Can we talk about Kevin McCarthy promising revenge if Big Tech aids probe into January insurrection? The Republican minority leader of the US House of Representatives this week issued a very public threat to cellphone networks and social media giants that were asked to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the storming of the Capitol in January. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) warned "a Republican majority will not forget" …
I've been watching this BS go on and on by many members of the Republican Party. The questions that no one has asked those leaders are "who are they protecting?" and "why are they fighting this?" Methinks the Republicans doth protest too much and they have much to fear even if it's just the wrath of Trump much less anything they may have done to enable the event of 1/6.
I too am sick of the politics here in the States. It used to be about issues, not personalities and news bites. Or perhaps before the Internet we didn't see the BS that went on?
Well, the true payback will be when the people they are enabling turn on them. Chump has already had a taste of this when he got booed for being mildly supportive of vaccines. These armed thugs don't care if you are a Republican or Democrat, all they see are "enemies" who dare to disagree with them.
Been watching this farce since the voting started. I have never seen a US President who garnered less respect from almost everyone in the world (except US Republicans) in the UK he was treated as a comedian, and an unfunny one at that.
How did he get voted in in the first place? American politics seems to be a broken mess. Politicians appear to be unable to behave like politicians and represent their regions (I am not going to say voters) They are meant to listen to the people they represent and vote accordingly. NOT just vote according to the leaders of the party. If they are going to do that why have politicians at all? Just hand out cards with yes/no to the party leaders for all their members and cast their votes. Simples.
I do not say that the UK is much better, after all we keep taking on American ideas as if they were any good. And with "Bojo the Clown" in power it looks like we are in a lot of trouble. A bit like trump. Can either of them read or write sentences with big words and make sense?
It's a shitball rolling downhill, getting bigger as it goes. I really wish I could afford to move to a civilized country one day, where people actually respect the rule of law, even when inconvenient, have access to healthcare without the threat of bankruptcy, and where science is what determines the course of action to take in a global pandemic.
It's no coincidence that the U.S. leads the world in Covid deaths.
> politics seems to be on a steep downwards trend, away from politics and into a quagmire of personality and soundbites overand doing "what is right".
FTFY. One problem is that people *are* doing "what is right", in spite of almost as many others who strongly disagree about their idea of "what is right", and any indication of compromise between the groups is treated as a betrayal or act of treason.
I've been watching this BS go on and on by many members of the Republican Party. The questions that no one has asked those leaders are "who are they protecting?" and "why are they fighting this?"
Because the US, or at least the Republican Party, has moved towards the "Big Man" style of politics which has bedevilled much of Africa for years. On paper Donald Trump is everything the Republicans should hate (financially profligate serial bankrupt, adulterous serial divorcé, Russian asset, registered Democrat), but he's famous and powerful so they fall over themselves to perform haemorrholingus.
I know you were being largely rhetorical, so this reply isn't directly for you.
Anyway...
Trump. It all still boils down to Trump.
As you know, Trump still holds the republican base, and the Republicans are basically sucking up to these MAGAs.
It's the same reason that masks and vaccines are attacked by Texas and Florida governors, the same reason Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene are a thing.
It's all about pandering to the stupid and proudly ignorant MAGA - many of who think 6th January was justified, and should be repeated.
Nearly Half Of Republican Voters Call January 6 Riot ‘Legitimate Protest,’ Poll Finds
Trump loved enhancing dividing the American people.
Cummings and Johnson over here realised its success, and used the same tactics here for brexit.
Now we have big divides too. Brexit is still a bitter subject ,and we also have our own anti-common-sense brigade, our own mini-MAGAS.
It's not yet as extreme over here, but it will be. I hate them all.
The questions that no one has asked those leaders are "who are they protecting?" and "why are they fighting this?"
I would like to see SIMILAR QUESTIONS asked about what happened in Milwaukee, Portland, Seattle, and other places from organizations like B.L.M. and ANTIFA. And I think the death toll from all of THAT was a *LOT* higher.
