|
mdemone posted:Something is happening right now. Something relevant to this thread? Edit: gently caress me what an awful snipe.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Mark your calendars! https://twitter.com/January6thCmte/status/1578062226832891906
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 07:01
|
|
|
Edward Mass posted:Mark your calendars! Raskin had a good interview on Preets podcast. I recommend giving it a listen. Not really new stuff but a good clarifying commentary on the overall picture from the committee’s pov.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Think the court will go along? Rhodes has also testified in court as part of his defense that they were in contact with secret service agents months before Jan 06. So, we may actually be able to pull Trump directly into the attack and that particular seditious conspiracy charge. Rhodes is trying to say that “I was just following orders from the president so it can’t be sedition” but directing a mob to interfere with congress is not a valid duty of the office of the president and also, Trump never actually said “go” unless you infer that from his speech that morning. And if you can infer legally that Trump said go assault congress that morning then well, that seems like a whole other charge. Which also doesn’t excuse Rhodes from anything he did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
announcer: we here at the january sixth convention dont know how to get people to do anything, but continue to convene to announce: there were some crimes. some crimening happened. there was crimeification. there's crimeifiers involved, they did some crime, it's really obvious, there's just crime juice all over the place, like we just turn on this blacklight and whabam it's a crimetastrophe in here. the uncrimenifying elements of government and society should probably spray some crimenicide on it or you know really do anything, anything at all. i turn now to the lieutenant announcer for some followup lieutenant announcer: ahem. good morning ladies and gentlemen of the united states. ahm, ahem. we of the january sixth select committee shall discuss our findings as follows. basically there's this president except he's got huge crimes. i mean some serious ciminolas. a real set of crimedonkers. packin some doboncrimekeros. massive dohoonkabhancrimeoloos. big ol' tonhongerecrimekoogers. what happens next?! protesters and white supremacist groups show up with even bigger bonkhonagacrimeoogs. humongous crimehungolomghononoloughongous
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:announcer: we here at the january sixth convention dont know how to get people to do anything, but continue to convene to announce: there were some crimes. some crimening happened. there was crimeification. there's crimeifiers involved, they did some crime, it's really obvious, there's just crime juice all over the place, like we just turn on this blacklight and whabam it's a crimetastrophe in here. the uncrimenifying elements of government and society should probably spray some crimenicide on it or you know really do anything, anything at all. i turn now to the lieutenant announcer for some followup There is good reason that the legislature doesn’t have police powers so, yeah. I personally think it would be really, really bad if legislative committees could arrest and imprison people ala star chamber. Murgos fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Oct 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:announcer: we I'd be happy to disagree but don't know if you intend blatant ad hominem, needling, dismissal, or argument by gibberish. Perhaps the committee hearing transcripts are presenting linguistic difficulties, in which case we'd be happy to help with the confusing bits. So far the committee has published sufficient evidence of a broad, internally-directed conspiracy to commit treason, as well as evidence of actions that may be judged treasonous. The actors are well known and, though the committee has made no interpretations of the relevant laws, as shown previously in this thread, past supreme court justices have ruled that all parties to treason are equally guilty even if they weren't "carrying the guns". It's not a court, so the committee hasn't told viewers about legal liabilities or outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:I do not understand the role of a Congressional Investigatory Commission but I am proud to
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 22:51
|
|
about it in this thread, all about the January 6th Congressional Investigatory Commission.
|
Murgos posted:There is good reason that the legislature doesn’t have police powers so, yeah. Maybe the poster's point is that they have the power to not waste everyone's time and embarrass themselves further with all of this (not saying I agree)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:Maybe the poster's point is that they have the power to not waste everyone's time and embarrass themselves further with all of this (not saying I agree)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Looks who's appealing to SCOTSU, it's out special boy! It’s been a few days. If Thomas was likely to act on this he would have so it’s either going around scotus to see if there’s 4 who will take it up or this is DOA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 02:55
|
|
|
The Cons on SCOTUS may be True Believers but they're not Trump Beliebers. They have no love or loyalty to Trump outside of his ability to aid them in attaining their federalist wet dream, and he has outlasted his usefulness even for that. They didn't save him in 2020 and I doubt they will now. Trump has a knack for embarrassing the wing of the GOP that likes to consider themselves enlightened intellectuals, and they're only too happy to be rid of him. In the final analysis, the great irony of Trump's life will likely be that after decades of conning anyone foolish enough to make a deal with him, in what is probably his most significant quid pro quo (the one he thinks he made with the Judicial branch), it's Trump himself who will end up being the mark. A fitting last hurrah for someone arguably called one of the greatest showmen in history. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Oct 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 05:08
|
|
|
Murgos posted:It’s been a few days. If Thomas was likely to act on this he would have so it’s either going around scotus to see if there’s 4 who will take it up or this is DOA. He asked for the government to respond by Tuesday
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 07:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1579269320315502592 welp
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
Lol, and also, additionally: lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 05:04
