I am working on a few columns related to yesterday’s proceeding but wanted to share both the audio file and transcript with you. Overall, I thought the attorney representing Joseph Fischer could have done a better job. Maybe nerves? Can’t blame him if that’s the case. But I was disappointed in what appeared to be his unclear answers on questions that demanded clarity.
ACB is a major disappointment. She is first of all always trying to show that she is the smartest person on the bench - she’s not and she’s too willing to try to get along with whatever bs the government puts forth. It is too bad. She is definitely always willing to give the government the edge. It’s obvious from her questions and it’s obvious from her opinions. Too bad. The G always starts out with an advantage with her.
Nice to hear a woman speaking truth (harsh) about her.
I've always thought that about her but wouldn't really initiate/assert it as ....well its not like she is way over the top about it.
But absolutely as you noted she has this air about her - sort of think Trump got bad guidance appointing her ....of course would love to see her prove me wrong !!!
One has to hope that Roberts can get over his Trump derangement syndrome enough to do the right thing and that Brett Kavanaugh isn’t going to give one of his mealy mouthed responses. I dont know what kind of justice he would have been if they hadn’t jumped all over him but they destroyed him in how confirmation process. Really the oppposite of Clarence Thomas’ response.
He's too focused on being invited to the best cocktail parties and parading himself around as the Chief. And he hates Donald Trump because Trump doesn't need someone to approve of his self image to feel good. Roberts needs to be adored and when he's not you get decisions like Obamacare, There is no doubt that he was intimidated when he wrote that. No guts, no glory.
People choose a life like his, it's not forced on them. And then they punk out on it when it really counts. Damn...Well Mary, you're probably right...Damn again. 🤦♂️
I do understand what you mean, but also realize that the trial is less important than the decision. Have you noticed how few questions that Thomas asks? Yet he writes the sharpest opinions, mostly dissents ( he is building a record for the future of the court when his dissents will me cited as authority.)
I used to do Sarbanes-Oxley compliance for corporate IT development on bookkeeping systems. The whole law is clearly intended to make sure corporate systems present an accurate picture of the company's finances. Special care is required for testing and accounting department sign off on testing. I spent years doing Sarbanes-Oxley compliance as part of my IT development job, writing testing and acceptance procedures. I became sort of a specialist at it.
Imagine my surprise when I found out Sarbanes-Oxley was used to prosecute Jan 6 protesters. The law has absolutely nothing to do with federal government processes. The official proceedings referred to in Section 1512c are clearly corporate financial proceedings, not Congress certifying an election. Only a Democrat identifying as a DOJ Prosecutor could bend a corporate finance law into a felony applying to a disturbance at the Capitol Building. It doesn't make any sense in relation to the rest of the bill.
Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, I 'm a programmer. But if the law is supposed to be understood before someone commits a crime, this is ridiculous. There's no way any ordinary citizen, like me, who was thoroughly familiar with the practical applications of Sarbanes-Oxley, would expect it to apply to trespassing at the Capitol. This use of Section 1512c should be struck down.
And, clearly, struck down. I heard Julie in an interview & she pointed out that the Supreme Court must issue an opinion that covers all the necessary bases since these evil, conniving snakes will come up with some new angle and permutation if they are not adequately shut down in their twisted legal endeavors. Hope I’m properly conveying what she stated.
It dis seem like quite a stretch from the beginning, however today I heard something that I hadn’t before: something about the defendant giving an envelope of certificates to Mike Pence. If true that would change my understanding of J6 being more than a riot, or redress of grievances. Does anyone know if this defendant or another actually did that? Or was this a hypothetical that a judge threw out?
I just heard the senate refused to hear the impeachment of Mayorkas. That begs the question why, under McConnell, didn't the senate refuse to hear the two fake impeachments of Trump?
Sounds about right. All he wanted was his Supreme Court picks and then he had no use for Trump. After the Faux 2020 election, McConnell was already kissing Biden's wrinkled ass.
I'd also like to add that since all of the democrat senators voted in lockstep to NOT hold Mayorkis responsible, that would include Ossoff and Warnock from Georgia. Remember who killed Laken Riley. And Schumer from New York, where the illegals were beating up the cops. I'm sorry I said illegals, I meant to say the undocumented, new comers, and potential democrat voters. And what about Mark Kelly from Arizona, an actual border state. Durbin and Tammy Duckworth from Illinois-no illegal problems in their state. Sherrod Brown from Ohio. And the rest of the usual suspects to include Mazie Hirono. Voters need to remember these democrats in the 2024 election (and beyond). They are all for the party and the hell with the people. Crime-deal with it we're the elected elite.
