San Jose Mayor Calls for Sedition Charges Against Donald Trump

One of the South Bay’s most prominent elected officials says President Donald Trump should be charged with sedition for ginning up a riot with inciteful rhetoric about voter fraud, missing ballots and a stolen election.

“For this atrocious, sickening display in our Capitol Building, @realDonaldTrump should be tried for #sedition,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo tweeted. “As a formal federal prosecutor, I refer our next U.S. Attorney General to 18 USC 2384 & 2385. May God bless and bring peace to our nation.” 

Liccardo elaborated on the tweet in an emailed statement.

“Under the Supreme Court’s holding in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the president is not immune from criminal prosecution, and this president has violated Section 2384 of Title 18 of the United States Code by publicly inciting the use of unlawful means to undermine the will of the electorate,” he said. “This is a nation of laws, and no person is above that law. Democracy will continue to prevail in the greatest country in the world. This is a moment for all of us—Republican, Democrat, and people of all ideologies—to stand up for our country. The peaceful transfer of power constitutes the very foundation of democratic rule, and free and fair elections comprise the most sacred democratic institution.”

The mayor’s comments comes as chaos grips Washington D.C., where a mob of Trump supporters contesting the 2020 election results stormed the U.S. Capitol—the building’s first breach since the British set it aflame during the War of 1812.

News reports describe shots fired, bleeding victims, a pipe bomb and other explosives, attacks on journalists and legislators retreating with staff to bunkers.

A woman died.

By about 3pm, police said just 13 people had been detained.

The tally announced by D.C. police several hours into the riot prompted questions about the stark difference in the way law enforcement reacted to today’s events compared to anti-racist protests that ended in hundreds of arrests months earlier.

Images of the massive uprising are eliciting shock and despair on social media, where leaders from around the world are labeling it an attempted coup and insurrection.

The riot emerged from rallies inspired by Trump’s continued insistence that Democrats rigged the Nov. 3 election. Tens of thousands of people amassed to pressure Republic lawmakers into disputing Joe Biden’s win, timing the demonstration to take place when Congress was about to ratify the Electoral College votes.

This morning, Trump addressed the so-called “Save America” rally outside the White House with a speech that slammed the media and repeated unfounded claims about the validity of the presidential election results. 

“We will never give up,” Trump said, “We will never concede.”

The crowd responded by chanting “USA! USA! USA!” 

And then, “Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!”

“All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical Democrats,” Trump went on to say. “We will never give up. We will never concede. It will never happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore.”

Many attendees later heeded the president’s cry to give GOP lawmakers “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country” by marching on the Capitol, where they walked right through police barriers and began looting and vandalizing.

A photo published by the New York Times show a rioter in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office chair with one of his booted feet on her desk.

In one of the most surreal visuals captured today by photojournalists, a man parades a Confederate flag around doors to the Senate.

Just after 11am, Silicon Valley Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) said he just heard an announcement to stay away from doors and windows.

Minutes past noon today, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Palo Alto) tweeted that she’s safe and that she prays for an end to the violence.

Closer to home, California state Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) expressed dismay over the turmoil. “This is a direct attack on our democracy and the democratic process,” he said. “Our federal leadership must join me in calling for the de-escalation of this situation and commit to moving forward to our new presidential administration peacefully so that our nation can address that grave issues we have at hand.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom joined in the condemnation.

“Peaceful protest is an important mechanism of our democracy,” he said, “but what we are witnessing in our nation’s Capitol Building is reprehensible and an outright assault to our democracy and Democratic institutions.”

He added: “The people of California have spoken, and our congressional delegation should never have to fear for their lives to represent Californians. We are concerned for the safety of California’s congressional delegation and U.S. Capitol staff, and are reaching out to offer support in every way possible. President Trump must call for an end to this escalating situation, acknowledge the will of the people to bring President-elect Biden to the White House and move immediately to a peaceful transition of power.”

Jennifer Wadsworth is the news editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley. Email tips to [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter at @jennwadsworth. Or, click here to sign up for text updates about what she’s working on.

86 Comments

  1. Nothing short of Treason! Impeach and Remove from office this head of a Criminal Family Enterprise. Also, with the Caveat that tRump Never again hold elected office or profit from the US Government in anyway. We have two weeks to make this happen.

  2. How is it Sam Liccardo shoves his name in every headline about issues that have absolutely nothing to do with him. IME that is a politician using WhatAboutism to deflect attention from his own failed policies and corrupt dealings. San Jose police department- public records- pubic corruption- real estate fraud – all topics under Liccardo’s management and supervision. Those are things local news should be addressing , not providing a PR platform so Sammy can ride the Blue Line to his next desired political slot – scrubbing his real performance along the way. Six months ago the San Jose police were 10000 times more aggressive during peaceful protests than the police were in Washington DC today. In DC protestors were actually violent, damaging federal buildings and disrupting the democratic process. Why doesn’t L:icarrdo want to talk about that juxtaposition? And why aren’t local reporters pressing that instead of letting Sammy climb on the political platform that will give him a ride when he is just shamelessly hitchhiking to get there. Local news does not equal local PR for elected politicians, no matter what party!

  3. “Trump didn’t cause division”

    I think the is the problem with this whole thing. I see these clowns waving the confederate flag and think, of jeez what idiots…

    but then I think, a lot of bs has lead up to this and its not some “myth of the lost cause” doctrine the media will play it as

    its not so much I believe there was more fraud this time around, I think there is always fraud and Biden won by like what 40000 votes that mattered? It the full on mobilization against any real addressing of concerns

    perhaps its the same thing as watching MSNBC and thinking police only kill black people and burning down the city when one does, when of course police kill far more whites than blacks. or is there really something there to this?

    what is true is the setup of niche media outlets that serve as comfort food for the politically aligned is not a weight bearing pillar of the fourth estate, SJI, SJS, etc. are all included in that

  4. SJ,

    Than I will simply say, you must be accountable for the poor woman’s death at the Capital as well.

    Because you are an advocate of such violence.

    In any case, what law degree do you have?

    A Law Degree is only recalled when Academic Fraud occurs when the student is in the classes and is found to have either plagiarized or cheated in the coursework. You really should know that.

    Otherwise you really don’t seem to understand the way things work.

    Maybe you should go to laws school and get elected Mayor of San Jose?

  5. > Because you are an advocate of such violence.

    The difference between rational, civilized people and progressives is that rational people require evidence for claims of fact, while progressives simply believe what makes them feel good and hope that someone will agree with them that it’s true.

  6. There is no reasoning with an anonymous bully who is convinced he knows better than anyone else who posts comments on SJI and SJS. This individual goes strangely quiet when people who actually do know better and speak from experience effectively invalidate his pontification.

  7. His is And idiot and they do what they want and the hell with this city ,he has made San Jose one of the worst cities in California he’s a nit wit keep opening your mouth and stick both feet in it, your in bed with google facebook and twitter so is the city council you have waste a our tax money and keep calling for more well your not getting any More Tax Money

  8. To Major Liccardo: l completely agree that tRump needs to be removed, today! Any delay is dangerous and not acceptable.
    But: words are not enough. I did what I could and wrote to all the key people in Washington demanding such. What specifically did you do?

    Side note: most of the comments here scare me.
    Stupidity and ignorance appear bottomless!

  9. It is interesting that my posts are being deleted

    Just remember you were the one that posted:

    > Epidemiologist Says Influenza Cases Are Being Counted as COVID-19

    > “Influenza has been renamed COVID-19 in large part.”

    “Top epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski says that the massive drop in influenza cases can be attributed to the fact that many are being falsely counted as COVID-19 cases.

    Wittkowski, former Head of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Research Design at Rockefeller University, cautioned that, “Influenza has been renamed COVID-19 in large part.”