The laws were broken, and justice MUST be applied EQUALLY to ALL.
(and what happened on January 6 was a clear violation of the law, too)
This post has been deleted by its author
> How any of them can demand to see the apparently private records of individuals is a pretty shocking state of affairs to me. I would imagine that it’s up to the legal system to start a case and prosecute and not corrupt and biased politicians to do this?
Wow, just wow.
Many countries, including the US, have the lawful ability for the legislature/government to form a 'board of enquiry' that has subpoena and sometimes warrant powers, often including the ability to find people who refuse to honour the subpoena/warrant with contempt, and levy fines, even jail until the subject of the summons follows it.
U.S. Congress subpoena power is still "due process" and of course if there is overreach (like violating the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution) then a federal judge can intervene for any objections to discovery that is deemed a violation or simply "too broad". So it's still "due process" and not tyranny so long as you have the ability to object and the congressional investigation is overseen by the courts.
It becomes tyranny when due process no longer exists.
(IANAL so my legal advice/opinion is worth what you paid for it)
Yet, I think there is STILL value to leaving your phone off (with no battery) at times...
How any of them can demand to see the apparently private records of individuals is a pretty shocking state of affairs to me. I would imagine that it’s up to the legal system to start a case and prosecute and not corrupt and biased politicians to do this?
Congress committees have always had the power to subpoena both witnesses and evidence in pursuit of its role.
The idea that somehow private records are somewhat inviolate when investigating a potential crime is a strange one. There are many situations where legal authorities can request information held on private servers. For example if there was an investigation on child abuse, you would not expect that data stored on a private server would remain off limits?
At the end of the day the committee is requesting data in pursuance of understanding a criminal act, and as long as it follows its own procedures, it is legally allowed to do it
I also find it ironic that the same characters who have pushed for companies like apple and google to give backdoors to legal authorities are now crying foul when the same sort of requests are being asked about there own activities.
Very well said. Most lovers of due process and individual rights have no clue on just how powerful congressional committes are. They can demand you show up for grilling, you have to lawyer up on your own dime, (no public defenders), and you have to answer all questions and supply all data requested or risk contempt of congress.
Sometimes they do good things (like Watergate), other times, they are the definition of a kangaroo court.
They have not demanded. They are not seeing. Some/all of the records are not private.
They have asked some companies to preserve records in case it turns out they are evidence of a crime. Some/all of the records were generated with the expectation and desire (at the time) that they would become public. It is a bit late to now say "I want evidence of my crimes that I deliberately posted on the internet deleted."
They have asked some companies to preserve records
Right. this is not the same as demanding the records and THEN "going fishing" to "find something". Subpoenas and warrants must be relevant AND specific to avoid violating things like the U.S. Constitution's 4th amendment.
(I do not like the way this is being treated BUT they [congress] haven't violated the law; however SOME people on Jan 6 WERE allegedly trespassing and damaging public property, so they SHOULD be brought to justice, within the confines of the law and constitutional rights)
So, he's admitting there IS evidence of their crime that a search would reveal. If there wasn't evidence of the crime, then there would be no evidence for "big tech' to reveal.
No shit Sherlock.
They shouldn't flinch, go investigate Trump's release of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar too, the Taliban leader and his fighters that killed so may American soldiers. It's pretty bad when Republicans see themselves more aligned with the Taliban than America.
I fail to see what that has to do with this. That was a political long ball. They aren't aligned with the taliban, it was a means to an end. Trump started pulling out leaving Biden with absolutely no option but to fulfil it. The ensuing shitshow can then be blamed on Biden and Trump can run a campaign on how he brought the troops home. The reason they pulled is that after 20 years they realised what the Russians did. You aren't going to be able to built an oil pipeline and secure it and forget about drilling for oil in Afghanistan. All they succeeded in doing was creating a new generation of people that want to kill everyone in the west.
As for the republicans they are all for taking peoples civil liberties and spying on people when it doesn't effect them.
