Anonymous ID: 1a6cd9 March 26, 2021, 5:24 p.m. No.13305670   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Q: An Autopsy

 

https://thenewamerican.com/q-an-autopsy/

 

Sophisticated marketing gimmicks were aimed at patriotic Americans to neutralize them by encouraging passivity. A very famous campaign was mounted to ensure that conservatives sat on their couches and did nothing as their society was hijacked. Some wags are calling Biden POTATUS instead of POTUS. But he happened because of “couch POTATUS”.

 

Very understandable point of view, harbored by many after we were told "2020 elections safe".

Rumble vid on site, can't embed.

Anonymous ID: 1a6cd9 March 26, 2021, 5:30 p.m. No.13305704   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Judge skeptical of Schiff's argument for keeping impeachment phone subpoenas secret

 

https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/judge-skeptical-schiffs-argument-keeping-impeachment-phone-subpoenas-secret

 

The House Intelligence Committee and its chairman Adam Schiff have not shown legal precedents that justify hiding their subpoenas for a reporter's phone records during the Trump impeachment inquiry, a federal appeals judge said Wednesday.

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit grilled the committee's lawyer at a hearing on its decision to publish only certain subpoenas on the committee website. Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch is seeking the public release of subpoenas to phone companies that targeted private individuals, including reporter and Just the News founder and CEO John Solomon.

 

Todd Tatelman, principal deputy general counsel for the House of Representatives, argued that the Constitution's "speech or debate clause" shields the committee from being dragged into court to divulge the scope of its subpoenas.

 

"What's your authority for what you just said?" Judge Karen Henderson responded. "I have not found any case that upholds the speech or debate clause immunity with regard to the common law right of access" to public records. Tatelman admitted he didn't know of any.

 

The judge also found it "noteworthy," if not "ironic," that Tatelman justified hiding the subpoenas to protect the privacy of irrelevant individuals whose personal information could be exposed. Judicial Watch's entire case is about the committee claiming an "unlimited" power to invade the privacy of individuals, Henderson said.

 

Judicial Watch is seeking to have the case remanded to trial court to further develop the factual record. Schiff and the committee insist that the Constitution shields them from precisely this sort of litigation to expose their "legislative documents."