    According to CDC figures, the cumulative positive influenza test rate from late September into the week of December 19th was just 0.2%, compared to 8.7% from a year before.

    According to Wittkowski, this is because many flu infections are being incorrectly labeled as coronavirus cases.”

    In which I responded:

    Sometimes you should not write anything just because someone said something.

    In fact he was NOT an epidemiologist, but a biostatistician, a completely different educational and performing profession

    That PARTICULAR Doctor was recently lambasted because of making false claims in the media you can see the story here ” YouTube censors epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski for opposing lockdown ” (https://nypost.com/2020/05/16/youtube-censors-epidemiologist-knut-wittkowski-for-opposing-lockdown/).

    In fact, he has been in the minority regarding the current problems with COVID. In any case, WHERE did those quotes come from? What news report or research did he do to make that claim?

    What is interesting is he isn’t even a medical researcher his education is having Wittkowski, who holds two doctorates in computer science and medical biometry. He nothing but a statistician. He actually does no medical research but he uses statistics to make an argument. He also believes the coronavirus should be allowed to create “herd immunity,” and that short of a vaccine, the pandemic will only end after it has sufficiently spread through the population. Thus he wants to let the virus infect, permanently injure or kill as many people it can. This is such a bad example of junk science.

    By the way he lost his position at Rockefeller University — Wittkowski’s employer for 20 years — also released a statement sharply distancing itself from him last month.

    While the doctor might have been too hot for YouTube, he has found a home at the American Institute for Economic Research, which is currently hosting the video online.

    The formal declaration is ” The Rockefeller University releases statement concerning Knut Wittkowski April 13, 2020 ” (https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/27872-rockefeller-university-releases-statement-concerning-dr-knut-wittkowski/) and it stated:

    “The opinions that have been expressed by Knut Wittkowski, discouraging social distancing in order to hasten the development of herd immunity to the novel coronavirus, do not represent the views of The Rockefeller University, its leadership, or its faculty.

    Wittkowski was previously employed by Rockefeller as a biostatistician. He has never held the title of professor at Rockefeller.”

    The Rockefeller University obviously did NOT disagree with me. And in fact, they FIRED that person because he was promoting what the scientific consensus of what was necessary to prevent more infections, long term impairments and deaths.

    But unfortunately we have had people like Wittkowski promote unsafe behavior, like yourself, that has contributed to PROLONGING the economic problems due to COVID. Unfortunately, there is a minority, a VERY small one of scientists that appear to encourage risk. They are NOT medical doctors from what I have seen but researchers. Probably because they do not swear an oath that requires PREVENTION in lieu of TREATMENT formally.

    In any event, your characterization of them being of “Having views that differ from the “leadership” or “faculty” of many universities is a sign of character, intelligence, common sense, and intellectual gravitas.” seems to be just you agreeing with them.

    So far these people have not produced any peer researched proof of the proposed course of actions they promote as being safe or valid at this time. All I can say is you have your beliefs, and such as being beliefs, no matter how valid scientific evidence can be presented to you, it will simply not matter, unfortunately.

    In the long run, your approach is to simply attack anyone that disagrees with you, even when there is “proof”. What appears here is that you’re the one with no evidence or proof, this is called under the classic form of psychology the defense of TRANSFERENCE. The readers here clearly understand this.

  10. > The riot emerged from rallies inspired by Trump’s continued insistence that Democrats rigged the Nov. 3 election.

    Jennifer:

    Why is the idea of looking at evidence such a strange concept to journalists?

    There is no question that covert, malicious hacking of complex, isolated computer systems can be done. Exhibit A: stuxnet, perpetrated by our own United States government.

    It is also a well established principle of human behavior that “successful behavior is repeated”. If something worked to advantage once, it is virtually certain that it will be tried again and again.

    The consequences of election outcomes are enormous. BILLIONS of dollars are spent every election cycle to influence the outcomes of elections.

    Thousands of smart people are paid millions of dollars every election cycle to figure out ways to get more votes. In many cases, ethics or legality are not constraints.

    Therefore, it is a virtual certainty that if there were a way to influence an election outcome by manipulating election machines or software, someone would try to do it.

    Major software platforms, such as Microsoft Windows or Apple Mac OS or IOS, contain MILLIONS of lines of computer code written by thousands of programmers. The technical reality is that these million of lines of codes many contain flaws, oversights, or errors.

    Literally almost everyday, major software companies discover vulnerabilities in their software that can be exploited by malicious programmers to gain access to computer functions. As soon as vulnerabilities are discovered, software companies rush to develop and distribute software updates to remove the vulnerabilities.

    Because of the INHERENT vulnerabilities of software systems, NO software system is completely secure, and computer hackers are continually searching for and trying to discover vulnerabilities.

    It is a statistical certainty that voting systems and election software have vulnerabilities than can be exploited. Assurances from vendors or election officials that their election systems are secure are wishful thinking.

    Therefore, it is COMPLETELY possible that the election systems used in the 2020 elections could have been compromise and manipulated to give spurious results.

    There have been DEMONSTRATIONS of election systems processing ballots and giving incorrect results.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hursti_Hack

    There have been sworn affidavits from election workers reporting having witnessed voting systems giving erroneous results.

    There have been competent statistics based scientific analysis documenting the impossibility of reported election outcomes.

    Over fifty lawsuits have been filed calling for the examination of voting process irregularities.

    Yet, according to Attorney Sydney Powell, “NO COURT HAS SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE”.

    Similarly, it appears that no media operation or journalistic enterprise has made an effort to examine and report on ALL THE EVIDENCE.

    Why?

    I will ask again:

    Why is the idea of looking at evidence such a strange concept to journalists?

    What has happened in the United States of America is arguably the largest theft in American history: the theft of an entire government.

    When journalists write things like:

    > The riot emerged from rallies inspired by Trump’s continued insistence that Democrats rigged the Nov. 3 election.

    it effectively marginalizes Trump’s claim and dismisses the possibility that the Nov. 3 election was rigged.

    Rigging IS absolutely a possibility. It has been demonstrated. It has been observed by witnesses. It has happened before.

    Insisting on the investigation of a rigged presidential election by a sitting president is NOT sedition; it is a presidential duty.

    For a city mayor to accuse a president of sedition for taking his duties seriously is partisanship, malice, or psychosis.

  11. SJ,

    I really hate to do this but you just walked right into my Spiderweb.

    But first lets clear this up, Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani can say anything they want “:outside” the courts because of the First Amendment.

    BUT:

    In order to present “evidence” in court, they must follow the Codes of Civil Procedure, which requires evidence to be proven to not be “spoiled”

    You walked into my EXPERTISE, I being a CISSP have acquired, preserved, analyzed, and documented the chain of custody of IT related evidence and testified in court as a recognized EXPERT.

    Evidence must be proven to be the following to be presented in courts:

    It must be acquired via a LEGITMATE method, it cannot be stolen, come from an unreliable or untruthful resource, or bought from an unauthorized seller. It must be in effect free of any possible means of being tainted.

    It must be analyzed by a certified and proven objective analytical team so as to prevent any possible manipulation or corruption of the results when presented in court.

    It must be proven that there was no alteration or manipulation of the content of the evidence, meaning if there was NO possible chance it was altered or manipulated, the court cannot introduce it.

    It must be proven that no unauthorized person could have handled the evidence and that all persons are properly monitored or recorded when handling it.

    If any of the above are NOT met it is SPOILED evidence and cannot be introduced or considered in court.

    So when Powell said ““NO COURT HAS SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE”, that is likely because the “evidence” she and her friends presented was not in compliance with the above. In the legal sense in “COURTS” it DID NOT EXIST. Too many people make false claims regarding evidence in the public, but in COURT it does the right thing in avoiding “FALSE” evidence from being used.

