Jim Jordan Responds to January 6 Committee Meeting Request, Rejects Legitimacy of Investigation

[BWK]

No, no he wasn't....he clearly forwarded a text discussing the legal process in which it can be done...and highlighted the legal precedent for it....

Sorry, I think you were conned by Shifty when he provided you with the "parody" text from Jordan

Regardless though, what does it matter? A person can send another person a text message..there was nothing wrong with it.

There is no legal precedent. Jordan should know that. After all, wasn't he the one who wanted to be on the committee? He should know better.

Your critical thinking skills suck. You do not realize you are talking out of both sides of your keyboard. "Forwarded a text discussing the legal process in which it could be done." That's encouraging to do it. "A person can send another person a text message..there was nothing wrong with it." Not if it encourages dong something illegal.

"On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all -- in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence. 'No legislative act,' wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, 'contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.' The court in Hubbard v. Lowe reinforced this truth: 'That an unconstitutional statute is not a law at all is a proposition no longer open to discussion.' 226 F. 135, 137 (SDNY 1915), appeal dismissed, 242 U.S. 654 (1916). Following this rationale, an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally enacted statute, is no elector at all." "Should call out" is not discussing. It's telling to do something.

 

[struth]

The process he described has no foundation in law. It would be a totally unprecedented and unconstitutional interference. No where in any law or precedent has the VP been given any authority to declare what is and isn’t a constitutional electoral vote. Allowing him to do so would make him judge jury and executioner over the electoral system that he himself is actively participating in. (There is no citation of a legal precedent that applies here, the case mentioned is irrelevant).

The text message revels that Jordan has very undemocratic impulses and should be ashamed.

sure it is, i provided the code for you, and he provided car law in the text he forwarded

but so what? even if you completely disageee with him…or even if he was wrong…so what?

 

[struth]

There is no legal precedent. Jordan should know that. After all, wasn't he the one who wanted to be on the committee? He should know better.

Your critical thinking skills suck. You do not realize you are talking out of both sides of your keyboard. "Forwarded a text discussing the legal process in which it could be done." That's encouraging to do it. "A person can send another person a text message..there was nothing wrong with it." Not if it encourages dong something illegal.

"On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all -- in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence. 'No legislative act,' wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, 'contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.' The court in Hubbard v. Lowe reinforced this truth: 'That an unconstitutional statute is not a law at all is a proposition no longer open to discussion.' 226 F. 135, 137 (SDNY 1915), appeal dismissed, 242 U.S. 654 (1916). Following this rationale, an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally enacted statute, is no elector at all." "Should call out" is not discussing. It's telling to do something.

there might not be precedent in that objections have not actually been upheld…but there is a process

yes it appears he was telling Meadows or at least forwarding what someone told Meadows

so what?

 

[BWK]

there might not be precedent in that objections have not actually been upheld…but there is a process

yes it appears he was telling Meadows or at least forwarding what someone told Meadows

so what?

He wasn't discussing as you suggested. That's what. He was telling Meadows. There is a big difference between you saying they were "discussing" versus "telling."

Your post is dishonest and it fools no one.

 

[struth]

He wasn't discussing as you suggested. That's what. He was telling Meadows. There is a big difference between you saying they were "discussing" versus "telling."

Your post is dishonest and it fools no one.

hard to say since we don’t have the text before or after

moreover it was a forwarded message

but regardless so what? i fail to see the point? So arguemento Jordan “told” Meadows something

So?

 

[BWK]

sure it is, i provided the code for you, and he provided car law in the text he forwarded

but so what? even if you completely disageee with him…or even if he was wrong…so what?

but so what? even if you completely disageee with him…or even if he was wrong…so what? Like I said critical thinking, no where to be found with you. "If you disagree with him, so what?" "If he was wrong, so what?" Who on planet earth could have an intelligent debate with you? Answer, no one. This is the reason why Trump's cultist party has descended into no where land with their diluted, incoherent positions. It's as if you and your ilk are fighting to see who can be more outrageous, insane, and stupid. I think all of Trump's cultists are doing quite well in all three departments.

 

[BWK]

hard to say since we don’t have the text before or after

moreover it was a forwarded message

but regardless so what? i fail to see the point? So arguemento Jordan “told” Meadows something

So?

I already posted the text. We have it. Most cultists won't read it, because they have no interest in the truth.

 

[colfax_m]

sure it is, i provided the code for you, and he provided car law in the text he forwarded

but so what? even if you completely disageee with him…or even if he was wrong…so what?

The case he cited has no bearing on bearing on the rest of the plan.

You cited a code which talks about Congress contemplating objections raised by members of Congress. Jordan’s text is contemplating the VP unilaterally throwing out votes. These are clearly different things. One is legitimate. One is an absurdity with no basis in law.

I think it’s very wrong to suggest such undemocratic maneuvering to usurp the presidency. If Jordan can’t acknowledge this, he doesn’t deserve to remain in Congress since he doesn’t respect it’s foundation.

 

[BWK]

hard to say since we don’t have the text before or after

moreover it was a forwarded message

but regardless so what? i fail to see the point? So arguemento Jordan “told” Meadows something

So?