|
|
|
WHAT did he just admit to?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 05:09
|
|
|
oh dear
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 05:13
|
|
|
Well, I guess we know what documents he took.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 05:17
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 05:18
|
|
|
Actual Tom Clancy poo poo. Absolutely the maddest timeline. Guess we'll see how much the Saudis try to help him in 2024.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 05:52
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Rhodes has also testified in court as part of his defense that they were in contact with secret service agents months before Jan 06. So, we may actually be able to pull Trump directly into the attack and that particular seditious conspiracy charge. From what I could glean on the opening arguments, Rhodes is likely just trying to support his defense that everything he [personally] did was legal that day because they didn't take any weapons with them that were prohibited. In this case I think he said he was in contact with Secret Service to see what kind of arms were and were not prohibited. Either way it sure is an interesting glean into what kind of texts Secret Service GreyjoyBastard posted:I am unclear what you think this meme adds to the discussion. I definitely see Thomas and Alito for being down to a little light treason. And ACB too if she's under enough pressure. It's Kavanaugh and Gorsuch who'd hold the line, i suppose because they prefer their authoritarianism to be less "burn it all down"? V-Men fucked around with this message at 11:50 on Oct 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 11:36
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Actual Tom Clancy poo poo. Not even Tom Clancy poo poo, he would skew to secret conspiratorial poo poo. This was all done literally out in the open in plain sight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 13:44
|
|
|
I get that, from an institutional perspective, the government is in no hurry to indict a former (or current) president as it crosses the Rubicon of making it a political weapon, which is one of the reasons the GOP is whining about this being a purely political stunt: it's a threat, that they will wield it as a cudgel (facts be damned) if they ever get back into the majority. However, this dipshit has a mountain of evidence against him; one so large, it's unlikely to be duplicated by any future chief executive. And he admits it. We are now in a territory where not indicting him is doing more damage to the institutions of government in this country than letting him run around, even when he continues to hammer himself in the balls with admissions like this. e: corrected 'president" and... Judge Schnoopy posted:Like the GOP isn't going to politicize presidential indictments anyway. That cat is already out of the bag, might as well use it to do the right thing before Republicans take congressional majority and really gently caress things up. This. In spades. PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Oct 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Guess we'll see how much the Saudis try to help him in 2024. OPEC's continued fuckery with oil prices makes me think the Saudi's are already doing it, both because Trump was a huge fan of them in Yemen and general corruption, but yeah also the nuclear tech transfers. A nuclear armed Saudi Arabia would be one of our country's biggest mistakes. I've been wondering if this kicked off not because of missing/unreported docs, but because we actually found said docs in the hands of people we really don't want them to be in and tracked it backwards to Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:I get that, from an institutional perspective, the government is in no hurry to indict a former (or current) precedent as it crosses the Rubicon of making it a political weapon, which is one of the reasons the GOP is whining about this being a purely political stunt: it's a threat, that they will wield it as a cudgel (facts be damned) if they ever get back into the majority. Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If you do indict a previous president for crimes that turns it into a political weapon that the other party will use, like you said, facts be damned. If you don't because you are afraid of politicizing it, you are saying that some people are above the law. This is really starting to smack of Late Roman Republic and the attacks on Caesar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
The answer is, "Do the right thing." That means holding criminals accountable for committing crimes. The alternative is to do the wrong thing, at which point why try to have a society of laws at all?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Like the GOP isn't going to politicize presidential indictments anyway. That cat is already out of the bag, might as well use it to do the right thing before Republicans take congressional majority and really gently caress things up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Pervis posted:OPEC's continued fuckery with oil prices makes me think the Saudi's are already doing it, both because Trump was a huge fan of them in Yemen and general corruption, but yeah also the nuclear tech transfers. A nuclear armed Saudi Arabia would be one of our country's biggest mistakes. Indeed, the $2B to Kushner + OPEC cuts is pretty suspect. To be clear, if it were ANYONE else besides Trump there would be no way I'd believe it, real life is not a Tom Clancy novel. But Trump thinks he's in a movie, he acts out mob boss scenes thinking that people actually respond to that (and interestingly enough, many do). Even still there are a lot of reasons why MBS would be screwing with Biden and want Trump back, so we'll have to see more evidence before concluding that we're in the insane timeline where our ex-reality TV star president sold U.S. nuclear secrets to the Saudis. But, with Trump, yeah, you can definitely see it being true. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Oct 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/10/trump-lawyer-christina-bobb-mar-a-lago-certify-documents Signing off that documents were returned when you didn't confirm that seems to be a risky choice for a lawyer, and they seemed to know it at the time. The other lawyer seems to have been.smart enough to not sign their own name for it at all. quote:Bobb signed the certification as the “custodian of records” at the direction of another Trump lawyer, Evan Corcoran, and only later added caveats to make the declaration less ironclad since she had not conducted the search herself, according to three sources familiar with the matter. quote:Bobb told Corcoran to amend the certification to say that “based upon the information that has been provided to me” all documents responsive to the subpoena were being returned after a “diligent” search, the sources said quote:it was also not clear why Corcoran, who had been liaising with the justice department for weeks over government records at Mar-a-Lago, according to court filings, did not himself sign the certification