    You used so much language in the previous post that only says things were “possible” but with NO EVIDENCE at all to present. Your words were “have been”, “could have been”, and with regards to “sworn affidavits” they were from people that eventually either withdrew them or found to be unreliable.

    This is the threat of MISINFORMATION, and why it must be disclosed for what it is.

  12. This is a typical sleazy Democrat politician pandering to liberal fools in the city. Many have also made stupid noises about treason, wanting to get him kicked out with the 25th amendment game again, or another hard breathing impeachment effort.

    This while cities like Portland burned on many nights and worse, among other kinds of irony. Ahem. That includes the violence at the Trump rally that Liccardo blamed on who else, Trump. Sigh.

    No doubt he is joining the crowd and working on his advancement. Yuck.

  13. Hey,

    The facts are both parties are “SLEAZY” and I know it.

    But to try to say only one of political parties is corrupt, is unrealistic. Look at outgoing Perdue, using his inside information to make money in the stock markets?

    What is really going on here is that Trumps legacy will be likely that he was the worst American President in history. So much of his actions in the White House and Congress are going to be reversed now that the Dems have the Presidency and both the houses of Congress.

    Also the likelihood is that all the secrets in the White House are going to be exposed to the public, the REDACTED reports will be made transparent, and so many other peoples reputations are about to be irreparably damaged. But they knew it was that risk.

    Given I am an independent (not a Republican or a Democrat) and a moderate (not either a liberal or a conservative) let the corruption and dirty dealing on both parties be fully exposed to the people.

  14. Goldie,
    “The facts are both parties are sleazy and you know it.”
    Well yes Mr. Goldstein but the crooked RINO”s in our party are mere armature’s when compared to the corruption just in the “Buydung Family Syndicate”. The treason in the Obama’s and Clintoons, Hilary alone should have racked up 30,000 years worth of felonies, after the “Uranium One deal”. If Trump the worst president in history it’s because Cool Aid drinkers like you erased history, but that’s just part of the “Green New Deal” . What slavery?

  15. M.T.

    ONLY my FRIENDS call me that, you are NOT one of them.

    Please provide use with the indictment that would accrue 30,000 years for Hillary Clinton?

    In any case, I will NEVER drink the Flavor Aid, which was the drink on the Jonestown mass murder.

    Donald Trump and his failure of responding to COVID led to 330,000+ deaths and untold damages. The BUCK stops at his desk. His “”TEAM” didn’t follow any best practices regarding the COVID pandemic because they had to in effect put ALL people into at least a true 90 to 100 day quarantine.

    So yes he is the WORST president in history, we didn’t have an massive or mob assault on the Capitol since the war of 1812, and the Civil War. Especially one where the PRESIDENT in effect ordered it.

  16. > Donald Trump and his failure of responding to COVID led to 330,000+ deaths and untold damages.

    Mr. Golden Goose:

    You are a cornucopia of progressive Democrat misinformation (even though you say you are “not a Democrat”). Wherever you were sheep dipped, all the Democrat essences stuck.

    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DON’T GO AWAY!

    It’s always entertaining to hear Democrats talking about Hillary’s likeability or Guam tipping over into the Pacific Ocean.

    > I really hate to do this but you just walked right into my Spiderweb.

    I’m probably destined to walk into your spider web over and over and over again.

    So far, I’ve been pretty resistant to spider bites. I find that keeping your venom sacs topped off is a pretty good counter measure against spider bites.

  17. SJ,

    You can keep on distracting yourself.

    Look at all of the resignations going on in the White House, because they are scared they will have to invoke the 25th Amendment and they know that either way they vote they lose. If they vote no to removal, they will forever be tainted regarding other political opportunities, they vote yes and the Trumpets will target them to no end.

    Did you notice the guy with the “Camp Aushwitz tee shirt with the English Translation of Arbeit macht frei” sign (“work sets you free”) or the other with “6MWE” which stands for 6 Million Wasn’t Enough”

    We have blatant fascism in this country. You can imagine how angry these people were when Purdue lost in Georgia to Ossoff a new Jewish Senator and that a African American Wornock beat a White American Loeffler too. Of Course that is what it is, and these two people did themselves in by supporting a Fascist President.

    Lets just call it for what it is,

    In any case, did you have ANY evidence to share that will stand up in court?

  18. > In any case, did you have ANY evidence to share that will stand up in court?

    No. None that will stand up in your court.

    But, evidence doesn’t seem to be much needed in your court.

  19. SJ,

    You forget, I am talking about “THE” courts, not “mine”

    I again ask you, what evidence do you have that will stand up in COURT?

    You say that you have some, looks like whenever you are asked any question, you dodge it and try to attack the one asking the question.

    Classic Donald Trump thinking. Remember Donald Trump said this:

    ““We will never give up; we will never concede,” Trump said to thunderous applause. “We will stop the steal. We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol…We’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones…the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”

    Then Donald Trump is the one that “loves” the people that assaulted the Capitol Building. He said:

    “we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special”

    Even though he told these people to assault the Capitol, right? He was the one that in effect set his “supporters” up to break the law, cause death, and do something that no other president has EVER done, attack his own country. A blatant violation of his oath of office.

    And you obviously support this action

  20. If trump does t get executed, we will go after his supporters and execute them ourselves! My jewish extended family WILL GUARANTEE IT!

  21. Paul,

    Please the one thing we need to do is seek justice yes, but not become the same kind of people like SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE.

    Which in fact is not a real person but a linked blog, you can “click” his name on this page and it comes up here (https://sjoutsidethebubble.wordpress.com/). Basically a libertarian group, but true libertarians are very responsible people, they do not promote any conduct a person cannot be held accountable for. So please do not put SJ into that category, instead that group is another anarchist and provocateur group.

    I am surprised that the SJI has allowed such a practice. I don’t know whether there is a terms of use provision that allows it.

    In any case this poster is really multiple people posting via another website. This is the kind of behavior we need to get Section 230 of the Communications Act to be repealed. Accountability of your actions online must be fully restored.

  22. Mr BEREVOESCU,

    I think you should take the meds. Threating execution of anyone in a public forum is admissible evidence, I am pretty sure.

    cheers

    – from the farm

  23. > I again ask you, what evidence do you have that will stand up in COURT?

    You are asking the wrong question. And don’t ask me to rescue you from your rabbit hole. You jumped in head first.

    > And you obviously support this action.

    This question would be ruled out of order in an honest, legitimate court. Do you know why?

  24. SJ,

    This is my response to your statement:

    Objection your honor assuming FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

    “Assumes Facts Not in Evidence (611a)

    – A question by the directing attorney that contains information not yet in the record. On cross, the counsel is the one testifying, so this is not an objection.

    Objection sustained

    Objection your honor Hearsay:

    Hearsay (802)

    – A statement made out of this court offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. A statement is not hearsay if the words spoken are relevant, not what the words mean.

    Objection sustained.

    Objection Lack of Authentication:

    “Lack of Authentication (901a)

    – This is a question of foundation when trying to introduce a document into evidence. A document that is not self-authenticating or whose authenticity has not been stipulated to must be identified
    as true and accurate by a competent witness.”

    Objection sustained

    Objection your honor for Lack of Foundation (602; 901a)

    “Lack of Foundation (602; 901a)

    – The prerequisite evidence has not been entered that would make this evidence admissible. This could be proof that a confession has been made knowingly and voluntarily (predicate), that a witness is competent to testify to a fact, or that a document is admissible.”

    Objection your honor More Prejudicial Than Probative:

    “Objection More Prejudicial Than Probative

    -This is the argument: “The evidence being introduced is highly prejudicial to your client and this prejudice far outweighs the probative value.”