It fits the September surprise pattern:
Remember September 2012? Benghazi. The terrorist attack on the US embassy in Libya, the September before the Presidential election that Obama was set to win, that the Republicans used so extensively to attempt to unseat Obama in their campaigning? Occams razor: which group benefitted from that terrorist attack? Republicans did.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/kevin-mccarthy-credits-benghazi-committee-clinton-damage-msna693201
They even resurrected it for the next election, September 2015, with McCarthy making the mistake of admitting it:
"“Let me give you one example,” McCarthy said, citing his conservative credentials during an appearance on Fox News with Sean Hannity Tuesday night. “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping."
September 11th 2020 before the latest election:, Pompeo meeting the Taliban leader Trump had released:
https://2017-2021.state.gov/secretary-michael-r-pompeo-at-a-press-availability/index.html
https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1427185114652430343
The problem is, both groups want to take over the US and end its democracy. And their aims are aligned. McCarthy's gaff was to admit as much.
They need to go investigate the money flow and communications to not just ensure the Republicans aren't just 'passively' working with the terrorists, but like Iran-Contra, they aren't also organizing and funding those terrorists.
And now Texas has banned abortions after 6 weeks for all cases, including pregnancy complications, rape, incest.... And the McConnell packed Supreme Court have upheld the decision.
Funny how they're so "pro life" until someone needs social care, or healthcare, or decent schooling...
Lauren Bobert[1] tweeted that the 'Taliban are building back better' than Biden.
That says it all really.
[1] This is the gun-toting owner of a dive bar called 'Shooters'. Like many on the right of the Republican party, she wants to continue the endless wars. That means more money for the likes of Raytheon and other defence contractors. That in turn means more money for her re-election campaign. Simple really.
"Ex generals are stock holders in arms companies"
If you'd left it there, or just added a comment about secretaries of state and other ex-administration people being on the boards of arms and "defence"(sic) corps then you'd have got an upvote.
But trying to place it all on Obama? Too red-pilled my friend. Downvoted.
.... when private companies let three letter agencies gather data in secrecy without oversight is fine, if the Congress investigates on a terrorist act is not fine?
It looks to me some Republicans are really scared they could be found having acted against their own country... and that's treason.
What's scaring Republicans is that demographics mean their democratic route to national power is essentially over (unless Biden really and truly screws up, which seems increasingly possible...).
There are basically two other routes to national power: persuading the electorate to abandon democracy voluntarily (because "fraud") or by violence (in defence of American white voters traditions).
Failing that, their only other option is to split the Union.
Since some absurdly wealthy and powerful people are really keen to have their privileges preserved at practically any cost (to other people), all outcomes are possible.
unless Biden really and truly screws up, which seems increasingly possible...
Let's face it - Biden is only president because no Democrat of any ability and personality thought Trump could be beaten. We thought Trump was bad in his first term; his second, when he doesn't have to worry about re-election, is going to be terrifying.
and what about the law enforcement officers that have pulled the pin and committed suicide since? 4 or 5 more? Does that not speak volumes? As a Merkin who left back in the late 90's, I thought the political scene was bad and toxic at that time. I won't be repatriating, and may even dump my citizenship, see American taxation of ex-pats for more info.
Ta!
Adam Ant-Fa?
Proven on video? LOL. You either saw a whole other video than the several I've seen, or you need to get your eyes looked at.
No guns, but they used any and everything they could lay hands on: fire extinguishers, flag poles, mace, stolen police batons, shields and helmets, and almost managed to take an officer's gun. Oh, did I forget to mention the ~gallows~?
When they weren't booing and jeering the insurrectionists, of course.
I'm remembering a few lines by Lloyd Bridges in the movie "Airplane!" right about now...
I found this article on Fox News itself, but I fear it still won't convince you - looking at your other posts, you're definitely more of an OAN/Newsmax sheep.
If you don't consider Fox News to be fake news, communist fascist socialists bankrolled by Soros, here you go:
FOX NEWS: Capitol Police officer 'didn't have a choice' in shooting Babbitt, GOP congressman says https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-officer-shooting-ashli-babbitt-gop-congressman
Mind you, he's obviously not really a GOP congressman, he's really antifa in disguise...