I thought the defense attorney presented his case clearly and knew his defense well. He was able to aptly answer the Justices when different hypotheticals were presented. He also was able to rebut the SG at several points, including the congressional intent in writing of the law. I noticed many Justices were coming back to the de minmus hypothetical that I think he introduced.
The SG has to be thoroughly versed in the law as written, and case law (precedent). But she didn’t have to rattle it off like she memorized it. It would have been better for her to expound on what she had to say and let the Justices ask the questions.
Julie, thanks so much for posting the link of the trial. Love jurisprudence. But the mention of handing an envelope to the VP changes everything about the facts of the case. Di this actually happen or was it an hypothetical? Thanks.
Tracey Flick Lol Good one Julie! She did seem to fit Reece Wetherspoons character Justice Gorsuch threw her some good hypotheticals Ditto for Justice Thomas I believe minds were made up before the day began.
I have to hand it to Justices Gorsuch and Alito they have a nice way of getting to the obvious problems the gov. has with selectivity in prosecution, so much of who they do and don't prosecute and to what degree, is so clearly dependent on who the hell's ox happens to be getting gored and who's in a position to prosecute. In this case little else seems to matter. If you interrupt a conservative, well, to bad so sad. If you imped a liberal, off with your head.
I have to hand it to Justices Gorsuch and Alito they have a nice way of getting to the obvious problems the gov. has with selectivity in prosecution, so much of who they do and don't prosecute and to what degree, is so clearly dependent on who the hell's ox happens to be getting gored and who's in a position to prosecute. In this case little else seems to matter. If you interrupt a conservative, well, to bad so sad. If you imped a liberal, off with your head.
ACB is a major disappointment. She is first of all always trying to show that she is the smartest person on the bench - she’s not and she’s too willing to try to get along with whatever bs the government puts forth. It is too bad. She is definitely always willing to give the government the edge. It’s obvious from her questions and it’s obvious from her opinions. Too bad. The G always starts out with an advantage with her.
Nice to hear a woman speaking truth (harsh) about her.
I've always thought that about her but wouldn't really initiate/assert it as ....well its not like she is way over the top about it.
But absolutely as you noted she has this air about her - sort of think Trump got bad guidance appointing her ....of course would love to see her prove me wrong !!!
I think you are spot on.
One has to hope that Roberts can get over his Trump derangement syndrome enough to do the right thing and that Brett Kavanaugh isn’t going to give one of his mealy mouthed responses. I dont know what kind of justice he would have been if they hadn’t jumped all over him but they destroyed him in how confirmation process. Really the oppposite of Clarence Thomas’ response.
Roberts may be the weakest person to ever sit as Chief Justice. Thomas would have been the logical choice.
He's too focused on being invited to the best cocktail parties and parading himself around as the Chief. And he hates Donald Trump because Trump doesn't need someone to approve of his self image to feel good. Roberts needs to be adored and when he's not you get decisions like Obamacare, There is no doubt that he was intimidated when he wrote that. No guts, no glory.
People choose a life like his, it's not forced on them. And then they punk out on it when it really counts. Damn...Well Mary, you're probably right...Damn again. 🤦♂️
“Congress has the power to tax!”
I do understand what you mean, but also realize that the trial is less important than the decision. Have you noticed how few questions that Thomas asks? Yet he writes the sharpest opinions, mostly dissents ( he is building a record for the future of the court when his dissents will me cited as authority.)
I used to do Sarbanes-Oxley compliance for corporate IT development on bookkeeping systems. The whole law is clearly intended to make sure corporate systems present an accurate picture of the company's finances. Special care is required for testing and accounting department sign off on testing. I spent years doing Sarbanes-Oxley compliance as part of my IT development job, writing testing and acceptance procedures. I became sort of a specialist at it.
Imagine my surprise when I found out Sarbanes-Oxley was used to prosecute Jan 6 protesters. The law has absolutely nothing to do with federal government processes. The official proceedings referred to in Section 1512c are clearly corporate financial proceedings, not Congress certifying an election. Only a Democrat identifying as a DOJ Prosecutor could bend a corporate finance law into a felony applying to a disturbance at the Capitol Building. It doesn't make any sense in relation to the rest of the bill.
Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, I 'm a programmer. But if the law is supposed to be understood before someone commits a crime, this is ridiculous. There's no way any ordinary citizen, like me, who was thoroughly familiar with the practical applications of Sarbanes-Oxley, would expect it to apply to trespassing at the Capitol. This use of Section 1512c should be struck down.