    Objection sustained:

    Objection your honor Relevance:

    “Relevance

    – The evidence being solicited does not relate to merits of the case or another admissible purpose such as foundation or permissible character evidence.

    Objection sustained

    Objection Your honor Speculation:

    “Speculation

    – The witness does not have first-hand knowledge of the fact she is testifying to.”

    Objection sustained

    I have seen this kind of court behavior when in REAL courts and not this media format. You can believe what you want, but in REAL court, it would not even be allowed

  25. over the course of 4 years of “Russian Collusion” which we have found to be phony based on a fake dossier, the left has continually raged on with little to no substance. Rep Schiff said many times he has evidence that Trump colluded w/ the Russians. He produced NONE and yet the media continued to report this from him as well as other “unnamed sources.”

    when the impeachment got hocked up like a bad hair ball, all the dems could offer up was one (1) unnamed witness – that’s it.
    Now we have many, many witnesses who have testified under oath, with penality of perjury charges instances of voter fraud, yet they are dismissed – for lack of evidence — BUT no one will delve into the seach for said evidence – it’s probably hiding out with HRC 30,000 emails.

    we have seen great amounts of hacking of critical gov’t agencies, big corporations, highly sensitive court documents – but we are told that our recently changed voter laws in critical battleground states with new internet connected voting machines are totally secure.

    If the country can spend four years on what we know was a phony Russian Collusion investigation – we can certainly spend a few weeks re-counting ballots. Assuming of course, they didn’t end up with the Rose Law firm Whitewater files, or Vince Foster’s files or those pesky HRC emails, or Hunter Biden’s laptop

  26. Hugh,

    You don’t go to a court to use it to do an investigation. That is NOT a courts responsibility.

    The BURDEN OF PROOF, is on the plaintiff to present valid evidence after PERFORMING a legal investigation, following the Code of Civil Procedure. The courts don’t “freeze” time to allow for an indefinite length of time to “weed out” possible evidence.

    In effect that was the basis of the Gore v. Bush Supreme Court decision, that Gore did not have the evidence to prove the election problems.

    Thus the election requirements under federal law and the constitution provided Bush the PRESUMPTION of winning Florida as of the certification and inauguration in 2001.The irony is that in the later investigation I think did prove Gore won. But since the objection was rejected by the Congress during the certification, that never was considered.

    Now you asking the courts to reverse that criteria? What was the saying?

    “What is good for the goose is good for the gander”

    In effect the courts cannot intervene nor order any investigations that is done by the attorneys or a prosecutor.

    And by the way an Impeachment is NOT a court, and never was, it is a political hearing, which is ironic because Trump is likely to be impeached again.

  27. As someone who voted for Trump, I think he failed miserably in making his case. But the case may have been impossible to make as it was set up. I think election fraud is something that is hard to prove and with vested parties not willing to prosecute themselves you have problems with standing and remedy. This should have been dealt with better over the summer, but Trump didn’t or was not allowed to. He may be good at some things, but navigating the bureaucracy is not one of them. Actually, if you could read minds, much of the GOP working the gears in the machine hate Trump.

    Other than the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision and the Supreme Courts refusal to address it. That one smells to me.

    To me the whole thing stank and what needs to happen is reform. 50% of the population, with a 50%+ in 40+ year old think 2020 stank. And the more the winners try to shut up that debate the more people will think 2020 stank. And now that their saviors are in, they will see their true colors, which is as dirty as any GOPer. National politics is a disgusting dirt fest on both sides.

    So the smart thing to do in FL, GA, TX, MI, WI is fix the elections to be far more transparent and working on the making the mail-in rock solid. Main in is now not going away. PA and IL are lost to corruption and always have been.

    If not, there are going to be a lot of problems.

  28. As far as the PA Supreme Court, granted they are Elected officials. But the case decision has not been met with any credible counter argument other than public speeches.

    That decision was based on the fact that the Republican party did not challenge the voting rules PRIOR to the election, which was recognized as the time to file, there was no surprise or attempt to conceal the rule changes prior to the lection. The reality is that the Republican lawyers did not act because they THOUGHT they would be given a new Apple after her first one was eaten. Once the election was done, they had no recourse, and these people KNEW it.

    And don’t get me going on the U.S> Supreme Court, the fact that 3 judges were appointed by Trump and still getting unanimous rulings to reject election fraud claims should be clear enough. Otherwise, you are saying the Trump judges are just as corrupt as the rest?

    Don’t get me wrong, I think that the election system must be done using methods that allow for complete audits of the voting. Meaning no electronic voting machines, and only optical scan counting systems using paper ballots so that the votes can be recounted properly. I also agree that a federal program should take over the voting process so that there is a national standard regarding allocation of voting rolls, services and equipment.

    Meaning that a minimum of 1 voting booth for every say every 15 minutes of the allocated hours of voting for the anticipated number of voters that got to that location, and at least 1 poll worker for every 6 voting booths to observe the election to preserve integrity. There will have to be at least one voter location assigned to any region to accommodate the number of voters in that region.

    The people manning the voter locations must be trained, certified, and be required under penalty of perjury, that they may not conduct themselves to the bias of any candidate.

    The regions to be determined by access to them either by vehicle or mass transit resources. In other words, if a voter lives more than 15 miles away from a voter location where there is no car or mass transit, then a new location must be placed in that area.

    At the same time there will be 1 person from both parties allowed to observe, but both will be required to object to a vote on the basis of demonstrable evidence that can be presented in court.

    The Voting roles will not be managed by the states but by a bi-partisan board of the electorate, using a uniform standard of who is maintained on the voter rolls, and any attempt to remove any voter must be by consensus. This can be done via the usual motor voter registration process or the means where a person registers for a social security number or upon turning 18 or registering with the selective services.

    Thus, this will require legislation where the Federal Government will fund the elections and the states will use those funds for it.

    Wouldn’t this make it a lot less likely for manipulation or corruption in the electoral process?

  29. My point is essentially your point.

    Something stinks here. Trump blew and Giuliani blew it, no doubt, but I am not sure this is true:

    “The reality is that the Republican lawyers did not act because they THOUGHT they would be given a new Apple after her first one was eaten. Once the election was done, they had no recourse, and these people KNEW it.”

    My feeling on this during the whole run up was, if the GOP fought against anything “voter” as they would be open to the old Jim Crow nonsense, which was actually the Democratic Party. But anyway, what’s true and what’s perceived is neither here nor there. They would have looked like they where trying to take black voting rights away in Philadelphia. The political conclusion was to punt, thinking they could make a bunch of noise post election to rile the base and get dollars and alignment for 2022.

    I think Trump knew this and blew up the $600 on purpose to screw McConnell. And I think he knew he was tanking Georgia too. Out of spite. McConnell has been a thorn in the side of Trump since 2016, he got everything he wanted and gave Trump nothing. I question the statement they really thought they could win or get another bite. I think the Supreme Court blew this off, because this whole thing is BS and political theatre and I’m sure anyone close to the principles knew it and said you made your bed, sleep in it.

    I don’t think the real GOP (party apparatchiks) wanted to win in 2016 and they certainly hated Trump more now than then. I think Ryan, McConnell et al wanted Hillary in, a recession in 2017/8, so they could widen their leads in the House and Senate in the midterms. Hillary would have been happy with a recession, as the recovery would be JIT for re-election. Sitting Presidents are now a curse electorally and fundraising wise. A Hillary Presidency would have been so golden for the GOP, as she is in her heart a Republican War Pig with the added benefit of being widely hated. They would have gotten the cake and eat it too. I think Paul Ryan was dreaming of an Article V Convention, not sure what he would have gotten out of it, Abortion ban amendment?

  30. > PA and IL are lost to corruption and always have been.

    And Cali, too.