I am always absolutely flabbergasted when I see a US politician spouting bullshit without any consequence whatsoever.
This asshole is publicly trying to obstruct a government inquiry, and nothing. The cops don't show up, no journalist is calling him out, nada.
It is not a Democrat inquiry, it is a Government inquiry you moron. You're lucky I'm not the President, because I would have the IRS take your taxes apart line by line. I'm sure you've got some dirty laundry to hang yourself with.
It is not a Democrat inquiry, it is a Government inquiry you moron.
Nope, it's a Democrat inquiry called by Pelosi to distract from her own failings. She is after all responsible for Congress security. But such is politics. By controlling the process, she can try to avoid awkward questions about why the mostly peaceful* protests ended up the way they did. But again, such is politics. The Democrats control the messaging, hence why people think this was an 'insurrection', despite events not meeting the definition. This was perhaps a better example-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_Senate_bombing
The group Resistance Conspiracy was a United States-based branch of the wider communist organization known as the May 19th Communist Order. This group existed from its first attack in 1976 until later attacks in 1985. Throughout the lifespan of the organization, twenty incidents of terror were committed including one fatality inflicted. Most of the incidents involved bombings and sabotage, however several also included scare tactics such as threats and the utilization of fake weapons.
...On December 6, 1990, federal judge Harold H. Greene sentenced Laura Whitehorn and Linda Evans to lengthy prison terms for conspiracy and malicious destruction of government property. The court dropped charges against three co-defendants, two of whom (including Susan Rosenberg) were serving extended prison sentences for related crimes. Whitehorn was sentenced to 20 years; Evans, to 5 years, concurrent with 35 years for illegally buying guns. On January 20, 2001, the day he left office, President Bill Clinton commuted Evans's and Rosenberg's sentences.
I always thought that a curious decision by Clinton. But that was an altogether more serious insurrection, even though a fairly small conspiracy.. But that's also kinda back to the 'fiery, but mostly peaceful' protests CNN reported on in Kenosha, and repeated across the US. And oddly enough, some of those 'peaceful protestors' were flying Communist flags. But useful idiots have always been a fixture of politics.
But despite this 'insurrection', AFAIK nobody has been charged as such, instead charges seem to be mostly trespass, public order and criminal damage. And no charges for the only shooting of an unarmed woman either.
You're lucky I'm not the President, because I would have the IRS take your taxes apart line by line. I'm sure you've got some dirty laundry to hang yourself with.
And if not, I guess you could always sponsor your own Steele dossier. But yours would be an interesting style of Presidency. Not exactly liberal, but in keeping with reprisals handed out by other far-left, fascist forms of government.
But that's also what the Republicans are complaining about. The US kinda has rules about surveillance of it's own citizens. Some put in place to guard against authoritarian governments abusing surveillance powers to create lists of their opponents.
So why would the inquiry need this data? The FBI has been busily investigating the crimes, and could justify having that data to identity potential suspects.. But 'Congress' doesn't need it, and as it's overtly political, probably shouldn't have it.
> "Nope, it's a Democrat inquiry called by Pelosi to distract from her own failings. She is after all responsible for Congress security."
Ah yes, just like it's the fault of women who get raped for not being more careful or dressing like an Eskimo.
It's no surprise that you brexxiters align with the MAGA morons.
Well that would be a strawman.
It doesn't matter if she was in charge or security or not, you are still blaming the victim. You're saying that they are pushing for the inquiry to hide the fact that she was responsible for security.
If someone left their house unlocked and they were burgled, well, stupid them, but if they wanted the robbers caught, no sane person would say "She's only pushing so hard for them to be caught because she was stupid enough to leave her door unlocked."
It doesn't matter if she was in charge or security or not, you are still blaming the victim. You're saying that they are pushing for the inquiry to hide the fact that she was responsible for security.