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. this misses the point that they're going to yell about it and turn it into a political weapon whether you indict or not. if you don't indict then the investigation is the political weapon that they'll yell about, but it's the same poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. They can already do this and will do this regardless of precedent Surely the Trump presidency must have taught people that decorum rules aren’t real?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:They can already do this and will do this regardless of precedent Has everyone but me forgotten the Clinton years and Monica Lewinsky and cattle futures and etc? They’ve already DONE IT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Has everyone but me forgotten the Clinton years and Monica Lewinsky and cattle futures and etc? Now we've gone a step farther to "decorum". Ds arrive prepared with facts, studies, evidence, heck even questionable government reports. Rs arrive prepared to whine and claim they should get what they want because they feel sad. Ideally representatives would debate the merits of laws. Then they gave up and started debating the merits of balancing decisions against the perceived population. Now they debate... well not much really, but perhaps the merits of saving a little bit of money for something the Republicans might get sad about. I honestly don't know of an incremental approach to repairing the problem, given that any relaxing of a defensive posture will immediately add ten years of fascism. They need all their (corporate) money taken away. They need only the health care that every American can access. The need only a retirement account that vests after six years at 65hr/wk. Throwing out all of them (even the good ones) might even yield a better outcome. We need a Congressional draft, all adults aged 30 to 55, no felonies, who have a positive change in non-speculative net worth over the last 5yr. We need Voter Education bills, at the federal level, and in every state. We need to stop voting for names and start voting for performance. "The incumbent voted against your interests for 73% of bills last year". All the info is public... But there's no app, no websites, that are readily accessible to help people understand what questions to ask before voting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Naup, I was just sharing those types of stories with someone who wasn't paying attention in the first decade of the millennium. There's always been political fighting and complaining, and even a baseline of terrible public officials, but "decorum" today started back in the early millennium as "bipartisanship": The Democrats arrive prepared to negotiate in Congress, and the Republicans concentrate on steamrolling them. People don't care about any of that stuff. The majority of Americans are mouth breathing morons who only care what rent/food/gas etc costs. If it's high, then the president is at fault. If it's low the the president is doing a good job. That's the perception, and it's the only thing that really matters. When you start getting into nuanced arguments about how the president doesn't have some magical button to press to change those things peoples eyes glaze over and you lose them. That's why democracy is so in danger in this country. Because people don't actually care about it. The average American would take a single party authoritarian system over true democracy if their quality of life is improved a mere 10%.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
Plus many of them consider loving over the out-group to be even better than a positive change in their own circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:The majority of Americans are mouth breathing morons who only care what rent/food/gas etc costs. These seem like pretty reasonable things to be concerned about though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:These seem like pretty reasonable things to be concerned about though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Concerned with? Sure. Basing your vote on? Only if you understand the issues and how they do or do not relate for whom you cast your vote. Everything sounds reasonable if you boil it down to to a euphemistic platitude. It feels like if a party really wanted to win then they’d do some work to get gas prices and the like under control outside of the managerial processes they currently utilize then. If people complain that both parties are the same what they’re saying is they see no correlation between which party is in charge and how lovely their particular lives are. That’s an incredibly valid and in many ways more insightful critique of the system than a comfortable middle class person of equal political knowledge could deliver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 00:15
|
|
|
selec posted:It feels like if a party really wanted to win then they’d do some work to get gas prices and the like under control outside of the managerial processes they currently utilize then. OPEC has decided to cut production so gas prices will go up for the midterm elections here, and they are doing it for just two reasons: War in Ukraine and American resistance to war in Ukraine. Get Trump re-elected that solves one problem. The only way we can win the gas price war is to reopen all the oil and gas poo poo we had going on when we became a huge (shale oil/tar sands) fracking operation, much to the detriment of our infrastructure, community health, and I think local bedrock. Can we turn all of that back on? Could we now that we have passed IRA? How long would it take? No American political party can tell OPEC what to do, and so I don't see the levers to operate to achieve your #1 stated goal, there. They can release some strategic reserve but that's about it, I think; and that does gently caress-all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:What work would that be, do you figure? The government should send checks to people. Again. They can do that. (that's just off the top of my head, I'm not an expert but I bet the experts can think of even better ideas, that's what we pay them for). Charliegrs posted:When you start getting into nuanced arguments about how the president doesn't have some magical button to press to change those things peoples eyes glaze over and you lose them. If you tell somebody "Nope, not gonna happen," why would they stick around for the rest of the spiel?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2022 00:53
|
|