    The California State Assembly is something like 67-17 Dems to Repubs.

    I expect that Dems in the Repub districts will demand that Dominion Voting machines win their election for them just like it did in the other 67 Dem districts.

  31. > I think election fraud is something that is hard to prove and with vested parties not willing to prosecute themselves you have problems with standing and remedy. This should have been dealt with better over the summer, but Trump didn’t or was not allowed to.

    I think this was probably the crucial miscalculation by Trump’s advisors.

    They probably were aware that the Dems were scheming to perpetrate vote fraud anyway the could, and were also doing unconstitutional things like letting bureaucrats change state voting procedures.

    But, the Trump team was totally blindsided by the corruption of the courts and by the unwillingness of just about every court to get involved in a CURRENT election.

    Democrat strategists probably had reason to suspect that courts would be reluctant to provide remedies for current election disputes, took a gamble that they could get away with their massive election rigging scheme, and the gamble paid off.

  32. > Wouldn’t this make it a lot less likely for manipulation or corruption in the electoral process?

    You mean, less likely for manipulation or corruption like what occurred in the 2020 electoral process?

    You mean the 2020 electoral process was manipulated or corrupt?

    Isn’t that what Trump’s been saying?

  33. > The people manning the voter locations must be trained, certified, and be required under penalty of perjury, that they may not conduct themselves to the bias of any candidate.

    Would one of the jobs of the trained, certified, and unbiased people manning the voter locations be to check the voter’s ID cards?

  34. “I think this was probably the crucial miscalculation by Trump’s advisors.”

    I don’t know Trump actually has any good advisors who actually care what happens to him. Just the fact that he kept flopping Giuliani around, like he is still at the height of his powers, is telling. In my recollection, Giuliani peaked in the bunker as Mayor and that was many massages ago, and time passes by.

    Really I think the summer was a microcosm of Trump’s whole political career. He could see the problem, he could bark about the problem, but he didn’t have the patience to work the problem. And no one who could work the problem was willing to put up with him or he them. There is a case for immigration reform, it is NOT that all Mexicans are rapists and murders, because when you say that you can never get anyone to fund the wall because doing so means you are complicit with that statement. There is a case for a China, Iran, Korea realignment, but renegotiating “deals” with a leaders for life doesn’t work when you are not a leader for life. This election was a huge mess, as an aside one thing really pops out to me:

    Obama 2012 Presidential Election vote: 65,915,795
    Hillary 2016 Presidential Election vote: 65,853,514
    Biden 2020 Presidential Election vote: 81,268,757

    Now, I don’t like Obama much now but he was pretty charismatic and even I voted for him because Romney is just terrible and only slightly better than McCain or Bush. Hillary was going to be the first female president, you gotta think that’s getting the votes out. Biden, basement campaigner, “tough on petty crime”, war pig, drug war architect, many time loser, whipped by Sanders until the DNC pulled Bernie’s heart plug, a ticket hand picked by oligarchs and big tech corpos, 47-year corrupt politician out-voted Hillary and Obama by 23% while effectively only beating Trump by about 40,000 votes in states that mattered. What!?

    Back to the point…

    But when you are not going to do what you have to do on the ground over the summer and after the election, and saying things like “release the kraken” and we have the evidence here in this bag, we will release next week, con-calling into critical meetings, etc. you are not working the problem, you are not making a clear case, you’re bs-ing the problem. And in a few days he may have destroyed any good he did do, put the GOP in the wilderness for a while at least, and gave the left images that will pay dividends for decades. Like cops shooting Kent State kids or a soldier killing naked 12 year old girls in the street. Well maybe not that much, I think I’ll laugh about the dude in the horns in a week, but I won’t laugh about how Trump left Ashli Babbitt dead body on the ground, that will cost the GOP a lot with law enforcement and the military. For a long time.

  35. OMG,

    This really does demonstrate that the Trumpets are going to believe in what they do, and act out in ways that are simply inappropriate, no matter what.

    I just love the fact he is barred from Twitter Permanently.

    So they will open up a “FOX” Twitter service, oh wait isn’t that Parler?

    In any case, it is something that he “conceded” the election even though he said it would NEVER happen.

    Also the first president in history to get brought up on impeachment charges twice.

    I understand I am now dealing with people who believe in “alternative” facts, even though they themselves admit they cannot find for example medical research that proves that the increase in cases of COVID was the result of only “FAMILY” infections alone.

    What might be fun is if Donald Trump gets prosecuted for felony murder regarding the Capitol, and he gets convicted. So many other criminal and civil actions are just days away.

  36. > So many other criminal and civil actions are just days away.

    Before you waste anymore electrons on progressive crackpottery, go to your very smart legal things website and tell us what it says about “sovereign immunity”.

  37. Soveriegn Immunity is not blanket, in fact there are many exceptions to it, here is some info to consider:

    “Federal sovereign immunity

    In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit.[7] The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.[8] The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: “It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it.”[9]

    The principle was not mentioned in the original United States Constitution. The courts have recognized it both as a principle that was inherited from English common law, and as a practical, logical inference (that the government cannot be compelled by the courts because it is the power of the government that creates the courts in the first place).[10]

    The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not the broad waivers of sovereign immunity they might appear to be, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government.

    In Federal tax refund cases filed by taxpayers (as opposed to third parties) against the United States, various courts have indicated that Federal sovereign immunity is waived under subsection (a)(1) of 28 U.S.C. § 1346 in conjunction with Internal Revenue Code section 7422 (26 U.S.C. § 7422), or under section 7422 in conjunction with subsection (a) of Internal Revenue Code section 6532 (26 U.S.C. § 6532).[11] Further, in United States v. Williams, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in case where an individual paid a federal tax under protest to remove a federal tax lien on her property where the tax she paid had been assessed against a third party, the waiver of sovereign immunity found in 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) authorized her tax refund suit.[12]

    Congress has also waived sovereign immunity for patent infringement claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), but that statute balances this waiver with provisions that limit the remedies available to the patent holder. The government may not be enjoined from infringing a patent, and persons performing work for the government are immune both from liability and from injunction. Any recourse must be had only against the government in the United States Court of Federal Claims. In Advanced Software Design v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,[13] the Federal Circuit expanded the interpretation of this protection to extend to private companies doing work not as contractors, but in which the government participates even indirectly.

    Section 702 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides a broad waiver of sovereign immunity for actions taken by administrative agencies.[14] It provides that persons suffering a legal wrong because of an agency action are entitled to judicial review.”

    Also:

    “Actions taken in bad faith
    Further information: bad faith

    If a plaintiff can demonstrate that the government’s action was done in bad faith, the plaintiff can receive damages despite sovereign immunity. Typically if a party can demonstrate that the government intentionally acted wrongly with the sole purpose of causing damages, that party can recover for injury or economic losses. For example, if access lanes to a major bridge are closed for repair and the closure results in severe traffic congestion, the action was in good faith and the state could not be sued. However, if, as in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, the lanes were closed in retaliation against a mayor who declined to support a politician’s campaign, with the explicit purpose of causing traffic jams, such lawsuits could proceed.[29]”

    This is a secondary source but the [xx} indicates footnotes to the primary sources. Here is the location of this information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States#Federal_sovereign_immunity)

    And also remember, once Trump leaves office that defense goes away.

    His conduct was so extreme, I am almost certain that no court will allow such a legal defense, especially where it is proven to be a qualified immunity, meaning that his conduct would have to be in furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest, and NOT his own. And sovereign immunity does not apply to criminal acts at all

    Too many people here are drinking the Flavor Aid

  38. Mr. Goldstein,

    meds + maddow + (single) malt = one way ticket to crazy town

    lock her up is a political slogan for rallies, not for real life

    put the bottle down and turn off the MSNBC, but you gonna need those pills

  39. SJ,

    First I already take antidepressants (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors)

    Yes once and a while I watch MSNBC, but I mostly watch CNN, PBS, ABC News, and KGO TV

    I don’t drink alcohol more than 2 drinks at a time (holiday dinners) or one beer, and maybe only once a week

    Does that make me crazy?