And, clearly, struck down. I heard Julie in an interview & she pointed out that the Supreme Court must issue an opinion that covers all the necessary bases since these evil, conniving snakes will come up with some new angle and permutation if they are not adequately shut down in their twisted legal endeavors. Hope I’m properly conveying what she stated.
It dis seem like quite a stretch from the beginning, however today I heard something that I hadn’t before: something about the defendant giving an envelope of certificates to Mike Pence. If true that would change my understanding of J6 being more than a riot, or redress of grievances. Does anyone know if this defendant or another actually did that? Or was this a hypothetical that a judge threw out?
*did
Sometimes auto correct sabotages you, and sometimes you do it to yourself. Been there, done that.
I just heard the senate refused to hear the impeachment of Mayorkas. That begs the question why, under McConnell, didn't the senate refuse to hear the two fake impeachments of Trump?
Because McConnell hates Trump.
Sounds about right. All he wanted was his Supreme Court picks and then he had no use for Trump. After the Faux 2020 election, McConnell was already kissing Biden's wrinkled ass.
I'd also like to add that since all of the democrat senators voted in lockstep to NOT hold Mayorkis responsible, that would include Ossoff and Warnock from Georgia. Remember who killed Laken Riley. And Schumer from New York, where the illegals were beating up the cops. I'm sorry I said illegals, I meant to say the undocumented, new comers, and potential democrat voters. And what about Mark Kelly from Arizona, an actual border state. Durbin and Tammy Duckworth from Illinois-no illegal problems in their state. Sherrod Brown from Ohio. And the rest of the usual suspects to include Mazie Hirono. Voters need to remember these democrats in the 2024 election (and beyond). They are all for the party and the hell with the people. Crime-deal with it we're the elected elite.
Nearly every proceeding has documents. Their mere presence should not make a disruption to the proceeding become a documents offense. It is illogical.
Logic has nothing to do with lawfare and the Democrat gulag.
Ugh... so right about her - the government lawyer.
She struck me as the female version of the gweeby lawyer who argued in front of the justices that Trump be removed from ballot in Colorado.
Is that the requirement? Walking encyclopedia types who delight in their own abilities to recall case law ?? 🤔
Yea... didn't feel like lawyer arguing for J 6ers was particularly strong either.
Hopefully, the issue is as clear to the justices as it is to us that the J6ers are being singled out and railroaded.
Although white , she is a DIE. Type.
Unfortunately it is. But not every statute has to be cited, and not every precedent. There’s a time for everything.
I thought the defense attorney presented his case clearly and knew his defense well. He was able to aptly answer the Justices when different hypotheticals were presented. He also was able to rebut the SG at several points, including the congressional intent in writing of the law. I noticed many Justices were coming back to the de minmus hypothetical that I think he introduced.
The SG has to be thoroughly versed in the law as written, and case law (precedent). But she didn’t have to rattle it off like she memorized it. It would have been better for her to expound on what she had to say and let the Justices ask the questions.
One hopes the briefs were better than the argument.
ABC is too anal.
I don't seem to recall anyone trying to steel or destroy the electoral certificates. Perhaps someone will refresh my memory.
Too bad we can’t get into ACB’s mind to understand why she ‘ went there’.
Is that who introduced “the envelope” that wasn’t into this trial?
Yes, me too. That changes the facts entirely.
Julie, thanks so much for posting the link of the trial. Love jurisprudence. But the mention of handing an envelope to the VP changes everything about the facts of the case. Di this actually happen or was it an hypothetical? Thanks.
Thanks beautiful!
Tracey Flick Lol Good one Julie! She did seem to fit Reece Wetherspoons character Justice Gorsuch threw her some good hypotheticals Ditto for Justice Thomas I believe minds were made up before the day began.
I have to hand it to Justices Gorsuch and Alito they have a nice way of getting to the obvious problems the gov. has with selectivity in prosecution, so much of who they do and don't prosecute and to what degree, is so clearly dependent on who the hell's ox happens to be getting gored and who's in a position to prosecute. In this case little else seems to matter. If you interrupt a conservative, well, to bad so sad. If you imped a liberal, off with your head.
I have to hand it to Justices Gorsuch and Alito they have a nice way of getting to the obvious problems the gov. has with selectivity in prosecution, so much of who they do and don't prosecute and to what degree, is so clearly dependent on who the hell's ox happens to be getting gored and who's in a position to prosecute. In this case little else seems to matter. If you interrupt a conservative, well, to bad so sad. If you imped a liberal, off with your head.