You are presenting nothing intelligent with "so what." Please keep up the good work. As long as we have such diluted responses like yours, I am confident and hopeful, justice will be served. Can you imagine if you yourself were a part of this, and your defense was "so what?"

 

[BWK]

The case he cited has no bearing on bearing on the rest of the plan.

You cited a code which talks about Congress contemplating objections raised by members of Congress. Jordan’s text is contemplating the VP unilaterally throwing out votes. These are clearly different things. One is legitimate. One is an absurdity with no basis in law.

I think it’s very wrong to suggest such undemocratic maneuvering to usurp the presidency. If Jordan can’t acknowledge this, he doesn’t deserve to remain in Congress since he doesn’t respect it’s foundation.

Struth will tell you "so what."

 

[struth]

but so what? even if you completely disageee with him…or even if he was wrong…so what? Like I said critical thinking, no where to be found with you. "If you disagree with him, so what?" "If he was wrong, so what?" Who on planet earth could have an intelligent debate with you? Answer, no one. This is the reason why Trump's cultist party has descended into no where land with their diluted, incoherent positions. It's as if you and your ilk are fighting to see who can be more outrageous, insane, and stupid. I think all of Trump's cultists are doing quite well in all three departments.

so you can’t answer my question?

 

[struth]

I already posted the text. We have it. Most cultists won't read it, because they have no interest in the truth.

of course we all was the real text after the committee published the one they doctored

so?

 

[struth]

The case he cited has no bearing on bearing on the rest of the plan.

You cited a code which talks about Congress contemplating objections raised by members of Congress. Jordan’s text is contemplating the VP unilaterally throwing out votes. These are clearly different things. One is legitimate. One is an absurdity with no basis in law.

I think it’s very wrong to suggest such undemocratic maneuvering to usurp the presidency. If Jordan can’t acknowledge this, he doesn’t deserve to remain in Congress since he doesn’t respect it’s foundation.

i disagree with you on the point of the text.

well it’s up to the people who vote for him…was that the point the committee was trying to accomplish by releasing a doctored text of his? to get him out of congress? that seems like an abuse of their authority

 

[struth]

You are presenting nothing intelligent with "so what." Please keep up the good work. As long as we have such diluted responses like yours, I am confident and hopeful, justice will be served. Can you imagine if you yourself were a part of this, and your defense was "so what?"

i am asking a question…you are the one that suppose to produce the answer.

do you not have one?

 

[colfax_m]

i disagree with you on the point of the text.

well it’s up to the people who vote for him…was that the point the committee was trying to accomplish by releasing a doctored text of his? to get him out of congress? that seems like an abuse of their authority

You see only what you want to see which means you are ignoring the plain text of what he wrote to avoid admitting the truth.

Jordan was advocating Pence dismantle the constitutional process.

 

[struth]

You see only what you want to see which means you are ignoring the plain text of what he wrote to avoid admitting the truth.

Jordan was advocating Pence dismantle the constitutional process.

i suppose you are right that folks only see what they want to see…or what they are told to see…likely the reason the Committee doctored the text to begin with and hadn’t released the entire convo.

Good point

but with that said, argumento, you are right…so what? so Jordan told Meadows something that you disagee wirh and feel this way about…so what? frankly it undermines this entire narrative that they organized the riot, if Jordan thought the VP could do what you claim

 

[toobfreak]

Yeah, quite honestly, I tend to not like to be partisan. . .

When you have on the one side a do-nothing disorganized, non-unified inertial party like the GOP who never met a clever move by the democrats that did not surprise them catching them both clueless and unprepared, and the Dems on the other side who never met a divisive anti-mainstream redistribution policy that rips the feet right out from under America they didn't love, it is hard not to be "partisan." Despite all of Trump's warts and character flaws, the essence of his MAGA movement is neither democrat nor republican but simply pro-America.

Building a stronger America is in everyone's interests except our enemies.

 

[colfax_m]

i suppose you are right that folks only see what they want to see…or what they are told to see…likely the reason the Committee doctored the text to begin with and hadn’t released the entire convo.

Good point

but with that said, argumento, you are right…so what? so Jordan told Meadows something that you disagee wirh and feel this way about…so what? frankly it undermines this entire narrative that they organized the riot, if Jordan thought the VP could do what you claim

You’re asking why should one be mad that the highest levels of our government were conspiring to dismantle the constitution and have Trump appointed despite having lost the election.

Is this a serious question?

 

[struth]

You’re asking why should one be mad that the highest levels of our government were conspiring to dismantle the constitution and have Trump appointed despite having lost the election.

Is this a serious question?

haha where is the conspiracy?

you have one text, one congressmen, telling Meadows his opinion on what can happen.

What was Meadows response? where is the conspiracy?

 

[colfax_m]

haha where is the conspiracy?

you have one text, one congressmen, telling Meadows his opinion on what can happen.

What was Meadows response? where is the conspiracy?

If this was the only text discussing this, that’d be one thing. But it isn’t.

There’s a lot of information about Trump’s plan.

For example, see the Eastman memo which talks about the same thing.

These are the facts being uncovered by the Jan 6th committee and the reason that people like Meadows aren’t cooperating. They dont want the conspiracy to see the light of day.