    I didn’t mention the “lock her up” at all. But the phrase in itself was a CRAZY one, and to accept it as political rhetoric was INSANE. If you want “crazy town” look at what happened in the Capitol this week.

    None the less, if he is found to be a criminal or civilly liable for damages, so be it. So many of his friends already have, oh yes, he PARDONED them.

    He never complied with the oath of office from the very beginning

  40. > He never complied with the oath of office from the very beginning

    Trump was impeached on bogus charges in the House by certified wacko Adam Schiff, tried in the Senate and found “not guilty”.

    He was investigated by a activist Democrat “special counsel” and no charges resulted.

    Pretty compelling evidence he “complied with the oath of office.’

  41. SJ,

    Impeachment nor conviction of any process is necessary to prove he failed to uphold the oath of office.

    Just look at all the executive orders he had reversed invalidated in the courts.

    Just look at the separation of children of “suspected” undocumented immigrants.

    Just look at the attempts to revoke due process for DACA registered residents.

    Just look at the fact he provokes domestic terrorism.

    You don’t need to be “convicted” in order to be found violating an oath of office.

    You can in effect violate the oath of office without being “convicted” of a crime (even though presidents cannot be prosecuted in the office) or violate regulations, you can do a lot of damage to the constitution, which is what you swore to defend from threats “foreign” and “domestic”

    I Swear all people like yourself do in life is try to find some way to “cheat” systems.

  42. I didn’t plan it but it does seem to be appropriate.

    Parler is being taken off Apple app store, and Google Play.

    Also

    AMAZON hosts the servers of Parler, they are considering dropping the contract for the services, most likely refunding the payments made to Parler, and then dropping the servers for them.

    WOW!

    But given what happened in the Capitol, it seems a good thing.

    These are PRIVATE companies not subject to the First Amendment.

    Paler is going to have to buy and maintain their owned data services. And they are going to have to find a way to market their services independently from Google and Apple.

    OR

    They might just be out of business.

  43. Looks like Nancy Pelosi, herself, may be dabbling in a bit of sedition:

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/424946/

    “JANUARY 9, 2021
    PELOSI’S EFFORTS TO INSERT HERSELF INTO THE MILITARY CHAIN OF COMMAND ARE THEMSELVES SEDITIOUS, and the military is unhappy:
    ————–
    “Ms. Pelosi also said she had spoken with Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about “preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes.” . . .

    But some Defense Department officials have privately expressed anger that political leaders seemed to be trying to get the Pentagon to do the work of Congress and Cabinet secretaries, who have legal options to remove a president.

    Mr. Trump, they noted, is still the commander in chief, and unless he is removed, the military is bound to follow his lawful orders. While military officials can refuse to carry out orders they view as illegal, they cannot proactively remove the president from the chain of command. That would be a military coup, these officials said.”
    —————
    Trying to incite a military coup is sedition.

  44. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE,

    First, that is another blog, not a news story,

    Second, given she is the 3rd in succession regarding the continuity of government, she not only is entitled to communicate with the military, she actually has to. Especially where there is demonstrated proof of possible 25th amendment applicable conduct. Like the assault on the Capitol staged by the President.

    This situation is so bizarre, it never was required to do so in the past. The idea that a sitting president would order the assault, even when the sitting vice president was in the building. This was in effect the very FIRST situation in history that warranted the action.

    By the way, she never ORDERED the military to “storm” the white house, did she?

    No this is just another attempt to distract readers of the fact the we might just have a madman in the White House, and since he can actually launch nuclear weapons is a justifiable concern to at least establish a chain of communication.

    Of course are you arguing that given the demonstrated insanity of the president he should have unfettered use of nuclear weapons?

    And by the way, the Congress has the War Powers resolution as well, meaning they have the ultimate ability to override the president by law. The title “Commander in Chief” only means during WARTIME he is the commander, Specifically:

    “War Powers Resolution

    The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to CHECK THE U.S. PRESIDENT’S POWER TO COMMIT THE UNITED STATES TO AN ARMED CONFLICT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE U.S. CONGRESS. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces INTO ACTION ABROAD ONLY BY DECLARATION OF WAR BY CONGRESS, “statutory authorization,” or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

    The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds each of the House and Senate, OVERRIDING THE VETO OF THE BILL BY PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON.

    It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past–for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.[“

    In effect BY LAW this action cannot be defined as sedition, since it is an act enabled by the law. Why do you like to try to make up stories like you just did?

  45. What is great is this.

    Trump can be impeached after he leaves office.

    Thus revoking all benefits of a retired president, his pension, his security, his offices, and even his presidential library.

    Go for it.

  46. WOW!

    All I can say is goodbye to Parler. they “paid” AMAZON to “HOST” their servers, but the contract clearly indicated what conduct the AMAZON servers were allowed to be used for. In other words, Parler did not own the AMAZON equipment or infrastructure ever, so they are not ENTITLED to use it as long as any part of the Amazon Web Services contract is not complied with. It does look like they did violate that contract. Amazon says(https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/):

    “4. Your Responsibilities.

    4.1 Your Accounts. Except to the extent caused by our breach of this Agreement, (a) you are responsible for all activities that occur under your account, regardless of whether the activities are authorized by you or undertaken by you, your employees or a third party (including your contractors, agents or End Users), and (b) we and our affiliates are not responsible for unauthorized access to your account.

    4.2 Your Content. You will ensure that Your Content and your and End Users’ use of Your Content or the Service Offerings will not violate any of the Policies or any applicable law. You are solely responsible for the development, content, operation, maintenance, and use of Your Content.

    14. Definitions.

    “Acceptable Use Policy” means the policy located at http://aws.amazon.com/aup (and any successor or related locations designated by us), as it may be updated by us from time to time.”

    And mores specifically the Acceptable Use Policy states (https://aws.amazon.com/aup/):

    “No Illegal, Harmful, or Offensive Use or Content

    You may not use, or encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to use, the Services or AWS Site for any ILLEGAL, HARMFUL, FRAUDULENT, INFRINGING OR OFFENSIVE USE, or to transmit, store, display, distribute or otherwise make available content that is illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive. Prohibited activities or content include:

    Illegal, Harmful or Fraudulent Activities. Any activities that are illegal, THAT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, OR THAT MAY BE HARMFUL TO OTHERS, our operations or reputation, including disseminating, promoting or facilitating child pornography, offering or disseminating fraudulent goods, services, schemes, or promotions, make-money-fast schemes, ponzi and pyramid schemes, phishing, or pharming.

    Infringing Content. Content that infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property or proprietary rights of others.

    Offensive Content. CONTENT THAT IS DEFAMATORY, OBSCENE, ABUSIVE, INVASIVE OF PRIVACY, OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE, including content that constitutes child pornography, relates to bestiality, or depicts non-consensual sex acts.

    Harmful Content. Content or other computer technology that may damage, interfere with, surreptitiously intercept, or expropriate any system, program, or data, including viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, or cancelbots.”

    It would be very clear that Parler violated the Acceptable Use Policies, thus violating their agreement for services

    Reports are coming in that that companies lawyers are starting to drop them.

    So much “conspiracies” and “attack the “LEFT” wing agendas”

    Parler is like any cult systems reinforcement, they proclaim it to be free from “fact checking”, thus you get a circular reinforcement system by the users. This makes them more and more “militant” and slowly removes any self-discipline regarding thought TO ACTIONS. This is the definition of “DOMESTIC” threats to the constitution and the people of the U.S.