More a witch hunt. As seen previously with the impeachment attempts.
But such is politics. If you're in charge of the investigation, you can direct the way the investigation goes. Again, simply politics. What you can't change as easily are the constitutional responsibilities of the Speaker(s) role(s), ie responsibility for security. Ok, shared with the '3rd Man', the Capitol Architect, which must be a fascinating job.
So we've been told-
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection
Full Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
And America had been seeing much of this over the previous year, ranging from attempts to establish independent nation states in Seattle to the 'fiery, but mostly peaceful protests' that CNN reported on.
Much vandalism, arson and attacks against civil infrastructure like courthouses, police stations, federal buildings, Walgreens and Footlockers. But that was all fine, with US politcians providing support and assistance, or DA's refusing to prosecute. These were just peaceful, anti-Trump or anti-government protestors. Not rioters or insurrectionists.
But that's kinda background. An extended period where parts of the US were burned, businesses destroyed, widespread looting, many LEO's injured, some deaths.. And polticians pretty much did nothing. Which was a rather risky strategy given it risked normalising that kind of behaviour.
So then we get Jan 6th. There seemed to be plenty of intelligence that crowds were expected at the Capitol. There was plenty of speculation that some might be armed, or have violent intent. So crowds assembled, and wandered into the Capitol Building.
Why?
If Capitol security and federal agencies were aware of the potential for trouble, what steps were taken to mitigate that? Especially as we're told it was a serious and organised insurrection, possibly co-ordinated by the Democrat's opponents. Yet there doesn't appear to be much in the way of evidence that any organised insurrection existed. The FBI and other LEO's have been investigating, and charging some of the insurrectionists-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58441174
Jacob Anthony Chansley was one of thousands of Trump supporters who attempted to prevent the US Congress from certifying the 2020 election.
Chansley pleaded guilty on Friday to one felony count of obstruction in an official proceeding.
But then the Bbc also says-
Chansley became the de facto face of the siege, pictured amid the unrest in horns and a bearskin headdress, with the American flag painted on his face. He called himself the "QAnon Shaman".
He only seems to have become the 'face of the siege' thanks to the media, who noticed the efforts he'd put into his cosplay. He'd also worn the same outfit to BLM and other events. But that's the media for you. It was hardly a 'siege' given many of the protestors simply walked into the Capitol, took selfies and wandered out again.
But that's all part of the political theatre.
.,. far-left, fascist ...
Directionally *challenged.
As much as I realize we here in the US haven't really had a actual *liberal in office in many, many, many years... and the last one was actually a Republican... it does explain why your sense of right and left may be superimposed onto a circle... and the view seems clearer from a center that is a bit skewed.
it does explain why your sense of right and left may be superimposed onto a circle...
That's just politics re-inventing itself. Much like the Southern Democrats did.. But a definition-
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
And of course the further you drift to the left, the more right-wing other individuals may seem.
It's a Democrat inquiry called by Pelosi to distract from her own failings. She is after all responsible for Congress security.
Err... no. From various Googles as to who in incharge: "It is provided by the sergeants-at-arms of the House and Senate, and by the Capitol Police. The House sergeant-at-arms reports to the House speaker, or Pelosi at the time of the attack. The Senate sergeant-at-arms reports to the Senate majority leader — on Jan. 6, Sen. Mitch McConnell."
Err... no. From various Googles as to who in incharge: "It is provided by the sergeants-at-arms of the House and Senate, and by the Capitol Police.
Ah, politics.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/capitol-police-reaction-details/index.html
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called for the resignation of the Sund and said the House Sergeant at Arms has told her he is submitting his resignation as well. Michael Stenger, the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, has resigned as well, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer had said he would fire Stenger when he became majority leader later this month.
Always supporting law enforcement, and ensuring that other people are held to account. But again one of those interesting areas an inquiry could cover, ie who knew what, when and how transitional arrangements had been managed. That may also touch on claims that Trump refused to send in the National Guard. Of course that could have been a bit embarassing, if it showed that Chuck & Nancy couldn't organise their own security.
