I think most are missing Judge Luttig's real intention.

[Samrob]

I believe the Judge is playing to the audience of 9 people. The SCOTUS where a number of these J6 cases may end up. He very carefully laid the "originalists" stepping stones so that the current SCOTUS has no excuse to excuse the insurrectionist's or their planners' and financial supporters' intentions. He made it impossible for the SCOTUS to see any historical or legal way around finding these bastards guilty of trying to carry out a coup.

Sorry for the layman who found his testimony weedy and boring.

[lostnfound]

1. Interesting idea...do you have expertise in these issues?

May I ask …Historian? lawyer?

[Samrob]

19. no

[True Blue American]

21. Just a very smart observer!

[lostnfound]

53. Well it's still an interesting idea. Seems plausible. Nt

[Joinfortmill]

32. Sigh.

[wryter2000]

2. Could well be

I think he's clearly expressing his anger.

[Rural_Progressive]

3. As a hardcore conservative this must be tearing him up inside

I don't have to agree with someone or like their positions to honor their courage.

[2Gingersnaps]

28. Absolutely,

And he was choosing his words with extreme caution. What you said, as a hardcore conservative this had to be devastating. He is fully aware of the historical moment.

[soldierant]

40. Amen to that.

Not only can a person not be a hero without courage, but he or she can't even be a respectale villan without it.

I might qualify that by specifying "moral courage," which seems to be what it's mostly called - I would rather say real courage, though.

[Butterflylady]

44. His party left him a long time ago.

[louis-t]

50. He did seem very uncomfortable talking about this.

It was tedious and boring and the average maga would be asleep in 45 seconds. But it had to be said.

[AmBlue]

4. Totally agree.

He is using very careful language and conveying the gravity by his inflection. I also think he is very upset by what happened on J6.

Perhaps one of our lawyers here can elaborate on his language and how it may have particular impact for the SCOTUS.

[True Blue American]

22. He was, that was clear.

[alfredo]

5. Will the J6 panel explore the funding of the coup?

[certainot]

6. good point!

[moniss]

7. I hope you're right

but I don't believe that this bunch of cons on the SC have any problem going off in their own direction regardless of precedent, text, legislative intent etc. I believe that the next term they will continue their onslaught against the 14th Amendment and privacy rights at the very least.

[area51]

45. +1 n/t

[Better Days Ahoy]

8. I appreciate your insight

I get it. I spent my dubious career in commercial P&C insurance contracts and case law, not in Constitutional law. Thank you for re-routing my understanding of what I observed as a slow-walked and tedious testimony. Makes sense why the talking heads on NBC emphasized that Judge Luttig was the runner-up to Alito. I hope the jackasses on SCOTUS we're listening to this expert.

[FakeNoose]

9. The man knows his stuff, and he must be familiar with SCOTUS thinking

I think you've made a really good point.

It seems (to me anyway) that the select committee is willing to overlook Judge Luttig's lack of "style" because his substance is the most important thing here.

Good post!

[murielm99]

17. He is familiar with it.

He was shortlisted for an SC seat. He must have given this a great deal of thought.

[Martin68]

10. Thanks, Samrob. You are exactly right.

[Girard442]

11. Fat chance appealing to the consciences of Thomas, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Barrett.

Roberts and Gorsuch -- maaaaaaybe.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

39. Yep. That would only work on someone who

has a conscience.

[bucolic_frolic]

12. SCOTUS must answer to jurisprudence in the personae of other judges, and history /nt

[WheelWalker]

13. Of course! Great perspective on your part.

That's exactly what it sounded like and why it sounded like it did. Does the Committee understand that and did they intend for him to be an advocate before the Court?

[Cha]

14. TY!

💙💛

[LakeArenal]

15. I think he's thoughtful with his very important words.

His summation was brilliant.

[jaxexpat]

16. No doubt his words will be recalled respectfully by future generations.

[ShazamIam]

18. Certainly possible, to me the most important reason is that he wants to reach the more

ordinary and traditional Republican voter to wake up and get active in stopping the ongoing coup attempt. The Romney type voters, Assholes and authoritarians but not entirely anti-democratic.

[True Blue American]

20. I found it fascinating

How the Judge carefully weighed his words. Never thought about the Supremes but it was a message. Thanks!

[lindysalsagal]

23. He was clearly wielding his jedi saber to land specific words for the very specific

reasons you cite.

He was not trying to be dramatic, just extremely clear. It was a caution to the court that he'd speak the same words about them, if necessary.

[Samrob]

25. Yes. That is exactly the way I felt about his testimony. nt

[flashman13]

24. Judge Luttig's testimony was of profound importance

Judge Luttig's closing statement could be the most important statement of these entire hearings. He said, "Donald Trump is a clear and present danger". Bottom line - we are in an ongoing rebellion and it MUST be put down or American democracy will be destroyed PERIOD

[Samrob]

26. That too! nt

[G_j]

27. this

[bringthePaine]

29. right then! now, who wants cake?...

[empedocles]

30. Many things will be revealed in the months leading up to the Election.

Possibly the key electorates will lead. Time will tell.

