Update: Johnson's team says the DOJ does have the raw footage - and they are blurring to "protect those from retaliation from non government actors".

Nothing like protecting - at a minimum - trespassers who haven't been prosecuted from being ID'd.

Way to go GOP!!!!

I'm confused are there tapes that Johnson has access to that the doj doesn't already have?

This is actually true, the DOJ has this raw footage, I would assume all or any of it they want.

So why does Johnson seemed consumed with blurring the public tapes? It's simple: to play the part of GOP versus the deep state. And to protect his GOP supporters from further embarrassment (not every single person was prosecuted - but it could still get them in trouble, say with their employer).

It's one big game.

Not a darling to me at all. She's just a principled conservative, which the GOP seems be running short on nowadays.

Exactly, but she puts democracy over party which is A-OK in my book.

Just think of all the House Repubs that tried to keep DJT in power when he didn't even come close to deserving even a mention of it. We know this because we have the texts!!!!!!!

Sad state of affairs.

So the party of law wants to blank out the faces of people - to protect them from the DOJ - even while they are doing something that on the very basis of being there is illegal.

Nice.

What a joke.

What an embarrassing statement and action by the Speaker.

The GOP for years has claimed it had a plan to replace ACA, only you never saw nor heard what this secret plan was.

Didn't Trump have a big binder of a replacement plan he showed 60 Minutes LOL...what happened to that?

The GOP is lucky McCain saved their a*s - had it been voted out we would have had more of a catastrophe with COVID right around the corner and millions w/o healthcare.

who, having previously..............

You failed to mention what was connected - and none of the having previously refer to the President of the US.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

I guess reading that - it really does not mention the President - which seems crazy.

General question: sometimes the Supreme Court turns away cases - how does that happen? Would they consider turning this away.

I appreciate Neal Katyal's opinion, love watching his appearances on MSNBC - but what he calls "factual" - that Trump engaged in insurrection. Couldn't that be very subjective? I mean - I believe he did but there's a case to be argued he did not (hence, impeachment is available).

Finally - how in the world did this judge come to the conclusion that the President is not part of this Amendment? I don't get that. Did the judge try to rule so crazy that is has to be overturned?

At this point I don't think having access to all of the footage changes much. The bad stuff is bad and there is no excusing it.

Unfortunately some Republicans, like Mike Lee of Utah, misleads those susceptible while looking like a complete fool to those who deal in facts.

Trump's DOJ was FAR less weappnized than Obama's or Biden's.

Please provide some examples of the Biden DOJ weaponization....

For some context - possibly - some of these videos where police seem to be "assisting".

Could it be this is when the protestors were being escorted out of the building?

There is precious little difference between age and whether you attempted rebellion.

First, let me say I think he did try to stay in power. You'd have to be foolish to think otherwise.

To me the phone call to GA, the alternate electors, the admission, in public no less, they wanted to have Pence turn away the certification with ZERO evidence all points back to Trump. There's obviously more we could go into.

But there is a difference between "age" (easily definable, well mostly lol) and an "attempted rebellion" (not so easy - esp in a court of law) - esp the way Trump did it. He didn't call on the military, he thought about many different things but pulled back (assigning a new AG, confiscating voting machines, etc) and the big issue is the extent that he went to is up to interpretation of the law.

And different people (judge/jury) who make decisions have different interpretations. Rebellion to some could literally mean hand to hand combat to maintain power - while others would connect Trump's actions to pushing the envelope on vaguely written laws that give him a pass.

This is why you have impeachment. For Mitch McConnell to stand up there and rail on Trump the way he did after J6 and then not vote to impeach? It's baffling. Well, not really...these guys want to stay in power and giving Trump the pass was the easy out.

Now it's come back to haunt them.

hmmmm interesting, it doesn't list taking an oath as president, weird. I guess they couldn't envision that a POTUS would be a traitor.

Yep, that's the thing with Trump. He takes any norm and destroys it.

It's the old "GUS ALERT".

This is the classic example of why Trump should have been impeached - he has no right being anywhere near the White House based on how he conducted himself from the day after the election through, well, today.

The law can be argued in court with lawyers and judges, and it's up for interpretation.

That's the one thing we can hope for: Trump becomes less tolerated when he is more exposed again to the public and his legal cases pile up. It hopefully drags down ballot raises as well.

That almost assuredly will happen. He's going to be guilty in the documents case and has a high probability of guilt in J6 and GA. That will scare away Independents and even some R's.

From my POV the Democratic Party is an absolute disaster on policy. The GOP is not nearly as bad on my policy IMO. So, given that why would I vote Dem?

Maybe you should take Democracy over cheating to regain the WH? But I will give you that your issue is policy, because that's something debatable. Trying to seize the WH is not.

So why not do this - vote down the line R's - to keep policy you don't like in check - but pass on Trump.

I'll still hold my nose and vote for him over Trump

What the hell would you hold if you voted for Trump?

I also really enjoyed scanning the dial for all the clear-channel stations. In NYC, I could pick up Salt Lake City.

That's crazy....the furthest west I would pick up is Detroit, couldn't even get Chicago.

I have heard that if you lived in Philadelphia (where I was near) you could pick up radio stations in FL which was incredulous.....but wow, SLC from NYC!!!

Loved AM radio as a kid, particularly for baseball.

As an Angels fan growing up in Southern NJ (yeah, I know weird), I could pick up evening broadcasts of games when they played:

NY
BALT
BOSTON
DET

both home and away. Was a great treat.

Then I got the great idea that if I got a short wave radio, I could pick up ANY station in the US. Didn't quite turn out that way but I did pick up Armed Forces Radio which would play baseball games each night in the summer (and frequently the Angels!).

I can't imagine being a kid and having access to so much sports info that is available today via the Internet. My head would have exploded back then LOL