, but he did not threaten them with physical violence. Indeed, there was never any indication that this was ever going to be anything more than an exchange of unpleasantries. Nothing before Houck, the bully, snapped and decided to knock down an old man. That is not a legally "justified assault." You've been asked 3 times (at least) to present this mythical law that includes any of Love's actions as assault--which was your original claim. You have failed to do so, because you cannot. Now you want to pivot to say that Houck's assault on Love was legal. Again, without any reference to a law that would authorize assault as a legally permissible response to critical or vulgar words. You cannot do so, because no such law exists. Yet you will claim it over and over again. Put up or shut up. I actually do like some people who believe that abortion is morally wrong. I don't like any people who, regardless of personal opinion, seek to impose their morality and take from women the right to choose. And I definitely don't like any people who go out of their way to harass women seeking health care. And I'm "defending" Love because it's objectively and legally wrong to assault a person and Love is the person who was assaulted. And as a point of basic decency, you especially shouldn't assault the elderly. Is it likely that assaulting an Planned Parenthood escort in front of Planned Parenthood has the effect of intimidating people seeking services at Planned Parenthood? If yes, (and of course this is true) then FACE applies. Read the law. And you continue this cowardly deflection. Love "started crap" with someone who was there exclusively to "start crap." Houck and Love's first interaction that day was when Love tried to get Houck to stop harassing women who were leaving PP. The whole point of his being there was to harass these poor women. Does Houck's "starting crap" give everyone else a license to attack him physically? No. FACE or no FACE, "starting crap" verbally does not create a license for retaliatory violence. Stop pretending like it does. Bullshit. Houck claims the FBI was aggressive and vindictive. The FBI maintains that they were professional and followed standard protocols. That's a very different story. If you don't want the "trauma" of being arrested, don't assault people. That's pretty easy to manage. You are just flat out making things up. You can call a 72-year old volunteer a "goon" all you want (although it's pretty clear that Houck is the goon in this scenario) but you shouldn't keep lying about love being "in a kid's face." Not even the Houcks make that claim in court. You don't get to assault people for saying things you don't want your kids to hear. As a parent, your recourse and responsibility is to remove the child from the situation--a situation that Houck is AT LEAST equally responsible for creating, though I'd argue far more responsible. It's clear how FACE applies here (does assaulting an escort intimidate patients? yes.) but as I've stated multiple times. I think it would have been better prosecuted as a simple assault simple to avoid any question. Then Houck could whine about his persecution complex from behind bars, where he belongs.

They are people of deep experience, that's not really debatable. Again private citizens are welcome to opine about whatever they want, whenever they want without fear of retribution from the government. That's the absolute core of freedom of speech. But the real takeaway here is that you, personally, have no idea what it means to "impede" an investigation. LIke, none whatsoever. To an appalling degree. If you think someone drafting an open letter impedes an investigation you need to get your head checked, ya loon. Before you try to lock up all the cable news pundits in wave 1 of your fascist paradise.

They didn't impede any investigation. That's asinine. There is zero difference between the open letter and the expert pundits that appear on news channels 24/7 to opine about the news of the day. These are private citizens expressing their opinions about events. The United States of America protects freedom of speech. Maybe it will be different in Trumpistan.

To the contrary, I think it takes very little mental energy to just parrot whatever random crap Trump and his cronies say. No thinking required.

Sorry, I know you're a foreigner, but in the United States we have a constitutional protection for freedom of speech. We don't lock up citizens for expressing opinions. I know the MAGA crowd views the constitution as an unwelcome impediment at this point, but most Americans still believe it has meaning.

Of course he was accosting women. What do you think a self-identified "street counselor" does? Nobody shows up to his "street office" for counseling. He harrasses the women as they enter and exit. He was following women across the street as they left PP when the escort first approached him. Oh, good. Doubling down on the dishonesty. Complete bullshit that "assault" generally describes a verbal exchange, which was all this was before Houck assaulted love. The only violence or threat of physical violence was from Houck. He committed the assault. You got the facts wrong again and instead of just owning up to it and moving on, you want to invent a new definition for "assault."🙄 Oh, I don't think any child should be put in a situation like that. It's pretty awful for them. That Houck would put a child in that situation over and over and over again is a good indicator of his "character." But that's not what makes him a bully. He's a bully because he goes out of his way to harass emotionally vulnerable women and assaults old men. FACE does indeed protect those seeking care and the staff providing it. That's why it explicitly calls out injury and intimidation--those are things done to people, not to doorways. It probably should have been prosecuted as simple assault to avoid the question of whether Love was functioning in his capacity as an escort. But it's a point of fact that FACE does protect the escorts. Actual news or even "Religious news" Really? You don't think that watching a bully like Houck shove an escort to the ground outside of Planned Parenthood might intimidate people trying to access Planned Parenthood, as prohibited by FACE? That seems pretty obvious. The FBI say that they acted professionally and according to standards. People are arrested in such a fashion every day. Again, there's nothing vindictive about arresting someone at their home. You want to claim motive for something that's clearly not in evidence. Apparently being arrested at home was an inconvenience for Houck. Boo hoo. You are trying to apply a very specious double standard here. Houck is there, literally, with the sole purpose of "instigating crap." He has no business there whatsoever except to harass women. When he goes up and talks to them, telling them things they don't want to hear, are the hearers legally entitled to shove, hit or kick him? Yet, when Love approaches Houck to say things he doesn't want to hear, you think it gives Houck license to assault the old man? Houck in his own words (Listen to this snowflake b*tch): "I walk him there and tell him to stop talking to my son," the activist recalled. "He doesn't have any permission to talk to my son. Next thing I know, he turns around and he's talking to my son again and then you see the push." His whole farking purpose in being there is to talk to people he "doesn't have "permission" to talk to. But when it happens to him he thinks it's a free pass to assault an old man. Like I said, you guys are classic bullies. You love to dish it out, but can't take it.

Oh, I read the actual article. You've invented a different one in your crazy little mind that bears almost no resemblance to the original, which doesn't bear out your wild fantasies at all.

Holy crap. You just invented your own article and decided to react to that. lol Lunatic.

Whataboutism to justify an undemocratic seizure of power against the will of the electorate? Well, at least you're honest about how little you care for our founding principles.