    Eventually they will build their own equipment, or not, if vendors decide not to offer equipment or services to them.

  47. > Of course are you arguing that given the demonstrated insanity of the president he should have unfettered use of nuclear weapons?

    I missed this.

    When was the insanity of the president demonstrated?

    Fill me in. I don’t have a New York Times subscription.

  48. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE,

    When a president organizes an assault on the Capitol, the IS INSANE.

    And you suggesting it wasn’t scares me.

    In any case you have 8 minutes left on Parler.

    At least if Amazon does what it says.

    So far the login page is still up, but I just saw a video on YouTube saying that user cannot log on now.

    Aww, that is so sad.

  49. > WOW!

    By the way, Steven:

    Didn’t your postmodernist MBA school ever teach you the concept of the “Executive Summary”?

    Or, how to do an “elevator pitch”?

    Do you know what an elevator pitch is?

    Do you know what the acronym “TL:DR” means?

    When you make a pitch to the C-level executives, are they looking at their smartphones after your first PowerPoint chart? Do they ever ask you to “just go to the last chart”?

    I’ve been told that executives like charts with “cartoons” and “animal pictures”.

  50. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE,

    does any of that mean anything to this topic?

    You remind me of the dog in the movie “up” whenever he sees a “squirrel!!!”

    now say bye bye to Parler

    If you don’t have a long enough attention span, you are never going to understand WHY something is happening, or how things work. As the saying goes “the devil is in the details.”

    Time for people to start looking at them.

  51. > When a president organizes an assault on the Capitol, the IS INSANE.

    The president organized an assault on the Capitol?

    I missed that. When did that happen?

    Did they arrest the president? Was the president read his Miranda rights? Were the arresting officers wearing body cameras? Was the president arraigned before a magistrate? Did they have a preliminary hearing? Was the president represented by competent counsel? Did they have a trial? Was the president’s counsel given adequate time for discovery and trial preparation? Were there eyewitnesses to the president assaulting the capitol? Were the witnesses trustworthy and credible? Did the president receive due process? Was the president accorded the right to appeal the court’s verdict? If the president was found to be insane, was there testimony from competent, trained mental health experts?

    Since people’s rights are at stake, we can’t cut corners in the quest for justice.

  52. > You may not use, or encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to use, the Services or AWS Site for any ILLEGAL, HARMFUL, FRAUDULENT, INFRINGING OR OFFENSIVE USE, or to transmit, store, display, distribute or otherwise make available content that is illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive.

    Parler has Section 230 protection, Steven,

    Just like Twitter.

    You’re not advocating shutting down Twitter, are you?

  53. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE you wrote:

    “Did they arrest the president? Was the president read his Miranda rights? Were the arresting officers wearing body cameras? Was the president arraigned before a magistrate? Did they have a preliminary hearing? Was the president represented by competent counsel? Did they have a trial? Was the president’s counsel given adequate time for discovery and trial preparation? Were there eyewitnesses to the president assaulting the capitol? Were the witnesses trustworthy and credible? Did the president receive due process? Was the president accorded the right to appeal the court’s verdict? If the president was found to be insane, was there testimony from competent, trained mental health experts?”

    A sitting President does not get arrested, on Jan 21, he may be. The 25th amendment would be his defense, but good for Mike Pence he won’t invoke it. So Donald Trump is looking at being imprisoned You wrote:

    “> You may not use, or encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to use, the Services or AWS Site for any ILLEGAL, HARMFUL, FRAUDULENT, INFRINGING OR OFFENSIVE USE, or to transmit, store, display, distribute or otherwise make available content that is illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive.

    Parler has Section 230 protection, Steven,”

    But the violation of AMAZONS contract by Parler invalidated any services to provide it. They have no grounds to go to court against AMAZON. And since the violated the terms of that contract NO ONE WILL agree to work with them again. So good riddance to Parler. You wrote:

    ““In my opinion, Steven Goldstein is a nebbish and an inadequate human being.”

    We’re not going to remove Dan Pulcrano from office, are we?”

    Again, your personal attacks show how you lack real understanding. But please go on?

  54. I wonder who is hosting this web page.

    Is it AMAZON?

    If so, maybe I might want to contact them, let them know about SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE and his postings?

    If it is any “Third-Party” provider, and the contracts include similar terms to AMAZON, this publication may e in serious trouble.

    They appear to be hosted by GoDaddy.com there “terms and conditions” are found here (https://www.godaddy.com/legal/agreements) Specifically:

    “5. GENERAL RULES OF CONDUCT

    You acknowledge and agree that:

    Your use of this Site and the Services , including any content you submit, will comply with this Agreement, any applicable Services Agreement or policy that may apply to your Services and all applicable local, state, national and international laws, rules and regulations.


    You will not use this Site or the Services in a manner (as determined by GoDaddy in its sole and absolute discretion) that:

    PROMOTES, ENCOURAGES OR ENGAGES IN TERRORISM, VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE, ANIMALS, OR PROPERTY;”

    Well, it would appear I might just send an email to GoDaddy about SLOUTSIDETHEBUBBLES conduct, and that the site has not moderated he/she’s behavior? But please SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE keep it up, you might drag this publication out of the internet?

  55. > 5. GENERAL RULES OF CONDUCT
    > You acknowledge and agree that:

    The parties cannot agree to illegal conduct, even if only one of the parties is behaving illegally.

    The “agreement” cannot give Amazon a “right” to harm or damage it’s customers.

    Next question for Mr. Super MBA policy wonk:

    Can Parler owners and shareholders sue Amazon for damages?

    Can Amazon shareholders sue Amazon for terminating a lucrative business relationship with a paying customer for no good reason?

    Can Twitter shareholder sue Twitter for damage to the Twitter brand and massive loss in Twitter subscribers due to policies that were NOT motivated by shareholder value but by partisan politics?

  56. SJOUTSIDTHEBUBBLE,

    Any MATERIAL breach of contract, invalidates it. Thus Parler has NO CONTRACT anymore. Thus they are NOT a CUSTOMER anymore either, You seem to have no idea the way a contract works, it is not unilateral. So as far as your questions:

    “The parties cannot agree to illegal conduct, even if only one of the parties is behaving illegally.”

    Thus there is NO CONTRACT and Parler is NOT a customer of AMAZON

    “The “agreement” cannot give Amazon a “right” to harm or damage it’s customers.”

    Breach of contract makes Parler NOT a CUSTOMER of AMAZON legally. You asked:

    “Can Parler owners and shareholders sue Amazon for damages?”

    Answer, NO, because Parler was in material breach of contract, thus TERMINATING the contract and any STANDING to sue You asked:

    “Can Amazon shareholders sue Amazon for terminating a lucrative business relationship with a paying customer for no good reason?”

    Answer NO, because the shareholders are only entitled to valid contracts and thus any breach of contract IDENTIFIED again terminates the contract as a whole. The MATERIAL breach of contract was “just cause” for contract termination. Again you appear to not understand these matters very well. You wrote:

    “Can Twitter shareholder sue Twitter for damage to the Twitter brand and massive loss in Twitter subscribers due to policies that were NOT motivated by shareholder value but by partisan politics?”

    Again once a USER violates their TERMS of use, they MATERIALLY breach the contract, and thus Twitter has “just cause” to act to enforce said contract. No USER makes Twitter have any value, it is the platform that is the value.

    Your just trying to distract yourself regarding the fact Parler set itself up to fail. Advertising as a “free expression” service where its own agreements for the service providers did not allow such a business. They FALSELY expressed they could allow any content on it when they were LEGALLY bound not to under contract.

  57. I just thought of something.

    Given that Parler can be DOCUMENTED as enabling the COORDINATED attack on the Capitol.