[My hope - ''Entry from August 04, 2010

“The Supreme Court follows the election returns” ("Judges follow the election returns&quot
"No matther whether th’ constitution follows h’ flag or not, th’ Supreme Coort follows th’ election returns” wrote Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936) in 1901, through his comic character Mr. Dooley. . . ''

[Joinfortmill]

31. Makes perfect sense to me because..

he seemed both heartbroken and pissed off. He was also very deliberate.

[NullTuples]

33. The analysis matches & makes sense, but...

...this court also strays from originalism when convenient.

[Solomon]

34. Very astute observation.

[Baitball Blogger]

35. I was hoping it was something like this.

[Easterncedar]

36. You nailed it

Thanks

[msfiddlestix]

37. I'm afraid I missed his closing, but I only had one minor objection, using the term "revolution"

(in the earlier part of the hearing) used in the context of the j6 coup attempt and insurrection.

Whenever I hear or read the term revolution in the context of Jan 6 events, I sort of cringe, becauses the term itself, feels like a glorification in the sense that a revolution brings about an abroupt change for the good.

The Bolshevik "revolution" has a taint of glorification to my mind, as if it was a great event.

It was an overthrow by a mob in one instance, and a failed attempt to overthrow the government in the other.

Not anything like the American Revolution.

just a minor point of contention. I'll try to find a video of his closing remarks somewhere around here.

[Cozmo]

38. Sorry, I did find him tedious because the essence of his testimony was yesterday's news

I didn't hear him say anything new.

[Bucky]

41. Audience of 8. Clarence ain't listening

[calimary]

42. Not weedy and boring. I actually wondered if he was showboating.

Last edited Fri Jun 17, 2022, 01:56 AM - Edit history (3)

On edit - found the answer! Adjusted my post accordingly. I just learned something new. It is indeed a medical condition.
Found this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216811604#post2

Initially, I wondered if he's the kind of guy who, when he has the floor, he milks it for as long as anyone can stand, going slowly and ponderously, weighing every word, as if to allow people in his audience enough time to take notes of his every golden word? Only reason: I've worked with people like that, who seize any opportunity to squeeze just a wee bit more face time while they're on camera.

I haven't researched him, so I don't know. And I've never heard him speak before. Is he having medical problems that complicate his thought patterns and quick retrieval? He didn't look comfortable in his chair. Age slowing him down? Anybody know?

Actually made me think of the Tina Louise character on "Gilligan's Island." She played an alluring, glamorous actress named Ginger Grant. In one episode, several of the castaways were fantasizing about what they'd do when they finally were rescued and returned to their previous lives. She gazed outward, dreamily, imagining her first brightly lit-up marquee when she once again headlined on Broadway, and murmured "Ginger Googenheimer!" "But Ginger, that's not your last name!" "I know, but I've been gone so long I'm gonna want as many lights as I can get!"

[AntiFascist]

43. "Clear and Present Danger" was a key legal test established by SCOTUS placing limits on free speech

In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action".[37][38] Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence.[39]

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

This was mentioned in the MSNBC analysis of the hearing.

“Donald Trump and his allies are a clear and present danger to American democracy,” he said. “To this very day, the former president, his allies and supporters, pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor ... were to lose that election, that they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election.

“I don't speak those words lightly,” Luttig said. “I would have never uttered one single one of those words unless the former president and his allies were candidly and proudly speaking those exact words to America.”

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-jan-6-hearing-clear-present-danger-democracy-212115229.html

[love_katz]

46. Thanks for posting the quote.

I was getting very scared during his testimony, at least at first. I was getting chills of fear because near the beginning of his statements he sounded like he was laying out a blue print for the insurrection to succeed next time. However, at the end, when he said he would sooner lay his body across a road than let something like the insurrection go forward, my jaw dropped. It was clear that he was not a supporter of the January 6th event.

[love_katz]

47. Thanks for posting the quote.

I was getting very scared during his testimony, at least at first. I was getting chills of fear because near the beginning of his statements he sounded like he was laying out a blue print for the insurrection to succeed next time. However, at the end, when he said he would sooner lay his body across a road than let something like the insurrection go forward, my jaw dropped. It was clear that he was not a supporter of the January 6th event.

[Hotler]

48. I agree. I think that is why he was speaking slow at times. He was choosing his words carefully.

So no one could misinterpret or twist his words around later.

[eppur_se_muova]

49. He spoke like he was writing an opinion -- dotting all the i's, crossing all the t's.

Meticulously avoiding missteps, or backing and filling. In short, he spoke like a judge doing his job. That's only tedious if the conclusion doesn't concern you.

[rsdsharp]

51. I'm sorry, but the opinion of a sitting circuit court judge,

let alone a retired one, doesn’t make it impossible for the Supreme Court to do anything. And I’m not a layman.

[calimary]

52. Wasn't weedy and boring at all.

What he said and the way he expressed it were compelling and thought-provoking.

Granted, when I hear the labels “conservative,” “extremely conservative” and “Republican” - my defenses and suspicions are automatically triggered.

Your analysis is MOST intriguing, though. And it actually gives me some hope that somebody somewhere might wind up doing the right thing for the sake of seeking justice and accountability.

Full disclosure here - my background always pushes me toward awareness of the delivery, what’s being sold, the presentation and angles and sales pitches and the who, how, and why behind the what. Many times, it’s not just the words being said but the motivations behind them and how that gets communicated, subliminally as well as overtly.