Again, such is politics. It's odd that Schiff objected to being investigated in connection with a lot of leakage, yet seems rather keen to investigate his political opponents.
Nope, it's a Democrat inquiry called by Pelosi to distract from her own failings
I'm not saying you're ENTIRELY wrong because we know that politicians do things _LIKE_ this a _LOT_ because they're politicians. However, I think the inquiry might actually be a GOOD thing, once the truth comes out.
A bunch of people allegedly trespassed and broke public property. They were "less than peaceful" which is NOT what Trump wanted to happen when he held his rally. It scared a bunch of politicians for a number of reasons, and they're busy hyping it all up for their own personal gain. This is what politicians _DO_ way too often. And, of course, their echo chamber media pals are enabling them because, if it bleeds, it leads.
So the REAL problem is the politicians. The people who trespassed and broke property need to be prosecuted accordingly. The only way to GET RID of evil politicians is to REPLACE them with DIFFERENT (hopefully not evil) politicians.
which COULD maybe be one of US, you know...
> The only way to GET RID of evil politicians is to REPLACE them with DIFFERENT (hopefully not evil) politicians.
That's the theory. In practice, voters don't get much of a choice. it's generally more of the same: a candidate you don't like much, versus one you totally loath.
You're lucky I'm not the President, because I would have the IRS take your taxes apart line by line
Do you REALLY want some government entity or individual to have the *KIND* of power that allows for CAPRICIOUS TYRANNY in the form of "weaponizing" a TAX AUTHORITY?
This does NOT pass the "shoe on the other foot" test, by a LONG margin.
I think it's not so much party based as role based. They're acting like an opposition because they are in opposition. When the political pendulum swings the other way they'll regard such requirements as business as usual because they are business as usual for governments. Nothing changes except the colours government and opposition wear.
It's all theater, it's not an actual threat. No phone company will hesitate even for a minute because of this. If they receive a lawful request for information, they will give it. Because it's the law. If McCarthy doesn't like that then he needs to get enough of his fellow members to change the law that they passed.
And as someone else pointed out, this isn't even a demand for information yet. It's simply a preservation request. Which means the Committee is saying, if you have info related to these people, do not purge any of it from your systems. Congress could ask for a preservation request for every person in Washington DC, and it wouldn't result in a single byte of data being released to the Committee.
But isn't that the problem? Sure, if they were made by law to comply they wouldn't hesitate.
But this isn't that - this is "asking them to hold onto records" - unless that's law (I don't know) then the threat is actually more damaging.
Does this "request to not purge" hold any legal standing?
When republican led committees were subpeonaing everything they could from telcos and many other sources in a half dozen different committees while trying to take down Hillary over Benghazi, then expanding that investigation into the content of her emails, location of her email server, and so on.
That was a legitimate investigation, even if it was largely politically motivated. The investigation into the January 6th insurrection and possible connections to republican members of the House and Trump confidants is absolutely a legitimate investigation, even if he believes it is largely politically motivated.
All he did was tell the investigators "there is something here we are really worried about you finding". It is already known what he told Trump and what Trump told him, so it is clear he was not a participant in planning it or knew about it in advance, so he's not covering for himself. He has probably become aware of facts that make it clear to him that will be uncovered will not be good for the republican party, since they've already changed their story on what January 6th was several times - first it was Antifa but when not a single left wing plant was identified they modified it to "well it was Trump supporters but they were nonviolent", but as video is constantly released showing Trump supporters beating the hell out of Capitol police they are now claiming they were justified in doing that because of the supposed election fraud they have yet to supply ANY proof of and thus they are "political prisoners".
If he felt confident there were nothing incriminating to be found, he wouldn't protest so loudly. Because the one thing someone who wants to become Speaker of the House won't do is limit his future powers - and making it somehow illegal or improper for the House to ever subpeona information from cellular carriers, ISPs, etc. would almost entirely eliminate their ability to investigate anything in the modern world.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
