Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 4/6/2022 at 2:13 PM, TwiceHorn said:

The simple fact is Donald Trump has never been indicted.  It's a whole different deal than civil suits or the inherently political impeachment.

I suspect his lawyers, if they're any good, would advise him not to run as he would be virtually certain to incriminate himself on the campaign trail, or at least create a shitstorm of collateral issues that they don't want to deal with.

Expand  

And hell be elected and immune from prosecution before anyone can do shit about it. Which seems like a great reason to run. 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
  On 4/6/2022 at 2:13 PM, TwiceHorn said:

I suspect his lawyers, if they're any good, would advise him not to run as he would be virtually certain to incriminate himself on the campaign trail, or at least create a shitstorm of collateral issues that they don't want to deal with.

Expand  

200.gif

Posted
  On 4/6/2022 at 3:18 PM, SydneyCarton said:

And hell be elected and immune from prosecution before anyone can do shit about it. Which seems like a great reason to run. 

Expand  

Actually, I don't think a President is immune from anything that commences before he's in office, civil or criminal.

Posted
  On 4/6/2022 at 9:23 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, I don't think a President is immune from anything that commences before he's in office, civil or criminal.

Expand  

bruh. The trump presidency provided empirical evidence to prove that a president will be immune from anything and everything, so long as they have a strong base of 30% support in congress and a media apparatus to shit into.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 4/6/2022 at 9:33 PM, Captainant said:

bruh. The trump presidency provided empirical evidence to prove that a president will be immune from anything and everything, so long as they have a strong base of 30% support in congress and a media apparatus to shit into.

Expand  

None of that was surprising to anyone who knew anything about anything.  Trump was never going to be indicted as a sitting president.  The impeachments were DOA before they were even begun.

Posted
  On 4/9/2022 at 5:16 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Maybe the first time in the history of evar that Trump follows his counsel's advice:  When you're gonna lie, at least say "to the best of my knowledge" before the lie.

Expand  

Counsel doesn't advise him to couch his answers like that, 'cause he'd fuck it up.  Instead he'd say something like, 

"I have knowledges.  The best knowledges to me.  To the tremendous best knowledges known only to me, I have not an answer.  Be knowledge, be best."  And then he'd fumble with the usual water pitcher in the middle of the deposition table. 

Posted

It's April.  Getting close to May.  6 months til the midterms and 9 months til new congress gets sworn in, which I'm thinking at best the Rs take the House.  Can this committee wrap up in 9 months?  I sure hope so.

Posted

"At the hearing on Friday, we look forward to questioning Greene under oath about her involvement in the events of Jan. 6, and to demonstrating how her facilitation of the insurrection disqualifies her from public office under the United States Constitution. "

I wonder if they will ask her about the bombing... she has a very specific arm swing motion that matches the person dropping off the pipe bombs. 

 

 

Posted

I guess this is the best place to put this. Given that his advisors and allies, along with his own threats, it's fucking frightening how close Trump almost got to breaking our democracy. We all knew it at the time, but this article is a pretty good reminder. And, clearly, we're not out of the woods yet. With the character of the current Republican Party being what is it, we may never be again in our lifetimes.

 

Fearing a Trump Repeat, Jan. 6 Panel Considers Changes to Insurrection Act
The 1807 law allows a president to deploy American troops inside the country to put down a rebellion. Lawmakers fear it could be abused by a future president trying to stoke one.

WASHINGTON — In the days before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, some of President Donald J. Trump’s most extreme allies and members of right-wing militia groups urged him to use his power as commander in chief to unleash the military to help keep him in office.

Now, as the House committee investigating last year’s riot uncovers new evidence about the lengths to which Mr. Trump was willing to go to cling to power, some lawmakers on the panel have quietly begun discussions about rewriting the Insurrection Act, the 1807 law that gives presidents wide authority to deploy the military within the United States to respond to a rebellion.

The discussions are preliminary, and debate over the act has been fraught in the aftermath of Mr. Trump’s presidency. Proponents envision a doomsday scenario in which a rogue future president might try to use the military to stoke — rather than put down — an insurrection, or to abuse protesters. But skeptics worry about depriving a president of the power to quickly deploy armed troops in the event of an uprising, as presidents did during the Civil War and the civil rights era.

While Mr. Trump never invoked the law, he threatened to do so in 2020 to have the military crack down on crowds protesting the police killing of George Floyd. Stephen Miller, one of his top advisers, also proposed putting it into effect to turn back migrants at the southwestern border, an idea that was rejected by the defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper.

And as Mr. Trump grasped for ways to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, some hard-right advisers encouraged him to declare martial law and deploy U.S. troops to seize voting machines. In the run-up to the Jan. 6 attack, members of right-wing militia groups also encouraged Mr. Trump to invoke the law, believing that he was on the brink of giving them approval to descend on Washington with weapons to fight on his behalf.

“There are many of us who are of the view that the Insurrection Act, which the former president threatened to invoke multiple times throughout 2020, bears a review,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and a member of the Jan. 6 committee.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 4/20/2022 at 4:21 AM, Dutchrudder said:
"At the hearing on Friday, we look forward to questioning Greene under oath about her involvement in the events of Jan. 6, and to demonstrating how her facilitation of the insurrection disqualifies her from public office under the United States Constitution. "
I wonder if they will ask her about the bombing... she has a very specific arm swing motion that matches the person dropping off the pipe bombs. 
 
 

Man, if that is really MTG…. she’s gonna stroll to re-election (and maybe the VP slot in 24).
Posted (edited)

Guys who make their living lying publicly for their own benefit don't seem to be reliable-enough witnesses to get immunity.

Edited by Beau Vine
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
  On 4/21/2022 at 4:28 PM, jimmyjazz said:

I never did understand that song.  I don't think I'm supposed to.

I know it's a reference to some art flick, but beyond that . . .

Expand  

I don't think debaser is even a word.  But the GQP bowing and scraping before Trump are all debasers.

Posted
  On 4/25/2022 at 7:16 PM, Biff Tannen said:

Aside from seeing it with our own eyeballs?

Expand  

Yep.  Need more than that.  Had a conversation with my mom about it last week.  "But the police let all those people in, I don't know what they were doing wrong."  People on the right are choosing not to see the stuff that would show them that anything nefarious happened.  

We also talked about the crazies arming themselves because the dems are getting ready to outlaw all guns.  Her response, "Well not yet."  So it doesn't matter what the Dems actually say about the 2nd amendment.  

Reality is no longer a factor to those on the right.  They are going to believe what they believe and they are going to ignore any evidence that tells them maybe they shouldn't believe it.

I told her that being duped into believing something is fine and is no stain on her, as long as she quits believing it when presented with information that she was duped.  After that, it's 100% on her if she keeps believing nonsense.  I expect her to keep believing nonsense.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
  On 4/25/2022 at 9:34 PM, wildcat09 said:

Can you imagine how many public hearings the GOP would have held about this now if the roles were reversed?

Expand  

They would have referred to the democrats as "the terrorist democrat party" for the last 15 months. 

Posted

Raskin is promising must see TV, come June. I think the committee will deliver. I can’t wait to learn more about the allegation of Pence’s key card being canceled, the alleged secret collusion between Pence’s and Trump’s SS teams that intended to make Pence unavailable for the vote certification, and the degree to which Grassley was involved. 
 

Should be fun.



×
×
  • Create New...