    They ARE NOT immune from CRIMINAL prosecution. And in fact it was just released that FELONY MURDER is a high likelihood of those being charged and arrested regarding the situation.

    That mean that Parler employees are subject to arrest for CONSPIRACY to commit FELONY MURDER.

    I really hope that happens..

  58. > Given that Parler can be DOCUMENTED as enabling the COORDINATED attack on the Capitol.

    Isn’t Parler in the same business as Twitter, or vice versa?

    How does Twitter have Section 230 protection and Parler doesn’t?

  59. > That mean that Parler employees are subject to arrest for CONSPIRACY to commit FELONY MURDER.

    > I really hope that happens..

    From the internet . . . .

    “Facebook Played Major Role Coordinating ‘Capitol Riot’ As Sandberg Deflects Blame”
    – – – –
    “Now we learn that Facebook also had a giant role in coordinating the so-called ‘Capitol Riots’ which President Trump was just impeached over on Wednesday for allegedly inciting the incident.”
    – – – –
    Maybe we should hold off on the executions until we’re sure were impeaching the people who need to be impeached.

    Oh, never mind.

    Just go ahead and arrest Mark Zuckerberg,

  60. STEVEN GOLDSTEIN:

    Wikipedia is your friend. You might want to check it sometime.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States

    “Right to petition in the United States”

    According to the Congressional Research Service, since the Constitution was written,[3]

    the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for “a redress of grievances,” in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters. The right extends to the “approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition.”

  61. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE

    “How does Twitter have Section 230 protection and Parler doesn’t?”

    Twitter DOESN’T either, so yes, I have no problem wit them be prosecuted IF evidence can be produced to have done the same as Parler

    ““Facebook Played Major Role Coordinating ‘Capitol Riot’ As Sandberg Deflects Blame”
    – – – –
    “Now we learn that Facebook also had a giant role in coordinating the so-called ‘Capitol Riots’ which President Trump was just impeached over on Wednesday for allegedly inciting the incident.””

    Please provide the source of these quotes? Your using a citation with no resource, thus it has NO VALUE

    “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States

    “Right to petition in the United States”

    According to the Congressional Research Service, since the Constitution was written,[3]

    the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for “a redress of grievances,” in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters. The right extends to the “approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition.”

    YES, but it DOES NOT ALLOW FOR RIOTS. They are allowed access to administrative agencies process and the courts and follow the code of civil procedure and that is all. There is no right to assault politicians, agents of any public agencies, nor the buildings of the various governmental systems. You are really off base there.

  62. > There is no right to assault politicians, agents of any public agencies, nor the buildings of the various governmental systems. You are really off base there.

    There is no right to prosecute anyone without presentation of evidence in a court of law, and for the accused to be assumed innocent, be represented by council, and to present testimony and evidence in his defense.

    This did NOT occur in the Trump impeachments. It was a corrupt POLITICAL process from start to finish. “Private” corporations participated in the process — ILLEGALLY. They meddled in an elections using shareholder funds and without shareholder consent.

    There was no evidence that I am aware of that Trump had anything to do with the riots.

    He is impeached making a speech, and corrupt media corporations created an invidious connection between the speech and the riots and “Trump supporters”.

    All COMPLETELY offensive to “due process” and “equal justice under law”.

    Trump as convicted and impeached by corrupt media corporations, their owned politicians, and by crony capitalist donors, and NOT in a court of law.

    Two systems of “justice’.

  63. STEVEN GOLDSTEIN

    Since you seem to be the arbiter of information purity with the power to distinguish between “information” and “misinformation”, do we need your permission to say “election fraud” or “stop the steal”?

    The Facebook Corporation and the Twitter Corporation seem to have decreed that these and other such terms or phrases may no longer be spoken, written, or tweeted.

    #stopthesteal
    #electionfraud
    #LockHerUp
    #crookedHillary
    #sharpiegate
    #Bannon
    #AlexJones
    #InfoWars
    #RogerStone
    #Parler
    #etc
    #etc
    #etc

    There’s a reason why the Deep Web is many times larger than the “Google Web”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_web

  64. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE you said:

    “Witch hunt.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EruH0D9VkAEm6e6?format=png&name=small

    “Solomon says @FBI, @NYPD, and @USCP had prior knowledge of plans for violence at U.S. Capitol, including intel threatening murder of police officers.

    If this was a planned attack, you can’t accuse the President of inciting a spontaneous attack. This was planned days before.”

    First, even though your link starts with the address pbs.twimg.com” it is NOT a public Broadcasting Services webpage. Very sleazy strategy to say the least.

    Second, you ARE right, the attack was planned for weeks by Trump and his fans, that is apparent on the postings made public on both Twitter and Parler, which makes his defense even less valid.

    The footage on Jan 6th just made it an official act on that day and that time. There was days of preparation, where many people from ALL OVER the country came in to participate. It makes the situation even more insidious.

    Sorry

  65. > First, even though your link starts with the address pbs.twimg.com” it is NOT a public Broadcasting Services webpage. Very sleazy strategy to say the least.

    I’m an innocent victim.

    It’s the link address assigned by Jack Dorsey’s robots on Twitter.

    Blame back Dorsey for being sleazy.

  66. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE,

    PLEASE?

    You grabbed hold of any weapon you could find, and did nothing to even insure it was from a news report, tweets are nothing but opinions from people that in this case aren’t self identifying.

    Tweets are NEVER news, and the crazy thing that Donald Trump used them instead of press conferences or announcements for most of his presidency was CRAZY too.

    I never use tweets as references because they are not news or journalism. Please be considerate and do the same?

  67. > I never use tweets as references because they are not news or journalism. Please be considerate and do the same?

    Yet another silencing technique.

    You know all of them and use all of them.

    Maybe you could ask Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Amazon to silence me, too.

    You could accuse me of “hate speech”.

    After all, “free speech is hate speech”.

  68. SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE,

    I will not accuse you of “hate speech”.

    BUT

    I do simply point out you are expressing your opinions with little or no objective evidence from a reputable source.

    There is no silencing going on except where violence actually took place via the people that were blocked like “Donald Trump”.

    What does happen is each posting is getting a disclaimer to indicate that the information was not VALIDATED, and appears on its face to be misinformation.

    That is not silencing, it is providing THE READER the INFORMATION so that they can INDEPENDENTLY make up their OWN MIND.

    In any case it is a private resource, NOT PUBLIC, and not a governmental process, so that one cannot call it CENSORSHIP., nor argue it is a violation of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

    And you know that.

  69. > In any case it is a private resource, NOT PUBLIC, and not a governmental process, so that one cannot call it CENSORSHIP., nor argue it is a violation of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

    If the suppression is the action of a government enabled and government tolerated ILLEGAL monopoly, it’s censorship and a violation of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

    Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon are monopolies. Amazon just proved that when they pulled the plug on Parler and wiped out their business overnight.

    Going to be hard for Amazon to argue that they DON’T have market power when they can do that kind of stuff.

    Every MBA knows that. How come you didn’t know that? Did you go to one of the quickie, fly by night MBA diploma mills?

  70. > I do simply point out you are expressing your opinions with little or no objective evidence from a reputable source.

    CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times express their opinions with little or no objective evidence from a reputable source.

    > What does happen is each posting is getting a disclaimer to indicate that the information was not VALIDATED, and appears on its face to be misinformation.

    Why doesn’t Twitter provide disclaimers for CNN, MSNBC, and NYT content? CNN, MSNBC, and New York Times information is not validated, and appears on its face to be misinformation.

    And, why don’t CNN, MSNBC, and NYT provide disclaimers for Twitter content?

    https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

    Bari Weiss

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/business/media/james-bennet-resigns-nytimes-op-ed.html

    James Bennet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *